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

Den 09.04.2025 12:44, skrev Maciej Wozniak:

W dniu 09.04.2025 o 11:50, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>

So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
and mumbled?

>
As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.

 

And since Einstein used the same definition of second as everybody
else, then it is clear that his physics was inconsistent!
Right?
You are a real master in drawing logical conclusions.
Congratulations! :-D

Exactly. Your desperate tries of changing
the subject are no way changing the fact
that the physics of your idiot guru was
not even consistent,

The subject was the definition of a second.
Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
between a solar day and a mean solar day.
Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
is simply wrong.
But you know better now, or don't you?

and your suggestion
that the definition used by physics for
centuries  could no way be the definition
in physics is a pure absurd.

Allow yourself to think when you read the below:
(What i explain is correct in principle, but not in detail)
Whether you use the old or new definition of a second,
there is still 86400 seconds in a solar day.
That's not the difference between the definitions.
But what is precision of the old definition?
The best temperature compensated quart clocks have a precision
in the order of ~ 1e-7. That means that the second can be measured
to be 1.000000 ± 10 μs
A mean solar day could be measured to be 86400 ± 8.64 ms.
In modern physics we need extremely precise clocks, and then
atomic clocks are the only solution. An atomic clock can have
precision up to 1e-18, but let us say it is 1e-15.
That means that it in principle is able to measure the second
within a femto second, and a mean solar day to be 86400 ±86 ps
It would obviously be meaningless to try to calibrate this clock
to a xtal clock which is calibrated to the old definition
to a precision 1e-7.
So we must have a definition of second which is precise
to within 1e-15 or better. And that is the new SI definition.
Any atomic clock has the definition of second built in.
To sum up:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Einstein could use the old definition.
Modern physicists can not.

 

But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
choice.

 No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.

I am not going to quarrel with you.
I am telling facts.
There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
These networks could not work with the old definition of second.

 

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day.

>
If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
in his telescope would see the angular frequency
of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀

>
And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
to you?

>
Yes of course.
The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,

 Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
beloved Shit is claiming?

Yes! Did you really not understand that?
The observer would have to have an extremely powerful telescope, though.
I am beginning to suspect that you are not very smart.

 

>
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
the proper length of a mean solar day.

 Some taboo or what?

I said obviously!
If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.

 

>
The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.

Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
86400.00003875 seconds.
Experimental verified fact.

 Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.

Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?

And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...

What?

 

Can you please explain the subject line?
What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?

Of course you can't,
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/