Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 4:11:24 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 24.08.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:13:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
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.

>
A lie, of course,

Nope, Wozniak is definitely wrong about this.

as expected from a relativistic idiot.

Wozniak demonstrates that he is the insulter-and
slanderer-in-chief once again.

No such limitations were included into the definition
of second in the physics of your idiot guru.

Saint Albert didn't define the second.  Wozniak is dead
wrong again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

You've fabricated them ad hoc.

Actually, Wozniak is fabricating a connection between
relativity and the second ... and the day (86400
seconds).

The opinion of an idiot is insignificant.

>
It's not an "opinion "that Wozniak lied, as proven by
his own words.

>
This is not an opinion indeed, this is an
impudent lie, as expected from a
relativistic idiot. The word "opinion"
I used was referring to something else.

  Is there "one observer" or are there
"no observations"?

>
Again, I'm talking to an idiot

Wozniak must be talking to himself.  There
are no other idiots here.

so repeating must be included.
One observer, no observations.

So the observer didn't make any observations,
like making the observation that a day was
99766 seconds.  All we have is the definition
of a day, 86400 seconds.

And Wozniak shows again that HE is the
insulter-in-chief and supreme slanderer

>
Talking to relativistic scumbags like Harmagel
I must descend partially to their level, but
it's just partially. I'm not slandering.

Wozniak is lying.  He must ascend to a HIGHER
level to converse with me.  If he were honest,
he would admit that I have used no insults nor
slanders throughout this whole discussion.  OTOH,
he has insulted and slandered continually.
That's because he has lost the argument: his
assertion that relativity is inconsistent has
been refuted.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the
tool of the losers. -- Socrates

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 :-))

>
I'm not, I'm just claiming they're not
necessary in my example.
>

So who confirms that the prediction
is confirmed?

>
An inconsistent prediction, like that of
the physics of your idiot guru, can never
be confirmed.

Rather, who confirms that the prediction
is refuted, as Wozniak claims?

I can predict that Wozniak is a turtle.

>
It's not a prediction, a prediction is
referring to the future, poor halfbrain.

Pure obfuscation.  The thought experiment
said, "Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length of
solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?"
The observer "IS MEASURING" -- not WILL
measure.  Wozniak is squirming around,
trying to change the initial conditions
on the fly.  All this proves is that he
will say ANYTHING to wiggle out of the
corner he has painted homself into.
So, since I predict that Wozniak is a
turtle, by Wozniak's own criteria, Wozniak
is a turtle :-))

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

>
No, that wasn't a definition.

>
Lies have short legs, poor trash.
So - what was the definition of
second in the physics of your idiot
guru (1905-his death)? Will you write
it? Let me guess, no,

Wozniak's guess is wrong.  I gave the
definition of the second, and it wasn't
from Saint Albert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

you will just write more insults, more
lies, more slanders, as expected from
a relativistic scumbag.

In this whole discussion, I have written no
lies, no insults and no slanders.  Wozniak
has been doing all three continually.  Any
rational person would feel utterly ashamed
of himself for such behavior.
If lies have short legs, Wozniak is legless.

It was a conclusion validly derived by
assuming certain reasonable postulates.
The postulates and the conclusions have
been confirmed by copious experiments.

>
Only such an idiot can believe such an
impudent lie, Harrie.

Wozniak is grasping at straws as his assertion
that relativity is inconsistent goes down to
destruction like the Twin Towers.
So he believes that actual experimental results
are "impudent lies"?  How can one who claims
to be an "information engineer" deny information?
How can one who claims to be an "information
engineer" deny mountains of evidence?
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Wozniak's denial of relativity is not rational
because it has no valid critical basis.  It
springs from a belief in Newtonian time, which
has been firmly refuted by experiment.  Denial
for the sake of denial is unreasonable.
“How often it is that the angry man rages denial
of what his inner self is telling him.”
 – Frank Herbert
“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is
the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme