In article ,
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God.

In the Bible, God never expressed an opinion about relativity. Better
to leave God out of it.

Perhaps Jan would be best reminded of Bohr's words...
"...don't tell God what to do"

--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote in message ups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel schreef:

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

The fact that I didn't know how to change the subject of a thread
should be proof of the fact that I am not someone (Jaco Verheij?) who
has been active on this forum before. I was brand new when I started
posting a few days ago.

Yes Jaco, you were brandnew. We know.

But as you can see I am learning fast.

So far you haven't learned a thing.
We o.t.o.h. have learned that you have no idea what you are
talking about.

[snip rant, nicely debunked by Daryl]


One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God. The omnipresence of
an intelligent being implies the conceptual possibility of
communication faster than light. Communication faster than light
immediately invalidates SR. I believe therefore that SR is the wrong
explanation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Other
solutions are possible, which are not in conflict with the conceptual
possibility of infinitely fast information transfer.

Now *that* is Original!
My religion says that Special Relativity must be wrong.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...elativity.html
(I also have included your reply to Daryl's next reply)

So you can't help it.
Your god doesn't even *allow* you to learn.
This is truly unprecedented.
GASP.

Dirk Vdm

wrote in message oups.com...

Daryl McCullough schreef:


Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment.

That's not true, if you actually worked out the details.

That's intuition about Doppler effect.

Your intuition is wrong in this case.

Nice opinion. The REAL Doppler effect follows not from flawless working
math but from careful measurements. I know of no experiments that have
verified relativistic Doppler effect.

You only know that your god forbids it :-)

One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God.

In the Bible, God never expressed an opinion about relativity. Better
to leave God out of it.

God has knowable properties of Himself revealed in the Bible that are
in conflict with aspects of Relativity.

Frightening :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message ps.com...

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?

Google Ralph Rabbidge Henry Wilson ;-)

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:10:36 +0200, "Norman Bates" wrote:


"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.

That's my point.

Obviously changing the Earth's rotation AFTER the planes were in the sky would
have no effect on the clocks. So why shouldn't they continue on as H&K said
they should.

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.

Forget the planes. Let's do it with satellites so the atmosphere is not a
factor.
The point I'm making is that obserevr behavior cannot affect the object under
observation.
Stopping the Earth cannot effect the (remote) clocks.
So why should they not continue to show the 'claimed' difference when reunited.

Are you suggesting the clock rates magically change IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER,
just because the Earth stops?







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

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:40:24 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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?

THIS HAS NOUGHT TO DO WITH THE QUESTION.

We are talking about clock rates.

You people claim the two clocks will run at different rates and will read
differently when reunited.

I'm telling you that if the Earth stops rotating as soon as the clocks are in
the air, their relative rates cannot possibly be affected and they should still
read differently when reunited (according to your silly theory).

But, since their whole trip is carried out when the Earth is NOT rotating, they
obviously should NOT read differently when reunited.

Even YOU should know that observer behavior cannot affect an observed object.



Paul


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

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

"Norman Bates" wrote in message
...

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

Hmmmmmmmmm. Interesting. However those knowledgeable about atomic clocks
(a guy called Minor Crank - BTW not a crank, minor or otherwise - who posted
a while back) posted much more accurate atomic clocks now exist where time
dilation is readily demonstrateable by just driving it around in a car.
Hafele-Keating took place 35 years ago - things have moved on.

Thanks
Bill


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]

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Norman Bates" wrote in message
...

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

Hmmmmmmmmm. Interesting. However those knowledgeable about atomic clocks
(a guy called Minor Crank - BTW not a crank, minor or otherwise - who
posted a while back) posted much more accurate atomic clocks now exist
where time dilation is readily demonstrateable by just driving it around
in a car. Hafele-Keating took place 35 years ago - things have moved on.

Thanks
Bill

Point taken. I know that recent experiments confirmed the SR predictions to
a large degree of accuracy - much as the Hafele-Keating experiment tried to
do. I didn't know that they are even doing it with cars now. I was
pointing out that this Jan guy wasn't doing his homework, he seem to have
misunderstood the experiment and taken it to prove the aether theory.



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]

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:10:36 +0200, "Norman Bates"
wrote:


"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.

[Norman Bates]
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.

That's my point.

Obviously changing the Earth's rotation AFTER the planes were in the sky
would
have no effect on the clocks. So why shouldn't they continue on as H&K
said
they should.

[Norman Bates]
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.

Forget the planes. Let's do it with satellites so the atmosphere is not a
factor.
The point I'm making is that obserevr behavior cannot affect the object
under
observation.
Stopping the Earth cannot effect the (remote) clocks.
So why should they not continue to show the 'claimed' difference when
reunited.

Are you suggesting the clock rates magically change IN RELATION TO EACH
OTHER,
just because the Earth stops?

[Norman Bates]
If you don't mind, I would like to stick with the planes example for now,
Henri. I am saying that when the earth stops rotating, even after the
planes are in the sky, the speed of the planes relative to the centre of the
earth change dramatically. From my example, plane E goes from flying at 650
mph to 350 mph and plane W's speed changes from flying at 1350 mph to
flying at 350 mph when the earth stops rotating in relation to the centre of
the earth. So they go from flying at different speeds to flying at the same
speed in relation to the centre of the earth and therefore their clocks will
now read the same time when reunited. There is no magic, just simple
arithmetic. Its like you and I are running on conveyor belt you are running
in the same direction as the conveyor is moving and I am running in the
opposite direction and you are covering more distance, being aided by the
conveyor and I am covering less distance and then the conveyor stops...

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:46:39 +0200, "Norman Bates" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message




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

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

[Norman Bates]
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.

That's my point.

Obviously changing the Earth's rotation AFTER the planes were in the sky
would
have no effect on the clocks. So why shouldn't they continue on as H&K
said
they should.

[Norman Bates]
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.

Forget the planes. Let's do it with satellites so the atmosphere is not a
factor.
The point I'm making is that obserevr behavior cannot affect the object
under
observation.
Stopping the Earth cannot effect the (remote) clocks.
So why should they not continue to show the 'claimed' difference when
reunited.

Are you suggesting the clock rates magically change IN RELATION TO EACH
OTHER,
just because the Earth stops?

[Norman Bates]
If you don't mind, I would like to stick with the planes example for now,
Henri. I am saying that when the earth stops rotating, even after the
planes are in the sky, the speed of the planes relative to the centre of the
earth change dramatically. From my example, plane E goes from flying at 650
mph to 350 mph and plane W's speed changes from flying at 1350 mph to
flying at 350 mph when the earth stops rotating in relation to the centre of
the earth. So they go from flying at different speeds to flying at the same
speed in relation to the centre of the earth and therefore their clocks will
now read the same time when reunited. There is no magic, just simple
arithmetic. Its like you and I are running on conveyor belt you are running
in the same direction as the conveyor is moving and I am running in the
opposite direction and you are covering more distance, being aided by the
conveyor and I am covering less distance and then the conveyor stops...

I know relativists are incapable of thinking but surely you cannot be this
bloody stupid.

tell me you're joking....



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.



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

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.