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.
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
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,
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,
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,
Can't they? By definition? By WHAT definition, poor trash?
Anyway, they absolutely do. And you're a reality denier, as expected
from a relativistic idiot.
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.
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,
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
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,
Can't they? By definition? By WHAT definition, poor trash?
Anyway, they absolutely do. And you're a reality denier, as expected
from a relativistic idiot.
please be careful, I can see now he is also wrong, but no reason to apply insults. I hate insults.
Time is not about definitions, since it's a
dimension
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 19:17, Benito Grünewald pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
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,
Can't they? By definition? By WHAT definition, poor trash?
Anyway, they absolutely do. And you're a reality denier, as expected
from a relativistic idiot.
please be careful, I can see now he is also wrong, but no reason to
apply insults. I hate insults.
You're a troll on the leash of a piece of shit from Moscow, why would
anyone care what you hate or not.
Time is not about definitions, since it's a dimension
It absolutely is about definitions, since it's a dimension. All
abstracts are about definitions.
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.
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:
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.
D = √((1+v/c)/(1−v/c)).
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.
You are wrong.
During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.
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
An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
Or won't you?
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.
Can you show how you arrive at these numbers?
SR predicts that the Doppler shift is
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 19:17, Benito Grünewald pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
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,
Can't they? By definition? By WHAT definition, poor trash?
Anyway, they absolutely do. And you're a reality denier, as expected
from a relativistic idiot.
please be careful, I can see now he is also wrong, but no reason to
apply insults. I hate insults.
You're a troll on the leash of a piece of shit from Moscow, why would
anyone care what you hate or not.
can't you see the man is german, you stupid polak. Indeed, the gay polakia
is a Russian province. You don't know your history, you indolent polak.
Time is not about definitions, since it's a dimension
It absolutely is about definitions, since it's a dimension. All
abstracts are about definitions.
a dimension is not abstract, you puerile deplorable imbecile.
Den 08.04.2025 07:58, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:
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.
Does this meaningless response of yours mean that you do not
understand that any time unit can be used if physics as long
as it is precisely defined?
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 21:01, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 08.04.2025 07:58, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:
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.
Does this meaningless response of yours mean that you do not
understand that any time unit can be used if physics as long
as it is precisely defined?
1)irrelevant
b)propaganda bullshit.
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
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.
You are wrong.
During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.
Oh, really?
So, how was "second" defined in your moronic
physics in 1905, when your idiot guru lived
and mumbled?
The _mean_ solar day is still 86400 seconds
even if the definition of a second has changed.
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?
Newton and Einstein would agree that the moving observer
in the telescope will observe that a mean solar day last
49942 seconds on the observer's clock.
An intelligent fellow like you will find this obvious.
Or won't you?
But what does it predict as the result of
measurement of the length of a solar day?
Den 09.04.2025 08:27, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 20:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
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.
You are wrong.
During a year a solar day varies between 86378 seconds and
86430 seconds- It is 86400 seconds only twice during a year.
Oh, really?
Yes, really. Your ignorance is amazing! :-D
The orbit of the Earth is elliptic so the orbital speed varies.
At perihelion, the speed is highest, and the solar day is longest,
86430 seconds. At aphelion, the speed is slowest and the solar day
will be shortest, 86378 seconds.
The _mean_ solar day is the average of a solar day
through the year. As you know, it is 86400 seconds.
But to find the length of a _mean_ solar day, the varying
length of the solar days had to be measured for a very long time.
This was done at Greenwich. And the pendulum clock
at Greenwich was the "master clock" of the world for
a very long time.
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.
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.
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,
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not measure
the proper length of a mean solar day.
The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.
Can you please explain the subject line?
What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?
Den 09.04.2025 08:34, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 21:01, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 08.04.2025 07:58, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:
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.
Does this meaningless response of yours mean that you do not
understand that any time unit can be used if physics as long
as it is precisely defined?
You didn't answer the question.
You're a troll on the leash of a piece of shit from Moscow, why would
anyone care what you hate or not.
can't you see the man is german, you stupid polak. Indeed, the gay
polakia is a Russian province. You don't know your history, you
indolent polak.
Time is not about definitions, since it's a dimension
It absolutely is about definitions, since it's a dimension. All
abstracts are about definitions.
a dimension is not abstract, you puerile deplorable imbecile.
Yes, it is.
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.
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,
and your suggestion
that the definition used by physics for
centuries could no way be the definition
in physics is a pure absurd.
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.
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?
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?
The mean solar day will be measured to be 86400 seconds only
by a stationary clock on the geoid.
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
Can you please explain the subject line?
What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
measure
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
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.\
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
What?
Can you please explain the subject line?
What in Einstein paper have you proved inconsistent?
Le 08/04/2025 à 20:22, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
D = √((1+v/c)/(1−v/c)).
This equation is entirely correct theoretically and completely logical experimentally.
What has always amazed me, for several years now, is that I have
remained one of the few to fully trust it, even though the observed
effects can sometimes be frankly counterintuitive.
I remind you, once again, why I remain the best relativistic theorist of
all time (not by my own strength, because I based my work on my
predecessors, and I confirm that the mathematician Henri Poincaré was
the greatest and the true founding father of the theory); I am the only
one who doesn't tremble when writing what he writes:
All the others start to tremble if I ask them how far the Earth is from Stella's spacecraft, when Stella has just made its U-turn, over there,
at Tau Ceti, and is now traveling towards Earth at 0.8c.
W dniu 09.04.2025 o 09:42, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 09.04.2025 08:34, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 21:01, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 08.04.2025 07:58, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
An incompetent idiot is asserting! As a proof
he can insult and slander the opponent, must
be true.
Does this meaningless response of yours mean that you do not
understand that any time unit can be used if physics as long
as it is precisely defined?
You didn't answer the question.
While the question is completely irrelevant
here, yes, I did answer it: what you suggest
is some propaganda bullshit.
Den 09.04.2025 12:31, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 09.04.2025 o 09:42, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 09.04.2025 08:34, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 08.04.2025 o 21:01, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 08.04.2025 07:58, skrev Maciej Wozniak:
An incompetent idiot is asserting! As a proof
he can insult and slander the opponent, must
be true.
Does this meaningless response of yours mean that you do not
understand that any time unit can be used if physics as long
as it is precisely defined?
You didn't answer the question.
Your failure to answer the question makes it clear
that you did not know that any time unit can be used if physics as
long as it is precisely defined.
While the question is completely irrelevant
here, yes, I did answer it: what you suggest
is some propaganda bullshit.
And calling the fact that any time unit can be used in
physics as long as it is precisely defined
Have you heard of something called 'acceleration'?
In flight they use the term 'g-force' as a measure, how fast a pilot
could be accelerated.
Such an u-turn at 0.8 c would require to decelerate to almost zero speed
and accelerate again.
You could try an u-turn at almost light speed, but that isn't
recommended, because turning causes a sideways acceleration (called 'centrifugal force') and pilots cannot withstand more than a few g.
It depends a little upon the radius of your turn. But at 0.8 that radius needed would be rather large.
So deceleration would be mandatory.
Unfortunately that also threatens the health of your crew, if higher
than two or three g.
But the distance to that star should be long enough to safely
accelerated and decelerate.
The main problem is now, that the crew wouldn't live long enough for a
round trip.
...
TH
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
measure
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
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.\
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Paul, why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
Tell me, Paul - did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?
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.
measure
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
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.\
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
You are babbling nonsense.
I will tell you some facts:
It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
------------------------
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
So when someone say:
"Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
and revealed that he is an idiot.
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Paul, why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? :-D
idiotic paper all the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?
Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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?
And they for sure have a very precise definition built
in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
is trying to enforce.
Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?
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 note with no interest that you lie again,
as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
claim that or anything similar.
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.
This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
is claiming that in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower, not
as running faster.
measure
The observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
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.\
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
You are babbling nonsense.
I will tell you some facts:
It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
All professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
confirmed that is no question of their validity.
And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
who only tell lies about what is measured.
This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".
True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
When you talk to a deeply believing christian -
everything is confirming the existence of God
for him.
The Shit's worshippers are just similar.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
Too bad they were not even consistent.
And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
itself must give 86400.000038575
BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?
I took the number from you without much thinking
yesterday, but it's mistaken too.
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
Only such a primitive moron can believe such a naive
bullshit, sorry.
So when someone say:
"Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs."
Then that someone has made a giant fool of himself
and revealed that he is an idiot.
Oppositely, that happens when someone is saying
"Physics is all about experimental evidence.
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Paul, why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.
It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.
An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
useless, though, and that's why (anyone can check
that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774 at a satellite.
What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? :-D
Even more generally - the only way anything can be
measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
day. I'm sorry, trash.
Tell me, Paul - did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?
Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
what the theory is?
I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.
If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
is inconsistent.
Start with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
and continue with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf>
Make my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
to know that his theory is idiotic.
No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
as usual. So, yes or no?
Den 10.04.2025 19:35, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
On 4/10/2025 3:39 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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?
And they for sure have a very precise definition built
in instead that ideological absurd your bunch of idiots
is trying to enforce.
Once again: if they applied your ISO - they wouldn't
indicate t'=t (i.e. wouldn't be synchronized). Do
you get it, or are you too stupid even for that?
ISO ? ROFL
I accept that you don't understand that to measure time
to a precision 1e-15 you must use an atomic clock which
has the very precise definition built in.
I also accept that you don't know that the institution
that has the definitions of units, including the second,
is The International System of Units (SI).
There is but one definition of second:
So whether you like it or not, this is the dentition used by all
who are measuring time in seconds.
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. 😂
I note with no interest that you lie again,
as expected from a relativistic idiot; didn't
claim that or anything similar.
To my statement:
"There are a lot of atomic clocks on ground and in space.
The TAI network which is the base of UTC and the time zones.
These networks could not work with the old definition of second."
You responded:
"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?"
(I suppose ISo should be SI)
So you claim that the TAI network doesn't exist
the atomic clocks surely can't work with your ISo idiocy;
if they tried, they would soon loose the synchronization
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.
This is Doppler shift indeed and The Shit
is claiming that in such circumstances the
clock will be seen as running slower, not
as running faster.
A hint:
an observer is moving at c/2 towards the Sun.
measureThe observer moving at c/2 relative to the Sun can obviously not
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.\
Take your "experimental verified fact" and put it
straight into your dumb, fanatic ass where it belongs.
A measurement is - comparing measured [something]
to the unit. When the unit changes, the measurement
changes too.
You are babbling nonsense.
I will tell you some facts:
It is 120 years since Einstein introduced SR, and 110 years since
he introduced GR.
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
SR and GR are never falsified.
Many hundreds of physicists have been involved in these tests.
Here is some of the experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
All professional physicists know that SR and GR are so well
confirmed that is no question of their validity.
And then an idiot who doesn't even know what Doppler shift is
claims that all the physicist of the last century are frauds
who only tell lies about what is measured.
This idiot must be extremely gullible since he buy
the mindless propaganda of the "relativity-deniers".
True, it's 120 years since the idiot mumbled that
comparing a mean solar day to 1/86400 of itself
must give 86400.000038575 or 90000 or 95000
So the real idiot thinks that Einstein in 1915
mumbled about what the duration of a mean solar
day would be when measured by a GPS satellite? 😂
But to do the actual measurement, it was necessary
to make a more precise definition of a second,
Now, when all that is done, the duration of a mean solar day
measured by a clock in GPS orbit is 86400.000038575 s
as predicted by GR.
-
During more than a century innumerable experiment testing SR and GR
are made, and every one of them have confirmed SR/GR.
When you talk to a deeply believing christian -
everything is confirming the existence of God
for him.
Sure. But why do you think it is relevant?
The Shit's worshippers are just similar.
Does this cryptic statement mean that there are
experiment which have falsified SR/GR?
Too bad they were not even consistent.
In that case I am sure you can name which experiment is inconsistent,
and can explain exactly why.
And then it is easy to understand that a mean solar day would
be measured to last 86400((1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s.
Sure, after some brainwashing it's easy to
understand that x compared to 1/86400 of
itself must give 86400.000038575
😂
BTW, are you sure it is not 86400((1 - 4.4647e-10)s?
Yes. It is 86400(1 + 4.4647e-10)s
so the adjusted clock will measure a mean solar day
to last 86400 s
The fact that this adjustment is necessary prove
Measurement, poor trash, is comparing measured
[something] to the unit. In the physics of your
idiot guru - measuring mean solar day was -
comparing it to its 1/86400.
Quite.
And the result is:
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps.
Paul, why didn't you read what you wrote yourself
just some paragraphs above?
Old definition, a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 8.64 ms.
New definition - a mean solar day is 86400 s ± 86 ps
at Earth, but ~86400.00003875 at a GPS satellite.
And ~99766s in a rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2 (hasn't really been measured, of course,
but let's say I believe what your insane Shit is
saying about that).
I note with interest that even Doppler shift is "insane shit"..
Feel free to believe that, I have a different opinion.
OK. You have changed your mind. Doppler isn't "insane shit".
It seems like you are too stupid to understand how great
fool you are making of yourself.
Do you find it problematic that the new definition
is more precise than the old one?
No, but I find problematic that a bunch of religious
maniacs is lying it is more precise - ignoring
the facts anyone can check at GPS.
I note with interest that you don't know that
an atomic clock is more precise than a clock
calibrated to the old definition.
An atomic clock calibrated to the old definition
is quite precise, indeed. Atomic clocks calibrated
to your ISO idiocy is lacking precision and pretty
useless, though, and that's why (anyone can check
that) GPS clocks are calibrated not to ISO, but to
9192631770 on Earth and ~9192631774 at a satellite.
What matches the old definition and doesn't match ISO.
Thank you for confirming that you don't know that
it would be impossible to make an atomic clock
run to a precision 1e-15 without the new definition
of the second.
BTW, why do you think the ISO standard is relevant to
the definition of a second?
"Atomic clocks calibrated to your ISO idiocy is lacking
precision and pretty useless."
You are very confused, are you not? https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/ISO-date-format.
The institution that defines unit standard is:
And the SR shit of your idiot guru was claiming
the result will be...
What?
~86400.00003875 on a GPS satellite.
~99766 in a gedanken rocket crossing Solar System
with c/2.
That's - repeat - THE RESULT OF COMPARING A
MEAN SOLAR DAY TO 1/86400 OF ITSELF - according
to your insane guru.
So the only way a time can be measured is to compare it to
a mean solar day? 😂
Even more generally - the only way anything can be
measured is to compare it with a declared earlier
reference unit. For the physics of your idiot guru
and a time measurement it was 1/86400 of a mean solar
day. I'm sorry, trash.
So now you don't even try to make sense.
Tell me, Paul - did your idiot guru write in his
idiotic paper all the claims derivable and valid
in his idiotic theory?
Yes or no?
Does that mean that you haven't read Einstein's papers?
How do you know it is an idiot theory if you don't know
what the theory is?
I have read them, though. And I can tell you that
everything I have told you is derivable from Einstein's theory.
If you think there are inconsistencies in Einstein's paper
I suggest you read the papers an point out exactly what
is inconsistent.
Start with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
and continue with this:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf>
Make my day, say that you don't have to read Einstein's shit
to know that his theory is idiotic.
No, it doesn't, you fabricate and slander
as usual. So, yes or no?
Not quite the answer I asked for, but close.
Interesting to know that Einstein's papers are
my fabrications.
I have noted during years that you never ever have made
a sensible statement in your posts.
Le 10/04/2025 à 08:06, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Have you heard of something called 'acceleration'?
In flight they use the term 'g-force' as a measure, how fast a pilot
could be accelerated.
Such an u-turn at 0.8 c would require to decelerate to almost zero
speed and accelerate again.
You could try an u-turn at almost light speed, but that isn't
recommended, because turning causes a sideways acceleration (called
'centrifugal force') and pilots cannot withstand more than a few g.
It depends a little upon the radius of your turn. But at 0.8 that
radius needed would be rather large.
So deceleration would be mandatory.
Unfortunately that also threatens the health of your crew, if higher
than two or three g.
But the distance to that star should be long enough to safely
accelerated and decelerate.
The main problem is now, that the crew wouldn't live long enough for a
round trip.
...
TH
This is a thought experiment, and we assume that the effects of
acceleration are not taken into account (which is also true for the
measured times).
In the classic example of Stella and Terrence, which is world-famous, we assume that d=12al (Tau Ceti),
that v=0.8/c on the outward journey, during the U-turn (tangential
velocity),
and during the return journey.
We assume that the U-turn takes place over a period of 24 hours of
proper time, which corresponds to 40 Earth hours.
I remind you that this is a thought experiment, and not a test of the resistance of human tissue to such accelerations. Now, you absolutely
must fulfill your role as a lucid poster, and it is important that you
ask yourself the right questions, which are: 1. Is it true that Dr.
Richard Hachel is by far the best theorist in the world today, or is he
a pure charlatan? 2. If he is not a charlatan, how does he come to say
that there is a tremendous elasticity of lengths and distances in SR
that physicists themselves have a very poor grasp of? 3. Am I capable of understanding the tremendous intellectual upheaval proposed by Richard,
and of drawing on paper something that even remotely resembles a
dilation of distances of 36 ly when we only talk quickly and very poorly about an opposite contraction of 7.2 ly? Am I capable of understanding
this stroke of genius by Hachel in my self-respecting theoretician's
mind? That's the question.
The effects of acceleration are not part of the issue, and not even from
a measurement perspective (40 hours versus 24 is negligible).
The entire dammed 'twin paradox' should be dropped, because of the
nonsense with the 'u-turn in 24 hours'.
Actually light speed is hard to reach for humans, because a somehow acceptable acceleration of say two g would require a lifetime of acceleration.
Now you would need another lifetime to stop at the far side and yet
another one to accelerate again from there (plus an additional lifetime
to stop again at planet Earth).
TH
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 32:16:50 |
| Calls: | 9,667 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,716 |
| Messages: | 6,168,943 |