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

Am Mittwoch000002, 02.10.2024 um 11:25 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

 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.

If you measure the length of the solar day on Earth from a spaceship receeding away with c/2, then you measure signals from- say- sunrise in Greenwich at the 0° meridian for a day.
These signals are measured with onboard clocks.
Since light is assumed to travel with c, the signal originated at t_0=6:00 GMT is received at a time, which is t_x1 later. This depends on the distance x_1, by which the spaceship has receded from Earth at t_1 GMT.
x= c* t hence t_x1 = x_1/ c
A day later on Earth the time at the zero meridian is 6:00 GMT + 1 day.
Then another message is sent to the spaceship, which had moved away with c/2 within that day.
For this signal the same is valid, but with a different distance x_2, since that spaceship is now further away.
The distance from Earth is now x_2 = x_1 + c/2*86400 s.
The time needed to reach the ship is therefore
t_x2 = (x_1 + c/2*86400 s)/c
or:
t_x2 = ( x_1/c + (c/c) * (86400/2)s).
=t_x1 + 43200 s
The length of a day on Earth, if measured from that spaceship is therefore
86400s + 43200 s = 129600 s (in terms of Earth time measures).
Whether the crew upon that spaceship encounters  a difference in the onboard measurements is a possibility, but should be subject to experiments.
TH