Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[Paul T]

MacM,

If I am not mistaken, there was another test similar to original H&K's experiment. You should check if your Kelly has another paper evaluating that other experiment.

Additionally, there were also test also using atomic clock placed in orbit. Additionally again, there is GPS which I asked you before if you believe on Tom's claim that GPS required no relativity correction. You did not comment on that for you own reason.

 

[MacM]

Hahaha. Did I try to prove that SR correct or H&K's experiment is fully satisfactorily? I simply said that you were inconsistent in your statement. If you convince that SR is really wrong then say so, do not say...or well, SR is useful but I don't fully accept it...bla...bla. That's the only thing I wanted to convey to you in my earlier message. Well, I am still....

Why not that is about the only position one can justify. The mathematics are useful to a degree but that there is no valid interpretation as to what that data actually means.

About H&K's experiment, since you raised it, I want to ask you a few questions.

How do you know that A. G. Kelly PhD's paper is correct? Is it because it criticized SR...well, actually not...it did not really concern about SR, just about H&K experiment. And H&K's experiment unable to prove SR wrong, since as Kelly said it was inaccurate and did not prove anything (it did not prove SR wrong or correct!). That's if we trust everything that Kelly said...because I have another question.

Since H&K did not publish the original data, how on earth Kelly obtained the data? Kinda spooky huh? If H&K tried to cheat, they should had thrown the original data, right. So, how your Kelly obtained it????

Not spooky or straange at all. They didn't try to cheat, they cheated (lied).

The data from the best clock of the bunch taken without tampering and adjusting figures and tinkering with the data, showeed no such SR effect what-so-ever. Other tests which such SR is valid is undone by the complete failure to actually see results in such a direct test. Other tests have alternative explanations or unknown causes.

It damn sure wasn't a change in time in reality, H&K proves that far better than it proves SR. Live with it. That is the facts.

 

[Pete]

You're very selective about what you're prepared to take at face value, aren't you Mac?

I'd be very hesitant about taking anything at face value (the H&K's conclusion, or any counter arguments) without some fact-checking. A quick glance over your linked page is very interesting, but I hesitate to accept their statistical analysis (essentially there is none).

Interestingly, we established earlier that your argument in this thread is to disprove relativity by proving absolute time. I'm not trying to prove relativity, remember? I'm establishing that your disproof is invalid, because you're premise of absolute time is unproven.

So, your blanket statement...

Simple answer. It doesn't. The twin (assuming only constant velocity issue here) will return the same age in reality and SR prediction is wrong.

...is interesting, but not relevant to your argument, because once again you're assuming universal time to reach your conclusion.

If you want to argue against relativity on experimental grounds, I suggest that's better done in another thread... but I suggest that very few people here (including you and me) are qualified to discuss experimental physics at that level. Or do you have an extensive statistics background that I'm unaware of?

 

[Persol]

The data from the best clock of the bunch taken without tampering and adjusting figures and tinkering with the data

And your definition of 'best' is????

Regardless, that's not the only evidence. The muons previously mentioned and particleas in particle accelerators show time dilation in their decay times. There is no 'well that is wrong'. The experiments have been done numerous times. There has been no evidence against the theory.... yet you still claim that there is and that they 'cheat'.

 

[Paul T]

The data from the best clock of the bunch taken without tampering and adjusting figures and tinkering with the data, showeed no such SR effect what-so-ever. Other tests which such SR is valid is undone by the complete failure to actually see results in such a direct test. Other tests have alternative explanations or unknown causes.

You stepped outside the boundary of Kelly's claim. Apart from its correctness, Kelly only attacked H&K's experiment but did not say about SR incorrectness. It was only your wishfull thinking that has driven you to claim something that even your "reference" paper did not claim, that is the incorrectness of SR. Please note that I do not say that SR is flawless or is flaw. I only say that your Kelly did not claim that SR incorrect because of the doubt on H&K's experiment accuracy.

Did you actually read the paper provided by yourself? The paper said that in H&K's experiment, the clocks were not accurate enough....were not stable, etc, but yet you claimed that the data were collected from THE BEST CLOCK? What a crap claim.

BTW, what is your answer about how Kelly obtained the original H&K unpublished test data? The original data were not published, which mean that Kelly or you cannot type on google to search for them or go find them in the libraries or scientific journals. So, how?

It damn sure wasn't a change in time in reality, H&K proves that far better than it proves SR. Live with it. That is the facts.

What fact? Hahaha, are your now trying to prove that H&K's experiment proved that time is real? Hahahaha. What's a sweet dream.

 

[Persol]

What fact? Hahaha, are your now trying to prove that H&K's experiment proved that time is real? Hahahaha. What's a sweet dream.

The best part is that this claim is disproved by the same paper he is using to prove it!

 

[Pete]

Paul,
I wouldn't suggest that the H&K data are not obtainable unless you're sure of your facts.

 

[MacM]

You're very selective about what you're prepared to take at face value, aren't you Mac?

I'd be very hesitant about taking anything at face value (the H&K's conclusion, or any counter arguments) without some fact-checking. A quick glance over your linked page is very interesting, but I hesitate to accept their statistical analysis (essentially there is none).

Simply put it is not their treatment of the data that is in question. It was the alterations, adjusments based on unsupported assumption and the fact that the clocks all went +/- by different amounts in the same tests. Only through H&K's manipulation was the claim even presented.

In the response I got for posting that, the comment was made that it was spooky how they got the actual data, that one would assume it had been destroyed. What a crock of crap. By your own link, they state that they were given the actual data by the H&K folks.

The data does not support the claims.

Interestingly, we established earlier that your argument in this thread is to disprove relativity by proving absolute time. I'm not trying to prove relativity, remember? I'm establishing that your disproof is invalid, because you're premise of absolute time is unproven.

So, your blanket statement...

...is interesting, but not relevant to your argument, because once again you're assuming universal time to reach your conclusion.

LOL. I assume Relativity in the process of proving that reality of an event is not affected by the moving observers perception of the event. I let stand (though I personally doubt very seriously it occurs) that the moving observer would see results claimed by SR.

If you want to argue against relativity on experimental grounds, I suggest that's better done in another thread... but I suggest that very few people here (including you and me) are qualified to discuss experimental physics at that level. Or do you have an extensive statistics background that I'm unaware of?

I am only argueing that the data is being misinterpreted and misrepresented. there is a differance. You are correct neither you nor I are in a position to argue the mathematics, that is why I let them stand but from a pragmatic veiw point SR is false as to the claims made for it that it alters reality.

One point of clarification our meaning of universal time may be different than mine. I don't believe I introduced that concept here. It has been imposed on my arguement by others claiming that is what it means.

They appear to think that means all time everywhere in the universe is the same. I would suggest that my own work and statements here suggest that when you move you enter both the jpast and future simultaneously and that no two ordinate points contain the same events as a dynamic present.

So no there is no universal time in that sense but it is the local proper time that is the only time for an event and all observatins of that event are shifted either by distance of seperation and/or relative motion. But those observations do not alter nor preclude the event itself, it stands as the only reality and the rest are observations or perceptions.

 

[Pete]

I am only argueing that the data is being misinterpreted and misrepresented.

I suggest that you need a background in serious statistics to make such an argument.

*shrug*

If you want to argue that the Hafele & Heating experiment was inconclusive, be my guest. It's only so well known because it was such a direct attempt at demonstrating SR - a 'popular' experiment that's easy to describe.

It is my understanding that there are many higher precision and tighter methodology experiments performed every day that would show serious discrepancies if SR didn't apply - but like I said, I'm not that interested in experimental physics, because I don't know enough about it.

This is simply a diversion from your failure to disprove SR theoretically.

Direct question:
Do you agree that if the Universe worked in the way described by the SR model that in the classic twin paradox, the twins will display different biological ages when the travelling twin returns to Earth?

 

[Paul T]

Pete,

I wouldn't suggest that the H&K data are not obtainable unless you're sure of your facts.

Frankly, I have no idea if those original test data were obtainable. I was just commenting MacM's link about those data.

Below is a quote from the paper:

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! ​

Imagine, Kelly published the original data for the first time, which H&K themselves have never published them. How do you think those data can be obtained if not from H&K? Who do you think the first person obtained those data? It must be Kelly, the person who wrote that paper. So, my question to MacM was: How Kelly obtained those original unpublished test data? Hello, MacM...what is your answer?

Here another quote:

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 give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.​

Kelly said that the clocks were not sufficiently accurate. Hello, MacM...Kelly did not say that those clocks are the BEST. How did you justify that they indeed were the BEST?

 

[MacM]

I suggest that you need a background in serious statistics to make such an argument.

*shrug*

If you want to argue that the Hafele & Heating experiment was inconclusive, be my guest. It's only so well known because it was such a direct attempt at demonstrating SR - a 'popular' experiment that's easy to describe.

It is my understanding that there are many higher precision and tighter methodology experiments performed every day that would show serious discrepancies if SR didn't apply - but like I said, I'm not that interested in experimental physics, because I know nothing about it.

This is simply a diversion from your failure to disprove SR theoretically.

Direct question:
Do you agree that if the Universe worked in the way described by the SR model that in the classic twin paradox, the twins will display different biological ages when the travelling twin returns to Earth?

I do agree that is their claim. Yes. But it is clearly based on less than acceptable assumptions.

BTW: It is not my statistics that are being applied to H&K. Indeed it was statistics applied haphazzardly by H&K that create the illusion that time dilation was shown, when the data itself, as considered by "MANY" others, as showing no velocity affect what-so-ever.

It is the failure of such a DIRECT test that seriously draws into question the interpretation of other test data which suggest SR results. SR either works in all cases of velocity or it doesn't. It can't be selectively applied and claimed proven if it doesn't show in other more direct tests.

Until that conflict is resolved, nobody but nobody has proven anything.

 

[Paul T]

BTW: It is not my statistics that are being applied to H&K. Indeed it was statistics applied haphazzardly by H&K that create the illusion that time dilation was shown, when the data itself, as considered by "MANY" others, as showing no velocity affect what-so-ever.

Hahaha, MacM. MANY??? You just provide one paper, from one person named Kelly. Is one considered MANY?

Be accurate, Kelly did not use words "showing no velocity affect what-so-ever"...you were just reinforced Kelly's "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." with your own "gut feeling" and turn the statement to "illusion that time dilation was shown, when the data itself, as considered by "MANY" others, as showing no velocity affect what-so-ever". Hehe, this is, as we all know your usual (should I say unusual?) way of conducting "business".

 

[MacM]

Pete,



Frankly, I have no idea if those original test data were obtainable. I was just commenting MacM's link about those data.

Below is a quote from the paper:

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! ​

Imagine, Kelly published the original data for the first time, which H&K themselves have never published them. How do you think those data can be obtained if not from H&K? Who do you think the first person obtained those data? It must be Kelly, the person who wrote that paper. So, my question to MacM was: How Kelly obtained those original unpublished test data? Hello, MacM...what is your answer?

Here another quote:

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 give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.​

Kelly said that the clocks were not sufficiently accurate. Hello, MacM...Kelly did not say that those clocks are the BEST. How did you justify that they indeed were the BEST?

Unfortunately Paul T you need to learn to read slower and think faster. It was made perfectly clear that H&K published only their paper which contained only the massaged data and conclusions and not the raw data upon which they based their analysis.

Those data were obviously available in that others have obtained them from H&K and done their own evaluation. Those doing that all seem to have the same conclusions. Horseshit. You DON'T see the opposite. That is others having actually reviewed that data and said H&K IS RIGHT -WHAHOO.

I said one clock was cited as having been the best (among the clocks used) by having the greatest repeatable drift etc. That clock shows absolutely no East/West affect of motion on the clock.

Why not wise guy, answer man. Doesn't SR work on all clocks or just selected one? It is indeed humorous. The H&K data is very much like my own gravity data. Only it remained statistically positive over several months but I haven't said I proved UniKEF. I have only said it was indicative and merits more testing.

They have taken garbage and made grandiose claims.

If you choose to call Kelly a liar then I suggest you find proof of same. But to my knowledge he is absolutely correct. I see no other publication shwing the actual data upon which they made their claim. If you know something different then perhaps you can do more than bump your gums on this.

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!

Get the data yourself. See if this is true. If so then game over, their claim is bullshit.

 

[James R]

MacM:

You're contradicting yourself, as usual.

Earlier in this thread, you said you accepted that the mathematics of SR give correct results, but they do not represent "reality", only "perception".

Now you have flip-flopped again and are claiming that even the mathematics of SR do not give correct results, since you now deny that the twin paradox gives the predicted outcome.

So, which is it?

Is SR mathematically correct, or not?

Take a position and defend it. Stop being so wishy-washy. You're blowing in the wind.

And don't think I haven't noticed that your Kelly paper is just another bait and switch tactic.

 

[James R]

PS Was Kelly's paper ever accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please provide the reference.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

You're contradicting yourself, as usual.

Earlier in this thread, you said you accepted that the mathematics of SR give correct results, but they do not represent "reality", only "perception".

Now you have flip-flopped again and are claiming that even the mathematics of SR do not give correct results, since you now deny that the twin paradox gives the predicted outcome.

I do believe you have a reading disability. I have done no such thing. I agreed with Pete as to the conclusion per SR but stated I doubt the reality of the observation.

So, which is it?

Is SR mathematically correct, or not?

Take a position and defend it. Stop being so wishy-washy. You're blowing in the wind.

SR mathematics seem to work in most cases BUT the signifigance of that is misinterpreted and misrepresented. That has been my position all along and not once have I altered my positon regardless of your effort to claim I have.

And don't think I haven't noticed that your Kelly paper is just another bait and switch tactic.

This is priceless. I actually post information regarding the "Actual" test data of one of the most proclaimed tests in support of time dilation; which shows that at best it is questionable and at worst an out right fraud and that is "bait and Switch"????

Make up your mind James you want to try and have a logical dialog but claim there is no support but given support now it is "Bait and Switch". You really are an undefendable supporter of SR.

 

[Paul T]

Unfortunately Paul T you need to learn to read slower and think faster. It was made perfectly clear that H&K published only their paper which contained only the massaged data and conclusions and not the raw data upon which they based their analysis.

Those data were obviously available in that others have obtained them from H&K and done their own evaluation. Thos doing that all seem to have the same conclusions. Horseshit. You DON'T see the opposite. That is others having actually reviewed that data and said H&K IS RIGHT -WHAHOO.

MacM, I think you need to read faster (so that you can finish reading the paper) and think slower (so that you wouldn't jump to conclusion before finish reading the paper).

Kelly claimed that the original test data were first published in the paper, not before, not by others. So, you have not yet answer my question, how did Kelly obtain the data?

It was only your wild guess that the data can be obtain easily. Remember, Kelly was the first person publishing them. Do you aware of other publication on those data after that? Read the paper carefully.

I said one clock ws cited as having been the best (among the clocks used) by having the greatest repeatable drift etc. That clock shows absolutely no East/West affect of motion on the clock.

Hahaha, you said that? So, what do you think that prove?

Why not wise guy, answer man. Doesn't SR work on all clocks or just selected one? It is indeed humorous. The H&K data is very much like my own gravity data. Only it remained statistically positive over several months but I haven't said I proved UniKEF. I have only said it was indicative and merits more testing.

They have taken garbage and made grandiose claims.

If you choose to call Kelly a liar then I suggest you find proof of same. But to my knowledge he is absolutely correct. I see no other publication shwing the actual data upon which they made their claim. If you know something different then perhaps you can do more than bump your gums on this.

Get the data yourself. See if this is true. If so then game over, their claim is bullshit.

Where did you find I said Kelly lied? You said that H&K lied, that's for sure. I simply demand your proof for what you said.

 

[James R]

The Hafele and Keating experiment is really mostly of historical interest these days, anyway.

In 2004, we have a system of GPS satellites in various orbits around the Earth. They reproduce the results of the H&K experiment on a continuous basis. In fact, the entire system has to adjust for relativistic effects to work correctly.

Fact: for the GPS system to give locations on Earth to a resolution of less than 30 metres, relativistic effects must be taken into account.

Criticism of H&K, even if justified, is irrelevant in 2004.

 

[Pete]

I do agree that is their claim. Yes. But it is clearly based on less than acceptable assumptions.

So you agree that SR predicts real changes; that the predictions of SR are not simply perception?

So what was going on in all your thought experiments where you stated that you applied SR and found that the results were perception only?
Were you not actually applying SR?

 

[MacM]

MacM, I think you need to read faster (so that you can finish reading the paper) and think slower (so that you wouldn't jump to conclusion before finish reading the paper).

Kelly claimed that the original test data were first published in the paper, not before, not by others. So, you have not yet answer my question, how did Kelly obtain the data?

Pardon me for being blunt but you really are a jackass. You are talking absolute nonsense totally unsupported by fact. I read the damn paper and it is clear you either didn't or you have no reading compreshension.

It was only your wild guess that the data can be obtain easily. Remember, Kelly was the first person publishing them. Do you aware of other publication on those data after that? Read the paper carefully.

Try again. You lose, the data has been gotten by others. Before opening your distorting mouth again look at the attachements. Documents retrieved from archives of a Naval memo via the Freedom of Information Act show that Hafele himself told the government it was an unsupported conslusion.

Show where I said the data was easily obtained? You make shit up as you go and argue your own distorted claims.

Hahaha, you said that? So, what do you think that prove?

Where did you find I said Kelly lied? You said that H&K lied, that's for sure. I simply demand your proof for what you said.

I just have so shove it. You lose AGAIN.

Attachment #1: From Text and Summary. Clocks showed results opposite theory and best clock showed no affect.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3281&stc=1

Attachment #2: Statement by Kelly.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3282&stc=1

Attachment #3: By the designer of the clocks used
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3283&stc=1

Attachment #4: Statement by Hafele himself as to the failure of the tests.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3284&stc=1

Attachment #5: Clock designer was prevented from publishing caveat discrediting H&K claim regarding his clock design accuracy.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3285&stc=1


2 -5 above are from: http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133


Now you are way out on a limb talking bullshit with no basis what-so-ever. But you are right Kelly didn't attack SR, nor did he say "what-so-ever" he just said the H&K clock test "its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.

Give it up Paul T you out of your league here.