wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

The Hafele-Keating experiment was riddled with controversy. Hafele and
Keating didn't give the actual test results in their paper; they gave
figures that were radically altered. It is also shown that the clocks used
were not of sufficient stability to prove anything. "The magnitude of the
random alterations in performance during air transport were such as to make
any such result useless".
"Also, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article
in which he discussed the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the
experiment."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

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.

You mistakenly conclude that the inertial frame had to the so called
"aether", but their analysis clearly describes how their inertial frame was
the centre of the earth and they even adjusted their data to prove SR in
terms of the centre of the earth as the at inertial frame. So if you even
read the paper wouldn't be talking so much crap. Please spare us any
further "proof".

[snip]