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

Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:

W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Den 03.04.2025 07:26, skrev 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.

>
You are wrong.
During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.

 Oh, really?

Yes, really. Your ignorance is amazing! :-D
The orbit of the Earth is elliptic so the orbital speed varies.
At perihelion, the speed is highest, and the solar day is longest,
86430 seconds. At aphelion, the speed is slowest and the solar day
will be shortest, 86378 seconds.
The _mean_ solar day is the average of a solar day
through the year. As you know, it is 86400 seconds.
But to find the length of a _mean_ solar day, the varying
length of the solar days had to be measured for a very long time.
This was done at Greenwich. And the pendulum clock
at Greenwich was the "master clock" of the world for
a very long time.

So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
and mumbled?

As 1/86400 of a mean solar day.
In 1967 the definition was changed to the one based
on the Cs atom we have now.
The definition was made such that it still is
86400 seconds in a mean solar day.

The _mean_ solar day is still 86400 seconds
even if the definition of a second has changed.

Which means that the change will have very few consequences
for most people.
But if you need a clock which you can bring anywhere and
still trust it runs at the correct rate, 1 second per second,
an atomic clock ticking out seconds as defined by SR is the obvious
choice.

Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day.

>
If an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun,
then Einstein and Newton would agree that the observer
in his telescope would see the angular frequency
of the Earth Doppler shifted by ~ ω ≈ 1.73⋅ω₀

 And is  it THE RESULT OF MEASUREMENT according
to you?

Yes of course.
The observer will _see_ the Earth spinning fast,
and can measure on his own clock that one rotation lasts:

Newton and Einstein would agree that the moving observer
in the telescope will observe that a mean solar day last
49942 seconds on the observer's clock.
 An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
Or won't you?

Was I possibly wrong when I assumed you were intelligent?

 But what does it predict as the result of
measurement of the length of a solar day?
 

The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
the proper length of a mean solar day.
The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.
---------------------
Can you please explain the subject line?
What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/