Poincare, 1905:

1)If Lobatschewsky’s
geometry is true, the parallax of a very distant star will
be finite. If Riemann’s is true, it will be negative. These
are the results which seem within the reach of experiment, and it is hoped that astronomical observations
may enable us to decide between the three geometries.

2)But what we call a straight line in astronomy is simply
science and hypothesis 84
the path of a ray of light. If, therefore, we were to discover negative parallaxes, or to prove that all parallaxes
are higher than a certain limit, we should have a choice
between two conclusions: we could give up Euclidean
geometry, or modify the laws of optics, and suppose that
light is not rigorously propagated in a straight line. It
is needless to add that every one would look upon this
solution as the more advantageous.

While relativistic idiots were applying 1) to
"show" that the space is not Euclidean - it is
still needless to add that every one would look
upon 2) solution as the more advantageous.

Even relativistic idiots are not stupid enough
to stick to their purely ideological absurd with
some consequence. That's why light paths are
for them simultaneously straight and deflecting.

On 12/28/2023 4:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> That's why light paths are
> for them simultaneously straight and deflecting.
>
You are very, Very, VERY confused, janitor.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 1:30:24 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> Poincare, 1905:
>
> 1)If Lobatschewsky’s
> geometry is true, the parallax of a very distant star will
> be finite. If Riemann’s is true, it will be negative. These
> are the results which seem within the reach of experiment, and it is hoped that astronomical observations
> may enable us to decide between the three geometries.
>
>
> 2)But what we call a straight line in astronomy is simply
> science and hypothesis 84
> the path of a ray of light. If, therefore, we were to discover negative parallaxes, or to prove that all parallaxes
> are higher than a certain limit, we should have a choice
> between two conclusions: we could give up Euclidean
> geometry, or modify the laws of optics, and suppose that
> light is not rigorously propagated in a straight line. It
> is needless to add that every one would look upon this
> solution as the more advantageous.
>
> While relativistic idiots were applying 1) to
> "show" that the space is not Euclidean - it is
> still needless to add that every one would look
> upon 2) solution as the more advantageous.
>
> Even relativistic idiots are not stupid enough
> to stick to their purely ideological absurd with
> some consequence. That's why light paths are
> for them simultaneously straight and deflecting.
It is enough to refute relativistic claims that space is curved to point out this is a reification fallacy and, therefore, nonsense. How can space, which has no mass, be bent by gravity? It cannot.

Volney wrote:

> On 12/28/2023 4:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>> That's why light paths are for them simultaneously straight and
>> deflecting.
>>
> You are very, Very, VERY confused, janitor.

we agree. America is so corrupt, they will never are to be allowed as
member in the 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻, EU. They lie in nasa, 9/11, 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺2
pipelines, 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝘀 and everything. Amazing, if you ask me.

ie, the niki haley, running for president, didn't know the civil war in
america was because of slavery. What an ugly gay, with an elongated face
of a horse.

𝗨𝗦_𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_‘𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘆_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗲𝗮𝗿’𝘀_𝗴𝗶𝗳𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃’_–_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
The latest arms package confirms that Washington wants to fight Russia “to
the last Ukrainian,” a senior diplomat has said
https://r%74.com/russia/589797-ukraine-aid-bloody-gift/

It is true that the US bureaucrats are like incessant gamblers.. The Yanks
are addicted to wars they are bound to lose.

U.S should nuke britain, then blame it on russia and china, and declare
war against these 2 countries. Now, that's a splendid US type of idea !