"jem" wrote in message ...

wrote:

[snip crackpot Verheul]


Yes, of course you're right. It's truly pathetic how thousands of physicists have blindly followed Einstein's mistakes and
unwittingly adopted a logically inconsistent description of the world.

However, although your astute insights are right on target, you've not been the first to perceive them. Ken Seto came to the same
realization years ago and has created the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) to reveal Nature's TRUE character.

Seto's works are detailed at http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm, but to date his promotional efforts haven't been all that
successful. Rather than waste your time trying to enlighten indoctrinated Einsteinian disciples, you ought to contact Mr. Seto.
A collaboration between two as perceptive as yourselves would no doubt lead to a result the rest of the world couldn't possibly
ignore.

Another gem, jem :-)

Dirk Vdm

wrote:

[...]

Ok Jan.

These are simple yes/no questions.

Is a rotating frame an inertial frame? yes/no

Is special relativity a theory of gravity? yes/no

Have you been taught special relativity in a university setting? yes/no

Have you been taught general relativity in a university setting? yes/no

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
On 20 Nov 2006 01:38:31 -0800, 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.

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.

You don't have to go to all this trouble.
As soon as the planes carrying the clocks are in the air, just stop the Earth
from rotating.
Somehow, relativists will claim that this action will affect the now remote
clocks. They will now read the same time when reunited.

Yes, because the ground clock will then be in a symmetrical
situation w.r.t. the two airborne clocks, .i.e. inertial.
You'll find the proof in my reply.
Exercise: calculate the time dilation for a non-rotating earth.
I know, Ralph, it's not going to happen, is it? ;-)

Dirk Vdm

On 20 Nov 2006 01:38:31 -0800, 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.

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.

You don't have to go to all this trouble.
As soon as the planes carrying the clocks are in the air, just stop the Earth
from rotating.
Somehow, relativists will claim that this action will affect the now remote
clocks. They will now read the same time when reunited.




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

wrote in message oups.com...

[snip already debunked part of rant]

[ and... thanks "Henry Wilson", for drawing my attention to the last part ]
..

I have seen a lot hostile reactions. Calling names,

the Jan Verheul name or the Jaco Verheij name?

and even the change
of the title of one of my postings, by someone who has apparently
moderating privileges on this forum.

The moderator changed the title, tsk tsk.

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.

Moderators can do powerful things with your messages,
look out ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[...]


Yes, because the ground clock will then be in a symmetrical
situation w.r.t. the two airborne clocks, .i.e. inertial.

I have made this argument before [symmetry], but Henri doesn't give a
****. He lives in his own little world these days.

I however, do not agree that the situation would be inertial. Were
there no rotation, the planes would still be moving in circles.

I want to say "NO SR! IT IS NON-INERTIAL!!!!" but my intuition says
that we should be able to compare them because they are moving along
the same paths in the same way. This is an application of SR I am not
quite so comfortable with.

You'll find the proof in my reply.
Exercise: calculate the time dilation for a non-rotating earth.
I know, Ralph, it's not going to happen, is it? ;-)

Why do you call him Ralph?


Dirk Vdm

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On 20 Nov 2006 01:38:31 -0800, 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.

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.

You don't have to go to all this trouble.
As soon as the planes carrying the clocks are in the air, just stop the
Earth
from rotating.
Somehow, relativists will claim that this action will affect the now
remote
clocks. They will now read the same time when reunited.




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

Henri, when you stop the earth's rotation, doesn't the speed of the
aeroplanes change dramatically in relation to the centre of the earth? Say
plane 'E' flies east at 350 mph, plane 'W' flies west at 350 mph. Say the
earth is rotating at 1000 mph. In relation to the centre of the earth,
plane E is flying at 1350 mph (1000 mph rotation of the earth velocity plus
350 mph ground velocity, both eastbound). Plane W, in relation to the
centre of the earth, would be flying at 650 mph (1000-350). So if E is
flying at 650 mph and W is flying at 1350 mph and if the earth stops
rotating, their speeds will change (in relation to the centre of the earth)
so that they are flying at the same speed and therefore their clocks will
now read the same time when reunited. You can't argue that the surface of
the earth should be the inertial frame instead of the centre of the earth,
because your whole argument hangs on the fact that you are going to stop the
earth rotating.

Eric Gisse wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[...]


Yes, because the ground clock will then be in a symmetrical
situation w.r.t. the two airborne clocks, .i.e. inertial.

I have made this argument before [symmetry], but Henri doesn't give a
****. He lives in his own little world these days.

I however, do not agree that the situation would be inertial. Were
there no rotation, the planes would still be moving in circles.

I want to say "NO SR! IT IS NON-INERTIAL!!!!" but my intuition says
that we should be able to compare them because they are moving along
the same paths in the same way. This is an application of SR I am not
quite so comfortable with.

You'll find the proof in my reply.
Exercise: calculate the time dilation for a non-rotating earth.
I know, Ralph, it's not going to happen, is it? ;-)

Why do you call him Ralph?

Ralph's argument is based on Pound-Snider and SR 1920.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/p539

Pound-Rebka and SR 1905 are mathematically absurd.
Why do you think the H.G. Wells fans insisist on the
older work? So the plot isn't spoiled!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine

Sue...




Dirk Vdm

wrote in message
oups.com...

harry schreef:

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.

That interpretation is perfectly compatible with "relativity" theory.
According to SRT, no such zero frame can be determined. That's all there
is
to it; just ignore bunkum.

Cheers,
Harald

That's not right. A zero-frame is the frame in which all clocks walk
fastest. There is absolute time in system with a zero-frame. If clock K
in the zero-frame walks twice as fast as clock K' in a fast moving
frame, then clock K' walks twice as slow as K.

Fine. That is where science was around 1887. By 1905 it was understood and
shown that such considerations don't help to determine such a "zero-frame",
so that the classical relativity principle was reintroduced. According to
the relativity principle, if an observer in an inertial system in which
clock K' is in rest assumes to be in a "zero-frame", all measurements will
be in agreement with that assumption.

Harald

Henri Wilson wrote: [about the H&K experiment]

You don't have to go to all this trouble.
As soon as the planes carrying the clocks are in the air, just stop the Earth
from rotating.
Somehow, relativists will claim that this action will affect the now remote
clocks. They will now read the same time when reunited.

I would like your answer the question at the end
of this posting.

Two supersonic planes are flying in opposite directions
around the Earth along equator. The ground speed is
one Earth circumference per sidereal day (ca. 1670 km/h, MACH 1.36).
Each plane is carrying a ring laser gyro detecting
the rotation around an axis parallel to the Earth axis
(the pitch axis).
The planes are starting at a point at the Earth, and
returning to the same point one sidereal day later.

Case 1:
The experiment is performed on the rotating Earth.
How many rotations are measured by the gyros in
the East- and West going plane respectively?
(The obvious answer is: 2 and 0)

Case 2:
The experiment is performed on a non-rotating Earth.
How many rotations are measured by the gyros in
the East- and West going plane respectively?
(The obvious answer is: 1 and 1)

Now the question I would like you to answer:
Do you claim that the rotation of the Earth
somehow will affect remote ring laser gyros?

Paul