Special Relativity is Dead! (Final Proof)
jan.v...@tiscali.nl
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.
Sorcerer
Very convincing, noise generator.
Oh well, at least that's over.
Androcles
<jan.v...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:1164015511.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sue...
> 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/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Sue...
Norman Bates
> 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.
>
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]
jem
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
> 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
harry
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:IDi8h.10415$f12....@newsfe21.lga...
:))))
karand...@yahoo.com
:-) :-)
jan.v...@tiscali.nl
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.
Dirk Van de moortel
> 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.physics.relativity/msg/0ba81f80d2c9ccad
and deeper, and
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f14d4edc8d287d98
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/hbase/relativ/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
Dirk Van de moortel
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:IDi8h.10415$f12....@newsfe21.lga...
> jan.v...@tiscali.nl 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
Eric Gisse
jan.v...@tiscali.nl 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
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.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:58f4m2hjngof3qsl2...@4ax.com...
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
Dirk Van de moortel
<jan.v...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message news:1164015511.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.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
Eric Gisse
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
shit. 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
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:58f4m2hjngof3qsl2...@4ax.com...
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.
Sue...
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
harry
<jan.v...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:1164046324.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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
Paul B. Andersen
>
> 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
jan.v...@tiscali.nl
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. But as you can see I am learning fast. Filling
in a new subject name in the reaction will change the subject as
displayed on the sci.physics.relativity page.
It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
here because of assumed mathmatical illiteracy. I have won prizes in
math contests at highschool (Wiskunde Olympiade in my country Holland;
you are dutch too, aren't you?) and I have a cum laude master's degree
in Computer Science, mainly because of high performance in math related
subjects. However, this is some twentyfive years ago now. It is more
than ten years ago that I have solved a differential equation. If I
have to solve an integral with goniometric substitution, I really have
to go back to the books to figure out the details.
My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation. That's
always the preferred way in methematics. If you want to prove that a
chessboard with removed upper-left and lower-right square cannot be
covered with 31 domino stones, you can try all possible combinations.
That's calculation. The clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone
always will cover a white and a black square. Since the board in
question has two same colored squares removed, it is not possible to
cover the board.
Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment. That's
intuition about Doppler effect. If Doppler effect is defined such that
it compensates the time dilation as observed by the traveling clock,
then this is a calculation trick in my view. It might be that SR is
mathematically entirely consistent. I have my doubts is acceleration
and gravity is involved, but it will take me some time to verify this.
However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
not prove that SR describes reality.
My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
complex elegant math. I can appreciate the prime number theorem, the
beauty of complex numbers and the elegance of Fourier and Laplace
transforms. My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality. It is not that I
cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but simply my belief
that reality has not the kind of relativity that SR claims.
Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
the results, knowing that it disproves Relativity, some present
calculations that try to explain the results. There is no consensus on
how that calculation should be carried out. In this context it is
inappropriate to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math
illiteracy. Someone who says this repeatedly is obviously not capable
of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence and agreement
between theory and reality. If this makes you being rude and calling
names, you are just simply one big asshole. Redirecting my postst to a
different group is also not very hospitable towards a new participant
(how did you do that?).
Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
invalidity of SR, as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
reason to be confident in my intuition, and I consider myself more
objective than a physicist who is indoctrined for many years with
validity of SR.
I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame. Not because I
cannot appreciate the beatiful complexity of relativity and velocity
symmetry, but simply because I don't believe this is how the universe
works. Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity will
hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in conflict.
So far I have seen only calculation based arguments. With this you can
only prove that Relativity is mathematically consistent. It might be
that SR is mathematically consistent. I have my doubts, if there is
already no consensus on how to interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment.
However, should SR be mathematically consistent, this is no guaratee
that SR describes reality.
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.
I think the "zero-frame" is also visible in quantum mechanics. I am not
an expert in quantum mechanics and probably I will be stoned to death
immediately with what I am going to say now. Quantum mechanics teaches
us spontaneous creation and anihilation of particle - antiparticle
twins, if enough energy is available, or even with "borrowed" energy in
empty space. Consider an electron-positron pair. Both have mass and
therefore momentum and velocity. The average momentum and velocity of
all spontaneously created particle pairs favour one particular inertial
frame. This is the zero frame.
Regards, Jan.
Sorcerer
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:ejus3p$4a1$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
| 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.
Nah, two supersonic satellites with clocks, GPS type.
| The ground speed is one Earth circumference per sidereal day (ca. 1670
km/h, MACH 1.36).
Nah, the ground speed is 2000 mph
| Each plane is carrying a ring laser gyro detecting
| the rotation around an axis parallel to the Earth axis
| (the pitch axis).
Whatever.
| The planes are starting at a point at the Earth, and
| returning to the same point one sidereal day later.
Whatever.
| 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)
|
Whoopee.
| 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)
Whoopee again.
| 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?
|
Of course! Each satellite's clock is slower than the other,
caused by GR/SR, so naturally the rotation of Earth would
affect remote ring laser gyros by GR/SR calculation.
You can't use "obvious" when dealing with GR/SR, you have
to follow the math. OBVIOUSLY. :-)
Androcles
jem
Thanks, Dirk.
Daryl McCullough
>It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
>here because of assumed mathmatical illiteracy.
That's because you are making the same mathematically illiterate
arguments that hundreds have made before you.
>My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation.
Yes, and it is a misguided approach in this case. You *cannot*
understand relativity without being willing to do the calculations.
What you are doing is using, not the *actual* theory of relativity,
but the version for children who don't understand math. That version
is *wrong*, but it's the closest that you can do without buckling
down and doing the math.
>That's always the preferred way in methematics.
No, it's actually not. Mathematicians very often work to polish
an argument so that calculations are kept to a minimum, but the
original proofs for mathematical theorems inevitably involve
lots of messy work with the details. Only after thoroughly
understanding these original proofs do people come up with
clever and elegant proofs that avoid the messy details.
>If you want to prove that a chessboard with removed upper-left
>and lower-right square cannot be covered with 31 domino stones,
>you can try all possible combinations. That's calculation. The
>clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone always will cover
>a white and a black square. Since the board in question has two
>same colored squares removed, it is not possible to cover the board.
As I say, in a well-understood field, it is possible to come
up with "clever" approaches to solve problems, but you can't
*learn* a new field by concentrating on the clever proofs.
>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.
>If Doppler effect is defined such that it compensates the time
>dilation as observed by the traveling clock, then this is a
>calculation trick in my view.
It's not a *trick*, it's just applying the mathematics carefully.
There is no trick involved.
>It might be that SR is mathematically entirely consistent.
It certainly is. This is without dispute by anyone mathematically
competent.
>I have my doubts is acceleration and gravity is involved, but it
>will take me some time to verify this.
I predict it will never happen, because you show no willingness
to actually do the work necessary to understand the subject. You
are trying to understand a difficult subject on the "cheap". You
are trying to take the easy road, and it will not get you there.
You have to buckle down and actually learn the mathematics if
you want to understand.
It isn't *very* difficult mathematics. It requires at most
simple algebra and and understanding of linear equations.
But that's too much for some people.
>However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
>not prove that SR describes reality.
Yes, there are two parts to a scientific theory: Internal consistency,
and agreement with experiment. Relativity is successful in both
respects.
>My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
>complex elegant math.
It's your inability or unwillingness to *learn* the mathematics.
You are reasoning based on SR for children. It's like discussing
Shakespeare with someone who has only read comic books.
>My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
>of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality.
You don't know the consequences of SR. You haven't bothered
to learn them.
>It is not that I cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but
>simply my belief that reality has not the kind of relativity that
>SR claims.
Intituitions and beliefs can be wrong.
>Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
>interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
>the results, knowing that it disproves Relativity, some present
>calculations that try to explain the results. There is no consensus on
>how that calculation should be carried out. In this context it is
>inappropriate to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math
>illiteracy.
What you have said about SR is mathematically wrong. Maybe it's
rude to call you an "imbecile" because of it, but the frustrating
thing is that (1) You are completely confused about SR, and (2)
Rather than trying to fix your confusion, you blame it on SR.
That's the hallmark of a crackpot. An actual competent person
tries first to understand a subject before claiming that the
experts are all wrong.
>Someone who says this repeatedly is obviously not capable
>of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence
>and agreement between theory and reality.
It is certainly possible that SR could be falsified by some
experiment. But it can only be done by someone who knows what
SR *actually* says. Falsifying your distortions of SR doesn't
say anything about SR itself.
>Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
>invalidity of SR
But you don't even know what SR says. Your proofs are garbage.
Start with the actual equations of SR, the actual claims made
by SR. Don't start with your cartoon version.
>as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
>reason to be confident in my intuition,
That shows a dreadful lack of self-knowledge. Your intuitions
in this matter are worthless. It would be as if you asked a
3 year old, who had not learned to count yet, what his opinion
of a paper on Fourier analysis was. His opinion is completely
worthless on that subject.
Your opinion about SR is similarly worthless.
>and I consider myself more objective than a physicist who
>is indoctrined for many years with validity of SR.
That's the hallmark of a crackpot. Rather than viewing your
lack of knowledge as something that should be *fixed*, you
instead think of as something that gives you an advantage
over the people who have actually studied the subject.
What you call "indoctrination" is nothing more than the
hard work necessary to understand a subject. You aren't
willing to do that hard work.
>I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame.
And your opinion is as significant as the opinion of that
three-year old about Fourier analysis.
>Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity will
>hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in conflict.
>So far I have seen only calculation based arguments.
That's the way you get to understand a technical subject.
>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.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
jan.v...@tiscali.nl
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.
> >If Doppler effect is defined such that it compensates the time
> >dilation as observed by the traveling clock, then this is a
> >calculation trick in my view.
>
> It's not a *trick*, it's just applying the mathematics carefully.
> There is no trick involved.
>
> >It might be that SR is mathematically entirely consistent.
>
> It certainly is. This is without dispute by anyone mathematically
> competent.
Mathematics has structures like groups, fields and manifolds that can
be used to construct a working, consistent system. However, this does
not prove that this system describes reality.
> >I have my doubts is acceleration and gravity is involved, but it
> >will take me some time to verify this.
>
> I predict it will never happen, because you show no willingness
> to actually do the work necessary to understand the subject. You
> are trying to understand a difficult subject on the "cheap". You
> are trying to take the easy road, and it will not get you there.
> You have to buckle down and actually learn the mathematics if
> you want to understand.
Your comments are too harsh. I did thorough calculations with the
three-frame configuration some years ago, only to see that it is
mathematically consistent. However, that time I was unable to get a
recipe for a calculation with acceleration involved. I got the
impression that acceleration was too difficult for computations on SR.
I am not lazy. I am reading (and studying) The Road to Reality from
Roger Penrose at the moment. Sooner or later I will arrive at Penrose's
treatment of Relativity. If I make a "lazy" impression it's mainly
because I understand that knowledge of a flawlessly working
mathematical system is no guaratee for validity.
>
> It isn't *very* difficult mathematics. It requires at most
> simple algebra and and understanding of linear equations.
> But that's too much for some people.
Not for me. I have once verified that speed additions within SR form a
group.
> Yes, there are two parts to a scientific theory: Internal consistency,
> and agreement with experiment. Relativity is successful in both
> respects.
That's your opinion. Many experimental verifiable facts such as time
dilation can also be explained by other theories.
> >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.
Regards, Jan.
karand...@yahoo.com
jan.v...@tiscali.nl wrote:
> I was brand new when I started
> posting a few days ago. But as you can see I am learning fast.
Yes, you are definitely first class crackpot material: you are filling
posts with crap at very high speed.
> It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
> here because of assumed mathmatical illiteracy.
Not only mathematical (you can't write an equation to support your
crank views) but mostly physics illeteracy. You are writing crap.
>I have won prizes in
> math contests at highschool (Wiskunde Olympiade in my country Holland;
> you are dutch too, aren't you?) and I have a cum laude master's degree
> in Computer Science, mainly because of high performance in math related
> subjects.
So what? Your physics is still crap.
> However, this is some twentyfive years ago now. It is more
> than ten years ago that I have solved a differential equation. If I
> have to solve an integral with goniometric substitution, I really have
> to go back to the books to figure out the details.
"Goniometric"? You are a liar about your math as well. There is no such
thing as "goniometric substitution", you are not only an idiot but a
fraud as well.
>
> My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation. That's
> always the preferred way in methematics.
Well, your "reasoning" is flawed.
> That's calculation. The clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone
> always will cover a white and a black square. Since the board in
> question has two same colored squares removed, it is not possible to
> cover the board.
In physics it is called "experimental proof". Of which you are clearly
ignorant.
>
> Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment.
One word answer : cretin.
>That's
> intuition about Doppler effect. If Doppler effect is defined such that
> it compensates the time dilation as observed by the traveling clock,
> then this is a calculation trick in my view.
One word answer: imbecile
> However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
> not prove that SR describes reality.
Since the above is the view of Jan Verheul, proven cretin, it does not
count.
>
> My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
> complex elegant math.
No, they are due to inability to understan basic physics combined with
clear prejudice.
>I can appreciate the prime number theorem, the
> beauty of complex numbers and the elegance of Fourier and Laplace
> transforms.
What is the Fourier transform of sin(x)?
>My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
> of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality.
This is standard crackpot fare. There are many more like you on this
forum, you are not unique.
> It is not that I
> cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but simply my belief
> that reality has not the kind of relativity that SR claims.
>
We appreciate your honesty. Do they allow you to use the computer as
part of your therapy at your asylum?
> Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
> interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
> the results, knowing that it disproves Relativity, some present
> calculations that try to explain the results. There is no consensus on
> how that calculation should be carried out. In this context it is
> inappropriate to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math
Not "imbicile". Imbecile.
> Someone who says this repeatedly is obviously not capable
> of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence and agreement
> between theory and reality. If this makes you being rude and calling
> names, you are just simply one big asshole. Redirecting my postst to a
> different group is also not very hospitable towards a new participant
> (how did you do that?).
We just did: alt.morons
>
> Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
> invalidity of SR, as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
> reason to be confident in my intuition, and I consider myself more
> objective than a physicist who is indoctrined for many years with
> validity of SR.
It has been several days that you haven't taken your meds, call the
nurse and she would be more than happy to administer them.
>
> I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame. Not because I
> cannot appreciate the beatiful complexity of relativity and velocity
> symmetry, but simply because I don't believe this is how the universe
> works.
Good, there are others that do that The one that comes to mind is
"rot...@gmail.com". He is weak on the experimental part, you are zero
on the theoretical part, if you worked together on his "theory" you
might become quite a force. We shudder at what you might be able to
produce.
>Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity will
> hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in conflict.
> So far I have seen only calculation based arguments. With this you can
> only prove that Relativity is mathematically consistent. It might be
> that SR is mathematically consistent. I have my doubts, if there is
> already no consensus on how to interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment.
> However, should SR be mathematically consistent, this is no guaratee
> that SR describes reality.
You are repeating yourself. Repeating idiocies doesn't make them true.
>
> One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
> belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God.
Oh, now we see it. Does your God agree with recursive programming
techniques?
>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.
OK, so you must be about 45-50 years old. You can't fuck very well
anymore, you are having a midlife crisis. But it is rather early for
daementia praecox. There is medication for this, you know.
>
> I think the "zero-frame" is also visible in quantum mechanics. I am not
> an expert in quantum mechanics and probably I will be stoned to death
"Derided to death". You are right about something (finally)
jan.v...@tiscali.nl
karand...@yahoo.com schreef:
> Yes, you are definitely first class crackpot material: you are filling
> posts with crap at very high speed.
> bla, bla, bla, etc. etc. etc.
> "Derided to death". You are right about something (finally)
Writing in such hostile manner to someone you barely know is indicative
of severe psychological problems. You hate yourself and you project
this in other people. Judging the severity of the case I can advice
only one thing. Jump before a train or cut your throat with a sharp
knife.
karand...@yahoo.com
So noted. make sure you take your meds, you are several days behind.
karand...@yahoo.com
jan.v...@tiscali.nl wrote:
>
> 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.
> Regards, Jan.
this only proves that you are an ignorant imbecile (as if we needed
another proof).
Ever heard of the Ives-Stilwell experiment and its MANY re-enactments?
Take a few antipschotic pills and Google "Ives-Stilwell", cretin.
Daryl McCullough
>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.
It's not an opinion. If you know how to calculate Doppler
for relativistic sources, then you know that the effects
don't cancel out.
>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.
Before you can compare the predictions of SR with experiments,
you have to actually know what SR predicts. You haven't gotten
past that stage yet.
>> >I have my doubts is acceleration and gravity is involved, but it
>> >will take me some time to verify this.
>>
>> I predict it will never happen, because you show no willingness
>> to actually do the work necessary to understand the subject. You
>> are trying to understand a difficult subject on the "cheap". You
>> are trying to take the easy road, and it will not get you there.
>> You have to buckle down and actually learn the mathematics if
>> you want to understand.
>
>Your comments are too harsh. I did thorough calculations with the
>three-frame configuration some years ago, only to see that it is
>mathematically consistent. However, that time I was unable to get a
>recipe for a calculation with acceleration involved. I got the
>impression that acceleration was too difficult for computations on SR.
>
>I am not lazy.
You are *intellectually* lazy. SR is something simple enough to
work through the basic material in maybe 3 weeks. You haven't done
that.
>I am reading (and studying) The Road to Reality from
>Roger Penrose at the moment. Sooner or later I will arrive at Penrose's
>treatment of Relativity.
So why have you *already* started posting about how relativity
is wrong, when you haven't even learned it yet? How about waiting
until you know something about the subject before making a conclusion
about it?
Phineas T Puddleduck
stevend...@yahoo.com (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
Dirk Van de moortel
<jan.v...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message news:1164115170....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.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/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReligionRelativity.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
Dirk Van de moortel
<jan.v...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message news:1164124584.1...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.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
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164077749....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Google Ralph Rabbidge Henry Wilson ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
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?
Henri Wilson
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
Bill Hobba
"Norman Bates" <psy...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11640252...@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
>
> <jan.v...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
> news:1164015511.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.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.
>>
> 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]
>
>
Norman Bates
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:eWL8h.69822$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
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.
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>[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...
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
I know relativists are incapable of thinking but surely you cannot be this
bloody stupid.
tell me you're joking....
Paul B. Andersen
So considering that observer behaviour cannot affect
an observed object, do you claim that the rotation of
the Earth somehow will affect remote ring laser gyros?
Paul
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Yeah, Henri, sure.
Tom Roberts
> The Hafele-Keating experiment was riddled with controversy.
Not really. Mr. Kelley completely misinterpreted it due to his personal
lack of understanding of both the experiment and of basic statistics,
and got it published in a journal without adequate peer review. His
confusions have been magnified, in the manner of the Internet, into a
"controversy" where none really exists.
> Hafele and
> Keating didn't give the actual test results in their paper; they gave
> figures that were radically altered.
No, they gave values analyzed in accordance with generally accepted
methods for such data. <shrug>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
In the manner of wikipedia, this article contains numerous errors and
half-truths. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
We're talking about clocks, not ring gyros.
How is it that the H&K clocks would miraculously know how to change rates if
the (remote) Earth suddenly stopped rotating?
Sorcerer
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nt19h.2681$yf7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
| Norman Bates wrote:
| > The Hafele-Keating experiment was riddled with controversy.
|
| Not really.
Yes really. Your bigotry is only too obvious, Roberts. <shrug>
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Eric Gisse
The Earth was rotating in the H&K experiment, Henri.
Sue...
Andersen resolves SR's postulates with telekinesis so
there is absolutly no reason he can't affect clocks
as well. Now stop picking on him or he
might look at your house and set it ablaze. :o)
Links irrelevant to H&K but relevant to SR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen
No answer, Henri?
> We're talking about clocks, not ring gyros.
Doesn't matter. Same problem.
They are both instruments inside the planes.
So we could make the question more general:
Do you claim that the rotation of the Earth somehow will
affect instruments inside the plane?
> How is it that the H&K clocks would miraculously know how to change rates if
> the (remote) Earth suddenly stopped rotating?
How is it that the gyros in my thought experiment would miraculously
know how to change the rotation if the (remote) Earth suddenly
stopped rotating?
The answer should be obvious, Henri.
And the answer is the same whether we are talking
about clocks or gyros.
I will give you a hint:
What is it the gyros measure?
Why are the results different in case 1 and 2?
What is the relevance of the Earth?
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Paul, as usual you run away from the real topic and stall for time by talking
about something entirely irrelevant.
IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO THE
CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
REUNITED?
THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.
WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?
Eric Gisse
*snicker*
I think this should be the operating definition of hypocracy.
>
> IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO THE
> CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
> REUNITED?
"wow! if I make relativity sound stupid, it is just like I proved
relativity wrong!"
>
> THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.
Hafele and Keating is an EXPERIMENT that existed in real life. Your
"experiment" is a nonsensical through experiment whose only result is
highlighting the fantastic ignorance of its' creator.
>
> WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?
Why would he? All you are doing is attempting to phrase relativity in a
stupid way even though you have no concept of what relativity is or
what it predicts.
Your attempts to invalidate an experiment you disagree with is childish
and transparent. The Earth, believe it or not, did not stop rotating in
the H&K experiment. Stop pretending it did.
Sue...
[...]
>
> "wow! if I make relativity sound stupid, it is just like I proved
> relativity wrong!"
>
> >
> > THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.
>
> Hafele and Keating is an EXPERIMENT that existed in real life. Your
> "experiment" is a nonsensical through experiment whose only result is
> highlighting the fantastic ignorance of its' creator.
H&K had no light path. It couldn't possibly test:
<< As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v;
as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but... >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
Sue...
Norman Bates
> IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO
> THE
> CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME
> WHEN
> REUNITED?
[Norman Bates]
Henri, I keep telling you that the speed of the planes change if the earth
stops. They go from flying at different speeds to flying at the same speed
and that's why the clocks will read the same. Can't you understand that?
Sorcerer
"Norman Bates" <nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:11643565...@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
I can't understand it. Explain it to me, psycho.
Androcles
Norman Bates
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1164328938.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> "wow! if I make relativity sound stupid, it is just like I proved
>> relativity wrong!"
>>
>> >
>> > THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.
>>
>> Hafele and Keating is an EXPERIMENT that existed in real life. Your
>> "experiment" is a nonsensical through experiment whose only result is
>> highlighting the fantastic ignorance of its' creator.
>
> H&K had no light path. It couldn't possibly test:
> << As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v;
> as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
> between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but... >>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
>
>
> Sue...
>
that were published were verified by later more accurate experiments, so
can we just refer to it as the H&K experiment and move on?
Norman Bates
Sue...
Norman Bates wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1164328938.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> "wow! if I make relativity sound stupid, it is just like I proved
> >> relativity wrong!"
> >>
> >> >
> >> > THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.
> >>
> >> Hafele and Keating is an EXPERIMENT that existed in real life. Your
> >> "experiment" is a nonsensical through experiment whose only result is
> >> highlighting the fantastic ignorance of its' creator.
> >
> > H&K had no light path. It couldn't possibly test:
> > << As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v;
> > as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
> > between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but... >>
> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
> >
> >
> > Sue...
> >
> We all know that the H&K experiment was totally inadequate, but the results
> that were published were verified by later more accurate experiments, so
> can we just refer to it as the H&K experiment and move on?
> Norman Bates
I never bring it up but when the H.G Wells fans offer it as
proof of an absurd interpretation of SR then is should be
challenged.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://yost.com/misc/cargocult.html
The last I looked the first three letters of this n.g. are still
S-C-I.
Sue...
Henri Wilson
Don't be daft....
Use satellites outside the earth's atmosphere.
Same experiment.....
If the Earth's rotation speed changes, how do the clocks 'know' how much to
vary their rates?
The H&K is a joke....like all of relativity..
Eric Gisse
H&K has nothing to do with SR, idiot.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:21:01 +0200, "Norman Bates" <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >[Henri Wilson]
> >> IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO
> >> THE
> >> CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME
> >> WHEN
> >> REUNITED?
> >
> >[Norman Bates]
> >Henri, I keep telling you that the speed of the planes change if the earth
> >stops. They go from flying at different speeds to flying at the same speed
> >and that's why the clocks will read the same. Can't you understand that?
>
> Don't be daft....
>
> Use satellites outside the earth's atmosphere.
>
> Same experiment.....
>
> If the Earth's rotation speed changes, how do the clocks 'know' how much to
> vary their rates?
>
> The H&K is a joke....like all of relativity..
So you have no actual objections to the H&K experiment, you just don't
like what would happen if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating?
Fortunately for you, the H&K experiment started with the Earth rotating
and ended with the Earth rotating.
Sue...
<< The published outcome of the experiment was consistent
with special relativity, and the observed time gains and
losses were reportedly different from zero to a high degree
of confidence.
That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly who examined
the raw data: according to him, the final published outcome
had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim
such a high precision: >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://yost.com/misc/cargocult.html
Learn some physics:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
Sue...
Eric Gisse
No, the experiment was consistent with GR.
Do you know the difference between SR and GR?
>
> That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly who examined
> the raw data: according to him, the final published outcome
> had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim
> such a high precision: >>
The claims of the electrical engineer [why is it always an engineer]
have been debunked many, many times in the past.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
> http://yost.com/misc/cargocult.html
>
> Learn some physics:
> Time-independent Maxwell equations
> Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
Oh look more irrelevant links.
It isn't a Sue post until there is a smattering of links that have
nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 24 Nov 2006 15:31:12 -0800
<1164411072....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Henri Wilson wrote:
[snippage]
>> The H&K is a joke....like all of relativity..
>
> So you have no actual objections to the H&K experiment, you just don't
> like what would happen if the Earth suddenly stopped rotating?
>
> Fortunately for you, the H&K experiment started with the Earth rotating
> and ended with the Earth rotating.
And fortunately for all of mankind, the oceans, and every living thing
thereon, I don't think it stopped anytime during the experiment, either.
:-)
Approximate moment of Earth: 2/5 M r^2 = 9.724 * 10^37 kg-m^2
Rotational speed: 2*Pi/86400 = 7.2722 * 10^-5 rad/sec
Rotational Energy: 1/2 I omega^2 = 2.571 * 10^29 J
Ocean volume: 1.370 * 10^18 m^3 (source: Encarta)
Water specific heat: 4186 J kg^-1 K^-1
Estimated ocean temperature rise: 44.8 million degrees
Temperature of Sun: 5800 K
Estimated effect on indigenous life forms on Earth:
YEEEEEEEOWWWWWWWWW.....
[more snippage]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous
munition. Please notify the US government
immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:21:01 +0200, "Norman Bates" <nos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>[Henri Wilson]
>>> IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO
>>> THE
>>> CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME
>>> WHEN
>>> REUNITED?
>>
>>[Norman Bates]
>>Henri, I keep telling you that the speed of the planes change if the earth
>>stops. They go from flying at different speeds to flying at the same
>>speed
>>and that's why the clocks will read the same. Can't you understand that?
>
> Don't be daft....
>
> Use satellites outside the earth's atmosphere.
>
> Same experiment.....
>
How can you say same experiment when you want to use satellites? Stick to
the planes.
> If the Earth's rotation speed changes, how do the clocks 'know' how much
> to
> vary their rates?
>
Because if the speed of the earth's rotation changes, the speeds of the
planes change in relation to the centre of earth. The speed of the earth's
rotation is a factor in the speed of the planes, when the planes are moving
in opposite directions along the equator. Please tell me that you can
understand that. A clock at the north pole will run faster in relation to
one at the equator, (ignore any gravitational effects).
> The H&K is a joke....like all of relativity..
>
Too bad you weren't around when Einstein was here, you could have saved him
a lot of unnecessary work.
Henri Wilson
You simply don't get it do you.
If the Earth's rotation rate changes, the clocks in the satellites cannot
possibly be affected. They will continue on the merry way, which, according to
you lot, would make them read differently when reunited.
If the Earth stopped rotating immediately the satellites were placed in orbit,
the clocks SHOUD read the SAME when reunited.
Can you not see the contradiction. It is very obvious.
>> The H&K is a joke....like all of relativity..
>>
>Too bad you weren't around when Einstein was here, you could have saved him
>a lot of unnecessary work.
If Eiinstein were alive today and capable of posting messages here he would be
shot down in flames every time.
Eric Gisse
Arguing about relativity again, Henri?
Remember all those times you told me you neither understand or want to
understand relativity?
>
> If the Earth's rotation rate changes, the clocks in the satellites cannot
> possibly be affected. They will continue on the merry way, which, according to
> you lot, would make them read differently when reunited.
You just love to make shit up, don't you?
If there is no angular velocity, the situation will be symmetric and
the planes will read exactly the same. Or satellites, or whatever.
It is obvious not only from an intuitive standpoint, but obvious from
the time dilation equation for that setup.
I have no idea how you can fuck up something so simple so often.
>
> If the Earth stopped rotating immediately the satellites were placed in orbit,
> the clocks SHOUD read the SAME when reunited.
Since you don't understand relativity, I am unsure why you are so
certain of this even though it is true.
>
> Can you not see the contradiction. It is very obvious.
>
>
>
> >> The H&K is a joke....like all of relativity..
> >>
> >Too bad you weren't around when Einstein was here, you could have saved him
> >a lot of unnecessary work.
>
> If Eiinstein were alive today and capable of posting messages here he would be
> shot down in flames every time.
That is because the people who would be flaming him [like yourself] are
morons who have no education in the subjects they rant about.
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
on the planes thing? Are you saying I'm right about the planes, but it
doesn't apply to satellites? The H&K experiment was done with planes, not
satellites, so I'm not going to bring satellites into this argument. Just
tell me if you agree that the speed of the planes will change in relation to
the centre of the earth, if the earth stops rotating. I know you can see
that and that is what caused the difference in the clocks in the H&K
experiment and later experiments which were more accurate.
Paul B. Andersen
GYROS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR MEASUREMENTS SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
REUNITED?
Why don't you answer?
Is it because you can't, or is it because you don't
like the answer you would have to give?
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Because the question is completely irrelevant.
>Is it because you can't, or is it because you don't
>like the answer you would have to give?
I will answer you.
The gyros will tell each plane when it has done a complete 360 turn.
It makes no difference whether the Earth stops spinning or not.
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:2e9hm2tkue9erfskg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:11:19 +0200, "Norman Bates" <nos...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If the Earth stopped rotating immediately the satellites were placed in
>> orbit,
>> the clocks SHOUD read the SAME when reunited.
>>
>> Can you not see the contradiction. It is very obvious.
>>
>Henri, you keep jumping to satellites, does that mean that you agree with me
>on the planes thing? Are you saying I'm right about the planes, but it
>doesn't apply to satellites? The H&K experiment was done with planes, not
>satellites, so I'm not going to bring satellites into this argument. Just
>tell me if you agree that the speed of the planes will change in relation to
>the centre of the earth, if the earth stops rotating. I know you can see
>that and that is what caused the difference in the clocks in the H&K
>experiment and later experiments which were more accurate.
The same experiment can be carried out using satellites orbiting in the
equatorial plane. Try thinking about it.
GR says the clock going in one direction will appear to run at a different rate
from the one going in the opposite direction. ..because the Earth is rotating
and each one's speed wrt the ground observer is different.
Therefore, when the clocks are reunited, their readings will be different.
This means that immediately after launch, the clocks must be running at
different rates relative to each other.
If the Earth stops rotating after launch, why should that difference suddenly
disappear...which is what GR says SHOULD happen?
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
I don't want to get into a discussion on satillites, because H&K had nothing
to do with satillites.
Paul B. Andersen
Of course. That is indeed the obvious answer.
The gyros and the clocks give different results in
the two scenarios, because the _planes_ move in two very
different ways in the two scenarios.
As you so correctly point out, it does not matter if the Earth
is spinning or not.
So the answers to your question:
" IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO THE
CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
REUNITED?"
and my question:
"IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO THE
GYROS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR MEASUREMENTS SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
REUNITED?"
are exactly the same:
The clocks or the gyros don't have to know anything about
the rotation of the Earth because it does not affect them
in any way, it is the pathes of the planes through space and time
that determine what the instruments will show at the end of their journey.
In case 1, one plane is stationary in a non rotating frame,
while the other plane is moving twice around a circle at the speed 3340 km/h.
In case 2, both planes are moving in opposite directions once around a circle
at the same speed 1670 km/h.
"It makes no difference whether the Earth stops spinning or not."
Remember that for the future.
Case closed.
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
The case is indeed closed.
You have agreed that the H&K MUST give a null result.
Thank you Paul.
Eric Gisse
There is no possible way to interpret what Paul said to mean that.
Reading for comprehension is quite difficult.
Paul B. Andersen
Henri knows that very well.
This is only his way of diverting the attention from the fact
that he himself, by pointing out that it is the motion of
of the _planes_ and not the rotation of the Earth that determines
what instruments in the planes will show, demonstrated that his babble
about stopping the rotation of the Earth is stupid.
Paul
Eric Gisse
Then we get to hear about his confusion about why there is an
asymmetry, then someone will try to explain the clocks in the planes
were compared to the clocks on the ground, and then Henri will
misunderstand in a new way...etc
>
> Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:58:24 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO THE
>>>>>>> CLOCKS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR RATES SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
>>>>>>> REUNITED?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS SHOWS HOW NOINSENSICAL THE H&K REALLY IS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?
>>>>>> IF THE EARTH STOPS ROTATING AS SOON AS THE PLANES ARE IN THE AIR, HOW DO THE
>>>>>> GYROS 'KNOW' HOW TO ADJUST THEIR MEASUREMENTS SO THEY WILL NOW READ THE SAME WHEN
>>>>>> REUNITED?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you answer?
>>>>> Because the question is completely irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it because you can't, or is it because you don't
>>>>>> like the answer you would have to give?
>>>>> I will answer you.
>>>> "It makes no difference whether the Earth stops spinning or not."
>>>>
>>>> Remember that for the future.
>>>>
>>>> Case closed.
>>> The case is indeed closed.
>>> You have agreed that the H&K MUST give a null result.
>>
>> There is no possible way to interpret what Paul said to mean that.
>
>Henri knows that very well.
>This is only his way of diverting the attention from the fact
>that he himself, by pointing out that it is the motion of
>of the _planes_ and not the rotation of the Earth that determines
>what instruments in the planes will show, demonstrated that his babble
>about stopping the rotation of the Earth is stupid.
>
>Paul
I think you should have a closer look at the H&K...and its stupidity.
The clocks are presumed to run at different rates RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.
Paul B. Andersen
The clocks in the planes will measure different proper times between
the same two events because their paths through space and time are different,
and the gyros in the planes will measure different rotations of the very
same reason.
This is what GR predicts for a K&H like experiment:
Let's start with the Schwarzschild Solution:
ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt^2 - 1/(1 - 2m/r)dr^2 - r2 (dp^2 + (sin p)^2 dq^2)
where t is the temporal coordinate,
r is the radial coordinate,
p is latitude, and q is longitude.
m = G*M/c2 where G is the gravitational constant
and M is the mass of the Earth.
If the speed in the Earth centred non rotating frame
(Schwarzschild frame, hereafter called ECI-frame) is v,
we have v*dt = r*dp.
Constant height (dr=0) around equator (dq=0)
and the equation above becomes:
ds^2 = (1 - 2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt^2 (v in conventional units - thus c^2)
or
ds = sqrt(1 -2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt
or a first order approximation (m/r << 1, v << c):
T' = (1 - m/r - 0.5*v^2/c^2)*T
where T' is the proper time of the clock, and T is the travelling
time in the ECI-frame.
Since we are interested in finding the difference between two
clocks at different height and speed (Earth clock and plane clock),
we get:
(T1 - T2)/T = -(m/r1) + (m/r2) + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
Inserting m = G*M/c^2 and G*M/r1^2 = g, acceleration at Earth's surface,
we get:
(T1 - T2)/T = -(g/c^2)*r1*(1-r1/r2) + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
if we set: r2 = r1 + h, and approximate (r1+h)/r1 = ca. 1 since h << r1,
we can write this:
(T1 - T2)/T = -g*h/c^2 + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
Let's use the equation above on our idealized case with
two planes flying in opposite direction around equator, same ground speed
and height. We will use "reasonable values" for commercial planes.
(They will have to fly non stop, though.)
Let's suppose the ground speeds of the aircrafts are 232.5 m/s,
and that they are flying at a height 9000m. The aircrafts
will use two sideral days on the journey.
The speeds of the clocks in the ECI-frame will be:
Earth clock A: va = 465 m/s
West bound B: vb = va - 232.5 m/s = 232.5 m/s
East bound C: vc = va + 232.5 m/s = 697.5 m/s
West bound:
TA - TB = 2*sideral_day*(-g*h/c^2 + 0.5*vb^2/c^2 - 0.5*va^2/c^2) sec
TA - TB = 2*86160*(-1 + 0.3 - 1.2)*10^-12 sec = - 327 ns
West bound clock gains 327 ns (H&K 273 ns)
East bound:
TA - TC = 2*sideral_day*(-g*h/c^2 + 0.5*vc^2/c^2 - 0.5*va^2/c^2) sec
TA - TC = 2*86160*(-1 + 2.7 - 1.2)*10-12 sec = + 86 ns
East bound clock loses 86 ns (H&K 59 ns)
A gyro in the west going plane would measure one rotation,
a gyro in the east going plane would measure 3 rotations,
and a gyro on the ground would measure 2 rotations.
Now tell me, Henry:
Where in the above do you see the rotation speed of the Earth?
The only speeds that appear are the speeds of the CLOCKS.
Since these are different, the three clocks and gyros will all
measure different values because their paths through space and
time are different.
GR's predictions for what clocks will show are tested in
a number of experiments, and have in all cases proven to
be correct within the precision of the measurements.
H&K is the least precise of these experiments.
You know this, Henri, and you have accepted the results
of these experiments (except the H&K) before.
You will of course keep insisting that the predictions
of GR are stupid even if they invariably are "accidentally"
correct. :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:47:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>The clocks in the planes will measure different proper times between
>the same two events because their paths through space and time are different,
>and the gyros in the planes will measure different rotations of the very
>same reason.
Hahaha! This is becoming quite funny.
Tell me how the clocks will somehow be affected by the fact that the Earth
stops rotating midway through the experiment?
>This is what GR predicts for a K&H like experiment:
Let's do a similar exeriment with satellites.
>
>Let's start with the Schwarzschild Solution:
>
> ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt^2 - 1/(1 - 2m/r)dr^2 - r2 (dp^2 + (sin p)^2 dq^2)
>
> where t is the temporal coordinate,
> r is the radial coordinate,
> p is latitude, and q is longitude.
>
>m = G*M/c2 where G is the gravitational constant
>and M is the mass of the Earth.
>
>If the speed in the Earth centred non rotating frame
>(Schwarzschild frame, hereafter called ECI-frame) is v,
>we have v*dt = r*dp.
>Constant height (dr=0) around equator (dq=0)
>and the equation above becomes:
>
>ds^2 = (1 - 2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt^2 (v in conventional units - thus c^2)
>or
> ds = sqrt(1 -2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt
>or a first order approximation (m/r << 1, v << c):
> T' = (1 - m/r - 0.5*v^2/c^2)*T
>where T' is the proper time of the clock, and T is the travelling
>time in the ECI-frame.
>Since we are interested in finding the difference between two
>clocks at different height and speed (Earth clock and plane clock),
>we get:
>(T1 - T2)/T = -(m/r1) + (m/r2) + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
So where is the proof that this is true.
>Inserting m = G*M/c^2 and G*M/r1^2 = g, acceleration at Earth's surface,
>we get:
>(T1 - T2)/T = -(g/c^2)*r1*(1-r1/r2) + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
>if we set: r2 = r1 + h, and approximate (r1+h)/r1 = ca. 1 since h << r1,
>we can write this:
>(T1 - T2)/T = -g*h/c^2 + (0.5*v2^2/c^2 - 0.5*v1^2/c^2)
>
>Let's use the equation above on our idealized case with
>two planes flying in opposite direction around equator, same ground speed
>and height. We will use "reasonable values" for commercial planes.
>(They will have to fly non stop, though.)
>
>Let's suppose the ground speeds of the aircrafts are 232.5 m/s,
>and that they are flying at a height 9000m. The aircrafts
>will use two sideral days on the journey.
>The speeds of the clocks in the ECI-frame will be:
>Earth clock A: va = 465 m/s
>West bound B: vb = va - 232.5 m/s = 232.5 m/s
>East bound C: vc = va + 232.5 m/s = 697.5 m/s
Observer speed makes no difference to time flow anywhere else..
>West bound:
>TA - TB = 2*sideral_day*(-g*h/c^2 + 0.5*vb^2/c^2 - 0.5*va^2/c^2) sec
>TA - TB = 2*86160*(-1 + 0.3 - 1.2)*10^-12 sec = - 327 ns
>West bound clock gains 327 ns (H&K 273 ns)
According to your stupid theory.
>
>East bound:
>TA - TC = 2*sideral_day*(-g*h/c^2 + 0.5*vc^2/c^2 - 0.5*va^2/c^2) sec
>TA - TC = 2*86160*(-1 + 2.7 - 1.2)*10-12 sec = + 86 ns
>East bound clock loses 86 ns (H&K 59 ns)
According to your stupid theory.
>A gyro in the west going plane would measure one rotation,
>a gyro in the east going plane would measure 3 rotations,
>and a gyro on the ground would measure 2 rotations.
>
>Now tell me, Henry:
>Where in the above do you see the rotation speed of the Earth?
>The only speeds that appear are the speeds of the CLOCKS.
>Since these are different, the three clocks and gyros will all
>measure different values because their paths through space and
>time are different.
Their 'paths through time' are identical.
>
>GR's predictions for what clocks will show are tested in
>a number of experiments, and have in all cases proven to
>be correct within the precision of the measurements.
>H&K is the least precise of these experiments.
>
>You know this, Henri, and you have accepted the results
>of these experiments (except the H&K) before.
The results have been officially withdrawn.
>You will of course keep insisting that the predictions
>of GR are stupid even if they invariably are "accidentally"
>correct. :-)
There is absolutely no evidence that any of Einstein's version of relativity is
correct.
There is insurmounable evidence that it is nonsense from start to finish.
.
>
>Paul
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Henri Wilson
When the clocks are initially in the air, they are supposed to run at differet
rates, according to you. If the Earth stops spinning, both clocks experience
exactly the same acceleration for the same time. They have identical forces on
them.
From a purely physical point of view, there is no reason why this should cause
one to change more than the other.
Norman Bates
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
Henri, I'm not in the mood for this discussion anymore, take it to the nobel
science committee, see what they think, maybe you are right then you can go
buy a suit.
Sorcerer
"Norman Bates" <nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:11650538...@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped. Drooling, he jumped to reach them, but try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize.
Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said, with a shrug, to comfort himself, "Oh, they were probably sour anyway!"
Paul B. Andersen
Keep kicking and screaming and denying facts, Henri.
That way, you will force Nature to work as you think it should.
Paul
Norman Bates
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
news:W9fch.44185$qd7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[Norman Bates]
Actully, its Henri who doesn't participate in the conversation, he doesn't
respond to many of the things people say, its like talking to a brick wall.
Anyway, I'm not qualified to argue about relativity, I know enough to know
that I know very little.
Sorcerer
"Norman Bates" <nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:11650817...@vasbyt.isdsl.net...
Henri's just an old guy that wanted to be a physicist and have his own
crackpot theories recognised. Tell him he's a crazy old abo, England
will win the ashes and he'll lick your hand like a bloodhound with
fleas. Henri will thrive on disagreement. Anyone is qualified to argue
with Henri, you only get disqualified if you agree with him. After
a couple of months go by he'll say that it was he that had your idea.
You are not going to learn or teach anything anyway, they are all
brick walls excepts Humpty Roberts who keeps falling off it.
Humpty Roberts sat on a wall,
Humpty Roberts had a great fall...
| SR is strictly valid only in a flat Lorentzian manifold with the
| topology of R^4. This of course is a very poor model of the world we
| inhabit. But physics is not math, and we often use approximations. SR is
| approximately valid when the curvature of the manifold is negligible
| over the region of interest compared to one's measurement accuracy. That
| is, if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can probably be
| used. - Humpty Roberts.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." - Humpty Roberts
Humpty Roberts in Wonderland:-
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
`I don't know what you mean by "observations",' Alice said.
Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' <shrug>
`But "observations" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
<shrug>,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' <shrug>
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Roberts, `which is to be master -- that's
all.' <shrug>
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Roberts
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however,
I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
<shrug>
"And you never responded to how a 2-d surface in a flat 4-d spacetime can
have nonzero curvature, and why that shows that the curvature of such
2-d surfaces is useless in "describing" the geometry of the 4-d
manifold...." he
droned on.
"If you say that the curvature of 2-d surfaces is useless in
"describing" the geometry of the 4-d manifold....I am willing to agree
with you. But I just wanted you people to help me visualize the
intrinsic curvature of 3-d Schw. space. I was told that the Gaussian
curvature of certain 2-d surfaces will represent the intrinsic
curvature of 3-d Schw. space. When I wanted these 2-d surfaces to be
identified, Jan PB had given some interesting suggestions. But now you
say it is *useless*....." said Alice.
"_SOME_ 2-d surfaces can be useful in describing the geometry of 4-d
spacetime, in particular those spanned by a 2-d vector space of
geodesics. But you were discussing 2-d surfaces defined by coordinates,
and _those_ are useless because coordinates are completely arbitrary,
and introducing that arbitrariness destroys their usefulness" replied Humpty
Roberts.
"That means the notion of intrinsic curvature of space is either too
complex that it cannot be visualized or it is just invalid." exclaimed
Alice.
"No. But in many cases using a ball of dust particles is a better
visualization tool than 2-d surfaces.", said Humpty Roberts, teetering
on his wall.
"Mathematically it is good enough to state that in Riemannian geometry
the Riemann tensor is non-zero. Where is the necessity of associating
it with a cooked up fictitious term 'curvature of space'? " asked Alice,
thinking of the cooked up egg she had for breakfast.
"Mathematicians and physicists are human. We share the common desire to
communicate with each other easily, accurately, and concisely -- that's
why technical vocabularies were invented." said Humpty Roberts scornfully
and pretending he is human by saying "we".
Alice pondered this for moment, then asked "Was it required to fool and
mislead the 'layman'?"
"Your problem, not mine", said Humpty Roberts, then realizing his
Freudian slip, he was pretending to be human, added "(ours).
But this technical vocabulary is not secret or unfathomable, it just
takes _STUDY_. <shrug>"
Alice then went back to say "The term *curvature* basically applies to
the bending of curves and 2-d surfaces."
Ho ho, thought Humpty Roberts, "Not in differential geometry or GR.
The term "curvature" was borrowed by analogy with 2-d surfaces, and
has come to mean the Riemann curvature tensor. That is, a manifold of
_any_ dimension with nonzero Riemann tensor is said to be curved."
and he shrugged like this :- "<shrug>"
Alice asked "Why *said* to be curved when it is actually not curved?"
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
news:ZDmYf.51582$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com
The end.
With thanks to Lewis Carroll.
The reader should take careful note here.
Humpty Roberts is not discussing the concepts words represent, he is
discussing the meaning of words. The rest of us use a dictionary.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
There could be a very small 'free fall' effect..but it is really very very
small.
The H&K had a 50% chance of coming up with the required GR answer, just on
clock drift alone.
So you run the experiment twice...... and don't tell anyone about the other
one...
Paul B. Andersen
> The H&K had a 50% chance of coming up with the required GR answer, just on
> clock drift alone.
> So you run the experiment twice...... and don't tell anyone about the other
> one...
Definitely one of your better, Henri. :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson
.
This kiind of thing happens all the time.
Never trust a deluded relativist....
Noah Edelson
> God has knowable properties of Himself revealed in the Bible that are
> in conflict with aspects of Relativity.
> Regards, Jan.
So there it is. Your religious views, which could be summarized under the label of "absolutism" conflict with the ideas of Einstein.
I am going to be generous and say that your sort of "mathematical aesthetics" makes your drive similar to Einstein's- although your
preference of how you think the universe should work is the exact opposite of his perspective. Einstein had a fondness for simplicity of representation and also
symmetry, and hated the human arrogance that led us to believe that we were the exact center of the universe- and all planets actually rotated around earth.
The thing is, Einstein's intuitions about the universe check out. You could say he was lucky to have an aesthetic preference that happened to agree with the way
the universe actually works. Yours don't check out, indicating you have a faulty concept of how the universe works. It is as simple as that. A smart person might
adapt their views in the light of new data, and find an alternate hypothesis that fits. I'm hoping you have that level of intelligence, but I'm not really going to hold my breath. =)
That geocentric model was endorsed by the Church until fairly recently, I believe the 1800s or so. Even though the heliocentric model was posited 300 years before Christ. Heh. A little behind the times. Some Christians still believe the geocentric model, these are of the "young earth creationist" creed. These are the brilliant folks who think the moon landing was faked. I imagine many of them think the moon is actually made out of Swiss cheese. Which is almost indisputable proof that Einstein was involved in that deception! Because.. you know.. Swiss and all. :P
It just so happens that Einstein was quite willing to put in the hard work to crunch the numbers with his model. And it also just so happens that the consequences of his theory include such crazy predictions as length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, the relativistic velocity addition formula, the relativistic Doppler effect, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit, the speed of causality and the Thomas precession- but also stuff I don't understand like the prediction of the shape of gravity waves- which
was validated less than a decade ago. Einstein really stuck it out there in making such counter-intuitive predictions, but also he was bold politically and socially. It was his socialist and democratic politics that made him the enemy of the Nobel committee- who seemed a little too enthralled with the Nazis, if you ask me. They only gave him the prize because they were hemorrhaging immense amounts of political capital by avoiding giving him the prize him for so long. This is a fascinating piece of history, I suggest you check it out: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einstein-vs-the-nobel-prize
Note that I don't think that they (or you) are/were Nazis, its just that both you and them happen to have Hitler's sword and shield in hand, and are fighting his enemies for him. Hmm.. yet again, Godwin's law checks out. :P
Maciej Wozniak
> > God has knowable properties of Himself revealed in the Bible that are
> > in conflict with aspects of Relativity.
> > Regards, Jan.
>
> So there it is. Your religious views, which could be summarized under the label of "absolutism" conflict with the ideas of Einstein.
> I am going to be generous and say that your sort of "mathematical aesthetics" makes your drive similar to Einstein's- although your
> preference of how you think the universe should work is the exact opposite of his perspective. Einstein had a fondness for simplicity of representation and also
> symmetry, and hated the human arrogance that led us to believe that we were the exact center of the universe- and all planets actually rotated around earth.
as it was obviously driven by antisemitism and everyone
opposing him was an obvious antisemite.
> The thing is, Einstein's intuitions about the universe check out.
In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
JanPB
> 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.
And you really think such a simple thing would not have been noticed
decades and decades ago?
Study the subject you are criticising FIRST. Would it be too much to ask?
It will also save you a lot of time wasted on posting silliness to the Internet.
Your mistakes above are VERY basic.
--
Jan
Maciej Wozniak
power, importance and beauty would for sure notice such
a simple thing that he is a mad, fanatic crank crazy about
his imagined wisdom, power, importance and beauty.
Wouldn't he?