Einstien's Relativity Error

[Yannox]

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!

[swansont]

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 (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html). 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 (http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html?sid=876834) interview.

What is the source for your claim?


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?

[The Bad Astronomer]

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.

[Torsten]

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.