Sujet : Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru
De : python (at) *nospam* not-formail.invalid (Python)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 26. Oct 2024, 14:53:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <lofpFbbsY_RJdhkz0sK_WPCglgs@jntp>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Nemo/1.0
Le 26/10/2024 à 15:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:
Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, 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.
>
>
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.
No.
[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
No.
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru