The BEST atomic clock is SiMPLY a *mega-frequency COUNTER*.!!
And, even "the BEST atomic clocks" CANNOT BE SYNCRONiZED, on
any WORLD-line in SPACE-time (..NEiTHER with each other, NOR
with any COMMONLY conceived THiRD clock simulating REAL time.

Tom Roberts wrote: kk wrote: T Roberts wrote:
Please re-read what I wrote. You are free to use ANY clock
synchronization method you prefer.

By Ph Tivity definition:
Clocks on a world-line in space-time CANNOT be syncronized.!!

Note also that "proof" does not apply to physics.

"Proof" DOEs NOT APPLY, to definitions (i.e. NOMENCLATURE).!!

Physics is not mathematics. What we have are THEORIES,

"Physics" is about words (i.e. NOMENCLATURE) and equations.!!
(NOT SLOWLY SEPARATED clocks, on a world-line in space-time.)

and for slow clocks transport, --
-- that is, by slow enough transport you can make the error
caused by the transport to be as small as you like.

That old TRiCK is even BAD MATHEMATiCs besides BAD PHYSiCs.!!
WHAT is ALL this NONSENSE.?!! This is APPROXiMATiON THEORY.!!
WHAT is ALL this NONSENSE.?!! This Ph.Tivity "SLOW LiMiT".?!!
("SLOWLY" separated clocks, on a world-line in space-time.?!)

In practice, speeds achieved by walking while pushing the
clock on a cart induce errors FAR below the intrinsic
accuracy of the best atomic clocks. --

insert ..see top of PAGE.!!

So your claim above is irrelevant. I repeat: this is physics
-- errorbars are important; errors significantly smaller
than other errorbars are irrelevant.

THAT is "SHOP-mechanics" ..NOT "physics", Tom.!! MECHANiCs.!!
You, ADAMANTLY, totally, CONFUSE GR with applied MECHANiCs.!!

Seriously, Git OUT OF TOWN ..you *DAFFY* Ph.Tivity BUFFooN.!!
brian a m stuckless

Tom Roberts
OWLS & Out of Sync Clocks-By How Much Are They Out of Sync.