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

Den 02.10.2024 19:33, skrev rhertz:

 "Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.

In physics "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So whatever "time" is, it is what we measure with clocks.
How do you think Newton measured time?
Note that clocks measure  "proper time".
Coordinate time is not "proper time".

So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.

A second is by _definition_ 1/86400 part of a _mean_ solar day.
(See below')
So what is your point?
A clock which is built to advance a second per second
will obviously always advance 86400 seconds during
a mean solar day. It doesn't matter where it is, or
how fast it moves relative to something.

 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.

Don't be ridiculous. A clock on the geoid would advance
86,400 seconds during a mean solar day, _by definition_!
But no solar day is 86,400 seconds.
At Greenwich they measured the duration of a solar day every day
for a more than a century, and they adjusted the master clock at
Greenwich so that it advanced 86,400 seconds during one _mean_
solar day. THIS WAS THE DEFINITION OF A SECOND.
So it was one single clock in the world which defined the second.
This was very impractical.
So in 1960 SI defined  the second based on the Cs atom.
They obviously defined it so that one second still was equal
to 1/86400 part of a mean solar day.
But now a clock with the right rate can be built anywhere
in the world without having to compare it to the clock
at Greenwich.

 All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
experimentally.

All what?
All you have done so far is to demonstrate your _very_
naive and ridiculous belief of what SR predicts.
You actually believe that according to SR, the motion
of an arbitrary observer somewhere in the universe
will affect the physical rate of all clocks in the universe!
And what's even worse, you believe that all physicists born
after 1900 believe that the motion of an arbitrary
observer will affect all clocks in the universe!
How clueless is it possible to be? :-D
----------------
But of course I understand what phenomenon you have misinterpreted.
It is that clocks at different positions and with relative
speed between them may measure different proper time between two events.
So let's look at an example.
A satellite is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
The satellite orbits in the same direction as the Earth rotates.
A clock on the geoid at equator measure the proper time between
each time the satellite passes overhead to be exactly one
sidereal day.  τ₁ = 86164.0905000 s
(Note that when the satellite passes overhead of the ground clock,
the satellite has made two orbits while the Earth has made one full rotation. So the orbital time of the satellite is half a sidereal day.)
According to GR a clock in the satellite will measure the proper
time between each time it passes over the clock on the ground
to be τ₂ = 86164.0905000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 86164.0905385 s
τ₂-τ₁ = 38.5 μs
This is so thoroughly experimentally verified that it can
be considered a FACT.
You will as always make a fool of yourself by denying facts.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/