Sujet : Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru
De : python (at) *nospam* not-formail.invalid (Python)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 02. Oct 2024, 15:16:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <bbOvLVaszxKOTWdC5gXr85BZuj0@jntp>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Nemo/1.0
Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, 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.
Already answered.
Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.
Not at all. With sensible answers you are too stubborn
and dumb to consider.
[snip screams, idiotic assertions and slanders]
A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru