wrote:
In 1971 the Hafele-Keating experiment was conducted. It is a well-known
and well documented experiment with two planes, carrying two atomic
clocks. One clock flew in western direction around the earth, and one
flew in eastern direction around the earth. The purpose was to prove
"time delation" as predicted by Einstein's theories of Relativity.

The results of the experiments were presented as a big success, proving
the theory of Special Relativity. The atomic clocks onboard the planes
did walk at a different rate than a stationary atomic clock that was
used for reference.

However, the results did not PROVE Einsteins Special Relativity but
DISPROVED it. One clock walked indeed slower than the reference clock,
but the other clock walked FASTER than the reference clock. This
phenomenon was explained by noting that one of the clocks flew counter
to the rotation of earth, and so was moving even slower than the
reference clock.

Ahh... No.
The experiment didn't include a light path so it couldn't prove
or disprove anything about SR (1920)

It's been re-analysed to reflect the change in nuclear-resonance
with change in altitude. The reinterpretation continues to obscure
rather clarify the fact that *time-dilation* is a corruption of
canonical
terms for retarded-potential, nuclear resonance, Sagnac, Doppler
imaginary-time and anything else that might demand a tweak
a tweak on the 't' in an equation.

You are justified to smell a rat but your skills in obfuscation,
far exceed those of H&K. You make the sale for H.G. Wells
interpretations far more effectivly than H&K ever dreamed possible. ;-)

Learn some physics:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Sue...






Hm... peculiar! I thought that central to SR was the fact that each
inertial frame is equivalent, and there is no "zero" inertial frame AKA
"aether". However, the Hafele-Keating experiment showed that the faster
one moves with regard to an inertial frame against which also earth
moves (through its rotation), the slower your clock goes.

So there is a "zero" inertial frame (aether), and experiments conducted
in this "zero" frame have results that differ from experiments
conducted in inertial frames that move with regard to the "zero" frame.
The main difference is that in the zero-frame, clocks walk fastest.

The experiment showed that there IS NO RELATIVITY. There might be time
delation, but it is a phenomenon that is based on movement with regard
to an ABSOLUTE zero-frame.

I have recently presented four proofs against Relativity on this forum.
A summary of the status of the various discussions.

#1 (communication faster than light). The possibility of communication
faster than light is denied. I cannot check the claims of certain
researchers that they have conducted experiments with information
transmission faster than c. What I do know is that if something is not
practically realizable, it might be CONCEIVABLE. Immediate
communication is theoretically conceivable, and therefore the denial of
the existence of absolute time is silly.

#2 (stationary and traveling clock experiment). No one has presented a
calculation or even a reasoning why my conclusions based on this
experiment are wrong. Someone wants to present a calculation, but first
I have to prove that I am capable of appreciating the math, by doing
some exercises. Ridiculous of course. I think I know why the
calculation is "tricky" and why it is not presented. It is so
convoluted that it is (in practice) impossible to prove it wrong.
Calculations of this kind need to be big and complex. It requires major
effort to present such a calculation. Therefore its presentation is
delayed with childish conditions. The only real result: objections
against Relativity are not disproved.

#3 (two clocks in orbit experiment). No one has presented a convincing
argument why this experiment doesn't work the way I want. It's a simple
application of the rules of mister Einstein. The outcome is devastating
for Relativity.

#4 (Hafele-Keating). I am curious what convoluted reasoning will be
presented to counter the inevitable message from this experiment:
RELATIVITY DOES NOT EXIST.

I have seen a lot hostile reactions. Calling names, and even the change
of the title of one of my postings, by someone who has apparently
moderating privileges on this forum. There is a simple psychological
explanation for this. Someone who knows for certain that his ideas are
right does not behave in a hostile manner. Only if you cling to ideas
for other reasons than love for the truth, you will react hostile if
your illusions are in danger.