View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon May 28, 2018 2:04 am




Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment 
Author Message
Lurker

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:52 am
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
Post 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
At the top-right of page 21 of this

http://user.it.uu.se/~marlu734/relativity/Alley1979-relativity_and_clocks.pdf

PDF a graph is shown which appears to demonstrate a remarkable confirmation of time-dilation using atomic clocks flown on an airplane (basically a repeat of Hafele-Keating). I've been unable to find any problems with this experiment. Can anyone see any problems with it?


Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:52 am
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 1124
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Geocentricist wrote:
At the top-right of page 21 of this

http://user.it.uu.se/~marlu734/relativity/Alley1979-relativity_and_clocks.pdf

PDF a graph is shown which appears to demonstrate a remarkable confirmation of time-dilation using atomic clocks flown on an airplane (basically a repeat of Hafele-Keating). I've been unable to find any problems with this experiment. Can anyone see any problems with it?

If a pendulum clock shows the same result I could believe in Einstein's "time".

All clocks show time or not?

PS: Does the earth rotate slower in the reference frame of the airplane?


Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:40 pm
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3862
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Greetings, Geocentrist; welcome to the forum.
Geocentricist wrote:
At the top-right of page 21 of this

http://user.it.uu.se/~marlu734/relativity/Alley1979-relativity_and_clocks.pdf

PDF a graph is shown which appears to demonstrate a remarkable confirmation of time-dilation using atomic clocks flown on an airplane (basically a repeat of Hafele-Keating). I've been unable to find any problems with this experiment. Can anyone see any problems with it?
As you can probably see from adjacent recently-posted-to threads, we have been discussing such issues in minute detail.

What we consider 'problems' with Einstein's claims are that they lead to logical paradoxes, notably from such pseudo-scientific notions as time dilation (TD) and length contraction (LC).

Cryptic has already zeroed in with the major question on clocks - that a pendulum clock would act in the opposite way to atomic clocks, thus the issue is one of the effect of inertial forces (e.g. gravity and centrifugal force) acting upon clock mechanisms. This contrasts sharply with the notion that time itself can "change its rate" i.e. that TD actually occurs. Rather, we live in Newtonian time where the whole universe's time "flows uniformly".

Having agreed with Newtonian time, I do not want to give you the impression that I accept Newton's absolute space in any sense. If I may use an analogy here.

If we look at science from the 1600s we may consider it as a castle - with Newton as king seated uncomfortably upon the Galilean throne, which is to say that Galileo's fundamental notions do not agree with Newton's.

Spinoza is an isolated scholar scribbling away in the castle's tower - grinding lenses but never looking at the heavens through a telescope - whose work can be harmonized with Newton's though the details differ.

Leibniz - who independently invented calculus but published before Newton - is the court jester, Einstein adopting his and Spinoza's notions in order to claim that the difference between matter, space and time is merely relative.

It is this last notion that, AT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, creates all the trouble on this website!

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT


Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:47 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Posts: 689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Geocentricist wrote:
At the top-right of page 21 of this

http://user.it.uu.se/~marlu734/relativity/Alley1979-relativity_and_clocks.pdf

PDF a graph is shown which appears to demonstrate a remarkable confirmation of time-dilation using atomic clocks flown on an airplane (basically a repeat of Hafele-Keating). I've been unable to find any problems with this experiment. Can anyone see any problems with it?

I see no problems with it. However, I have to correct what you said. You said the Alley experiment was basically THE SAME as the Hefele Keating experiment. Although it used similar equipment, the path of the airplanes was DIFFERENT.
There is a fundamental difference between Alley and HK. The proper acceleration was almost the same in the Alley because it the planes travelled at nearly right angles to the equator. Not quite right angles, but close. The planes in the HK experiment largely travelled parallel to the equatorial plane. So effect of the mechanical forces of the earth's surface were different in the two experiments.

The Alley experiment was performed so that the moving clocks were moving close to a North South path. The clocks moved on a geodesic surface. So the proper acceleration of all atomic clocks was basically the same. So the major difference between clocks was the velocity of the clocks relative to each other. So the differences in proper acceleration between the different clocks was small.

The clocks in the Hafele Keating experiment were constricted to an east-West path in order. One atomic clock was stationary in Maryland, one atomic clock went eastward around the world and one atomic clock went westward around the world. Were on a roughly geodesic surface. So the gravitational potential relative to the earths center was the same for all clocks.
The EastwardEastward travelling clock had the greatest proper acceleration, the stationary clock had less proper acceleration, and the Westward moving clock had the least proper acceleration.

So the time delay between clocks in the HKE was caused by the differences in proper acceleration. The time delay was smaller in the Alley experiment because the proper accelerations were closer together.

A fundamental but subtle difference.


Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:04 pm
Profile
Consumed by Physics

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 3862
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Well, apart from the jargon i.e. "proper acceleration" D123 has, surprising as it may seem to some of us, stated the situation essentially correctly...
Darwin123 wrote:
Geocentricist wrote:
At the top-right of page 21 of this

http://user.it.uu.se/~marlu734/relativity/Alley1979-relativity_and_clocks.pdf

PDF a graph is shown which appears to demonstrate a remarkable confirmation of time-dilation using atomic clocks flown on an airplane (basically a repeat of Hafele-Keating). I've been unable to find any problems with this experiment. Can anyone see any problems with it?

I see no problems with it. However, I have to correct what you said. You said the Alley experiment was basically THE SAME as the Hefele Keating experiment. Although it used similar equipment, the path of the airplanes was DIFFERENT.
There is a fundamental difference between Alley and HK. The proper acceleration was almost the same in the Alley because it the planes travelled at nearly right angles to the equator. Not quite right angles, but close. The planes in the HK experiment largely travelled parallel to the equatorial plane. So effect of the mechanical forces of the earth's surface were different in the two experiments.

The Alley experiment was performed so that the moving clocks were moving close to a North South path. The clocks moved on a geodesic surface. So the proper acceleration of all atomic clocks was basically the same. So the major difference between clocks was the velocity of the clocks relative to each other. So the differences in proper acceleration between the different clocks was small.

The clocks in the Hafele Keating experiment were constricted to an east-West path in order. One atomic clock was stationary in Maryland, one atomic clock went eastward around the world and one atomic clock went westward around the world. Were on a roughly geodesic surface. So the gravitational potential relative to the earths center was the same for all clocks.
The Eastward travelling clock had the greatest proper acceleration, the stationary clock had less proper acceleration, and the Westward moving clock had the least proper acceleration.

So the time delay between clocks in the HKE was caused by the differences in proper acceleration. The time delay was smaller in the Alley experiment because the proper accelerations were closer together.

A fundamental but subtle difference.
...in that he sees it is a question of inertial forces acting upon clocks - even though, as our latter-day Leibnizian "all is relative" court-jester,* he likes to imagine/fantasize that it's actually GR having this effect. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The pink-highlighted section is not actually correct however - since the altitude of the clock has an effect on clock-rate! The Maryland-based clock was, obviously, on the ground, so it had a LOWER gravitational potential than the airplane clocks. This means that the airplane clocks, being atomic clocks, ticked faster than the ground clock because these clocks were higher up from the earth's centre. The eastward clock underwent increased centrifugal force as it was moving with Earth's rotation relative to the cosmos.

Hence the clock rates are influenced both by gravitational and centrifugal forces. No boogey-boogey TD here, since pendulum clocks would show the opposite effects when subject to inertial forces. In that sense alone Darwin123 and I could actually agree on something - since it sidelines SR & GR (and therefore TD&LC) into a well-deserved scientific irrelevancy! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

*Instead of becoming the Terror of the Lorentzian Turkey-town as I'd hoped. :wink:


Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:57 pm
Profile
Lurker

Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:07 pm
Posts: 3
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Spinoza is a confined researcher jotting ceaselessly in the mansion's pinnacle - crushing focal points however never taking a gander at the sky through a telescope - whose work can be fit with Newton's, however, Dissertation the subtle elements contrast.

_________________
Dissertation


Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:05 am
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Posts: 689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
OZLOFT wrote:
Well, apart from the jargon i.e. "proper acceleration" D123 has, surprising as it may seem to some of us, stated the situation essentially correctly...
Darwin123 wrote:
Geocentricist wrote:
At the top-right of page 21 of this

http://user.it.uu.se/~marlu734/relativity/Alley1979-relativity_and_clocks.pdf

PDF a graph is shown which appears to demonstrate a remarkable confirmation of time-dilation using atomic clocks flown on an airplane (basically a repeat of Hafele-Keating). I've been unable to find any problems with this experiment. Can anyone see any problems with it?

I see no problems with it. However, I have to correct what you said. You said the Alley experiment was basically THE SAME as the Hefele Keating experiment. Although it used similar equipment, the path of the airplanes was DIFFERENT.
There is a fundamental difference between Alley and HK. The proper acceleration was almost the same in the Alley because it the planes travelled at nearly right angles to the equator. Not quite right angles, but close. The planes in the HK experiment largely travelled parallel to the equatorial plane. So effect of the mechanical forces of the earth's surface were different in the two experiments.

The Alley experiment was performed so that the moving clocks were moving close to a North South path. The clocks moved on a geodesic surface. So the proper acceleration of all atomic clocks was basically the same. So the major difference between clocks was the velocity of the clocks relative to each other. So the differences in proper acceleration between the different clocks was small.

The clocks in the Hafele Keating experiment were constricted to an east-West path in order. One atomic clock was stationary in Maryland, one atomic clock went eastward around the world and one atomic clock went westward around the world. Were on a roughly geodesic surface. So the gravitational potential relative to the earths center was the same for all clocks.
The Eastward travelling clock had the greatest proper acceleration, the stationary clock had less proper acceleration, and the Westward moving clock had the least proper acceleration.

So the time delay between clocks in the HKE was caused by the differences in proper acceleration. The time delay was smaller in the Alley experiment because the proper accelerations were closer together.

A fundamental but subtle difference.
...in that he sees it is a question of inertial forces acting upon clocks - even though, as our latter-day Leibnizian "all is relative" court-jester,* he likes to imagine/fantasize that it's actually GR having this effect. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The pink-highlighted section is not actually correct however - since the altitude of the clock has an effect on clock-rate! The Maryland-based clock was, obviously, on the ground, so it had a LOWER gravitational potential than the airplane clocks. This means that the airplane clocks, being atomic clocks, ticked faster than the ground clock because these clocks were higher up from the earth's centre. The eastward clock underwent increased centrifugal force as it was moving with Earth's rotation relative to the cosmos.

Hence the clock rates are influenced both by gravitational and centrifugal forces. No boogey-boogey TD here, since pendulum clocks would show the opposite effects when subject to inertial forces. In that sense alone Darwin123 and I could actually agree on something - since it sidelines SR & GR (and therefore TD&LC) into a well-deserved scientific irrelevancy! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yours faithfully
OZLOFT

*Instead of becoming the Terror of the Lorentzian Turkey-town as I'd hoped. :wink:

No, the altitude of the planes has a vry small but nonzero clock rate. The difference in gravitational potential between the ground based clock and the airplane clocks are very small. The plane is only 5 miles above the ground but 8005 miles above the center of the earth. The ground based clock is 8000 miles above the center of the earth.

This altitude was taken care of in Hafele's and Keatings GR calculations. However, they also did SR calculations. This is how they were able to conclude that the affect of altitude was negligible.

They did the calculations both way, by SR and GR. You could not do the calculation even once. You dismissed their results on the basis of your prejudice, not on calculation.

Next time your reread the 1972 articles by H&K, look at the tables they provide. One ofthem has three columns: one for the GR calculations, one for the SR calculations, and one for the experimental results. The altitude data is folded into the GR calculations. The altitude doesn't show a significant effect.

It must be so nice to evaluate a paper without reading it! I wish I could do that! :lol:


Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:27 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 573
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Interesting article by Alley, a bit too technical for me (me being a mere engineer).
It of course contains standard Einsteinian dogma. It reckons that time dilates (rather than the ticking). It reckons that GPS wouldnt work without Einstein. it ignores theorys that are consistent with results (or more consistant).

The Hafele Keating fraud has been debunked. However while certainly a fraud, their fraud does not of its own sink Einsteinian stuff. Einsteinian stuff falls over on its own, complete waffle, zero science, zero physics.

I am interested in Alley's NZ trip. I hav sayd before that ticking at altitude will be found to hav an opposit effect in the southern hemisphere. Alley does mention some sort of problems. I wonder.

And Alley mentions ticking experiments (by others) with clocks on mountains compared to clocks in valleys. This adds to my list of such tests. But i am still waiting for such a test in the southern hemisphere. This would either support or sink my-our aether wind theory for ticking. An opposit effect on ticking at altitude in the south would support aether theory (koz the background cosmic aether wind blows nearnuff south to north throo Earth) (& non of the Einsteinian standard menu of excuses would fix things -- HAHAHAHHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA).


Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:50 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Posts: 689
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
McMac wrote:
Interesting article by Alley, a bit too technical for me (me being a mere engineer).

What type of engineer are you :?:
These are engineering papers. This isn't cosmology. This isn't astronomy.
This is mostly electromagnetic theory, the type any electronics engineer would have to know.


They are describing interferometric methods and radio waves. They are discussing bandwidth, data analysis, and fitting methods. The authors haven't even mentioned the name of Einstein.

The only relativistic hypothesis that I see tabulated is that the gravitational shift is independent of frequency. You seem honestly shocked when I told you that the authors mention different frequencies for the time delay.

Shapiro also measured the delay times by comparing the signal at two different places on earth. If there was no plasma in the atmosphere, then the time delay would have been merely a difference between the two times. However, there is plasma in the upper atmosphere of both earth and sun. So they had to compare the time delay at different frequencies.


The Hafele Keating (1972) was not a fraud. It was a cutting edge measurement AT THAT TIME so there were some controversial aspects THEN. However, Keating describes the application of GR and SR rather well.

Keating is describing the theory from an engineers stand point. Did you even bother to read the articles :?: ? :mrgreen:


Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:29 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 573
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?
A. G. Kelly PhD*
* HDS Energy Ltd, Celbridge, Co. Kildare, Ireland.
Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
Key Words: cesium clocks, relativity, accuracy, drift-rate,
1. Introduction
Hafele and Keating (1972) [1] (hereafter referred to as H & K) carried out experiments that purported to confirm the Theory of Special Relativity. The evidence provided was derived from the differences in time recorded by cesium clocks transported in aeroplanes, Eastward and Westward, around the Earth.
Recent university and other texts on Physics quote the tests e.g. Arfken et al (1989) [2], Beiser (1991) [3], Blatt (1992) [4], Cutnell and Johnson (1995) [5], Davies (1995) [6], Giancoli (1998) [7], Halliday et al (1997) [8] Ohanian (1989) [9] and Rindler (1991) [10]. A leader in Nature in 1972 [11] said that "the agreement between theory and experiment was most satisfactory". In the Science Citation Index their work has accumulated over 1000 references.
H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their paper; they gave figures that were radically altered from those results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified.
It is also shown that the clocks used were not of sufficient stability to prove anything. The magnitude of the random alterations in performance, during the air transportation, were such as to make any result useless..............

................ The original 1971 test report, prepared by Hafele, has been obtained by this author direct from the United States Naval Observatory (USNO), [14]. It is to be wondered why H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their 1972 paper. The drift-rates given in Table 1 are those from this report written a month after the tests were completed, and four months before the H & K papers were submitted for publication. From these drift-rates it is possible to analyse in detail the performance of the four clocks.
The drift-rates before and after a test can be compared to determine the change during a test. The Hafele 1971 report said "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" and "the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing". Also, he said that, for a useful test, the drift rate of any clock should be constant over the whole period of the test. These reservations are not mentioned in the H & K 1972 paper. The relativistic effect should result in an incremental step change in the times recorded by each clock, before and after a flight test, but should not affect the drift rate...............

THE 1971 COMMENT WOZ THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEORY & MEASUREMENT IS DISTURBING.
HENCELY THE 1972 PAPER WOZ & IZ A FRAUD.
BELOW ARE SOME MORE SNIPPETS FROM KELLY'S DEBUNKING OF THE H&K FRAUD.


..............The starting time for the flights was determined by the departure of a commercial aeroplane. Had the Westward test begun some 12 hours earlier (see Figure 2), the trend before that test would be very different. Using the average of the four clocks, for the complete period shown by H & K on Figure 2, a time shift of approximately zero could have been reasonably deduced for the Eastward test; indeed the 1971 report described the Eastward result as "consistently negative or near zero".
The rate changes are random and could have occurred in either a + or - direction. Clock 120 altered in drift-rate by +4.39ns/h on the Eastward test and by -4.31ns/h on the Westward test; we should not say that this clock had an average drift-rate change of 0.04ns/h; indeed this was the clock with the most erratic performance. This is like saying that a watch, which gained ten hours in the first week and lost ten in the second, is a perfect timekeeper! From Figure 1, Clock 447 can be interpreted as having a small alteration in drift from 100 hours into the test period to the end of the Westward test. Had this clock, with the most steady performance, been chosen,the overall result would have been zero.
The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns! ..............

................ As seen in Table 3, there are two instances when a clock altered in the opposite direction to the theory; viz. 408 on the Eastward test (shows a gain, marked G in Figure 1 above) and 361 on the Westward test (shows a loss, marked L). The H & K so-called ‘result’ of the Eastward test (-59ns) was less, by a factor of 2.8, than, and opposite in sign to, the time shift of one clock (408).

The first attempt by H & K to bring the results closer to the theoretical forecasts was to take the average of the drift rates before and after a flight, and assume that this average was the drift rate that applied throughout the flight. This is equivalent to assuming that one single sudden change in drift-rate occurred mid-way. Such an assumption would have some credence had the alteration in drift-rate been very small e.g. a change from +3.34 to +3.35ns/h, which would not significantly affect the end result. The actual drift-rates (Table 1) doubled (one clock from -4.5 to -8.9ns/h) or halved (+4.8 to +2.2ns/h; -8.9 to -4.6ns/h) or reversed (-1.8 to +3.2ns/h). The alterations made to the test results, using this first method, are seen in Columns 3 and 6 of Table 3. Having made those changes, and from that produced Figure 2, H & K correctly dismissed that approach on the basis that it "depended on the unlikely chance that only one rate change occurred during each trip and that this change occurred the midpoint of the trip"; they added that there was no obvious method of estimating the experimental error of such an assumption. They had, as will be discussed later, actually identified seven alterations in drift-rate on one clock, four on another and two on a third.
Having dismissed this method, they still published graphs (corresponding to Figure 2 above), based upon that method, which they described as producing "convincing qualitative results". It was published because it looked convincing and not because it gave a legitimate picture of the test results. To the unsuspecting reader, these graphs looked like proof of the success of the tests.

H & K next used another method of altering the test data. It was not possible, during a flight test, to check the behavior of clocks relative to the standard station; when a test ended, the measurement of drift, relative to the standard clock-station, resumed. However, comparisons that were made between the four clocks during flights were used by H & K, to decide whether one clock had undergone what was deemed to have been a sudden change in pattern; in such a case it was assumed that the behavior of the other three was correct. The rationale was that "the chance that two or more clocks will change rate by the same amount in the same direction at the same time is extremely remote". Corrections were made for fourteen changes: clock 120 three changes Eastward and one Westward; clock 361 three Eastward and four Westward; clock 408 two Eastward; clock 447 one Eastward. These corrections were made after the 1971 report was produced. It might have been justifiable to ignore a single isolated sudden change on one clock during the complete 26.5 day period, but to have made corrections for fourteen such alterations in six days of flights and by amounts that exceed the forecast results by up to 5.5 times is breathtaking.

The USNO standard station had some years previously adopted a practice of replacing at intervals whichever clock was giving the worst performance. On a similar basis, the results of Clock 120 should have been disregarded. That erratic clock had contributed all of the alteration in time on the Eastward test and 83% on the Westward test, as given in the 1971 report. Discounting this one totally unreliable clock, the results would have been within 5ns and 28ns of zero on the Eastward and Westward tests respectively. This is a result that could not be interpreted as proving any difference whatever between the two directions of flight.

The actual test results (Cols. 2 & 5 of Table 3) are very different from the altered figures produced by the second method (Cols. 4 & 7). The figures in Cols. 4 and 7 were the only ones published in 1972; these give the very misleading impression that the results were compatible, as if they were all of the forecast sign and within a narrow band.

Examples of how unreasonable were the corrections from the actual test results to the amended version are:
clock 408 (Eastward) ‘corrected’ from +166ns to -55ns;
clock 361 (Westward) ‘corrected’ from -44ns to +284ns.
Clock 447 was amended from +26ns to +266ns on the Westward test; this was by a factor of 10. Yet, the H & K paper said that no significant changes in rate were found for clocks 408 and 447 during the westward trip". This barefaced manipulation of the data was outrageous. Clock 447 was the single clock that had a pretty steady drift-rate throughout the tests. The 1971 report stated that "rate changes that are noticeably larger than those typical in the laboratory occurred for each clock during at least one of the trips, except for clock 447". Why then did they not use the results of this one stable clock and abandon the other three?

On the Eastward test, corrections of +3.5 and -5.5 times the forecast theoretical -40ns result were applied to two of the clocks; on the Westward test, where the forecast was +273ns, corrections of 0.5 to 1.2 times that amount were applied to three of the clocks.

H & K stated that the number of measured values was too small for a proper statistical analysis; nonetheless, they gave a standard deviation of the four results on either test, as quoted under Table 3. This gives the misleading impression that the results are grouped reliably closely.

Was the aim of these tests to fabricate a confirmation of the theory, or to give objective reliable experimental results?

6. Discussion
Bodily and Hyatt (1967) [15] stated that 2.5ns/hr as less than changes in drift-rate and random errors in mobile clocks. The average change for the four clocks in these tests (Table 2) was 3.07ns/h. Alterations less than 200ns Eastward or 250ns Westward are therefore of no significance whatever.

The 1971 report showed a graphical proof that any result below about 125ns could not be used on the Eastward test. Yet, H & K used the Eastward results, which were all below this threshold. That report stated that it was "amusing that values for the Eastward trip were in excellent agreement with the theory, despite expectations that they would not be able to detect any definite effect". But, this is not true; the Eastward results varied from +166 to -196ns; to average such wildly divergent results is meaningless.

H & K recorded that previous tests, reported in 1970, had showed results that were normally distributed zero-centered and with a spread of about 60ns per day of travel. The 1971 report advocated the future use of better clocks and a circumnavigation with less ground time, which would probably reduce the standard deviation of the results by a factor of ten.

H & K concluded that there seemed to be little basis for further arguments about whether clocks would indicate the same time after a round trip. The clocks certainly altered during the circumnavigations, but the alterations that occurred were random and have no significance.

Earlier attempts to deduce the changes in drift rates from the graphs in the 1972 H & K paper were made by this author [16], and later found to have been done by Essen in 1977 {17]. Both concluded that the alterations in drift-rates of the clocks made the results useless. These attempts could reasonably have been discounted, on the basis that the original raw test data was not available to these authors. That excuse in now no longer valid.

7. Conclusions
The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K to give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a fairly steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.


Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:33 pm
Profile
Obsessed With the Question

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm
Posts: 573
Reply with quote
Post Re: 1979 Alley Atomic Clock Time Dilation Experiment
A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT

Domina Eberle Spencer, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 06268, U.S.A
Uma Shama, Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 02325, U.S.A.

It is generally considered that one of the most crucial experiments in support of the special theory of relativity is the Hafele-Keating experiment 1. Four atomic clocks were flown around the world and then compared with the master clock in Washington, D.C. However, the original paper did not publish the raw data. Dr. Keating has been kind enough to permit us to analyze the raw data. We have found that an entirely different interpretation of the experimental data, which supports the universal time postulate on the velocity of light 2, is perfectly consistent with the experimental data obtained by Hafele and Keating. Thus, one of the essential experimental supports of the relativistic theory of time dilation is shown to be invalid. Instead, the original data provide additional strong support 3 of the reality of the universal time postulate on the velocity of light.................


Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.