2inq, how about looking up the actual Science paper? Or alternatively doing a bit of Googling? I, for instance, found this link pretty quick, which answers your objections.
each moving clock is compared to earth clock seperately & directlly not involving a 'common' 3rd frame, right? This what i said : It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame BTW, the time dilation in Hafele & Keating experiment is net of gravitational and kinematic effect and the observed time dilations were close to what was predicted. time dilations due to gravitional effect are almost equal gain in time for both moving clocks. kinematic effect has different signs (loss and gain) for east & westward clocks respectively in the derivation (they used angular velocity for surface clock with explanation) given here : - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html Edit : just noticed funkstar has already given the link few minutes before this post.
my response: Originally Posted by 2inquisitive Edit: I just thought of something else. Hafele & Keating really screwed up, didn't they? They sent cesium clocks around the Earth in OPPOSITE directions, then tried to compare them with a clock at the U S Naval Observatory on the surface of the Earth. Since the clocks on the jet aircraft were traveling at essentially the same velocities relative to the surface clock, the time dilation should have been nearly the same on each of the traveling clocks relative to the third clock (reference frame) on the ground. The clocks that traveled East LOST 59 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock and the clocks that traveled West GAINED 275 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock. I wonder what kind of preferred reference frame this was in? I guess they disproved Special Theory with their preferred frame, didn't they? Or does Special Relativity not apply to this experiment?" ======================================================== by funkstar: "2inq, how about looking up the actual Science paper? Or alternatively doing a bit of Googling? I, for instance, found this link pretty quick, which answers your objections." ========================================================= I already knew the experiment unlike you funkstar. I only went to the site you have linked to get the actual dilations. evernoe had objections to using more than two reference frames, not me. You are in a continual state of confusion, aren't you funkstar? Or is it that you just LIE?
You mean you don't know? Tsk,tsk. It's the dimension of the Earth, er, no it's the dimension Earth inhabits, er, no it's the the dimension of, er, something or other. Surely it's obvious.
Unfortunately for you James R, this is an untrue statement. It has been you that have relied upon attacks and have failed to supply any physics support for your theory. Your only defense is to now say "It is OK that SRT results in multiple tick rates for clocks since they exist in different frames and are offset by simultaneity. Frankly that is a poor excuse for a response. To accept that as a physical reality is to accept the Many Worlds View. It is ludricrus. The reality is that the clocks tick rate is afixed to it's local rest frame and the vgiew of that rate by others in motion does not alter that tick rate. It is the view "Perception" that is distorted for the moving observer. That is all.
That is really funny. So you accept a Many Worlds View as well. Oh well. Whicxh re\sults in reciproicty of time dilation - WHICH DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXIST. A prudent person would drop such a theory particularily in favor of the evidence now available from GPS. Yes indeed good show. You have now admitted the muliple tick rate problem. Even though you want to calim that isn't a problem, it is for any reasonable person not blinded by BS.
It is even a bigger pity that you (the professional) find you are incapable of posting a physics response and continue to rely on unsupported attacks.
My claim is supported, MacM. You have posted no physics, no maths, no nothing. You just have beliefs, based on your imagination, and nothing else. That's fine, but don't pretend it's science.
You mean that in this case: <PRE> -v v B <---------- A ---------> C </PRE> relative velocity between B and C is 2v/(1+v^2/c^2) ? It is not! It is zero! w = (u + v) / (1 + uv/c^2) but u = -v, and we have Zero / Something which is 0! if v = c we have however Zero/Zero which is hard to say what limit has, but I think that using Lopital law it is again zero. B and C are in one and the same FR. Time dilation and lenght contraction is not concerned by the direction.
Here we are talking about two different velocities - abolute and relative. Absolute velocity of a object wrt vacuum is always equal or smaller to c. However what will be the velocity of two space-ships wrt each-other starting from Earth in opposite directions with velocities bigget then 0.5 c? When compares FRs SRT takes only the difference by the two absolute velocities which of course always will be smaller then c. In fact in the above case it is zero. Does it means that both spaceships are not moving one wrt other at all? Objects can have velocity bigger then c one wrt other. Object's can't move wrt Absolute Space with velocity bigger then c.
If 2 frames are in different world lines then one validly observes the other's time is dilated till their world lines merge again. A nice animation explaining the mutual time dilation is for you (it switchs between space-time coordinate views of 2 different world lines) : Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Alfred-Brian-anim.html if possible go thro' the relativity tutorial in that site.
A small correction. If they are moving in the same direction it is |u-v|/(1-uv/c^2); if they are moving in opposite direction it is |u-(-v)|/(1-(-uv)/c^2) = |u+v|/(1+uv/c^2)
You are a joke James R. Anybody reading this thread will see I have posted correct mathematics using SRT. Based on the results, which you have agreed are correct, you have only two choices: 1 - Admit that SRT is based on perceptions or illusions of motion, not physical realities, or 2 - That you advocate a Many Worlds View where there exists multiple realities. Which is it? The later of course belongs in the pseudoscience group.
Baloney. Re-read the thread. You have said nothing physical but only cite rhetoric. You have not answered my above question. Do you admit SRT is perception or do you believe in Many Worlds?
No. You were being snide, and that's embarrassing when you're also wrong. You picked what everneo correctly said and applied to an experiment you thought it applied to, but you were just mistaken. And I'm surprised that you're still claiming that GPS nonsense...
My arguement stands as valid physics. You have failed to post any physics responses. You rely upon rhetoric and merely citing theory. Observation, test data and rational thought discards your position as reality.
