Discussion:
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
(too old to reply)
qbit
2007-08-09 03:09:50 UTC
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971

The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.

Hafele&Keating in their paper said they have measured the following values:
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )

But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )

Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
Let's do the math that proves them wrong:

For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!

For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!

Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!

Even at wikipedia it is classified as "Problematic Physics Experiments":

"Hafele-Keating (1971) - time dilation in clocks flown around the world
The effect itself does not seem to be generally in dispute, but
questions have been raised about their approach and statistical
analysis, given the large degree of variation between clocks.
It is claimed (Kelly) that under the revised USNO guidelines issued
the following year, the H-K results would have had to have been
REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE. This does not seem to be disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments

"That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly who examined the raw data:
according to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a
biased way in order to claim such a high precision. Also, Louis Essen,
the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in which he discussed
the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment."

---------------------------------------------------------------
History Of Atomic Clocks:
Accuracy of NIST NBS-4 and NBS-5 (year 1968 to 197x or so)

From a text from the mid-1970'ies entitled
"Twenty-Five Years Later... tick... tick... tick... - Atomic Timekeeping"
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf
"[...]
Since 1960, several generations of NBS cesium beam devices
have provided our nation and NBS with a primary frequency standard.

NBS-II, successor of the experimental device NBS-I, furnished
this standard from 1960 until 1963, being replaced by NBS-III,
which was used until 1969.

NBS-5 became the latest generation of NBS cesium atom primary
frequency standards in 1972.

NBS-4, although initially completed in 1970, has been revised and
is presently used as an independent primary frequency standard.

Forming a system which is mutually supportive, NBS-4 and NBS-5
provide accuracies approximately 100,000 times better than the
second of time as measured by our revolving earth.

If NBS-5 was allowed to run constantly for one million years
without adjustment, it would still be accurate to better than
ten seconds!

Future primary frequency sources may someday replace these
cesium beam standards, as cesium devices replaced the
ammonia molecular clock, but the concept of atomic clocks
will continue.
[...]"

So, in 1971/1972 the NBS-5 atomic clocks had an uncertainty of
10 / (1E6 * 365.25) = 27.38 nanoseconds per day.

---------------------------------------------------------------
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2007-08-09 03:20:50 UTC
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation
Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&
Keating was performed 1971. They flew in planes
around the world and measured the time dilation at an
altitude about 10 km. They made two roundtrips around
the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Hafele&Keating in their paper said they have measured
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
Why? It has been repeated, even by a fellow on vacation, with
the family car and a mountaintop, with sufficient accuracy. GR
is correct in this respect, and you are still trolling...

David A. Smith
Eric Gisse
2007-08-09 03:24:09 UTC
On Aug 8, 7:09 pm, "qbit" <***@quantumworlds.com> wrote:
[...]
"That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly [...]
Just another retired engineer shitting on relativity - nothing to see
here.
Al in Dallas
2007-08-11 05:47:00 UTC
Post by Eric Gisse
[...]
"That result was contested by Dr. A. G. Kelly [...]
Just another retired engineer shitting on relativity - nothing to see
here.
That's an insult to retired engineers.
--
Al in St. Lou
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
2007-08-09 03:25:27 UTC
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!
For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!
Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!
You state that for 36 years no-one saw this error. But yet the article
you cite below clearly references Kelly's paper as published in 1996.
But simple arithmetic shows: 1996-1971=25.

Now let us analyze this data.

True time before error discovered: 25 years
Time you claim before error was discovered: 36 years
Percentage error in figure you claim: (36-25)/25*100% = 44%

That is, you are 1.44 times too large!!!!

Ergo: your results are useless trash and no statistician can accept this
inaccuracy!
Post by qbit
"Hafele-Keating (1971) - time dilation in clocks flown around the world
The effect itself does not seem to be generally in dispute, but
questions have been raised about their approach and statistical
analysis, given the large degree of variation between clocks.
It is claimed (Kelly) that under the revised USNO guidelines issued
the following year, the H-K results would have had to have been
REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE. This does not seem to be disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments
according to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a
biased way in order to claim such a high precision. Also, Louis Essen,
the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in which he discussed
the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of NIST NBS-4 and NBS-5 (year 1968 to 197x or so)
From a text from the mid-1970'ies entitled
"Twenty-Five Years Later... tick... tick... tick... - Atomic Timekeeping"
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf
"[...]
Since 1960, several generations of NBS cesium beam devices
have provided our nation and NBS with a primary frequency standard.
NBS-II, successor of the experimental device NBS-I, furnished
this standard from 1960 until 1963, being replaced by NBS-III,
which was used until 1969.
NBS-5 became the latest generation of NBS cesium atom primary
frequency standards in 1972.
NBS-4, although initially completed in 1970, has been revised and
is presently used as an independent primary frequency standard.
Forming a system which is mutually supportive, NBS-4 and NBS-5
provide accuracies approximately 100,000 times better than the
second of time as measured by our revolving earth.
If NBS-5 was allowed to run constantly for one million years
without adjustment, it would still be accurate to better than
ten seconds!
Future primary frequency sources may someday replace these
cesium beam standards, as cesium devices replaced the
ammonia molecular clock, but the concept of atomic clocks
will continue.
[...]"
So, in 1971/1972 the NBS-5 atomic clocks had an uncertainty of
10 / (1E6 * 365.25) = 27.38 nanoseconds per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------
qbit
2007-08-09 03:46:38 UTC
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!
For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!
Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!
You state that for 36 years no-one saw this error. But yet the article
you cite below clearly references Kelly's paper as published in 1996.
But simple arithmetic shows: 1996-1971=25.
Now let us analyze this data.
True time before error discovered: 25 years
Time you claim before error was discovered: 36 years
Percentage error in figure you claim: (36-25)/25*100% = 44%
That is, you are 1.44 times too large!!!!
Ergo: your results are useless trash and no statistician can accept this
inaccuracy!
You are sort of off-topic and your math is based on wrong facts:
Kelly's criticizm is about how the data was compiled (ie. the
"averaging" of the data sets).
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
It is impossible to measure such small values with such clocks
which have a such high uncertainty rate. Just do the math yourself! See above.
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Post by qbit
"Hafele-Keating (1971) - time dilation in clocks flown around the world
The effect itself does not seem to be generally in dispute, but
questions have been raised about their approach and statistical
analysis, given the large degree of variation between clocks.
It is claimed (Kelly) that under the revised USNO guidelines issued
the following year, the H-K results would have had to have been
REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE. This does not seem to be disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments
according to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a
biased way in order to claim such a high precision. Also, Louis Essen,
the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in which he discussed
the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of NIST NBS-4 and NBS-5 (year 1968 to 197x or so)
From a text from the mid-1970'ies entitled
"Twenty-Five Years Later... tick... tick... tick... - Atomic Timekeeping"
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf
"[...]
Since 1960, several generations of NBS cesium beam devices
have provided our nation and NBS with a primary frequency standard.
NBS-II, successor of the experimental device NBS-I, furnished
this standard from 1960 until 1963, being replaced by NBS-III,
which was used until 1969.
NBS-5 became the latest generation of NBS cesium atom primary
frequency standards in 1972.
NBS-4, although initially completed in 1970, has been revised and
is presently used as an independent primary frequency standard.
Forming a system which is mutually supportive, NBS-4 and NBS-5
provide accuracies approximately 100,000 times better than the
second of time as measured by our revolving earth.
If NBS-5 was allowed to run constantly for one million years
without adjustment, it would still be accurate to better than
ten seconds!
Future primary frequency sources may someday replace these
cesium beam standards, as cesium devices replaced the
ammonia molecular clock, but the concept of atomic clocks
will continue.
[...]"
So, in 1971/1972 the NBS-5 atomic clocks had an uncertainty of
10 / (1E6 * 365.25) = 27.38 nanoseconds per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeckyl
2007-08-09 03:59:13 UTC
Post by qbit
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
What about since then .. has accuracy increased?
qbit
2007-08-09 04:13:54 UTC
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
What about since then .. has accuracy increased?
Sure, see here http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/atomichistory.htm

But the topic is about the accuracy of the H&K experiment only,
because that H&K experiment gets unethically marketed and
referenced by the RT lobbyists.
I mean RT people should be ashamed when they still give H&K as a reference...
Jeckyl
2007-08-09 04:23:50 UTC
Post by qbit
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
What about since then .. has accuracy increased?
Sure, see here http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/atomichistory.htm
But the topic is about the accuracy of the H&K experiment only,
That experiment has been repeated with more accurate clocks and the results
confirmed.
Post by qbit
because that H&K experiment gets unethically marketed and
referenced by the RT lobbyists.
I mean RT people should be ashamed when they still give H&K as a reference...
From a cursory inspection of the paper, it seems that the definitely took
the accuracy issues etc into account. Of course, today we can get more
accurate readings and, as I understand, they confirm the relativity
predictions. Of course, with your preferred classical model,there would be
no difference, so your cases is looking even worse now than it was at the
time of H&K.
qbit
2007-08-09 04:39:19 UTC
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
What about since then .. has accuracy increased?
Sure, see here http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/atomichistory.htm
But the topic is about the accuracy of the H&K experiment only,
That experiment has been repeated with more accurate clocks and the results
confirmed.
Nobody doubts the time dilation effect, at least not myself.
But I'm concerned that in RT it is not calculated correctly.
That's exactly another problem of RT I want to point to, see below.
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
because that H&K experiment gets unethically marketed and
referenced by the RT lobbyists.
I mean RT people should be ashamed when they still give H&K as a reference...
From a cursory inspection of the paper, it seems that the definitely took
the accuracy issues etc into account.
You will need much more time to study their data.
Post by Jeckyl
Of course, today we can get more accurate readings and,
as I understand, they confirm the relativity predictions.
Time dilation is real, but the RT calculation method is wrong too, see below.
Post by Jeckyl
Of course, with your preferred classical model,there would be
no difference, so your cases is looking even worse now than it was at the
time of H&K.
You don't know the truth :-)
Soon I will debunk also the RT time dilation calculation method
that was and still gets used in all such tests, and even in the GPS system.
Stay tuned! :-)
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
2007-08-09 05:10:48 UTC
Post by qbit
Soon I will debunk also the RT time dilation calculation method
that was and still gets used in all such tests, and even in the GPS system.
Stay tuned! :-)
OK. But please give us something more novel than a difference between
calculations performed using two incompatible theories.

Stephen
qbit
2007-08-09 05:23:32 UTC
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Post by qbit
Soon I will debunk also the RT time dilation calculation method
that was and still gets used in all such tests, and even in the GPS system.
Stay tuned! :-)
OK. But please give us something more novel than a difference between
calculations performed using two incompatible theories.
I will try my best :-)
But it is just the time dilation calculation method yet.
OTOH many other things depend on the correctness of
exactly this core functionality...
Eric Gisse
2007-08-09 08:58:35 UTC
Post by qbit
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Post by qbit
Soon I will debunk also the RT time dilation calculation method
that was and still gets used in all such tests, and even in the GPS system.
Stay tuned! :-)
OK. But please give us something more novel than a difference between
calculations performed using two incompatible theories.
I will try my best :-)
But it is just the time dilation calculation method yet.
OTOH many other things depend on the correctness of
exactly this core functionality...
In other words, all your "arguments" wouldn't work if you were unable
to make the 'comparison' between SR and Newtonian kinematics?
Jeckyl
2007-08-09 05:18:40 UTC
Post by qbit
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
Post by Jeckyl
Post by qbit
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
What about since then .. has accuracy increased?
Sure, see here http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/atomichistory.htm
But the topic is about the accuracy of the H&K experiment only,
That experiment has been repeated with more accurate clocks and the results
confirmed.
Nobody doubts the time dilation effect, at least not myself.
But there is no time dilation in classical Newtonian physics.
Post by qbit
But I'm concerned that in RT it is not calculated correctly.
Hmm .. it seems to get it right.
Post by qbit
That's exactly another problem of RT I want to point to, see below.
[snip]
Post by qbit
Time dilation is real, but the RT calculation method is wrong too, see below.
You don't know the truth :-)
Soon I will debunk also the RT time dilation calculation method
that was and still gets used in all such tests, and even in the GPS system.
Stay tuned! :-)
Oh god no .. we'll have to endure more posts.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
2007-08-09 04:32:02 UTC
Post by qbit
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!
For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!
Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!
You state that for 36 years no-one saw this error. But yet the article
you cite below clearly references Kelly's paper as published in 1996.
But simple arithmetic shows: 1996-1971=25.
Now let us analyze this data.
True time before error discovered: 25 years
Time you claim before error was discovered: 36 years
Percentage error in figure you claim: (36-25)/25*100% = 44%
That is, you are 1.44 times too large!!!!
Ergo: your results are useless trash and no statistician can accept this
inaccuracy!
Kelly's criticizm is about how the data was compiled (ie. the
"averaging" of the data sets).
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
It is impossible to measure such small values with such clocks
which have a such high uncertainty rate. Just do the math yourself! See above.
OK, you have succeeded in sucking me into a scientific argument (which I
shall shortly give). But let me first commend you on presenting a
rather better case than your previous effort (you remember, where you
express mock surprise because two incompatible theories give two

Now to the scientific argument - I must readily admit that I don't have
enough expertise to comment on the veracity of your statements
concerning 1971 atomic clocks. But the fact that Kelly spent his
efforts attacking the averaging process used in analyzing the data,
rather than attacking the fundamental limits of the accuracy of the
atomic clocks, is telling. Contrary to your earlier statement,
obtaining time differences of about 250ns with equipment with total
possible errors of up to 150ns is NOT statistical trash, but merely data
that requires statistical care.

If you look at the data presented in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment, it is clear from
the fact that the scientists gave estimates of the errors, that they
were only too aware of the potential systematic errors introduced by
inaccuracies in the atomic clocks.

Qbit - I suspect that you haven't read the original paper of Hafele and
Keating. If you do read it, and it becomes apparent that they simply
didn't consider that the clocks were not totally accurate, then I'll be
more inclined to take you seriously. But really, the notion that you
are the first person to consider this possibility, and then after 36
whole years, is incredibly implausible.

And to go back off topic - I concede that you did win the verbal banter
this time. You did a good job keeping your cool. But next time - just
you watch out!!!

Best regards, Stephen
qbit
2007-08-09 05:17:16 UTC
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Post by qbit
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!
For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!
Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!
Kelly's criticizm is about how the data was compiled (ie. the
"averaging" of the data sets).
I on the other hand show that the accuracy of the atomic clocks in 1971
was not good enough to have really measured the said values.
It is impossible to measure such small values with such clocks
which have a such high uncertainty rate. Just do the math yourself! See above.
OK, you have succeeded in sucking me into a scientific argument (which I
shall shortly give). But let me first commend you on presenting a
rather better case than your previous effort (you remember, where you
express mock surprise because two incompatible theories give two
Hmm. you should be more specific.
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Now to the scientific argument - I must readily admit that I don't have
enough expertise to comment on the veracity of your statements
concerning 1971 atomic clocks. But the fact that Kelly spent his
efforts attacking the averaging process used in analyzing the data,
rather than attacking the fundamental limits of the accuracy of the
atomic clocks, is telling.
:-) What do you expect? Everybody has his/her own expertise... :-)
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Contrary to your earlier statement, obtaining time differences
of about 250ns with equipment with total possible errors of
up to 150ns is NOT statistical trash, but merely data
that requires statistical care.
Yes, you say it... :-)
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
If you look at the data presented in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment, it is clear from
the fact that the scientists gave estimates of the errors, that they
were only too aware of the potential systematic errors introduced by
inaccuracies in the atomic clocks.
And after all (accuracy of the clocks and critisizm by Kelly and others),
you still can trust these data? :-) Come on! Just do your research
on the topic and see how many people have discussed these results
I can assure you the data is indeed trash; the longer you study
them the more problems you will encounter in the data, for example
why 2 of the 4 clocks had totally opposite data recorded...;
just dig deeper to the single data in the above PDF and you
will see what I mean; see also the values in Figure 1 and tell me
where these numbers were used at all?... :-)
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Qbit - I suspect that you haven't read the original paper of Hafele and
Keating.
I did. I studied it even for several weeks and discussed it with
other people. I will even post some more on this to show that
there are even fundamental problems in the used method.
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
If you do read it, and it becomes apparent that they simply
didn't consider that the clocks were not totally accurate, then I'll be
more inclined to take you seriously. But really, the notion that you
are the first person to consider this possibility, and then after 36
whole years, is incredibly implausible.
I think there were people who already had discovered this long ago,
but they seem to have been 'silenced', as happened to many such critics,
even Louis Essen, the developer of the atomic clocks was effectively
warned to not publish his book about his criticizm of RT...
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
And to go back off topic - I concede that you did win the verbal banter
this time. You did a good job keeping your cool. But next time - just
you watch out!!!
:-) I'm only interessted in the truth and accuracy, I'm really not interessted
in any verbal banters.

BTW, english is not my native language, so some language errors
in my writings will undoubtfully happen :-(
Dono
2007-08-09 05:19:36 UTC
Post by qbit
BTW, english is not my native language, so some language errors
in my writings will undoubtfully happen :-(
Chino, your language is the least of your problems. The garbage that
you spout is.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
2007-08-09 05:40:45 UTC
Post by qbit
Post by Stephen Montgomery-Smith
And to go back off topic - I concede that you did win the verbal banter
this time. You did a good job keeping your cool. But next time - just
you watch out!!!
:-) I'm only interessted in the truth and accuracy, I'm really not interessted
in any verbal banters.
OK. I'm going to have to concede the possibility that are genuinely
seeking the truth. I must admit I'm just a bystander looking for a bit
of fun. I'll let others try to put you right. But read my footnote **.
Post by qbit
BTW, english is not my native language, so some language errors
in my writings will undoubtfully happen :-(
Not a problem with me. Even native English speaking people like myself
are highly prone to error. It is a difficult and illogical language.

** footnote: I should tell you that I have been down a similar path to
yours. Many years ago I started to study relativity, and my first
conclusion was that it must be an inherently self-contradictory theory.
But I spent a lot of time thinking about it, and after a while I began
to see that the so called contradictions simply were not there. It was
actually a very exciting time for me, seeing that Einstein really was
the genius that modern society has made him out to be. Having
rediscovered quite a bit of the theory for myself, it seemed to me that
I could spend serious effort helping others who were in the place I used
to be. Imagine then my disappointment when I found that most critics of
SR are not interested in being put right, but are actually only wanting
to promote their alternative ideas, and perhaps seeking the same fame
that Einstein achieved.

I have since then become rather jaded in my efforts to put people right.
If you really want to discredit SR, you must present your ideas in an
orderly manner, putting your better ideas first. Your previously
introduced thread, where you use Newtonian mechanics to show that an
object near a massive star will exceed the velocity of light, and then
wonder why it gives different conclusions to the incompatible SR, really
was a very poor effort, and unfortunately will only tend to discredit
any future efforts on your part to discredit SR.

Stephen
Dono
2007-08-09 04:48:21 UTC
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(seehttp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf)
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below andhttp://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf)
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!
For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!
Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!
"Hafele-Keating (1971) - time dilation in clocks flown around the world
The effect itself does not seem to be generally in dispute, but
questions have been raised about their approach and statistical
analysis, given the large degree of variation between clocks.
It is claimed (Kelly) that under the revised USNO guidelines issued
the following year, the H-K results would have had to have been
REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE. This does not seem to be disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments
according to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a
biased way in order to claim such a high precision. Also, Louis Essen,
the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in which he discussed
the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of NIST NBS-4 and NBS-5 (year 1968 to 197x or so)
From a text from the mid-1970'ies entitled
"Twenty-Five Years Later... tick... tick... tick... - Atomic Timekeeping"http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf
"[...]
Since 1960, several generations of NBS cesium beam devices
have provided our nation and NBS with a primary frequency standard.
NBS-II, successor of the experimental device NBS-I, furnished
this standard from 1960 until 1963, being replaced by NBS-III,
which was used until 1969.
NBS-5 became the latest generation of NBS cesium atom primary
frequency standards in 1972.
NBS-4, although initially completed in 1970, has been revised and
is presently used as an independent primary frequency standard.
Forming a system which is mutually supportive, NBS-4 and NBS-5
provide accuracies approximately 100,000 times better than the
second of time as measured by our revolving earth.
If NBS-5 was allowed to run constantly for one million years
without adjustment, it would still be accurate to better than
ten seconds!
Future primary frequency sources may someday replace these
cesium beam standards, as cesium devices replaced the
ammonia molecular clock, but the concept of atomic clocks
will continue.
[...]"
So, in 1971/1972 the NBS-5 atomic clocks had an uncertainty of
10 / (1E6 * 365.25) = 27.38 nanoseconds per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chino, you are trolling again.
The HK experiment has been superseeded by GPS. The GPS "experiment"
runs round the clock and confirms relativity with a very high
precision. Go crawling back into the shithole you are coming from.
Tom Roberts
2007-08-09 04:48:51 UTC
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
[...]
First, such clocks have better accuracy over shorter time intervals, so
your estimate of the error is too large. But the accuracy of the
statement you started with is doubtful; one should use the
manufacturer's specifications or actual measurements, not general
statements in non-technical descriptions. H&K used actual measurements
of the clocks involved compared to MEAN(USNO) [the corrected mean of the
U.S. Naval Observatory's clocks]

Second, that error is dominated by isolated events in a clock's life
where it suddenly changes tick rate by several times its normal drift
rate. This occurs at irregular intervals for each clock, something like
once per day to several months. A simple average of 4 clocks, as Kelly
advocates, does not remove this effect. But the "correlated rate change"
method used by H&K, and by all standards organizations in the world
(including USNO), does remove the effects of the rate shifts of
individual clocks. The result is that 4 clocks give considerably smaller
errors than a single clock, because the isolated rate shifts of each
clock can be calibrated away by using the other 3 clocks which did not
rate shift at the same time. Moreover, this gives an accurate
measurement of the resolution of the resulting "paper clock".

This is standard and well known in the metrology community. And it was
discussed in H&K's paper (p169). Neither Kelly's nor your criticisms
hold up.

Tom Roberts
Sue...
2007-08-09 07:58:20 UTC
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
[...]
First, such clocks have better accuracy over shorter time intervals, so
your estimate of the error is too large.
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.

To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
Post by Tom Roberts
But the accuracy of the
statement you started with is doubtful; one should use the
manufacturer's specifications or actual measurements, not general
statements in non-technical descriptions. H&K used actual measurements
of the clocks involved compared to MEAN(USNO) [the corrected mean of the
U.S. Naval Observatory's clocks]
Second, that error is dominated by isolated events in a clock's life
where it suddenly changes tick rate by several times its normal drift
rate. This occurs at irregular intervals for each clock, something like
once per day to several months. A simple average of 4 clocks, as Kelly
advocates, does not remove this effect. But the "correlated rate change"
method used by H&K, and by all standards organizations in the world
(including USNO), does remove the effects of the rate shifts of
individual clocks. The result is that 4 clocks give considerably smaller
errors than a single clock, because the isolated rate shifts of each
clock can be calibrated away by using the other 3 clocks which did not
rate shift at the same time. Moreover, this gives an accurate
measurement of the resolution of the resulting "paper clock".
None of that matters if H&K were measuring Saganc
effect, yet calling it a kinematic effect predicted by SR.
A mathematical absurdity can't be scientifically proved
by experiment.

<< Reviews the Hafele-Keating experiment on relativistic
changes in eastward and westward moving cesium
atomic clocks. Recommends the use of the Sagnac
effect to remove the east-west time asymmetry and
of the general-relativistic effect to elucidate the
clock-rate changes. (CC) >> --Schlegel, Richard
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ095275

That leaves the effects of the earth's mass, which
SR does not even address.
Post by Tom Roberts
This is standard and well known in the metrology community. And it was
discussed in H&K's paper (p169). Neither Kelly's nor your criticisms
hold up.
The experimenters even *claim* to have invalidated
mathematics with a statement such as this:

<< These results provide an unambiguous empirical
resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with
macroscopic clocks.>> J. C. Hafele & Richard E. Keating
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/168

Read all the words. The famous clock "paradox" is
so mathmatically absurd it has been compared to
a lawyer's absurd argument:
"Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never
borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second,
that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and
third, that the crack was already present when he
borrowed it."
It's been dismissed *in-this-forum* as absurd by a
fairly well respected mathematician, John Baez.

There is no middle ground on H&K's interpretation.
You either reject it as absurd by rigourous mathematics,
or you reject mathematics as absurd and cite
some magic show as the proof. You seem to be taking
the latter course obsfucating with error analysis of
an experimant that has no loggical interpretaion in the
context of SR.

<< The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the
special relativity principle formulated originally for
physics in empty space is not valid in the matter-filled
universe.>> --C. S. Unnikrishnan
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
2007-08-09 08:13:21 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
[...]
First, such clocks have better accuracy over shorter time intervals, so
your estimate of the error is too large.
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Its just semantics .. how can a clock measuring time break the PoR
Post by Sue...
The experimenters even *claim* to have invalidated
these paradoxs are not contradictions .. just things that appear
counter-intuitive
Post by Sue...
<< These results provide an unambiguous empirical
resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with
macroscopic clocks.>> J. C. Hafele & Richard E. Keating
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/168
Read all the words. The famous clock "paradox" is
so mathmatically absurd it has been compared to
Are you talking about the twins paradox .. nothing absurb about it .. its a
natural corrolary of SR (and GR)
Post by Sue...
There is no middle ground on H&K's interpretation.
You either reject it as absurd by rigourous mathematics,
Do so.
Post by Sue...
or you reject mathematics as absurd and cite
some magic show as the proof.
You neglect the option that YOU are absurd, for which there is ample
evidence.
Sue...
2007-08-09 09:50:44 UTC
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
[...]
First, such clocks have better accuracy over shorter time intervals, so
your estimate of the error is too large.
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Its just semantics .. how can a clock measuring time break the PoR
Would you agree that the fuel tanks of two otherwise
identical drag racers is a fair and inflexible indicator
of time? IOW the car that finishes first will finish
with less fuel than the looser.

K.E. = 1/2 mv^2

<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

To disagree is to reject Pound-Rebka-Snider,
GPS gravitational presets, and the principle of
relativity because they all assume mass/energy
equivalence and, with GR, gravity/inertia equivalence.
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
The experimenters even *claim* to have invalidated
these paradoxs are not contradictions .. just things that appear
counter-intuitive
Rejecting absurd maths has nothing to do with
intuition. Rigourous maths is a cornerstone of science.
Where equations don't balance, the acceptance of
paradox does not bring them into balance.
It disqualifys them from scientific application.

<< The essential elements of a scientific method
are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and
orderings of the following: [..]

Predictions (reasoning including
***logical deduction***
from hypothesis and theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

IOW the rules of logic can't be suspended.
The foundation of science crumbles if that is allowed.
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
<< These results provide an unambiguous empirical
resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with
macroscopic clocks.>> J. C. Hafele & Richard E. Keating
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/168
Read all the words. The famous clock "paradox" is
so mathmatically absurd it has been compared to
Are you talking about the twins paradox .. nothing absurb about it .. its a
natural corrolary of SR (and GR)
When one theory reveals an absudity in another
the result of the two is not a "corollary".
One theory replaces the other.
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
There is no middle ground on H&K's interpretation.
You either reject it as absurd by rigourous mathematics,
<< Do so. >>

How many times must that eloquent
argument be repeated before your playmates
get sick of you and agree with you just so you
will shut up?
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
or you reject mathematics as absurd and cite
some magic show as the proof.
You neglect the option that YOU are absurd, for which there is ample
evidence.
In politics, decisions hinge on the characteristics
of a person. Where do you find in the scientific
method of investigation, any consideration for
how one person evaluates another?

Thanks for once again revealing your true stripes.

<< Pseudoscience appeals to false authority,
to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...
Jeckyl
2007-08-09 10:18:43 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
[...]
First, such clocks have better accuracy over shorter time intervals, so
your estimate of the error is too large.
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Its just semantics .. how can a clock measuring time break the PoR
Would you agree that the fuel tanks of two otherwise
identical drag racers is a fair and inflexible indicator
of time? IOW the car that finishes first will finish
with less fuel than the looser.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
And how is that relevant to what was bing discussed?

[snip moreirrelevance]
Post by Sue...
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
The experimenters even *claim* to have invalidated
these paradoxs are not contradictions .. just things that appear
counter-intuitive
Rejecting absurd maths has nothing to do with
intuition. Rigourous maths is a cornerstone of science.
Yeup .. like SR
Post by Sue...
Where equations don't balance, the acceptance of
paradox does not bring them into balance.
There is no paradox in the twins 'paradox' .. it just appears to be one
unless one understand what is going on. For example, as you have no idea it
seem like a paradox to you.

[snip more nonsense]
Post by Sue...
Post by Jeckyl
Are you talking about the twins paradox .. nothing absurb about it .. its a
natural corrolary of SR (and GR)
When one theory reveals an absudity in another
the result of the two is not a "corollary".
One theory replaces the other.
GR includes SR. Both GR and SR nicely predict the twins 'paradox' effect.

[snip more drivel from the queen of off-topic posting .. Sue]
Eric Gisse
2007-08-09 09:00:09 UTC
On Aug 8, 11:58 pm, "Sue..." <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

[...]
Post by Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
I'd *love* to see why you think Noether's theorem has ANYTHING to do
with the current topic.

[snip typical sue blather]
Sue...
2007-08-09 19:49:58 UTC
Post by Eric Gisse
[...]
Post by Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
I'd *love* to see why you think Noether's theorem has ANYTHING to do
with the current topic.
Go to drag strip an see if anyone bettters thier time
without burning more fuel.

If you think free energy is absurd, then Noether's
theorem says you should hold the same view of
free time.

<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

The H&K experiment claims to alter time through
motion and Tom Robert's claims atomic clocks
can measure the effect. Both notions are absurd.
Noether's theorem is just one of many ways to
demonstate the absurdity. The principle of
relativity is another.

Sue...
Post by Eric Gisse
[snip typical sue blather]
Learn some physics:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html

Sue...
Eric Gisse
2007-08-09 21:16:21 UTC
On Aug 9, 11:49 am, "Sue..." <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
[snip sue blather]

In other words: You can't.

...and please, don't tell me to learn physics when you yourself know
none.
Sue...
2007-08-09 21:27:29 UTC
Post by Eric Gisse
[snip sue blather]
In other words: You can't.
...and please, don't tell me to learn physics when you yourself know
none.
OK... But only because you said please.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html

It will only complicate your life. :o)

Sue...
Jeckyl
2007-08-10 00:35:56 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Eric Gisse
[snip sue blather]
In other words: You can't.
...and please, don't tell me to learn physics when you yourself know
none.
OK... But only because you said please.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
It will only complicate your life. :o)
So that's why you don't learn physics .. it complicates your life.

Instead you just have a list of links you copy and past from at random,
completely ignoring the topic discussed.

You're no better than a troll.
Jeckyl
2007-08-10 00:34:49 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Eric Gisse
[...]
Post by Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
I'd *love* to see why you think Noether's theorem has ANYTHING to do
with the current topic.
Go to drag strip an see if anyone bettters thier time
without burning more fuel.
Another wonderfull off topicreply. Do you ever just address what's being
Tom Roberts
2007-08-10 04:11:15 UTC
Post by Sue...
Go to drag strip an see if anyone bettters thier time
without burning more fuel.
My first trial is with this great big parachute unfurled behind, and my
second is without it. I have both bettered my time and burned less fuel.
By playing with the size of the 'chute I can also have two trials in
which I better my time but use more fuel.

And if you insist on no mechanical changes between trials (except for
pressing the gas pedal harder), it is still a very nonlinear
relationship between elapsed time and fuel consumed. So fuel level is a

Good clocks require a repetitive action, and burning fuel in a dragster
is not. <shrug>

Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
2007-08-09 16:49:28 UTC
Post by Sue...
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, because the
"marking" is done in seconds.
Post by Sue...
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Nonsense.
Post by Sue...
[... outrageously irrelevant links omitted]
Tom Roberts
Sue...
2007-08-09 19:36:05 UTC
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, because the
"marking" is done in seconds.
Divide a lenght in two. That isn't metres.

Divide a period in two That isn't seconds.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Nonsense.
Free energy and free time is nonsense but
we would expect nothing less from one
who thinks gravity can synthesize events
to make blueshifts work out.
[... outrageously irrelevant links omitted]

Indeed... Snake-oil salesmen and pseudo-scientists
can offer nothing better when remiinded that real physics
is based on certain symmetries.

<< Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Find some integrity
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
John Christiansen
2007-08-09 19:55:20 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, because the
"marking" is done in seconds.
Divide a lenght in two. That isn't metres.
But is still measured in meters even if the number of meters is not an
integer, it could be any fraction.
Post by Sue...
Divide a period in two That isn't seconds.
See my reply for the meter above. It is valid for seconds too.
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Nonsense.
Free energy and free time is nonsense but
we would expect nothing less from one
who thinks gravity can synthesize events
to make blueshifts work out.
[... outrageously irrelevant links omitted]
Indeed... Snake-oil salesmen and pseudo-scientists
can offer nothing better when remiinded that real physics
is based on certain symmetries.
<< Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Find some integrity
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Sue...
2007-08-09 20:06:03 UTC
Post by John Christiansen
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, because the
"marking" is done in seconds.
Divide a lenght in two. That isn't metres.
But is still measured in meters even if the number of meters is not an
integer, it could be any fraction.
Nature doen't have to *measure* anything.
If a caveman doubles his distance from a
fire he receives 1/4 the radiation. No metres
required.
Post by John Christiansen
Post by Sue...
Divide a period in two That isn't seconds.
See my reply for the meter above. It is valid for seconds too.
If the caveman spends two days in the sun
he receives twice the radiation as for one
day in the sun. No seconds required either.

Sue...
Post by John Christiansen
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Nonsense.
Free energy and free time is nonsense but
we would expect nothing less from one
who thinks gravity can synthesize events
to make blueshifts work out.
[... outrageously irrelevant links omitted]
Indeed... Snake-oil salesmen and pseudo-scientists
can offer nothing better when remiinded that real physics
is based on certain symmetries.
<< Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Find some integrity
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jeckyl
2007-08-10 00:33:59 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by John Christiansen
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, because the
"marking" is done in seconds.
Divide a lenght in two. That isn't metres.
But is still measured in meters even if the number of meters is not an
integer, it could be any fraction.
Nature doen't have to *measure* anything.
If a caveman doubles his distance from a
fire he receives 1/4 the radiation. No metres
required.
How does he know he has doubled his distance if he does not measure it.
That measurement then becomes his units.

Maybe you should have stayed longer in caveman physis class.
Jeckyl
2007-08-10 00:31:34 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
Do clocks *measure* time or do they *mark* time like a
dividing engine marks space? Metrologists say they
*mark* time.
You attempt to make a distinction without a difference, because the
"marking" is done in seconds.
Divide a lenght in two. That isn't metres.
It is if the original length was two metres
Post by Sue...
Divide a period in two That isn't seconds.
It is if the original period was two seconds

Again. . your playing semantic word games that have no bearing on reality.
Post by Sue...
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sue...
To say the clocks measure time is an assumption
that the principle of relativity can be invalidated
Nonsense.
Free energy and free time is nonsense
Lots of things are nonsense .. a good example is the majority of your posts,
which are either nonsense or completley off topic. usually both. Your
posts are the act of a troll.
Post by Sue...
Indeed... Snake-oil salesmen and pseudo-scientists
Stop putting yourself doww like that .. just call yourself a troll like
everyone else does
Androcles
2007-08-09 12:01:42 UTC
"Tom Roberts" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:11xui.1998\$***@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
: qbit wrote:
: > Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of
1971
: > [...]
:
: First, such clocks have better accuracy over shorter time intervals,

Second, you are a fucking idiot.
Bill Hobba
2007-08-10 10:51:56 UTC
Post by qbit
Debunked by Proof: The Hafele&Keating RT Time Dilation Experiment of 1971
The famous RT Time Dilation Experiment by Hafele&Keating
was performed 1971. They flew in planes around the world and
measured the time dilation at an altitude about 10 km. They made two
roundtrips around the globe; one Eastwards and another westwards.
Eastflight: -59 nsec in 65.42 hours flight time
Westflight: +273 nsec in 80.33 hours flight time
(see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971/Vol%2003_17.pdf )
But at that time the uncertainty rate of the atomic clocks
was 27.38 nanoseconds per day (see below and
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf )
Because of that fact alone can their result not be accurate.
Do you honestly believe things have not moved on since 1971?. We now have
atomic clocks so accurate relativistic effects are regularly demonstrated by
simply driving them around in a car. This was bought up on
sci.physics.relativity about 8 years ago by a guy called minor crank who was
an expert at this sort of stuff. Undoubtedly things have gotten even more
precise since then.

Bill
Post by qbit
For the EastFlight the uncertainty amounts to 65.42 / 24 * 27.38 = 74.63 nanoseconds :-)
--> this is even 1.26 factors more than what they claim to have measured!!!
For the Westflight the uncertainty amounts to 80.33 / 24 * 27.38 = 91.64 nanoseconds
--> this is even 1/3 of the allegedly measured value!!!
Ergo: the H&K results are useless trash as no statistician and
no statistical significance test can accept this inaccuracy!
For 36 years nobody saw this error in the data!
"Hafele-Keating (1971) - time dilation in clocks flown around the world
The effect itself does not seem to be generally in dispute, but
questions have been raised about their approach and statistical
analysis, given the large degree of variation between clocks.
It is claimed (Kelly) that under the revised USNO guidelines issued
the following year, the H-K results would have had to have been
REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE. This does not seem to be disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments
according to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a
biased way in order to claim such a high precision. Also, Louis Essen,
the inventor of the atomic clock, published an article in which he discussed
the (in his opinion) inadequate accuracy of the experiment."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of NIST NBS-4 and NBS-5 (year 1968 to 197x or so)
From a text from the mid-1970'ies entitled
"Twenty-Five Years Later... tick... tick... tick... - Atomic Timekeeping"
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2056.pdf
"[...]
Since 1960, several generations of NBS cesium beam devices
have provided our nation and NBS with a primary frequency standard.
NBS-II, successor of the experimental device NBS-I, furnished
this standard from 1960 until 1963, being replaced by NBS-III,
which was used until 1969.
NBS-5 became the latest generation of NBS cesium atom primary
frequency standards in 1972.
NBS-4, although initially completed in 1970, has been revised and
is presently used as an independent primary frequency standard.
Forming a system which is mutually supportive, NBS-4 and NBS-5
provide accuracies approximately 100,000 times better than the
second of time as measured by our revolving earth.
If NBS-5 was allowed to run constantly for one million years
without adjustment, it would still be accurate to better than
ten seconds!
Future primary frequency sources may someday replace these
cesium beam standards, as cesium devices replaced the
ammonia molecular clock, but the concept of atomic clocks
will continue.
[...]"
So, in 1971/1972 the NBS-5 atomic clocks had an uncertainty of
10 / (1E6 * 365.25) = 27.38 nanoseconds per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------