Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativity is a pseudoscience II. The Hafele-Keating HOAX,
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 03:57:20 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <33c75cf4a1f6cc45cca28085d694cbcf@www.novabbs.com>
References: <dad338831baa98f3eb1ca50452fd9401@www.novabbs.com> <6018942957f9aacb3aea5fadde7a79aa@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2720257"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="hWiuCAeR3KEZYJfTvV11n0qrRi6oqW/zjvEZQQGun9A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: f685b96694175b2ad43ead343ead0a9c0082fe88
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$VwGDJdNVD98By4GtbCEcf.px/Yh5Y/Mpx7Il0DXAnNwNJcZVX2dyO
Bytes: 4079
Lines: 65

Never mind about finding the error. There is none. Hafele formula is
incomplete, and didn't include the average latitude of the flight. Also,
the average time spent flying and average speed v are not correct on his
original paper.

This paper, which analyze thoroughly the papers that Hafele published,
bring some clarity about evident intentions TO NOT WRITE THE TRUTH.


Hafele-Keating Experiment Reassessed
Preprint · September 2020
Gianni Casonato
European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
(EUMETSAT)
16 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344428119_Hafele-Keating_Experiment_Reassessed/link/5f74443f299bf1b53e002099/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19

********************************************************

3 Conclusions
The HK experiment has been reproduced by recalculating the predicted
values using flight data provided in [HK-3] using the formulas described
in [HK-1] and [HK-4], and compared with expected values provided with HK
in their paper in [HK-1] and actual observations in [HK-2].

It is expected that the values re-calculated using theory model matches
with the HK predicted ones, as presented in [HK-2] and [HK-5], within
the limit of the approximation applied, but that is not the case for
both general and simplified models.

Passing to the observed values, the figures provided by HK in their
paper significantly change from the preliminary ones in [HK-3] to the
final ones in [HK-2] without any clarification of the type of
consolidation made in the data post-processing.

The reason could be due to a wrong use of the model expressions or their
flight parameters, which are not fully released by HK, and/or to
insufficient experiment data accuracy, which did not
considered external effects (e.g. environmental) influencing the
measurements.

As final conclusion, it is noted that

1. the accuracy of the clocks used for the experiment, namely the rms
of their measured times both on ground and in flight, looks of the same
order of magnitude of the effect to be measured. That raises doubts on
the possibility of using any type of result for the purpose of
the experiment’s objectives;

2. overall all analysed data, either predicted, recalculated and
observed, are within the same order of magnitude (tenths of nsecs for
Eastward case and hundreds of nsecs for Westward case), but the residual
differences as significantly high (up to 40%), meaning that the
accuracy of the experimental measurements was not good enough for
providing a conclusive answer to the objective of validating the SR/GR
model as the only one valid for time shift.

************************************************************


This professional clearly expressed his thoughts about the lack of
clarity in the Hafele papers, plus intentionally missing data and some
obscurity behind the assertions that Einstein's theory was validated.

And the author IS NOT A CRANK.