Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24323334
Results 991 to 1,004 of 1004

Thread: Einstien's Relativity Error

  1. #991
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAtomium
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    This kind of baloney is what I’m fed up with. SR is a cult belief system, not “science”.
    I can't for the life of me work out what the HK experiment was trying to prove,

    Here’s what happened as a result of the Hafele-Keating experiment.... many books, science papers, websites, and university textbooks have used the experiment for the past 32 years to claim that it “proved” SR theory.

    The experiment was conducted for propaganda purposes, and it has served those propaganda purposes for the past 32 years.

    This is not science, this is cultism.

    In all those books, and all those textbooks, and all those websites, and all those science papers over the years, NOBODY CARED if the Hafele-Keating experiment was accurate or not. It served a political and a propaganda purpose. It was not “science”. It was a staged theatrical event, a public relations stunt, designed to give an illusion of a “proof of SR theory”.

  2. #992
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

    Since you don't understand the math I've presented,
    I didn’t read your science fiction story. I saw that it had something to do with angels, and I didn’t read it.


    You don’t understand the Hafele Keating math, the Pauli math, or the Einstein math. You presented your math in some kind of science fiction short-story involving angels.
    Celestial Mechanic 1 - 0 Sam5

  3. #993
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    In all those books, and all those textbooks, and all those websites, and all those science papers over the years, NOBODY CARED if the Hafele-Keating experiment was accurate or not. It served a political and a propaganda purpose. It was not “science”. It was a staged theatrical event, a public relations stunt, designed to give an illusion of a “proof of SR theory”.
    Maybe, maybe not. But...
    Quote Originally Posted by I previously
    However, as has repeatedly been said, GPS satellites have been using and validating both GR and SR theory 24/7, all year long, for as long as they've been up there. How do you explain that?

    What do I believe to be correct, a poorly executed experiment with a rather convoluted point or a real-world, proven practical application?
    Answer the question.

  4. #994
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
    You are absolutely wrong. Please read what I wrote again. "It is incorrect to say that clock rates ... were compared to clock rates ..." and "... the crews were not in continuous communication with Washington." How can they have continuous (or at least frequent) comparison, a prerequisite to comparing clock rates, if they are not communicating clock readings back and forth? The only thing that HK could do in flight was compare the readings of the traveling clocks with one another and determine drift rates, relative to one another. The determination of how these clocks were drifting relative to the clocks on the ground could not be made until the traveling clocks landed.
    That’s ridiculous. The readouts read the same numbers while flying as they did after the plane landed.

    If he had wanted to, Hafele could have radioed a report of the hourly read-out numbers down to earth and they could have been written down by someone at an earth-based radio, and the numbers would have been the same for both the flying Hafele and the earth-based radio operator when Hafele returned.
    Really? You were there? You have a lot of experience with atomic clocks, do you?

    I don't know exactly whick model of clocks H-K used, as I left the paper at work, but I suspect it was an HP5061. The readout is a dial. There's no way you get nanosecond differences off of it. And how would you know whose "hourly" data to use? The clocks were running at different rates!

    The output of a clock like this is from an oscillator running at 5 MHz (or 10 or 100; sometimes a combination of these outputs are available, depending on the clock) divided down from the Cs rate. You plug this into a measurement system and then you can do things like count zero crossings and phase differences of the clocks.

    I strongly suspect the "hourly data" were measurement differences between the clocks. You reconstruct the data afterwards, when you can compare them to the other clocks. You don't do it in the interim unless you have a calibrated link between them - I don't think they had that in the phonebooth at the airport bar. But I can't say for sure.

    It's unfortunate you aren't differentiating between what you know as verifiable fact and what is speculation. That's not up to scientific integrity standards. I suspect that's not up to journalistic integrity standards either, but I'm guessing about that.

  5. #995
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAtomium

    However, as has repeatedly been said, GPS satellites have been using and validating both GR and SR theory 24/7, all year long, for as long as they've been up there. How do you explain that?

    GPS does not use Einstein’s SR or GR equations. They use a wide variety of real-life equations that correct for the wide variety of atomic clock drift rates. Moving atomic clocks around and constantly changing their positions in the gravity field causes them to be inaccurate.

    Lorentz first predicted that atomic clock rates would changed when moved around. Newton, Galileo, all the ships captains of the 17th and 18th Centuries, all knew that moving different kinds of clocks around changed the rates of the clocks. This was nothing new. It has been known for hundreds of years. Einstein wasn’t the first guy to predict that the rates of moving clocks would be unstable. He read about it in books. Harrison worked for years to develop a steady clock that would not drift much when used aboard a rocking ship.

    Hafele wrote in July of 1970 that the Einstein SR equation prediction couldn’t be used in their experiment, because it was not accurate. He wrote:

    “The standard answer that moving clocks run slow by the well known factor √(1 – v^2/c^2) is almost certainly incorrect.”

    It is a myth that Einstein equations are used in the GPS clock system. Various complex equations are used because the clocks drift for a variety of reasons. These modern equations would have been worked out whether or not Einstein ever wrote anything about clock drift. Just like the guys in the 19th Century worked out the equations for pendulum clock rate drift at different elevations. They even used the equations and pendulum clocks to accurately measure the elevation of mountains, and that was more accurate than the barometer method of determining elevation. Einstein didn’t invent the concept of motion-related or gravity-related clock rate drift.

  6. #996
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

    Since you don't understand the math I've presented,
    I didn’t read your science fiction story. I saw that it had something to do with angels, and I didn’t read it.
    Sam, of all the things you could possibly say, this one may be the biggest whopper of them all. a) maybe you should go back and read the posts, since it is about as science fiction as Gore Vidal, b) how can yoou accuse anyone of not understanding the math, least of all Celestial Mechanic? You're just not making sense anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    You don’t understand the Hafele Keating math, the Pauli math, or the Einstein math. You presented your math in some kind of science fiction short-story involving angels.
    :roll: When you understand it, maybe you can accuse others of the opposite. Until then, I would stay silent about math if I were you.

  7. #997
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by milli360
    Not only that, but that is at odds with GR, which Sam5 has said he does believe in.
    ::snip::

    I didn’t invent the idea of a “force” felt by the atoms in the clocks, Lorentz did in 1895, Einstien agreed in 1918, and Pauli agreed in 1921. I got the information from them.
    That's not my issue. It's the potential box issue, where every particle feels the same force.
    And the reason some people want to ban me is because I know this because I read their rare books and papers, and my critics have not read them.
    Hey, that's not me, you know that.

  8. #998
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    555
    Sam5 wrote: SR is a cult belief system, not “science”.
    Good science is to disprove theories, to find the flaws. In SR is a kind of 'science trap' where everyone works very hard to prove it, or fix the flaws, and convince others it is right. Is this good Science? Or is it good Mythology? In the end, someday, our successors will laugh at our Age of Relativity in the same way we today laugh at Ptolemeic astronomy. In both eras, people worked very hard to prove their "science" true, when in fact it was more myth than real. Still, because these theories are a lot of fun, they will be toyed with endlessly. Did you know that astologists today still use the Ptolemeic concentric cycles? Why not? It works!

    My guess? Relativity in the end will be set aside as an unnecessarily complicated way to explain how the Universe works, and used only as an "from the observer's point of view" observational theory of motion and acceleration, though useful as such.

  9. #999
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    Did you know that astologists today still use the Ptolemeic concentric cycles? Why not? It works!
    What works? Astrology?

    Ptolomeic cycles work, just as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations work. But there's no mechanism behind them that works. That's why they were discarded, not because they give the wrong answer.

  10. #1000
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by swansont
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    Did you know that astologists today still use the Ptolemeic concentric cycles? Why not? It works!
    What works? Astrology?

    Ptolomeic cycles work, just as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations work. But there's no mechanism behind them that works. That's why they were discarded, not because they give the wrong answer.
    That was "it works" with Big grins! and a :wink:

  11. #1001
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    222
    And although most geocentrists today follow the Tychonian model, there are some like Professor James Hanson of Cleveland State who hold by the Ptolemaic model, replete with sophisticated electromagnetic explanations to account for parallax!

  12. #1002
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    GPS does not use Einstein’s SR or GR equations. They use a wide variety of real-life equations that correct for the wide variety of atomic clock drift rates. Moving atomic clocks around and constantly changing their positions in the gravity field causes them to be inaccurate.
    Yes, they do. And, adjustments are made for orbits.

    "He [Ashby] added: "Einstein has not been 'blown off.' On the contrary, a great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if they are predicted to be big enough to be important."

    Other gravitation specialists, such as Charles Misner at the University of Maryland, Lawrence Mead of the University of Southern Mississippi, Clifford Will of the University of Washington in St. Louis and Steve Carlip of the University of California at Davis, confirm that special and general relativity are built into the software for GPS."

    From page 2 of this interview.

    What is the source for your claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Hafele wrote in July of 1970 that the Einstein SR equation prediction couldn’t be used in their experiment, because it was not accurate. He wrote:

    “The standard answer that moving clocks run slow by the well known factor ?(1 – v^2/c^2) is almost certainly incorrect.”
    Sam, to be blunt, I don't trust you not to take things out of context. Do you mind typing in the paragraph that precedes and the one that follows that statement, as well as giving citation?

  13. #1003
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,227
    This has gone on long enough.

    41 pages, and Sam5 refuses to understand anything at all.

    Perhaps you see it differently, Sam5. I am quite sure that you are frustrated by everyone not understanding your position. But we have seen dozens of people on this board try very hard to refute things like relativity, and we have found the same thing time and again: they don't understand the basic premises, they don't understand the math, they don't listen when people reason with them, if they do listen they misinterpret what is being said, willfully or otherwise, and when asked direct questions they don't answer them.

    I have said this before to many others, and I'll say it again: you cannot hope to refute an established theory unless, first, you understand it. It's clear you don't.

    I didn't lock the thread 10 pages ago because there was useful information in it. Now it's clear to me that the signal to noise ratio is dropping fast. I am locking it now.

    Sam5, you are on notice. You are welcome to start another thread if you want. But you might want to take a while to think carefully about your approach to it.

  14. #1004
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,969
    Sam5 wrote:

    Well, if you’ve got the paper then you’ve got the chart.
    Well, of course I have the chart. But I want to know if you can explain how that chart was made and therefore what it actually means. Note that one of the clocks has a difference of ~8000 nsec at the end of the experiment. That's far greater than the alleged effect of the flights, and means that most of it consists of drift.

    And of course I know what the rest of the paragraph stated, but since they stated that the comparisons were not possible during the trip, it means they reconstructed the 5000 time differences after the fact. I imagine that they would have compared the clocks within the 4-clock flying ensemble with one another in order to determine when rate changes occured to any given clock. Then they would have compared the clocks after they had been brought back together, and removed the effect of the clocks' drifts, yielding the net difference. But I don't know if this is true. How would you go about doing it?

    Sam5 wrote:

    When I finally got my hands on a real Hafele-Keating paper, that’s when I found out the Westbound clocks actually speeded up and all the clocks averaged an overall speed-up rather than a slowdown, which is exactly the opposite of what the SR theory predicted.
    Since you have the paper with the results, I can only assume you also have the paper with the predictions, which was published simultaneously in the same issue of Science. In that paper they discuss the effect of angular speed on the "stationary" clocks and on the flying clocks and conclude that theory predicts different results if the flight is done in different directions. We discussed this here 4 years ago. They even went so far as to point out that using the center of the Earth rather than the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system would have a small, but not negligible first order effect.

    Sam5 wrote:

    What Hafele and Keating should have done as “scientists” was conduct the test and report the numbers of their results, and not try to falsely promote the SR myth in the process
    5000 time differences is a lot of results to publish, and datasets that large are never published in the journal for reasons of space, but they will be archived with the sponsoring intitution.

    Sam5 wrote:

    In all those books, and all those textbooks, and all those websites, and all those science papers over the years, NOBODY CARED if the Hafele-Keating experiment was accurate or not.
    This is an incredible conclusion into the state of mind of everyone that has ever read those papers. I've always assumed the paper had been adequately vetted. Did you care enough to get the original data? Now along comes Kelly, and web publishes a critique. If he's onto something, why doesn't he go to the publisher? As I've stated in another thread, that's how Jan Hendrik Schön's fraud was exposed.

Similar Threads

  1. Getting Error Messages In Error.
    By BigDon in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Aug-25, 02:16 AM
  2. Time in Episode Relativity, Relativity and more Relativity.
    By pleclair in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-16, 10:27 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-29, 03:14 AM
  4. Podcast: Relativity, Relativity and More Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-27, 09:40 PM
  5. question on Einstien
    By Grand_Lunar in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-23, 10:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •