Re: Space and spacetime

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

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

>
Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
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

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

So Mad Maciej doesn't understand metaphor.  Whoda thought :-))

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.
I asked him to do this and he still refuses:  What is his
definition of a day?  What is the speed c/2 of the observer with
respect to?  He tried to turn the argument around referring to the quote from
Heinlein, at which he failed miserably.  He has dodged the pointed
question about speed:
"'Speed' in space is a curiously slippery term, as it is relative
to whatever point you select as 'fixed' -- but the points in space
are never fixed." -- Robert A. Heinlein

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: 

Wozzie deleted the answer, apparently he's incapable of understanding
a cogent argument.

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.  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.
(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.