Le 12/09/2024 à 01:54, rhertz a écrit :

(diotic rant)

and, then, PHOTONS HAVE MASS.

yawn.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: What is not junk science about relativity? It's all nonsense;
LT, time dilation, mass-velocity relation, light affected by gravity differently than everything else (because of curved space), equivalence principle (as if gravity was inertial instead of accelerative),
Reimannian parallel lines meeting unproven, a cosmological constant to
hold the entropic universe up (because of the unwarranted assumption
that the universe is finite)...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 12/09/2024 à 05:03, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

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.

No, the notions of length contraction or time dilation are not
absurdities.
We can now speak, in light of the experiments, of physical realities.
I have never stopped explaining, and explaining it clearly, that the
problem comes from a misunderstanding of the subject by the highest
physicists themselves, not from what is happening in the physical reality
of the world.
It is then quite obvious, and physicists are ALL at fault when they deny
it, that what they are stating IS absurd and false, and not what they
should be stating.
Physicists are like a bad bow designer, who throws arrows "not too badly",
and who can hit a target
once out of two times on average. So they are happy with their bow.

They start saying that it is normal, because there is a law of
uncertainty,
that a bow can never, on average, make you hit the target more than once
out of two.

This is also the theory of Jean-Pierre Messager, who finds RR very good,
and who howls with laughter the day that Doctor Hachel (blessed be he)
says that he, with a bow of his design, you hit the target every time.

This idea is beyond him. It is no longer in agreement with his religious belief.

One of the problems of relativistic physicists is that they do not go far enough in relativistic extravagance. They limit themselves, pettily, to
the fixed contraction of the lengths of moving objects, and to their time dilation (their time seems to turn less quickly).

So the opposite is true: it is because they are not extravagant enough
that their doctrine becomes false and they are mocked by the "cranks".

It is indeed obvious that things said as they say them are absurd: two travelers cannot become younger than each other.

There is necessarily, on their part, an educational responsibility in
their way of considering things in this way, and of not wanting to be more precise and clear.

Worse, when Doctor Hachel speaks about it (he is much better than Einstein
and Poincaré on this, and he explains things much better) he is spat on,
human madness always being there.

No. It is the terms and concepts that are imprecise. Because everything is badly said. From there come all the misunderstandings, the errors, then
the hatreds.

We should say: "There is a reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies".
And not "There is a reciprocal dilation of time", which is absurd, and
forces the student to fill the stupidity of the concept with a "time-gap"
dust under the carpet.

We should say: "There is an elasticity of lengths and distances" and not
"there is a fixed contraction in the reference frame of type l'=g.l

And so on for many things.

So, we should not say either: "the theory is false".

We should say "they all speak falsely about it".

Their experiences do not deceive them. It is their lack of understanding
of things that deceives them.

"When you cut off a dog's four legs, it no longer comes to eat when you
call it, THEREFORE it becomes deaf".

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: Before H&K, did anyone think there was a time contraction?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If the Navy had taken relativity seriously, it could have conducted a
real experiment with Navy jets and refueling mid-flight. Thanks for the referenced article.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: What happened to our GPS expert skeptic at the Google Groups?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

R.H.: As long as the cause of the time dilation is relative motion per
se, then it will be necessarily self-contradictory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: No, I mean contraction. H&K have both depending on which
direction the jets flew relative to the Earth's spin.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: About your referenced paper: We have empirical data on the
different rates at which the atomic clock runs in orbit and a
relativistic interpretation. Most of the effect is gravitational, making
the clock run faster. No one doubts there is a gravitational effect.
It's just not relativistic. Gravitational is 47.17 microseconds faster
minus time dilation 6.37 ms/day slower, which gives the empirical amount
of 40.8 ms/day faster. Without the time dilation, how can the 6.37 ms be accounted for? The gravitational effect must be miscalculated because
there is no time dilation. Since the satellites are geostationary, why
is there a Sagnac effect? He says the receiver is moving relative to the satellite. It is not time dilation if the clock slows down due to
orbital speed. Considering that gravity does not affect light, the use
of c in the equation for the gravitational effect is not valid. ["It is
worth noting that the gravitational effect is by far the largest of all relativistic effects: more than six times larger than the speed effect
and two orders of magnitude larger than the Sagnac effect. General
relativity, in other words, dominates over special relativity, as far as
GNSS relativistic effects are concerned."]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 12/09/2024 à 20:44, Richard Hachel a écrit :

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!

Ok! Done. You are a kook. So?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 12/09/2024 à 23:13, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

R.H.: I don't see how you can possibly be at all correct.

Tout ce que je dis est pourtant très clair et très logique.

Ce n'est pas ma faute si personne ne veut se donner la peine de COMPRENDRE
ce que je dis, avant seulement de juger.

Je vois dans mon post de tout à l'heure que Paul B. Andersen, qui
pourtant n'est pas stupide, n'est pas un bandit, n'est pas un lâche, ni
un fainéant, me dit qu'il ne comprend pas mes griefs contre la notion
même de référentiel relativiste.

Je le lui explique.

Il ne comprend toujours pas et les autres non plus.

Pourtant, tout ce que j'explique est simple et correct. Je ne peux pas expliquer mieux.

Après, ça demande peut-être un effort conceptuel dans l'esprit du
lecteur que le lecteur ne veux pas faire.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

R.H.: I don't see how you can possibly be at all correct.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-09-12 18:04:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

Mr. Hertz: Before H&K, did anyone think there was a time contraction?

Yes, George Francis FitzGerald in 1889. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ether_and_the_Earth%27s_Atmosphere

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 12.09.2024 20:31, skrev rhertz:

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.

https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf

"which violated SR principles"

Interesting to see that Richard Hertz claims that this
experiment falsifies SR because it "violated SR principles"!

Does that mean that this experiment wasn't "doctored, hacked by
using fraudulent cherry-picking of data or just invented.
The relativity community support these procedures, so they can
keep milking the funds that "people with an agenda" provides,
either from the state or the corrupt academia"?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mikko: Gracias, but that seems only to mention length contraction, not
time contraction, as appears to be claimed in H&K.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Everyone: Does anyone know where our GPS expert skeptic Lou is now?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: They must have falsely claimed higher accuracy than they
could have. That alone is sufficient grounds to discount the whole
experiment, as if common sense wasn't enough. Relativists haven't been
any more critical than the lectors. Relativity is phony as hell, as
shown by a little critical examination. Relativity is kooky as can be.

In the relativity formulas for the effect of gravity on the rate of
atomic clocks, the speed of light is included as though electromagnetism
has much to do with the rate of radioactive decay. The effect should not require adjustment for the fictional time dilation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: The whole effect is gravitational without time dilation, so
what should be the formula?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows: “Dear Dr. Zapffe, “I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate
your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount
of reading for its preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot
of fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I enjoyed
writing my own little book (112 references), although it was outside my
field of work, and I was warned that would do my reputation a lot of
harm. My experience was rather similar to yours in securing publication,
and I decided that the only way was to avoid references. The booklet was invited, as was a lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings
of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p. 141 ff.) My criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the
demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a
theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together
with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a
very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense
written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and
disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about
the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless.
In my view, these tend to confuse the issue."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: Ricardo Carezani says it's stupid to apply the relativistic equations for kinetic energy to radioactive or decay cases. Dr. Louis
Essen rejected relativity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: For the clock to run faster in space, its decay rate must
increase. That has nothing to do with c^2.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: Time contraction: "The actual results showed that
the flight clock was 59 ± 10 ns slower for the eastbound flight and 273
± 7 ns faster for the westbound
flight. This experiment will be referred to as the Hafele‐Keating
experiment.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/11/2024 7:54 PM, rhertz 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

Once again, Richard shows the typical crank idea that a "breakthrough"
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
obvious example is the GPS satellite system, which simply wouldn't work
if combined SR/GR corrections weren't applied. In other words, H-K is an
old experiment, we have much better data now, move on.

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 by the sun's gravity can be measured at 90
degrees from the sun (light at 1 AU on closest approach, so very small deflection) and this was routinely done by exoplanet hunting missions
like Kepler.

p.s. 1911, Richard? How about Einstein's later papers where many things
were corrected?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 17.09.2024 o 07:34, Volney pisze:

On 9/11/2024 7:54 PM, rhertz 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

Once again, Richard shows the typical crank idea that a "breakthrough"
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.

In the meantime in the real world, however,
forbidden by youir moronic church improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
improper seconds.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/17/2024 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

What a pity that - according to the teachings
of your idiot guru - path of light are
always straight/geodesic in vacuum.

Straight or geodesic, janitor? They aren't the same, except in zero
gravity, where the geodesic is straight. Einstein said geodesic and this
has been shown to match reality. I don't know who your idiot guru is,
but it appears you need a new guru who knows what a geodesic is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 17.09.2024 o 18:11, Volney pisze:

On 9/17/2024 2:12 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

What a pity that - according to the teachings
of your idiot guru - path of light are
always straight/geodesic in vacuum.

Straight or geodesic, janitor? They aren't the same

Oh, really, aren't they? Which one is then
mentioned in Lobachevsky's axiom?

Yes, stupid Mike, they are the same, and lies
have short legs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 17.09.2024 07:02, skrev rhertz:

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!

Have you no comment to Hafele and Keating's paper?
Have you still not read it?

Is the Hafele-keating experiment credible?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-the-Hafele-keating-experiment-credible

And what was the answer? :-D

Time Dilation and the Hafele and Keating Flight around the Earth

https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-dilation-and-hafele-and-keating.html

A quote from Bill Howel's blog:

"In the conventional interpretation, it is believed that Hafele and
Keating proved that the east-bound clock slowed down by 59 nanoseconds
and that the west-bound clock sped up by 273 nanoseconds relative to a
clock in Washington. Even if true, this would be quite a shock. Einstein claimed that all moving clocks are supposed to run slow with respect to
the observer. There should have been little difference between eastward
and westward travel."

No clue! :-D

Another quote:
"In the second interpretation, skeptics have considered the experiment
to have been a total failure due to the erratic behavior of the clocks
(e.g., Spencer and Shama, 1996; Kelly, 2000)."

Quote from Kelly's paper:
See fig 1 in:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

"Drifts determined when the clocks were on the ground in Washington were extrapolated across the time the clocks were in transit. Clock 408 was
about the worst: it lost time (L) before the eastward flight and gained
time (G) after the flight (Fig. 1). Clock 447 had the most consistent
drift rate, but it showed no significant gain or loss during both
flights (Fig. 1). On top of all this, Hafele and Keating had the
temerity to average this mess (bold dashed line in the center of Fig. 1)"

It's not clear why Kelly found this to be "a mess".

Kelly is a well known crank.
I have read several of his papers.
They are all quite naive.

There are plenty of critics available on the web. I only took the first
two links in the first page.

Of course there are.

Like there are plenty of critics of "the 9/11 was made by Al-Qaeda" theory.



--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 17/09/2024 à 21:32, Richard Hachel a écrit :

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.

https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?w19rV2lulodsexk_EJwR8Y6actc@jntp/Data.Media:1>

This is definitely not "nothing" :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

This is how from half-false, the theory of special relativity becomes
sordid.

Adding human arrogance to an imperfectly understood theory,
when theorists mastering their subject show its few imperfections and misunderstandings, is sordid.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 17/09/2024 à 23:54, Python a écrit :

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 :-)

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...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 18.09.2024 o 13:37, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:

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

A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic
fanatic. Anyone can check GPS, the stability
of cesium clocks, while quite good, is not
good enough for serious measurements.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Tu délires Jean-Pierre, et ton arrogance idiote t'aveugle.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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. You are :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 18.09.2024 o 18:26, Python pisze:

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.

Google keeps record, poor stinker.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 18.09.2024 03:57, skrev rhertz:

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.

My wristwatch has an analog display with 1 SECOND RESOLUTION.
By experience the precision is ~ 4 seconds/year.

So for a flight lasting a few days, Hafele and Keating could have
used my wristwatch in stead of HP 5061A.
Right?

Could it be that you have missed something, Richard? :-D

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.

Is your point that the HP5061A doesn't work because it
contains "Pure analog electronics, except for the synthesizer"
and "is full of DIALS and PRESETS"?

Or what is your point?

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.

I see.
You have still not read the paper you quote parts of below.

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 quote is 1/3 of a page explaining the difficulties of
the measurements.
The following two pages you didn't read were about
how they overcame these difficulties and explained
in "DETAILS about how did they compensate the DRIFTS in
the four Cs clocks."

Remember this?

| On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:>

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.

Right. You don't know what it is.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 18.09.2024 o 19:22, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:

Yes. And modern re-enactments of the H&K experiment clearly
demonstrate relativistic effects.

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your insane church improper GPS and TAI
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 18.09.2024 13:37, skrev ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog:

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?

Because the H&K experiment is in the list :

Richard Hertz wrote:
"And about your list of historical proofs of relativity, I can make a
deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond any reasonable doubt,
that relativists are members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical
manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity."

:-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: Then, they primarily relied on the clock readings at the
beginning and end of the experiment compared with the reference clocks, allowing the possibility of errors at intervening intervals from various causes. Thus, they lack the comparisons with reference clocks at each significant interval that may be telling. It was, overall, a very
inaccurate experiment.

From my perspective, the question of alleged causation for SR and GR is
absurd.

Time dilation is illogical nonsense involving the reification fallacy,
so any result allegedly confirming it is pure chance, and knowing the sociological factors in relativity, pure confirmation bias.

Gravitational effects on atomic clocks have nothing to do with
relativity.

Sorry, I can't offer more than that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: A pedestrian step backward:

The speed of the planes relative to the Earth's surface:
Flying eastward: 160 mph + 1,037.5646 = 1197.5646 mph.
Flying westward: 1,037.5646- 160= 877.5646 mph
Total difference: 320 mph.

How can this difference in speed cause a difference in signs? It cannot.

The speed of the planes relative to each other:
2 x 1037.5646 = 2075.1292 + 320= 2395 mph.

How can this difference in speed cause a difference in signs? It cannot.

By the way, special relativity is about uniform linear motion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: I thoroughly agree even with the negative characterizations
of motives. The Referee process in journals is dirty as hell. However,
we can always politely call it confirmation bias.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Proc: Relativity is the total fantasy of fools.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 19.09.2024 07:27, skrev rhertz:

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?

Have you _still_ not read the paper, or is your problem that you are
unable to read a text and understand what you read?
SEE FIG.1 and read the text:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf


Right before the Eastward trip, each of the four clocks were
compared to MEAN(USNO) and time and offset was measured.

During the trip none of the four clocks were compared to anything,
they were only measuring the proper duration of th trip.
The data collected during the trip were the velocity of the clocks
(speed and direction) in the ground frame, and the altitude of
the clocks, all as a function of time (measured with a 'normal' clock).
These are the necessary data to calculate the GR prediction for
the proper time of the trip.

Right after the Eastward trip each of the four clocks were
compared to MEAN(USNO) and the time and offset offset was measured.

The same was repeated for the Westward trip.

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?

How confused is it possible to be?

Look at fig.1.
You can see the offset of the clocks as a function of time,
but the offset was _obviously_ not measured during the trips.
Do you have a problem with DISTINGUISH between the offsets before
and after the Eastward trip, and the offsets before and after
the Eastward trip?

In case it isn't obvious to you:
The 'offset' is the offset from MEAN(USNO).

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".

You have now demonstrated in post after post that you still have
no clue of how the experiment was performed.

It is amazing to see how you can read a text and misunderstand,
or rather don't understand what you read.

You are not qualified to have an opinion about the validity



--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 19.09.2024 o 15:22, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:

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."

And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your insane church "improper"
GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: According to SR, time dilation cannot be caused by the motion
of the jet relative to the axial rotation of the Earth because neither
is uniform linear motion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

The corrected proper times for the four clocks were:
The proper time of the clock at USNO +
Eastward trip: -57ns, -74ns, -55ns, -51ns average -59±10ns
Westward trip: 277ns, 284ns, 266ns, 266ns average 273±7ns

The error bar is calculated from the rms difference between
the four clocks.

In another post I wrote:

| During the trip none of the four clocks were compared to anything,
| (except for the _local_ comparison between the clocks)
| they were only measuring the proper duration of the trip.
|
| The data collected during the trip were the velocity of the clocks
| (speed and direction) in the ground frame, and the altitude of the
| clocks, all as a function of time (measured with a 'normal' clock).
| These are the necessary data to calculate the GR prediction for
| the proper time of the trip.

To calculate the GR-prediction, they obviously had to calculate
each flight and the time between the flights separately.

See "Predicted Relativistic Time Gains" https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

How did you think they calculated the GR prediction?

The prediction for the Eastward trip was -40±23 ns
The prediction for the Westward trip was 275±21 ns

Note that the error bars in the predictions are rather large.
That's because of the many flights.

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.

Nobody has claimed that such a link was used,
and only you have claimed that such a link was needed.

And even today, repeating the experiment using real time data exchange
is beyond the capabilities of current technology (forget using GPS).

Why would you need such a link in a repetition of the H&K experiment
when it wasn't used in the original H&K experiment?

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 nonsense

about INTERMEDIATE data exchange with the USNO. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Of course it didn't happen.
As we have told you several times.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 19.09.2024 o 21:30, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

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.

And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your moronic church improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t
time in improper seconds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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)

This is in the category of contesting
the argument of 'sails dispearing over the horizon'
in flat Earth discussions,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 19.09.2024 o 22:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:

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)

Anyone can check GPS, they may be good
for some cheerful games of your moronic bunch,
but they're worthless for a serious measurement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: Nawrot gives the same criticism I just gave. SR cause is
uniform linear motion so H&K is nonsense:

"The essence of the mistake made by Hafele and Keating is that in their experiment, the description of
non-inertial rotational motion of the Earth and the planes flying around
the Earth was made on the
basis of Special Relativity Theory which is valid only for inertial
motions. This required making
assumptions inconsistent with the idea of SRT. If we follow the
reasoning of Hafele and Keating, it is
possible to derive a number of paradoxical conclusions such as the
absence of rotational motion of the
Earth around the Sun or rotational motion of galaxies etc."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Hertz: Witold Nawrot's original article is available free here: https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6520.pdf
It seems it may be the whole article.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

As something of scientific interest it was already a thing of the past
50 years ago. It is routine engineering applications,
aka unproblematic background knowledge,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 20.09.2024 o 10:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:

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.

There are no "relativistic" corrections.
Oppositely, your mad religion is trying to
forbid them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 20.09.2024 03:08, skrev rhertz:

***************************************************************
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

**************************************************************

This is the kinematic term, of course.

But note:
As clearly stated in the paper, this equation is only
valid for flights in the equatorial plane.
But H&K knew that, so I am sure they compensated for this
when the flights were at different latitudes.

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

Duration of the trip in either direction:
τ₀ = 2⋅π⋅R/v = 159869 s ≈ 44.4 hours

This is the time measured by a clock on Earth,
so it is a proper time.

It gives to me a value

(τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = -1.638E-12

So for the East going clock:
(τ - τ₀) = -1.638E-12⋅159869 s = -240 ns


West going clock (v negative):
(τ - τ₀)/τ₀ = +9.0257E-13
(τ - τ₀) = +9.0257E-13⋅159869 s = 144 ns

Accumulating 65 hours flying eastward, it gives

Your aircraft was flying at 900 km/h non stop for 44 hours.

H&K had several flight with many take offs and landing.
during 65 hours for the Eastwards trip, and during 80 hours
for the Westward trip. So of course the kinematic term would
be smaller in H&K.
As you can see:
H&K prediction for kinematic term East -184 ns
Your prediction for kinematic term East -240 ns
H&K prediction for kinematic term West 96 ns
Your prediction for kinematic term West 144 ns

(τ - τ₀) = -383.2 nanoseconds for a full eastward flight around the globe.

This is if your aircraft had flown at 900 km/h for 65 hours.
And then it would have flown more than once around the world.

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?

You know of course what the error is.

BTW, what was your point?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 20.09.2024 21:28, skrev rhertz:

And about that my calculation took more than 1 circulation around the
globe (39,658 Km instead of 36,900 Km following the Equator).

In your example the aircraft was flying non stop at 900 km/s.
In that case the trip in either direction would take 44.4 hours and:

East going clock:
(τ - τ₀) = -1.638E-12⋅159869 s = -240 ns

That's OK

----------

BUT THIS is your error, or rather an absolute ridiculous remark:

| Richard Hertz wrote:> 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.

If the aircraft was flying non stop at 900 km/h for 65 hours then:
(τ - τ₀) = -383.2 ns
This is correct even if the aircraft would have flown more
than once around the Earth.

Your absolute ridiculous remark was this:
"But Hafele published a theoretical SR value of -184 ± 18 nsec,
which is almost half the value I calculated using his formula for SR."

Do I have to explain why? (You don't seem to have got it!)

You are claiming that SR's prediction for the Eastward trip,
consisting of a number of flights and stops between the flights,
should be -383.2 ns.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 20.09.2024 05:57, skrev rhertz:

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].

The H&K experiment was NOT reproduced!
Only the predicted values were recalculated.

The results are: (Casonato writes us when it should be ns)
Eastward trip: Δτ = -67.881 ns
Westward trip: Δτ = 265.763 ns
Note the ridiculous precisions without error bar!

H&K's predictions:
Eastward trip: Δτ = -40±23 ns
Westward trip: Δτ = 275±21 ns

Note that Casonato's prediction for the Eastward trip is just outside
H&K's error bar while Casonato's prediction for the Westward trip
is well within H&K's error bar.

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;

This is a strange conclusion. Gianni Casonato doesn't seem to have
understood or even read about how H&K compared the rate of the four
clocks to MEAN(USNO) before, between and after the trips, and
used the correlated rate change method during the trips.

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.

Gianni Casonato doesn't seem to know the scientific method.
"Validating the SR/GR model as the only one valid for time shift"
is obviously impossible.

H&K's measurements for the Eastward trip is ~45% above their prediction
but within the error bar, and ~14% below Casonato's prediction.

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.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

And in the meantime in the real world = forbidden
by your moronic church "engineered" GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.





--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 22.09.2024 01:33, skrev rhertz:

*******************************************************************
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.

We are now talking about the calculation of the _prediction_.
H&K ended up with with -40±23 ns for the Eastward trip.

They measured -59±10 ns which is 47.5% more than their prediction.

So if their prediction was a subject of HEAVY MANIPULATION
(UBER-COOKING), why didn't they cook a prediction which
was closer to the measurements?

If you have more than 1 neuron, you should understand
how ridiculous it is to accuse H&K to fake a prediction
which is so far from the measured value.

Their prediction is _obviously_ not very good, which
is an indication that they did NOT fake it.

----

Gianni Casonato recalculated the prediction of the H&K-experiment

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344428119_Hafele- Keating_Experiment_Reassessed/link/5f74443f299bf1b53e002099/download? _tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19


His prediction for the Eastward trip was: Δτ = -67.881 ns
(A ridiculous precision with no error bar.)

This is 14% less than the measurement.

It may well be that this is a better calculation of the prediction
than H&K's.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 23.09.2024 20:26, skrev rhertz:

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!

I repeat what I wrote yesterday:

We are now talking about the calculation of the _prediction_.
H&K ended up with with -40±23 ns for the Eastward trip.

They measured -59±10 ns which is 47.5% more than their prediction.

So if their prediction was a subject of HEAVY MANIPULATION
(UBER-COOKING), why didn't they cook a prediction which
was closer to the measurements?

If you have more than 1 neuron, you should understand
how ridiculous it is to accuse H&K to fake a prediction
which is so far from the measured value.

Their prediction is _obviously_ not very good, which
is an indication that they did NOT fake it.

----

Gianni Casonato recalculated the prediction of the H&K-experiment

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344428119_Hafele- Keating_Experiment_Reassessed/link/5f74443f299bf1b53e002099/download? _tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19

His prediction for the Eastward trip was: Δτ = -67.881 ns
(A ridiculous precision with no error bar.)

This is 14% less than the measurement.

It may well be that this is a better calculation of the prediction
than H&K's.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 24.09.2024 06:13, skrev rhertz:

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:

Now you are ridiculous! :-D

It was 65.42 hours measured by USNO between the last time
the four clocks were compared to USNO before the trip,
and the first time the four clocks were compared to USNO
after the trip.
Of course all the clocks ticked along during those 65.42 hours.

Did you think that the four clocks only would advance while
they were flying? :-D


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)