Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:39:40 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 317
Message-ID: <vt8hdk$32q76$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1832b7b12c9a5cee$977009$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <fPdJP.740908$C61.738163@fx03.ams4>
 <18349286ecf68808$1548374$1481196$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <vt5fko$bv3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <1834a086a0b1f662$1078993$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <vt6mcj$1e82r$1@dont-email.me>
 <1834dc9466bbe07f$1079021$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:34:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c89881861b4d5f635ef4ebfd0018a80";
	logging-data="3238118"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/knNRr+WClr8I9bl6VbrEe"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nn6qlZPcNhaBRoosKOpfnMJzeqQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1834dc9466bbe07f$1079021$1494137$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 11133

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.\
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========