Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics

J. J. Lodder wrote:

Random Kasamatsu Guan <atmmsat@sasmtm.jp> wrote:
 

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.
 
????? ???? ????? ?? ? ?????????? ?? ???????
https://%42i%74%43hute.com/vi%44eo/lgGMsNdPNANx

 
It helps even more to understand that the particular definition of any
unit of time is completely irrelevant for any kind of physics. Physical
results cannot depend on it, by definition,

not sure, the results depends on the unit used, as the mm is different
from ms. You mean the mechanics, aka the theory. But indeed, my paper "𝙊𝙣
𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙨 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡" is different then the gravity
of Einstine. My theory is based on the quantum level probability
distribution. Which is correct.