Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of [SR]

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

 Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.
 Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

It does.

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

For SR certainly. For experiments the definition and the
practicality of measuring devices is relevant.
This is why experiments usually use calibrated clocks of
some kind instead of building a full copy of the Solar System.
Such clocks being calibrated according to the current definition
of time, i.e.
- Decades ago against duration of a day
- Now using cesium atoms
Another question, Maciej?

-- poor stinker, poor poor stinker