Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

Hafele Keating wrote:

Four cesium beam clocks flown around the world on commercial jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward, recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good agreement with predictions of conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale of the
U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 ? 10 nanoseconds during the
eastward trip and gained 273 + 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the
errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Atomic_Clocks_Predictions.pdf

You might want to read it again. The idea that Hafele Keating is part of a world wide conspiracy theory by Physicists is nonsense.

Do you really believe the internet crackpots over the Physicists?

1 Reply

@layman,

In the popular magazines, the H-K experiment was touted as "confirming" the twin paradox. But this was completely misleading.

The experiment did serve to confirm two things, to wit:

1. That the rates at which clocks tick is indeed affected by speed, and
2. It confirmed that the predictions of GR were accurate regarding the alteration of of clock rates due to varying altitude.

Relying on #2, the claim was that the experiment "confirmed Einstein" or "confirmed relativity." This was correct insofar as it went. It did confirm GR, but not SR. But that aspect of the experiment was totally ignored.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.

Those were the exact words they said.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I I

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.

Those were the exact words they said.

I can read it. And I have already said why this statement is misleading. But let me elaborate some.

Many think the so-called "paradox" in the twin thing is that time changes with speed. But that is not a paradox at all.

Read the H-K paper, instead of relying on misleading statements by third parties, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

You won't agree with this, but it is true.

1. You can not confirm General Relativity without also confirming Special Relativity. General Relativity says the same things Special Relativity says. It is only expanded to include Gravity.

2. Special Relativity can be proven mathematically using the General Relativity.

3. You seem to still be confused about what Special Relativity is. Most of the Points you make about Special Relativity are actually about Newton's laws. Newton said that his laws are equivalent in any inertial frame of reference.

1 Reply

@layman,

OK, let me correct that. H and K were not "third parties." However as their actual paper discloses, but this particular statement ignores, the experimental results did NOT confirm the basic tenets of SR.

Actually, the results contradicted the "predictions of SR."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

OK, let me correct that. H and K were not "third parties." However as their actual paper discloses, but this particular statement ignores, the experimental results did NOT confirm the basic tenets of SR.

Actually, the results contradicted the "predictions of SR."

I am glad you said that.

1) You are looking for some "philosophical" truth.
2) Physicists are looking for theories that can be confirmed by experiment.

That is a big part of the problem here. You are rejecting the basic premise of Physics, that things need to be tested by experiment. This has been the case in Physics since before Isaac Newton.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You won't agree with this, but it is true.

1. You can not confirm General Relativity without also confirming Special Relativity. General Relativity says the same things Special Relativity says. It is only expanded to include Gravity.

Wrong. In GR the time distortion is absolute. In SR it is (purportedly) relative, when it aint.

Quote:

2. Special Relativity can be proven mathematically using the General Relativity.

Wrong again. Long ago, around 1950, Einstein conceded that his attempt to "reduce" GR to SR was wholly "unwarranted" and mistaken. That is also the consensus today, too. "Curved" spacetime is completely incompatible with the flat euclidean spacetime adopted in the SR theory.

Quote:

3. You seem to still be confused about what Special Relativity is. Most of the Points you make about Special Relativity are actually about Newton's laws. Newton said that his laws are equivalent in any inertial frame of reference.

You can say this for the 25th time, if you want, but I'm not going to bother with repeatedly denying it. You are the one confused about the relationship between SR and Newtonian mechanics.

[/quote]

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

layman wrote:

OK, let me correct that. H and K were not "third parties." However as their actual paper discloses, but this particular statement ignores, the experimental results did NOT confirm the basic tenets of SR.

Actually, the results contradicted the "predictions of SR."

I am glad you said that.

1) You are looking for some "philosophical" truth.
2) Physicists are looking for theories that can be confirmed by experiment.

That is a big part of the problem here. You are rejecting the basic premise of Physics, that things need to be tested by experiment. This has been the case in Physics since before Isaac Newton.

No, I'm not doing anything of the sort. Testability is not even an issue here. Both SR and LR can be "tested" and that is not the thing that distinguishes them.

Tell me, Max, if you think you know, what exactly is the basic theoretical between SR and LR? I've already stated it in this thread, if you want to see it.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Wrong. In GR is time distortion is absolute. In SR it is (purportedly) relative, when it aint.

I don't know where you are getting this from, but let's talk about what this means.

What experiment could I do to test your claim that "time distortion is absolute". If you want to start explaining this with a Minkowski function that would be acceptable (I am half joking here, the point being that you don't have anywhere close to the mathematical background to do this).

You shouldn't be repeating things from conspiracy theory websites if you can't explain, by experiment, what they mean.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Wrong. In GR is time distortion is absolute. In SR it is (purportedly) relative, when it aint.

I don't know where you are getting this from, but let's talk about what this means.

What experiment could I do to test your claim that "time distortion is absolute". If you want to start explaining this with a Minkowski function that would be acceptable (I am have joking here, the point being that you don't have anywhere close to the mathematical background to do this).

You shouldn't be repeating things from conspiracy theory websites if you can't explain, by experiment, what they mean.

In short, it means that clock retardation is not "mutually reciprocal" as SR posits.

The H-K experiment proved this.

No "empircal test' was ever really needed. The whole notion can be rejected a priori because it is logically impossible. Two clocks cannot both be slower than the other.

2 Replies

@layman,

That is the opposite of what Hafele and Keating say in their paper. I posted the relevant direct quote from the paper. And I linked to the paper.

You are posting things you read on conspiracy theory websites.

The original paper says the exact opposite of what you are saying.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That is the opposite of what Hafele and Keating say in their paper. I posted the relevant direct quote from the paper. And I linked to the paper.

You are posting things you read on conspiracy theory websites.

The original paper says the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Read the damn paper, in its entirety, Max. And read why the statement you cite, out of context, is misleading. I have already explained why it is.

1 Reply

@layman,

Despite all resistance, SR is forced to concede that clock retardation is not "relative," but rather absolute. This concession is made by admitting that the travelling twin is "really" younger than the other. In effect this concedes that the earth is the preferred frame in that example. SR says preferred frames don't exist and resort to one is supposedly forbidden.

The "paradox" is this: How is it possible to get an absolute answer from a theory that is strictly relative.

The answer is: You can't.

Which exposes the falsehood of one of SR basic tenets.

2 Replies

@layman,

OK I see what you are doing. You have a philosophical misunderstanding of what the theory says. You are claiming (incorrectly) that under SR both clocks should have slowed down.

You have backed up your philosophical misunderstanding with quotes from Fenyman and Smoot, which you also misunderstood. I think you started with the first philosophical misunderstanding, and then distorted Feynman and Smoot to match.

But let's look at what the paper by Hafele and Keating says.

1). They go through mathematical detail on how they made their predictions. The paper literally goes step by step.

2) The predictions are that the Eastward plane should lose 40ns +/- 23.
The Westward plane should gain 273ns +/- 21.

3) The measurements were that the Eastward plane lost −59ns ±10
The Westward plane gained 271ns +/- 7

This is a successful experiment. The experimental results matched the theoretical predictions quite well.

The bullshit you are reading on conspiracy sites are apparently claiming that Hafele and Keating lied.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The "paradox" is this: How is it possible to get an absolute answer from a theory that is strictly relative.

The Hafele-Keating experiment did just that (unless you believe they were lying).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Keep reading, fool. By the way, I know that you are not quoting from the paper itself to begin with. You're quoting secondary sources.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The Hafele-Keating experiment did just that (unless you believe they were lying).

[/quote]

Heh. H-K did the opposite. No two clocks returned with each being slower than the other. Big surprise, eh? It's impossible to begin with.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

SR says preferred frames don't exist and resort to one is supposedly forbidden.

You make a lot of stuff up.

Can you provide a link for this (rather strange) claim?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
SR says preferred frames don't exist and resort to one is supposedly forbidden.

You make a lot of stuff up.

Can you provide a link for this (rather strange) claim?

Sure. Read any introductory textbook on SR. I take it that you never have. Or google the question your own damn self, and see what you get.

2 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know