Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 20:48, gharnagel pisze:

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

>
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.

 Wozniak forgets to include one definition, also.
A definition meant to include only the earth, not
some traveler moving at relativistic speed.

A lie, of course, as expected from a
relativistic idiot. No such limitations
were included into the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot guru.
You've fabricated them ad hoc.

The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.

 It's not an "opinion"that Wozniak lied, as proven by
his own words.

This is not an opinion indeed, this is an
impudent lie, as expected from a
relativistic idiot. The word "opinion"
I used was referring to something else.

  Is there "one observer" or are there
"no observations"?

Again, I'm talking to an idiot so
repeating must be included.
One observer, no observations.

And Wozniak shows again that HE is the insulter-in-chief
and supreme slanderer of this group. 

Talking to relativistic scumbags like Harmagel
I must descend partially to their level, but
it's just partially. I'm not slandering.

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.

 So Wozniak doubles down on claiming that observations
are unnecessary :-))

I'm not, I'm just claiming they're not
necessary in my example.

So who confirms that the prediction
is confirmed? 

An inconsistent prediction, like that of
the physics of your idiot guru, can never
be confirmed.

I can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.

It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.

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

 No, that wasn't a definition.

Lies have short legs, poor trash.
So - what was the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot
guru (1905-his death)? Will you write
it? Let me guess, no, you will just
write more insults, more lies, more
slanders, as expected from a relativistic
scumbag.
  It was a conclusion

validly derived by assuming certain reasonable
postulates.  The postulates and the conclusions have
been confirmed by copious experiments.

Only such an idiot can believe such an
impudent lie, Harrie.