Hafele and Keating Revisited
Minor Crank
dilation predictions of SR and GR to unprecedented accuracy every
hour, every day of the year. This is a day and age when the Hipparcos
Space Astrometry Mission provided data so accurate, that GR effects
could be observed in the measured stellar positions up to a 90 degrees
angle away from the Sun.
This is a day and age when we can afford to be far more critical of
the old classic demonstrations of SR and GR than we have been in the
past.
For instance, if I were to claim that the results of the famous
Eddington eclipse expedition did not definitively distinguish between
the Newtonian and GR predictions, so what? Does modern acceptance of
GR hinge critically on the validity of these 1919 results? Of course
not. As a matter of fact, I do make this claim, but I seriously doubt
that anybody here would label me a crank for stating so.
In this same vein, however, I wish to bring up another classic
demonstration of SR and GR that I believe needs to be consigned to the
dust bin. This is the 1972 Hafele-Keating experiment.
On a semi-regular basis, an anti-relativity crank will come storming
on this board stating that the Hafele-Keating experiment was all
nonsense. This anti-relativity crank will never actually have read the
Hafele-Keating papers on his own, but instead generally will back up
his assertions with a link to some anti-relativity web site or other.
The pro-relativity regulars on this board, none of whom will have
actually read the Hafele-Keating papers either, will shout back at the
crank and then provide citations to other secondary sources, such as
Clifford Wills' book and maybe links to a pro-relativity web site or
two.
However, just because a person is a crank, does not automatically mean
that everything he says is wrong.
I have read the original Hafele and Keating papers, and I believe in
this case, the cranks just happen to be right.
1) Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. (1972) Around-the-World Atomic
Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains. Science 177:166-168
2) Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. (1972) Around-the-World Atomic
Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains. Science 177:168-170
I recommend that all of us get to the library to look up and read the
original papers before responding, either positively or negatively, to
the things that I have to say. Would anybody with a scanner be willing
to post a copy of these papers on their personal web site?
[NOTE: I specifically do not want or need any support from anybody on
Old Man's list. As a member of the SPCC and a "minor crank" myself, I
aim to reduce the amount of abuse that major cranks experience on this
board, but don't expect me to support your beliefs!]
Cesium clocks in 1972 were around three orders of magnitude less
accurate and precise than those available today, and under the best of
circumstances would have been barely adequate to the task of observing
relativistic effects in the low speed realm. The circumstances,
however, were not of the best.
The drift rates of cesium clocks available in 1972 were typically on
the order of 0.1 usec/day, comparable in magnitude to the predicted
relativistic effects. Hafele and Keating began the experiment
believing that they would be able to use simple data reduction
techniques to factor out the effects of drift, as follows:
Idealized Hafele-Keating Data Analysis:
| |
| |
| *| _ -
| * | _ -
| * | _ -
_|* |_ -
_ - | *|
_ - | * |
_ - | * |
|* |
| |
| |
Clock behavior|Eastward | Clock behavior
before air |trip (no | after air
transport |measurements)| transport
The dashed lines represent the drift of a hypothetical 1972-vintage
cesium clock used in a Hafele-Keating-like experiment relative to the
clock ensemble at the U.S. Naval Observatory, i.e. MEAN(USNO).
The asterisked lines represent extrapolated behavior of this
hypothetical cesium clock during the Eastward around-the-world trip,
when, of course, no clock comparisons could be made.
1 vertical space = 15 nsec
1 horizontal space = 5 hr
The hypothetical clock represented above gained a steady 18 nsec/day
relative to MEAN(USNO). After the Eastward around-the-world trip, a
simple extrapolation would have shown that the clock experienced a
delta tau of -60 nsec.
--------------------------------------
Unfortunately for Hafele and Keating, real cesium clocks exhibit not
only systematic drift, but in addition exhibit unpredictable
"quasi-permanent" changes in rate every few days or so. The following
illustrates a typical sort of behavior that a 1972 vintage cesium
clock could easily have exhibited:
_
_ -
- _ _ =
- _ _ -
- _ _ -
- _ _ -
=
Each '=' sign represents a rate change. The above represents a
hypothetical clock initially losing time at a steady 18 nsec/day
relative to MEAN(USNO), then experiencing a rate change to where it
gained 18 nsec/day relative to MEAN(USNO), and finally experiencomg a
rate change reducing its gain to 12 nsec/day.
--------------------------------------
In 1972, when transporting time by ground, no means existed for direct
comparison between a transported clock and MEAN(USNO).
To address this problem, the method of correlated rate change analysis
was developed. When transporting time, an ensemble of clocks is
transported rather than a single clock. Because of the random and
independent nature of the rate changes, the long-term average rate of
the ensemble is more stable than the rate of any individual member.
If a single rate change in a single clock occurred during transport,
the timing and magnitude of the this rate change could be deduced by
correlating the clock behavior with that of the transported ensemble.
| | _
| | _ -
- _ | | _ =
- _ | |_ -
- _| *|
|* * |
| = |
| |
Clock behavior| Transport | Clock behavior
before ground | period (no | after ground
transport |measurements)| transport
In a first approximation, deducing the timing and magnitude of a clock
rate change involves a simple extrapolation. In actuality, things are
a little more complicated. Since the ensemble mean would itself be
affected by the rate change behavior of an individual clock,
correcting for individual clock rate changes requires detailed
statistical analysis and multiple iterations.
Correlated rate change analysis, applied to a clock ensemble, enables
far greater precision to be attained in the time measurements of a
clock ensemble than the simple sqrt(N) improvement that would be
achieved by taking a simple mean.
--------------------------------------
In the 1972 Hafele-Keating experiment, ALL of the clocks experienced
significant rate changes during transport.
Unlike the low-speed ground transport case presented above where delta
tau is insignificant, I see no obvious means whereby the timing and
magnitude of these rate changes can be extracted from the cesium clock
data, since the whole point of the Hafele-Keating experiment was that
delta tau was assumed to be an unknown which was subject to
experimental measurement.
The following illustration depicts the problem that I have with
understanding how Hafele and Keating could possibly have derived an
accurate measure of delta tau, given the rate changes that occurred
during transport:
| |
| |
- _ | *|
- _ | * |
- _| * *| _
|1 * | _ -
| 2 | _ =
| * |_ -
| 3|
| |
Clock behavior|Eastward | Clock behavior
before air |trip (no | after air
transport |measurements)| transport
In the above illustration, a rate change occurred during the Eastward
trip, but when? If the rate change occurred at (1), then delta tau
amounted to -90 nsec, significantly in excess of the SR prediction. If
the rate change occurred at (2), then delta tau amounted to -60 nsec,
approximately equal to the SR prediction of -40 nsec. If the rate
change occurred at (3), than there would have been no delta tau at
all.
--------------------------------------
A close reading of the Hafele-Keating papers is quite revealing. For
example, in footnote #9 of their second paper, we read, "The time
intercomparison data showed that clock 120 changed rate three times,
361 changed three times, 408 changed twice, and that 447 changed rate
once during the eastward trip. For the westward trip, clock 120
changed once and 361 changed four times. No significant changes in
rate were found for clocks 408 and 447 during the westward trip."
How could any form of data reduction possibly have deduced the timing
and magnitude of so many rate changes during the eastward and westward
trips?
My personal conclusion is that Hafele and Keating's results are, at
best, only vaguely consistent with the relativistic prediction. The
widely reported amazingly close fit of Hafele and Keating's results to
the relativistic prediction is, in my opinion, pure fantasy.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
(Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cranks)
Mike Varney
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:40bb2cea.0211...@posting.google.com...
<SNIP>
>
> "Minor Crank"
> SPCC
> (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cranks)
Is this an offshoot of the prevention of cruelty to cockroaches?
Sam Wormley
Spaceman
>This is a day and age when orbiting GPS satellites confirm the time
>dilation predictions of SR and GR to unprecedented accuracy every
>hour, every day of the year.
<ROFLOL>
and each and every hour or less the clocks "REMOVE" the stupid
malfunctions in order to find ABSOLUTE times and positions.
Stop being a brainwashed fool!
GPS removes the crap to work correctly at all.
sheesh!
How many GPS clocks are "not in sync?
<LOL>
guess what.
NONE if it is working correctly.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Sam Wormley
Don't mind spaceman--he's a raving loony.
Spaceman
>
>Don't mind spaceman--he's a raving loony.
Great physics Sam,
too bad it is the insultation type instead of the "reality based" type.
Sam,
still can not grasp a clock malfunctuion huh?
<ROFLOL>
You seem to like to make a fool out of yourself with each insult.
<LOL>
Franz Heymann
[...]
>
> How could any form of data reduction possibly have deduced the
timing
> and magnitude of so many rate changes during the eastward and
westward
> trips?
By the usual trick of overdetermination. They used four clocks.
After their corrections, the data was internally more consistent than
before.
They were not idiots. They quoted their estimated accuracies in the
data as finally analysed. The data at that stage of the analysis
quite convincingly shows the effect they investigated. If any of the
circumstances you mentioned did occur, why should all have conspired
to turn out precisely in the manner necesary to mislead the physicists
*quite accurately* into the wrong direction? I would love to see a
quantitative likelihood analysis on your part, in which you derive the
likelihood that all conspired as you intimate.
Franz Heymann
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Sam,
> still can not grasp a clock malfunctuion huh?
>
Relatavistic muons don't have malfunction clocks, they
experience time dilation. See:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
Spaceman
>Relatavistic muons
Bone marrow losses.
HA HA!
you are wrong.
and ignorant to "todays facts about time and clocks"
the clock malfunctioned and you have no proof it is the same
dang muon at all.
Did you mark the muon with a Sharpie?
Sam Wormley
Bone marrow, like everything else in the Universe, experience
time dilation at relatavistic speeds. See:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
Spaceman
>Bone marrow, like everything else in the Universe, experience
>time dilation at relatavistic speeds. See:
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
Jeese you are a dimwit brainwashed moron.
Bone marrow loss breaks the "loos of time"
the bone marrow "experiences": MORE TIME
dingbat!
the opposite of the stupid time dilation crap.
still refuse to research "all clocks" huh Sam?
still posting links that prove absolutely nothing about
what I state huh?
You are SADS,
Stupid And Dumb Still.
Sam Wormley
>
> Jeese you are a dimwit brainwashed moron.
>
> Bone marrow loss breaks the "loos of time"
> the bone marrow "experiences": MORE TIME
> dingbat!
>
> the opposite of the stupid time dilation crap.
>
> still refuse to research "all clocks" huh Sam?
> still posting links that prove absolutely nothing about
> what I state huh?
>
> You are SADS,
> Stupid And Dumb Still.
> <LOL>
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
Dingbats, like everything else in the Universe, experience
Spaceman
>Dingbats, like everything else in the Universe, experience
>time dilation at relatavistic speeds. See:
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
Dear Parrot,
I know you like to say "polly want a cracker"
I am trying to teach you how to say
"polly want steak with potatoes"
It is too bad you like those crackers so much,
you could be eating some good food instead.
Poor parrot.
too many crackers and not enough actual energy produced by them.
bone marrow loss shows you are a fool Sam,
ignorance of such opposite effect of time dilation
should wake you up,
yet.
instead you spout the old "polly want a cracker"
even when awake.
<LOL>
Poor Sam,
a parrot with only crackers and no fluids.
a parrot that has no clue "how clocks work"
and keeps proving it with each ignorant post of a "time dilation" link
that lacks anything about bone marrow loss for it kills the time dilation
as it should be.
A clock malfunction that poor old Sam the parrot will never understand.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Dear Parrot,
> I know you like to say "polly want a cracker"
>
> I am trying to teach you how to say
> "polly want steak with potatoes"
>
> It is too bad you like those crackers so much,
> you could be eating some good food instead.
>
> Poor parrot.
> too many crackers and not enough actual energy produced by them.
>
> bone marrow loss shows you are a fool Sam,
> ignorance of such opposite effect of time dilation
> should wake you up,
> yet.
> instead you spout the old "polly want a cracker"
> even when awake.
>
> a parrot with only crackers and no fluids.
> a parrot that has no clue "how clocks work"
> and keeps proving it with each ignorant post of a "time dilation" link
> that lacks anything about bone marrow loss for it kills the time dilation
> as it should be.
> A clock malfunction that poor old Sam the parrot will never understand.
>
Parrots and steak with potatoes like everything else in the Universe,
Randy Poe
>>From: Sam Wormley swor...@mchsi.com
>
>
>>Bone marrow, like everything else in the Universe, experience
>>time dilation at relatavistic speeds. See:
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
>
>
> Jeese you are a dimwit brainwashed moron.
>
> Bone marrow loss breaks the "loos of time"
> the bone marrow "experiences": MORE TIME
> dingbat!
If I put you in 1000 g's, you turn into a puddle
of jelly in about 10^-3 second.
If I put you in 1 g, it takes you 80 years.
What the hell does that prove one way or another
about relativity, you loon?
- Randy
keith stein
fiddled their results, read Dr.Kelly's exposé:
http://www.mywebpages.com/asps/H&Kpaper.htm
If you don't want the sordid details at least study his conclusions eh!
7. Conclusions
The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be
two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual
test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the
impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry
steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no
difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:artd99$n92$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:40bb2cea.0211...@posting.google.com...
>
> [...]
> >
> > How could any form of data reduction possibly have deduced the
> timing
> > and magnitude of so many rate changes during the eastward and
> westward
> > trips?
>
> By the usual trick of overdetermination. They used four clocks.
> After their corrections, the data was internally more consistent than
> before.
> They were not idiots.
They were FRAUDS, Mr. Heymann, and you Mr.Heymann are aiding
and abetting their FRAUD, and you should be ashamed of yourself eh!
ORIGINAL TEST RESULTS OF HAFELE AND KEATING
As reported in the 1971 USNO internal report by Hafele,
Clock No Eastward Westward
(ns) (ns)
120 -196 +413
361 -54 -44
408 +166 +101
447 -97 +26
Don't need no statistician to tell me that those prove nothing eh!
Hafele's comments on the results as reported in 1971 were as follows:-
"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree
that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative
of anything"
and "The difference between theory and experiment is distrubing"
Minor Crank
> See" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Thanks. The above link provides a good high level summary of what
Hafele and Keating claim to have been their results.
What we REALLY need, however, is a link to the original papers so that
all of us can critically evaluate their results and reach some sort of
consensus. Given the date of the papers, I imagine this link would
have to be to a scanned copy.
I don't own a scanner, or I would post a scanned copy myself.
Anybody here volunteer to post a copy?
Thanks,
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Spaceman
>If I put you in 1000 g's, you turn into a puddle
>of jelly in about 10^-3 second.
>
>If I put you in 1 g, it takes you 80 years.
>
>What the hell does that prove one way or another
>about relativity, you loon?
Gravity effects "decay rate" dinghead.
the decay rate of the bone marrow molecules and atoms
INCREASED!
(that is the opposite of the clocks reaction in such)
so it is NOT TIME changing you freaking dingbat.
simply because
time is a scientific ABSOLUTE.
you freaking atomic clock worshipping pile of dung!
Spaceman
>Parrots and steak with potatoes like everything else in the Universe,
>experience time dilation at relatavistic speeds. See:
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
>
sheesh,
a few less words and you will be spamming soon,
Seek help Sam,
your ignorance will force it on you if you don't.
Bone marrow loss is not in your link freak.
WAKE UP!
Franz Heymann
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RfwE9.430$qy4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> If you want to know the details of how Hafele and Keating
> fiddled their results, read Dr.Kelly's exposé:
>
> http://www.mywebpages.com/asps/H&Kpaper.htm
>
Why did that bloke not publish the paper, if it was so important?
How did he manage to lay his hands on the raw data?
> If you don't want the sordid details at least study his conclusions
eh!
>
> 7. Conclusions
>
> The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need
to be
> two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results.
The actual
> test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give
the
> impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a
failry
> steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results
gives no
> difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.
My conclusions
If the criticisms in that private URL were valid, they would have been
published.
Why were they not published?
>
>
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:artd99$n92$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:40bb2cea.0211...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > How could any form of data reduction possibly have deduced the
> > timing
> > > and magnitude of so many rate changes during the eastward and
> > westward
> > > trips?
> >
> > By the usual trick of overdetermination. They used four clocks.
> > After their corrections, the data was internally more consistent
than
> > before.
> > They were not idiots.
>
> They were FRAUDS, Mr. Heymann, and you Mr.Heymann are aiding
> and abetting their FRAUD, and you should be ashamed of yourself eh!
On the contrary.
The one who is providing skewed evidence is the well known bigot
Stein.
>
>
> ORIGINAL TEST RESULTS OF HAFELE AND KEATING
> As reported in the 1971 USNO internal report by Hafele,
An internal report is not a publication.
That report was published while they were still analysing the data.
>
> Clock No Eastward Westward
> (ns) (ns)
> 120 -196 +413
> 361 -54 -44
> 408 +166 +101
> 447 -97 +26
> Don't need no statistician to tell me that those prove nothing eh!
You forgot to include the corrections for clock drift. They had
enough data to handle that. I would therefore not trust your
intellectual honesty further than I can throw a stone.
>
> Hafele's comments on the results as reported in 1971 were as
follows:-
>
> "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree
> that the time gained by any one of these clocks is
indicative
> of anything"
Reference and full context required.
>
> and "The difference between theory and experiment is distrubing"
Reference and full context required.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
> dilation predictions of SR and GR to unprecedented accuracy every
> hour, every day of the year. This is a day and age when the Hipparcos
> Space Astrometry Mission provided data so accurate, that GR effects
> could be observed in the measured stellar positions up to a 90 degrees
> angle away from the Sun.
>
> This is a day and age when we can afford to be far more critical of
> the old classic demonstrations of SR and GR than we have been in the
> past.
Because Usenet is wide open to every crank. Right.
Because you don't have to be intelligent to use a computer
anymore. Right.
> For instance, if I were to claim that the results of the famous
> Eddington eclipse expedition did not definitively distinguish between
> the Newtonian and GR predictions, so what? Does modern acceptance of
> GR hinge critically on the validity of these 1919 results? Of course
> not. As a matter of fact, I do make this claim, but I seriously doubt
> that anybody here would label me a crank for stating so.
>
> In this same vein, however, I wish to bring up another classic
> demonstration of SR and GR that I believe needs to be consigned to the
> dust bin. This is the 1972 Hafele-Keating experiment.
>
> On a semi-regular basis, an anti-relativity crank will come storming
> on this board stating that the Hafele-Keating experiment was all
> nonsense. This anti-relativity crank will never actually have read the
> Hafele-Keating papers on his own, but instead generally will back up
> his assertions with a link to some anti-relativity web site or other.
> The pro-relativity regulars on this board, none of whom will have
> actually read the Hafele-Keating papers either, will shout back at the
> crank and then provide citations to other secondary sources, such as
> Clifford Wills' book and maybe links to a pro-relativity web site or
> two.
>
> However, just because a person is a crank, does not automatically mean
> that everything he says is wrong.
Usually it is a pretty reliable indicator.
Anonymous posters somehow seem to have a greater
likelyhood to be cranks.
> I have read the original Hafele and Keating papers, and I believe in
> this case, the cranks just happen to be right.
Somehow I knew this was on its way :-)
Perhaps you are a somewhat transparant crank.
Dirk Vdm
keith stein
> "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote ...
> > If you want to know the details of how Hafele and Keating
> > fiddled their results, read Dr.Kelly's exposé:
> >
> > http://www.mywebpages.com/asps/H&Kpaper.htm
> >
> I have looked at the URL.
> Why did that bloke not publish the paper, if it was so important?
The paper "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks"
by A.G.Kelly PhD, FIMechE, FASME, FIEI was published in 1996
by The Institution of Engineers of Ireland - Monograph No 3 eh!
Sam Wormley
>
> sheesh,
> a few less words and you will be spamming soon,
> Seek help Sam,
> your ignorance will force it on you if you don't.
>
> Bone marrow loss is not in your link freak.
> WAKE UP!
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
The thread is about the Hafele and Keating Experiment and time dilation
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
not Bone marrow or Parrots you little freak. However I should point
out to you that whatever you throw into the mix experience time dilation
Spaceman
>The thread is about the Hafele and Keating Experiment and time dilation
>not Bone marrow or Parrots you little freak.
"The Universe is UNIVERSALLY RELATED Dung brain.
time dilation is a clock "goofup" you freaking moron!
Hafele and Keating proved clock goofs differently.
(they lack flight patterns and clock "g-force changes")
Fuch off parrotbot.
What I post Is related.
bone marrow loss wipes out time dilations carppy "theory"
and you need "actual cause" instead of circular bolgona
of "time changing causing time changing"
Wake Up DUNGHEAD!
your links are a freaking joke.
<LOL>
Randy Poe
>>From: Randy Poe rp...@nospam.com
>
>
>>If I put you in 1000 g's, you turn into a puddle
>>of jelly in about 10^-3 second.
>>
>>If I put you in 1 g, it takes you 80 years.
>>
>>What the hell does that prove one way or another
>>about relativity, you loon?
>
>
> Gravity effects "decay rate" dinghead.
> the decay rate of the bone marrow molecules and atoms
> INCREASED!
Bone marrow loss is not "decay". It is a complicated biological
process.
Do you get my point about 1000 g's? Probably not.
It's this: What is happening in bone marrow at 0 g is not
happening at 1 g, at a slowed-down rate or at any other
rate. It is a totally different biological process.
Just as what happens when your body turns into jelly
in 2.5*10^9 seconds at 1 g is not the same biological
process as what happens when your body turns into
jelly in 10^-3 seconds at 1000 g. I have not "proved"
that time accelerates by a factor of 1.5*10^12 at
1000 g by doing this experiment.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021125183052...@mb-cg.aol.com...
Too beautiful to ignore:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BoneParrots
Title: "Hafele and Keating and Bone marrow and Parrots"
Dirk Vdm
Minor Crank
> Don't mind spaceman--he's a raving loony.
I wish you guys would just IGNORE Spaceman rather than arguing with
him. Look at all the bandwidth that you've just wasted trading
insults!
What joy do you get out of feeding the trolls?
Leave him be. You're just being cruel.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
(Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cranks)
Minor Crank
Excuse me. I agree that there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence
supporting SR and GR. The validity of SR and GR is NOT IN QUESTION!
I am merely stating that ONE PARTICULAR high profile experiment
published thirty years ago represents bad science in support of a good
theory.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Does anybody out there have a scanned copy of Hafele and Keating that
they can make available for us on the web?
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Minor Crank
> fiddled their results, read Dr.Kelly's exposé:
<anip>
No thank you, Mr. Stein. I do not want your support, and I don't need
that link. Dr. Kelly has an anti-relativity axe to grind. I do not.
You represent a viewpoint with which I am not in favor. The overall
validity of SR and GR does not hinge upon this one experiment, and
contrary to your repeated assertions, it would be a waste of money to
send one of a paired set of cesium clocks to the ISS and back. Your
analysis on this point has been flawed.
What I do need is a scanned copy of the original paper made available
so that people here can examine the published work for themselves and
come to their own conclusions about this one particular experiment.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Minor Crank
> news:40bb2cea.0211...@posting.google.com...
>
> [...]
> >
> > How could any form of data reduction possibly have deduced the
> timing
> > and magnitude of so many rate changes during the eastward and
> westward
> > trips?
>
> By the usual trick of overdetermination. They used four clocks.
> After their corrections, the data was internally more consistent than
> before.
Every rate change represents an extra pair of adjustable parameters
thrown into the mix. By postulating as many rate changes as they did,
I believe that they no longer had an overdetermined system.
> They were not idiots. They quoted their estimated accuracies in the
> data as finally analysed. The data at that stage of the analysis
> quite convincingly shows the effect they investigated. If any of the
> circumstances you mentioned did occur, why should all have conspired
> to turn out precisely in the manner necesary to mislead the physicists
> *quite accurately* into the wrong direction? I would love to see a
> quantitative likelihood analysis on your part, in which you derive the
> likelihood that all conspired as you intimate.
Hopefully, somebody here will post a copy of the paper, so we look at
and argue about the actual published data rather than waving hands.
The type of quantitative re-analysis of their data that you ask for,
however, requires (a) access to the raw data, and (b) statistical
analysis skills of which I do not claim mastery.
>
> Franz Heymann
I repeat. To me, the validity of SR and GR is not in doubt, given the
overwhelming evidence in its favor.
I merely claim that one single high profile experiment from 30 years
ago is, in retrospect, not as strongly supportive of relativity as has
generally been believed. Their results are certainly not against
relativity. They are merely inconclusive.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Franz Heymann
news:<3DE22F14...@mchsi.com>...
> > Don't mind spaceman--he's a raving loony.
>
> I wish you guys would just IGNORE Spaceman rather than arguing with
> him. Look at all the bandwidth that you've just wasted trading
> insults!
>
> What joy do you get out of feeding the trolls?
>
> Leave him be. You're just being cruel.
Nonsense. Spacemannikin is our pet masochist. He enjoys it.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
[...]
> Gravity effects "decay rate" dinghead.
> the decay rate of the bone marrow molecules and atoms
> INCREASED!
I guess that means that bonemarrow is a clock that goofed.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
[...]
> I am merely stating that ONE PARTICULAR high profile experiment
> published thirty years ago represents bad science in support of a
good
> theory.
On the contrary, it was an excellent experiment, considering the
difficulty of doing it at that time.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote ...
> > > If you want to know the details of how Hafele and Keating
> > > fiddled their results, read Dr.Kelly's exposé:
> > >
> > > http://www.mywebpages.com/asps/H&Kpaper.htm
> > >
> > I have looked at the URL.
> > Why did that bloke not publish the paper, if it was so important?
>
> The paper "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne
Clocks"
> by A.G.Kelly PhD, FIMechE, FASME, FIEI was published in 1996
> by The Institution of Engineers of Ireland - Monograph No 3 eh!
What an excellent journal in which to publish such momentous
conclusions.
How many Irish Engineers do you think understood it? What were they
civil, mechanical or central heating engineers?
How many journals rejected the paper before he found an obscure
publisher like that?
Which physicists could they draw on for refereeing the paper?
I wonder if monographs no 1 and no 2 are as irrelevant.
>
> > How did he manage to lay his hands on the raw data?
I asked you to suggest how he managed to lay his hands on Haefele and
Keating's raw data.
I repeat
How did he manage to lay his hands on the raw data?
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>I wish you guys would just IGNORE Spaceman rather than arguing with
>him. Look at all the bandwidth that you've just wasted trading
>insults!
Ignoring me only means you ignore the facts about "HOW A CLOCK WORKS"
keep it up,.
morons like you and Franz are fun to laugh at simply
>What joy do you get out of feeding the trolls?
I am not a troll,
trolls crosspost and spam and do just what Franz does to me
(says I am wrong withotu any actual proof)
>Leave him be. You're just being cruel.
No,
You are both being ignorant, arrogant assholes that
have no clue about how clocks work and
also lack any mechanical brains to figure out the
CLOCKS problem.
not "times" change.
sheesh!
Freakin ignorant morons are the most stupid!
<LOL>
If a clock changes rate.
THE CLOCK changed rate.
NOT TIME!
time as in science is an absolute
just as any scientific measurement is supposed to be.
otherwise.
you are not "in" science" anymore.
you fools are in "SciFi"
Sam Wormley
>
> >From: blue_whal...@attbi.com (Minor Crank)
>
> >I wish you guys would just IGNORE Spaceman rather than arguing with
> >him. Look at all the bandwidth that you've just wasted trading
> >insults!
>
> Ignoring me only means you ignore the facts about "HOW A CLOCK WORKS"
> keep it up,.
> morons like you and Franz are fun to laugh at simply
>
Minor Crank makes a good point.
If everybody, including me, ignored you (and killfiled you), you would
sputter around trying to get some attention... but after a while you
would just dry up... like you never existed in the first place.
Spaceman
>Bone marrow loss is not "decay". It is a complicated biological
>process.
>
<ROFLOL>
Too funny Randy!
<LOL>
So bone marrow does not decay at all huh?
<LOL>
Randy,
you are lost in spacetime.
Too bad you like it.
Or I would allow you a ride on a StarShip,
instead of a dinky little time travel ship that can not even leave Earth
without messing up your clock!.
Spaceman
>I guess that means that bonemarrow is a clock that goofed.
basically it is,
and
it is too bad you are too ignorant to see or even look at the reason why.
still don't get looped constant ratios huh Franz?
Sam Wormley
>
> <LOL>
>
It is my understanding that <LOL> actually means "Lot's of Lunacy"! How
ironic.
Spaceman
>Minor Crank makes a good point.
>
>If everybody, including me, ignored you (and killfiled you), you would
>sputter around trying to get some attention... but after a while you
>would just dry up... like you never existed in the first place.
No,
I would end up informing more people about your wrongs
without your interference.
It's too bad.,
It would be nice to "not see your sad ass parrrot posts"
after my facts about clock problems and morons like you
that still do not understand how clocks work.
Franz,
you lack the most basic skills.
I actually leanred them without "just copy and pasting answers like you"
You are a freaking parrot.
and If I did not have to hear you.
It would be great.
please do killfile me.
asshole.
More people will be able to
not hear your attack crap against me.
Still don't get that even
Hafele and Keating would not admit "time changed rate"
They would agree with me though.
FACT.
the clocks goofed up thier consistant tick rates.
Franz,
You are a foolish brainwashed asshole.
and not too much more than such.
Sad.
REAL sad.
Franz Heymann
The final data are in a table in the relativity FAQ.
>
> The type of quantitative re-analysis of their data that you ask for,
> however, requires (a) access to the raw data, and (b) statistical
> analysis skills of which I do not claim mastery.
>
> I repeat. To me, the validity of SR and GR is not in doubt, given
the
> overwhelming evidence in its favor.
>
> I merely claim that one single high profile experiment from 30 years
> ago is, in retrospect, not as strongly supportive of relativity as
has
> generally been believed. Their results are certainly not against
> relativity. They are merely inconclusive.
Franz Heymann
Tom Yee
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8sxE9.20403$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:40bb2cea.0211...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Does anybody out there have a scanned copy of Hafele and Keating that
> they can make available for us on the web?
<snip>
Will this do?
http://tomyee3.home.attbi.com/forum/HafeleKeating.htm
-Tom
keith stein
>
> No thank you, Mr. Stein. I do not want your support, and I don't need
> that link. Dr. Kelly has an anti-relativity axe to grind. I do not.
>
> You represent a viewpoint with which I am not in favor. The overall
> validity of SR and GR does not hinge upon this one experiment, and
> contrary to your repeated assertions, it would be a waste of money to
> send one of a paired set of cesium clocks to the ISS and back. Your
> analysis on this point has been flawed.
Well i think you will find that my calculation of the predicted relativistic
time dilations on a satellite are essentially those applied by Mssrs Hafele
and Keating,in their famous (infamous eh!) experiment using commercial
aircraft. Certainly no one to date has been able to point out the flaw in my
analysis, so make a name for yourself CRANK, point out the "flaw" in this:
PRINT "This program gives the SR and GR predicted time-dilations for"
PRINT "an Earth Satelite in a circular orbit, at any given altitude."
PRINT
REM VALUES OF THE PHYSICAL CONSTANTS USED
c = 2.99792E+08
G = 6.67259E-11
m = 5.976E+24
R = 6378000
DO: REM prompt user for 'ALTITUDE OF SATALITE'
PRINT
PRINT "Enter M (or m) to simulate the 'MIR Space Station at 300 km'"
PRINT
PRINT "OR Enter G (or g) to simulate the 'GPS Satelites at 20,000 km'"
PRINT
INPUT "OR Enter the altitude of the satelite in 'km' "; h$: PRINT
h = VAL(h$) * 1000
IF h$ = "M" OR h$ = "m" THEN h = 300000!: PRINT "MIR SPACE STATION"
IF h$ = "G" OR h$ = "g" THEN h = 2E+07: PRINT "GPS SATELITES"
LOOP UNTIL h > 0
velocity = SQR(G * m / (R + h))
gamma# = (1 - velocity ^ 2 / c ^ 2) ^ -.5
SRtd = (gamma# - 1) * 24 * 60 * 60
GRtd = G * m * (1 / (R + h) - 1 / R) / c ^ 2 * 24 * 60 * 60
NETtd = INT((GRtd + SRtd) * 10 ^ 7) / 10
PRINT "Altitude = "; h; "m"
PRINT "Velocity = "; INT(velocity); " m / s "
PRINT "gamma = "; gamma#
PRINT "Time lost per day due to SR time dilation = "; SRtd; "sec"
PRINT "Time lost per day due to GR time dilation = "; GRtd; "sec"
PRINT
PRINT "Net time lost per day in satelite = "; NETtd; "micro sec"
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT "N.B. These are Einstein predictions, not mine! - K.Stein "
END
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Results of above progam:
1. The 'GPS' Satellites (Altitude = 20,000 km)
Velocity = 3888 m/s SR time dilations = +7.26 E-6 seconds/day
GR time dilations = -4.557 E-5 seconds/day
Net time dilation = -38.4 micro seconds/day
2. Space Laboratory at Altitude = 300 km
Velocity = 7727 m/s SR time dilations = +2.87 E-5 seconds/day
GR time dilations = -2.70 E-6 second/day
Net time dilation = +26 micro seconds/day
So according to relativitists clocks in low orbit LOOSE 26us/day,
while clocks in high orbit GAIN 38.4 us/day.
Now if clocks really do do that then indeed i too am a relativist eh!
keith stein
Spaceman
>Now if clocks really do do that then indeed i too am a relativist eh!
Clocks do such,
but,
time,
does not.
you can be a relatvist,
but it only shows you forgot what clocks count.
They do not count a "thing" that "IS" time.
they count internal motions of thier tickers and
when "the constant tick rate changes"
It was the clock that malfunctioned in it's "normal function"
If you mark out 27,000 miles
and travel 1 mile per hour.
It will take you 27,000 hrs.
If you take that same distance and do it
at 27,000 mph,
It will take you 1 hr.
the clock reading is irrelevant to the distance
per Earth spin time.
the clock is a fault capable device (machine).
It is not the "regulator" of time. (Time God)
:)
Sam Wormley
Spaceman
>Muon Experiment
AWK!
bone marrow,
AWK!
bone marrow decay rate faster.
AWK.,
viloation of GR,SR and QM.
AWK!
there,
Maybe you will understand it in your language?
<LOL>
tj Frazir
change te mass of the clock changed .
Mass is all the energy of the mass and adding motion is adding mass .
People that cite time diolation are doing so without te fact the mass
changed .
Time dont change mass dose .
Time dont change te enegy rate dose.
Time is te rate energy reacts with energy .
tj Frazir
Spaceman
>The clock gained mass .
no,
It gained "energy" and speed"
and that in turn can impart more mass.
the mass is still the same mass,
it just has more force when in motion. (energy)
:)
Minor Crank
What I am interested in, is how Haefele and Keating managed to achieve
the fantastically small error bars that they reported. When I look at
the data, it seems to me that the error bars are fully comparable in
magnitude to the effects that they report.
Would you, Dirk, Sam and Mike be willing to work with me on this? If
we can get hold of a good scan of Figure 1 in their second paper,
could we work together to try and figure out how they managed such a
good fit with the theoretical prediction?
I need your help because, as I stated before, my statistical analysis
skills are somewhat limited. I understand about means, standard
deviations, standard error of estimate, least-squares fit, t-test, chi
square and other elementary stuff like that, but more sophisticated
analyses are beyond me.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Ronald Stepp
news:5450-3DE3...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net...
You are tee pocking idiot..
Pocking Pathetic
Ronald Stepp
Double posting again? Mom needs to get the webTV fixed.
Pathetic
Minor Crank
Bear-baiting and bull-baiting are "sports" outlawed in most civilized countries...
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/bearbaiting.htm
http://54.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BE/BEAR_BAITING_and_BULL_BAITING.htm
although such barbaric entertainments still go on in Pakistan and other countries...
http://www.wspa-international.org/takeaction/bearbaiting.html
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cranks
keith stein
So according to relativitists clocks in low orbit LOOSE 26us/day,
while clocks in high orbit GAIN 38.4 us/day.
Now if clocks really do do that then indeed i too am a relativist eh!
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote
> Clocks do such,
LOL
keith stein
keith stein
>
> >This is a day and age when orbiting GPS satellites confirm the time
> >dilation predictions of SR and GR to unprecedented accuracy every
> >hour, every day of the year.
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ycdx9.465$Mi3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > The GPS dudes do their corrections by (step/check/step/check)x until
> > > it's right, and they refer to it as "single-difference"method.
> > > No SR/GR corrections done or needed. That's a myth used to impress
> > > potential customers
Minor Crank
THANKS! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED!!!
To: Franz, Sam, Dirk and Tom
An email is concurrently being sent to you with the following
attachments:
Fig1.bmp
Fig1_MarkedUp.bmp
I extracted Figure 1 from Tom's JPEG image and converted to a 256
color BMP named "Fig1.bmp".
This is the first time that I've ever been able to do a QUANTITATIVE
evaluation of Hafele and Keating's results rather than just relying on
visual estimation.
Converting to a BMP enables me to use Microsoft Paint to measure off
x,y pixel coordinates on the figure, as well as enables me to mark
directly on the figure to show you exactly what I am measuring. My
marked-up copy is named "Fig1_MarkedUp.bmp".
Note: In pixel coordinates, y increases DOWNWARDS.
Before beginning my analysis, let me state the four sets of Null and
Alternative Hypotheses with which I will be working. At the moment of
this writing, I do not yet know what the results will be.
Hypothesis Test #1
Null Hypothesis for the Eastward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is not less than zero.
Alternative Hypothesis for the Eastward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is less than zero.
Hypothesis Test #2
Null Hypothesis for the Westward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is not greater than zero.
Alternative Hypothesis for the Westward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is greater than zero.
Test statistic: Student's t test
t = meanDeltaTau / (s / sqrt(n))
The above two Null and Alternative Hypotheses are framed in terms of a
one-tailed test.
For n=4, there are three degrees of freedom. The critical values are
hence:
t(0.10) = 1.638
t(0.05) = 2.353
t(0.01) = 4.541
Hypothesis Test #3
Null Hypothesis for the Eastward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is consistent with the
relativistic prediction of -40+-23 nsec.
Alternative Hypothesis for the Eastward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is significantly different
from the relativistic prediction of -40+-23 nsec.
Test statistic:
t = [meanDeltaTau - (-40)]/sqrt(s^2/n + 23^2)
Hypothesis Test #4
Null Hypothesis for the Westward Trip:
The mean delta tau of the clock ensemble is consistent with the
relativistic prediction of 275+-21 nsec.
Alternative Hypothesis for the Westward Trip: The mean delta tau of
the clock ensemble is significantly different from the relativistic
prediction of 275+-21 nsec.
Test statistic:
t = [meanDeltaTau - 275]/sqrt(s^2/n + 21^2)
The above two Null and Alternative Hypotheses are framed in terms of a
two-tailed test.
The relativistic predictions do not contribute to the number of
degrees of freedom, which remain at three.
The critical values are hence:
t(0.10) = 2.353
t(0.05) = 3.182
t(0.01) = 5.841
----------------------------
I started by measuring a few essential landmarks on the figure. This
page had obviously been very carefully aligned in the scanner, which
makes subsequent analysis much easier.
hrs,nsec x,y
0,0 28,321
0,8000 28,8
500,0 362,320
500,8000 362,8
From the above basic data, I derived the following formulas to convert
between pixel coordinates, t, and tau.
t = 500*(x-28)/(362-28) = 1.497*(x-28) hours
x = 0.668*t + 28
tau = 8000*(y-321)/(8-321) = 25.56*(321-y) nsec
y = 321-0.03912*tau
delta tau = -25.56 * delta y
---------------------
The eastward trip started at x=185 (235 hrs) and ended at x=230 (302
hrs)
The westward trip started at x=330 (452 hrs) and ended at x=384 (533
hrs)
---------------------
I performed a visual straight-line fit to the data of Fig. 1 for an
interval of 50 hours immediately before and after each trip, drawing
my lines directly on "Fig1_MarkedUp.bmp"
Lines a, a', e, and e' are my fits to the data for clock 361
Lines b, b', f, and f' are my fits to the data for clock 408
Lines c, c', g, and g' are my fits to the data for clock 447
Lines d, d', h, and h' are my fits to the data for clock 120
Endpoints of the visual best-fit lines and equations of the visual
best-fit lines
1) from 50 hours before the Eastward trip (x = 152)
line a 152,100 219,87 y = (87-100)/(219-152)*(x-152)+100 =
-0.1940*(x-152)+100
line b 152,142 220,148 y = (148-142)/(220-152)*(x-152)+142 =
0.0882*(x-152)+142
line c 152,179 222,208 y = (208-179)/(222-152)*(x-152)+179 =
0.4143*(x-152)+179
line d 152,214 219,230 y = (230-214)/(219-152)*(x-152)+214 =
0.2388*(x-152)+214
2) to 50 hours after the Eastward trip (x = 263)
line a' 189,106 263,78 y = (78-106)/(263-189)*(x-263)+78 =
-0.3784*(x-263)+78
line b' 192,149 263,138 y = (138-149)/(263-192)*(x-263)+138 =
-0.1549*(x-263)+138
line c' 190,197 263,231 y = (231-197)/(263-190)*(x-263)+231 =
0.4658*(x-263)+231
line d' 192,223 263,258 y = (258-223)/(263-192)*(x-263)+258 =
0.4930*(x-263)+258
3) from 50 hours before the Westward trip (x = 297)
line e 297,65 376,31 y = (31-65)/(376-297)*(x-297)+65 =
-0.4304*(x-297)+65
line f 297,133 378,113 y = (113-133)/(378-297)*(x-297)+133 =
-0.2469*(x-297)+133
line g 297,244 378,280 y = (280-244)/(378-297)*(x-297)+244 =
0.4444*(x-297)+244
line h 297,277 374,314 y = (314-277)/(374-297)*(x-297)+277 =
0.4805*(x-297)+277
4) to 50 hours after the Westward trip (x = 417)
line e' 336,45 417,23 y = (23-45)/(417-336)*(x-417)+23 =
-0.2716*(x-417)+23
line f' 334,114 417,101 y = (101-114)/(417-334)*(x-417)+101 =
-0.1566*(x-417)+101
line g' 338,263 417,295 y = (295-263)/(417-338)*(x-417)+295 =
0.4051*(x-417)+295
line h' 334,291 417,313 y = (313-291)/(417-334)*(x-417)+313 =
0.2651*(x-417)+313
Hafele and Keating used two methods of analysis, (1) average rate, and
(2) correlated rate analysis.
I do not have a computer program to attempt a correlated rate
analysis, so I am limiting myself to performing an average rate
analysis. This method assumes that only one rate change occurred
during the trips and that it occurred at the midpoints. Essentially,
all I do in this analysis is find the vertical distance between each
line pair at the midpoint of each trip.
Midpoint delta y's for the eastward trip at x = 207.5
a' - a = 99.0 - 89.2 = 9.8
b' - b = 146.6 - 146.9 = -0.3
c' - c = 205.1 - 202.0 = 3.1
d' - d = 230.6 - 227.3 = 3.3
Mean delta y = 4.0
Standard deviation = 4.2
Standard error of estimate = 2.1
delta tau = -102 +- 54 nsec
Midpoint delta y's for the westward trip at x = 357
e' - e = 39.3 - 39.2 = 0.1
f' - f = 110.4 - 118.2 = -7.8
g' - g = 270.7 - 270.7 = 0.0
h' - h = 297.1 - 305.8 = -8.7
Mean delta y = -4.1
Standard deviation 4.8
Standard error of estimate = 2.4
delta tau = 105 +- 61 nsec
Hypothesis Test #1
t = -1.90
The experimental results strongly tend to suggest that delta tau for
the clocks on the Eastward trip is nonzero and negative, but do not
satisfy the 0.05 level of significance (abs(t) > 2.353) normally
required for publication.
Hypothesis Test #2
t = 1.71
The experimental results tend to suggest that delta tau for the clocks
on the Westward trip is nonzero and positive, but do not satisfy the
0.05 level of significance (abs(t) > 2.353) normally required for
publication.
Hypothesis Test #3
t = -1.06
The experimental results are consistent with the relativistic
prediction, since abs(t) < 3.182
Hypothesis Test #4
t = -2.64
The experimental results are consistent with the relativistic
prediction, since abs(t) < 3.182
Conclusion:
The Hafele-Keating results, analyzed by the average-rate method, while
consistent with the relativistic prediction, do not achieve the 0.05
level of significance that is normally required for publication. They
do, however, manage to achieve a 0.10 level of significance.
The Hafele-Keating experiment was very high profile. Because of this,
if were I a reviewer in 1972, I would probably have conditionally
approved the paper for publication, provided that the authors rewrote
their results and conclusions to include appropriate cautionary
remarks.
My request to all the non-cranks on this thread (Franz, Sam, Dirk,
etc.) is to explain how the second technique used by Hafele and
Keating, correlated rate analysis, could possibly have improved the
error bars to the degree of sharpness reported in their paper.
Outline a plausible algorithm that could have deduced the timing and
magnitude of multiple rate changes during the Eastward and Westward
trips.
I do not necessarily ask you to actually perform the analysis. Such
would obviously involve writing a computer program and would involve
many hours of labor.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Mike Varney
Twit.
Minor Crank
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:40bb2cea.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> Twit.
I fully understand and empathize with your skepticism. The Hafele and
Keating paper has been a fixture of the relativity literature for
three decades, and it requires someone with an obnoxious excess of
chutzpah to come up and say to everybody, "Hey guys, you've only been
reading secondary and tertiary sources. How come you've never tried
carefully reading the results section of the original reference?"
Incidentally, I wanted to include you on the emailing, too, since I
consider you to be one of the non-cranks on this thread, and would
gladly accept any constructive input that you may have to offer.
Perhaps you could go over my analysis and demonstrate where I may have
made a silly mistake?
To fully be able to evaluate what I've done, you need the BMP images
that I sent to the others.
Unfortunately, I got this message when I tried to email you:
-------------------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer...@rwcrmhc51.attbi.com> [
Save address ]
To: <blue_...@attbi.com>
Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered
Date: 28 Nov 2002 1:59:13 +0000
A message (from <blue_...@attbi.com>) was received at 28 Nov 2002
1:59:12
+0000.
The following addresses had delivery problems:
<var...@collorado.edu>
Permanent Failure: Bad destination system address
Delivery last attempted at Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:59:12 -0000
Reporting-MTA: dns; rwcrmhc51.attbi.com
Arrival-Date: 28 Nov 2002 1:59:12 +0000
Final-Recipient: rfc822; <var...@collorado.edu>
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.2 MAIL FROM: <blue_...@attbi.com> 512 REPLY: DNS reply:
HOST NOT
FOUND
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Permanent Failure: Bad destination system
address
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:59:12 -0000
Mike Varney
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:<as3t3d$rhn$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
> > "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:40bb2cea.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Twit.
>
> Incidentally, I wanted to include you on the emailing, too,
Any unasked for email would be considered spam.
Franz Heymann
bit of work.
Sorry, I am not in a position to comment in any detail on the
statistical methods used by Hafele and Keating.
Franz Heymann
Minor Crank
<lots of snipping>
> It is nice to see someone actually getting off their butt and doing a
> bit of work.
> Sorry, I am not in a position to comment in any detail on the
> statistical methods used by Hafele and Keating.
>
> Franz Heymann
Thanks for your decency in giving my ideas a fair hearing, even if you
don't believe that I could be right.
"Minor Crank"
SPCC
Minor Crank
fundamental hole in the arguments that I presented in this thread,
which started on sci.physics, but which I am now cross-posting to
sci.physics.relativity
For those viewing this post from sci.physics.relativity, my original
post in sci.physics was
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40bb2cea.0211250016.2b1495f%40posting.google.com
My independent reanalysis of the H&K results was based on what I could
extract from Figure 1 of their second paper. Unfortunately, crucial
data necessary for an outside reader to verify their arguments was not
published by H&K.
I INCORRECTLY EQUATED LACK OF PUBLICATION TO BE EQUIVALENT TO LACK OF
DATA.
Buried in the main text of the second H&K paper was a single sentence
that somehow I missed reading correctly: "We recorded the differences
in the times indicated by each member of the flying ensemble at
regular intervals before, during and after each trip, that is,
throughout the entire data period."
Figure 1 of the second H&K paper presents ONLY the before and after
trip data, and I misunderstood the figure to represent the entirely of
their collected data.
With data collected throughout the flight, the correlated rate-change
method could indeed be applied in a consistent manner to extract the
results that they did.
I therefore retract the conclusions that I presented in this thread.
As I've written elsewhere, as well as in private emails to a few of
you, I would be happy for this matter to have been definitively
resolved EITHER WAY, and it certainly has gone the preferable
direction!
"Minor Crank"
-----------------------------
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.02122...@localhost.localdomain>...
> On 28 Dec 2002, Minor Crank wrote:
>
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > - _ | *|
> > - _ | * |
> > - _| * *| _
> > |1 * | _ -
> > | 2 | _ =
> > | * |_ -
> > | 3|
> > | |
> > Clock behavior|Eastward | Clock behavior
> > before air |trip (no | after air
> > transport |measurements)| transport
> >
> > In the above illustration, a rate change occurred during the Eastward
> > trip, but when? If the rate change occurred at (1), then delta tau
> > amounted to -90 nsec, significantly in excess of the SR prediction. If
> > the rate change occurred at (2), then delta tau amounted to -60 nsec,
> > approximately equal to the SR prediction of -40 nsec. If the rate
> > change occurred at (3), than there would have been no delta tau at
> > all.
> >
>
> I am not sure why you label the trip section with "no
> measurements." As I mentioned in a previous post, six
> intercomparisons between the four clocks (three are redundant as
> a check) were recorded on an hourly basis throughout the flight.
> This data is what permits them to reconstruct the rate history
> for each clock during the trip, hour by hour.
I assumed "no data" during the flight, because none of the
intercomparison data was published in the papers. In Fig. 1, there are
big blank spots during the flight. Fig. 1 shows ONLY before-and-after
comparisons of the clocks against the USNO clocks!
1) It is unfortunately impossible for anyone to independently verify
the H&K results solely on the basis of the PUBLISHED data.
2) Reexamining the second H&K paper, I see a statement in the main
text I missed that indeed, data were recorded DURING the flight as
well as before and after.
3) Assuming the validity of the continuous in-flight analysis (and I
have no reason to doubt the validity of the analysis, since correlated
rate-change analysis was a well-established technique, and I
comprehend and agree with the algorithms employed), I will therefore
withdraw the set of arguments that I presented in "Hafele and Keating
Revisited" and will post a couple of retractions to that thread later
today at appropriate points.
4) You're one of the few people around here who ever bother to really
READ original literature. I'm really grateful for your contributions!
HOORAY!
"Minor Crank"
Franz Heymann
I admire you.
Franz Heymann
Paul B. Andersen
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
news:40bb2cea.02122...@posting.google.com...
I think you should change "Minor" to "No". :-)
Paul