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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #675448 > unrolled thread

Silly Questions for Silly People.

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

Contents

  Silly Questions for Silly People. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 17:24 +0000
    Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-01 11:40 -0800
      Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-03 01:44 +0000
    Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-01 21:08 +0000
      Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-02 08:03 +0100
      Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-03 04:18 +0000
        Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 10:37 +0000
          Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 12:10 +0100
            Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 11:20 +0000
              Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 12:37 +0100
                Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 11:41 +0000
                  Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 12:48 +0100
                    Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 11:52 +0000
                      Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 12:59 +0100
                        Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:01 +0000
                          Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 13:05 +0100
                            Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:15 +0000
                              Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 13:25 +0100
                                Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 12:35 +0000
                                  Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 14:09 +0100
                                    Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:39 +0000
                                      Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 15:57 +0100
                                        Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 15:28 +0000
                                          Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 16:42 +0100
                                            Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 15:57 +0000
                                              Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 17:24 +0100
                                                Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-11-03 16:42 +0000
                                                  Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-11-03 18:05 +0100
                                                    Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Norbert Kabuzan <zrr@bakkzuob.ru> - 2026-11-03 17:17 +0000
                                                Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Kelly Mahlov <kemov@lllall.ru> - 2026-11-03 16:45 +0000
                                            Re: Silly Questions for Silly People. Jarret Babahanov <bt@nra.ru> - 2026-11-03 17:21 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#675448 — Silly Questions for Silly People.

Two clocks are accurately connected to as 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via 
1000m optical fibres, as in 1. They 'tick', say, once every e9 arriving 
pulses. 
 
1.  	      O============8 (a,b)
Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?

2. One is now moved rapidly to this position:
 a------------O------------b 
Are they still in synch? What if O is also moved?
                b------------O------------a

3. a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff:
a
|
|
|
|
O-----------b

What happens? What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light beam 
sent from b to a??

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#675456

HenryWilson wrote:
> 
> Two clocks are accurately connected to as 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via
> 1000m optical fibres, as in 1. They 'tick', say, once every e9 arriving
> pulses.
> 
> 1.            O============8 (a,b)
> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
> 
> 2. One is now moved rapidly to this position:
>  a------------O------------b
> Are they still in synch? What if O is also moved?
>                 b------------O------------a
> 
> 3. a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff:
> a
> |
> |
> |
> |
> O-----------b
> 
> What happens? What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light beam
> sent from b to a??


where is the silly question???


-- 
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]

#675557

On Sun, 01 Nov 2026 11:40:24 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> HenryWilson wrote:
>> 
>> Two clocks are accurately connected to as 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via
>> 1000m optical fibres, as in 1. They 'tick', say, once every e9 arriving
>> pulses.
>> 
>> 1.            O============8 (a,b)
>> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
>> 
>> 2. One is now moved rapidly to this position:
>>  a------------O------------b
>> Are they still in synch? What if O is also moved?
>>                 b------------O------------a
>> 
>> 3. a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff:
>> a
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> O-----------b
>> 
>> What happens? What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light
>> beam sent from b to a??
> 
> 
> where is the silly question???

The one that attracted the silly answer from the silly indoctrinated 
fellow below.

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

#675460

Le 01/11/2026 à 18:24, HenryWilson a écrit :
> Two clocks are accurately connected to as 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via 
> 1000m optical fibres, as in 1. They 'tick', say, once every e9 arriving 
> pulses. 
>  
> 1.  	      O============8 (a,b)
> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
> 
> 2. One is now moved rapidly to this position:
>  a------------O------------b 
> Are they still in synch? What if O is also moved?
>                 b------------O------------a
> 
> 3. a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff:
> a
> |
> |
> |
> |
> O-----------b
> 
> What happens? What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light beam 
> sent from b to a? ? 

Ralph,

The problem already starts at step 1.

> Two clocks are accurately connected to a 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via
> 1000m optical fibres [...]
> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?

No.

A common oscillator does not magically provide "absolute
synchronisation".

The signal takes a finite time to propagate through each fibre.

If the two fibres have equal propagation delays, and the clocks are
configured identically, you can arrange for the clocks to have equal
readings in a specified frame.

But that is already a synchronization procedure, not a demonstration
of absolute simultaneity.

Then:

> One is now moved rapidly [...]

Now you have changed the worldline of one clock.

According to SR, after transport its elapsed proper time will in
general differ from that of the clock which remained at rest.

This is experimentally testable clock comparison, not philosophy.

And:

> a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff

Now you have introduced a gravitational potential difference as well.

Again, two sufficiently accurate clocks at different heights will not
accumulate the same elapsed proper time.

Finally:

> What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light beam
> sent from b to a? ? 

Before calculating anything you must specify:

    which observer measures the speed?
    which clocks provide the emission and reception times?
    how are those clocks synchronized?
    how is the distance measured?

A one-way speed cannot be obtained merely by writing

    distance / (reading of remote clock - reading of local clock)

while leaving the synchronization of those remote clocks undefined.

So your apparatus does not reveal "absolute synch".

It demonstrates why synchronization has to be specified in the first
place.

And moving the oscillator O around doesn't rescue it: a 1 GHz
oscillator connected through fibres is a physical signal-distribution
system, not God's universal time socket.

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

#675478

On 11/1/2026 10:08 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 01/11/2026 à 18:24, HenryWilson a écrit :
>> Two clocks are accurately connected to as 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator 
>> via 1000m optical fibres, as in 1. They 'tick', say, once every e9 
>> arriving pulses.
>> 1.            O============8 (a,b)
>> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
>>
>> 2. One is now moved rapidly to this position:
>>  a------------O------------b Are they still in synch? What if O is 
>> also moved?
>>                 b------------O------------a
>>
>> 3. a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff:
>> a
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> O-----------b
>>
>> What happens? What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light 
>> beam sent from b to a? ? 
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> The problem already starts at step 1.
> 
>> Two clocks are accurately connected to a 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via
>> 1000m optical fibres [...]
>> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
> 
> No.
> 
> A common oscillator does not magically provide "absolute
> synchronisation".

But a "perfect" one does.



> 
> The signal takes a finite time to propagate through each fibre.
> 
> If the two fibres have equal propagation delays, and the clocks are
> configured identically, you can arrange for the clocks to have equal
> readings in a specified frame.
> 
> But that is already a synchronization procedure, not a demonstration
> of absolute simultaneity.
> 
> Then:
> 
>> One is now moved rapidly [...]
> 
> Now you have changed the worldline of one clock.
> 
> According to SR, after transport its elapsed proper time will in
> general differ from that of the clock which remained at rest.
> 
> This is experimentally testable clock comparison

And when it fails - clocks will simply
become improper, poor piece of shit.

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

#675561

On Sun, 01 Nov 26 21:08:59 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 01/11/2026 à 18:24, HenryWilson a écrit :
>> Two clocks are accurately connected to as 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via
>> 1000m optical fibres, as in 1. They 'tick', say, once every e9 arriving
>> pulses.
>>  
>> 1.  	      O============8 (a,b)
>> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
>> 
>> 2. One is now moved rapidly to this position:
>>  a------------O------------b
>> Are they still in synch? What if O is also moved?
>>                 b------------O------------a
>> 
>> 3. a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff:
>> a
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> O-----------b
>> 
>> What happens? What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light
>> beam sent from b to a? ?
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> The problem already starts at step 1.
> 
>> Two clocks are accurately connected to a 'perfect' 1GHz oscillator via
>> 1000m optical fibres [...]
>> Can they be assumed to be in absolute synch?
> 
> No.
> 
> A common oscillator does not magically provide "absolute
> synchronisation".
> 
> The signal takes a finite time to propagate through each fibre.
> 
> If the two fibres have equal propagation delays, and the clocks are
> configured identically, you can arrange for the clocks to have equal
> readings in a specified frame.

The clock are adjacent an the fibres are identical. Therefore they are 
absolutely synchronized.
 
> But that is already a synchronization procedure, not a demonstration of
> absolute simultaneity.
> 
> Then:
> 
>> One is now moved rapidly [...]
> 
> Now you have changed the worldline of one clock.

Changing worldlines does nothing to the clock. How could it. Clock a  
still counts the same number of pulses as b. When reunited they will 
always agree perfectly, no matter how they travel. 
 
> According to SR, after transport its elapsed proper time will in general
> differ from that of the clock which remained at rest.

I know what SR says..and how my nonsometer reacts.

> This is experimentally testable clock comparison, not philosophy.

Never tested.

> And:
> 
>> a is moved vertically up a 1000m high cliff
> 
> Now you have introduced a gravitational potential difference as well.

Ah! You noticed. So a's signal slows slightly and its reading now lags 
b's. 

> Again, two sufficiently accurate clocks at different heights will not
> accumulate the same elapsed proper time.

How you are making sense. It is TIME that changes not the clock. So when 
reunited with b it should not read the same... 
 
> Finally:
> 
>> What would they say about the speed of a diagonal light beam sent from
>> b to a? ?
> 
> Before calculating anything you must specify:
> 
>     which observer measures the speed?
>     which clocks provide the emission and reception times?
>     how are those clocks synchronized?
>     how is the distance measured?
> 
> A one-way speed cannot be obtained merely by writing
> 
>     distance / (reading of remote clock - reading of local clock)
> 
> while leaving the synchronization of those remote clocks undefined.

It is not undefined. a's reading is known to be about 8.2e-27 seconds 
behind that of b.
 
> So your apparatus does not reveal "absolute synch".
> 
> It demonstrates why synchronization has to be specified in the first
> place.

Any two identical clocks that are synched while together are absolutely 
synched and should remain that way.

In this case, the readings of a an b MUST always be the same when reunited 
for obvious reasons. .but SR says they should not be because 'a' has been 
up a mountain where TIME runs differently. I suppose you will now claim 
that even though a and b show the same number, a's will represent 
different amounts of absolute time.   

> And moving the oscillator O around doesn't rescue it: a 1 GHz oscillator
> connected through fibres is a physical signal-distribution system, not
> God's universal time socket.

The fibres are straight. Are you suggesting that pulses will get lost on 
the way? 

Your Nonsometer reading = 9.5  (you get points for knowing what SR says.)

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

#675566

Ralph,

You have quietly changed the experiment.

> Clock a still counts the same number of pulses as b. When reunited they
> will always agree perfectly, no matter how they travel.

Why MUST they?

Your devices aren't two independent clocks anymore.

They are two counters driven by ONE oscillator O through two physical
transmission lines.

If you move a while keeping it connected, you have to calculate what
pulses actually arrive at a through that moving/changing optical path.

You cannot simply decree:

    a counts N pulses
    b counts N pulses

and then announce that experiment has proved they count N pulses.

In fact you immediately contradict yourself:

> So a's signal slows slightly and its reading now lags b's.

Excellent.

Five lines earlier, changing the worldline could "do nothing" because
both clocks necessarily count the same pulses.

Now a doesn't count the same pulses at the same rate.

Your apparatus is doing exactly what a physical signal-distribution
system does.

And this is priceless:

> In this case, the readings of a and b MUST always be the same when
> reunited for obvious reasons.

There are no "obvious reasons".

That's the result you are supposed to CALCULATE or MEASURE.

If you actually want the standard clock experiment, make it simple:

    synchronize two independent clocks together;

    disconnect them from O;

    move a along one worldline;

    leave b along another;

    reunite them;

    compare their readings.

SR predicts the accumulated proper times can differ.

That kind of experiment has most certainly been performed, contrary to
your "Never tested".

But if you insist on continuously feeding both devices from the same
remote oscillator, fine.

Then you have a different experiment, and you must calculate propagation
through the fibres.

You don't get to assume equal pulse counts as an axiom and then use the
equal pulse counts as evidence for absolute time.

> Are you suggesting that pulses will get lost on the way?

No.

And that's a rather spectacular misunderstanding.

Changing the arrival rate of pulses does not require losing pulses.

If ten buses leave a station every minute and later arrive every two
minutes because the route is changing, nobody needs to throw half the
buses into a ditch.

So before giving my "Nonsometer" another reading, perhaps connect it to
your own experiment.

At present it appears to be pegged. :-)

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

#675567

On 11/3/2026 11:37 AM, Python wrote:
> Ralph,
> 
> You have quietly changed the experiment.
> 
>> Clock a still counts the same number of pulses as b. When reunited they
>> will always agree perfectly, no matter how they travel.
> 
> Why MUST they?
> 
> Your devices aren't two independent clocks anymore.
> 
> They are two counters driven by ONE oscillator O through two physical
> transmission lines.
> 
> If you move a while keeping it connected, you have to calculate what
> pulses actually arrive at a through that moving/changing optical path.
> 
> You cannot simply decree:
> 
>     a counts N pulses
>     b counts N pulses
> 
> and then announce that experiment has proved they count N pulses.
> 
> In fact you immediately contradict yourself:
> 
>> So a's signal slows slightly and its reading now lags b's.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Five lines earlier, changing the worldline could "do nothing" because
> both clocks necessarily count the same pulses.
> 
> Now a doesn't count the same pulses at the same rate.
> 
> Your apparatus is doing exactly what a physical signal-distribution
> system does.
> 
> And this is priceless:
> 
>> In this case, the readings of a and b MUST always be the same when
>> reunited for obvious reasons.
> 
> There are no "obvious reasons".
> 
> That's the result you are supposed to CALCULATE or MEASURE.
> 
> If you actually want the standard clock experiment, make it simple:
> 
>     synchronize two independent clocks together;
> 
>     disconnect them from O;
> 
>     move a along one worldline;
> 
>     leave b along another;
> 
>     reunite them;
> 
>     compare their readings.

And, last but not least - announce they're perfectly
good  when they match the idiot's prophecies or
wrong when they don't.

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

#675568

Maciej,

Oh for God's sake, not again.

Ralph is describing a specific experiment. We are trying to work out what 
the two devices will actually indicate.

And in you come, once again, tugging at everyone's sleeve:

    "perfectly good! perfectly good! perfectly good!"

Yes, Maciej. We heard you the first fifty times.

Now please leave the adjectives alone for five minutes while the adults do 
the calculation.

Two devices.
Two specified worldlines.
They are reunited.

Ralph predicts:

    difference = 0

SR predicts a difference determined by the worldlines.

What do YOU predict?

A number.
A formula.
Anything quantitative.

No "perfectly".
No "good".
No "proper".
No priests, religion, idiots, gurus or prophecies.

Just tell us what the instruments will indicate.

If you have no quantitative prediction, that's fine too.

But please stop barking "PERFECTLY GOOD!" every time somebody mentions a 
clock.

We know that's your favourite noise.

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

#675569

On 11/3/2026 12:20 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
> Oh for God's sake, not again.

But yes, poor piece of shit - again.


> 
> Ralph is describing a specific experiment.

No, he is not. He's gedanking about
"perfectly good" clocks, same as relativistic
idiots.




> Now please leave the adjectives alone for five minutes while the adults 
> do the calculation.
> 
> Two devices.
> Two specified worldlines.
> They are reunited.
> 
> Ralph predicts:
> 
>     difference = 0

If they're perfectly good in the meaning
of Ralph.


> SR predicts a difference determined by the worldlines.

If they're perfectly good in the meaning
of your mad Shit.


> What do YOU predict?

I predict 0 if they're perfectly good in
the meaning of Ralph and Shit-predicted
number if they're perfectly good in the
meaning of The Shit. It's not excluding
each other  at all.

As for the real clocks - they're going
to fuck you both and do what they're
adjusted to.

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

#675570

Yawn.

So your prediction is now:

    if the clocks behave like Ralph predicts,
    they will behave like Ralph predicts;

    if they behave like SR predicts,
    they will behave like SR predicts;

    and real clocks will do whatever they actually do.

Outstanding.

You've finally constructed a theory that cannot possibly make a wrong 
prediction, by carefully avoiding making one.

Wake me up when you have a number.

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

#675571

On 11/3/2026 12:41 PM, Python wrote:
> Yawn.
> 
> So your prediction is now:
> 
>     if the clocks behave like Ralph predicts,
>     they will behave like Ralph predicts;
> 
>     if they behave like SR predicts,
>     they will behave like SR predicts;

Ralph can only predict the first
and relativistic idiots can only
predict the former. I'm better
than both of you.

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

#675572

Yes, Maciej. Much better.

Meteorologist A predicts:

    tomorrow it will rain.

Meteorologist B predicts:

    tomorrow it will be dry.

Maciej predicts:

    if tomorrow's weather is of the rainy kind, it will rain;

    if tomorrow's weather is of the dry kind, it will be dry;

    and real weather will do whatever the atmosphere makes it do.

Then, the following morning, Maciej looks out of the window, selects the 
appropriate definition of "the right kind of weather", and announces:

    "See? I was right. I'm better than both meteorologists."

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

#675573

On 11/3/2026 12:52 PM, Python wrote:
> Yes, Maciej. Much better.
> 
> Meteorologist A predicts:


And an idiot physicist predicts:
if the clocks were adjusted to fit
The Shit - they would fit The Shit.
Then he wave his arms and screams
"LOOK!!! THEY'RE NOT, BUT IF THEY
WERE THEY WOULD BE!!!! CONFIRMED!!!
CONFIRMED!!!!"

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

#675574

Maciej,

For fuck's sake.

There are NO clocks "adjusted to fit The Shit" in the experiment I just 
described.

Synchronize two independent clocks.

Disconnect them.

Send them along different worldlines.

Reunite them.

Read them.

Nobody adjusts either clock during the experiment to make it "fit" 
anything.

SR predicts a difference BEFORE the experiment.

Ralph predicts zero BEFORE the experiment.

You were asked what YOU predict BEFORE the experiment.

And once again you answered a completely different question about adjusted 
clocks.

Wrong experiment, Maciej.

Please try to follow the one actually being discussed.

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

#675575

On 11/3/2026 1:01 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
> For fuck's sake.
> 
> There are NO clocks "adjusted to fit The Shit" in the experiment I just 
> described.

Sure, in your moronic gedankenwelt clocks
are never adjusted, they just obey your
idiocies on their own, driven only by
the powerful magic of your pretty little
formulas.

But Ralph's gedankenwelt is different
and the clocks are running differently
there (also without adjusting, of course).

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

#675576

Maciej,

Yes. That's what DIFFERENT PHYSICAL THEORIES are.

SR says that if we take two real, functioning clocks, synchronize them, 
send them along specified different worldlines and reunite them, they will 
differ by X.

Ralph says the same real clocks will differ by 0.

Neither prediction requires anyone secretly adjusting the clocks during 
the experiment.

Calling these two predictions different "gedankenwelts" doesn't solve 
anything.

The whole fucking point of doing the experiment is to find out which 
"gedankenwelt" describes the REAL world.

So:

    SR:    X
    Ralph: 0
    Maciej: ?

Not:

    "X in the SR gedankenwelt"
    "0 in Ralph's gedankenwelt"

We already know that.

Pick up two REAL clocks.

What do you predict they will show?

You have spent half a dozen posts doing absolutely everything except 
answering that one embarrassingly simple question.

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

#675577

On 11/3/2026 1:15 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
> Yes. That's what DIFFERENT PHYSICAL THEORIES are.
> 
> SR says that if we take two real, functioning clocks

Lie, it says about perfect, ideal, gedanken clocks,
you were admitting that many times, poor piece
of lying shit.

So is Ralph, and his opinion about perfection
simply differs from yours. That's all.

There is no One-And-Only Physical Theory -
thre are just different versions of a moronic
religion worshiping different sets of clocks.

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

#675578

Maciej,

Oh, for fuck's sake. We're back to the adjective again.

An "ideal clock" in relativity is not defined as:

    a clock which agrees with relativity.

It is a MODEL with a specified law:

    its reading equals proper time along its worldline.

That law predicts X BEFORE anyone performs the experiment.

Ralph proposes a different law:

    the reunited clocks agree.

That predicts 0.

These are not two "opinions about perfection".

They are two incompatible predictions about clock readings.

And then — this is the bit you seem determined never to reach — we use 
REAL clocks and compare the result with X and 0.

That's how physical models are tested.

Newton's ideal point masses aren't a religious sect of particularly devout 
masses either.

An ideal gas isn't a gas declared "perfect" because it agrees with the 
ideal gas law.

An ideal pendulum isn't a pendulum selected after the experiment because 
Newton likes its answer.

Idealization -> quantitative prediction -> real experiment -> comparison.

This really isn't complicated.

You keep desperately turning

    "Which model predicts the behaviour of real clocks?"

into

    "Which clocks do you personally consider perfect?"

because the second question lets you argue about the word "perfect" 
forever without ever risking a numerical prediction.

We have noticed, Maciej.

Several hundred repetitions ago.

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

#675579

On 11/3/2026 1:35 PM, Python wrote:
> Maciej,
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake. We're back to the adjective again.
> 
> An "ideal clock" in relativity is not defined as:
> 
>     a clock which agrees with relativity.
> 
> It is a MODEL with a specified law:
> 
>     its reading equals proper time along its worldline.

Sure sure sure!!! It is not defined as
"which agrees with The Shit". No way!
It is defined as "which counts time
the way agreeing with The Shit".

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web