criticism of the Hafele Keating experiment is that it is cherry picking.
On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen wrote Carl Zapffe as follows: “Dear Dr.
Zapffe, “I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and appreciate
your kindness in sending me a copy. You obviously did an enormous amount
of reading for its preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot
of fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I enjoyed
writing my own little book (112 references), although it was outside my
field of work, and I was warned that would do my reputation a lot of
harm. My experience was rather similar to yours in securing publication,
and I decided that the only way was to avoid references. The booklet was
invited, as was a lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings
of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p. 141 ff.) My
criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the
demolition job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a
theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together
with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example, follows from a
very obvious mistake in a thought experiment (in spite of the nonsense
written by relativists, Einstein had no idea of the units and
disciplines of measurement). There is really no more to be said about
the paradox, but many thousands of words have been written nevertheless.
In my view, these tend to confuse the issue. “One aspect of this subject
which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the
experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border
line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result
required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with
Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of
Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in
Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I
had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism
was
rejected.https://beyondmainstream.org/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jürg Wyttenbach" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 12 Nov, 23 At 12:20
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established,
but much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<
QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption -
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.
QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if
you mix mass and wave solutions.
QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits
rarely match the measured ones.
Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.
SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress
systematic errors. See also::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment> . It's
all about understanding what/how you do measure!
Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!
For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
