From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Time is what clocks indicate.

If we synchronize clocks - they're
indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.

We can do it - that doesn't have to
be obvious or easy, but that's definitely
something we can manage in most
circumstances (with a good accuracy).

Now should we do it - and make "what
clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or should
we rather give up and obey "Laws of
Nature" announced by a mumbling crazie?
Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't,
but what a magnificient symmetry we
would have instead it.

That is the question. Isn't it?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock synchronization means.

wrong too, you cannot read two clocks same time

We can do it - that doesn't have to be obvious or easy, but that's definitely something we can manage in most circumstances (with a good accuracy).

reading a clock is not accuracy, that's something else

Now should we do it - and make "what clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or
should we rather give up and obey "Laws of Nature" announced by a
mumbling crazie? Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't, but what a magnificient symmetry we would have instead it.

that's still a reading, a gps sat gives. To make it time you have to
subtract to get the interval, hence distance

That is the question. Isn't it?

not sure, try again one more time
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

[I could let you two wannabes continue babbling gibberish nonsense among yourselves; but something in me, watching the blind leading the blind,
has pity on you.]

The 'nym-shifting troll, as "Victo Grzeskiewicz", had a rare bright moment:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

Yes, but that *paraphrasing* of what Einstein wrote it must not be
understood too literally: Time does not change when you adjust a clock.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

That is conceptually the same thing.

If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.

wrong too,

Correct. t' refers to the *proper* time in a different reference frame,
and *by definition* always t' != t (otherwise it would be the same reference frame, at least timewise).

The *adjusted* time is (obviously) NOT the proper time.

you cannot read two clocks same time

[_at the_ same time]

You can, if the clocks send their time to you (put simply). Then you read
them at *your* same time. That is how GNSSs work.

We can do it - that doesn't have to be obvious or easy, but that's
definitely something we can manage in most circumstances (with a good
accuracy).

reading a clock is not accuracy, that's something else

Correct.

Now should we do it - and make "what clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or
should we rather give up and obey "Laws of Nature" announced by a
mumbling crazie? Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't, but what a
magnificient symmetry we would have instead it.

that's still a reading, a gps sat gives.

More or less, yes. The GPS signal contains additional information that is
not addressed by the pre-orbital satellite clock's adjustment, and is
regularly updated.

To make it time

It already *is* a time.

you have to subtract to get the interval, hence distance

The distance is obtained by multiplying the difference between the time of reception t_0 and the corrected time of transmission t_i by the signal speed, c:

d_i = c (t_0 - t_i) = sqrt[(x_0 - x_i)^2 + (y_0 - y_i)^2 + (z_0 - z_i)^2].

A receiver's clock bias is included in t_0, and needs to be determined, too (that is the fourth variable, which is why at least 4 satellites are
required, i.e. i runs at least from 1 to 4).

[Notice that the x's, y's and z's are _Cartesian coordinates_.]
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

That is conceptually the same thing.

fuck off, imbecile. We dont talk to uneducated braindead people.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[I could let you two wannabes continue babbling gibberish nonsense among yourselves; but something in me, watching the blind leading the blind,
has pity on you.]

The 'nym-shifting troll, as "Victo Grzeskiewicz", had a rare bright moment:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

Yes, but that *paraphrasing* of what Einstein wrote it must not be
understood too literally: Time does not change when you adjust a clock.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

That is conceptually the same thing.

If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.

wrong too,

Correct. t' refers to the *proper* time in a different reference frame,
and *by definition* always t' != t (otherwise it would be the same reference frame, at least timewise).

The *adjusted* time is (obviously) NOT the proper time.

you cannot read two clocks same time

[_at the_ same time]

You can, if the clocks send their time to you (put simply). Then you read them at *your* same time. That is how GNSSs work.

We can do it - that doesn't have to be obvious or easy, but that's
definitely something we can manage in most circumstances (with a good
accuracy).

reading a clock is not accuracy, that's something else

Correct.

Now should we do it - and make "what clocks indicate" to be t'=t - or
should we rather give up and obey "Laws of Nature" announced by a
mumbling crazie? Maybe GPS wouldn't work if we didn't, but what a
magnificient symmetry we would have instead it.

that's still a reading, a gps sat gives.

More or less, yes. The GPS signal contains additional information that is not addressed by the pre-orbital satellite clock's adjustment, and is regularly updated.

To make it time

It already *is* a time.

you have to subtract to get the interval, hence distance

The distance is obtained by multiplying the difference between the time of reception t_0 and the corrected time of transmission t_i by the signal speed, c:

d_i = c (t_0 - t_i) = sqrt[(x_0 - x_i)^2 + (y_0 - y_i)^2 + (z_0 - z_i)^2].

A receiver's clock bias is included in t_0, and needs to be determined, too (that is the fourth variable, which is why at least 4 satellites are required, i.e. i runs at least from 1 to 4).

[Notice that the x's, y's and z's are _Cartesian coordinates_.]

This is not GPS math u itAs a sloppy freshman cheat sheet that equates a
biased pseudorange to a clean geometric distance and calls it an
oexplanation.o

You literally wrote d_i = c(t_0 - t_i) = v[(x_0-x_i)# + a] as if the
two sides are equal. They are not. The left side is a pseudorange soaked
in unknown receiver clock bias; the right side is the actual Euclidean distance.
Equating them directly is mathematically false u the entire equation is
garbage until you explicitly subtract c+dt from the left side.
You claim t_i is the ocorrected time of transmissiono and then
pretend the only unknown is receiver bias in t_0. Satellite clock
errors, ephemeris errors, ionospheric delay, tropospheric delay,
relativistic effects, multipath, and antenna phase center offsets are
all magically zero in your universe. Those terms add meters to tens of
meters of error; ignoring them doesnAt make them disappear.
You declare oat least 4 satelliteso because of othe fourth variableo without ever showing the actual system of equations, the linearization,
the iterative least-squares solver, or the geometry matrix. ThatAs not
rigor u thatAs hand-waving dressed up as insight.
The triumphant o[Notice that the xAs, yAs and zAs are Cartesian coordinates.]o is the intellectual equivalent of shouting owater is
wet.o Every real GNSS implementation already uses ECEF Cartesian; youAre
not revealing a secret, youAre just padding the page.


You assume perfect vacuum propagation at exactly c, perfect satellite
ephemeris broadcast with zero error, perfect clock corrections already
applied, infinite measurement precision, and that the receiver magically
knows its own bias before solving for position. ThatAs not an assumption
u thatAs a fairy tale that collapses the instant a real signal hits a
real antenna.

Real satellite operators (GPS, Galileo, BeiDou) publish clock and
ephemeris corrections precisely because they know users will scream
bloody murder at meter-level errors. Real receiver designers spent
decades building iono/tropo models and RAIM because customers refuse to
accept oworks in ideal matho as a product. Your version gives zero
incentive for anyone to adopt it u it would fail FAA certification,
automotive safety standards, and any smartphone benchmark in under ten
seconds.

At even moderate scale (city-wide, let alone global), ionospheric
scintillation alone can swing delays by 10u50 ns (3u15 m) within
seconds. Your equation has no term for that. Geometry matrix condition
number explodes with poor satellite distribution; four satellites can
easily produce DOP > 20 and position errors > 100 m. Physics doesnAt
care about your clean Cartesian fantasy u general relativity, Sagnac
effect, and Earth rotation all demand additional corrections your
omodelo treats as optional.

The entire pseudorange-equals-distance equation must be incinerated. The ocorrected t_io hand-wave must be replaced with explicit broadcast clock polynomial and ephemeris propagation. The missing error budget (iono,
tropo, multipath, relativity) must be modeled or estimated. The solution
method (nonlinear least-squares or extended Kalman filter) must be
written out instead of implied by ofour satellites.o The childish
Cartesian footnote must be deleted forever.

Nothing. Not a single clause survives scrutiny. The 4-satellite minimum
is a well-known textbook fact you didnAt invent and still managed to
present incorrectly.

This isnAt an idea u itAs a half-remembered Wikipedia paragraph
pretending to be original insight, and it dies the instant it meets
reality. Stop. Just stop.


I'm going to throw up...
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

The 'nym-shifting troll, as "Victo Grzeskiewicz", had a rare bright moment:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.

wrong too,

Correct. t' refers to the *proper* time in a different reference frame,
and *by definition* always t' != t (otherwise it would be the same reference frame, at least timewise).

The *adjusted* time is (obviously) NOT the proper time.

Perhaps I should elaborate on that:

It is NOT so that a GPS satellite's (SV's) clock (SC) is synchronized once
or regularly with the Master Clock (MC) at the control segment (CS) in the
U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO), Washington, D.C., and that would be it for
the rest of its lifetime or until the next synchronization. So if *that* is meant by the question in the Subject, it betrays a misconception of how this works. [Otherwise the question would be ridiculous. What would be the alternative to synchronizing clocks? Have everybody use their own time so
that nobody is ever on time according to someone else? *facepalm*]

Instead, before the SC is put onto the SV, and the SV is launched into
orbit, the SC is essentially made to tick a little slower than the MC. So
that when the SC is in orbit, from the ground it appears to tick as fast as
the MC:

,-<https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1#Sec5>
|
| 5 Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
|
| [...] In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on
| the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite
| clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
|
| [1 - 4.4647 * 10^-10] * 10.23 MHz = 10.229999995 43 MHz. ((36))
|
| This adjustment is accomplished on the ground before the clock is placed
| in orbit.

[I think Ashby could not have been more clear there.]

Thus the SC no longer measures the proper time in orbit, but something
similar to the proper time where the MC is. That is equivalent to a little goblin sitting on an *unadjusted* SC and turning it a little bit back every nanosecond so that it does not run too fast for someone on the ground.

And *that* is basically how both remain "synchronized".

Finally, the receiver's clock runs more or less synchronous with the MC (not
as precise, of course; there is this clock bias, and the Sagnac effect
etc.), and so when it obtains the time from the SV, adding the signal travel time (which can be calculated once the SV's transmission position has been calculated from the orbital parameters, and the receiver's position has been calculated using the navigation equations), it essentially obtains the MC's time. That is why GNSSs are so useful not just for geopositioning but also
for timekeeping: no matter where you are (assuming the constellation is a global one, like GPS), you can obtain the time of an atomic clock from a satellite, and that time will essentially be the same time that you would obtain from an atomic clock on the ground.

So *this* "synchronization" is *essential*.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/29/2026 11:40 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[I could let you two wannabes continue babbling gibberish nonsense among yourselves; but something in me, watching the blind leading the blind,
has pity on you.]

The 'nym-shifting troll, as "Victo Grzeskiewicz", had a rare bright moment:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

Yes, but that *paraphrasing* of what Einstein wrote it must not be
understood too literally: Time does not change when you adjust a clock.

Well, wrong. Most of the mumble of the idiot can't be
taken literally, but this one is an exception. And yes,
time does change when you adjust a clock.

Correct. t' refers to the *proper* time in a different reference frame,

And fortunately no serious people take seriously your
opinion of what is proper and what is not.

The *adjusted* time is (obviously) NOT the proper time.

Of course it is, a brainwashed idiot screaming
"IMPROPER!!!!!!" is not changing anything.
UTC is a time, TAI is a time, zone times are times
and GPS time is a time. None of real times is
similar to your gedanken absurd.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created or
read out.

Clocks are machines, that imitate the natural flow of time internally
and make that flow measurable.

But the internal parts of a clock are by no means time or something similar.

If we synchronize clocks - they're indicating t'=t; that's what clock
synchronization means.

wrong too, you cannot read two clocks same time

We have also a delay, if one clock is further away than the other one.

Now Einstein didn't consider the delay and didn't figure it out. But
that would have been necessary, because the transit time of the signal
from the remote clock to the observer follows after the event of reading
the clock, hence would add to that reading.

So, you would need to measure the delay and subtract that value from
your own time or add it to the remote reading, if you wanted to
synchronize clocks.

But Einstein didn't do that. He didn't even mention 'delay' or 'transit
time' or anything similar.

...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created or
read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

braindead kindergarten spammer Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

That is conceptually the same thing.

stop spamming and fuck off, idiot. This cretin dont even know what time
is, let alone doing physics in laboratories.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

But the internal parts of a clock are by no means time or something
similar.

the consecutive intervals reflects time, not clocks nor reading. I guess i talking to another one from gearmony here, the most under developed
country in europe, which without cheap energy from mother Russia, they
suck dicks one on another, calling it work in physics.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thomas Heger wrote:

But the internal parts of a clock are by no means time or something
similar.

Exactly. To claim otherwise would be the same as claiming that if I look at the calendar entry of tomorrow, or the calendar sheet of next month, it *is* suddenly tomorrow/the next month, and I would have traveled forward in time, and then backward in time again after I stopped looking :-D

The difference between *clock time* (NOT: t') and *proper time* (-a) [1] that appears to be so difficult to grasp for some people is that proper time is
what a clock shows/measures *that has NOT been adjusted* (that is why it is *called* "*proper* time" in the first place; the German term is "Eigenzeit" which means "own time"), and *only where it is* (if the observer is
co-moving with the clock and next to it; for example, a watch on the
observer's wrist). [2]

A GNSS's satellite's (at least a GPS satellite's) atomic clock is NOT such a clock: it *has* been adjusted *modified* on the ground in a very specific
way: so that from the ground, it ticks in orbit as fast as it would on the ground, and thus as fast as a master clock on the ground (in the case of
GPS: *the* USNO Master Clock).


[1] There is also *coordinate time* (t, t') which must be distinguished from
the two.
[2] Like coordinate time, proper time is an *affine parameter*:
You can decide at which point in time they are zero, respectively,
as long as you are consistent about it. This is equivalent to measuring
time with a(n unchanged) stopwatch.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The 'nym-shifting troll, as "Berry Von brandt" did not pay attention again:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

That is conceptually the same thing.

fuck off, imbecile. We dont talk to uneducated braindead people.

Braindead people are those who are so stupid that they do not even realize
it when someone makes them a compliment.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/30/2026 11:47 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Thomas Heger wrote:

But the internal parts of a clock are by no means time or something
similar.

Exactly. To claim otherwise would be the same as claiming that if I look at

We're calling "time" things like UTC, TAI, zone times.
They're - literally - "what clocks indicate". And if
we decide to apply a leap second on them - they change.
Really.

We won't stop just because some idiot mysticians feel
the word should be used differently. Sorry.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created or
read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created or
read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.

We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 31/03/2026 |a 10:05, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created or
read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.

We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).

Her ?


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created or
read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.

We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).

Actually the rotation of the Earth was used to define days, hours,
minutes and seconds.

And the Earth isn't an artifact.

Why the Earth rotates and by that particular frequency, that is a
different story. But it's absolutely natural.


TH


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/1/2026 9:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:

Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created
or read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.

We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).

Actually the rotation of the Earth was used to define days, hours,
minutes and seconds.

And the Earth isn't an artifact.

Earth is not an artifact, time is not Earth.
We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 30/03/2026 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..

We have also a delay, if one clock is further away than the other one.

Now Einstein didn't consider the delay and didn't figure it out. But
that would have been necessary, because the transit time of the signal
from the remote clock to the observer follows after the event of reading
the clock, hence would add to that reading.

So, you would need to measure the delay and subtract that value from
your own time or add it to the remote reading, if you wanted to
synchronize clocks.

You are utterly wrong.

This is EXACTLY the point of paragraph 1.1, this is what these equations
are expressing :

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

It has been (in vain) shown and explained to you numerous time.

I even wrote an app to illustrate this point : https://noedge.net/e/

But Einstein didn't do that. He didn't even mention 'delay' or 'transit time' or anything similar.

He didn't mention "delay" for a good reason, that I also tried to explain
to you : as long as clocks are not synchronized it is pointless to talk
about "delays".

For any decent person t_B - t_A (for instance) where t_B is reception time
and t_A is emission time is a kind of "delay". There is no need to mention
it. It is OBVIOUS.

So what *YOU* call delay is embedded in the equation above, and you
miserably failed to understand them. The audience of this paper, and any decent mind is.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 10:21 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 9:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz: >>>>>>> Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created >>>>>> or read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.

We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).

Actually the rotation of the Earth was used to define days, hours,
minutes and seconds.

And the Earth isn't an artifact.

Earth is not an artifact, time is not Earth.
We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.

Hours and seconds are not time, but units for the measuremnt of time.

What time itself actually 'is', that is still debated. But time is
certainly not man made.

You should distinguish between a quantity (here: time) and the
measurement of a quantity and the device to do that (a clock) and the
units used (here: seconds).

These are all different categories and belong to different realms.

Therefore, Einstein's statement, that time is what a clocks says, was
blatant nonsense.

Time is, what clocks measure!

But the measurement and the measured quantities are not the same thing.

Anyhow...

Now we measure time with clocks and need units to express our
measurements in numbers.

This is what e.g. seconds and years are used for.

Timezone are a differen story, too, because they have actually nothing
to do with time, but depend on the local sunrise.
...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/3/2026 9:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 10:21 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 4/1/2026 9:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz: >>>>>>>> Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

Time is what clocks indicate.

no, that's a reading of a time stamp

Time isn't the reading of a clock.

That statement (of Einstein) was hilarious nonsense.

Clocks are man-made devices and time should be understood as a
phenomenon in nature.

And nature is not supposed to care about what humans have created >>>>>>> or read out.

Nature isn't. Time absolutely is.

What you essentially say:
time is an artifact.

I don't agree, because time is a natural phenomenon.

We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.
Physics is calling with this word some mystical
nonsense it was never able to specify (the only
definition it was ever able to make leads to our
times, not her time).

Actually the rotation of the Earth was used to define days, hours,
minutes and seconds.

And the Earth isn't an artifact.

Earth is not an artifact, time is not Earth.
We're calling with this word: TAI, UTC, zone times.
They're artifacts.

Hours and seconds are not time, but units for the measuremnt of time.

What time itself actually 'is', that is still debated. But time is > certainly not man made.

Certainly it is. UTC, TAI, zone times - every of them
is absolutely man made. You may imagine they're not
noble enough to truly deserve the name they have - nobody
cares.
When dealing with real rods (both natural like stick and
artificial) you may invent a concept of a perfect rod.
"Time" of your vision has emerged similarly, and, just like
a perfect rod - it doesn't really exist. Real time is
UTC or TAI or one of zone times or something alike.
Man made.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 21:03 schrieb Python:

Le 30/03/2026 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..

We have also a delay, if one clock is further away than the other one.

Now Einstein didn't consider the delay and didn't figure it out. But
that would have been necessary, because the transit time of the signal
from the remote clock to the observer follows after the event of
reading the clock, hence would add to that reading.

So, you would need to measure the delay and subtract that value from
your own time or add it to the remote reading, if you wanted to
synchronize clocks.

You are utterly wrong.

This is EXACTLY the point of paragraph 1.1, this is what these equations
are expressing :

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

It has been (in vain) shown and explained to you numerous time.

Sure you and others tried to convince me, that Einstein wanted to figure
out the delay and simply forgot to mention that fact, because it would self-evident, anyhow.

But Einstein didn't forgot to mention delay.

Instead he had drawn that ridiculous picture, that the time seen on a
remote clock would the time of the remote clock.

Only: this ain't the case, because after the reading of the remote clock
comes the time needed to transmit the signal.

This very simple fact was ignored by Einstein. Instead he didn't even
mention delay and made no effort whatever to introduce it somehow.

We are therefore obliged to assume, that he didn't want to calculate
that delay and use that value for the correction of the receive image.

That's why we are forced to assume, that that particular equation wasn't
meant to figure out the delay (even if that would haven been possible).

What you do is actually bad science:

you assume, that something should be there (where it isn't) and
hallucinate it's existence, because the existence would be 'obvious'.

Only: that isn't allowed and a text is as it is and not as it should be.


...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 03/04/2026 |a 10:32, Thomas Heger a |-crit :

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 21:03 schrieb Python:

Le 30/03/2026 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..

We have also a delay, if one clock is further away than the other one.

Now Einstein didn't consider the delay and didn't figure it out. But
that would have been necessary, because the transit time of the signal
from the remote clock to the observer follows after the event of
reading the clock, hence would add to that reading.

So, you would need to measure the delay and subtract that value from
your own time or add it to the remote reading, if you wanted to
synchronize clocks.

You are utterly wrong.

This is EXACTLY the point of paragraph 1.1, this is what these equations
are expressing :

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

It has been (in vain) shown and explained to you numerous time.

Sure you and others tried to convince me, that Einstein wanted to figure
out the delay and simply forgot to mention that fact, because it would self-evident, anyhow.

But Einstein didn't forgot to mention delay.

Instead he had drawn that ridiculous picture, that the time seen on a
remote clock would the time of the remote clock.

Only: this ain't the case, because after the reading of the remote clock comes the time needed to transmit the signal.

This very simple fact was ignored by Einstein. Instead he didn't even mention delay and made no effort whatever to introduce it somehow.

We are therefore obliged to assume, that he didn't want to calculate
that delay and use that value for the correction of the receive image.

That's why we are forced to assume, that that particular equation wasn't meant to figure out the delay (even if that would haven been possible).

What you do is actually bad science:

you assume, that something should be there (where it isn't) and
hallucinate it's existence, because the existence would be 'obvious'.

Only: that isn't allowed and a text is as it is and not as it should be.

This is gibberish on you side.

You prentend to have read the paper.

What is, according to you, the meaning of these equations, in the context
of paragraph I.1.

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

Also could you explain why they are there so soon in the article and are referenced later in the very same paper?

Then could you explain why talking about delays is irrelevant and
misleading here?



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Montag000006, 06.04.2026 um 21:46 schrieb Python:

Le 03/04/2026 |a 10:32, Thomas Heger a |-crit :

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 21:03 schrieb Python:

Le 30/03/2026 |a 08:49, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
..

We have also a delay, if one clock is further away than the other one. >>>>
Now Einstein didn't consider the delay and didn't figure it out. But
that would have been necessary, because the transit time of the
signal from the remote clock to the observer follows after the event
of reading the clock, hence would add to that reading.

So, you would need to measure the delay and subtract that value from
your own time or add it to the remote reading, if you wanted to
synchronize clocks.

You are utterly wrong.

This is EXACTLY the point of paragraph 1.1, this is what these
equations are expressing :

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

It has been (in vain) shown and explained to you numerous time.

Sure you and others tried to convince me, that Einstein wanted to
figure out the delay and simply forgot to mention that fact, because
it would self-evident, anyhow.

But Einstein didn't forgot to mention delay.

Instead he had drawn that ridiculous picture, that the time seen on a
remote clock would the time of the remote clock.

Only: this ain't the case, because after the reading of the remote
clock comes the time needed to transmit the signal.

This very simple fact was ignored by Einstein. Instead he didn't even
mention delay and made no effort whatever to introduce it somehow.

We are therefore obliged to assume, that he didn't want to calculate
that delay and use that value for the correction of the receive image.

That's why we are forced to assume, that that particular equation
wasn't meant to figure out the delay (even if that would haven been
possible).

What you do is actually bad science:

you assume, that something should be there (where it isn't) and
hallucinate it's existence, because the existence would be 'obvious'.

Only: that isn't allowed and a text is as it is and not as it should be.

This is gibberish on you side.

You prentend to have read the paper.

What is, according to you, the meaning of these equations, in the
context of paragraph I.1.

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B

I know this equation, of course.

t_A is the time in measures of 'A-time' of the start of a beam at point
'A' and t_B the time of arrival at point 'B'.

There it gets reflected back and reaches A again at the time t'_A.

Since A had a 'A-time' as local time measure and B got 'B-time' as local
time, we have to assume, that t_B is also measured in 'A-time', because otherwise the equation wouldn't make sense.

t_B is also unknown in point A, unless an observer in A could read a
clock in B with a large telescope and the local clocks there would
already use 'A-time'.

Therefore, we need to assume, that A-time and B-time are not
synchronized and run independently at A and B respectively.

That's why you simply cannot know t_B at point A, if the point B is too
far away.

But an observer at point A could assume, that the ray needs the same
amount of time on both ways (back and forth), hence the ray would arrive
at the remote location in the middle between t_A and t'_A.

This assumption is quite plausible, but only if there were no gravity
and A and B would not move in respect to each other.

Supposed that would be the case, you could figure out the delay.

But: you should actually measure the delay and compare that measurement
with the result of your calculation (what Einstein didn't mention).

But even worse:
Einstein had drawn the erroneous picture, that the actual reading of the remote clock would be the remote time.

But that was nonsense, because we actually know, that light has finite velocity, hence after the reading follows the transmission of a signal
from B to A.

Now it would be a logical requirement, that the delay should be compensated.

Best would be to measure the delay and subtract the result from the time
of arrival.

Or: you could also add the delay to the reading of the remote clock, if
you prefer that.

But Einstein didn't do anything like this and took the remote reading as
it is.

2(AB)/(t'_A - t_A) = c

Another issue of Einstein's 'masterpiece' were his silly naming conventions.

Here we have an issue, because 'A' and 'B' were the names of two points.

But you cannot multiply names!

(Actually meant with 'AB' was the distance between A and B.)

Second issue with that equation:

it would require, that A would not move in respect to B (or vice versa), because otherwise the the equation would be wrong.

Third issue:

the equation would require a certain 'environment' without any fields,
media or gravity (what Einstein failed to mention).


...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2