Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:48:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 14:44, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 4:27:34 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.

>
If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.

>
Sure there is no observation. Like usually in a
gedanken.

>
Wozniak just asserted that there is ONE observer
and now that there is no observation, so HE is
being inconsistent.

>
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.

like an idiot he is.

Again, more proof that Wozniak is the one who insults
and slanders, particularly when he's caught lying.

There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable

>
And he's being inconsistent again.  And he's dead
wrong anyway: a thought experiment can have as
many observers as desired

>
"As many as desired" is one in this case.
It's mine thought experiment so I know
for sure how many observers are desired
in it, it is one.

Wozniak might "desire" one, but how many are needed
depends on whether or not his thought experiment is
consistent.  It's not.

..  He is desiring only
one observer when, in fact, he has set up a sham
situation:  arguing a definition against an
observation.

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

So if observations are discounted, then the moving
observer is irrelevant.  That removes the 99766
observed by the moving observer, leaving only the
one definition of 86400.  That leaves nothing to
argue about.

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
anything about the definition of a day.  Wozniak
now has no "proof" of inconsistency.
But discounting the inconsistency in Wozniak's
words, he has AGAIN ignored the fatal flaw in
his basic argument, repeated here since he wants
to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't
exist:
"Once again, he has concealed the devastating
error he has made:  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."