« Last post by Zer0 on Today at 16:31:59 »
Amusingly Interesting question.
I am Clueless too.
I am Clueless too.
In other words, "I don't know and can't be bothered to find out".At least it has shown some improvements compared to its predecessor, Bard. It has unlearned some erroneous information and acquired more correct information. What's unclear is whether it made those changes through self learning by analyzing all relevant information, and then rejected contradicting statements, or someone acted as its supervisors and forced it to accept newer information.
I've always defined intelligence as "constructive laziness". Well, it seems that Gemini certainly meets half of that definition.
As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality.Adequacy of a model depends on its applications. Flat earth model is good enough for building a house. Newton's model is good enough to send people to the moon and back.
And there is no evidence that the IDF is killing people because of what they are. Nor have you provided any evidence of genocidal intention.They killed their own citizens held hostage waving white flag.
How do you define synchronized clocks?I notice I do not get asked. Am I considered so correct that there's no trolling my mistakes? I do assure you that I make mistakes.
The same question for Alan.
Two clocks are synchronised if A knows what time B is showing, simply by looking at his own clock.You give an epitemological definition, one I've never seen used. The definition as worded allows clocks to run at different rates.
If the clocks are identicalWhat do you mean identical? What if only one is pink? If they don't both measure proper time, then are they really clocks?
this can only be the case if there is no relative motion between them.One can only know the time the other clock says if it is relatively stationary? Have fun justifying that.
Where there is relative motion, he must apply a relativistic correction and thus needs additional information to determine the time shown at B.So if clock B is shot from a gun from Earth at time zero (on both clocks) at 0.866c, later on, the A (the Earth observer) looks at his clock and it says 2 hours, he knows that right now in his frame, B's clock reads 1 hour. Since he knows the time on the B clock, the clocks are in sync by your definition.
First, they must tick at the same rate as each other.Possibly a frame dependent requirement. They might tick at the same rate in one frame, but not another.
Second, some process will have been used to set them to a known start time.Not the same time? If not, then what's the purpose of Einstein's sync conventions? The clocks, being relatively stationary, already by definition tick at the same rate. The convention serves a different purpose than to get the clocks synced relative to that frame in which they are mutually stationary?
An assertion that is flat out wrong. If you disagree, then either come up with a 2D or 3D example of two clocks at different velocities and positions where there is no frame in which they have equal and opposite velocities, or an example where this is true in more than one inertial frame. If you can't do that, then your assertion is vacuous.In exactly one frame C will those clocks be moving in equal and opposite velocities.That's only true if we were living in a one space dimension universe.
I'm giving other members the chance to use their best explanation to answer my questions. When the time is upThat time has long since come and gone. Based on your other topics going on for years with zero conclusion, the time will never be up.