Hi, JR, Tom2 & all, E. equation: t' = t / sqr(1-(v/c)^2) 1) Result t' must be independent of sign of velocity; for velocity -v, result must be the same as for v (49.4ns). Result Delta_t' Hafele-Keating for opposite velocity is not the same (-59ns & 273ns). 2) For each v, result t' is greater then t; equation contains possibility for plus sign time difference only. Values with two signs (-59ns, 273) ignore Einstein's equation. I concede: cases, when STR is valid, exist. But, if STR is science theory, it is not important; more important there are existing opposite cases. Sciences theory must be exact and accurate. Each case of no-validity orders STR between anti-science theory. Do you agree? Emil Haefele and Keating, Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972)(Experiment): They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273ns For 40000km, 800km/h, we receive delta_t = 49.4ns, in both direction. delta_t' = t' - t = t * ( 1/sqr(1-(v/c)^2) - 1)
Emil: What you say would be a problem if the equation you referred to was the one which applied to the experiment you mentioned. But since it isn't the whole story there (or even the most important factor), your objection is unfounded.
I bet you: repeating of Clock paradox will not -59, 273ns Hi, JR says me "your objection is unfounded". We can bet. I bet anybody one half of two tenement house, owning by my family. We can repeat trip "atomic clocks on commercial airliners in both directions, and to compare the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO)." New values will not -59ns, 273. Values will not (-59ns+-25ns)/40000km/(800km/h) for eastbound and (273ns+-100ns)/40000km/(800km/h) for westbound. I argue it. You can win big money! Not only big money; half of big rental! Emil
Hi Emil, This is fantastic. You should write a paper and submit it to a journal in physics in order to get it published. But first, you'll have to get past the judgement of the referees, but this shouldn't be too much of a problem with all the convincing information you have provided here. And the fabulous prize should really convince them of the scientific value of your work. I should stop being sarcastic. Bye! Crisp [edited to add more sarcasm]
Hi, JR and Crisp, bet can do 200$ only. Isn't right, weight of money is greater then weight of words? Hafele-Keating 1972 is swindle. Our science is based on swindle, unfortunately. Emil
I have 100% no idea what in the hel emil said. The number make more proper english than the english. No offense emil - knowing english makes someone dumber not smarter.....anyone who speaks english should NOT be trusted!
Yes, indeed. We scientists pay money to publishers to get our fraudelous work published and peer review is just a joke. Have you ever tried to publish something ? It is harder than you think: your paper is de facto received with the greatest scepticism possible, so it is your job to convince the referees of actually publishing it. This does not work by sending them money either. You "it is a gigantic conspiracy" people should think a minute on how difficult it would be to set up such a gigantic conspiracy of deliberate deception. Bye! Crisp
Hi, I am not alone. A. G. Kelly: Hafele & Keating Tests: Did They Prove Anything? http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm 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." Emil
even if I didn't want to take Einstein's word for it, Feynman's word is good enough for me. the fact that it's been backed up by experimentation in several ways makes it all the easier to believe. for example, - the number of muons making it as far as they do into the atmosphere is not possible without time dialation. their life span is far too short, and given the speed they travel at they should degrade much quicker than they do. along this line of thinking, many particles live much longer at relativistic speeds than they do at sub-relativistic speeds. oddly enough, the amount of time they live longer than they should fits STR equations nicely. This effect can be explained and predicted with STR. can you explain this phenomenon without STR? can you predict similar results with that explaination? -IggDawg PS - food for thought: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0307/0307104.pdf
Which H & K is right: 1971, or 1972? "Reluctant to agree", or "Proof of validity& Hi, To write about measured figures "Reluctant to agree", it means no big sensation. A 1971 is bad year, for Hafele & Keating. To write about the same figures "Proof of validity for TR", it's better. A 1972 is better year. Index of citation more then 1000, it is amazing. We all admire it. I wish to bet somebody any-thing. Hafele is liar, more precise he is liar in 1972 subsidy. I guess it. Next experiment will put absolutely other figures. "-59ns & 273 ns" is rubbish. Which course I can get? 1:1? 10:1? I believe in TR, but without TR's dogmatic falsifications only . Do you approve, friends? Emil Umberto Bartocci: Looking for Special Relativity's possible Experimental Falsifications. http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm A. G. Kelly: Hafele & Keating Tests: Did They Prove Anything? http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm I believe in TR, but only without TR's dogmatic falsifications.
I think that I see what you're saying (though you are very hard for me to understand). Tell me how close my rewording is to the mark: You AGREE with relativity or it's predictions. You DISAGREE with the results published by these two guys in the seventies, specifically based on their numbers and experimental setup. To put it another way, you think that there was no way to draw the same conclusion given the situation in the seventies. If this is what you're saying, I think it sounds very reasonable. Though, I don't know anything about these guys that you mentioned or their work. Are they the ones who "proved" time dilation using the clocks on the global flights?
Hi, Errandir, about relativity or it's predictions, "your rewording" of my opinion is right. I agree, if experimentally demonstration is right. I strong disagree, when experimentally demonstration is "Hafele Keating 1972". I dislike lies. I attach original graph HK 1971. Print it, add scale, write values for clock 447. Differ between both direction is not 273 -(-59)= 332ns. You can see, this differ is 0 +-40 ns. 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. Also, experiment isn't demonstration for TR. "Are they the ones who "proved" time dilation using the clocks on the global flights?" Yes. Emil
I am having a hard time understanding your English. I don't understand anythimg that you said in your last post.
Hi, I recommend: [1] J.C. Hafele and R.E. Keating: Experiment with atom clock, Science 177, 166-168 and 168-170 (1972) [2] A. G. Kelly: Hafele & Keating Tests: Did They Prove Anything? http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm [3] http://www.unglaublichkeiten.info/unglaublichkeiten/htmlphp/erfindungeneslebedietheorie.html [4] David Pratt: Space, Time, and Relativity. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm[/url] [5] Proc. 3rd Dept. Def. PTTI Meeting 261-288 (1971) [6] Marcus Coleman: Trouble With Relativity. http://wbabin.hypermart.net/paper/marcus.htm [7] Umberto Bartocci: Looking for Special Relativity's Possible Experimental Falsifications. http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm Maybe some JR, too. I take a Greec holiday, you have a lot of time to reading or to insight. Emil
