Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
W dniu 15.06.2024 o 15:49, Python pisze:
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Still - can't be worse than the inconsistent
mumble of your idiot guru.
BTW, ell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Le 15/06/2024 à 16:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Nurse! Wozniak is shitting in his pants again!
Le 15/06/2024 à 16:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.06.2024 o 15:49, Python pisze:
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Still - can't be worse than the inconsistent
mumble of your idiot guru.
BTW, ell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Nurse! Wozniak is shitting in his pants again!
Le 15/06/2024 à 15:49, Python a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Les plaisanteries les meilleures sont les plus courtes.
Mets un bémol dans tes interventions ridicules.
Le 15/06/2024 à 18:49, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 15:49, Python a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Les plaisanteries les meilleures sont les plus courtes.
Right.
Mets un bémol dans tes interventions ridicules.
This is what you should do. You are posting nonsense about Relativity
for decades.
Isn't it time to grow up?
W dniu 15.06.2024 o 23:05, Python pisze:
Le 15/06/2024 à 18:49, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 15:49, Python a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Les plaisanteries les meilleures sont les plus courtes.
Right.
Mets un bémol dans tes interventions ridicules.
This is what you should do. You are posting nonsense about Relativity
for decades.
So are you and your fellow cultists.
BTW, Tell me, poor stinker, have you already
learnt what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Le 15/06/2024 à 16:21, Python a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 16:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Nurse! Wozniak is shitting in his pants again!
Laisse Maciej tranquille.
Il se trompe certes sur le fait que t'=t.
Mais il est moins bouffon que toi.
T'euh qu'un guignol!
T'euh même pas capab' de comprendre des évidence telles que Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
Même Maciej il le comprend...
Les plaisanteries les meilleures sont les plus courtes.
Right.
Isn't it time to grow up?
Laisse Maciej tranquille.
Why? By the way what's your opinion about his argument on
the definition of a second back in Einstein's times and now?
Il se trompe certes sur le fait que t'=t.
Neither you or him could even explain what it would mean
anyway.
Mais il est moins bouffon que toi.
T'euh qu'un guignol!
T'euh même pas capab' de comprendre des évidence telles que
Vapp=v/(1+cosµ.v/c)
There is nothing obvious there.
The very formula I have derived and you never did? :-D
Même Maciej il le comprend...
I doubt it. Ask him.
Le 15/06/2024 à 23:24, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.06.2024 o 23:05, Python pisze:
Le 15/06/2024 à 18:49, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 15:49, Python a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:35, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact. >>>>>>>no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Definitely not. As a matter of fact the opposite is a fact. Your
claims are violating Relativity Principle and are contradictory.
Les plaisanteries les meilleures sont les plus courtes.
Right.
Mets un bémol dans tes interventions ridicules.
This is what you should do. You are posting nonsense about Relativity
for decades.
So are you and your fellow cultists.
BTW, Tell me, poor stinker, have you already
learnt what a function is? Are you still trying to
determine its properties applying a French
definition of a different word?
Nurse! Wozniak shit his pants again tonight!
See, trash:
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru
to be not even consistent,
Le 15/06/2024 à 23:34, Python a écrit :
Laisse Maciej tranquille.
I doubt it.
You keep repeating: "Hachel is a joke, you should definitely not think
that he is not a big dick in the whole history of humanity, he is not a three-time Nobel Prize winner,
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
See, trash:
Yes, I see trash every time Wozzie posts.
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru
to be not even consistent,
Only a delusional non compos mentis would
claim that and all Wozzie can do is lie
about it.
Absolutely.
R.H.
W dniu 16.06.2024 o 19:35, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
See, trash:
Yes, I see trash every time Wozzie posts.
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru
to be not even consistent,
Only a delusional non compos mentis would
claim that and all Wozzie can do is lie
about it.
See, trash: I've proven the mumble of your
idiot guru to be not even consistent, and
you can do nothing about it but to bark and
spit. But you will do what you can for
the glory of your moronic church.
Le 16/06/2024 22:46, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a crit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 15/06/2024 14:07, Roeidi Hegeds a crit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Nonsense.
--
Jan
Lorsqu'on accuse quelqu'un, il faut des preuves concordantes et
acceptes de tous.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 16.06.2024 o 19:35, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
claim that and all Wozzie can do is lie
See, trash:
Yes, I see trash every time Wozzie posts.
I've proven the mumble of your idiot guruto be not even consistent,
Only a delusional non compos mentis would
about it.
See, trash: I've proven the mumble of your
idiot guru to be not even consistent, and
you can do nothing about it but to bark and
spit. But you will do what you can for
the glory of your moronic church.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
On 2024-06-16 21:28:01 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 16/06/2024 à 22:46, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a fact.
no shit Sherlock.
Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a fact.
Nonsense.
--
Jan
Lorsqu'on accuse quelqu'un, il faut des preuves concordantes et
acceptées de tous.
Have you convinced anyone at all that your analysis is correct? Who?
Le 17/06/2024 à 11:13, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2024-06-16 21:28:01 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 16/06/2024 à 22:46, film.art@gmail.com (JanPB) a écrit :
Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 15/06/2024 à 14:07, Roeidi Hegedüs a écrit :
Luigi Fortunati wrote:
fact.Einstein's formulas work better than Newton's and that's a
no shit Sherlock.
fact.Hachel's formulas work better than Einstein's and that's a
Nonsense.
--
Jan
Lorsqu'on accuse quelqu'un, il faut des preuves concordantes et acceptées de tous.
Have you convinced anyone at all that your analysis is correct? Who?
I don't know.
I do not think so.
But this is not a counterargument.
Raël, the guru of the Canadian sect, has made thousands of followers, explaining that he had spoken to the Elohims.
De Gaulle was not followed by anyone in explaining that occupied France
had not yet lost the war as long as the Russians, the English, and the Americans continued the fight.
The fact of convincing or not convincing is not proof of lie or truth.
It is often even the opposite.
This is also what the Christian religion, Eastern philosophers, Western
fabulists, and sociological evidence tell us.
We must therefore judge on what is said, and on what is written, and
not
on what is claimed.
R.H.
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT
based
on what is said or written.
with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of experiments.
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT
based
on what is said or written. It is based on whether the analysis agrees
with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of experiments.
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT
based
on what is said or written. It is based on whether the analysis agrees
with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of experiments.
This is science as you imagine it.
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
experiments.Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT
based on what is said or written. It is based on whether the
analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of
This is science as you imagine it.
This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.
Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical sciencewhere
you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make money.
What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.
Science is an advanced informational system.
And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:
experiments.
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT
based on what is said or written. It is based on whether the
analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of
This is science as you imagine it.This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?
What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?
Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical sciencewhere you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make
money.
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide. Proposing new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“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
What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.
Nope. The foundation is what has been written about
what
has been verified by repeated experiments. Theoretical physics is not
in
the same category - until it has been verified - by observation and/ or
by
experiment.
There are phenomena that are not exactly repeatable, subject to unknown factors (human or otherwise), that are another category.
Science is an advanced informational system.
That's too narrow a definition.
And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.
That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:46, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:
experiments.
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT
based on what is said or written. It is based on whether the
analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of
This is science as you imagine it.This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?
Of course they do. Your moronic religion
is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary
mortal worms - but only such an idiot as
you are can believe that.
What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?
Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical sciencewhere you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make
money.
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide.
Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“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
What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.
Nope. The foundation is what has been written about
Harrie, poor idiot, whatever is written must be written
about something. Even such an idiot should understand
that.
a phenomenon AND
what
has been verified by repeated experiments. Theoretical physics is not
in
the same category - until it has been verified - by observation and/ or
by
experiment.
There are phenomena that are not exactly repeatable, subject to unknown
factors (human or otherwise), that are another category.
Science is an advanced informational system.
That's too narrow a definition.
That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.
That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)
I'm not the one hearing what the Nature is
speaking and announcing that to the mortal
worms in Her name, Harrie. It's you and
your idiot gurus trying to blame her for
your moronic mumble.
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:46, gharnagel pisze:
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about theirexperiments?
Of course they do.
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms
- but only such an idiot as you are can believe that.
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide.
Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“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
What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.
Nope. The foundation is what has been written about
Harrie, poor idiot, whatever is written must be written
about something. Even such an idiot should understand
that.
a phenomenon AND what has been verified by repeated
experiments.
Science is an advanced informational system.
That's too narrow a definition.
That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.
That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)
I'm not the one hearing what the Nature is
speaking
and announcing that to the mortal worms in Her name,
Harrie. It's you and your idiot gurus trying to blame
her for your moronic mumble.
Le 18/06/2024 à 15:09, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:46, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:
experiments.
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise. Science is NOT >>>> > > based on what is said or written. It is based on whether the
analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of
This is science as you imagine it.This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?
Of course they do. Your moronic religion
is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary
mortal worms - but only such an idiot as
you are can believe that.
What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?
Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical sciencewhere you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make
money.
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide.
Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“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
What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.
Nope. The foundation is what has been written about
Harrie, poor idiot, whatever is written must be written
about something. Even such an idiot should understand
that.
a phenomenon AND
what
has been verified by repeated experiments. Theoretical physics is not
in
the same category - until it has been verified - by observation and/ or
by
experiment.
There are phenomena that are not exactly repeatable, subject to unknown
factors (human or otherwise), that are another category.
Science is an advanced informational system.
That's too narrow a definition.
That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.
That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)
I'm not the one hearing what the Nature is
speaking and announcing that to the mortal
worms in Her name, Harrie. It's you and
your idiot gurus trying to blame her for
your moronic mumble.
Come on Wozniak! Physics can be taught to people
not involved in the field quite successfully.
is not about being superior to "ordinary moral
worms"
There is nothing "superior" about spending his or
her own time time in studying and practicing a specific field.
Given the amount of utterly stupid garbage you've posted here,
including in your alleged field of "information theory",
where you also are a joke, I guess that you've spend
most of your time rubbing your own ass.
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?
What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide.
Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“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
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:46, gharnagel pisze:
experiments?
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their
Of course they do.
Says the congenital liar :-))
Wozzie believes scientists are as dishonest as he is.
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms
Wozzie's weaknesses are evident. He judges the scientific world
by his own foibles, but he conveniently forgets that science works
by verification
Only such an idiot as Wozzie-fool believes he himself has the keys
of truth and justice.
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide.
Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“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
Nope. The foundation is what has been written aboutWhat is said or written is not onlythe basement, but also the only content
of science.
Harrie, poor idiot, whatever is written must be written
about something. Even such an idiot should understand
that.
Wozzie-liar tries to take words out of context to justify
Science is an advanced informational system.
That's too narrow a definition.
That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
Nope, it's a definition
Wozzie finally spoke the truth: he NEVER listens to
what nature says.
and announcing that to the mortal worms in Her name,
Harrie. It's you and your idiot gurus trying to blame
her for your moronic mumble.
Wozzie-idiot is the only one rumbling and mumbling and
grumbling here. And lying his butt off, pretending
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 15:53, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie believes scientists are as dishonest as he is.
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.
But only such an idiot as you are can believe that.
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms
Wozzie's weaknesses are evident. He judges the scientific world
by his own foibles, but he conveniently forgets that science works
by verification
Only such an idiot, again, can believe such
an absurd lie.
Science is an informational system, VERY
advanced, VERY complicated and for sure too
complicated for demented DK cranks
Only such an idiot as Wozzie-fool believes
he himself has the keys of truth and justice.
Unfortunately, I don't.
Still I have years of experience with informational
systems
like science is,
and you have only next to infinite arrogance of a
DK idiot.
Wozzie-liar tries to take words out of context to justify
To justify that you're a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Science is an advanced informational system.That's too narrow a definition.
That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
Nope, it's a definition
Nope, poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't know
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
Wozzie finally spoke the truth: he NEVER listens to
what nature says.
And that's because for those billions of years
it has never said a word.
Your idiot gurus simply have fabricated that - like
other religious maniacs have fabricated gods speaking
to them.
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barkingand spitting. But you'll do what you
can for your moronic church - that's what
it trains its doggies for, after all.
I'm going to have to pre-type the sentence "That's not what I said" on
my computer, because I have to write it down right now.
R.H.
Den 01.06.2024 14:50, skrev Richard Hachel:Is this something you never said, or did you say it, but lied?
We know the famous example of Doctor Hachel (that's me) entitled "the traveler of Tau Ceti".
Doctor Hachel, who is not an idiot (a doctorate, three Nobel prizes).
Maciej Wozniak babbled:
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 15:53, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie believes scientists are as dishonest as he is.
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.
But only such an idiot as you are can believe that.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms
Wozzie seems to forget that he already posted this. Demented.
Wozzie's weaknesses are evident. He judges the scientific world
by his own foibles, but he conveniently forgets that science works
by verification
Only such an idiot, again, can believe such
an absurd lie.
Why does Wozzie always talk about himself?
Science is an informational system, VERY
advanced, VERY complicated and for sure too
complicated for demented DK cranks
like Wozzie-fool.
Only such an idiot as Wozzie-fool believes
he himself has the keys of truth and justice.
Unfortunately, I don't.
Then stop acting like you do.
Still I have years of experience with informational
systems
and I have years of experience with physics, engineering
and mathematics
like science is,
The problem with Wozzie is that he's like a man with a
hammer who thinks that every problem is a nail.
To justify that you're a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Wozzie isn't making sense, as usual.
Science is an advanced informational system.That's too narrow a definition.
That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
Nope, it's a definition
Nope, poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't know
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
Wozzie-fool pontificates a bull-poop definition for
science, then claims it's not a definition. :-))
Wozzie finally spoke the truth: he NEVER listens to
what nature says.
And that's because for those billions of years
it has never said a word.
Au contraire. Only those who listen aren't so arrogant
as Wozzie-pompous.
He ignores the music of the cosmos to dwell in
his self-created hades.
Den 18.06.2024 17:21, skrev Richard Hachel:
I'm going to have to pre-type the sentence "That's not what I said" onIs this something you never said, or did you say it, but lied?
my computer, because I have to write it down right now.
Den 01.06.2024 14:50, skrev Richard Hachel:
We know the famous example of Doctor Hachel (that's me) entitled "the
traveler of Tau Ceti".
Doctor Hachel, who is not an idiot (a doctorate, three Nobel prizes).
Please answer my question:
Did you lie when you claimed to have a doctorate and three Nobel prizes?
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 20:06, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak babbled:
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.
But only such an idiot as you are can believe that.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Too bad for you, your Shit, your idiot gurus
and your lies of nature itself speaking to you.
superhumanYour moronic religion is persuading you that they are
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms
Wozzie seems to forget that he already posted this. Demented.
No I didn't.
Lying and slandering.
worksWozzie's weaknesses are evident. He judges the scientific world
by his own foibles, but he conveniently forgets that science
by verification
Only such an idiot, again, can believe such
an absurd lie.
Why does Wozzie always talk about himself?
I'm not.
I don't believe these absurd lies
of youre moronic religion at all.
Science is an informational system, VERY
advanced, VERY complicated and for sure too
complicated for demented DK cranks
like Wozzie-fool.
Only such an idiot as Wozzie-fool believes
he himself has the keys of truth and justice.
Unfortunately, I don't.
Then stop acting like you do.
Still I have years of experience with informational
systems
and I have years of experience with physics, engineering
and mathematics
Science is neither physical nor mathematical
nor engineering construct,
however. You're only speaking about it with your absurd arrogance -
because you are a DK idiot.
The problem with Wozzie is that he's like a man with a
hammer who thinks that every problem is a nail.
No, the problem is that apart of barking, lies, slanders
Harrie has nothing to say in the defence of his absurd beliefs.
To justify that you're a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Wozzie isn't making sense, as usual.
And you're, as usual, a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Nope, poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't know
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
Wozzie-fool pontificates a bull-poop definition for
science, then claims it's not a definition. :-))
And it's not. Poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't know
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
Wozzie finally spoke the truth: he NEVER listens to
what nature says.
And that's because for those billions of years
it has never said a word.
Au contraire. Only those who listen aren't so arrogant
as Wozzie-pompous.
Sorry, trash.
Your idiot gurus simply have fabricated that - like
other religious maniacs have fabricated gods speaking
to them.
He ignores the music of the cosmos to dwell in
his self-created hades.
It's not any music of cosmos, it's just a song
of a bunch of idiots.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 20:06, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak babbled:
Your moronic religion is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms.
But only such an idiot as you are can believe that.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Too bad for you, your Shit, your idiot gurus
and your lies of nature itself speaking to you.
Says the inveterate liar :-))
superhumanYour moronic religion is persuading you that they are
Wozzie seems to forget that he already posted this. Demented.demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary mortal worms
No I didn't.
"Didn't" what? Forget? posted? Wozzie is getting velutinous.
Only such an idiot, again, can believe such
an absurd lie.
Why does Wozzie always talk about himself?
I'm not.
Yeah, you are. You're so fuzzy-brained you don't even realize it.
I don't believe these absurd lies
of youre moronic religion at all.
Wozzie is just SO certain about his beliefs :-))
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --
Voltaire
Science is an informational system, VERY
advanced, VERY complicated and for sure too
complicated for demented DK cranks
like Wozzie-fool.
Ah, Wozzie agrees that he is a demented DK crank.
Only such an idiot as Wozzie-fool believes
he himself has the keys of truth and justice.
Unfortunately, I don't.
Then stop acting like you do.
Wozzie is just SO certain that his demented beliefs are true.
Still I have years of experience with informationaland mathematics
systems
and I have years of experience with physics, engineering
Science is neither physical nor mathematical
nor engineering construct,
An idiot something like Wozzie posted on the old Yahoo board
claiming that he reduced "relativists" to silence with his
arguments against relativity. He also claimed that mathematics
was the "king of science" :-))
Now we have Wozzie-stupe claiming that physics isn't physical :-))
And even more stupid that it's not mathematical.
Wozzie is such a silly fool!
however. You're only speaking about it with your absurd arrogance -
because you are a DK idiot.
Says the perfect example an arrogant ass.
The problem with Wozzie is that he's like a man with a
hammer who thinks that every problem is a nail.
No, the problem is that apart of barking, lies, slanders
Says the perfect example of barking, lying and slandering.
Harrie has nothing to say in the defence of his absurd beliefs.
Says Wozzie who holds indefensible absurd beliefs.
To justify that you're a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Wozzie isn't making sense, as usual.
And you're, as usual, a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Oh, my! More lying and slandering from Wozzie-fool who
And it's not. Poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't know
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or
making definite and clear"
So Wozzie admits
Sorry, trash.
Your idiot gurus simply have fabricated that - like
other religious maniacs have fabricated gods speaking
to them.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by
those who could not hear the music.” --- Friedrich Nietzsche
The problem is that Wozzie is deaf to reality.
He ignores the music of the cosmos to dwell in
his self-created hades.
It's not any music of cosmos, it's just a song
of a bunch of idiots.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
-- Socrates
W dniu 19.06.2024 o 18:00, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie is just SO certain about his beliefs :-))
That's why they are beliefs.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --
Voltaire
Said well known for his lack of certainty
fanatic idiot,
Ah, Wozzie agrees that he is a demented DK crank.
No, I don't. You've manipulated with this quoting.
As expected from a piece of relativistic shit,
of course.
Wozzie is just SO certain that his demented beliefs are true.
Science is neither physical nor mathematical
nor engineering construct,
An idiot something like Wozzie posted on the old Yahoo board
claiming that he reduced "relativists" to silence with his
arguments against relativity. He also claimed that mathematics
was the "king of science" :-))
Now we have Wozzie-stupe claiming that physics isn't physical :-))
Do you claim it is? What is its mass then,
poor halfbrain?
And even more stupid that it's not mathematical.
Wozzie is such a silly fool!
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering.
But you'll do what you can for your moronic
church - that's what it trains its doggies for,
after all.
however. You're only speaking about it with
your absurd arrogance -
because you are a DK idiot.
Says the perfect example an arrogant ass.
See, trash
- I've proven the idiocies of your insane guru
to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering. But you'll
do what you can for your moronic church -
that's what it trains its doggies for,
after all.
And you're, as usual, a complete idiot
mumbling, that the foundation of science
is not about what is written - because
it's about what is written about[something]
Oh, my! More lying and slandering from Wozzie-fool who
Anyone can check, your own words, poor trash.
Aty least you're ashamed.
And it's not. Poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't know
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or
making definite and clear"
So Wozzie admits
No I don't. A lie, again, as expected from a piece
of relativistic shit.
Sorry, trash.
Your idiot gurus simply have fabricated that - like
other religious maniacs have fabricated gods speaking
to them.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by
those who could not hear the music.” --- Friedrich Nietzsche
Bullshit, anyone can (almost always) recognize dancing
hearing music or not. I guess - even an idiot like
you can.
The problem is that Wozzie is deaf to reality.
It's not me announcing GPS clocks not real
because they don't want to fit some mad
delusions of some idiot guru.
He ignores the music of the cosmos to dwell in
his self-created hades.
It's not any music of cosmos, it's just a song
of a bunch of idiots.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
-- Socrates
And that's why you and your fellow idiots
use it so often.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.06.2024 o 18:00, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie is just SO certain about his beliefs :-))
That's why they are beliefs.
???
So Wozzie believes that if he believes something it
becomes true? Demented.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --
Voltaire
Said well known for his lack of certainty
fanatic idiot,
???
So what is demented Wozzie trying to say now?
Ah, Wozzie agrees that he is a demented DK crank.
No, I don't. You've manipulated with this quoting.
As expected from a piece of relativistic shit,
of course.
Not at all.
Wozzie is just SO certain that his demented beliefs are true.
So Wozzie agrees that his beliefs are demented.
nor engineering construct,claiming that he reduced "relativists" to silence with his
An idiot something like Wozzie posted on the old Yahoo board
arguments against relativity. He also claimed that mathematics
was the "king of science" :-))
Now we have Wozzie-stupe claiming that physics isn't physical :-))
Do you claim it is? What is its mass then,
poor halfbrain?
Does information have energy?
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
And Wozzie's lies have mass , too (actually, without the m).
Delusional Wozzie proved that 1 = 2 and concluded that relativity
is inconsistent :-)
Wozzie believes he can get away with lying and
slandering with no consequences. His parents
- I've proven the idiocies of your insane guru
to be not even consistent,
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
And it's not. Poor idiot Harrie simply doesn't knowmaking definite and clear"
what a definition is. No surprise, of course.
"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or
So Wozzie admits
No I don't. A lie, again, as expected from a piece
of relativistic shit.
:-)) Wozzie-liar lies again.
And he had to delete what he admitted to, which proves his
basic dishonesty.
Sorry, trash.those who could not hear the music.” --- Friedrich Nietzsche
Your idiot gurus simply have fabricated that - like
other religious maniacs have fabricated gods speaking
to them.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by
Bullshit, anyone can (almost always) recognize dancing
hearing music or not. I guess - even an idiot like
you can.
But Wozzie-fool can't.
It's not me announcing GPS clocks not real
because they don't want to fit some mad
delusions of some idiot guru.
Yes, it's delusional Wozzie, tilting at windmills again.
Keep it up, Wozzie, they might be giants.
-- SocratesHe ignores the music of the cosmos to dwell in
his self-created hades.
It's not any music of cosmos, it's just a song
of a bunch of idiots.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
And that's why you and your fellow idiots
use it so often.
Wozzie only gets "slander" when he lies and slanders. His parents
never taught him how to be a decent human being. Most people
teach themselves many things that they lack, but Wozzie-moron is
unteachable.
Wozzie posts nothing but repetitions and lies.
He claims to be an information whatsit, claims science is
information, then denies a major part of science.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 00:09, gharnagel pisze:
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
Wozzie posts nothing but repetitions and lies.
He claims to be an information whatsit, claims science is
information, then denies a major part of science.
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Wozzie has. Why
doesn't he post his "proof" of give a link to it?
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering.
Says the repetitious barker, liar and slanderer :-)
But you'll do what you can for your moronic church -
that's what it trains its doggies for, after all.
I can actually "prove" that the LT is correct in its domain
of applicability based on actual [gasp!] information.
And - neither your absurd Shit nor even
whole of your moronic physics is a "major
part of science".
Sorry, trash.
And all Wozzie has is profanity, lying and slander. And
inconsistency: He says physics is information
denies the information of physics.
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 00:09, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie posts nothing but repetitions and lies.
He claims to be an information whatsit, claims science is
information, then denies a major part of science.
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering.
But you'll do what you can for your moronic church -
that's what it trains its doggies for, after all.
And - neither your absurd Shit nor even
whole of your moronic physics is a "major
part of science".
Sorry, trash.
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 14:26, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 00:09, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie posts nothing but repetitions and lies.
He claims to be an information whatsit, claims science is
information, then denies a major part of science.
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Wozzie has. Why
doesn't he post his "proof" of give a link to it?
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Harrie has.
Posted the proof dosens of times here and will post
it many times more, be sure, trash.
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking, lying and slandering.
Says the repetitious barker, liar and slanderer :-)
But you'll do what you can for your moronic church -
that's what it trains its doggies for, after all.
I can actually "prove" that the LT is correct in its domain
of applicability based on actual [gasp!] information.
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.
Have nothing against Lorentz and his transformations,
anyway.
And - neither your absurd Shit nor even
whole of your moronic physics is a "major
part of science".
Sorry, trash.
And all Wozzie has is profanity, lying and slander. And
inconsistency: He says physics is information
I do. Even such a piece of lying shit as you
are can't lie always, of course.
I do and it is.
Samely as whole science is.
And thus, none of your noble specializations could
mark you as an invincible expert about it.
You've just self-appointed yourself for that,
as expected from a DK idiot.
and then denies the information of physics.
Of course. What is inconsistent in denying
some information concocted by some religious
maniacs?
Of course. What is inconsistent in denying
some information concocted by some religious
maniacs?
Wozzie makes a biased judgment on the source of the
information rather than the information itself.
He says he has no problem with the LT, so does he
accept that c + v = c?
limit u' (as u > c) = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) = c
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 14:26, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
doesn't he post his "proof" of give a link to it?
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 00:09, gharnagel pisze:
Wozzie posts nothing but repetitions and lies.
He claims to be an information whatsit, claims science is
information, then denies a major part of science.
See, trash - I've proven the idiocies
of your insane guru to be not even consistent,
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Wozzie has. Why
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Harrie has.
Posted the proof dosens of times here and will post
it many times more, be sure, trash.
Wozzie is delusional, pretending he has posted "proofs" when
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
But you'll do what you can for your moronic church -of applicability based on actual [gasp!] information.
that's what it trains its doggies for, after all.
I can actually "prove" that the LT is correct in its domain
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.
Have nothing against Lorentz and his transformations,
anyway.
They demonstrate that t' <> t
So he has just admitted that he lied.
I do and it is.
Only partly. A whole body of information.
Samely as whole science is.
That's where Wozzie goes off the rails. He ignores the
most important part.
And thus, none of your noble specializations could
mark you as an invincible expert about it.
You've just self-appointed yourself for that,
as expected from a DK idiot.
Pot, kettle black :-)
and then denies the information of physics.
Of course. What is inconsistent in denying
some information concocted by some religious
maniacs?
Wozzie makes a biased judgment on the source of the
information rather than the information itself.
He says he has no problem with the LT, so does he
accept that c + v = c?
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 15:45, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Harrie has.
Posted the proof dosens of times here and will post
it many times more, be sure, trash.
Wozzie is delusional, pretending he has posted "proofs" when
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.
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'rea barker, liar and slanderer,
but that was obvious before.
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.
Have nothing against Lorentz and his transformations,
anyway.
They demonstrate that t' <> t
Nope, they need the interpretation of a relativistic
idiot for that.
which explodes Wozzie's "proof."
So he has just admitted that he lied.
No,I didn't.
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.
I do and it is.
Only partly. A whole body of information.
Samely as whole science is.
That's where Wozzie goes off the rails. He ignores the
most important part.
And thus, none of your noble specializations could
mark you as an invincible expert about it.
You've just self-appointed yourself for that,
as expected from a DK idiot.
Pot, kettle black :-)
I'm actually an information engineer, poor
trash.
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.
and then denies the information of physics.
Of course. What is inconsistent in denying
some information concocted by some religious
maniacs?
Wozzie makes a biased judgment on the source of the
information rather than the information itself.
Nope. Another slander from a lying piece of
shit.
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?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 15:45, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Harrie has.
Posted the proof dosens of times here and will post
it many times more, be sure, trash.
Wozzie is delusional, pretending he has posted "proofs" when
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"?
and his speed is c/2. With respect to what?
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.
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 :-)
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.
leave you out?
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.
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.
Just like he does here by omission:
I do and it is.most important part.
Only partly. A whole body of information.
Samely as whole science is.That's where Wozzie goes off the rails. He ignores the
So once again Wozzie admits by default that he is off the rails.
And thus, none of your noble specializations could
mark you as an invincible expert about it.
You've just self-appointed yourself for that,
as expected from a DK idiot.
Pot, kettle black :-)
I'm actually an information engineer, poor
trash.
One who rejects valid information that he is prejudiced against.
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 :-))
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
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.
You're an incredible idiot, sure, but you've heard
of days, haven't you?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
I doubt if you could :-)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.
Prove that something is valid when it is valid?
Of course. How does one KNOW that it's valid
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
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
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
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.
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.
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 16:14, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
A day is a day, Harrie.
No, it's not. Wozzie deleted where I explained that
Put your explaination straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
If I said "3 days ago" you wouldn't
ask what I meant, would you?
You're not THAT stupid, are you?
You're just pretending stupider than
you are to dodge the question. Well,
a hint for you: how was "second"
defined in the physics of your
idiot guru? I mean THAT day.
Prove that something is valid when it is valid?
Of course. How does one KNOW that it's valid
I don't have to know if it's valid to know
that it is valid if/when it is valid.
"It is valid in its apply range" is
a simple truism, Harrie.
You're an idiot so you don't realize that.
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
I said you don't lie 100% of time and you called me a liar...
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 I speak directly - you lie like a fanatic
idiot you are.
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.
Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
part false, as it didn't want to fit the madness
of your insane guru.
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.
Tell me, poor halfbrain, was the RELATIVISTIC
formula of velocity adding a part of Lorentz's
ETHER theory?
Yes or no?
Refer back to the quote by Heinlein.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 16:14, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
A day is a day, Harrie.
No, it's not. Wozzie deleted where I explained that
Put your explaination straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is
Tell me, poor halfbrain, was the RELATIVISTIC
formula of velocity adding a part of Lorentz's
ETHER theory?
Yes or no?
Autistic Wozzie-fool seems to think that something that's derived
from a set of equations is "adding to it."
But let's get to the point here:
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 20:21, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Put your explaination straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is
A fanatic piece of lying ship, caught on an
impudent, obvious lie is screaming about a
"metaphor".
Why won't you stop dodging and answer - what is the predicttion
of the observer in my example according to the physics of your
idiot guru?
Tell me, poor halfbrain, was the RELATIVISTIC
formula of velocity adding a part of Lorentz's
ETHER theory?
Yes or no?
Autistic Wozzie-fool seems to think that something that's derived
from a set of equations is "adding to it."
But let's get to the point here:
Let's get to the point, sure. Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity
adding a part of Lorentz's ETHER theory?
Yes or no, trash.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 20:21, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is
Put your explaination straight into your
dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs.
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
A fanatic piece of lying ship, caught on an
impudent, obvious lie is screaming about a
"metaphor".
So Mad Maciej doesn't understand metaphor.
Why won't you stop dodging and answer - what is the predicttion
of the observer in my example according to the physics of your
idiot guru?
First the autistic information engineer must define his terms.
Let's get to the point, sure. Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity
adding a part of Lorentz's ETHER theory?
Yes or no, trash.
First of all, no human being is trash, so Weird Wozzy doesn't really
want an honest answer, which I already gave to him anyway:
"[Heinlein] also said that deriving something was just finding out
what you already knew. Meaning, of course, that it was all there
in the original equations, implied, which is the case with relativistic velocity addition.
incompetent."
Because of Wozzie's mathematical incompetence, he can't figure out that
(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from the Lorentz
transform
equations.
(2) "Lorentz's ETHER theory" has NOTHING to do with it because there is
no ether*. So LET is a dead end. Dishonest Wozzie's attempt to insert that into his question was a red herring, a misleading fallacy.
(3) The RVA equation is derived from the LT equations by dividing the equation for dx' by the equation for dt', so there is no "adding" to
either LET or SR.
*Ether theory is a dead end because SR took away the last vestige of
any
physicality: that of motion. IOW, it becomes fundamentally
undetectable,
which makes it nonexistent for all practical purposes.
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 23:46, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 20:21, gharnagel pisze:
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is
A fanatic piece of lying ship, caught on an
impudent, obvious lie is screaming about a
"metaphor".
So Mad Maciej doesn't understand metaphor.
Why won't you explain, you lying shit.
And why won't you stop dodging and
demonstrate the power of predictions
of your moronic Shit on my example.
Why won't you stop dodging and answer - what is the predicttion
of the observer in my example according to the physics of your
idiot guru?
First the autistic information engineer must define his terms.
Must he?
But what does the relativistic piece of
shit mean by "define"? By "must"? By
"terms"?
velocityLet's get to the point, sure. Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of
adding a part of Lorentz's ETHER theory?
Yes or no, trash.
First of all, no human being is trash, so Weird Wozzy doesn't really
want an honest answer, which I already gave to him anyway:
"[Heinlein] also said that deriving something was just finding outrelativistic
what you already knew. Meaning, of course, that it was all there
in the original equations, implied, which is the case with
velocity addition.
So, according to you and your idiot gurus -
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?
As anyone would know if he weren't mathematically
incompetent."
Because of Wozzie's mathematical incompetence, he can't figure outthat
(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from the Lorentz
transform equations.
It is, sure, after assuming the obviously correct
Holiest Postulate.
And speaking of mathematics - it's always
good to remind that your bunch of idiots
had to announce its oldest part false, as
it didn't want to fit the madness of your
insane guru.
(2) "Lorentz's ETHER theory" has NOTHING to do with it because thereis
no ether*. So LET is a dead end. Dishonest Wozzie's attempt toinsert
that into his question was a red herring, a misleading fallacy.
(3) The RVA equation is derived from the LT equations by dividing the equation for dx' by the equation for dt', so there is no "adding" to
either LET or SR.
*Ether theory is a dead end because SR took away the last vestige of
any physicality: that of motion. IOW, it becomes fundamentally undetectable, which makes it nonexistent for all practical purposes.
And how about 0 meridian? Is it fundamentally
detectable?
If it is not - it must be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
Am I correct, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 23:46, gharnagel pisze:
Why won't you explain, you lying shit.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.06.2024 o 20:21, gharnagel pisze:
impudent, obvious lie is screaming about a
An autistic "information engineer" who can't understand
metaphor gets really asinine when his fuzzy-thinking is
A fanatic piece of lying ship, caught on an
"metaphor".
So Mad Maciej doesn't understand metaphor.
And why won't you stop dodging and
demonstrate the power of predictions
of your moronic Shit on my example.
I'm not dodging. I'm merely asking consequential question which
Woozie-liar refuses to answer.
You must define "clearly and honestly". And "define".But what does the relativistic piece of
shit mean by "define"? By "must"? By
"terms"?
I just want everything clearly and honestly laid out.
So, according to you and your idiot gurus -
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?
What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie, can't actually
USE
the theory and calculate the answer for yourself?
As anyone would know if he weren't mathematicallythat
incompetent."
Because of Wozzie's mathematical incompetence, he can't figure out
(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from the Lorentz
transform equations.
It is, sure, after assuming the obviously correct
Holiest Postulate.
The postulates were determined FIRST
the
LT equations were derived.
And how about 0 meridian? Is it fundamentally
detectable?
More attempted deflection. The eath has nothing to do with either LET
or SR.
If it is not - it must be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
Am I correct, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
It is part of a coordinate system. Coordinate systems aren't part of nature.
They are human mental constructs.
But this is another stupid attempt to deflect from Wozzie-filth having
to face
the drubbing he's getting. His parents didn't do their job of raising
an
honest and responsible human, so he has to take his whuppin' now.
W dniu 22.06.2024 o 03:50, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Why won't you explain, you lying shit.
And why won't you stop dodging and
demonstrate the power of predictions
of your moronic Shit on my example.
I'm not dodging. I'm merely asking consequential
question which Woozie-liar refuses to answer.
Yes, you are. You're pretending even stupider
than you are to dodge.
But what does the relativistic piece of
shit mean by "define"? By "must"? By
"terms"?
I just want everything clearly and honestly laid out.
You must define "clearly and honestly". And "define".
And "must".
So, according to you and your idiot gurus -
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?
What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie,
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for yourself?
The matter is that mathematically-incompetent Harrie
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for me.
(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from
the Lorentz transform equations.
It is, sure, after assuming the obviously correct
Holiest Postulate.
The postulates were determined FIRST
And without them - in LET - your idiocies can't be
derived, neither from LT nor from experiments.
, dishonest Wozzie-fool, and THEN the LT equations were
derived.
A lie, of course. First - Lorentz invented his
equations for his ether theory, then - your
idiot guru came with his absurd postulates.
And how about 0 meridian? Is it fundamentally
detectable?
More attempted deflection. The earth has nothing to do
with either LET or SR.
More dodging.
If it is not - it must be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
Am I correct, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
It is part of a coordinate system. Coordinate systems aren't part
of nature. They are human mental constructs.
Unlike the Holy Postulates, told your
idiot gurus by Nature itself when She
spoke to them. Right, Harrie?
But this is another stupid attempt to deflect from Wozzie-filth
having to face the drubbing he's getting. His parents didn't do
their job of raising an honest and responsible human, so he has
to take his whuppin' now.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.06.2024 o 03:50, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
question which Woozie-liar refuses to answer.
Why won't you explain, you lying shit.
And why won't you stop dodging and
demonstrate the power of predictions
of your moronic Shit on my example.
I'm not dodging. I'm merely asking consequential
Yes, you are. You're pretending even stupider
than you are to dodge.
No matter how many times Wozzie tells lies, i doesn't
make them true. His parents must be chagrinned at
his abysmal behavior.
But what does the relativistic piece of
shit mean by "define"? By "must"? By
"terms"?
I just want everything clearly and honestly laid out.
You must define "clearly and honestly". And "define".
And "must".
Such terms are human terms, and those that are fully human
understand them implicitly. Terms like "speed" and "time"
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?
What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie,
for yourself?
The matter is that mathematically-incompetent Harrie
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for me.
I offered to derive the LTE for Wozzie,
(1) relativistic velocity addition is DERIVED from
the Lorentz transform equations.
It is, sure, after assuming the obviously correct
Holiest Postulate.
The postulates were determined FIRST
And without them - in LET - your idiocies can't be
derived, neither from LT nor from experiments.
There is no LET without the postulates
A lie, of course. First - Lorentz invented his
equations for his ether theory, then - your
idiot guru came with his absurd postulates.
So the "absurd" postulates result in the LTE exactly as
Lorentz invented them out of whole cloth, so how could they
possibly be absurd
Only such an idiot can believe and repeat suchUnlike the Holy Postulates, told your
idiot gurus by Nature itself when She
spoke to them. Right, Harrie?
Postulates are human constructs also, but they can be tested against
W dniu 22.06.2024 o 15:54, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
You're pretending even stupider
than you are to dodge.
No matter how many times Wozzie tells lies, i doesn't
make them true. His parents must be chagrinned at
his abysmal behavior.
And why won't you stop your iditic dodging
and answer what are the prediction of the moronic
physics of your moronic guru for my example?
You must define "clearly and honestly". And "define".
And "must".
Such terms are human terms, and those that are fully human
understand them implicitly. Terms like "speed" and "time"
are the terms of physicists, i.e. Gods.
I'm getting it.
So, according to you and your idiot gurus -
in LET every observer, stationary in ether or not -
would observe light moving at speed c. Right?
What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie,
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for yourself?
The matter is that mathematically-incompetent Harrie
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for me.
I offered to derive the LTE for Wozzie,
But can't deal with a set of assumptions
different than The Shit of your idiot guru.
It's not very complicated, but - well -
you're an idiot.
A lie, of course. First - Lorentz invented his
equations for his ether theory, then - your
idiot guru came with his absurd postulates.
So the "absurd" postulates result in the LTE exactly as
Lorentz invented them out of whole cloth, so how could they
possibly be absurd
Simply.
Unlike the Holy Postulates, told your
idiot gurus by Nature itself when She
spoke to them. Right, Harrie?
Postulates are human constructs also, but they can be tested
against [nature].
Only such an idiot can believe and repeat such
an absurd lie.
But - see: 0 meridian has something in common with both The Shit
of your idiot guru and Lorontz ether theory, after all...
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.06.2024 o 15:54, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
You're pretending even stupider
than you are to dodge.
No matter how many times Wozzie tells lies, i doesn't
make them true. His parents must be chagrinned at
his abysmal behavior.
And why won't you stop your iditic dodging
and answer what are the prediction of the moronic
physics of your moronic guru for my example?
Wozzie "question" was "What does an observer going at
c/2 through the solar system measure as the length of
a day?"
Since the observer is not on earth, a "day" is not well
defined.
What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie,
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for yourself?
And dishonest Wozzie projects his incompetence on others:
And then he pivots to a third question:
"Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity adding a part of
Lorentz's ETHER theory? Yes or no"
So it's become quite confusing just which question Wozzie
wants answered.
Only such an idiot can believe and repeat such
an absurd lie.
So Wozzie denies that human constructs (like the constancy of the
speed of light) can't be tested against nature? What is the matter
with this demented fool?
But - see: 0 meridian has something in common with both The Shit
of your idiot guru and Lorontz ether theory, after all...
So Wozzie believes that 0 meridian is a fundamental property of
nature, like the speed of light?
the rails. Python, call that nurse NOW!
W dniu 22.06.2024 o 20:47, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And why won't you stop your iditic dodging
and answer what are the prediction of the moronic
physics of your moronic guru for my example?
Wozzie "question" was "What does an observer going at
c/2 through the solar system measure as the length of
a day?"
Since the observer is not on earth, a "day" is not well
defined.
Too bad for your idiot guru who was using
it as the time unit. Don't you think, poor
halfbrain?
And dishonest Wozzie projects his incompetence on others:
And then he pivots to a third question:
"Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity adding a part of
Lorentz's ETHER theory? Yes or no"
So it's become quite confusing just which question Wozzie
wants answered.
May be confusing for such an idiot
as you are, Harrie. Sure.
Only such an idiot can believe and repeat such
an absurd lie.
So Wozzie denies that human constructs (like the constancy of the
speed of light) can't be tested against nature? What is the matter
with this demented fool?
He knows the subject, in opposition to you
or your idiot gurus.
But - see: 0 meridian has something in common with both The Shit
of your idiot guru and Lorontz ether theory, after all...
So Wozzie believes that 0 meridian is a fundamental property of
nature, like the speed of light?
Nope, you're just projecting your moronic mania
of fundamental properties of the nature on me.
This moron has gone totally off the rails. Python, call that nurseNOW!
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
barking, insulting and slandering.
But you will do what you can for the glory of your
moronic church - that's what it's training
its doggies for, after all.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 22.06.2024 o 20:47, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
c/2 through the solar system measure as the length of
And why won't you stop your iditic dodging
and answer what are the prediction of the moronic
physics of your moronic guru for my example?
Wozzie "question" was "What does an observer going at
a day?"
Since the observer is not on earth, a "day" is not welldefined.
Too bad for your idiot guru who was using
it as the time unit. Don't you think, poor
halfbrain?
Too bad for dishonest, stupid Wozzie-fool that he can't
articulate an unambiguous question. His dishonesty is
And dishonest Wozzie projects his incompetence on others:
And then he pivots to a third question:Lorentz's ETHER theory? Yes or no"
"Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity adding a part of
So it's become quite confusing just which question Wozziewants answered.
May be confusing for such an idiot
as you are, Harrie. Sure.
But not confusing to an severely autistic "information engineer"
who rejects any information he finds distasteful :-)
So he admits his inability to stick to one topic.
Only such an idiot can believe and repeat suchspeed of light) can't be tested against nature? What is the matter
an absurd lie.
So Wozzie denies that human constructs (like the constancy of the
with this demented fool?
He knows the subject, in opposition to you
or your idiot gurus.
Wozzie doesn't "know" anything.
But - see: 0 meridian has something in common with both The Shitnature, like the speed of light?
of your idiot guru and Lorontz ether theory, after all...
So Wozzie believes that 0 meridian is a fundamental property of
Nope, you're just projecting your moronic mania
of fundamental properties of the nature on me.
So Wozzie admits that his 0 meridian argument was a red herring, a
distraction intended to confuse. This once again underlines his basic dishonesty. Whenever he calls others liars, he is projecting.
This moron has gone totally off the rails. Python, call that nurseNOW!
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Repeating this lie ad infinitum proves the basic dishonesty of this
escapee
from an information (not knowledge) institution.
and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
barking, insulting and slandering.
Wozzie is projecting again, because that is exactly what he does.
But you will do what you can for the glory of your
moronic church - that's what it's training
its doggies for, after all.
Wozzie needs a good dose of The One he just can't let go of:
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
-- Albert Einstein
"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted
with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits”
-- Albert Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -
Albert Einstein
Speaking of the LTE:
"it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the
properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." -- A. Einstein,
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 01:27, gharnagel pisze:
Too bad for dishonest, stupid Wozzie-fool that he can't
articulate an unambiguous question. His dishonesty is
See, trash
- I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
[cut and pasted drivel deleted]
But not confusing to an severely autistic "information engineer"
who rejects any information he finds distasteful :-)
So he admits his inability to stick to one topic.
Wozzie doesn't "know" anything.
Sorry, trash,
So Wozzie admits that his 0 meridian argument was a red herring, a
No, I don't.
Still, 0 meridian has as much in common
with "fundamental properties" as the idiocies
of your insane guru (it is much more reasonable,
though).
that the distraction intended to confuse. This once again
underlines his basic dishonesty. Whenever he calls others
liars, he is projecting.
and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
barking, insulting and slandering.
Wozzie is projecting again, because that is exactly what he does.
Wozzie needs a good dose of The One he just can't let go of:
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks shouldbe.”
-- Albert Einstein
"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot betrusted
with important matters." -- Albert Einstein
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits” -- Albert Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -
Albert Einstein
Speaking of the LTE:
"it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the
properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."
-- A. Einstein,
What is ot isn't clear for an inconsistently
mumbling idiot doesn't have to concern me or
other sane people. Don't you think, poor
halfbrain?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 01:27, gharnagel pisze:
Too bad for dishonest, stupid Wozzie-fool that he can't
articulate an unambiguous question. His dishonesty is
See, trash
I see trash every time Wozzie posts.
- I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Regurgitating bool poop doesn't make it smell any better.
[cut and pasted drivel deleted]
But not confusing to an severely autistic "information engineer"
who rejects any information he finds distasteful :-)
So he admits his inability to stick to one topic.Wozzie doesn't "know" anything.
Sorry, trash,
Yes, Wozzie is sorry trash.
[Lies and trash-talk deleted]
So Wozzie admits that his 0 meridian argument was a red herring, a
No, I don't.
Yes he did.
[Lies and trash-talk deleted].
Still, 0 meridian has as much in common
with "fundamental properties" as the idiocies
of your insane guru (it is much more reasonable,
though).
So a fact (that's information to an autistic engineer), determined
by experiment, is equivalent to a defined thing like meridians.
that the distraction intended to confuse. This once againbe.”
underlines his basic dishonesty. Whenever he calls others
liars, he is projecting.
and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
barking, insulting and slandering.
Wozzie is projecting again, because that is exactly what he does.
Wozzie needs a good dose of The One he just can't let go of:
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should
-- Albert Einstein
And Wozzie's arrogance is that he rejects what is and embraces what he believes should be.
"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot betrusted
with important matters." -- Albert Einstein
Which is why Wozzie can't be trusted.
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits” -- Albert Einstein
And Wozzie has no limits.
Wozzie lies and slanders his way to perdition. He deleted the proof
of the LTE because he is mathematically incompetent.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits” -- Albert Einstein
And Wozzie has no limits.
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
[repetitious nonsense deleted]
Wozzie lies and slanders his way to perdition. He deleted the proof
of the LTE because he is mathematically incompetent.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
And speaking of mathematics - it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce
its oldest part false, as it didn't want to fit
the madness of your idiot guru.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits” -- Albert Einstein
And Wozzie has no limits.
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Wozzie is lying again. Well, maybe he's not lying, he is just
delusional.
[repetitious nonsense deleted]
Wozzie lies and slanders his way to perdition. He deleted the proof
of the LTE because he is mathematically incompetent.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
And speaking of mathematics - it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce
its oldest part false, as it didn't want to fit
the madness of your idiot guru.
Wozzie is accessing his delusions again.
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Maciej Wozniak recrudesced again:
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Wozzie has never, ever done that. He is exceedingly
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 22:52, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak recrudesced again:
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Wozzie has never, ever done that. He is exceedingly
dishonest and dangerously delusional. All he has to
do is show his "proof" and it will be ripped to
shreds, and he knows it. That's why he doesn't show
it. He's so scared he's pooping his pants.
Python, call the nurse now!
Yes, I did.
Pointed directly 2 denying itself predictions of the
physics of your idiot guru,
and some fanatic idiots insulting, lying and
slandering are changing nothing. Sorry,
trash.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 22:52, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak recrudesced again:
dishonest and dangerously delusional. All he has to
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Wozzie has never, ever done that. He is exceedingly
do is show his "proof" and it will be ripped to
shreds, and he knows it. That's why he doesn't show
it. He's so scared he's pooping his pants.
Python, call the nurse now!
Yes, I did.
Blustering isn't a valid proof. All Wozzie has to do is
show his "proof" again or give a link, but he won't do
that because he is lying again.
Pointed directly 2 denying itself predictions of the
physics of your idiot guru,
All he has to do is SHOW it, but he can't because he
isn't competent.
How likely is it that no reputable physicist or
mathematician has refuted or disproven relativity,
but a mathematically-challenged "information engineer"
who denies information has done so?
W dniu 24.06.2024 o 13:45, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 22:52, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak recrudesced again:
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Wozzie has never, ever done that. He is exceedingly
dishonest and dangerously delusional. All he has to
do is show his "proof" and it will be ripped to
shreds, and he knows it. That's why he doesn't show
it. He's so scared he's pooping his pants.
Python, call the nurse now!
Yes, I did.
Blustering isn't a valid proof. All Wozzie has to do is
show his "proof" again or give a link, but he won't do
that because he is lying again.
Pointed directly 2 denying itself predictions of the
physics of your idiot guru,
All he has to do is SHOW it, but he can't because he
isn't competent.
Harrie, poor trash, I've shown it dosens of time
here, last time just some minutes before the
post you were answerring.
How likely is it that no reputable physicist or
mathematician has refuted or disproven relativity,
but a mathematically-challenged "information engineer"
who denies information has done so?
It's 100% likely, because it has happened.
"Reputable" physicists, BTW? A good joke, Harrie.
And what's wrong in "information denying" when the
information is some absurd lie of a bunch of religious
maniacs?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 24.06.2024 o 13:45, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
show his "proof" again or give a link, but he won't do
W dniu 23.06.2024 o 22:52, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak recrudesced again:
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
Wozzie has never, ever done that. He is exceedingly
dishonest and dangerously delusional. All he has to
do is show his "proof" and it will be ripped to
shreds, and he knows it. That's why he doesn't show
it. He's so scared he's pooping his pants.
Python, call the nurse now!
Yes, I did.
Blustering isn't a valid proof. All Wozzie has to do is
that because he is lying again.
isn't competent.Pointed directly 2 denying itself predictions of thephysics of your idiot guru,
All he has to do is SHOW it, but he can't because he
Harrie, poor trash, I've shown it dosens of time
here, last time just some minutes before the
post you were answerring.
There's the record above which goes back to yesterday,
showing that Wozzie is lying again. The record goes
back days and weeks amd months showing that Wozzie has
been lying for at least that long.
What's wrong is that Wozzie is incompetent at deciding
what information is true and what is false.
mathematically-challenged non compos mentis means his
opinions are most untrustworthy.
W dniu 24.06.2024 o 16:50, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Harrie, poor trash, I've shown it dosens of time
here, last time just some minutes before the
post you were answerring.
There's the record above which goes back to yesterday,
showing that Wozzie is lying again. The record goes
back days and weeks amd months showing that Wozzie has
been lying for at least that long.
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
barking, insulting and slandering. But you
will do what you can for the glory of your
moronic church - that's what it's training
its doggies for, after all.
What's wrong is that Wozzie is incompetent
at deciding what information is true and
what is false.
Of course, information from a religious maniac
insisting that Nature Herself was speaking to
him and his idiot gurus and is responsible
for their absurd, inconsistent mumble - is
false.
Being a mathematically-challenged non compos
mentis means his opinions are most untrustworthy.
Maciej Wozniak lied, blustered, insulted and slandered:
W dniu 24.06.2024 o 16:50, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
showing that Wozzie is lying again. The record goes
Harrie, poor trash, I've shown it dosens of time
here, last time just some minutes before the
post you were answerring.
There's the record above which goes back to yesterday,
back days and weeks amd months showing that Wozzie has
been lying for at least that long.
See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
of your idiot guru to be not even consistent
and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
barking, insulting and slandering. But you
will do what you can for the glory of your
moronic church - that's what it's training
its doggies for, after all.
All Wozzie can do is lie, bluster, insult and
slander ad nauseam.
What's wrong is that Wozzie is incompetent
at deciding what information is true and
what is false.
Of course, information from a religious maniac
insisting that Nature Herself was speaking to
him and his idiot gurus and is responsible
for their absurd, inconsistent mumble - is
false.
More lies and blustering, insulting and slander.
Being a mathematically-challenged non compos
mentis means his opinions are most untrustworthy.
Since he didn't answer this charge, his silence
implies consent.
[lies, bluster, insults and slanders deleted]
Maciej Wozniak lied, blustered, insulted and slandered:
[lies, bluster, insults and slanders deleted]
Being a mathematically-challenged non compos mentis who
is a congenital liar in complete denial of reality, his
opinions are totally worthless.
So let's deal with the topic of this thread: space and
spacetime. I find the basic concept of string theory
very compelling: that is, elementary particles are not
points as the standard model posits. In the real world
there is no such thing as a dimensionless point. It's
a very good assumption because the string theory particles
are way smaller than we can detect, but presuming
elementary particles have extension in space is surely
correct, even though strings may not be.
Some of the things that string theory leads to, however,
are very interesting, such as M-theory and branes. The
ekpyrotic theory is one that sets forth a reason why the
big bang happened:
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 18:01, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 20.06.2024 o 15:45, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Just more repetitions and lies. That's all Harrie has.
Posted the proof dosens of times here and will post
it many times more, be sure, trash.
Wozzie is delusional, pretending he has posted "proofs" when
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. You're an incredible
idiot, sure, but you've heard of days, haven't
you?
Einstein was the greatest bungler of all time.
Sooner Arindam's physics gets followed the better.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:20:03 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,568 |