Re: Space and spacetime

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 23:46, gharnagel pisze:

>
Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 20:21, gharnagel pisze:

>
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is

 A fanatic piece of lying ship, caught on an
impudent, obvious  lie is screaming about a
"metaphor".

 So Mad Maciej doesn't understand metaphor. 

>
Why won't you explain, you lying shit.
And why won't you stop dodging and
demonstrate the power of predictions
of your moronic Shit on my example.

I'm not dodging.  I'm merely asking consequential question which
Woozie-liar refuses to answer.

Why won't you stop dodging and answer - what is the predicttion
of the observer in my example according to the physics of your
idiot guru?

 First the autistic information engineer must define his terms.

>
Must he?

It is incumbant on him since he is the one demanding an answer to his
devious and misleading problem.

But what does the relativistic piece of
shit mean by "define"? By "must"? By
"terms"?

I just want everything clearly and honestly laid out.  Of course,
that's too much to ask from a dishonest hypocrite.

Let's get to the point, sure. Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of

velocity

adding  a part of Lorentz's ETHER theory?
Yes or no, trash.

 First of all, no human being is trash, so Weird Wozzy doesn't really
want an honest answer, which I already gave to him anyway:
 "[Heinlein] 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.

>
So, according to you and your idiot gurus -
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?

What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie, can't actually
USE
the theory and calculate the answer for yourself?

As anyone would know if he weren't mathematically
incompetent."
 Because of Wozzie's mathematical incompetence, he can't figure out

that

(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from the Lorentz
transform equations.

It is, sure, after assuming the obviously correct
Holiest Postulate.

The postulates were determined FIRST, dishonest Wozzie-fool, and THEN
the
LT equations were derived.

And 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.

Irrelevant and false baloney seeking to deflect from the drubbing
Wozzie's
but is getting in these "discussions."

(2) "Lorentz's ETHER theory" has NOTHING to do with it because there

is

no ether*.  So LET is a dead end.  Dishonest Wozzie's attempt to

insert

that into his question was a red herring, a misleading fallacy.
(3) The RVA equation is derived from the LT equations by dividing the
equation for dx' by the equation for dt', so there is no "adding" to
either LET or SR.
 *Ether theory is a dead end because SR took away the last vestige of
any physicality: that of motion.  IOW, it becomes fundamentally
undetectable, which makes it nonexistent for all practical purposes.

>
And how about 0 meridian? Is it fundamentally
detectable?

More attempted deflection.  The eath has nothing to do with either LET
or SR.

If it is not - it must be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
Am I correct,  Harrie, poor halfbrain?

It is part of a coordinate system.  Coordinate systems aren't part of
nature.
They are human mental constructs.
But this is another stupid attempt to deflect from Wozzie-filth having
to face
the drubbing he's getting.  His parents didn't do their job of raising
an
honest and responsible human, so he has to take his whuppin' now.