Opps. You inadvertantly forgot to tell the entire story: http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns! 7. Conclusions The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests. And this by the experimenter himself in a secret memo to the US Navy before publishing the massaged data. ************** Extract from following Link ******************** http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the difference between theory and experiment is disturbing." - Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971. Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information Act. *****************************************************
When, if ever, might we expect a bit of physics from you? You are not responding to information posted. Since you don't seem to want to listen to me then jperhaps you might listen to a physicist from CERN: ******************************************************* By: J.H.Field - CERN http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin.../pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:physics/9902048 http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin.../pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0403094 ******************************************************** So now is Mr Field a quack too or is SRT generally a matter of perception, as I have repeatedly said, and not physical reality?
H & K test has no connection with our discussion. It was brought up by 2inq. The author of your link questions the technicalities of the test not SRT 'time dilation'.
False. You raised the issue [post=834684]Here[/post] claiming it supported the validity of SRT claims. And I suppose you miss the point that the H&K test data was falsified to print the report. Remember it was not merely the author that exposed the fraud. The fraud is selfevident based on the internal Navy memo by Keating himself saying the test was a disappointing failure.
Of course I do but the fact that he concurs with the fact that SRT is "Perception", not real physical change except under certain conditions, is precisely what I have been trying to tell you. But of course you are better educated and therefore don't need to listen to MacM. I thought perhaps, just perhaps you might listen to some one better educated than yourself. But I guess not.
False? It was my reply to 2inq who first brought up H&K test into the discussion. If Keating himself said that he was not satisfied with the results as against the predictions, how it is a fraud? If SR time dilation is fraud none of the moving clocks should show loss in time, but only gain due to gravitaional time dilation of surface clocks. You are confusing the alleged failure of a test with failure of SRT.
MacM: Funny. I thought you were trying to tell me that SRT is just wrong, and internally inconsistent - which is wrong, as I have shown you many times. Are you now saying that SRT is correct, but "only perception"? If so, then you're making some progress. What makes you think this Field guy is better educated than me? You don't know anything about my education, and I suspect you don't know anything about Field's, either. I read the first paper. I'm sure you didn't understand what it was about, mostly. Here's the part you probably did understand: I actually found the paper quite interesting. I agree with this conclusion, in general. You, of course, have misinterpreted it to suit your own prejudices. Field isn't saying that there is some, single, absolute "real" frame, and all others are "only perception". That's what you'd like to think, but it's not the case. What he is saying is that choosing a frame gives one view of spacetime - just as choosing a viewing location at the Eiffel Tower will give you one view of the Tower. Changing your frame is analogous to changing your viewing location at the Tower. I have no problem with anybody saying that spacetime is fixed and real. But that's not YOUR argument. You're saying that one particular slice of spacetime is special - a slice which you change willy-nilly as you please. Field doesn't say that, though I'm sure you can't understand most of his paper.
Evereno, Your reference to Hafele & Keating needs an up date. The experiemtnal results as claimed need further scrutiny. http://216.239.63.104/search?source...://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm Geistkiesel
2inq, Here's a Hafele & Keating link questioning the results. http://216.239.63.104/search?source...://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm Geistkiesel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
