(diotic rant)
and, then, PHOTONS HAVE MASS.
Mr. Hertz: It's hard to see any value in such an experiment. What I
found especially absurd was the finding of time dilation and time contraction. Logic is enough to understand time dilation is a self-contradictory absurdity—junk science.
R.H.: As long as the cause of the time dilation is relative motion per
se, then it will be necessarily self-contradictory.
Le 12/09/2024 à 20:20, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
R.H.: As long as the cause of the time dilation is relative motion per
se, then it will be necessarily self-contradictory.
I totally agree, it is obviously a huge blunder by physicists who, I
repeat, breathe, exhale, are making a huge blunder of incomprehension. Physicists confuse time dilation and chronotropy dilation.
It is quite incredible that today, in 2024, we do not understand what I
am saying, because no one is making the effort to understand.
YOU, you confuse the two notions, and inevitably you find it absurd.
It is perfectly absurd, it is true, to think that the watch of two
speakers will beat continuously and reciprocally faster than the watch opposite, and that at the meeting the two watches will mark the same
time, or worse, that each will be older than the other.
BUT ARE YOU ALL MORONS PHYSICISTS OR WHAT? ? ?
But you didn't understand anything, you didn't understand ANYTHING.
We breathe, we blow, we listen to the genius, we get the earwax out of
our ears.
It's not TIME that beats reciprocally less quickly on the other clock (otherwise it's absurd on the way back), it's the internal CHRONOTROPY.
It's NOT the same thing.
To this chrootropy, we must add the crossed anisochrony (which is in
first degree relation with the distance).
And there, no more problem.
Stella is 18 years old and Terrence 30 for Stella.
And it's consistent, for Terrence, it's also Stella who is 18 years old,
and he who is 30.
I beg you.
I beg you to understand this phenomenon, and to stop, if possible, this filthy dick contest which consists of denigrating everything I have said
for 40 years, for the simple pleasure of showing off your trilili which
you believe (Freud) is necessarily of an exceptional size compared to
that of others.
UNDERSTAND, and judge AFTERWARDS!
R.H.: I don't see how you can possibly be at all correct.
Mr. Hertz: Before H&K, did anyone think there was a time contraction?
The first experiment, when atomic clocks didn't exist, was performed in
1933 by a couple of cretins who used the concept of LATERAL DOPPLER
SHIFTING. They made a rotating platform and "measured" a lateral
radiation (which violated SR principles, as it was a platform subjected
to rotation in a lame lab). It was the Ives-Stilwell 1933 experiment,
using electrons. It was repeated many times in the next decades, even
using Gamma rays.
One important thing, which clearly shows the FARCE, are the stability
numbers for rubidium atomic clocks.
Very simply:
- Flying eastwards during 41 hours, and measuring a total difference of
59 nsec IMPLY a factor of 4E-13 in terms of ACCURACY.
- Flying westward during 65 hours, and measuring a total difference with
the ground clock of 270 nsec IMPLY a factor of 1.2E-12 in terms of
ACCURACY.
I want to tell a story of two adventurous "scientists" that, allegedly, proved SR and GR by using borrowed cesium atomic clocks, which they
carried along with them while traveling around the globe TWICE, using commercial flights.
You can read the original publication here (1971): http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
On 9/11/2024 7:54 PM, rhertz wrote:
I want to tell a story of two adventurous "scientists" that, allegedly,Once again, Richard shows the typical crank idea that a "breakthrough"
proved SR and GR by using borrowed cesium atomic clocks, which they
carried along with them while traveling around the globe TWICE, using
commercial flights.
You can read the original publication here (1971):
http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
paper is the one and only proof of something. The truth is that
breakthrough papers are often on the bleeding edge of some technology,
and the possible errors from new technology can reduce confidence in the whole thing. However, time and science marches on from 1971, and the
combined effects of SR and GR have been proven repeatedly.
The most blatant example of a "breakthrough" experiment with poor
resolution that cranks obsess over is the 1919 eclipse experiment. More
than 100 years old! There have been many eclipses since then with many
better repetitions, and since we've had satellites above the atmosphere, eclipses aren't even necessary. A satellite just needs to block the disk
of the sun when observing the sky, and even that's not needed. The
effects of light deflection
What a pity that - according to the teachings
of your idiot guru - path of light are
always straight/geodesic in vacuum.
On 9/17/2024 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
What a pity that - according to the teachingsStraight or geodesic, janitor? They aren't the same
of your idiot guru - path of light are
always straight/geodesic in vacuum.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 13.09.2024 03:39, skrev rhertz:
One important thing, which clearly shows the FARCE, are the stability
numbers for rubidium atomic clocks.
Very simply:
- Flying eastwards during 41 hours, and measuring a total difference of
59 nsec IMPLY a factor of 4E-13 in terms of ACCURACY.
- Flying westward during 65 hours, and measuring a total difference with >>> the ground clock of 270 nsec IMPLY a factor of 1.2E-12 in terms of
ACCURACY.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
The _measured_ average drift of the four clocks was 8e-13.
But the drift of each clock was higher, so the precision
of the clocks was in the order 1e-12, or better.
But during 65 hours the uncertainty would be ±235 ns
so it would obviously be impossible to measure anything
with such a clock without some kind of calibration.
And of course Hafele and Keating knew that, they were not stupid
even if you think they were.
This was what they did:
Before the Eastward trip, they compared the clocks to the standard clock
at the US Naval Observatory (USNO) for 240 hours, and noted their drift.
They did the same for 150 hours between the trips, and again for 110
hours after the Westward trip.
This way they could interpolate the drift during the trips.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
See fig.1 and fig.3 and READ the text!
When you criticise an experiment without having read the paper _carefully_ you will only make a fool of yourself!
Is the Hafele-keating experiment credible?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-the-Hafele-keating-experiment-credible
Time Dilation and the Hafele and Keating Flight around the Earth
https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-dilation-and-hafele-and-keating.html
There are plenty of critics available on the web. I only took the first
two links in the first page.
Le 17/09/2024 à 20:23, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
Mr. Hertz: Only a complete fool would consider it credible at all.
Radwan M. Kassir is an excellent critic of relativist math in his book,
"Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity," Third
Edition.
If we push the mathematics of SR a little, and not much, we realize that it does
not hold up for a single instant, and that we find ourselves in terrible absurdities.
But the most dramatic thing is not there, I have always said it: the most dramatic thing is the fanatical belief in lousy mathematical concepts.
I am always surprised that no mathematician has ever shattered this true theory,
but explained by crazy physicists.
What is crazier than physicists who, telling us, that there is a contraction of
distances, that is to say that in Stella's frame of reference (Langevin) the distance traveled on Stella's return is not 12 ly, but 7.2 ly.
Except that her proper time is 9 years. Which they admit.
Except that it is fixed in its frame of reference, and that it observes the earth approaching it with an apparent speed of 4c.
Except that the fact of observing for 9 years a body moving with an apparent speed of a speed of 4c, has never made that x = Vapp.tau = 7.2 al.
What to answer to Doctor Hachel? Nothing.
Mr. Hertz: Only a complete fool would consider it credible at all.
Radwan M. Kassir is an excellent critic of relativist math in his book, "Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity," Third
Edition.
What is crazier than physicists who, telling us, that there is a contraction of
distances, that is to say that in Stella's frame of reference (Langevin) the >> distance traveled on Stella's return is not 12 ly, but 7.2 ly.
Except that her proper time is 9 years. Which they admit.
Except that it is fixed in its frame of reference, and that it observes the >> earth approaching it with an apparent speed of 4c.
Except that the fact of observing for 9 years a body moving with an apparent >> speed of a speed of 4c, has never made that x = Vapp.tau = 7.2 al.
What to answer to Doctor Hachel? Nothing.
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?KeMng-htXJYDukgVPkyAXjMEQpI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is definitely not "nothing" :-)
Le 17/09/2024 à 21:58, Python a écrit :
What is crazier than physicists who, telling us, that there is a contraction of
distances, that is to say that in Stella's frame of reference (Langevin) the
distance traveled on Stella's return is not 12 ly, but 7.2 ly.
Except that her proper time is 9 years. Which they admit.
Except that it is fixed in its frame of reference, and that it observes the >>> earth approaching it with an apparent speed of 4c.
Except that the fact of observing for 9 years a body moving with an apparent
speed of a speed of 4c, has never made that x = Vapp.tau = 7.2 al.
What to answer to Doctor Hachel? Nothing.
Je cite Python :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?KeMng-htXJYDukgVPkyAXjMEQpI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is definitely not "nothing" :-)
IL faudrait quand même que certains posteurs cessent de dire n'importe quoi.
Cela devient lassant.
R.H.
Le 17/09/2024 à 22:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 17/09/2024 à 21:58, Python a écrit :
What is crazier than physicists who, telling us, that there is a contraction of
distances, that is to say that in Stella's frame of reference (Langevin) the distance
traveled on Stella's return is not 12 ly, but 7.2 ly.
Except that her proper time is 9 years. Which they admit.
Except that it is fixed in its frame of reference, and that it observes the
earth approaching it with an apparent speed of 4c.
Except that the fact of observing for 9 years a body moving with an apparent
speed of a speed of 4c, has never made that x = Vapp.tau = 7.2 al.
What to answer to Doctor Hachel? Nothing.
Je cite Python :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?KeMng-htXJYDukgVPkyAXjMEQpI@jntp/Data.Media:1>
This is definitely not "nothing" :-)
IL faudrait quand même que certains posteurs cessent de dire n'importe quoi.
Cela devient lassant.
R.H.
Check by yourself. You'll notice that I'm right :-)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 2:30:18 +0000, rhertz wrote:
http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/HK50/1971-PTTI-Vol-03_17.pdf
The above had been written BEFORE their full analysis using the
method of correlated rate-change analysis, which I described earlier.
So yes, the initial analysis did not look all that great, but the
full analysis making use of all of the inter-comparison data was
able to resolve the clock glitches.
Nowadays, cesium clocks have far greater stability
As expressed in the context that Dr. Lengrand didn't quote my article:
when both events are the starting/ending ones of a *full* inertial segment the condition is not satisfied for the *full* return segment.
On the other hand this condition *is true* for any "small enough" segment either on both part of the round-trip. Again, this is explicitely written.
I used to wonder if Hachel/Lengrand really missed the point, but given
how systematically he is ignoring *that very point* I started to wonder
if he's not just a fucking hypocrite.
I think he is :-P
Ignoring basic geometry is not a solution Richard...
Le 18/09/2024 à 00:13, Python a écrit :
As expressed in the context that Dr. Lengrand didn't quote my article:
when both events are the starting/ending ones of a *full* inertial segment >> the condition is not satisfied for the *full* return segment.
On the other hand this condition *is true* for any "small enough" segment
either on both part of the round-trip. Again, this is explicitely written. >>
I used to wonder if Hachel/Lengrand really missed the point, but given
how systematically he is ignoring *that very point* I started to wonder
if he's not just a fucking hypocrite.
I think he is :-P
Ignoring basic geometry is not a solution Richard...
No more raving about Doppler effects.
Le 18/09/2024 à 16:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 18/09/2024 à 00:13, Python a écrit :
As expressed in the context that Dr. Lengrand didn't quote my
article: when both events are the starting/ending ones of a *full*
inertial segment
the condition is not satisfied for the *full* return segment.
On the other hand this condition *is true* for any "small enough"
segment
either on both part of the round-trip. Again, this is explicitely
written.
I used to wonder if Hachel/Lengrand really missed the point, but given
how systematically he is ignoring *that very point* I started to wonder
if he's not just a fucking hypocrite.
I think he is :-P
Ignoring basic geometry is not a solution Richard...
No more raving about Doppler effects.
I'm not raving.
The Cs atomic clocks used were HP 5061A, built in 1969. I wanted to be
sure that THEY DIDN'T HAVE any digital counter able to present clock's
data with nanosecond, microsecond or even millisecond resolution. All
that they had was AN ANALOG CLOCK showing time with 1 SECOND RESOLUTION.
As it happens (by design) with atomic clocks, high frequency
oscillations of 133Cs (9,192,631,779 Hz) down to a compensated crystal oscillator (typically at 5 Mhz or 10 Mhz, which have isolated outputs),
which frequency is divided by 5x10E+06 or 10E+07, to obtain a 1 Hertz stabilized output, which feeds the ANALOG CLOCK.
You can see, in the pictures or the video, what is inside these HEAVY
clocks. Pure analog electronics, except for the synthesizer (to excite
the Cs chamber) or the dividers, to obtain 5/10 Mhz and 1 Hertz. The
HP5061A is full of DIALS and PRESETS, in order to make permanent
corrections to the readings at 5/10 Mhz, There are no outputs at the 9
Ghz oscillators, because for that epoch, frequency measurement (in real
time) at such range was directly NOT AVAILABLE YET. It would take
another 20 years to measure 10 Ghz without prescalers. WITH NANOSECONDS RESOLUTION (12 digits on a display).
https://physicsmuseum.uq.edu.au/cesium-beam-frequency-standard-type-5061a
How an Atomic Clock Really Works: Inside the HP 5061A Cesium Clock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOti3kKWX-c
In the video, at 1:52, you can observe the complete path flights that
H-K performed.
In no case, information about WHAT THEY MEASURED to obtain nanoseconds resolutions. In particular, NO DETAILS about how did they compensate the DRIFTS in the four Cs clocks, or HOW they conciliated data with the
other TWO Cs clocks in Washington.
This link is for the 1971 publication:
http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/Hafele-Keating-Science-1972b.pdf
I QUOTE:
"However, no two "real" cesium beam
clocks keep precisely the same time,
even when located together in the laboratory,
but generally show systematic
rate (or frequency) differences which in
extreme cases may amount to time differences as large as 1 usec
per day. Because the relativistic time offsets expected in our
experiments
are only of the order of 0.1 usec per day (1, 4), any
such time divergences (or rate differences) must be taken into account.
A much more serious complication is
caused by the fact that the relative rates
for cesium beam clocks do not remain
precisely constant. In addition to short
term fluctuations in rate caused mainly
by shot noise in the beam tubes, cesium
beam clocks exhibit small but more
or less well defined quasi-permanent
changes in rate. The times at which
these rate changes occur typically are
separated by at least 2 or 3 days for
good clocks. Some clocks have been observed
in the laboratory to go as long as
several months without a rate change (2, 5).
These unpredictable changes in rate
produce the major uncertainty in our
results. Because of the nature of these
changes, however, their effect on the
observed time differences can be removed to a large extent in the data analysis. Under normal conditions
changes in relative rates occur independently, that is, there are no
known
systematic correlations between rate changes of one clock and those of another."
This was what they did:
Before the Eastward trip, they compared the clocks to the standard
clock at the US Naval Observatory (USNO) for 240 hours, and noted
their drift. They did the same for 150 hours between the trips,
and again for 110 hours after the Westward trip.
This way they could interpolate the drift during the trips.
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
See fig.1 and fig.3 and READ the text!
When you criticise an experiment without having read the paper
_carefully_ you will only make a fool of yourself!
IF THE ABOVE IS NOT A DISCLAIMER for not being accountable of COOKING, I don't know what it is.
Yes. And modern re-enactments of the H&K experiment clearly
demonstrate relativistic effects.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 2:30:18 +0000, rhertz wrote:
http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/HK50/1971-PTTI-Vol-03_17.pdf
The above had been written BEFORE their full analysis using the
method of correlated rate-change analysis, which I described earlier.
So yes, the initial analysis did not look all that great, but the
full analysis making use of all of the inter-comparison data was
able to resolve the clock glitches.
Nowadays, cesium clocks have far greater stability, and convincing
results can be obtained using single clocks on short flights
and WITHOUT any sophisticated data analysis. http://resource.npl.co.uk/docs/publications/newsletters/metromnia/ issue18_einstein.pdf
Why do you keep attempting to knock down the H&K experiment?
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote
ALL FOUR CLOCKS were used for both sets of flights. You need at least
three clocks, and preferably more, to perform correlated rate change
analysis.
Haven't you read my description of the technique?
Reread the papers. You've descended into complete fantasy here.
Let me know HOW DID THEY SEPARATE THE DATA FROM EASTWARD AND WESTWARD
FLIGHTS by using the SAME clocks, without real time interconnection with Washington?
You HAVE TO think deeper about the complete setup for the experiment.
Your thinking fail at many levels: measuring each path separately and
the statistical manipulations that were used AFTER the experiment.
If four clocks were used, how did they extract the data regarding
eastward and westward flights, if the separate path (east-west) CAN'T BE DISTINGUISHED, because the four clocks accumulated the data of the whole trip? Did they use some theoretical formulae to do so, plus the
statistical manipulation?
The experiment IS NOT CREDIBLE. It was a FRAUD, and relativists
celebrated it, because they are willing to buy anything that led to say "Einstein was right".
Page 170: "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, thoughout the entire data period. An
analysis of these data revealed the times and magnitudes for
correlated changes during each trip."
1) This document provides details about each segment of the flights:
https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived- papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
2) Take the data of the eastward flights:
Day Location
04 USNO D
05 Dulles D (Pan Am 747)
London A3 (*Pan Am 707)
Frankfurt
Istanbul
Beirut
Tehran
New Delhi
06 Bangkok
Hong Kong
Tokyo (*Pan Am 747)
Honolulu
07 Los Angeles *AA 707)
Dallas
Dulles
USNO return
Trip time 65.42 hours.
Rel time gain -40 nsec (loss).
3) The eastward flight started and finished in Washington (USNO). In NO
CASE, any information was exchanged between the flights and the USNO.
Only when the eastward flight finished in the same place as it departed, comparisons were made at the USNO.
The same thing happened with the westward flight.
3) The 40 nsec loss was accumulated DURING 65.42 hours. It´s about 0.61 nsec/hour, which multilateral during the entire path (USNO --> USNO).
There was NO TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE TO SEND THE READINGS OF THE CLOCKS,
FROM THE DIFFERENT AIRPORTS TO THE USNO that could have the precision to account for NANOSECONDS lost on each stage (about -8nsec/stage).
No HF link or satellite link could have provided such precision at each stage, considering HOW PRIMITIVE were the communications in 1971. Geostationary satellites were a novelty, and the delay involved using
them was no less than 240 milliseconds. With this level of delay for ONE SATELLITE JUMP, considering other random delays, measuring remotely -8 nsec/segment WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
And even today, repeating the experiment using real time data exchange
is beyond the capabilities of current technology (forget using GPS).
4) So, the DIFFERENCES between USNO clocks and H-K clocks could be
measured ONLY once ALL THE CLOCKS were placed side by side in the USNO,
once each flight finished.
Read the Hafele paper that I cited above, and stop talking nonsenseabout INTERMEDIATE data exchange with the USNO. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Den 19.09.2024 18:05, skrev rhertz:
1) This document provides details about each segment of the flights:
https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived-
papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
2) Take the data of the eastward flights:
Day Location
04 USNO D
05 Dulles D (Pan Am 747)
London A3 (*Pan Am 707)
Frankfurt
Istanbul
Beirut
Tehran
New Delhi
06 Bangkok
Hong Kong
Tokyo (*Pan Am 747)
Honolulu
07 Los Angeles *AA 707)
Dallas
Dulles
USNO return
Trip time 65.42 hours.
Rel time gain -40 nsec (loss).
3) The eastward flight started and finished in Washington (USNO). In NO
CASE, any information was exchanged between the flights and the USNO.
Only when the eastward flight finished in the same place as it departed,
comparisons were made at the USNO.
The same thing happened with the westward flight.
3) The 40 nsec loss was accumulated DURING 65.42 hours. It´s about 0.61
nsec/hour, which multilateral during the entire path (USNO --> USNO).
There was NO TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE TO SEND THE READINGS OF THE CLOCKS,
FROM THE DIFFERENT AIRPORTS TO THE USNO that could have the precision to
account for NANOSECONDS lost on each stage (about -8nsec/stage).
Why would you want to send the reading of the clocks from the different airports to the USNO ?
The clocks were read before and after the trips, and the corrected
difference was the measured proper time of the trips.
I want to tell a story of two adventurous "scientists" that, allegedly, proved SR and GR by using borrowed cesium atomic clocks, which they
carried along with them while traveling around the globe TWICE, using commercial flights.
You can read the original publication here (1971): http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to tell a story of two adventurous "scientists" that, allegedly,
proved SR and GR by using borrowed cesium atomic clocks, which they
carried along with them while traveling around the globe TWICE, using
commercial flights.
You can read the original publication here (1971):
http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf
Why go on and on about a demonstration experiment from 50+ years ago?
(that demonstrated in the first place how good 'portable' clocks had
become by then)
J.J., the HP 5060 A clocks were not portable at all. They were lab
clocks, comprising four units weighting above 100 Kg., and they were
almost 90 cm high. Each one required more than 150 Watts to work.
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
J.J., the HP 5060 A clocks were not portable at all. They were lab
clocks, comprising four units weighting above 100 Kg., and they were
almost 90 cm high. Each one required more than 150 Watts to work.
Yes, and...?
The things were routinely carried around the world in airliner seats
in order to synchronise clocks in standards laboratories.
(and at radio telescopes, for the Apollo missions to the Moon)
Of course relativistic corrections were routinely applied.
***************************************************************
If τ and τ₀ are the respective times recorded by the flying and ground reference clocks during a complete circumnavigation, their time
difference, to a first approximation, is given by
(τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = -(2RΩv + v²)/2c²
**************************************************************
Just a curiosity with this Hafele formula for SR:
R = 6,361,000 m
Ω = 0.000072921159 rad/sec
v = 900 Kmph = 250 m/sec
It gives to me a value
(τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = -1.638E-12
Accumulating 65 hours flying eastward, it gives
(τ - τ₀) = -383.2 nanoseconds for a full eastward flight around the globe.
But Hafele published a theoretical SR value of -184 ± 18 nsec, which is almost half the value I calculated using his formula for SR.
Can anyone spot my error?
And about that my calculation took more than 1 circulation around the
globe (39,658 Km instead of 36,900 Km following the Equator).
(τ - τ₀) = -383.2 nanoseconds
for a full eastward flight around the globe.
But Hafele published a theoretical SR value of -184 ± 18 nsec, which is almost half the value I calculated using his formula for SR.
Hafele-Keating Experiment Reassessed
Preprint · September 2020
Gianni Casonato
European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT)
16 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344428119_Hafele- Keating_Experiment_Reassessed/link/5f74443f299bf1b53e002099/download? _tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
********************************************************
3 Conclusions
The HK experiment has been reproduced by recalculating the predicted
values using flight data provided in [HK-3] using the formulas described
in [HK-1] and [HK-4], and compared with expected values provided with HK
in their paper in [HK-1] and actual observations in [HK-2].
As final conclusion, it is noted that
1. the accuracy of the clocks used for the experiment, namely the rms
of their measured times both on ground and in flight, looks of the same
order of magnitude of the effect to be measured. That raises doubts on
the possibility of using any type of result for the purpose of
the experiment’s objectives;
2. overall all analysed data, either predicted, recalculated and
observed, are within the same order of magnitude (tenths of nsecs for Eastward case and hundreds of nsecs for Westward case), but the residual differences as significantly high (up to 40%), meaning that the
accuracy of the experimental measurements was not good enough for
providing a conclusive answer to the objective of validating the SR/GR
model as the only one valid for time shift.
H&K's measurements for the Westward trip is 1% below their prediction
and 2.7% above Casonato's prediction. (Spot on!)
The H&K experiment confirms GR and doesn't falsify GR.
*******************************************************************
FINAL RESULTS, AS PUBLISHED IN 1972 IN SCIENCE MAGAZINE (values in nsec)
Predicted for GR (eastward flight): +144 ± 14
Predicted for SR (eastward flight): -184 ± 18
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with
41 accumulated hours of flight.
- Total distance (using Google Maps): 35,145.44 Km
- Average speed of the planes (41 hours): 238.1 m/sec
- Average rotational speed of Earth, at 34° lat (avg): 371.6 m/sec
- Average difference between Earth and planes: 133.5 m/sec
- Avg. ground speed (see Hafele): 243 m/sec
- Total distance (by Hafele): UNDISCLOSED
THIS IS THE COMPOSITION OF EASTWARD FLIGHTS (Hafele cited cities, only).
The values were extracted from Google Maps.
Km - Lat - Long - Segment
0 Km - 39,04822° - -76,43544° -
5886 Km - 51,14078° - -0,67372° - USNO - London
642,74 Km - 50,11775° - 8,59071° - London - Frankfurt
1871,64 Km - 41,46251° - 29,38487° - Frankfurt - Estambul
1021,37 Km - 33,96526° - 35,36143° - Estambul - Beirut
1482,46 Km - 35,98159° - 52,06065° - Beirut - Teheran
2555,97 Km - 28,8678° - 76,67003° - Teheran - New Delhi
2912,83 Km - 14,37512° - 100,22471° - New Delhi - Bangkok
1717,18 Km - 22,69921° - 113,58409° - Bangkok - Hong Kong
2861,7 Km - 35,69659° - 139,28415° - Hong Kong - Tokyo
6200,21 Km - 22,37449° - -158,17372° - Tokyo - Honolulu
4134,87 Km - 34,4015° - -118,44716° - Honolulu - Los Angeles
1957,15 Km - 32,72876° - -97,22035° - Los Angeles - Dallas
Hafele published that the average LATITUDE was 34°.
The figure below represent the change in latitude per segment. It was obtained by representing the changes in latitude, as Km accumulated, following the table from above.
Somebody with ONE NEURONE can appreterte that the STATISTICAL AVERAGES
were a subject of HEAVY MANIPULATION (UBER-COOKING). Also, the
approximate formula for Kinematics is PLAIN WRONG.
These are the segments of the eastward HK flights, in terms of
Km/segment and Latitude-Longitude.
According to Hafele, the calculations were done assuming a CONSTANT
VELOCITY of the planes, and an average latitude of 34°. He also used an average ground speed of 243 meters/sec (Earth - plane).
********************************************************************
Km - Lat - Long -
Segment
0 Km - 39,04822° - -76,43544° - Washington
5886 Km - 51,14078° - -0,67372° - Washington - London
642,74 Km - 50,11775° - 8,59071° - London - Frankfurt
1871,64 Km - 41,46251° - 29,38487° - Frankfurt - Estambul
1021,37 Km - 33,96526° - 35,36143° - Estambul - Beirut
1482,46 Km - 35,98159° - 52,06065° - Beirut - Teheran
2555,97 Km - 28,8678° - 76,67003° - Teheran - New Delhi
2912,83 Km - 14,37512° - 100,22471° - New Delhi - Bangkok
1717,18 Km - 22,69921° - 113,58409° - Bangkok - Hong Kong
2861,7 Km - 35,69659° - 139,28415° - Hong Kong - Tokyo
6200,21 Km - 22,37449° - -158,17372° - Tokyo - Honolulu
4134,87 Km - 34,4015° - -118,44716° - Honolulu - Los Angeles 1957,15 Km - 32,72876° - -97,22035° - Los Angeles - Dallas
1901,32 Km - 38,97539° - -77,09435° - Dallas - Wasgington
******************************************************************
BUT, as anyone can see on the graphic that I posted below, the flight
path is anything but regular, at the average latitude of 34°.
Now it comes about how to decompose each segment's flight, traced on a spherical surface, into its pure vertical and horizontal components.
Consider this:
1) The horizontal segment. at a given latitude, has to account for the Earth's rotation speed MINUS the airplane's speed.
2) The vertical segment, at a given longitude, has to account ONLY for
the rotational speed of Earth, as the plane's speed has zero influence
on SR (are orthogonal).
According to Hafele´s paper. he computed 41 hours of fligth at a
constant speed, which gave 32,107.90 Km over an average latitude of 34°.
Using Google Maps to build the data for the graphic, the DISTANCE they traveled in 41 hours is of 35,145.44 Km in a SPHERICAL SURFACE.
Making gross calculations, the aggregated horizontal components (the
only ones valid for SR) generate a theoretical time dilation VERY FAR
from the Hafele's values. And, regarding the vertical components over a
fixed longitude, they are normal to the horizontal flight path, and
don't have to be considered for SR calculations, except for the time
invested in that theoretical travel.
Finally, considering that the above considerations have to be computed
using SPHERICAL TRIGONOMETRY plus a decomposition of Earth's rotational
speed at each microsegment, I conclude that THE MANIPULATION OF DATA
(just for this) ia ENORMOUS and the results were achieved by using
arbitrary hypothesis (hundred of them).
That the final theoretical results presented a rather wide margin of
errors is, for me, just a convenient cover-up for such GROSS experiment.
One thing are theoretical error margins of +/- 15% (nice try), and
another is to HIDE ERRORS ABOVE +/- 40%.
If you have doubts, invest 10-15 hours working with the CORRECT
theoretical calculations. If not, HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT COOKED DATA!
Here is another example of how Hafele MANIPULATED the data of the "experiment". And THIS was as published.
**********************************************************************
FINAL RESULTS, AS PUBLISHED IN 1972 IN SCIENCE MAGAZINE (values in nsec)
Predicted for GR (eastward flight): +144 ± 14
Predicted for SR (eastward flight): -184 ± 18
THEORETICAL TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -40 ± 23
MEASURED TOTAL EASTWARD FLIGHT: -59 ± 10
NOTE: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with
41 accumulated hours of flight. **********************************************************************
In this table, for eastward flights, Hafele used a total time flight of
65.42 hours, INSTEAD OF 41.23 hours. Here is the calculation of the accumulated eastward time flight:
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 05:07:34 |
Calls: | 7,823 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,768,954 |