Re: Relativity is a pseudoscience II. The Hafele-Keating HOAX,

Den 19.09.2024 18:05, skrev rhertz:

 1) This document provides details about each segment of the flights:
 https://www.masterclock.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/Archived- papers/Performance-and-Results-of-Portable-Clocks-in-Aircraft-1971.pdf
 2) Take the data of the eastward flights:
  Day Location
04 USNO D
05 Dulles D (Pan Am 747)
   London A3 (*Pan Am 707)
   Frankfurt
   Istanbul
   Beirut
   Tehran
   New Delhi
06 Bangkok
   Hong Kong
   Tokyo  (*Pan Am 747)
   Honolulu
07 Los Angeles *AA 707)
   Dallas
   Dulles
   USNO return
 Trip time 65.42 hours.
Rel time gain  -40 nsec (loss).
 3) The eastward flight started and finished in Washington (USNO). In NO
CASE, any information was exchanged between the flights and the USNO.
 Only when the eastward flight finished in the same place as it departed,
comparisons were made at the USNO.
 The same thing happened with the westward flight.
 3) The 40 nsec loss was accumulated DURING 65.42 hours. It´s about 0.61
nsec/hour, which multilateral during the entire path (USNO --> USNO).
 There was NO TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE TO SEND THE READINGS OF THE CLOCKS,
FROM THE DIFFERENT AIRPORTS TO THE USNO that could have the precision to
account for NANOSECONDS lost on each stage (about -8nsec/stage).

Why would you want to send the reading of the clocks from the different
airports to the USNO ?
The clocks were read before and after the trips, and the corrected
difference was the measured proper time of the trips.
The corrected proper times for the four clocks were:
The proper time of the clock at USNO +
Eastward trip: -57ns, -74ns, -55ns, -51ns  average -59±10ns
Westward trip: 277ns, 284ns, 266ns, 266ns  average 273±7ns
The error bar is calculated from the rms difference between
the four clocks.
In another post I wrote:
| During the trip none of the four clocks were compared to anything,
| (except for the _local_ comparison between the clocks)
| they were only measuring the proper duration of the trip.
|
| The data collected during the trip were the velocity of the clocks
| (speed and direction) in the ground frame, and the altitude of the
| clocks, all as a function of time (measured with a 'normal' clock).
| These are the necessary data to calculate the GR prediction for
| the proper time of the trip.
To calculate the GR-prediction, they obviously had to calculate
each flight and the time between the flights separately.
See "Predicted Relativistic Time Gains"
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
How did you think they calculated the GR prediction?
The prediction for the Eastward trip was -40±23 ns
The prediction for the Westward trip was 275±21 ns
Note that the error bars in the predictions are rather large.
That's because of the many flights.

 No HF link or satellite link could have provided such precision at each
stage, considering HOW PRIMITIVE were the communications in 1971.
Geostationary satellites were a novelty, and the delay involved using
them was no less than 240 milliseconds. With this level of delay for ONE
SATELLITE JUMP, considering other random delays, measuring remotely -8
nsec/segment WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

Nobody has claimed that such a link was used,
and only you have claimed that such a link was needed.

 And even today, repeating the experiment using real time data exchange
is beyond the capabilities of current technology (forget using GPS).

Why would you need such a link in a repetition of the H&K experiment
when it wasn't used in the original H&K experiment?

 4) So, the DIFFERENCES between USNO clocks and H-K clocks could be
measured ONLY once ALL THE CLOCKS were placed side by side in the USNO,
once each flight finished.

 > > Read the Hafele paper that I cited above, and stop talking nonsense

about INTERMEDIATE data exchange with the USNO. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Of course it didn't happen.
As we have told you several times.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/