From: nobody@invalid.invalid   
      
   Am 15.07.2018 um 10:47 schrieb Ed Lake:   
   > On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 11:40:18 AM UTC-5, mr...@ing.puc.cl wrote:   
   >> El s=C3=A1bado, 14 de julio de 2018, 11:17:42 (UTC-5), Ed Lake    
   escribi=C3=B3:   
   >>> On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 4:45:15 PM UTC-5, mr...@ing.puc.cl wrote:   
   >>>> El viernes, 13 de julio de 2018, 0:33:23 (UTC-5), Ed Lake  escribi=C3=B3:   
   >>>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 8:31:48 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 12:56:03 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> [Moderator's note:  Huge amount of quoted text deleted.  Please quote   
   >>>>>>>> only enough to provide sufficient context.  -P.H.]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> < snip >   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> [[Mod. note -- As Tom Roberts (& others) have pointed out, in order   
   >>>>>> to directly compare clocks A and B, A and B must be colocated for   
   >>>>>> the duration of the comparison, i.e., they must be at the same   
   >>>>>> position and (be observed by *all* observers to be) moving at the   
   >>>>>> same velocity.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> How can you compare a moving clock (B) to a "stationary" clock (A)   
   >>>>> if "A and B must be colocated for the duration of the comparison"?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The moving clock is assumed to be moving at a very high speed (in order to   
   >>>> time dilation effects to be observed). So if clock A is moving at speed   
   0.6c   
   >>>> in order to measure the time dilation you need a set of Einstein   
   synchronized   
   >>>> clocks located along the path clock A is following.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is the only way to check the readings of clock A with the readings   
   of the   
   >>>> synchronized clocks, so the clock A reading is directly compared with a   
   given   
   >>>> synchronized clock B, as clock A passes through clock B location (at that   
   >>>> instant both clocks are colocated).   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Afterwards, the lectures of the synchronized clocks can be compared to   
   determine   
   >>>> the time dilation of clock A. The following diagram shows the setup.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Clock A   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (*) --> v=0.6c   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (B1)....(B2)....(B3)....(B4)....(B5)....(B6)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Synchronized clocks   
   >>>   
   >>> Sorry, but your beliefs conflict with reality.  In 1971, Joseph Hafele   
   >>> and Richard Keating performed a test where they flew 4 atomic clocks   
   >>> around the world twice, first flying them eastward, then westward.   
   >>> Before each trip they compared the clocks to a master atomic clock at   
   >>> the US Naval observatory.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   No, you have to COMPARE and MEASURE. That's physics. COMPUTE is   
   Mathematics, which should reflect the measurements.   
   Without input from measurements of the nature, you cannot create   
   a valid mathematical theory of nature. The the theory comes after   
   observations, as nature is not ruled by mathematical laws.   
      
   > 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?   
   >   
   The clock ticks with the same rate at the beginning, during and at the   
   end of the experiment (measured by the clock). There is no other   
   alternative.   
      
   Aloha   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)