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.

No data, no calculation, proof by "Jan says so".
Very convincing, noise generator.
Oh well, at least that's over.
Androcles


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.
|
| 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.
|

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.

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]

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.


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.

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.

In reality the results were hardly conclusive.

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.

Then ask your school money back. ;-)
SRT is based on inertial frames, just like classical mechanics. The rotating
earth surface is not a valid inertial frame for such a global experiment.
Similarly for GPS the earth centered inertial frame is used.

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.

Wrong (but an often seen mistake). Any inertial frame can be chosen, but
there are preferred frames for simplest calculations - again just as in
classical mechanics.

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

"jem" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

)))

jem wrote:
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.


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.

:-) :-)

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.

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.

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.

The reference clock was rotating as well, and therefore
not inertial. So either you are cheating again, or you are
showing your overwhelmingly arrogant ignorance again :-)

This is so basic...

I posted this before, so it's easily copied and slightly reviewed from
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a81f80d2c9ccad
and deeper, and
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4d4edc8d287d98

Referring to article
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html

(Using units where c=1 and G=1)

In this case the Schwarzschild time rate
Schw(va,ra,vb,rb) = sqrt(1-2 M/ra-va^2) / sqrt(1-2 M/rs-vb^2)
to make the calculations (although even this is not exact
- see section 5 in reference projectA).
In the case of Hafele-Keating (and GPS) where M, va and
vb are very small, one can use a combination of two effectively
independent approximations.

One approximation is the so-called "Kinematic time rate"
Kine(va,vb) = sqrt(1-va^2) / sqrt(1-vb^2)
and it depends on relative motion only. It is a result of
special relativity - valid in absence of gravity.
The va and vb are seen in an Earth centered non-rotating
inertial frame.

The other approximation is the so-called "Gravitational
potential time rate":
Grav(ra,rb) = sqrt(1-2 M/ra) / sqrt(1-2 M/rb)
and it depends on location only. It would be valid for
non-moving objects only. It is an idealized result from
general relativity.

For small M/ra, M/rb, va, vb, the Taylor expansion will
tell you that
Schw(va,ra,vb,rb) =~ Kine(va,vb) Grav(ra,rb)

or, since both factors a very close to 1, equivalently:
(1 - Schw(va,ra,vb,rb) ) =~
(1 - Kine(va,vb) ) + (1 - Grav(ra,rb) )

Proof:
Since K and G are very close to 1, we get
K = 1+k (with very small k)
G = 1+g (with very small g)
so we have
1 - S = 1 - K G
= 1 - (1+k) (1+g)
=~ - k - g (ignoring the ultra small product k g)
= 1-(1+k) + 1-(1+g)
= (1-K) + (1-G)

The daily kinematic time dilation is then calculated as
DayKine = Oneday - Oneday Kine(va,vb)
= Oneday ( 1 - Kine(va,vb) )
where
Oneday = 24*60*60 seconds as seen on the ground.

You can also verify that we can approximate:
Kine(va,vb) =~ 1 - 1/2 va^2 + 1/2 vb^2
= 1 - 1/2 (ra W)^2 + 1/2 (rb W)^2
= 1 - 1/2 (ra W)^2 + 1/2 (ra W + v)^2
= 1 + ( 2 ra W v + v^2 ) / 2
where v = relative velocity as seen from the ground.
So the daily dilation will be
DayKine = Oneday ( 1 - Kine(va,vb) )
=~ - Oneday ( 2 ra W v + v^2 ) / 2

This corresponds to the article's result
TA - TS = - TS ( 2 R W v + v^2 ) / (2 c^2 )
where ra = R and TS = Oneday (and c=1).

For the daily dilation of the East and West trips
you need vEast and vWest
DayKineEast = Oneday ( 1 - Kine( vGround, vEast ) )
DayKIneWest = Oneday ( 1 - Kine( vGround, vWest ) )
where
Oneday = 24*60*60 seconds
vGround = rGround W (and divide by c!)
and for the East bound trip:
vEast = vGround + 2 pi rEast / (fEast*60*60)
rEast = rGround + 8900 (average height)
fEast = 41.2*60*60 (time of flight)
and for the West bound trip:
vWest = vGround - 2 pi rEast / (fWest*60*60)
rWest = rGround + 9400 (average height)
fWest = 48.6*60*60 (time of flight)

Note the plus sign and the minus sign in the expressions
for vEast and vWest. And also note the v in the article's
expression. For the Eastbound trip v is positive. It is
negative for the Westbound trip.

Try it out and you'll find (unless I made a mistake somewhere)
DayKineEast = -156 nanoseconds
DayKineWest = 77 nanoseconds
with both calculations.

This nicely fits the -184 and 96 nanoseconds of the
article where a lot more factors have been taken into
account.

Likewise, you can calculate the daily gravitational dilation
DayGrav = Oneday ( 1 - Grav(ra,rb) )
You will find
DayGravEast = 143 nanoseconds
DayGravWest = 178 nanoseconds

Taken together:
DayKineGravEast = -14 nanoseconds
DayKineGravWest = 255 nanoseconds

which is nicely in the ballpark of the actual results.

Dirk Vdm