Den 10.04.2025 07:04, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
On 4/9/2025 10:52 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 09.04.2025 12:44, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 09.04.2025 o 11:50, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
>
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.
>
>
And since Einstein used the same definition of second as everybody
else, then it is clear that his physics was inconsistent!
Right?
You are a real master in drawing logical conclusions.
Congratulations! 😂
>
Exactly. Your desperate tries of changing
the subject are no way changing the fact
that the physics of your idiot guru was
not even consistent,
>
The subject was the definition of a second.
Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
between a solar day and a mean solar day.
Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
is simply wrong.
Unfortunately, that is not my claim, that is
a derivable from the most basic definition
part of the physics of your idiot guru.
Why do you lie about something which is so easy to check?
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.
Your blunder was that you didn't know the difference
between a solar day and a mean solar day.
Your claim that there are 86400 seconds in a solar day
is simply wrong.
To sum up:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
>
Einstein could use the old definition.
Modern physicists can not.
Oh, can't they? What a pity :(((
Sane people, on the other hand - can't
use their ideological idiocy, anyone can
check GPS.
Do you really not understand that to measure time to
a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in?
Are you pretending to be that ignorant, or are you really
that ignorant?
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.
>
No it is not, anyone can check GPS, serious
people performing real (not gedanken) measurements
didn't even consider your ideological idiocy.
>
I am not going to quarrel with you.
>
I am telling facts.
There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
The TAI network which is the base of UTC the time zones.
>
These networks could not work with the old definition of second.
Sorry, that is not any fact, that's
a very impudent lie, expected of course from
a relativistic idiot like yourself. But they
surely can't work with your ISo idiocy; if
they tried, they would soon loose the
synchronization - will you deny?
Of course, loosing it would be "proper" for
some religious maniacs, but it's still
something sane people are not going to allow.
I note with interest that you claim the TAI network
consisting of 450 atomic clocks doesn't exist. :-D
I am not going to quarrel about that, but maybe you should
look up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time >
>>
>>>>>> 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,
>>
>> Will he also _see_ a clock of a person on
>> Earth running fast? Is THAT what your
>> beloved Shit is claiming?
>
> Yes! Did you really not understand that?
Another lie, it claims exactly the opposite,
according to it in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower.
Did you really not understand that?
You are making a fool of yourself again.
This is Doppler shift.
You have just revealed that you are so ignorant of elementary
physics that you don't even know what Doppler shift is.
Congratulations. :-D
>
>
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
measure
the proper length of a mean solar day.
>
Some taboo or what?
>
I said obviously!
If it isn't obvious to you you can't be very smart.
>
>
>
The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.
>
Measured by a clock in GPS orbit a mean solar day would be
86400.00003875 seconds.
Experimental verified fact.\
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
You are babbling nonsense.
I will tell you some facts:
It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.htmlAll professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
confirmed that is no question of their validity.
And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
who only tell lies about what is measured.
This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".
After many decades use of the GPS, everything about
GPS is extremely well _measured_.
It is a fact that a sidereal day by a satellite in GPS orbit
is measured to last (1 + 4.4647e-10) longer than when
it is measured with a clock on the geoid.
And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
------------------------
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
So when someone say:
"Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
and revealed that he is an idiot.
>
>
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
>
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Paul, why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.
>
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.
Are you too dumb to understand this obvious fact?
>
>
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
>
What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? :-D
Tell me, Paul - did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?
Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
what the theory is?
I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.
If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
is inconsistent.
Start with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdfand continue with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdfMake my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
to know that his theory is idiotic.
-- Paulhttps://paulba.no/
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
