Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of The Shit

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:06:27 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 22.08.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:12:33 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -

>
Proof here that Wozniak is the one who slanders.
>

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.
>
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.

>
Is this supposed to be Wozniak's so-called
"proof" that relativity is "inconsistent?
Wozniak conflates a moving observer with a
stationary observer

>
A lie,

No, it's not a lie.  Wozniak is projecting his
own dishonesty.

as expected from a relativistic idiot in
general and from Harrie especially,

And proof that Wozniak is the one who slanders
and insults.

one observer present here, a moving (wrt
Solar System) one.

Nope.  The moving observer doesn't see two
different results.  There is the moving observer
who sees the 99766 seconds AND the the one on
earth standing right beside the clock who sees
the 86400 seconds (Of course, neither actually
watches for a year, Duh!)
The definition was created by an observer and
that's the way the earth clocks are set.  It
takes an observer on earth to confirm that.
This is the only rational way to look at it.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the
use of reason is like administering medicine
to the dead.” – Thomas Paine