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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672180 > unrolled thread

Synchronization

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

Contents

  Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:12 +0200
    Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:26 +0000
      Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:37 +0200
        Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:49 +0000
          Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:52 +0200
            Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 14:53 +0000
              Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 16:58 +0200
                Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:04 +0000
                  Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:13 +0200
                    Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:23 +0000
                      Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:30 +0200
                        Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:33 +0000
                          Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 17:36 +0200
                            Re: Synchronization Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 15:58 +0000
                              Re: Synchronization Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 18:13 +0200
    Re: Synchronization The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 10:37 -0700

#672180 — Synchronization

Synchronization is - affecting a clock
with a factor which is not local.
(even relativistic idiots should understand
that the indications of a distant clock
are not local, though I bet some of them
are too stupid even for that).

According to the teachings of the idiot
it shouldn't happen.

In the real world, of course, clocks
are not local devices and they never
were local devices.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#672183

Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
> with a factor which is not local.
> (even relativistic idiots should understand
> that the indications of a distant clock
> are not local, though I bet some of them
> are too stupid even for that).
> 
> According to the teachings of the idiot
> it shouldn't happen.
> 
> In the real world, of course, clocks
> are not local devices and they never
> were local devices.

Maciej,

You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
synchronization.

These are not the same thing.

Of course synchronization is not a local operation.

Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.

An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.

It measures the elapsed time along its own worldline.

Those are two completely different concepts.

Einstein never wrote that clocks are "local" in the sense that they
cannot be synchronized.

Quite the opposite.

His 1905 paper begins by introducing local clocks and immediately asks
how distant local clocks can be synchronized.

That question occupies an entire section of the paper.

So your conclusion

    "According to Einstein ... it shouldn't happen."

is exactly backwards.

Synchronization is not forbidden.

It is defined.

In fact, without a synchronization convention, there is no operational
meaning to statements such as

    "these two distant events happened at the same time."

Your own GPS example depends on this.

GPS works because each satellite carries a local atomic clock, and the
system continuously synchronizes those local clocks to a common time
scale.

The existence of a synchronization procedure does not make the clocks
non-local.

It merely establishes a relation between several local clocks.

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

#672185

On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>> with a factor which is not local.
>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>> that the indications of a distant clock
>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>> are too stupid even for that).
>>
>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>> it shouldn't happen.
>>
>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>> are not local devices and they never
>> were local devices.
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
> synchronization.
> 
> These are not the same thing.
> 
> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
> 
> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
> 
> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
> 
> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.

No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
never was. Since it is synchronized with a
distant clock it is affected by something
distant.

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

#672188

Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>
>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>
>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>> are not local devices and they never
>>> were local devices.
>> 
>> Maciej,
>> 
>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>> synchronization.
>> 
>> These are not the same thing.
>> 
>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>> 
>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>> 
>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>> 
>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
> 
> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
> distant clock it is affected by something
> distant.

Maciej,

You are again conflating two different things.

A clock is a local physical device.

Synchronization is a non-local procedure relating several clocks.

These statements are not contradictory.

Take a quartz wristwatch.

When you set it using a radio time signal, or using GPS, or by looking at
another clock, you certainly use non-local information.

But once it has been set, its mechanism does not suddenly become 
non-local.

Its oscillator, electronics and display remain entirely local.

The fact that a thermostat can receive a weather forecast does not make 
the
thermostat itself a non-local device.

Likewise, the fact that a clock can be synchronized using distant
information does not make the clock itself non-local.

You write:

    "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock it is affected by
    something distant."

Of course.

But "being affected by distant information" does not change the physical
nature of the device.

A GPS receiver is affected by radio signals from satellites.

That does not make the receiver non-local.

An NTP server receives packets from another continent.

That does not make the computer non-local.

Similarly, an atomic clock may periodically receive synchronization
corrections.

Between two corrections, however, it simply evolves according to its own
local oscillator.

That is exactly why GPS specifications distinguish between

    - the local oscillator,

and

    - the synchronization procedure.

You keep trying to merge these into a single concept, but engineering 
never
does.

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

#672190

On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>
>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>
>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>> were local devices.
>>>
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>> synchronization.
>>>
>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>
>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>
>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>
>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>>>
>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>
>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>> distant clock it is affected by something
>> distant.
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> You are again conflating two different things.
> 
> A clock is a local physical device.

Python,
You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
with.
It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
synchronized with a distant clock it is
affected by something distant.

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

#672191

Le 18/08/2026 à 16:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>>> were local devices.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>>> synchronization.
>>>>
>>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>>>>
>>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>>
>>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>>> distant clock it is affected by something
>>> distant.
>> 
>> Maciej,
>> 
>> You are again conflating two different things.
>> 
>> A clock is a local physical device.
> 
> Python,
> You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
> denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
> with.
> It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
> synchronized with a distant clock it is
> affected by something distant.

Maciej,

You keep repeating:

    "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock,
     it is affected by something distant."

Of course.

But that does not make the clock itself a non-local device.

A local device can receive information from elsewhere.

That is completely ordinary.

A GPS receiver is local.

A computer running NTP is local.

A radio-controlled watch is local.

All of them receive information from distant sources.

What makes the device local is that its physical state and dynamics are
defined at its own location.

Synchronization is an interaction or protocol between local devices.

It does not transform those devices into non-local objects.

You are confusing

    "local system"

with

    "isolated system".

Those are not the same thing.

A local clock can be influenced by a distant signal and still remain a
local physical system.

In fact, that is exactly how synchronization works.

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

#672193

On 8/18/2026 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>>>> were local devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>
>>>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>>>
>>>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>>>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>>>> distant clock it is affected by something
>>>> distant.
>>>
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>> You are again conflating two different things.
>>>
>>> A clock is a local physical device.
>>
>> Python,
>> You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
>> denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
>> with.
>> It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
>> synchronized with a distant clock it is
>> affected by something distant.
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> You keep repeating:
> 
>     "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock,
>      it is affected by something distant."
> 
> Of course.
> 
> But that does not make the clock itself a non-local device.

Sorry, poor piece of shit, that DOES make the
clock itself a non-local device.

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

#672196

Le 18/08/2026 à 16:58, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/18/2026 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>>>>> were local devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>>>>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>>>>> distant clock it is affected by something
>>>>> distant.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> You are again conflating two different things.
>>>>
>>>> A clock is a local physical device.
>>>
>>> Python,
>>> You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
>>> denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
>>> with.
>>> It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
>>> synchronized with a distant clock it is
>>> affected by something distant.
>> 
>> Maciej,
>> 
>> You keep repeating:
>> 
>>     "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock,
>>      it is affected by something distant."
>> 
>> Of course.
>> 
>> But that does not make the clock itself a non-local device.
> 
> Sorry, poor piece of shit, that DOES make the
> clock itself a non-local device.

Maciej,

Then your definition of "local" is so broad that it becomes useless.

According to your criterion,

    "a device is non-local if it is affected by information coming from
     somewhere else."

But then:

    - a radio-controlled watch is non-local;

    - a GPS receiver is non-local;

    - an NTP-synchronized computer is non-local;

    - a thermostat receiving a remote setpoint is non-local;

    - a telescope guided by a remote observatory is non-local.

In fact, almost every modern electronic device would become "non-local".

That is not what "local" means in physics.

A local physical system is one whose state evolves according to variables
defined at its own spacetime location.

It may receive signals from elsewhere.

Those signals simply become part of its local state once they arrive.

Synchronization is one such signal exchange.

It is an interaction between local devices.

It does not change the ontological status of the clock itself.

Otherwise, every device connected by a wire, a radio link or an optical
fiber would cease to be a local physical system.

That is clearly not the meaning of locality used anywhere in physics or
engineering.

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

#672198

On 8/18/2026 5:04 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:58, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 8/18/2026 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>>>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>>>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>>>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>>>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>>>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>>>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>>>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>>>>>> were local devices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>>>>>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>>>>>> distant clock it is affected by something
>>>>>> distant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are again conflating two different things.
>>>>>
>>>>> A clock is a local physical device.
>>>>
>>>> Python,
>>>> You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
>>>> denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
>>>> with.
>>>> It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
>>>> synchronized with a distant clock it is
>>>> affected by something distant.
>>>
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>> You keep repeating:
>>>
>>>     "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock,
>>>      it is affected by something distant."
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> But that does not make the clock itself a non-local device.
>>
>> Sorry, poor piece of shit, that DOES make the
>> clock itself a non-local device.
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> Then your definition of "local" is so broad that it becomes useless.
> 
> According to your criterion,
> 
>     "a device is non-local if it is affected by information coming from
>      somewhere else."
> 
> But then:
> 
>     - a radio-controlled watch is non-local;
> 
>     - a GPS receiver is non-local;
> 
>     - an NTP-synchronized computer is non-local;
> 
>     - a thermostat receiving a remote setpoint is non-local;
> 
>     - a telescope guided by a remote observatory is non-local.
> 
> In fact, almost every modern electronic device would become "non-local".
> 
> That is not what "local" means in physics.

That is exactly what "local" means in your moronic
religion. And you will die hard lying.

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

#672200

Le 18/08/2026 à 17:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/18/2026 5:04 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:58, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 8/18/2026 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>>>>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>>>>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>>>>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>>>>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>>>>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>>>>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>>>>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>>>>>>> were local devices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>>>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant clocks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>>>>>>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>>>>>>> distant clock it is affected by something
>>>>>>> distant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are again conflating two different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A clock is a local physical device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Python,
>>>>> You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
>>>>> denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
>>>>> with.
>>>>> It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
>>>>> synchronized with a distant clock it is
>>>>> affected by something distant.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej,
>>>>
>>>> You keep repeating:
>>>>
>>>>     "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock,
>>>>      it is affected by something distant."
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>> But that does not make the clock itself a non-local device.
>>>
>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit, that DOES make the
>>> clock itself a non-local device.
>> 
>> Maciej,
>> 
>> Then your definition of "local" is so broad that it becomes useless.
>> 
>> According to your criterion,
>> 
>>     "a device is non-local if it is affected by information coming from
>>      somewhere else."
>> 
>> But then:
>> 
>>     - a radio-controlled watch is non-local;
>> 
>>     - a GPS receiver is non-local;
>> 
>>     - an NTP-synchronized computer is non-local;
>> 
>>     - a thermostat receiving a remote setpoint is non-local;
>> 
>>     - a telescope guided by a remote observatory is non-local.
>> 
>> In fact, almost every modern electronic device would become "non-local".
>> 
>> That is not what "local" means in physics.
> 
> That is exactly what "local" means in your moronic
> religion. And you will die hard lying.

Maciej,

No.

This is not "my religion".

It is the standard meaning of locality used throughout physics.

A local physical quantity is one whose value is defined at a single
spacetime event.

A local physical device is one whose state evolves according to variables
defined at its own location.

Neither definition requires the device to be isolated from the rest of the
universe.

Otherwise, almost nothing would be local.

An atom interacting with an electromagnetic field would be non-local.

A photodiode receiving light would be non-local.

A voltmeter connected by two wires would be non-local.

A radio receiver would be non-local.

An NTP client would be non-local.

A GPS receiver would be non-local.

A clock receiving an occasional synchronization signal would be non-local.

That is not how the word is used in either physics or engineering.

You are implicitly redefining "local" to mean

    "completely unaffected by anything distant".

That is a different definition.

You are free to introduce it, but then you should state explicitly that 
you
are using a non-standard definition.

Otherwise you end up arguing against a meaning that nobody else is using.

Ironically, synchronization itself demonstrates locality.

The correction is not applied instantaneously.

A signal propagates at finite speed.

Only when that signal reaches the clock does the clock's local state
change.

That is exactly what a local interaction is.

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

#672202

On 8/18/2026 5:23 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 18/08/2026 à 17:13, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 8/18/2026 5:04 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:58, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:53 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:52, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:49 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:37, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On 8/18/2026 4:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 18/08/2026 à 16:12, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
>>>>>>>>>> with a factor which is not local.
>>>>>>>>>> (even relativistic idiots should understand
>>>>>>>>>> that the indications of a distant clock
>>>>>>>>>> are not local, though I bet some of them
>>>>>>>>>> are too stupid even for that).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to the teachings of the idiot
>>>>>>>>>> it shouldn't happen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the real world, of course, clocks
>>>>>>>>>> are not local devices and they never
>>>>>>>>>> were local devices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have now switched from discussing clocks to discussing
>>>>>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These are not the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course synchronization is not a local operation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Synchronization is a procedure relating two or more distant 
>>>>>>>>> clocks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An individual clock, however, is a local physical device.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, poor piece of shit,  it is not, and it
>>>>>>>> never was. Since it is synchronized with a
>>>>>>>> distant clock it is affected by something
>>>>>>>> distant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are again conflating two different things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A clock is a local physical device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Python,
>>>>>> You are again stubbornly rejecting facts
>>>>>> denying the nonsenses you were brainwashed
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>> It is not, and it  never was. Since it is
>>>>>> synchronized with a distant clock it is
>>>>>> affected by something distant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maciej,
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep repeating:
>>>>>
>>>>>     "Since it is synchronized with a distant clock,
>>>>>      it is affected by something distant."
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that does not make the clock itself a non-local device.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, poor piece of shit, that DOES make the
>>>> clock itself a non-local device.
>>>
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>> Then your definition of "local" is so broad that it becomes useless.
>>>
>>> According to your criterion,
>>>
>>>     "a device is non-local if it is affected by information coming from
>>>      somewhere else."
>>>
>>> But then:
>>>
>>>     - a radio-controlled watch is non-local;
>>>
>>>     - a GPS receiver is non-local;
>>>
>>>     - an NTP-synchronized computer is non-local;
>>>
>>>     - a thermostat receiving a remote setpoint is non-local;
>>>
>>>     - a telescope guided by a remote observatory is non-local.
>>>
>>> In fact, almost every modern electronic device would become "non-local".
>>>
>>> That is not what "local" means in physics.
>>
>> That is exactly what "local" means in your moronic
>> religion. And you will die hard lying.
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> No.
> 
> This is not "my religion".
> 
> It is the standard meaning of locality used throughout physics.
> 
> A local physical quantity is one whose value is defined at a single
> spacetime event.
> 
> A local physical device is one whose state evolves according to variables
> defined at its own location.

Right. And the clock's state (a real clock,
of course, not a clock from your moronic
gedankenwelt) evolves according to
the state of a distant clock. It was
always so, and those mad postulates of
your mad, mumbling idiot and his mad,
mumbling  religion were unable to
enforce the opposite.





> 
> Neither definition requires the device to be isolated from the rest of the
> universe.
> 
> Otherwise, almost nothing would be local.
> 
> An atom interacting with an electromagnetic field would be non-local.
> 
> A photodiode receiving light would be non-local.
> 
> A voltmeter connected by two wires would be non-local.
> 
> A radio receiver would be non-local.
> 
> An NTP client would be non-local.
> 
> A GPS receiver would be non-local.
> 
> A clock receiving an occasional synchronization signal would be non-local.
> 
> That is not how the word is used in either physics or engineering.
> 
> You are implicitly redefining "local" to mean
> 
>     "completely unaffected by anything distant".
> 
> That is a different definition.
> 
> You are free to introduce it, but then you should state explicitly that you
> are using a non-standard definition.
> 
> Otherwise you end up arguing against a meaning that nobody else is using.
> 
> Ironically, synchronization itself demonstrates locality.
> 
> The correction is not applied instantaneously.
> 
> A signal propagates at finite speed.
> 
> Only when that signal reaches the clock does the clock's local state
> change.
> 
> That is exactly what a local interaction is.

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

#672203

Maciej,

No.

You have silently changed your claim again.

You now write

    "the clock's state evolves according to the state of a distant clock."

That is not how synchronization systems work.

Take GPS.

Between synchronization updates, the onboard atomic clock evolves entirely
according to its own local oscillator.

It does not continuously "follow" the state of some distant clock.

Occasionally, a correction is computed and transmitted.

That correction propagates at finite speed.

Only when it arrives does the local clock state change.

Between two corrections, the evolution is completely local.

Exactly the same is true for

    - NTP,
    - PTP,
    - radio-controlled clocks,
    - laboratory frequency standards.

In all these systems there is a clear distinction between

    - the local dynamics of the oscillator,

and

    - the synchronization procedure.

You keep merging these two concepts into one.

Engineers do not.

Physicists do not.

GPS specifications do not.

Your criterion also leads to an obvious contradiction.

Suppose synchronization is interrupted.

The clock keeps running.

Its state continues to evolve.

According to what distant clock is it evolving now?

The answer is: none.

It evolves according to its own local oscillator, exactly as before.

Synchronization changes the initial conditions and occasionally applies
corrections.

It does not replace the local dynamics of the clock by the dynamics of a
distant one.

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

#672205

On 8/18/2026 5:33 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
> No.

Python,
yes.

> 
> You have silently changed your claim again.
> 
> You now write
> 
>     "the clock's state evolves according to the state of a distant clock."
> 
> That is not how synchronization systems work.

Yes, poor piece of shit, that is how
synchronization works.

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

#672209

Le 18/08/2026 à 17:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 8/18/2026 5:33 PM, Python wrote:
>> Maciej,
>> 
>> No.
> 
> Python,
> yes.
> 
>> 
>> You have silently changed your claim again.
>> 
>> You now write
>> 
>>     "the clock's state evolves according to the state of a distant clock."
>> 
>> That is not how synchronization systems work.
> 
> Yes, poor piece of shit, that is how
> synchronization works.

Maciej,

If the state of a clock literally evolved according to the state of a
distant clock, then disconnect the synchronization link and the clock
should stop evolving correctly.

It does not.

A GPS clock, an NTP-disciplined oscillator or a radio-controlled clock
continues to run autonomously after synchronization is lost.

Only its accumulated error slowly increases until the next correction.

That is why engineers distinguish

    - the local oscillator,

from

    - the synchronization procedure.

You keep treating them as the same thing.

They are not.

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

#672210

On 8/18/2026 5:58 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 18/08/2026 à 17:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 8/18/2026 5:33 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej,
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Python,
>> yes.
>>
>>>
>>> You have silently changed your claim again.
>>>
>>> You now write
>>>
>>>     "the clock's state evolves according to the state of a distant 
>>> clock."
>>>
>>> That is not how synchronization systems work.
>>
>> Yes, poor piece of shit, that is how
>> synchronization works.
> 
> Maciej,
> 
> If the state of a clock literally evolved according to the state of a
> distant clock, then disconnect the synchronization link and the clock
> should stop evolving correctly.
> 
> It does not.

Yes it does. It's just that with good clocks
it's going to be only slightly incorectly.

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

#672215

=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:
> 
> Synchronization is - affecting a clock
> with a factor which is not local.
> (even relativistic idiots should understand
> that the indications of a distant clock
> are not local, though I bet some of them
> are too stupid even for that).
> 
> According to the teachings of the idiot
> it shouldn't happen.
> 
> In the real world, of course, clocks
> are not local devices and they never
> were local devices.


How do Synchronize two sundials?

-- 
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] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web