Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru

On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:

Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
>
>

 If you insist in using the solar system as a local
clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.

Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.
I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet again).
<knolp>

  Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being 1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.
The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less. It was the best clock anyone in 1905 had, which is why it was used to define the second. But the earth doesn't create time, or create the second or anything like that, not even before 1960. It's just a clock.
Einstein would have told us that the earth is a clock and it is not local to the c/2 traveler, so the c/2 traveler would see the earth rotating too slowly since it is not local. It would cause confusion if time dilation was unknown and not compensated for, trying to base timed events on observation of the remote earth will cause trouble. That was part of the motivation for using the Cs-based definition, you don't need to observe the solar system or be stationary relative to it.
Since Einstein's SR doesn't depend on the definition of a second, and it would be valid on Alpha Centauri where the inhabitants use the glozzyxn as the time unit. SR would work just fine there. And on earth, switching from 1/86400 of a rotation of a space rock to 9192631770 cycles of an atomic transition has zero effect on SR. The only effect would be a tiny difference between the length of 1/86400 space rock rotation and 9192631770 atomic cycles, in part due to the wobbliness of the space rock.
Bye,
<plonk>