It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding on the relevance of this kind of measurement. 

The problem is not if a moving clock is or not delayed in relation to the reference clock; the problem is the amount of the delay.

Special relativity, as Einstein deduced it, is obtained from data and their results are as correct as that data but one: the value of the unknown function of v that appears in the deduction of Lorentz transformations, and that Lorentz considered that should be close to 1 and Einstein made equal to one using symmetry reasons; however, this value is not obtained from data and the universe is not very much concerned with what we may think it should be. Therefore, this has to be tested.

testing it using airplanes is subject to various problems; and the main component is due to the change in gravity. The results are compatible with a value of 1 for the unknown function but they are also compatible, considering the error margin, to a different value, although close to 1.

What puzzles me the most in all this process is that, as is written in the document " "metromnia" linked by F. Leyvraz (thanks!) is that:

"Atomic clocks now operate continuously in space on the US Global Positioning System satellites. The observation of relativistic effects and their correction has become an important part of both the operation of satellite navigation systems and of international timekeeping."

If it is so, and given the importance of this measurement, where is the study presenting its results? why are we talking about airplane flights when we have atomic clocks in satellites????

This makes me still more curious because I have seen in an engineering journal, long ago, that there was a conflict between the corrections engineers where making to satellites' clocks and what was predicted; but that was in the very beginning of GPS system, and as I had no more information on it, therefore I do not know how this was solved.

maybe F. Leyvraz can help in clarifying this point.

Hafele-Keating experiment is incredible for two reasons:

1, In a vibrating and shocking plane, the time on the level of nanosecond cannot be measured. If the specialists should clarify this problem, I should thank them very much.

2, The atoms in an atomic clock is being gravitated by the gravity of the Earth which has a much bigger effect on the readings of this clock than Einstein's gravitational time dilation. But, this effect has never been consdiered in the Hafele-Keating experiments.

Dear Yin,

Thank you for your reply. However, in the Hafele-Keating calculus, the change of gravity potential has been included separately in order to correct the results to the SRT only.

As to the vibrations in the plane, I don't know what the effect was on the results and if a vibration test of the cesium clocks was made on the ground before or after their flights.

Anyway, since the time delay was supposed to be intrinsic, it shouldn't change anything...

Dear Thierry

Another relevant question... congratulations!

When first GPS satellites were launched, I remember to see in an engineering journal that the synchronicity of clocks was not made according to relativity calculations but to what the engineers found to be required. I don’t know what is the difference but it would certainly be interesting to know what happens with time corrections in satellites, certainly that this has been tested.

Anyhow, Special Relativity has a problem that Einstein himself mentioned in a text he wrote about it. I have already mentioned it here but I will present it now with more detail.

In section 3 of his paper of 1905, Einstein deduced the transformation of coordinates; he arrived to equations dependent on a function of velocity, and wrote:

“In the equations of transformation which have been developed there enters an unknown function “Fi” of v, which we will now determine.”

After determining the influence of the function on the length of a rod, he considered:

 “From reasons of symmetry it is now evident that the length of a given rod moving perpendicularly to its axis, measured in the stationary system, must depend only on the velocity and not on the direction and the sense of the motion.”

From the above reasoning he concluded that the unknown function had to have the same value for v and –v, which implied that it had to be “1”. Later, in one of his texts about special relativity, he mentions specifically this issue and asks: “What else could I have done?” (cited by memory).

The truth is that Einstein had no data to determine the unknown function; to do it, he had to introduce some ad hoc hypothesis and he chose the one that seemed to him to be most plausible (symmetry); without it, he would be blocked at this point and his analysis would not be better than the one of Lorentz.

This argument of symmetry is the cause of relativity paradoxes, namely the Gemini one, because it does not hold, it is wrong. 

After the explanation I presented in a commentary in RG, Johan Masreliez contacted me, he perfectly understood the issue and included it in the Russian version of his book “The Progression of Time”. He sent me the English translation of the book.

Dear Alfredo, thank you very much for your interesting input! I am impressed!

As far as I have read Hafele's and Keating's calculus correctly, they used the non-rotating Earth as the reference for all the clocks, and calculated each clock from it?

If so, they tricked the calculus by not simply comparing directly the Earth-surface clock with the airplane clocks, which would give other results, since the v2/c2 factors would be very different?

Dear Thierry, what I said about the calculations of Hafele and Keating is a mess, not even I understand it, so I deleted that part. I will soon say here more on the subject.

Dear Thierry

(continuation of previous commentary)

On the relationship between the undefined function of v in Lorentz transformation of coordinates and this experiment 

Lorentz considered that this function “differs form unity no more than by a quantity of the second order”. To go beyond Lorentz, Einstein had to define this function. He decided that it should be “1” by symmetry reasons. However, this was not some sort of “guess luck” - he had a reason. That reason is that his goal was to obtain the theory from “general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience”.  In latter texts he defended the possibility of making consistent models of data as acquired by us (this means data relative to us because we use units where we are invariant). This holds in relation to classical mechanical laws and Maxwell laws, but does not holds always. For instance, the geocentric model is a model of data as acquired by us and it is not the best model. The same happens with current space expansion model, which was obliged to introduce dark energy and dark matter for the roles of Ptolemaic celestial spheres and epicycles.

To obtain a model independent of inertial motion, i.e., a model relative to the observer whatever observer’s inertial motion, Einstein had to consider that the unknown function was “1”. This is what justifies his decision, a reason derived from the goal he wanted to achieve, therefore dependent on the results of the theory while all the rest in his work is consequence of data; that is why he wondered about this decision in posterior texts.

This decision, however, leads to paradoxes. These paradoxes are not the result of some misunderstanding of the theory, they are implied by it. And they mean that the unknown function cannot be “1”. This has minor practical consequences, but has huge theoretical ones because it implies that there is an absolute reference for velocity.

As Einstein said, God is subtle but not malicious. If one assumes that there is an absolute reference for velocity and deduces the coordinates transformation between two reference frames, what is obtained is exactly the Lorentz transformation, dependent only on the relative velocity between reference frames and on the same unknown function of v (you can see a deduction in this arXiv paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205033) . But there is a difference: now, the unknown function of v has not to be “1” – quite on the contrary. This gives the correct framework, but does not solve the problem of defining the function. To do that, we need data – like the one obtained by Hafele and Keating but with greater reliability. I suspect that such data may be available from satellites, namely the GPS ones.

Therefore, the importance of this kind of experiments is to obtain data able to determine the unknown function that appears in Lorentz transformation; if the function so determined is “1”, then Einstein’s decision was correct; if it is not, than all our conception of the universe has to be changed. Which, indeed, is good news because in this case it is not space that is curved or linked with time but simply the length and time units of the observer that change with its motion.

The usual suspects engaging in lively and uninformed discussion. If any reader is actually *interested* in knowing the details of the HK experiment, he should indeed look at the report which A.G. Kelly so extensively misquotes.One might (mis)quote Einstein in this respect: Kelly is malicious, but he is not subtle.

Anyway, here is a link to this report. Anyone wishing to read it should, however, first attempt to understand how precise time measurements are performed.

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1971papers/Vol%2003_17.pdf

"Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in

Figure 4 is disturbing, and if our final analysis does not improve agreement,

an improved version of this experiment should be given serious consideration." (from Kelly report).

It is this difference (even if null) that allows the determination of the unknown function of v in Lorentz transformations. But, of course, one has to understand the details of its deduction and this problem. It is not special relativity that is at question, it is the determination of this function that, as I said, Einstein decided to make equal to 1 for symmetry reasons; as he said latter, at the time he had no alternative; but now we have because we can measure it. Hafele and Keating did the first measurement but, as the Kelly report shows, the accuracy of it is not enough to support indisputable analysis, therefore "an improved version of this experiment should be given serious consideration"; that is why I mentioned GPS satellites.

Of course that those who only know Minkowsky work do not understand the problem; one has to know Einstein work.

Now I have not enough time, but as soon as I can I will come here to show what can be concluded from the HK experiment.

Dear Alfredo,

Indeed, not only Hafele's raw measurements were questionable, as follows from the report discussion, also their calculus is not correctly representing SRT, but instead is representing Newtonian gravity and gravitomagnetism, in which the non-rotating center of mass is the preferred reference frame.

And on top of that, Einstein's SRT is derivated with the communication of light between the reference frames, accounting as "clocks", while of course, there are different kinds of clocks that can give other retardations/delays, depending from their precise construct.

Dear Thierry De Mees

STR must be understood as a manifestation of electromagnetic phenomena, which contain (hidden) information about vacuum induced fluctuations; i.e., Compton's and de Broglie’s periodicities are inherent to Maxwell equations. This electromagnetic nature of STR can be seen in an elementary derivation of the mass-energy relation, made by Einstein himself [Einstein A. Out of my later years]. Paradoxically, Einstein believed that the Lorentz transformations transcended Maxwell's Equations.

Apart the gravitational correction, what the HK experiment proves is that the time spent to avoid violations of the radiation speed limit (light speed) is measured only in the fixed frame. By the way, such speed violations are implicit in the improper phase velocity of the de Broglie material wave (cc/v).

Explaining, massless elementary electrical charges, everywhere (in atoms or free) and isotropically, interact with the Planck’s vacuum (absorbing-emitting zero-point radiation). Consequently, they describe non-observed random curvilinear paths, incorporating the parameters of the interacting zero-point radiation (Compton’s angular frequency, the corresponding space domain of a single oscillation, and light speed), as implicit in the Schrödinger’s zitterbewegung (Dirac electron). When the ordinary translational motion takes place, they happen violations of the light speed limit, which is forbidden. Thus, to overcome such speed violations, appear the vibrations implicit in the wave-packet (a concept that approximate quantum mechanics to classical mechanics). The time spent in preserving the speed limit (or triggering a compensating vibration) is cumulatively computed only in the fixed frame. More details can be seen in [Ogiba F. On the Quantum-Relativistic Behavior of Moving Particles].

``Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in Figure 4 is disturbing, and if our final analysis does not improve agreement, an improved version of this experiment should be given serious consideration.''

But of course, the more detailed analysis did improve the agreement. What this more detailed analysis is, is something everyone can learn by reading the paper or the report to which I made earlier reference.

Finally, the experiments were repeated later with higher accuracy, see link attached. So the entire discussion on the accuracy of the first experiment is irrelevant, just as the slanderous remarks of A.G. Kelly are disgraceful.

http://resource.npl.co.uk/docs/publications/newsletters/metromnia/issue18_einstein.pdf

http://www.npl.co.uk/news/time-flies

Dear Fernando,

Thank you for your valuable input. Indeed, you mention the Compton explanation, which ironically, occurs at one place and time, and not between reference frames of which one is moving. Apparently, Einstein just used the appropriate equations and gave a meaning to them.

It is clear that special relativity is a special case of electromagnetism and of Maxwell's equations at a distance, between reference frames, by taking into account the retardation of the fields by the speed of light..

Excellent books as those written by Oleg Jefimenko have explained many new situations of Maxwell's equations at a distance, for moving and accelerating charges and masses.

The paper of Kelly is trustful and sound, and is demonstrating another truth than what is usually told. Indeed, it is very strange that Hafele didn't put the measured data, properly processed, in his 1972 paper.

``Indeed, it is very strange that Hafele didn't put the measured data, properly processed, in his 1972 paper.''

Another of Kelly's lies. In the report, Hafele&Keating clearly state that they have only performed a crude analysis, and that they will later provide the result of the full analysis. ``Putting the measured data, properly processed'' is precisely what they did in the Science paper. In the report the processing was preliminary, as is repeatedly stated:  thus on p.16 it is stated that

``These intercomparison data permit evaluation of the mean of the flying ensemble (MEAN(FLYING)) in much the same way as MEAN(USNO) is determined. Although evaluation of MEAN(FLYING) is not yet completed, we expect this analysis of the data to produce the highest level of confidence in our results, and we hope to be able to report them soon.''

Clearly, this analysis of the intercomparison of the data of the flying ensemble is what was published in Science, thus fully explaining why there exist minor discrepancies between the report and the published paper.

It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding on the relevance of this kind of measurement. 

The problem is not if a moving clock is or not delayed in relation to the reference clock; the problem is the amount of the delay.

Special relativity, as Einstein deduced it, is obtained from data and their results are as correct as that data but one: the value of the unknown function of v that appears in the deduction of Lorentz transformations, and that Lorentz considered that should be close to 1 and Einstein made equal to one using symmetry reasons; however, this value is not obtained from data and the universe is not very much concerned with what we may think it should be. Therefore, this has to be tested.

testing it using airplanes is subject to various problems; and the main component is due to the change in gravity. The results are compatible with a value of 1 for the unknown function but they are also compatible, considering the error margin, to a different value, although close to 1.

What puzzles me the most in all this process is that, as is written in the document " "metromnia" linked by F. Leyvraz (thanks!) is that:

"Atomic clocks now operate continuously in space on the US Global Positioning System satellites. The observation of relativistic effects and their correction has become an important part of both the operation of satellite navigation systems and of international timekeeping."

If it is so, and given the importance of this measurement, where is the study presenting its results? why are we talking about airplane flights when we have atomic clocks in satellites????

This makes me still more curious because I have seen in an engineering journal, long ago, that there was a conflict between the corrections engineers where making to satellites' clocks and what was predicted; but that was in the very beginning of GPS system, and as I had no more information on it, therefore I do not know how this was solved.

maybe F. Leyvraz can help in clarifying this point.

The GPS system is quite complicated in its analysis, as it involves the comparison of various clocks, none of which are in an inertial system. It also involves synchronisation of clocks, along lines which are not, in general, Einstein synchronisation, for the simple reason that Einstein synchronisation only works when the two clocks are at rest with respect to each other, which is not the case in GPS. Here, in any case, is a link explaining some of the issues.

http://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf

Good  Question

The problem I have with the H&F experiment is that the comparator clocks ( large ceasium) are in a non inertial frame, not zeroed but on the surface of the Earth rotating with the Earth.

The results do not favour reciprocity between the "flying" clocks at all.  

Both are going at the same speed but in opposite directions hence relativistically should give reciprocity.

The answer seems to favour the Earth bound clocks as being stationary.

One has to question reciprocity, instead it appears that the Earth bound clocks have the "stationary" position.

This strongly suggests that our Greek ancestors who thought the Earth was still were somehow right.

And I would go as far as to suggest, as far as STR ( but not GR) is concerned, the Earth bound clock in its non inertial rotational mode is the "stationary" clock.Somehow in balance with dark energy.

Which is why the fine dust on the Moon does not move even in its non inertial frame rotating at 2,288 mph. The dust should be moving- but is not.

Can anyobody give me a sensible answer?

The dust *is* moving, and so is the Moon. In fact, since the motion is non-inertial, that statement actually has meaning.

It is just that the Moon and the dust do not have any *relative* motion.

We have reciprocity when both systems under consideration are inertial: clearly not the case in the Hafele-Keating experiment. But this is not a problem: SRT has well defined predictions for time measurements with non-inertial clocks: one uses proper time. And all of this works perfectly well for the HK experiment.

Dear Tolga,

Big Relativistic Brother hides the real data.

However, as you know, atomic clocks are in the first place electromagnetic devices, so, they should obey the rules of retardation of the fields, which gives an alteration of the E-mail fields.

SRT's mimic is sometimes close mathematically, but the theory is solely valid for light between inertial reference frames. And in atomic clocks, it is certainly not about light. It is about a physical operation due to the induction of fields upon charges.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear All,

With all the talking about the time it strikes me that the rotation period of the earth seems to be so irregular. The earth is steadily slowing down but not in a straight way. The picture in the link

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg

From the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Shows the variation in rotation speed.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul,

There are many reasons.

The Earth has an elliptic orbit.

We know that the Moon has a more or less synchronized tidal spin, but that it is wobbling about an equilibrium with a few degrees. That is due to the Tidal forces from the Earth and from the Sun.

Hence, the elliptic orbit of the Earth will also get tidal forces from the Sun that are different when the Earth is nearer it, compared with when it is farther away.

The Moon itself, the nearby planets and the large planets, all influence the Earth's orbit as well by their mass.

When the orbit changes due to all these influences, the tidal forces change (because they depend from the distances to other planets, Sun and Moon), and the Earth will wobble a bit about its axis. That is causing the irregularities.

Dear all,

Regarding Hafele, an interesting paper is here, where it is confirmed that his results didn't match Special relativity.

Due to the high pressure from relativists, his paper could only be published if he changed the facts.

It was actually the paper that he needed to get his grade.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2503

Dear Tolga,

A more detailed study about the many evidences that are backing up SRT can be found here:

"Special Relativity Theory: Only for Geniuses?" (link below)

It explains that there are two fundamental parts in the theory, one being related to the thought experiment of light between inertial reference frames, as discussed by deBroglie, and one being related to the following two assumptions 1) that mass and energy are equivalent and 2) that the speed of light is constant in all circumstances, whatever the speed of the inertial reference frames is.

Maybe it contains relevant answers to the fundaments of the Special Relativity Theory? I would appreciate to get a scientific analysis.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7257

Dear Tolga,

You say that in fact, both parts

i) The constancy of the speed of light.

ii) The Galilean Principle of Relativity (GPR).

are quite related. Yes, that can be seen as such, but then, it depends from the definition of "the physical laws".

A priori, they can be separated, because light could be carried by a medium, or not.

I think that your reply above only gives the result of your own established conviction from the past, whithout referring to the reasoning of my paper.

Let us follow a few basic reasonings (please tell me if any of the reasonings is false):

1) it cannot be denied that Einstein made a thought experiment with light as a signal communication tool between inertial reference frames (IRFs).

2) due to GPR, every IRF can pretend that it is standing still and that the other IRFs are moving, hence, all the rulers will be shortened.

3) hence, since that is impossible, all the rulers are just seen as shortened, by an optical illusion.

4) hence, the tought experiment is only about the apparent change of parameters, not about the very objects themselves.

Then, let us introduce the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. We can also follow the basic reasonings:

1) if light has a constant speed for all IRFs, at all places, it must have at one place and time, for several IRFs crossing at different speeds, the same speed being measured for the same light beam.

2) however, in that case, the speed of light is either undefined or it is defined. In the first case, (a) we find the physical impossibility that light would possess all the speeds at the same time; in the second case, (b) the speed of light would be defined w.r.t. each of the IRFs, and the speed constancy is only the perception in the IRFs. Hence, there would be a transition from one to the other IRF by a change of reference medium.

3) the second case (2 b) above is allegedly refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, they tested the direction and speed of the medium, by (a) assuming that light is carried by an aether, (b) assuming that this aether is global, and (c) assuming that the Earth is moving with respect to this aether. Since the experiment was negative, only one of the above assumptions is sufficient to be false. This doesn't evidently falsify the existence of a medium.

Since SRT followed the first case, (2 a), it expresses a physical impossibility, because an object cannot possess all the speeds at the same time.

You mentioned that there are (many) proofs that would validate SRT.

However, since all the proofs w.r.t. objects are only related to charges, we should first analyze how charges behave (a priori without SRT) at high speeds.

As I explain in my paper, electromagentism, a sound theory with multiple direct proofs, calculates that the electric field is strongly deformed by the limited propagation speed of the electric field, and flattened transversally (comparable to a sonic bang), leaving no field at all in the line of motion when approaching the speed of light.

CERN cannot accelerate such charges further by means of E-M.

Fast muons in the atmosphere are charges as well, and the deformed field compresses the charge radially, avoiding so their normal decay time.

Hafele was obliged to change the facts, and indeed, atomic clocks are again charges.

Other proofs are related to light beams, but they don't prove that light beams can have all the velocities at once.

As I also explained in my article, spites the similar calculus between E-M and SRT, for the latter no ground at all was found, based upon simple, step by step reasoning, and the counter-examples from E-M.

Hence, personnally, I think that is time to make the difference between believing in SRT by habit, and to study it again from the very beginning.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

What did the experiment of Hafele and Keating exactly prove?

Inexorably, it proves that atomic clocks, made of massless elementary electrical charges orbiting due to the permanent interaction with the Planck’s vacuum (and so acquiring inertia and spin), delay when they move across the zero-point radiation field. This occurs, only and exclusively, to not violate the speed of radiation that impregnate the charges for a while (absorption and emission in agreement with the second Planck’s radiation law) when they get the additional ordinary translational motion.

Dear Tolga,

Unfortunately, I am afraid that you don't compare the things correctly:

1) you say that the rulers are 'measured' as being shorter, but that it is 'real measurement'.

2) you say that a falling pen from a plane is seen as straight, but that a cow sees it as parabolic.

There are very big differences between these examples.

The rulers that are seen from another reference frame are deformed as through a lense. The very objects don't change. Nobody never ever talked about relativity when speaking about the deformations of light signals by lenses, but it is in fact the same thing: the deformation as reported by a signal of light.

Now imagine that we would say that there is no privileged reference frame with lenses. In other words, you cannot see the lenses, because they are in black boxes with just a hole in and out. Do you see how this becomes a circus?

That is in fact exactly the same thing as using the principle of relativity for moving frames, with light signals as communication tool.

On the other hand, in your example of the pen, the path of the pen is not an object and not a deformation through a black box. It is a virtual path that is formed by the combination of speeds. Nobody will ever say that the pen is straight or parabolic.

Until now, I have only discussed the part of the alleged equivalence of reference frames, not yet the supposed constancy of light for all the IRF's, at once, for a given light beam....

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

I will use one example that you give, with which I will invalidate the very principle of relativity.

According to the principle of relativity, the fast muons that enter our atmosphere can say that they are standing still and that the Earth is moving. So, the Earth should become flat, its time be delayed, and its mass would increase, including all the things that are connected to the Earth.

However, until now, I never felt myself being heavier each time that a fast muon entered the atmosphere, and I never overslept by a delay of my clock due to it.

So, the principle of relativity is only valid in a fictive world that doesn't exist.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

In my post above, I have invalidated the principle of relativity. But I know, even if I invalidated that principle, that nevertheless, it will be dismissed by hand-waving arguments, and I know that the discussion will go on and on with new "evidence" of mass increases, time dilations and length contractions, as if nothing happened...

In this separate post, let's talk of kinetic energy and the supposed increase of mass due to it.

What is my kinetic energy with respect to the origin of the alleged big bang? What is my kinetic energy with respect to the alleged edges of the universe?

What is my kinetic energy with respect to the desk in my room?

What is my real mass increase?

As you see, dear Tolga, kinetic energy doesn't increase any mass, also that is pure fantasy.

In a normal world, kinetic energy can only increase...energy, with respect to a start velocity and an end velocity, and it can transform into potential energy (and to which it is related). It is nothing more than another representation of velocity, which is not something physical, but conventional with respect to other objects as references.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

You wrote: "One cannot measure the speed of the ship where, he cruises in, via just doing experiments inside of it, and without receiving any information from the outside."

Do you know the story of Plato's cave? When one is partially made blind, of course one cannot see everything.

But such a situation doesn't give any "force of truth" by creating a theory for the half-blind....

What science is looking for is a theory that describes Nature, not what a half-blind doesn't see or does see...

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

You say that the principle of relativity describes Nature.

I gave you the example that it is not so in the context of SRT, but you never answered to it.

My example was:

According to the principle of relativity, the fast muons that enter our atmosphere can say that they are standing still and that the Earth is moving. So, the Earth should become flat, its time be delayed, and its mass would increase, including all the things that are connected to the Earth.

This falsifies that the principle of relativity in the context of SRT would describe Nature.

I gave you an example why mass doesn't increase with velocity.

My example was:

Let's talk of kinetic energy and the supposed increase of mass due to it.

What is my kinetic energy with respect to the origin of the alleged big bang? What is my kinetic energy with respect to the alleged edges of the universe?

What is my kinetic energy with respect to the desk in my room?

What is my real mass increase?

Also here, it falsifies SRT.

Moreover, in fine, I have proven in one of my former posts that the light cannot be constant for all the frames at once, in one place and time. That is a physical impossibility.

If light has a constant speed for all IRFs, at all places, it must have at one place and time, for several IRFs crossing at different speeds, the same speed being measured for the same light beam.

I further developed that, and it also invalidates SRT...

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

The Galilean Principle of Relativity is mathematics, not physics.

The M&M experiment is physics. As I told before, it was used to verify the hypothesis that there is a global ether that carries the light and that the Earth is moving wrt it.

The result of the hypothesis was negative. Hence, either the light is not carried by aether, or aether is not global, or the Earth is not moving wrt it.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga and Thierry,

may I comment on your fierce debate?

Thierry:> If light has a constant speed for all IRFs, at all places, it must have at one place and time, for several IRFs crossing at different speeds, the same speed being measured for the same light beam.

According to STR the definition is that the speed of light is the same in all IRFs. Derived from that definition is the result that the points that have simultaneity are different for different frames. The world line of the origin of such IRF is hyperbolic orthogonal to the level of simultaneity. If the world line is Cartesian orthogonal to the level of simultaneity, then we would have the IRF0. But I ask you, Thierry, how do you measure the angle between the worldline, in the time direction, and the level of simultaneity, being the whole present 3-dimensional space? I would like to agree with you but I still have not found a solution to that problem, but I have some ideas that should be discussed.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Paul,

You wrote: "According to STR the definition is that the speed of light is the same in all IRFs."

It is precisely thát which is physically impossible when one chooses one place and time where several IRFs cross.

However, the simple example of the muon, which I stated before as:

"According to the principle of relativity, the fast muons that enter our atmosphere can say that they are standing still and that the Earth is moving. So, the Earth should become flat, its time be delayed, and its mass would increase, including all the things that are connected to the Earth."

should first be acknowledged as being a falsification of SRT.

If this is not a refutation, I would like to know why.

So, a further discussion is needless.

However, I will be "un bon prince", and give the second refutation of SRT.

As I have discussed before, in that case, the speed of light is either undefined or it is defined. In the first case, (a) we find the physical impossibility that light would possess all the speeds at the same time; in the second case, (b) the speed of light would be defined w.r.t. each of the IRFs, and the speed constancy is only the perception inside the IRFs. Hence, there would be a transition from one to the other IRF by a change of the reference medium.

The second case (b) above is allegedly refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, they tested the direction and speed of the medium, by (i) assuming that light is carried by an aether, (ii) assuming that this aether is global, and (iii) assuming that the Earth is moving with respect to this aether. Since the experiment was negative, only one of the above assumptions is sufficient to be false. This doesn't evidently falsify the existence of a medium.

Since SRT followed the first case, (a), it expresses a physical impossibility, because an object cannot possess all the speeds at the same time.

So, this is again a refutation of SRT, and either this refutation can be negated, or not, and then, a further discussion is in fact not necessary.

Now, you come with "how would you explain this then, and how you would explain that then."

However, that has nothing to do with the refutation of SRT.

It is in fact the hidden will to still continue to believe that SRT solves the problem of simultaneity, which in fact is a totally futile issue.

Nevertheless, I will continue to answer to this extremely futile issue:

If you want to see what happens within an ants nest, you see that everything happens within the same time schedule. If you put a system on a desk, you also see that everything on the desk happens within the same time schedule.

If you want to see what happens in your street, a city, a country, a planet, you see that everything happens within the same time schedule. What happens in Australia at the same time as here on my desk, is perfectly known. Do we need SRT for that? No.

So, what is the problem, Paul?

The problem is that allegedly one would have the need to prove that when something happened in Australia at some time, something also happened at the same time here on my desk. Futile, but okay.

Then you can use the ways of communication, like passing an olympic flame from one runner to another, shouting from one guy to another, make light signals from one lighthouse to another, and so on, or simply look at the same solar burst or the same jet burst from a fast spinning star.

And then, we come to optics, to the deformation of light signals by the velocity between IRFs (Not any change of the very objects in the IRFs, as proven before).

So, even if the deformation of the light signals between IRFs can be expressed by transformation equations, this is still not SRT. It is just optics.

And then, the question arises again: are the lightbeams carried by, say, a quantum field, or not? Nobody knows, except that it is impossible to get a constancy of light for all IRFs together at the same place.

Hence, the hypothesis that light is carried by the local gravity field is not falsified by the M&M experiment, as proven before, and this might be a way to handle the case of how to calculate back the times in order to find out simultaneity.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

When one locks someone in, and makes him blind with respect to everything from the outside of the universe -that is what you want- , the question arises if such a situation, the situation of a blind man, can account for what Nature is representing.

The story of Plato's cave, which I referred to, gives the answer: by doing so, one deprives Nature of essential constituents, and try to build a theory from that.

In fact, as you know, potential energy gives the aptitude to be a reservoir for energy, which for a mass in such a field, can be transformed into kinetic energy. The free fall allows to transform a zero velocity with respect to the potential energy field at a place A, into a velocity when the mass arrives at the point B.

Hence, velocity in Nature is well connected to kinetic energy, and by consequence, to potential energy, which on its turn is connected to masses.

The absence of acceleration would require that a force balance would maintain an acquired velocity, but still, for a man who has not be made blind, solutions to measure the velocity exist with respect to the outside.

The only known application of such a situation of constant velocities in Nature for masses, is theoretically, when an object is moving inside a massive homogenous spherical shell. In that case, it is perfectly possible to acquire its velocity, due to its position inside the shell.

Therefore, it is well established that when locks someone in, and makes him blind to everything from the outside of the universe, one is troubling the very fundaments of Nature, when it concerns velocities.

The consequence is that when one is inventing theories upon a basis that is omitting essential parts of Nature, one obtains mathematics only.

When you say: "The null result of MM experiment has simply proven the validity of the GPR.", I strongly disagree due to the reasons given above. Moreover, there is no sound reasoning that could come to such a conclusion.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

Your question is not relevant with respect to the description of Nature, for the reasons I have given above. Please read them and please think each part over.

If you don't agree with one of the sentences, please tell me and I will answer that specifically.

Then you will understand why your question is not relevant with respect to the description of Nature.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

I notice two issues in your last post, which are linked.

1) first you state that the Galilean relativity is correct, as Galilei stated it, and that the Michelson & Morley experiment proves it;

2) then you say that it proves the constancy of light.

In order to analyse this, let's use the very example of Galilei himself.

He says that one cannot discover, inside a ship, and blinded from the outside, if the ship is standing still or if it is moving uniformly. All the flies will fly with respect to the wall, deck and bottom the same way, and water that one drops in the ship will fall the same way.

I assume that it is true.

You will surely agree that another ship, at 100 km from the first ship, can say the same.

However, there is an essential part of Nature that has been dismissed in this reasoning, which is that both ships are floating in a sea with different currents (which we can assume with an uniform motion). Moreover, the sea currents move with respect to the Earth's coasts.

So, both ships will move uniformly with respect to each-other.

Let we now connect the two ships with a long pipe, but in such a way that it doesn't change either velocity of the ships. Let's rest the pipe ends just below the ship's deck and see what happens.

The pipe will move with respect to both ships.

But then, of course, the flies will not fly exactly the same in all parts of the system of the two ships and the pipe.

The question is: which kind of pipe should we use so that at every place, the flies fly the same way with respect to the walls, deck and bottom, and so that water falls the same way, whether the ships are moving uniformly or not?

There is one way to reach it, by using a long bellow instead of a pipe, which is connected to the two ships.

By this solution, it is clear that there is a need of length contraction or length elongation between the ships in order to keep the Galilean relativity working.

However, this doesn't mean that the world gets a real contraction or elongation. It is just showing that the Galilean relativity isn't valid for this system, except locally.

The reality is that water flows alover the sea, and thàt is the connection between the ships.

Let's now look at the alleged constancy of the speed of light.

It is postulaed that in the two ships, the constancy of light can be determined, allegedly independently from when the ship moves or not.

Allegedly, the Michelson and Morley experiment (MMX) would prove that.

However, the MMX just showed one single situation, that of the case that the device is not moving with respect to the Earth. The Kennedy–Thorndike experiment would allegedly prove it for moving light beams, but in fact, they proved nothing, since we get the same situation as between the two ships at a distance, and it doesn't exclude that there can be a connection between the frames of initiation and detection, like the water between the ships.

So, let's focus on the case of a light beam on Earth, and on a planet in another galaxy, which has an uniform relative velocity to us.

We can also put a long bellow between both planets, and make the speed of the light being locally detected. However, the bellow will contract or elongate all along the path between the planets.

And still, it doesn't mean that the universe is contracting or elongating.

Since the local changes in the bellow between the ships and between the planets are infinitesimal, one gets the impression that the Galilean relativity is correct.

However, one needs to fundamentally question this principle in the context of Nature, since the Galilean relativity is only valid locally and not globally. Therefore, it can only be seen as a mathematical, incomplete figment of reality.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

I am afraid that in your last post, a number if things have been mixed up.

1) As I explained above, the success of the Galilean principle of relativity is based upon one place only. It is local. It says that in a restricted, local place, that is blinded from the rest of the universe, one cannot distinguish at which velocity one is travelling.

That is the principle of inertia, as later stated by Newton.

In the context of the speed of light, and under conditions, one can also say, locally, that the speed of light has locally been measured as having the same value.

Hence, locally, one could say that IN a given reference frame, the speed of light, under conditions, has always the same speed.

The conditions are the laws of Nature, either known or unknown, which in a theory, is assumed as 'known'.

2) A totally different thing is to pretend that the speed of light is the same FOR every reference frame.

In order to study that case, we come back to the bellow between the ships at different uniform velocities (or the planets), which confirm that the speed of light is NOT the same FOR every reference frame, even if the speed of light may locally be the same with respect to the walls of the bellow: the light speed, as seen from the ships will differ from the local speed of light.

Hence, it confirms that the interpretation of Einstein, assuming that the Galilean principle of relativity is non-local, but global, is false.

3) Concerning the MMX, I am afraid that it has been interpreted according to the convenience of the given theory, and not according to the strict logical analysis, which I have given in an earlier post. The negative (null) result only allows to say that EITHER light is not carried by aether, OR the aether is not global, OR the Earth is not moving with respect to it.

In the case that the MMX is allegedly connected to the Galilean principle of relativity, one has made a choice out of these options.

However, all three options give the result that the speed of light has been measured locally, without a moving medium with respect to the experiment.

The conclusion is that, when a bellow is used between the ships or the planets, it becomes very clear that the Galilean principle of relativity is only a local event, that is expressed by the fundaments of inertia. It is not able to give a global result, and certainly not one regarding to the alleged constancy of the speed of light. Therefore, the extension from a local to a global situation, as Einstein did, is simply false, and is just a mathematical figment of the global reality.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Tolga,

Precisely!

When one releases a ball in the remote space, it will follow what is called a geodesic, depending from the very field lines of gravity that are locally present, evidently caused by the masses that form these gravity fields.

When one leaves the ball when having an uniform motion (what you call "cruise property", I guess), it will get a combination of free fall and this uniform motion, and consequently, it will orbit about the mass to which it is "falling", while describing an ellipse. Hence, the cruise velocity can very well be deduced from it, when the place of release is known.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees