Sujet : Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
De : atmmsat (at) *nospam* sasmtm.jp (Random Kasamatsu Guan)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativitySuivi-à : sci.physics.relativityDate : 06. Apr 2025, 16:32:14
Autres entΓͺtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vsu6pt$1b2f8$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
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.
That implies knowing solar days exactly. Here more to undrestand seconds.
The mechanics of it.
π§πππ₯π πͺπππ π‘ππ©ππ₯ ππ π π₯ππ©π’ππ¨π§ππ’π‘ ππ‘ ππ ππ₯πππ
https://%42i%74%43hute.com/vi%44eo/lgGMsNdPNANx
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics ("chronons")