Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:

Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, 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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
>
>
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
>

 This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.

Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you, poor stinker?