A Different approach...
A Different approach...
If you want a serious physical analysis of the original post, lets start here:
Two atomic clocks have been running on Earth for billions of years, one at the base of Cheyenne Mountain, and the other at the summit, sitting inside of a well-maintained Chinook cargo helicopter. The clock on the peak has been running faster by a few nanoseconds per year, but over the eons, it has advanced to twenty-four hours ahead of the clock far below, and it’s readout, in year, month, day, hour, minute, second, and nanosecond, is just now turning over to indicate exactly twenty-four hours ahead of the other clock, on a Friday at exactly high noon.
This is the important bit. The discussion that follows this paragraph is all crap, for a simple reason. You left too many questions open about the experiment, so lets close some loopholes and tighten this mess up.
(1) What does the poster mean by Clocks?
There are two different physical machines possible here, and although your intent is probably clear, your terminology isn't, so we are going to describe both types of machine.
---------------------------------------
a) "Clock type A". This clock attempts to measure 'absolute time' by using a reliable and constant physical process that under controlled conditions proceeds at a constant rate when undisturbed. Its byproducts can be measured with an amount of interference reducable to a negligible quantity for the purposes and duration of the experiment.
Hence, this device measures "time", based on the premise that the process is sufficiently isolated from outside disturbances to prevent a change in its rate of reaction or motion. The only thing presumed able to penetrate the Clock and breach its isolation is a gravitational field.
The immediate purpose of this 'clock' would be to measure any changes in the rate of its processes by comparison (at the end of the experiment) to a different identical machine synchronized to it at the start.
For simple control purposes, the other calibrating 'clock' would be kept in a DIFFERENT location and strength of gravitational field for the duration of the experiment.
The design of the overall experiment would be to test the predictions of General Relativity (GR), which predicts that the clock in the higher gravity field (nearer a large mass like the earth or sun) will drift out of sync with the other control 'clock' because its internal processes would be slowed down in the higher gravity field.
Although the 'read-outs' for each clock could be designed to physically read Year-Month-Week-Day-Hour-Minuite-Second-etc., this would be stupid and pointless, since the meanings of these names would not apply to the time-periods these "clocks" would actually measure.
These "Clocks" are specificially designed to be UNAFFECTED by outside conditions, such as the position of the Sun or the rotation of the earth, and hence CANNOT be synchronized to REAL DAYS or YEARS etc.
The most logical design for this type of 'Clock' would be a simple counter, which would keep track of the speed of the internal processes in both 'Clocks' in an identical manner for calibration and synchronization purposes.
Since both clocks are going to be allowed to run independantly of each other, and of necessity independantly from the rotations and revolutions of the earth on its axis and around the Sun, it will be confidently predicted that even if one clock manages to stay in synchronization with the 'days' on earth by accident or design, the other 'Clock' will not synchronise, but will "precess", meaning the "DAYS" on at least one "clock" will drift periodically in and out of sync with "Earth-Days".
--------------------------------
b)
"Clock Type B" This type of 'Clock' will be a device that measures and records "REAL" days, namely revolutions of the earth on its axis relative to the position of the Sun.
This clock can be mounted on the North Pole at any altitude, and will consist of a ring of light-sensitive photoelectric cells facing outward toward all points of the compass (oriented to the surface at the pole), and a suitable recording machine that measures the light from each direction as the 'clock' turns along with the earth.
This device will measure the passing of "Days" as exactly as one may wish, through a refinement of external 'slits' that allow light from the sun to strike the photocells.
This clock can also have a special "readout screen" that displays "Year-Month-DAY-hour-minute-sec-etc." However, since this device is an entirely different type of machine than "Clock Type A", it can measure real "Days" (meaning earth rotations) with exact precision, and in fact, it can't measure anything else, such as the passage of time or the speed of any process.
If the earth slows down, the days slow down. If the earth speeds up, or changes its rotation around the Sun, the clock will stay synchronized to the earth's motion exactly.
However, Clock Type B cannot be used to test the passing of 'time' or the speed of any process. Nor can it be used to test General Relativity either by itself or in conjunction with another copy of itself.
----------------------------------
Note please that these are two different machines. They can both be called 'clocks', and they can both have read-out displays that show "Year-Month-Day-Hour-Minute-Sec-etc."
But only one of them can be used in a GR experiment, "Clock Type A".
And because we choose this machine and not the other, we cannot expect our "clock's" readouts to indicate REAL "DAYS", if we mean rotations of the earth. At best these machine readouts can APPROXIMATE earth days, by lucky synchronization for a limited period of time, since they are "ticking" independantly of the earth's rotations.
-----------------------------------
Now that we understand what the devices actually are that we are going to use for "clocks", we can see the logical fallacy inherent in some of the original poster's absurd statements:
Now, back to the clock on the peak. The operator has kept an eye on that clock from it’s installation until today (he’s now near retirement age), and with a telescope, he’s been able to watch the nanoseconds ticking more quickly than those of his clock.
So far so good. This is perfectly possible.
Now, it seems to me that the operator is confused, and that physicists must actually be referring to some other effect when they say or imply that gravity actually affects time as compared to other frames of reference.
...
The seventh site found by a web search on the topic, (Google 7), states: “Gravitational time dilation is the slowing down of the passage of time.” Seemingly implying that time flows at different rates for the two clocks.
The flakeyness is beginning to build... here it comes:
If that were literally true, then it seems the two clocks would exist in two different time frames, now separated by twenty-four hours, and the operator at the base shouldn’t even be able to see the clock at the summit, since it is 24 hours ahead of him in time.
This is a nonsensical statement, and has no meaning from the point of view of physics.
The poster began by accepting General Relativity and Special Relativity (we gave him the benefit of the doubt), but now jumps to a concept of
Newtonian Absolute Time.
However, in GR and SR, there is no such concept of an absolute "simultaneity".
The 'planes' of simultaneous events in Spacetime are 'tiltable' and depend upon the velocity of the observer. The theory denies even the existance of a notion of Absolute Time, as implied in the attempt to "order" the two events in "time".
Sorry, but its as simple (and as difficult) as that. You need to understand GR and SR before attempting to construct a sentence that would be meaningless from the point of view of the theory.
2. What can the Experiment Test?
A well designed experiment tests something tangible.
The experiment so described cannot test the 'time dilation' predicted by GR.
The Original Poster rightly notes that the experiment will only result in one clock becoming out of sync with the other. But this neither proves nor disproves anything regarding the question of the theoretical underpinnings and assumptions of Gen Rel.
For that you would need to design a much more sophisticated experiment, likely far beyond the abilities of someone who doesn't even understand what the theory is saying, let alone how it might be tested.
