Re: Yes, t'=t in GPS.

W dniu 04.09.2024 o 23:10, Python pisze:

Le 04/09/2024 à 23:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 04.09.2024 o 21:30, Python pisze:

Le 04/09/2024 à 20:21, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 04.09.2024 o 19:48, gharnagel pisze:

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:09:57 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

>
St. John the Divine was warning Warped Wozniak, the
bald-faced liar:

>
>
St John (fuck his absurd threats anyway) won't
help,  t'=t in GPS,  at least if by t, t' we
mean clock  indications.

>
How such t and t' are clock indications.

>
According to the own definition of
your [Einstein] - time is "what clocks
indicate",

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

If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by

“time.” We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”3
 It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for “time.” And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.
 We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
 If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” $t'_{\rm A}$.
"""
 

and that's what GPS time is.
I would bet the idiot  repeated it after
someone wiser, but still.
>

>
But, most the time, clock indications vary a lot.

>
Just not in GPS.

 Oh, so event GPS does not shows t'=t

It does. When one clock's indications are
2024-09-06 17:00:00.000000000 others will
indicate the same, with the precision of an
acceptable error. It is something completely
independent on your precious experiments
and their precious results. This is GPS time.
This is a time.
And your idiot guru didn't really  create
any alternative for that. He just waved
his arms and spread idiotic gedanken tales
of things obviously having to be different
- never  with any  details. You're doing
the same. Never with any details.