XPost: sci.math   
   From: relativity@paulba.no   
      
   Den 24.11.2025 00:36, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:   
   > Paul B. Andersen wrote:   
   >> Den 22.11.2025 20:19, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:   
   >>> Scot Deyanov wrote:   
   >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >>>>> A manipulated clock is not a clock.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> When we say that time is what is measured with a clock we mean a device   
   >>>>> that is not manipulated, that merely follows Nature.   
   >>>> no shit sherlock, once that manipulation is done, that clock is a clock   
   >>>> like everybody clock   
   >>> Which part of "_not_ manipulated" did you not understand?   
   >>   
   >> It is however common to call the manipulated clock   
   >> in a GPS satellite - a clock.   
   >   
   > The satellite's clock is not manipulated; never has been.   
   >   
      
   The statement in Maciej Woźniak's idiotic post you responded   
   to was: "it's a matter of how we decide to adjust clocks"   
      
   The adjustment he referred to was that the rate of   
   a GPS SV clock is adjusted down by (1 - 4.4647e-10) compared   
   to a clock which is running at the rate defined by SI.   
      
   Your response was: "A manipulated clock is not a clock."   
      
   I interpreted that to mean that you called the adjustment   
   of the SV clock rate a "manipulation".   
      
   But OK, I accept that you don't call this adjustment a "manipulation":   
      
   But what kind of manipulation of a clock makes it cease to be a clock?   
      
   --   
   Paul   
      
   https://paulba.no/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)