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.
Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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 insist in using the solar system as a local
clock,
no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.
Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
no problem Woz.
Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
If you insist in using the solar system as a local
clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.
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.
On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
If you insist in using the solar system as a local
clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.
Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.
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.
Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
the second was created
On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/04/2024 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a crit :
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.
If you insist in using the solar system as a local
clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.
Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.
I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet again).
<knolp>
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.
Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.
The rotating earth is a clock, no more and no less.
It was the best
clock anyone in 1905 had, which is why it was used to define the second.
But the earth doesn't create time, or create the second or anything like that, not even before 1960. It's just a clock.
Einstein would have told us that the earth is a clock and it is not
local to the c/2 traveler, so the c/2 traveler would see the earth
rotating too slowly since it is not local. It would cause confusion if
time dilation was unknown and not compensated for, trying to base timed events on observation of the remote earth will cause trouble. That was
part of the motivation for using the Cs-based definition, you don't need
to observe the solar system or be stationary relative to it.
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 4/13/2024 6:44 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/04/2024 à 19:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
If you insist in using the solar system as a local
clock, no problem Woz. Just take your own copy of
the solar system along yourself when moving around.
Woz's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a clock and
time itself. Or he does but doesn't care.
I'll let him out of the killfile long enough to address him on this (yet
again).
<knolp>
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.
Because nobody knew of SR and its time dilation when this definition of
the second was created, and nobody experienced anything moving at a
speed c/2. Galilean/Newtonian time was assumed and a second being
1/86400 earth rotation was expected to be valid everywhere.
Woz has got even that wrong. Days are -not- 86400 seconds long,
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.
Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:16, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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 -
against the proof that they do?
poor stinker, fellow idiot, brainwashed religious maniac
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and slandering
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
[snip screams, idiotic assertions and slanders]
Le 02/10/2024 à 15:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 15:16, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 15:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 02.10.2024 o 14:13, Python pisze:
Le 02/10/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
against the proof that they do?
There is no such "proof".
Le 02/10/2024 à 15:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
poor stinker, fellow idiot, brainwashed religious maniac
screaming "NOOOO!!!", insulting and slandering
Nice signature Wozniak.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 9:25:50 +0000, 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.
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,
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.
Am Mittwoch000002, 02.10.2024 um 11:25 schrieb 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
"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at the beginning of
his plagiarized 1905 paper.
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.
Den 02.10.2024 19:33, skrev 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.
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.
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.
Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:
Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
Le 26/10/2024 à 15:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:
Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
W dniu 26.10.2024 o 15:53, Python pisze:
Le 26/10/2024 à 15:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 26.10.2024 o 14:48, Python pisze:
Le 26/10/2024 à 14:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 58:39:28 |
Calls: | 7,774 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,908 |
Messages: | 5,749,746 |