El domingo, 15 de julio de 2018, 3:47:37 (UTC-5), Ed Lake  escribió:   
   > On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 11:40:18 AM UTC-5, mr...@ing.puc.cl wrote:   
      
   > > Firstly, these are not my beliefs but facts of the SR model. Secondly, your   
   > > description of what Hafele and Keating did is correct.   
   > > But you have to understand that the comparison among clocks were performed   
   > > AFTER the experiment. The atomic clocks were flown around the world, as   
   you say   
   > > but, obviously, they could not compare their clock readings with the   
   readings   
   > > of the master atomic clock while they were flying (since the clocks were   
   not   
   > > colocated).   
   > >   
   > > And finally, what the comparison was about related to the ELAPSED time of   
   the   
   > > different clocks. The elapsed time of a clock is not the tick rate of that   
   clock.   
   >   
   > You cannot compare clock tick rates while one is clock is moving at one   
   > speed and the other clock is moving at a significantly different speed.   
      
   That is what you have been told by Tom, me and others. You need to have those   
   clocks colocated to compare either the elapsed time or the tick rate.   
      
   However, you could perform the comparison while the clock is moving. The only   
   way to do that comparison, is to locate synchronized clocks along the   
   trajectory of the   
   relatively moving clock, so that comparisons are made between temporary   
   colocated clocks, as shown in the diagram I presented to you before.   
      
   > So, you have to COMPUTE how much slower one ticked than the other based   
   > upon the difference in the elapsed times shown by the two clocks at the   
   > end of the experiment.   
   >   
      
   It is much more simpler than that: when the clocks are reunited, and so   
   they are colocated, you just can SEE this clock lags or leads the other   
   clock. Note that while the clock readings are different, the clocks   
   continue to tick at 1 sec/sec.   
      
   > Or do you think the clocks ticked at the same rates during the test and   
   > somehow magically adjusted themselves at the end of the experiment in   
   > order to fool the experimenters?   
   >   
   > Ed   
      
   The physics of the processes that make a Caesium atomic clock to work   
   are not changed when that clock moves. This should be evident to you,   
   assuming that you have travelled inside an airplane. When you take a cup   
   of coffee inside an airplane, you do it the same way you take a cup of   
   coffee at your kitchen, right?   
      
   That means that the "laws of physics" are the same inside an airplane as   
   they are at your kitchen.   
      
   So you tell us what physical law makes an atomic clock inside an   
   airplane to tick slow, compared with a ground clock?   
      
   The real explanation of the difference on the clock readings, is found   
   in the differences on the trajectories the flown clock and the ground   
   clock followed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)