Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 16:14, gharnagel pisze:
>
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
A day is a day, Harrie.
No, it's not. Wozzie deleted where I explained that
Put your explaination straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is
questioned. It figures.
If I said "3 days ago" you wouldn't
ask what I meant, would you?
Now the autistic ass dissembles, equating himself with
"an observer moving across the solar system at c/2."
Why does he think that HE is the one flying at c/2?
You're not THAT stupid, are you?
Apparently, Wozzie IS that stupid :-))
You're just pretending stupider than
you are to dodge the question. Well,
a hint for you: how was "second"
defined in the physics of your
idiot guru? I mean THAT day.
The real idiot here is Wozzie-fool who thinks his
poorly thought-out riddles have any real meaning.
He just tries to muddy the waters of rational
thinking. His ego is much bigger than his whole brain.
Autistic Wozzie-fool now descends into soapy mouthwash
territory. Deleted.
Prove that something is valid when it is valid?
Of course. How does one KNOW that it's valid
>
I don't have to know if it's valid to know
that it is valid if/when it is valid.
"It is valid in its apply range" is
a simple truism, Harrie.
Wozzie is dead wrong. "How do we know what we know"
is a very serious field of study.
https://iep.utm.edu/epistemo/"we must determine the nature of knowledge; that is, what
does it mean to say that someone knows, or fails to know,
something? This is a matter of understanding what knowledge
is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone
knows something and cases in which someone does not know
something. While there is some general agreement about some
aspects of this issue, we shall see that this question is
much more difficult than one might imagine."
You're an idiot so you don't realize that.
Only an autistic "information engineer" wouldn't question
what he thinks he knows.
Wozzie lies ALL of the time. And he just did it again.
>
Oh, did I? You DO lie 100% of time, Harrie?
See? Wozzie did it again! He said I lied MOST of the time
I said you don't lie 100% of time and you called me a liar...
Of course. Wozzie is a congenital liar.
>> One that rejects an obvious lie of a religious
maniac insisting that The Nature itself is
speaking to him and his idiot gurus.
Wozzie appears to be oblivious to finer sensibilities. I speak
metaphorically
And I speak directly - you lie like a fanatic
idiot you are.
Wozzie is projecting again, i.e., lying :-))
That's the specialization of dealing
with information and its various constructs.
No way I'm an invincible expert, of course...
we could discuss, if you weren't such an
arrogant not-even-layman idiot.
>
Nice example of his prejudice again :-))
>
Just some sad truth, Harrie.
I'm afraid Wozzie is resistant to truth. Part of his problem
when dealing with physics questions is that he appears to be
mathematically incompetent.
Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
part false, as it didn't want to fit the madness
of your insane guru.
Wozzie proves once again that he is mathematically incompetent.
After all, he claimed that the Lorentz transform was correct then
denied what it derived mathematically.
If LT were designed for an ether theory
the "obvious" c+v=c interpretation of The
Shit's worshippers can't be that obvios,
don't you think, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
Wozzie can't help himself from scatology and denigration.
His parents never brought him up right, never washed his mouth
out with soap when he behaved rudely.
Anyway, his little diatribe makes no sense. He seems to believe
that "c+v=c" is an "interpretation" rather than a mathematical
derivation.
Tell me, poor halfbrain, was the RELATIVISTIC
formula of velocity adding a part of Lorentz's
ETHER theory?
Yes or no?
Autistic Wozzie-fool seems to think that something that's derived
from a set of equations is "adding to it."
But let's get to the point here: the equations of LET are the
Lorentz transformation equations, which are valid in SR, also.
Wozzie seems conflicted about that. He decries them when used
by Einstein but embraces them when enfolded by an ether.
Refer back to the quote by Heinlein.
Yup. He also said that deriving something was just finding out
what you already knew. Meaning, of course, that it was all there
in the original equations, implied, which is the case with relativistic
velocity addition. As anyone would know if he weren't mathematically
incompetent.
…