Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 07:58:52 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <1832b7b12c9a5cee$977009$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <vsu6pt$1b2f8$1@dont-email.me> <1raez2z.1no9njg1siqjbiN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <vt0jnj$3rp0m$1@dont-email.me> <1rafosb.bqwqqct3zvaeN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <1rafosb.bqwqqct3zvaeN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 40
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 05:58:53 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2281
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <1834425f6cd84138$278936$1498207$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 2646

W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> Nabor Tzarakov <kzan@zabr.ru> wrote:
> 
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Random Kasamatsu Guan <atmmsat@sasmtm.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That implies knowing solar days exactly. Here more to undrestand
>>>> seconds.
>>>> The mechanics of it.
>>>>
>>>> ????? ???? ????? ?? ? ?????????? ?? ???????
>>>> https://%42i%74%43hute.com/vi%44eo/lgGMsNdPNANx
>>>
>>> It helps even more to understand that the particular definition of any
>>> unit of time is completely irrelevant for any kind of physics. Physical
>>> results cannot depend on it, by definition,
>>
>> not sure, the results depends on the unit used, as the mm is different
>> from ms. You mean the mechanics, aka the theory. But indeed, my paper "??
>> ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????" is different then the
>> gravity of Einstine. My theory is based on the quantum level probability
>> distribution. Which is correct.
> 
> No doubt. However, after doing the unit conversion correctly
> the result should be the same.
> If not, it isn't a physical result,


An incompetent idiot is asserting! As a proof
he can insult and slander the opponent, must
be true.