Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

W dniu 23.08.2024 o 01:31, gharnagel pisze:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:23:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 19:56, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -

>
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
>

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.

>
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer

>
A lie,

>
No, it's not a lie.  Wozniak is projecting his
own dishonesty.

>
Yes, it is. There is just one observer in the
example.

 If there's only one observer, then there is no
observation of two intervals of time.

Sure there is no observation. Like usually
in a gedanken.
There are still 2 denying themself predictions
of observation derivable in the physics of your
idiot guru. That's because the moronic mumble
of your  idiot guru was not even consistent.