Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Yes, t'=t in GPS.
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 23:10:13 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vbaibl$3uuc5$7@dont-email.me>
References: <17f1fbbab85d22f9$723822$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <vb9ibg$3qjfp$1@dont-email.me>
 <17f20c8a86a53b3a$878815$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <dee836788560d6e3e1b0e66377fd1a3c@www.novabbs.com>
 <17f21d90cb864747$790913$558427$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <vbacg0$3uuc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <17f22668d84d6e98$891677$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 23:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8d71566ceadf1b6fe05dd5e1564538d";
	logging-data="4159877"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AMCfcKG0NVG/04CJBlk4o"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zPraAciW01bhZz4eMY9uROxwviQ=
In-Reply-To: <17f22668d84d6e98$891677$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5273

Le 04/09/2024 à 23:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 04.09.2024 o 21:30, Python pisze:
>> Le 04/09/2024 à 20:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> W dniu 04.09.2024 o 19:48, gharnagel pisze:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:09:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
>>>>
>>>> St. John the Divine was warning Warped Wozniak, the
>>>> bald-faced liar:
>>>
>>>
>>> St John (fuck his absurd threats anyway) won't
>>> help,  t'=t in GPS,  at least if by t, t' we
>>> mean clock  indications.
>>
>> How such t and t' are clock indications.
> 
> According to the own definition of
> your [Einstein] - time is "what clocks
> indicate",

Don't be lazy, Wozniak, read! "time is "what clocks indicate" is
quite a rough abstract for this:

""""
If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the 
values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear 
carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no 
physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by 
“time.” We have to take into account that all our judgments in which 
time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for 
instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean 
something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 
and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”3

It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the 
definition of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of 
my watch” for “time.” And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when 
we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where 
the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to 
connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what 
comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at 
places remote from the watch.

We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an 
observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the 
co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands 
with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching 
him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage 
that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the 
watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more 
practical determination along the following line of thought.

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can 
determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by 
finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these 
events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all 
respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to 
determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. 
But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect 
of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only 
an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A 
and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by 
definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B 
equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light 
start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$from A towards B, let it at the “B 
time” $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive 
again at A at the “A time” $t'_{\rm A}$.
"""

> and that's what GPS time is.
> I would bet the idiot  repeated it after
> someone wiser, but still.
> 
>>
>> But, most the time, clock indications vary a lot.
> 
> Just not in GPS.

Oh, so event GPS does not shows t'=t anymore, Wozniak? Sad :-)