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

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:16, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:

Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

>
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.
>
>
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.
>
>
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.

>
Already answered.

>
Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.

 Not at all. With sensible answers

You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that idiotic assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions -  against the proof that
they do?
Come on, poor stinker. You're provided
nothing, and your fellow idiots didn't do
any better.
The mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, it has been proven.
A herd of brainwashed religious maniacs
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and
slandering won't change anything, really.