Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<70c184ff68360069eb636416a2ccffb1@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:05:28 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <70c184ff68360069eb636416a2ccffb1@www.novabbs.com> References: <dad338831baa98f3eb1ca50452fd9401@www.novabbs.com> <be051db4136835108537c9497c5dfab8@www.novabbs.com> <e766d5b3f2f87f9604f0937ad65a4284@www.novabbs.com> <3fddf5a7bc291abaf2bc49d856d87fcb@www.novabbs.com> <45ca134f20b357d137e34b1fcdd80764@www.novabbs.com> <f4ec6c0220ab548a18740c2680d12dee@www.novabbs.com> <631323acf0c3dda0238e7c216ad843ab@www.novabbs.com> <8fe67191e5d71c706cc50c05e95ee23b@www.novabbs.com> <67bd6e19bb1d0337420a99583f647508@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="2662622"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="hWiuCAeR3KEZYJfTvV11n0qrRi6oqW/zjvEZQQGun9A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$j9jojO7ueUryYlZJ1Z.gmezJvs.Siwgaxb6k5KFgPl5lhQAJnfmn6 X-Rslight-Posting-User: f685b96694175b2ad43ead343ead0a9c0082fe88 Bytes: 4877 Lines: 101 It's incredible what I have to read from you and Paul. It's like to discuss politics with fanatic democrats, or with right-wing liberals here in Argentina. You both DON'T THINK about the main problem to sustain your positions. You both REPEAT what was written in a paper that tried to save face in 1971/72. Even facing ELEMENTARY INFORMATION about the impossibility of establish a link over 15,000 miles (1971) between H-K and the USNO, you both ARE IN FULL DENIAL. Let me try one more time, explaining it to you AS IF YOU BOTH HAD 5 YEARS: 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 accumulated 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). 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. And even today, repeating the experiment using real time data exchange is beyond the capabilities of current technology (forget using GPS). 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. If the above don't penetrate in your thick skulls, you both are beyond cure. Find another hobby. ************************************************************** There were 4 traveling clocks, identified by serial number in Fig. 1 of H&K's results paper: 361, 408, 447 and 120. From Fig 1, it should be obvious that while on the ground at home, they continuously compared the clocks against USNO time (as well as against each other). While in the air and during short layovers in different cities of the world, they could not compare against USNO, but they did continue the regular inter-comparisons of the clocks against each other. Most of what you have written about how you believe H&K collected their data is sheer fantasy. *************************************************************