Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 9:25:50 +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 -
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.

"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.
Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.
So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.
But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.
All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
experimentally.
This is a sample of the degree of INSANITY that relativists have, and
they are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the lack of means to prove it.
Mental degenerates, who ruined physics for more than a century.
That's why physics IS DISAPPEARING as a science, at an accelerated pace
in the last three decades.
Technology, by the hand of engineering, is taking its place.
Relativists are cornered on the useless fields of cosmology,
astrophysics and MOST of quantum physics and its quarks, neutrinos, etc.
Find out how TMSC is doing without relativity (or nVidia).