Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:18:24 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: The physics of [SR] still inconsistent
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <17e96d0b4264a738$191733$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <v8vll1$2nkf1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <v8vll1$2nkf1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 34
Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 12:18:23 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 1650
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17e9717a93af7a45$186571$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 1994

W dniu 07.08.2024 o 13:26, Python pisze:
> Le 07/08/2024 à 12:57, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
>> As seen, the definition of second loved so
>> much to be invoked by relativistic [physicists] -
>> wasn't valid in the time when [Albert Einstein]
>> lived and [published]. 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.
> 
> If the observer brings his own co-moving copy of the Solar System he

Physicists of 1905 were idiots, sure,
but not in your scale and their definition
does not include your delusional madness.
It is simple 1/86400 of a [solar] day -
making the mumble of  your idiot guru
not even consistent.
Similarly (thanks for correction) with
the meridian. Sorry, poor stinker.