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

On 4/9/2025 10:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
[Sorry fpr personal reply, a misclick]
 > 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! 😂
 >
 >> 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.
Unfortunately, that is not my claim, that is
a derivable from the most basic definition
part of the physics of your idiot guru.
 > 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.
Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
Sane people, on the other hand - can't
use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
check GPS.
 >>> 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.
Sorry,  that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will  you deny?
Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
some  religious maniacs, but it's still
something sane people are not going to allow.
 >
 >>
 >>>>>> 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?
Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
according to it in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower.
Did you really not understand that?
 >>
 >>>
 >>> 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.\
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
 >
 >>
 >> 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.
Paul,  why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
 >
 > Do you find it problematic that the new definition
 > is more precise than the old one?
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
 >
 >
 >> And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
 >> the result will be...
 >
 > What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY  TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
 >
 >>
 >>
 >>> Can you please explain the subject line?
 >>> What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?
Tell me, Paul -  did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all  the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?