Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 23.08.2024 o 20:48, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 14:44, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.

>
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.

>
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.

>
Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.

>
Harrie mumbles some delusions

 All that is needed is to look at what Wozniak wrote:
 "There is just one observer"
"there is no observation"
 to see who is mumbling and having delusions.

It is my example. One observer, no
observations.
Period.
Sorry, trash.

..  He is desiring only
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation:  arguing a definition against an
observation.

>
The thread is not about any observations. They
are irrelevant.

 So if observations are discounted, then the moving
observer is irrelevant.

The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.
Sorry, trash.

That removes the 99766
observed by the moving observer

Harrie, even such an idiot should
understand, that if your idiot guru's
physics is able to PREDICT a result of
an observation - it must do it
before, and if it is done before -
the observation itself can't be
necessary for that.

Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
way, for instance from definitions.

 Disregarding Wozniak's blatant and despicable
insults and slanders, Einstein said t' <> t, not

And the definition he had in his absurd
physics derived the opposite.