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

W dniu 15.04.2024 o 13:38, J. J. Lodder pisze:

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,

Lod, poor lying piece of shit, I don't say they are, I
only  say that your idiot guru (and the first generations
of relativistic morons as well) were applying the
definition  of second referring to 1/86400 of a day.
Will you have the impudence to deny?