Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics

W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Nabor Tzarakov <kzan@zabr.ru> wrote:
 

J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

Random Kasamatsu Guan <atmmsat@sasmtm.jp> wrote:
>

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>

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.

>
That implies knowing solar days exactly. Here more to undrestand
seconds.
The mechanics of it.
>
????? ???? ????? ?? ? ?????????? ?? ???????
https://%42i%74%43hute.com/vi%44eo/lgGMsNdPNANx

>
It helps even more to understand that the particular definition of any
unit of time is completely irrelevant for any kind of physics. Physical
results cannot depend on it, by definition,

>
not sure, the results depends on the unit used, as the mm is different
from ms. You mean the mechanics, aka the theory. But indeed, my paper "??
??? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????" is different then the
gravity of Einstine. My theory is based on the quantum level probability
distribution. Which is correct.

 No doubt. However, after doing the unit conversion correctly
the result should be the same.
If not, it isn't a physical result,

An incompetent idiot is asserting! As a proof
he can insult and slander the opponent, must
be true.