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

On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

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.

 Do you really not understand that to measure time to
a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in?

And they for sure have a very precise definition built
in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
is trying to enforce.
Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?
  >

Are you pretending to be that ignorant, or are you really
that ignorant?
 

>

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.

 I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. :-D

I note with no interest that you lie again,
as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
claim that or anything similar.

 I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
look up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
 

>
 >
 >>
 >>>>>> 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?

 You are making a fool of yourself again.
This is Doppler shift.

This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
is claiming that in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower, not
as running faster.

>

>

>
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.

 You are babbling nonsense.
 I will tell you some facts:
 It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.

True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000 -

 During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.

When you talk to a deeply believing christian  -
everything is confirming the existence of God
for him. The Shit's worshippers are just similar.

SR and GR are never falsified.

Too bad they were not even consistent.

And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.

Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
itself must give 86400.000038575
BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?
I took the number from you without much thinking
yesterday, but it's mistaken too.

 ------------------------
 Physics is all about experimental evidence.

Only such a primitive moron can believe such a naive
bullshit, sorry.

 So when someone say:
"Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
  straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
 Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
and revealed that he is an idiot.

Oppositely, that happens when someone is saying
"Physics is all about experimental evidence."

 

>

>

>
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).
>

 I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..

Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.

 It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.
 

>

>
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.

 I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.

An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
useless, though, and that's  why (anyone can check
that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774  at a satellite.
What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.

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.

 So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? :-D

Even more generally - the only way anything can be
measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
day. I'm sorry, trash.
  >> 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?

 Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?

No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
as usual. So, yes or no?