Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670534 > unrolled thread

Should we synchronize clocks?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-29 19:45 +0200
    Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Victo Grzeskiewicz <wtoi@cizk.pl> - 2026-03-29 19:36 +0000
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-29 23:40 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Berry Von brandt <yon@daydvyn.de> - 2026-03-29 21:50 +0000
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-31 02:47 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-29 16:12 -0700
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-30 04:34 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 06:29 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Winfield Glöckner <rcd@lc.de> - 2026-03-30 21:06 +0000
      Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:58 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 10:14 +0200
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:14 +0200
            Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 10:05 +0200
              Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-03-31 20:35 +0000
              Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-01 09:41 +0200
                Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-01 10:21 +0200
                  Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 09:56 +0200
                    Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-03 10:08 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Modesto Karameros <dteoo@mmed.gr> - 2026-03-30 21:10 +0000
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-03-30 23:47 +0200
            Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 07:48 +0200
        Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-04-01 19:03 +0000
          Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:41 +0200
            Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-04-06 19:46 +0000
              Re: Should we synchronize clocks? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-08 09:34 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#670534 — Should we synchronize clocks?

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#670535

Maciej Woźniak 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670536

[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 Woźniak 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670537

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670556

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670538

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 Woźniak 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 — it’s a sloppy freshman cheat sheet that equates a
biased pseudorange to a clean geometric distance and calls it an
“explanation.”  

    You literally wrote d_i = c(t_0 - t_i) = v[(x_0-x_i)² + …] 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 — the entire equation is
garbage until you explicitly subtract c·dt from the left side.  
    You claim t_i is the “corrected time of transmission” 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 doesn’t make them disappear.  
    You declare “at least 4 satellites” because of “the fourth variable”
without ever showing the actual system of equations, the linearization,
the iterative least-squares solver, or the geometry matrix. That’s not
rigor — that’s hand-waving dressed up as insight.  
    The triumphant “[Notice that the x’s, y’s and z’s are Cartesian
coordinates.]” is the intellectual equivalent of shouting “water is
wet.” Every real GNSS implementation already uses ECEF Cartesian; you’re
not revealing a secret, you’re 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. That’s not an assumption
— that’s 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 “works in ideal math” as a product. Your version gives zero
incentive for anyone to adopt it — 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 10–50 ns (3–15 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 doesn’t
care about your clean Cartesian fantasy — general relativity, Sagnac
effect, and Earth rotation all demand additional corrections your
“model” treats as optional.

The entire pseudorange-equals-distance equation must be incinerated. The
“corrected t_i” 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 “four satellites.” 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 didn’t invent and still managed to
present incorrectly.

This isn’t an idea — it’s 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670539

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The 'nym-shifting troll, as "Victo Grzeskiewicz", had a rare bright moment:
>> Maciej Woźniak 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670540

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 Woźniak 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670553

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670544

Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
> Maciej Woźniak 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670546

On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>> Maciej Woźniak 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670559

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>> Maciej Woźniak 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670561

On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>>> Maciej Woźniak 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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670575

Le 31/03/2026 à 10:05, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>>>> Maciej Woźniak 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 ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670582

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>>>> Maciej Woźniak 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670584

On 4/1/2026 9:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>>>>> Maciej Woźniak 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).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670627

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 10:21 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> On 4/1/2026 9:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>>>>>> Maciej Woźniak 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670629

On 4/3/2026 9:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 10:21 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 4/1/2026 9:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 10:05 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 3/31/2026 9:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 10:14 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2026 8:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 21:36 schrieb Victo Grzeskiewicz:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Woźniak 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670554

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#670555

> 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* (τ) [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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web