Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of [SR]

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:32, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 17:16, Python pisze:

Le 31/08/2024 à 17:10, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 31.08.2024 o 16:52, Python pisze:

...

"This question doesn't matter" is a perfectly adequate answer
to a question that actually does not matter in the context

>
Python, [...] the context was - the [...]
[scientists] like you to spelling
the old, valid in 1905 (when [Einstein] lived
[...]) definition of second.
>
Of course, your lie of "doesn't matter" is also
ridiculous. Does [SR] make any numeric
predictions with units?

>
It does.
>

if it does - how can
the definitions of these units irrelevant ?

>
For SR certainly.

 So, [SR] is making predictions like
"the result will be [n] seconds - and
what this second is doesn't matter for it?

Already answered:
For SR certainly. For experiments the definition and the
practicality of measuring devices is relevant.
This is why experiments usually use calibrated clocks of
some kind instead of building a full copy of the Solar System.
Such clocks being calibrated according to the current definition
of time, i.e.
- Decades ago against duration of a day
- Now using cesium atoms

Well, sorry,

I'm sorry too that you are too dumb to understand my answer.

Thus, of course, your hatred for  spelling
that  definition can't be a surprise.

No more hatred than about spelling the definition of kebab.
As a matter of fact I mentioned above two definitions of a second.
No need to provide details, they are public you know?

-- trash, insane crazie

Nice signature !