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

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

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.

Woz has got even that wrong. Days are -not- 86400 seconds long,
ever since Huygens invented the pendulum clock.
(obolishing the sun dial)
Days are 86400 second long only in the mean.
The actual observations of time are of the siderial day of 23h56',
and computed corrections are applied to that
to obtain -mean- solar time.

The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less.

Indeed. Newton's equations of motion naturally lead to the question:
what is this 'time' that occurs in it.
Huygens gave the answer, and Newton took it over.
Time is what the clock says it is --because--
a clock moves in occordance with Newton's laws.
(a nicely circular definition, like all good physcs definitions)

Which object moving in occordance with Newton's laws
is the most suitable clock is only a matter of convinience.
The Jovian moons for example, or the length of the tropical year
will do as well. (but less conveniently so)

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.

Actually the first clocks accurate enough to measure irregularities
in the rotation of the Earth appeared in the 1930s.
(Shortt free pedulum clocks and stabilised quartz clocks, at ~10^-8)

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.

Einstein 1905 took over Huygens' definition,
but he replaced 'moving in accordance with Newton's equations'
by in 'moving in accordance with Maxwell's equations'.
(the bouncing light mirror clock for example) [1]

So the all of the yapping about the rotation of the Earth
is pointless. As of 1905 the rotation of the Earth
was no longer the theoretical basis for the definition of physical time.
(that is, the time as it occurs in Maxwell's equations)

It remained only as a practical definition,
for the time being,

Jan

[1] Note the the time of a so called 'Cesium clock'
is actualy the resonant frequency of standing EM waves cavity.
The Cesium atoms merely serve to stabilise it.