Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

The result of this paper which is critical of the Hafele-Keating experiment, is not new. The experiment has been under cricism for many many years. I have a different view. Lets accept the Hafele-Keating results. They prove the existence of an absolute space-time and disprove relativity. So questioning the supposed proof of relativity may not be desirable for critics of relativity.Here's why.

If the results given by Hafele-Keating are correct, then relativity is disproved in favor of an absolute space-time. The results show that the time dilation effect is different for travelling east and west. This result is inconsistent with special relativity, which requires the same result for both directions. Hence there is an interpretation that claims the experiment proves an absolute space-time. Why? Because in an absolute space-time theory this descrepancy is explained because motion is referenced to an absolute frame of reference. In this frame of reference there is a difference in the velocity of the aircraft relative to the absolute frame of the earth. (Because of the earths rotation, there is a difference between the east and west velocities.) So if this difference can be detected as a time dilation, it shows that relativity is wrong.

kc3mx,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>So if this difference can be detected as a time dilation, it shows that relativity is wrong.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We agree. I have argued that such test violate the "relative" motion arguement. It requires that each clock run slower than the other and any actual difference in clocks would seem to infer a preferred frame of reference which Relativity precludes.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

the subject of time dilation is a very confusing one. In 1905 Einstein solved the Lorentz transform and concluded that moving clocks run slow. This was a mistake. He actually showed that the moving clock in his calculation runs fast. But he misinterpreted the result. In 1907 J. Stark asked him to review the theory in light of new results. One of the results was that fast moving canal rays showed a redshift. When Einstein tried to demonstrate that this proved relativity, his proof failed. Mainly because his proof showed that the moving clock runs fast. To fix this, he redid the proof. The new proof assumed that the clock in the moving frame runs at the same rate as the rest clock. But an observer sees the moving clock run slow. The new proof was consistent with the canal ray measurements so the theory appeared to be confirmed.

Apparently few people read the new version of relativity, because they continued to interpret the theory as proving that the moving clock runs slow. Of course they failed to realise that Einstein really proved it runs fast. Apparently, no onelooked at the 1907 paper. The clock paradox arises because the 1905 paper asserts that moving clocks run slow. The proponents of the paradox failed to realise that the theory as revised in 1907 no longer made this claim. Hence the confusion ever since.

Curiously time dilation is predicted by the Lorentz theory of relativity not the Einstein version. Remember the 1905 Einstein version predicts that the clock runs fast when correctly applied. The 1907 version corrects this mistake. It says the moving clock appears to run slow in the opposite reference frame. So if experiments actually demonstrate that moving clocks run slow, it proves Lorentz's version of relativity and refutes Einstein's version.

The theory is all well and good and all that, but the experiment was very poorly done and proves nothing at all one way or the other. So the belief that clocks run fast or slow is not proven even though the math works out well. The fact is that a moving clock seems to be slow because of dopler shifting and modeling. The modeling introduces errors that can be corrected by simply assuming the clock is being slowed when in fact there is nothing of the sort occuring. The model is bogus even though the result is math perfect. You can get the same result by assuming 2C is the correct speed limit as is suggested by the author of the paper about the bogus experiment.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />the belief that clocks run fast or slow is not proven even though the math works out well.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You can forget everything before GPS. We now routinely launch atomuc clocks and see the clock slow by 7200 ns/day. Clock-slowing is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. Any valid theory of reality must deal with that as an experimental fact. -|Tom|-

TVF: You can forget everything before GPS. We now routinely launch atomuc clocks and see the clock slow by 7200 ns/day. Clock-slowing is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. Any valid theory of reality must deal with that as an experimental fact. -|Tom|-

Some are essentially proposing that from this elementary empirical fact, one can make an induction regarding a theory about clock slowing. This is not however as easy as it seems. Such induction could be supported if earth, for instance, were to be thought of as an absolute reference frame. But, what about if clocks on earth are really moving faster with respect to some other reference frame and the clocks in GPS run less faster with respect to that frame, which then appears to an observer on earth as a relative slowing?

This goes back to several objections and problems regarding Relativity and the statement made by Leibniz in his dispute with Clark that one cannot datermine, even an Angel in his own words, who is moving and who is not moving and with respect to what, in a space-time lacking an absolute reference.

If you have a train moving and a car next to it speeding up, both run faster with respect to a stationary observer, but the train runs slower than the car for the observer in the car. This cannot mean that the train runs slower in absolute terms but only when considered in relation to something that runs faster.

It is probable that the GPS slowing is related to some other effect and just appears as related to relative moving reference frames for various reasons. The fact that a correction must be applied says nothing about spatiotemporal relations that produce an effect of this kind. Such inferences may be non sequitur.

Furthermore, since according to your physics principles "every effect must have a proximate antecedant cause", which is the cause for this effect of slowing to happen? Surely, it cannot be a cause from earth causing the clocks on GPS to run slow, since this is not a proximate cause to GPS. But why would a proximate cause to GPS clocks care about the existence of another reference frame with respect to which the GPS clock speed is measured? There might be a causal violation here as a result of an incomplete picture we have of spatiotemporal properties which gives the illusion of clock slowing. This can be further illuminated in some way when one considers Time to be an illusion arising from relative motion and a restriction in the maximum speed such motion can take place. But this is still a fairly incomplete pisture of reality and maybe the reason why Relativity (both SR and LR)is a bogus theory but in a remarkable way makes the right predictions.

Conclusion: the fact that GPS clocks run slower says little about the soundness of both SR and LR but certainly proves that the effect is there.