Re: A quick proof of the inconcistency of the physics of your idiot guru

W dniu 25.06.2024 o 14:05, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 25.06.2024 o 04:01, gharnagel pisze:

>
Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
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.

>
Which is completely irrelevant.
>

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.

>
You didn't refer to that, what obviously
implies you admit. Right, poor halfbrain?

 But I did, so Wozzie lies again.

No you didn't. You did just some absurd slandering,
like usual.  See, trash - I've proven the
moronic mumble of your idiot guru to be
not even consistent and you can do nothing
about it apart of barking, insulting and
slandering. But you  will do what you can
for the glory of your moronic church - that's
what it's training  its doggies for, after all.