Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

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 looking at the same
clock, and somehow believes that they should
appear to be running at the same rate.
That is ludicrous since relativity proclaims
that they won't and, furthermore, experiment
demonstrates that they don't.  So Wozniak,
stuck in the 17th century, believing that
time must be universal, is the one who is
"inconsistent" (i.e., wrong).

Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

More proof of Wozniak's insulting and slandering.
And then he whines that he is insulted and
slandered!  (He's not, he just gets a dose of
truth).
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of
dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am
contradicted.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the
tool of the losers." -- Socrates
Wozniak lost the debate a long time ago, but
he still peddles his delusions.