Discussion:
A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru
(too old to reply)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-26 12:44:58 UTC
Permalink
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.
Python
2024-10-26 12:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by 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.
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.
No.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-26 13:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by 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.
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.
No.
Some fanatic idiots screaming "NO!!!"
can't change anything, the mumble of
their beloved guru was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
Python
2024-10-26 13:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by 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.
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.
No.
[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
No.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-26 14:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by 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.
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.
No.
[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
No.
Some fanatic idiots screaming "NO!!!"
can't change anything, the mumble of
their beloved guru was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
Python
2024-10-26 14:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by 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.
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.
No.
[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
No.
[SR] was not even consistent
and it has been proven.
No.

Loading...