We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

That is a beginning, but you stil lack some understanding.
FYI, and for the innocent kiddies who shouldn't be misled,
there are two kinds of clocks.

1) Clocks that are allowed to run free, as they go,
and are as stable as their operators can make them.
There are hundreds of them in standards labs worldwide.
None of them agree precisely with any of the others.

TAI is determined by averaging the readings of those master clocks,
and UTC is derived from TAI by adding leap seconds.
BIPM and IERS take care of that.
TAI is what it is, as is UTC,
an average, not the reading of any particular clock.

TAI is nothing but a table of corrections to be applied
to the readings of each of those clocks, to obtain TAI.
It is retrospective only.
For each one of those clocks BIPM will say:
you are so many nanoseconds ahead/behind TAI,
and you are drifting with so many nanosecond/day.

The operators of master clocks can thereby estimate
what corrections they should apply to an instantaneous reading
of each clock to know what it says in terms of TAI/UTC.
TAI, being an average of hundreds of independent master clocks,
is an order of magnitude more accurate than each clock separately.

For comparison, if you have a watch, and you know that it is 10 seconds
behind, and that it advances by 0.2 seconds/day, you can convert its
reading a month hence into correct time.
That is how those sea captains of yore navigated,
using three chronometers, with known corrections applied to each.

2) Clocks that are steered.
Using the tricks of the trade you can make a clock advance or retard.
This ability can be used to force a steered clock to read UTC,
by applying and extrapolating the corrections supplied by BIPM.

Standards laboratories will also have steered clocks,
for pratical purposes, such as giving time signals,
synchronising network time, operating power networks, etc.
Steered clocks will show UTC, as well as their operators can make it.

All of this is just practical metrology, no mythological gurus involved.

And again FYI: the GPS system as a whole is steered to UTC.
(so all clocks in all sats)

The one second pulses that you can obtain from a GPS receiver
will indicate UTP, if you count them.
And a great many others have steered clocks too,
taking their time from GPS receivers.
You probably have one, if you have a smartphone.

This is how it works, whether you like it or not,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/29/2023 5:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

That is a beginning, but you stil lack some understanding.
FYI, and for the innocent kiddies who shouldn't be misled,
there are two kinds of clocks.

1) Clocks that are allowed to run free, as they go,
and are as stable as their operators can make them.
There are hundreds of them in standards labs worldwide.
None of them agree precisely with any of the others.

TAI is determined by averaging the readings of those master clocks,
and UTC is derived from TAI by adding leap seconds.
BIPM and IERS take care of that.
TAI is what it is, as is UTC,
an average, not the reading of any particular clock.

TAI is nothing but a table of corrections to be applied
to the readings of each of those clocks, to obtain TAI.
It is retrospective only.
For each one of those clocks BIPM will say:
you are so many nanoseconds ahead/behind TAI,
and you are drifting with so many nanosecond/day.

The operators of master clocks can thereby estimate
what corrections they should apply to an instantaneous reading
of each clock to know what it says in terms of TAI/UTC.
TAI, being an average of hundreds of independent master clocks,
is an order of magnitude more accurate than each clock separately.

For comparison, if you have a watch, and you know that it is 10 seconds behind, and that it advances by 0.2 seconds/day, you can convert its
reading a month hence into correct time.
That is how those sea captains of yore navigated,
using three chronometers, with known corrections applied to each.

2) Clocks that are steered.
Using the tricks of the trade you can make a clock advance or retard.
This ability can be used to force a steered clock to read UTC,
by applying and extrapolating the corrections supplied by BIPM.

Standards laboratories will also have steered clocks,
for pratical purposes, such as giving time signals,
synchronising network time, operating power networks, etc.
Steered clocks will show UTC, as well as their operators can make it.

All of this is just practical metrology, no mythological gurus involved.

And again FYI: the GPS system as a whole is steered to UTC.
(so all clocks in all sats)

The one second pulses that you can obtain from a GPS receiver
will indicate UTP, if you count them.
And a great many others have steered clocks too,
taking their time from GPS receivers.
You probably have one, if you have a smartphone.

This is how it works, whether you like it or not,

Internally GPS system "ticks" GPS time which is a constant fixed offset
from TAI time. However GPS satellites broadcast things like the current
offset from GPS time to UTC, when the next leap second will happen (if
that has been determined) and some other info. Consumer grade GPS
devices will combine these to come up with the current UTC, and from
there into their local time according to timezone and whether summer
time is active. 99.9% of users are more interested in their local legal
time than GPS time, TAI time or even UTC time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 23:36:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

That is a beginning, but you stil lack some understanding.
FYI, and for the innocent kiddies who shouldn't be misled,
there are two kinds of clocks.

For those innocent kiddies - there are 2 kind
od clocks, indeed. Some are real and indicate
t'=t while others are gedanken and confirming
some religious delusions of a bunch of
insane halfbrains.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 01:46:02 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

On 4/29/2023 5:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

That is a beginning, but you stil lack some understanding.
FYI, and for the innocent kiddies who shouldn't be misled,
there are two kinds of clocks.

1) Clocks that are allowed to run free, as they go,
and are as stable as their operators can make them.
There are hundreds of them in standards labs worldwide.
None of them agree precisely with any of the others.

TAI is determined by averaging the readings of those master clocks,
and UTC is derived from TAI by adding leap seconds.
BIPM and IERS take care of that.
TAI is what it is, as is UTC,
an average, not the reading of any particular clock.

TAI is nothing but a table of corrections to be applied
to the readings of each of those clocks, to obtain TAI.
It is retrospective only.
For each one of those clocks BIPM will say:
you are so many nanoseconds ahead/behind TAI,
and you are drifting with so many nanosecond/day.

The operators of master clocks can thereby estimate
what corrections they should apply to an instantaneous reading
of each clock to know what it says in terms of TAI/UTC.
TAI, being an average of hundreds of independent master clocks,
is an order of magnitude more accurate than each clock separately.

For comparison, if you have a watch, and you know that it is 10 seconds behind, and that it advances by 0.2 seconds/day, you can convert its reading a month hence into correct time.
That is how those sea captains of yore navigated,
using three chronometers, with known corrections applied to each.

2) Clocks that are steered.
Using the tricks of the trade you can make a clock advance or retard.
This ability can be used to force a steered clock to read UTC,
by applying and extrapolating the corrections supplied by BIPM.

Standards laboratories will also have steered clocks,
for pratical purposes, such as giving time signals,
synchronising network time, operating power networks, etc.
Steered clocks will show UTC, as well as their operators can make it.

All of this is just practical metrology, no mythological gurus involved.

And again FYI: the GPS system as a whole is steered to UTC.
(so all clocks in all sats)

The one second pulses that you can obtain from a GPS receiver
will indicate UTP, if you count them.
And a great many others have steered clocks too,
taking their time from GPS receivers.
You probably have one, if you have a smartphone.

This is how it works, whether you like it or not,

Internally GPS system "ticks" GPS time which is a constant fixed offset
from TAI time. However GPS satellites broadcast things like the current offset from GPS time to UTC, when the next leap second will happen (if
that has been determined) and some other info. Consumer grade GPS
devices will combine these to come up with the current UTC, and from
there into their local time according to timezone and whether summer
time is active. 99.9% of users are more interested in their local legal
time than GPS time, TAI time or even UTC time.

And they're completely ignoring delusional
"proper time" of your idiot guru.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 23:36:35 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

That is a beginning, but you stil lack some understanding.
FYI, and for the innocent kiddies who shouldn't be misled,
there are two kinds of clocks.

For those innocent kiddies - there are 2 kind
od clocks, indeed. Some are real and indicate
t'=t while others are gedanken and confirming
some religious delusions of a bunch of
insane halfbrains.

It would seem that you never had two clocks of your own.
If you ever had you would know that each clock
has t' equals t with respect to itself, and only with respect to itself.
It will have t' not equals t with respect to any other clock.

It is for professionals to make sense of the observed differences,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 at 10:27:07 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 01:46:02 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

On 4/29/2023 5:36 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

That is a beginning, but you stil lack some understanding.
FYI, and for the innocent kiddies who shouldn't be misled,
there are two kinds of clocks.

1) Clocks that are allowed to run free, as they go,
and are as stable as their operators can make them.
There are hundreds of them in standards labs worldwide.
None of them agree precisely with any of the others.

TAI is determined by averaging the readings of those master clocks,
and UTC is derived from TAI by adding leap seconds.
BIPM and IERS take care of that.
TAI is what it is, as is UTC,
an average, not the reading of any particular clock.

TAI is nothing but a table of corrections to be applied
to the readings of each of those clocks, to obtain TAI.
It is retrospective only.
For each one of those clocks BIPM will say:
you are so many nanoseconds ahead/behind TAI,
and you are drifting with so many nanosecond/day.

The operators of master clocks can thereby estimate
what corrections they should apply to an instantaneous reading
of each clock to know what it says in terms of TAI/UTC.
TAI, being an average of hundreds of independent master clocks,
is an order of magnitude more accurate than each clock separately.

For comparison, if you have a watch, and you know that it is 10 seconds behind, and that it advances by 0.2 seconds/day, you can convert its reading a month hence into correct time.
That is how those sea captains of yore navigated,
using three chronometers, with known corrections applied to each.

2) Clocks that are steered.
Using the tricks of the trade you can make a clock advance or retard. This ability can be used to force a steered clock to read UTC,
by applying and extrapolating the corrections supplied by BIPM.

Standards laboratories will also have steered clocks,
for pratical purposes, such as giving time signals,
synchronising network time, operating power networks, etc.
Steered clocks will show UTC, as well as their operators can make it.

All of this is just practical metrology, no mythological gurus involved.

And again FYI: the GPS system as a whole is steered to UTC.
(so all clocks in all sats)

The one second pulses that you can obtain from a GPS receiver
will indicate UTP, if you count them.
And a great many others have steered clocks too,
taking their time from GPS receivers.
You probably have one, if you have a smartphone.

This is how it works, whether you like it or not,

Internally GPS system "ticks" GPS time which is a constant fixed offset from TAI time. However GPS satellites broadcast things like the current offset from GPS time to UTC, when the next leap second will happen (if that has been determined) and some other info. Consumer grade GPS
devices will combine these to come up with the current UTC, and from there into their local time according to timezone and whether summer
time is active. 99.9% of users are more interested in their local legal time than GPS time, TAI time or even UTC time.

And they're completely ignoring delusional
"proper time" of your idiot guru.

I never understood where you got this delusion of yours from.
Each atomic clock does tick at its own 'proper time',

Why won't you fabricate the same for a pendulum
clock? Bullshit. Clocks tick as they do, no
Great Mystical Essence behind any of them.
And "time" is - no more, no less - an abstract WE're
enforcing on clocks: TAI, UTC, zone times - they are
times.

and that is just what 'proper time' means, in the context of relativity,

Any mad ideology is assigning (or at least trying)
something idiotic to the words "proper", "correct",
"perfect" and alike.
Just like yours.

It would seem that you never had two clocks of your own.
If you ever had you would know that each clock
has t' equals t with respect to itself, and only with respect to itself.

It would seem that you never had two clocks of your own.
If you ever had you would know that (unless one of them
is out of order) they're equal to themself within an accepted
error margin.

It is for professionals to make sense of the observed differences,

Or rather - it is for idiot mysticians to worship ordinary clock
errors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If one atomic clock is moved a distance of 1 light year in 1 billion years, would it show still be synchronized within the limits of its accuracy?

Come to think of it, space navigation and travel must by having specifications for margins of errors in timing.
When did this become significant, because the spacecraft travelling to the moon did not carry atomic clocks.

##############################
Clocks in Space
Atomic Clocks for Space
The Naval Research Laboratory in the 1970s investigated whether atomic clocks would work in space in the TIMATION Program. Like John Harrison in the 18th century, atomic clockmakers had to find ways to miniaturize clocks without sacrificing stability in
a new environment. These clocks are based on the elements rubidium and cesium. Rubidium clocks are smaller and less costly but slightly less accurate than cesium clocks.

Navigation Technology Satellite 2 Engineering Test Model
The Navigation Technology Satellite 2 (NTS-2) was launched in 1977 to test new navigation techniques. The two cesium atomic clocks on board helped to show that satellite navigation based on precise timing was possible. This engineering model was used at
the Naval Research Laboratory for testing the satellite before launch.

https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/satellite-navigation/reliable-global-navigation/improving-satellite-navigation/clocks-space
########################################

How do they synchronize this:

https://kurious.ku.edu.tr/en/news/atomic-clocks-on-space/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.


There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:58:17 PM UTC+5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:19:46 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.

There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

I was following a course on Coursera and the professor mentioned that clocks could be synchronized and stay synchronized if they were synchronized together and moved slowly apart. The professor did not pursue this method of synchronization, but did not

say why.

Let me put the question to ChatGPT.

########
Question:
How slowly would atomic clocks have to be moved apart a distance of 1 light year to continue to by synchronized withing their limits of accuracy?

Answer:
To answer this question, we need to consider the effects of time dilation due to relative motion as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. According to this theory, time appears to pass more slowly for objects that are moving relative to each

other.

In the case of atomic clocks, their timekeeping accuracy is based on the frequency of atomic transitions, which is affected by the local gravitational field and the relative motion of the clock. Specifically, the frequency of the clock will be affected

by the relative motion of the clock with respect to an observer in a different frame of reference. This effect is known as the relativistic Doppler shift.

For two atomic clocks separated by a distance of 1 light-year (which is approximately 9.46 x 10^15 meters), moving apart at a constant velocity, the difference in their relative velocities will cause their timekeeping to become increasingly

desynchronized due to the relativistic Doppler shift. The amount of time dilation depends on the relative velocity between the clocks and the observer.

Assuming a constant relative velocity of 0.1c (where c is the speed of light), and the clocks have the accuracy of the most accurate atomic clock, an optical lattice clock, which can achieve an accuracy of one second in 30 billion years, the clocks

would be desynchronized by approximately one nanosecond per day. Therefore, to keep the clocks synchronized within their limits of accuracy, they would need to be moved apart at a velocity much lower than 0.1c or alternatively, adjusted for the
relativistic effects caused by their relative motion.

#######

in kmh

Answer:

To calculate the exact velocity at which the two atomic clocks could be moved apart while maintaining their synchronization within the limits of accuracy, we need to use the formula for time dilation due to relative velocity:

Δt' = Δt / √(1 - v^2/c^2)

where Δt is the time interval measured by the stationary observer, Δt' is the time interval measured by the moving observer, v is the relative velocity between the two observers, and c is the speed of light.

Solving for v, we get:

v = c * √(1 - (Δt/Δt')^2)

For the most accurate atomic clock, the optical lattice clock, which has an accuracy of one second in 30 billion years, the time interval between ticks is approximately 3.17 x 10^16 seconds. Therefore, if the clocks are to remain synchronized to within
one nanosecond per day, the time interval between ticks of the moving clock would be:

Δt' = Δt + 1 ns/day = Δt + 86400 ns/year = Δt + 3.1536 x 10^13 s/year

Substituting these values into the formula above, we get:

v = c * √(1 - (Δt/Δt')^2) = c * √(1 - (1/3.17 x 10^16)^2)

v ≈ 0.9999999999999964c

where c is the speed of light. This is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.

Converting this to kilometers per hour, we get:

v ≈ 2,999,792.458 km/h

Therefore, the two atomic clocks could be moved apart at a velocity of approximately 2.9998 million kilometers per hour while maintaining their synchronization within the limits of accuracy of the most accurate atomic clock.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:19:46 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.

There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

I was following a course on Coursera and the professor mentioned that clocks could be synchronized and stay synchronized if they were synchronized together and moved slowly apart. The professor did not pursue this method of synchronization, but did not
say why.

Let me put the question to ChatGPT.

########
Question:
How slowly would atomic clocks have to be moved apart a distance of 1 light year to continue to by synchronized withing their limits of accuracy?

Answer:
To answer this question, we need to consider the effects of time dilation due to relative motion as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. According to this theory, time appears to pass more slowly for objects that are moving relative to each
other.

In the case of atomic clocks, their timekeeping accuracy is based on the frequency of atomic transitions, which is affected by the local gravitational field and the relative motion of the clock. Specifically, the frequency of the clock will be affected
by the relative motion of the clock with respect to an observer in a different frame of reference. This effect is known as the relativistic Doppler shift.

For two atomic clocks separated by a distance of 1 light-year (which is approximately 9.46 x 10^15 meters), moving apart at a constant velocity, the difference in their relative velocities will cause their timekeeping to become increasingly
desynchronized due to the relativistic Doppler shift. The amount of time dilation depends on the relative velocity between the clocks and the observer.

Assuming a constant relative velocity of 0.1c (where c is the speed of light), and the clocks have the accuracy of the most accurate atomic clock, an optical lattice clock, which can achieve an accuracy of one second in 30 billion years, the clocks would
be desynchronized by approximately one nanosecond per day. Therefore, to keep the clocks synchronized within their limits of accuracy, they would need to be moved apart at a velocity much lower than 0.1c or alternatively, adjusted for the relativistic
effects caused by their relative motion.
#######

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 12:58:17 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:19:46 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.

There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

I was following a course on Coursera and the professor mentioned that clocks could be synchronized and stay synchronized if they were synchronized together and moved slowly apart.

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:45:41 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 12:58:17 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:19:46 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.

There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

I was following a course on Coursera and the professor mentioned that clocks could be synchronized and stay synchronized if they were synchronized together and moved slowly apart.

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.

Could you expand on this?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

The older you are, the more asinine your arguments are Maciej...

poor halfbrain.

Why did you insert your signature in the middle of your post, Maciej?

Or, even better,
shut up.

You're not in a position where you could ask anyone to shut up Maciej.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",
poor halfbrain.

Or, even better,
shut up.

You're not in a position where you could ask anyone to shut up Maciej.

Fine, poor halfbrain, try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again, poor halfbrain. Or, even better,
shut up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does, poor halfbrain.
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

poor halfbrain.

Why are you signing in the middle of your message here...

Or, even better,
shut up.

You're not in a position where you could ask anyone to shut up Maciej.

Fine,

poor halfbrain,

and there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:18:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Isn't it? What precision do you offer, poor halfbrain?
And do you think it will be enough? For something
like "aging"?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:18:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Isn't it? What precision do you offer,
And do you think it will be enough? For something
like "aging"?

For "aging" of muons it is actually enough.

poor halfbrain.

Nice signature Maciej.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau
that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Putting back your signature in the right place:

poor halfbrain.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:31:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:18:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau >>>>>>>> that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Isn't it? What precision do you offer,
And do you think it will be enough? For something
like "aging"?

For "aging" of muons it is actually enough.

Python, poor halfbrain, your muons don't
"experience" the same environment temperature
or pressure.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:31:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:18:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau >>>>>>>>>> that can be checked in experiment because measured values
will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution. >>>>>>>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Isn't it? What precision do you offer,
And do you think it will be enough? For something
like "aging"?

For "aging" of muons it is actually enough.

Python, your muons don't
"experience" the same environment temperature
or pressure.

Did you really check? Clearly you didn't.

And even if your argument made sense (it does'nt)
whatever are these conditions the result always
matches SR predictions, and not only for muons,
for ALL kind of particles.

No decent mind would invoke a "systematic error"
here. Well, no surprise you do :-)

poor halfbrain

Nice signature Maciej.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:41:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:31:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:18:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau >>>>>>>>>> that can be checked in experiment because measured values >>>>>>>>>> will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution. >>>>>>>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction,
what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Isn't it? What precision do you offer,
And do you think it will be enough? For something
like "aging"?

For "aging" of muons it is actually enough.

Python, your muons don't
"experience" the same environment temperature
or pressure.

Did you really check? Clearly you didn't.

And even if your argument made sense (it does'nt)

Ok, enough kicking the sorry
ass of an idiot troll.
Gehan, the question was for you.
hat is the difference between the "time
dilation" of Einstein worshippers and
classical clock error? Can you tell
anything?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:41:52 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:31:33 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:18:14 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 15:02:28 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:45:21 UTC+2, Python wrote:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 14:30:47 UTC+2, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:

...

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

SR prediction follows a simple distribution : dt = gamma*dtau >>>>>>>>>>>> that can be checked in experiment because measured values >>>>>>>>>>>> will all verify dt = gamma*dtau +/- epsilon

Classical clock errors would follow a Gaussian distribution. >>>>>>>>>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error
As usual - wrong.
Some of them, called "random" would.
Other , called "systematic" wouldn't.

Try again,

A systematic error matching almost perfectly SR prediction, >>>>>>>>>> what kind of miracle is that?

Your moronic religion is calling it "Lorentz's ether",

Nope, you couldn't build GR from LET.

Read your question again, poor halfbrain. Was GR
or SR there?

try again (and fool yourself
again). What is the difference between your time
dilation and classical clock error?

Another one is that an error on clocks measurements wouldn't
match the effect on other physical processes that depend
on duration : cooking an egg, aging, food decay, etc.

Neither your time dilation does,
Cooking an egg is pressure dependent, food decay
or aging - temperature and so on.
Try again. And fool yourself again. As you don't want
to shut up and stop pretending you know something...

Make sure pressure and temperature are the same, it's
not that difficult.

Isn't it? What precision do you offer,
And do you think it will be enough? For something
like "aging"?

For "aging" of muons it is actually enough.

Python, your muons don't
"experience" the same environment temperature
or pressure.

Did you really check? Clearly you didn't.

And even if your argument made sense (it does'nt)

Ok, enough kicking the sorry
ass of an idiot troll.

Right, I'm loosing my time kicking your ass.

You will die as idiot (if not more) than you are now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 04/05/2023 à 15:46, Python a écrit :

You will die as idiot (if not more) than you are now.

En général, les gens qui n'osent pas dire les choses qu'ils ressentent,
et les projettent sur les autres.

Mais bon pour toi, on n'a rien à se reprocher.

L'intelligence et la compréhension des choses, on te les offrait.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:45:41 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 12:58:17 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:19:46 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.

There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

I was following a course on Coursera and the professor mentioned that clocks could be synchronized and stay synchronized if they were synchronized together and moved slowly apart.

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

Different speeds in space give different rates...
Look at the fast moving space ship and its
retarded clock...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 19:26:37 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 4:45:41 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 12:58:17 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:19:46 AM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 05:44:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:15:53 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

We're correcting clocks to make them
indicating t'=t - because we're assuming
that clocks should indicate t'=t.
No other possibility, no word gymnastic
can change that.

Relativistic corrections depend on the relative velocity between the clocks.

If we assume postulates of relativity - we
assume [atomic] clocks are proper. Correct.
Whatever.
If we're assuming clocks should be synchronized
(i.e. indicating t'=t) - our model can't be relativistic.
Our assumptions are violating relativistic
assumptions.

There are no relativistic corrections. According
to The Shit the clocks SHOULD desynchronize.
Yes, it is insane. It was always insane.

I was following a course on Coursera and the professor mentioned that clocks could be synchronized and stay synchronized if they were synchronized together and moved slowly apart.

Gedanken, gedanken, gedanken and gedanken.
Doesn't really matter, however.
Time dilation is some lack of synchronization.
And 100% classical clock error is the same:
lack of synchronization.
What is the difference? Can you tell any?

Different speeds in space give different rates...

Possibly. The Shit is insisting on the same
rates, however.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

It would seem that you never had two clocks of your own.
If you ever had you would know that each clock
has t' equals t with respect to itself, and only with respect to itself.
It will have t' not equals t with respect to any other clock.

This guy did:
https://tinyurl.com/two-clocks111

zoom into the right wrist of the support soldier.

Those are the two most expensive clocks in history - 4 years,
8 million casualties, thousand of square miles of rubble.
Much costlier than the TAI clocks. Did he measure
their synchronicity?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)