Relativity is a pseudoscience II. The Hafele-Keating HOAX,

[rhertz]

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

as well as the Wiki narrative here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

It's worthy to mention that this is THE CHEAPEST EXPERIMENT to prove SR
and GR simultaneously. It only costed $8,000 from a grant of the US
Naval Observatory. Of this amount, $7600 was spent on plane tickets,
including two seats on each flight for the atomic clocks. They performed
TWO ROUNDS around the world, each one on opposite directions.

ALERTS ABOUT THE HOAX:
1) Consider that each path flight, linearized, was composed by no less
than 5 segments (US, UK, Turkey, Philipines, Japan, US), and required
that both adventurers spend about 1 day of accomodations at each stage
(hotel, etc.).

2) With the help of EXPERTS in navegation, they APPROXIMATED the globe
circumvalation AS IF it was done following the Equator IN JUST ONE TRIP.
Here entered a lot of approximations in the calculations, to linearize
the travels. Nothing different than the ABUSE OF STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS
within the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment.

3) No less than 10 take-off and landings existed. At each one, the
EFFECTS of acceleration, altitude change, geomagnetic and atmospheric
effects, humidity, presurization, heat, velocity changes, etc., WERE
IGNORED.

4) The couple used APPROXIMATIONS of relativity to generate these
formulae for calculations of time effects due to SR and GR:

FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY
A clock that is stationary on the surface at the equator has a speed RΩ
relative to nonrotating space, and hence runs slow relative to
hypothetical coordinate clocks of this space in the ratio 1 - R² Ω²/2c²,
where R is the earth's radius and Ω its angular speed.

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 = -( 2RΩv + v²) τ₀/2c²

NOTE 1: OBSERVE THAT THIS IS A QUADRATIC EQUATION IN τ₀. THIS HAS NOT
BEEN ADDRESSED IN CALCULATIONS.
NOTE 2: v (the speed of the plane) is v>0 flying eastward. The opposite
is negative.

FOR GENERAL RELATIVITY

τ - τ₀ = [gh/c²-( 2RΩv + v²) /2c² ] τ₀

where h is the AVERAGE ALTITUDE OF THE PLANE, being h << R.

FINAL RESULTS, AS PUBLISHED IN 1972 IN SCIENCE MAGAZINE (values are in
nanoseconds)

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 3: More than 70% error for SR (use values at extremes).
NOTE 4: Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with
41 accumulated hours of flight.

Predicted for GR (westward flight): +179 ± 18
Predicted for SR (westward flight): +96 ± 10
THEORETICAL TOTAL WESTWARD FLIGHT: +275 ± 21
MEASURED TOTAL WESTWARD FLIGHT: +273 ± 7

NOTE 5: In this case, the error is lower than 1% (use values at
extremes).
NOTE 6: After a week of vacations, and starting 13 October 1971,
westward flights lasted 80.3 hours, with 48.6 accumulated hours of
flight.

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

If after reading the brief resume, you still think that this IS REAL
SCIENCE, and that the results ARE NOT COOKED by two ambitious
relativists, then you deserve to be a gullible imbecile, like the ones
who supported this HOAX and made it public.

If you dig a little bit in the equations for SR and GR that were used by
these two, you'll find that are only A GROSS APPROXIMATION generated
using the 1915 Schwarzschild's solution, 56 years after he developed it.
It's the same shameful procedure that Pound and Rebka used on their 1961
experiment, devised to CHECK if the 1911 Einstein's equations were true
and, then, PHOTONS HAVE MASS.

******************************************************************
J. C. HAFELE - Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri
RICHARD E. KEATING - Time Service Division, U.S. Naval Observatory,
Washington, D.C.

[Python]

(diotic rant)
and, then, PHOTONS HAVE MASS.

yawn.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[rhertz]

You have to download this paper, from 2017, in order to understand what
these "specimens" wrote in 1971:

Relativistic Corrections in the European GNSS Galileo
Dr. A. Mudraka, Dr. P. De Simonea, Dr. ing. M. Lisi a
a European Space Agency - ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands


https://www.academia.edu/112529110/Relativistic_Corrections_in_the_European_GNSS_Galileo


In this paper Mudrak and his team calculated the corrections to be
applied to ground receivers of the European GPS-like network: Galileo.

To do so, Mudrak used the basic Schwarzschild's solution (from 1915),
over which it was added a couple of minor corrections that can be
dismissed for the purpose of this test.

Considering the average height at which Galileo satellites orbit, Mudrak
separated the effects of GR and SR.

The GR influence on the difference that he calculated between atomic
clocks on orbit and a reference clock located at the surface of the
Earth was:

Δf/f = -GMe/c² (1/r - 1/a) , where a=radius of Earth ; r=distance of
satellite to the center of Earth.

As you can see, this is a better equation than using only h=average
height of the flights, but is not relevant. So, this part is EQUAL to
what Hafele-Keating used.

Now, Mudrak calculated that the influence of SR in the frequency
difference was:

Δf/f = vsat²/2c²

In these formulae, I dismissed the values of J2 (Earth quadrupole
moment) and Ωe (mean Earth angular rotation rate). This because of the
high speed and altitude involved.

So, for any practical purpose, there are no major differences between
Hafele-Keating and Mudrak formulae, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT the speed of
the plane IS RELEVANT when compared with the rotational speed of Earth.

The remaining concept is that Δf/f (frequencies of atomic clocks in
orbit and at ground stations) is related to the TIME that these clocks
count. So, you can interpret, without any conceptual error, that f, f₀,
τ and τ₀ ARE DIRECTLY RELATED.

Finally, to reach to some values close to those of Hafele-Keating, you
HAVE TO COMPUTE the time lapses over which these formulae were applied
(flight time).

Thinking about the HUGE AMOUNT of anomalies not considered in the 1971
experiment, nor you or ANYBODY can seriously take such crappy experiment
as something CLOSE TO REAL VALUES. THEY WERE COOKED TO THE MAXIMUM.

One last thing concerning the two flights in opposite directions, is
that the angular speed of Earth is added or subtracted from the speed of
the planes.

As you can analyze, relativity was used discretionally by these two
guys, as the "differential velocity" between both frames of reference
(planes and Earth) is ARBITRARILY COMPUTED.

These two crooks took ONE YEAR to publish the cooked data in the Science
Magazine. The original article, in 1971, contain a funny and confusing
graphic where they, allegedly, showed the "results" of that farce.

Obviously, somebody in the gov. pushed them to make a new presentation
with tables and numerical values, PLUS a lot of explanations about the
SIMPLIFICATIONS that they made. But it only takes to watch the tables
(which I presented before) to see and smell the ROTTEN FISH that such
1971 experiment was.

[rhertz]

Lawrence: You mean time dilation. It's length which is affirmed that
contracts IN the moving frame, but ONLY as PERCEIVED by the observer at
relative rest.

Yes, most of the converted to this cult, since around 1910.

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.

The old member Dono (an EE) was crazy about this, and wrote many
pseudopapers on ResearchGate. He had serious mental issues, due to his
exposure to relativity since 2006, until Google group disappeared this
year.

You can read about that here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment


The first experiment involving moving atomic clocks was the 1971
Hafele-Keating HOAX, hence their undue fame.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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."]

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by 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"?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by 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.

No, Richard. They didn't measure the transverse Doppler shift on a
rotating platform. Direct measure of the transverse Doppler shift was
quite outside the technological capabilities of the time, as I make
quite clear from my Figure 3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment
(Under my current and a previous user name, I am author of about 49%
of the text of this article, while my good friend and collaborator
D.H wrote about 26% of the article. I drew the first seven figures.)
The speed of the the canal rays was only about 0.005c, so systematic
errors in direct measurement of the transverse Doppler effect would
have been impossible for them to control for.

Instead, they compared (1) the average wavelength of a redshifted and
blueshifted beam of the blue-green 4861 Å Hβ line of the Balmer series
series as emitted by a beam of "canal rays" with (2) the line directly
emitted by stationary excited atoms in the canal-ray tubes.

They had to overcome a number of technical challenges in performing
their measurements. I consider their experiment to represent an
impressive tour de force in identifying and overcoming these challenges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment#The_experiment_of_1938

You are usually much better at reading the original literature that
you attempt to critique.

The authors, by the way, were relativity skeptics. They expected
negative results, and when the results were non-negative, they
preferred to explain the results within the context of the electron
theories of Lorentz and Lamor rather than relativity.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

[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.

Have in mind that THREE RUBIDIUM ATOMIC CLOCKS (from 1971) were FAR from
the stability and accuracy of modern clocks, 50 years after (like this
one):

https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_view/133195-rubidium-keeps-the-signal-stable

Accuracy: +/- 5E-11
Age degradation: 5E-11/month

OR THESE ONE:

Stability and Noise Performance of Various Rubidium Standards

http://www.ke5fx.com/rb.htm

As ANYONE CAN SEE, the stability (1 sec) for several modern rubidium
clocks are 10 to 100 LOWER!! THAN the gross accuracy that the pair of
crooks published in 1972 (curiously 1 year after the original
publication, that had not such data).

How come did HK obtain such accuracy IF NOT BY TWO FACTORS:

1. They considered that lectors are gullible imbeciles and/or
accomplishes of this HOAX. After all, the US Naval Observatory gave them
$8,000 to pay the tickets, and facilitated the atomic clocks (running on
battery).

2. They cooked the data HEAVILY, dismissing crucial parameters like:

- Segmented flight path, far from linear circumvention of Earth at
Equator in just one segment.
- Accelerations, decelerations, different altitudes, heat, humidity,
electromagnetic influences, time involved on the ground, between flight
paths and more than 1 week before the east and west flights.
-Shocks suffered by manipulations at each segment, when the clocks were
loaded and unloaded from the planes and the time the clocks spent in
LOCAL, not acclimatized or blinded airport storage.

- NOT REVEALING HOW COME DID THEY MEASURED TIME ELAPSED IN NANOSECONDS
IN 1971. What that the IMPOSSIBLE CASE that the clocks had 12 digits
digital counters (nanoseconds displayed?) OR they just EXTRAPOLATED THE
DATA FROM THE REGULAR 5Mhz or 10 Mhz of these clocks (as it happens
since HP created the first one)?

FISHY EXPERIMENT. A HOAX PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC IN TIMES THAT THE HYPE
ABOUT EINSTEIN HAD REVIVED?

Dishonest people looking for fame and money (for the US military and
academic labs), and ethically rotten to the core.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
One important thing, which clearly shows the FARCE, are the stability
numbers for rubidium atomic clocks.
- 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!

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 20:04:34 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
(in response to Richard)

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
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!

A serious complication that H&K needed to compensate for, is that
in addition to fluctuations in rate due to shot noise in the beam
tubes, early cesium clocks frequently exhibited "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." Due to the stresses of travel, these random jumps in
rate occurred more frequently than for clocks in a stable laboratory
environment.

Fortunately, a time-honored technique exists for detecting and
compensating for rate glitches in otherwise stable clocks. This is the
technique of "correlated rate-change analysis", first used by Newcomb
in 1874 to detect changes in the Earth's rotational period.

During the 636 hours of the experiment
- H&K took over 5000 inter-clock comparisons while the clock was on
the ground as well as in flight.
- While on the ground, they took hourly comparisons of each clock with
USNO time.

Their continuous inter-clock comparisons enabled them to pinpoint the
times and magnitudes of the rate jumps for each clock.

To illustrate how correlated rate change analysis works, consider the
following made-up data from a hypothetical ensemble of three clocks.
Clock 0 initially runs a bit fast, while clocks 1 and 2 run a bit slow
compared with the ensemble mean. The following table presents, in
columnar format, data for the three clocks. The columns marked "t"
show hourly clock readings, which are compared with the ensemble means
to their right.

At a certain time during the run, one of the clocks exhibited a rate
change. Which clock exhibited the rate change, when did the rate
change occur, and did the clock speed up or slow down?

Clock 0 Clock 1 Clock 2
t mean t mean t mean
4 3.9650 4 4.0052 4 4.0294
5 4.9564 5 5.0065 5 5.0367
6 5.9478 6 6.0079 6 6.0441
7 6.9392 7 7.0093 7 7.0514
8 7.9306 8 8.0106 8 8.0588
9 8.9220 9 9.0120 9 9.0661
10 9.9134 10 10.0132 10 10.0732
11 10.9081 11 11.0129 11 11.0789
12 11.9028 12 12.0126 12 12.0845
13 12.8976 13 13.0123 13 13.0902
14 13.8923 14 14.0120 14 14.0959
15 14.8870 15 15.0117 15 15.1015
16 15.8817 16 16.0114 16 16.1072

I note that Richard considers himself to be an Excel expert. It is
quite easy to analyze this data using Excel. If Richard plots the
differences of each individual clock reading from the ensemble means,
then it should be apparent that at Hour 10, Clock 0 experienced a
rate slowdown of 0.5%. This caused the ensemble mean rate to decrease
by 0.17%. The result is that Clock 0 showed a net slowdown of 0.33%
relative to the ensemble mean, while Clocks 1 and 2 both showed a net
speed up of 0.17% relative to the ensemble mean.

Hafele and Keating used FOUR clocks rather than the three clocks in my
demonstration. This enabled them to resolve the rare instances where
two clocks might have glitched at the same time.

[rhertz]

Is the Hafele-keating experiment credible?

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


Time Dilation and the Hafele and Keating Flight around the Earth

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


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

This comment exhibit it all:


Radwan M. Kassir
Dar Al-Handasah (Shair & Partners)

"The experiment had been a total failure due to the erratic behavior of
the clocks...
The upshot is that the 'data' presented by Hafele and Keating are an
embarrassment for science." ...

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

[Python]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

This is definitely not "nothing" :-)

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

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 definitely not "nothing" :-)

IL faudrait quand même que certains posteurs cessent de dire n'importe
quoi.

Cela devient lassant.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Python

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 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 :-)

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Python

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 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...

[rhertz]

These links I've searched and found shine some light about the
technology used in the 1971 K-H experiment.

The Cs atomic clocks used were HP 5061A, built in 1969. I wanted to be
sure that THEY DIDN'T HAVE any digital counter able to present clock's
data with nanosecond, microsecond or even millisecond resolution. All
that they had was AN ANALOG CLOCK showing time with 1 SECOND RESOLUTION.

As it happens (by design) with atomic clocks, high frequency
oscillations of 133Cs (9,192,631,779 Hz) down to a compensated crystal
oscillator (typically at 5 Mhz or 10 Mhz, which have isolated outputs),
which frequency is divided by 5x10E+06 or 10E+07, to obtain a 1 Hertz
stabilized output, which feeds the ANALOG CLOCK.

You can see, in the pictures or the video, what is inside these HEAVY
clocks. Pure analog electronics, except for the synthesizer (to excite
the Cs chamber) or the dividers, to obtain 5/10 Mhz and 1 Hertz. The
HP5061A is full of DIALS and PRESETS, in order to make permanent
corrections to the readings at 5/10 Mhz, There are no outputs at the 9
Ghz oscillators, because for that epoch, frequency measurement (in real
time) at such range was directly NOT AVAILABLE YET. It would take
another 20 years to measure 10 Ghz without prescalers. WITH NANOSECONDS
RESOLUTION (12 digits on a display).

https://physicsmuseum.uq.edu.au/cesium-beam-frequency-standard-type-5061a


How an Atomic Clock Really Works: Inside the HP 5061A Cesium Clock

In the video, at 1:52, you can observe the complete path flights that
H-K performed.

In no case, information about WHAT THEY MEASURED to obtain nanoseconds
resolutions. In particular, NO DETAILS about how did they compensate the
DRIFTS in the four Cs clocks, or HOW they conciliated data with the
other TWO Cs clocks in Washington.

Interesting to observe the interior of such "primitive" HP clocks, and
the technology that's visible.


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."



IF THE ABOVE IS NOT A DISCLAIMER for not being accountable of COOKING, I
don't know what it is.

Fishy, rotten, cooked experiment!

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
One important thing, which clearly shows the FARCE, are the stability
numbers for rubidium atomic clocks.
- 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.
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?

Post by rhertz
Is the Hafele-keating experiment credible?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-the-Hafele-keating-experiment-credible

And what was the answer? :-D

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by rhertz
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.

[Richard Hachel]

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.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

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?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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)...

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[rhertz]

I forgot to EMPHASIZE that the published values for SR and GR were
THEORETICAL, as it is impossible to measure each effect independently.
Same thing has been happening since 1971, in particular the paper
written for Galileo GNSS in 2017.

So, each theory is impossible to be verified experimentally by separate.
Even more, the total value that was (allegedly) measured is based on
complicated sets of partial data (for each segment of the flights),
which make the measurements very suspicious of MANIPULATIONS, in
particular due to the high dispersion of the final theoretical and
measured results (which are above +/- 50%).

That's why I called H-K experiment A FRAUD.


****************************************************************************
FINAL RESULTS, AS PUBLISHED IN 1972 IN SCIENCE MAGAZINE (values are in
nanoseconds)


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

Starting 4 October 1971, eastward flights lasted 65 hours, with 41
accumulated hours of flight.


Predicted for GR (westward flight): +179 ± 18
Predicted for SR (westward flight): +96 ± 10
THEORETICAL TOTAL WESTWARD FLIGHT: +275 ± 21
MEASURED TOTAL WESTWARD FLIGHT: +273 ± 7


After a week of vacations, and starting 13 October 1971, westward
flights lasted 80.3 hours, with 48.6 accumulated hours of flight.
****************************************************************************

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"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."

[rhertz]

The 2017 Mudrak's formula was:

Δt/t = - GMe/c² (1/r - 1/a), where a = radius of Earth ; r = distance of
the raised clock to the center of Earth.

And that formula is ALMOST THE SAME as the one used in the
Hafele-Keating 1971 experiment.

Also, is ALMOST THE SAME as the one used in the Pound-Rebka 1961
experiment.

Finally, IS ALMOST THE SAME AS WRITTEN BY EINSTEIN IN HIS 1911 PAPER.

See how the crooks follow the dogmas of the cult? OBEY!!




For low heights, compared with Earth's radius, (1/r - 1/a) = h/c² (h is
the elevation from the ground).

Schwarzschild is present in any case, as this the part corresponding to
GR effects.

Crooks and imbecile all of them, but coherent in the same narrative.

[rhertz]

My mistake. The formula is:

(1/r - 1/a) = h/r²

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[rhertz]

On the Hafele-Keating Experiment and the Geostationary Orbit Satellite
Problem
Further Analysis and Discussion

Shandong Zhao * and Yijia Zhao
Posted Date: 27 February 2024
doi: 10.20944/preprints202402.1554.v1

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202402.1554/v1/download


Maybe some will like this deep analysis of such experiment 53 years
after, by Chinese relativists.

Even when they're relativists, they SMASH the publication into pieces,
with fierce but diplomatic critics.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[Volney]

Post by rhertz
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.
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?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Volney

Post by rhertz
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.
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.

Post by Volney
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.

[Volney]

Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Volney

Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.

[rhertz]

Some more links.



http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/HK50/

50th Anniversary of 1971 Hafele-Keating Experiment
04-Oct-2021

NOTE: OBSERVE THE COUNTER LOCATED ABOVE BOTH CLOCKS IN THE PHOTO. IT'S
AN HP COUNTER/FREQ. METER, NOT ABLE TO MEASURE ABOVE 100 MHZ OR BELOW 1
uSec (first and third photo). It doesn't work to measure nanoseconds.




The Truths of Space-time Contractions of Special Relativity
August 2023Applied Physics Research 15(2):36
Authors: Mei Xiaochun

Institute of Innovative Physics in Fuzhou,


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373113331_The_Truths_of_Space-time_Contractions_of_Special_Relativity

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/HK50/
50th Anniversary of 1971 Hafele-Keating Experiment
04-Oct-2021
NOTE: OBSERVE THE COUNTER LOCATED ABOVE BOTH CLOCKS IN THE PHOTO. IT'S
AN HP COUNTER/FREQ. METER, NOT ABLE TO MEASURE ABOVE 100 MHZ OR BELOW 1
uSec (first and third photo). It doesn't work to measure nanoseconds.

As a EE, you should immediately have been able to think of a variety
of methods whereby H&K could have performed their inter-clock
comparisons to sub-nanosecond accuracy. I presume that their clocks
had a variety of outputs. Today's clocks might typically have a 1 PPS
output, as well as 1 MHz, 5 MHz and 10 MHz sine wave outputs.

The first thing that I can think of would be to use an external time
interval counter. I would connect the TIC to both clocks' 1 PPS outputs,
and it will measure the time difference between the outputs to
sub-nanosecond accuracy. Since the TIC is triggered by the edges of
the output signals, its precision will be much greater than what
the clock readouts can show.

A second thing that I might try would be to use a phase detector to
measure the phase difference between the clock outputs. The phase shift
of the signal can be translated into a time difference. For example,
a 3.6 degree phase shift between two 10 MHz clock outputs would
correspond to a time difference of 1 ns.

I'm sure that you can quickly think of other methods of performing
the inter-comparisons. Which method did H&K use? They didn't specify
in their two Science papers, but they would certainly have expected
that any "person skilled in the art" (PSITA) could figure things out
if they wanted to repeat the experiment.

[rhertz]

DENSE DISCLAIMER OF DR. HAFELE. FULL PAPER:

PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFT
by J.C. Hafele
Assistant Professor of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri.


http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/HK50/1971-PTTI-Vol-03_17.pdf


EXCERPT:


8. 0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2
Portable cesium beam clocks (model 5061A) cannot be expected to
perform as well under traveling conditions as they do in the laboratory.
Our results show that quasipermanent rate changes as large as 5 nsec/hr
(120 nsec/day) may occur during trips with clocks that have shown
considerably
better performance in the laboratory. Of course, such changes
reduce the utility of these clocks. For example, if a flying clock
changes
rate by 5 nsec/hr shortly after the beginning of a two-week trip, and no
other significant changes occur, synchronizations with this clock
shortly
before the end of the trip would be off by 1. 6p sec. However, our
results
also suggest that the average of four flying clocks permits
synchronization
with an uncertainty of less than 1 nsec/hr (24 nsec/day), assuming no
intercomparison data are recorded. With intercomparison data, it should
be
possible to reduce the uncertainty even further.

Although the final analysis of our data is not yet completed, we
have established, with an intermediate level of analysis, that portable
cesium beam clocks are capable of showing relativistic effects with
relatively
inexpensive commercial jet flights. The results of this analysis are
in reasonable agreement with theoretical predictions. However, those who
doubt the validity of conventional relativity theory, and there are many
people in this category, probably will not be converted by the results
shown
in Figure 4. Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in
Figure 4 is disturbing, and if our final analysis does not improve
agreement,
an improved version of this experiment should be given serious
consideration.
The standard deviation on the measurement could be reduced considerably,
probably
by a factor of ten, with such improvements as the use of dual beam
clocks and
circumnavigations with less ground time.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS OF PORTABLE CLOCKS IN AIRCRAFT
by J.C. Hafele
Assistant Professor of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri.
http://www.leapsecond.com/museum/HK50/1971-PTTI-Vol-03_17.pdf
8. 0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2
Portable cesium beam clocks (model 5061A) cannot be expected to
perform as well under traveling conditions as they do in the laboratory.
Our results show that quasipermanent rate changes as large as 5 nsec/hr
(120 nsec/day) may occur during trips with clocks that have shown
considerably
better performance in the laboratory. Of course, such changes
reduce the utility of these clocks. For example, if a flying clock
changes
rate by 5 nsec/hr shortly after the beginning of a two-week trip, and no
other significant changes occur, synchronizations with this clock
shortly
before the end of the trip would be off by 1. 6p sec. However, our
results
also suggest that the average of four flying clocks permits
synchronization
with an uncertainty of less than 1 nsec/hr (24 nsec/day), assuming no
intercomparison data are recorded. With intercomparison data, it should
be
possible to reduce the uncertainty even further.
Although the final analysis of our data is not yet completed, we
have established, with an intermediate level of analysis, that portable
cesium beam clocks are capable of showing relativistic effects with
relatively
inexpensive commercial jet flights. The results of this analysis are
in reasonable agreement with theoretical predictions. However, those who
doubt the validity of conventional relativity theory, and there are many
people in this category, probably will not be converted by the results
shown
in Figure 4. Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in
Figure 4 is disturbing, and if our final analysis does not improve
agreement,
an improved version of this experiment should be given serious
consideration.
The standard deviation on the measurement could be reduced considerably,
probably
by a factor of ten, with such improvements as the use of dual beam
clocks and
circumnavigations with less ground time.

Are you trying to suggest Hafaele and Keating's data is
given including an example that falsifies the standard formalism?

It seems you're pointing out they already do, ....