Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 25.08.2024 o 17:21, gharnagel pisze:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:24:49 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 25.08.2024 o 16:02, gharnagel pisze:

>
:)) Wozniak is caught in his dishonesty again and projects it
away from himself.  It is a logical extension of what he
deviously asserted:  Einstein was to stupid to define the
second; therefore, anyone who doesn't define the second is
stupid.

>
No, Harmagel. It's not any logical extension,
it's just utterly ridiculous claim o a
cornered idiot.

 Wozniak is projecting again,  He's the one that has painted
himself into a corner.
 

So, what was the definition

 I gave it

A lie, as expected from a piece of relativistic
shit. Once again, trash: what was the definition
of second valid in the physics of your idiot guru
(1905 - to his death)?
Will you finally write it? No. Instead you will
write more lies, more slanders, more absurd dodges.

Harmagel is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
distract from the elephant in the room.

 This is infantile copycatting.  Not worthy of any more response.
 

I wasn't asking about the current definition of second,

 That's the only one there is.

Not quite. The older ones are also mentioned
there.

I was asking about the definition valid in his idiotic
physiccs in 1905 and up to the death of his idiot guru.
Will you finally write it?
Of course, not.

 Because there is no such thing.

So, the physics of your idiot guru had no definition
of second? Will you be impudent enough for such
an absurd lie, trash?

His assertion that relativity is inconsistent because it
predicts that a moving observer would see a day on earth
as 99766 seconds instead of 86400

>
Not "instead" but "both". That's what inconsistency
is about.

 Wozniak is lying again and studiously ignoring the peanut
butter barf all over himself.
 He is assuming that Newtonian physics with its universal
time is true,

I'm not assuming anything right now, I apply
the inconsistent assumptions of the physics
of your idiot guru and derive 2 denying
themself predictions. I can do it, because
the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent.