Discussion:
A short proof of the inconsistency of the physics of your idiot guru
(too old to reply)
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-02 09:25:50 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
2024-10-02 12:13:33 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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Already answered.

You argument is pathetically stupid even for you (low) standards.
Python
2024-10-02 13:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Already answered.
Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.
Not at all. With sensible answers you are too stubborn
and dumb to consider.
[snip screams, idiotic assertions and slanders]
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-02 13:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Python
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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Already answered.
Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.
Not at all. With sensible answers
You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that idiotic assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions - against the proof that
they do?

Come on, poor stinker. You're provided
nothing, and your fellow idiots didn't do
any better.

The mumble of your idiot guru was not
even consistent, it has been proven.
A herd of brainwashed religious maniacs
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and
slandering won't change anything, really.
Python
2024-10-02 13:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Already answered.
Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.
Not at all. With sensible answers
You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that [snip slander] assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions -
Yes. Both.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
against the proof that they do?
There is no such "proof".
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker, fellow idiot, brainwashed religious maniac
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and slandering
Nice signature Wozniak.
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-02 14:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Already answered.
Sure - with screaming "NOOOO!!!",
wild, idiotic assertions, insults and
slanders.
Not at all. With sensible answers
You mean that wild concept that "Earth"
must (sic) mean a gedanken copy of Earth
immobile wrt observer?
Or maybe that [snip slander] assertion that the
physics theories can't depend on unit
definitions -
Yes. Both.
Well, both wild, idiotic assertions,
as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
against the proof that they do?
There is no such "proof".
With the definition of second as it was in 1905 -
The Shit of your idiot guru was some self-denying
idiotic mumble; without it/after changing it it
is consistent idiotic mumble. That proves it
does depend on the definition of second.
Richard Hachel
2024-10-02 18:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker, fellow idiot, brainwashed religious maniac
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and slandering
Nice signature Wozniak.
Mais c'est pas vrai, merde!

Bon, au lieu de faire le con avec Maciej et à discuter du sexe des ans
et de l'égalité t'=t,
essaye de te convaincre qu'il y a peut-être mieux à foutre.

J'attends toujours quelque chose de cohérent sur les vitesses apparentes
et l'effet Doppler relativiste,
j'attends des trucs cohérents sur la notion de synchronisation, et sur la
notion de relativité de l'hyperplan de la simultanéité.

Trois choses sur lesquelles tu t'es introduit en prétendant
arbitrairement, et pour des raisons probablement personnelles, donc non
scientifiques, que "le docteur Hachel est un crétin".

Il faut en donner les preuves, mais les preuves cohérentes, et pas les
"machins" approximatifs que personne ne comprend clairement.

R.H.
rhertz
2024-10-02 17:33:51 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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.

Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.

So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.

But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.

All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
experimentally.


This is a sample of the degree of INSANITY that relativists have, and
they are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the lack of means to prove it.

Mental degenerates, who ruined physics for more than a century.

That's why physics IS DISAPPEARING as a science, at an accelerated pace
in the last three decades.

Technology, by the hand of engineering, is taking its place.

Relativists are cornered on the useless fields of cosmology,
astrophysics and MOST of quantum physics and its quarks, neutrinos, etc.


Find out how TMSC is doing without relativity (or nVidia).
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-02 18:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.
Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.
So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.
With the definition of second as it
was when the idiot was living and mumbling
(and as it still is outside their moronic
liturgy) - for sure.
Post by rhertz
But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.
All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
experimentally.
This is a sample of the degree of INSANITY that relativists have, and
they are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the lack of means to prove it.
Mental degenerates, who ruined physics for more than a century.
That's why physics IS DISAPPEARING as a science, at an accelerated pace
in the last three decades.
Technology, by the hand of engineering, is taking its place.
Relativists are cornered on the useless fields of cosmology,
Even relativists are not stupid enough to
treat their idiocies seriously; the models
they really apply have Euclidean space and
a single time. They only pretend.
Paul.B.Andersen
2024-10-03 20:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.
In physics "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
The instrument we use to measure "time" is a "clock" by definition.
So whatever "time" is, it is what we measure with clocks.

How do you think Newton measured time?

Note that clocks measure "proper time".

Coordinate time is not "proper time".
Post by rhertz
So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would dictate
that a day last 86,400 seconds.
A second is by _definition_ 1/86400 part of a _mean_ solar day.
(See below')

So what is your point?

A clock which is built to advance a second per second
will obviously always advance 86400 seconds during
a mean solar day. It doesn't matter where it is, or
how fast it moves relative to something.
Post by rhertz
But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.
Don't be ridiculous. A clock on the geoid would advance
86,400 seconds during a mean solar day, _by definition_!

But no solar day is 86,400 seconds.

At Greenwich they measured the duration of a solar day every day
for a more than a century, and they adjusted the master clock at
Greenwich so that it advanced 86,400 seconds during one _mean_
solar day. THIS WAS THE DEFINITION OF A SECOND.

So it was one single clock in the world which defined the second.
This was very impractical.
So in 1960 SI defined the second based on the Cs atom.
They obviously defined it so that one second still was equal
to 1/86400 part of a mean solar day.

But now a clock with the right rate can be built anywhere
in the world without having to compare it to the clock
at Greenwich.
Post by rhertz
All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
experimentally.
All what?

All you have done so far is to demonstrate your _very_
naive and ridiculous belief of what SR predicts.

You actually believe that according to SR, the motion
of an arbitrary observer somewhere in the universe
will affect the physical rate of all clocks in the universe!

And what's even worse, you believe that all physicists born
after 1900 believe that the motion of an arbitrary
observer will affect all clocks in the universe!

How clueless is it possible to be? :-D

----------------

But of course I understand what phenomenon you have misinterpreted.
It is that clocks at different positions and with relative
speed between them may measure different proper time between two events.

So let's look at an example.

A satellite is in circular orbit in the equatorial plane.
The satellite orbits in the same direction as the Earth rotates.
A clock on the geoid at equator measure the proper time between
each time the satellite passes overhead to be exactly one
sidereal day. τ₁ = 86164.0905000 s

(Note that when the satellite passes overhead of the ground clock,
the satellite has made two orbits while the Earth has made one full
rotation. So the orbital time of the satellite is half a sidereal day.)

According to GR a clock in the satellite will measure the proper
time between each time it passes over the clock on the ground
to be τ₂ = 86164.0905000⋅(1 + 4.4647e-10) s = 86164.0905385 s

τ₂-τ₁ = 38.5 μs

This is so thoroughly experimentally verified that it can
be considered a FACT.

You will as always make a fool of yourself by denying facts.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-03 20:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by rhertz
"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.
In physics "time" must be measurable to have any meaning.
In physics most of the word you mumble
has lost any meaning; including "time".
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-03 20:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So it was one single clock in the world which defined the second.
This was very impractical.
So in 1960 SI defined  the second based on the Cs atom.
And, as anyone can check at GPS - this utter
absurd is even more impractical.

Thomas Heger
2024-10-03 07:00:04 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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
If you measure the length of the solar day on Earth from a spaceship
receeding away with c/2, then you measure signals from- say- sunrise in
Greenwich at the 0° meridian for a day.

These signals are measured with onboard clocks.

Since light is assumed to travel with c, the signal originated at
t_0=6:00 GMT is received at a time, which is t_x1 later. This depends on
the distance x_1, by which the spaceship has receded from Earth at t_1 GMT.

x= c* t hence t_x1 = x_1/ c

A day later on Earth the time at the zero meridian is 6:00 GMT + 1 day.

Then another message is sent to the spaceship, which had moved away with
c/2 within that day.

For this signal the same is valid, but with a different distance x_2,
since that spaceship is now further away.

The distance from Earth is now x_2 = x_1 + c/2*86400 s.

The time needed to reach the ship is therefore

t_x2 = (x_1 + c/2*86400 s)/c

or:

t_x2 = ( x_1/c + (c/c) * (86400/2)s).
=t_x1 + 43200 s

The length of a day on Earth, if measured from that spaceship is therefore

86400s + 43200 s = 129600 s (in terms of Earth time measures).

Whether the crew upon that spaceship encounters a difference in the
onboard measurements is a possibility, but should be subject to experiments.



TH
Maciej Wozniak
2024-10-03 09:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Heger
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.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
If you measure the length of the solar day
I don't. It is not a thread about
measurments of a day - it's a thread
about deriving conclusions from
some idiotic mumble.
Loading...