Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

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, but Wozniak is, apparently, a bit dense.

Wozniak is grasping at straws again in a sorry attempt to
distract from the elephant in the room.  I gave him a link
to the definition of the day, which he dishonestly deleted,

>
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.

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.

Instead you will write more insults,
more slanders, more idiotic dodges.

:-))  Wozniak is lying.  I haven't insulted or slandered
him anywhere in this discussion.

But Saint Albert didn't define the second.

>
Of course he didn't. Poor idiot was too
stupid.

And here he is slandering again.

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, 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, dead wrong and
refuted by the fact that he is basing it on Newtonian
(universal) time which is soundly refuted by all
experimental evidence:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.15970
"Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm
that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a
stationary one."
Thus, relativity's prediction accurately matches what
happens in the real world.  Wozniak's vapid assertion
is completely refuted.  But still he insults, slanders
and lies.  Tsk, tsk.