Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

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.

Sorry, trash.

And Wozniak shows once again that HE is the insulter-
in-chief and slimy slanderer.  And as to lying, was
he lying when he just said "one observer" or was he
lying when he said:

The thread is not about any observations. They
are irrelevant.

>
So if observations are discounted, then the moving
observer is irrelevant.

>
The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.

It's not an "opinion" that Wozniak lied, as proven by
his own words.  Is there "one observer" or are there
"no observations"?  He always projects his own foibles
on others, whether it be insulting, slandering or lying.

Sorry, trash.

And Wozniak shows again that HE is the insulter-in-chief
and supreme slanderer of this group.  When is he going
to grow up and stop the infantile attacks?

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 :-))  So who confirms that the prediction
is confirmed?  I can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.
So I don't need any observational confirmation of that
to conclude that he is indeed a turtle.
Who in his right mind would make such an argument?!!

Its about claims of The Shit of your idiot guru,
spoken directly by the idiot or derivable other
way, for instance from definitions.

>
Disregarding Wozniak's blatant and despicable
insults and slanders, Einstein said t' <> t, not

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

No, that wasn't a definition.  It was a conclusion
validly derived by assuming certain reasonable
postulates.  The postulates and the conclusions have
been confirmed by copious experiments.
Wozniak is trying to obfuscate, and not doing it very
well, and he still tries to hide this real elephant
in the room that demolishes his whole house of cards:
He assumes that Newtonian physics with its universal
time is true, but experiment proves it is false.
Thus a definition cannot trump a thought experiment
consistent with experimental evidence.  Relativity
has copious experimental evidence supporting it in
the thought experiment under discussion, so
Wozniak's assertion is misguided and dead wrong.
When is he going to address the elephant?  He's
pretending it's not there even when he smells
peanuts on its breath.