Re: Space and spacetime

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 18:01, gharnagel pisze:

>
Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
OK, trash - an observer going with c/2 through
Solar system is going to measure the length of
a day. What is the prediction of the physics
of your idiot guru for the result? No precision
better than 1% needed.

 A "day"?  What is a "day"? 

A day is a day, Harrie.

No, it's not.  Wozzie deleted where I explained that
a day is different on Mars, Jupiter, etc.  Since his
observer is "going through the solar system," he
might be a Martian or a Jovian or from Titan, etc.

You're an incredible idiot, sure, but you've  heard
of days, haven't you?

Wozzie is the one being an "incredible idiot."  Even
on earth there are different kinds of days: there's
the sidereal day, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
and there's the solar day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time
And then is Wozzie talking about  day versus night?
Wozzie's imprecise language is what is at issue here,
but he goes directly to personal attack and crank'behavior.

The observer is in the solar system
and his speed is c/2.  With respect to what?

To solar system, Harrie.

and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering.

>
Says the repetitious barker, liar and slanderer :-)
Wozzie agrees that he is a barker, liar and slanderer since he

>
No, I don't.

 You didn't reply, so that implies you agree with what I wrote.

No, Harrie, it doesn't. And I don't agree.

Then you should have replied.  Why do you need to be prodded into
defending yourself?  Are you just a lazy bum?

I'm sure you can prove LT are correct where they
are correct; evan such an idiot should be able to
manage such a task.

 I doubt if you could :-)

>
Prove that something is valid when it is valid?

Of course.  How does one KNOW that it's valid unless he has some
means of testing it?
“What I cannot create, I do not understand." -- Richard P. Feynman
This means, of course, that some mathematical ability is necessary
to truly understand physics.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and
not make messes in the house." – Robert A. Heinlein

Have nothing against Lorentz and his transformations,
anyway.  They demonstrate that t' <> t

>
Nope, they need the interpretation of a relativistic
idiot for that.

 Nope.  They need someone who is adept at algebra. Does that leave you out?

No response.  Does that mean that Wozzie is mathematically
incompetent?

which explodes Wozzie's "proof."
So he has just admitted that he lied.

>
No,I didn't.

 Yeah, you did.  You are either demented or you're a liar.

No, I didn't. You are both dementad and a liar.

I'm just an unbiased observer watching Wozzie squirm when he
is caught asserting asserting something one moment and denying
it the next.

Even such a piece of lying
shit as Harrie is can't lie 100% of time,
but it still can lie most of the time.

 Wozzie lies ALL of the time.  And he just did it again.

Oh, did I? You DO lie 100% of time, Harrie?

See?  Wozzie did it again!  He said I lied MOST of the time
and now he says I lie 100% of the time :-))

I'm actually an information engineer, poor
trash.

 One who rejects valid information that he is prejudiced against.

>
One that rejects an obvious lie of a religious
maniac insisting that The Nature itself is
speaking to him and his idiot gurus.

Wozzie appears to be oblivious to finer sensibilities.  I speak
metaphorically and he crassly takes it literally :-))
And what Wozzie opines to be "an obvious lie" is not based upon
any mathematical proof, just like all of his opinions.
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust,
sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
 -- Douglas Adams

That's the specialization of dealing
with information and its various constructs.
No way I'm an invincible expert, of course...
we could discuss, if you weren't such an
arrogant not-even-layman idiot.

 Nice example of his prejudice again :-))

>
Just some sad truth, Harrie.

I'm afraid Wozzie is resistant to truth.  Part of his problem
when dealing with physics questions is that he appears to be
mathematically incompetent.

He says he has no problem with the LT, so does he
accept that c + v = c?

>
Tell me better, poor trash, whether you accept
that Lorentz has prepared his transformations for
his own  ether theory, not  for The Shit of your
idiot guru?

 Ah, Wozzie won't answer the question, deflecting with an

If LT were designed for an ether theory
the "obvious" c+v=c interpretation of The
Shit's worshippers can't be that obvios,
don't you think, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

Wozzie can't help himself from scatology and denigration.
His parents never brought him up right, never washed his mouth
out with soap when he behaved rudely.
Anyway, his little diatribe makes no sense.  He seems to believe
that "c+v=c" is an "interpretation" rather than a mathematical
derivation.  Refer back to the quote by Heinlein.