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”.

Celestial Mechanic 1 - 0 Sam5

Maybe, maybe not. But...Answer the question.

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.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

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.

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.

: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.

That's not my issue. It's the potential box issue, where every particle feels the same force.
Hey, that's not me, you know that.

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.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

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.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

That was "it works" with Big grins! and a :wink:

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

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!

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?


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?

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

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.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Sam5 wrote:

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:

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:

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:

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.