<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi Carl,<br><br></div> Are you saying a guy moving at 1000 mph around the equator will show no time dilation compared to a guy standing still? That would be in direct contradiction to the Hafele and Keating results... is that what you are saying?<br></div><div>Anyway, why would you say the Hafele and Keating experiment failed? The experimental results are what they are, if they don't conform to your theory, that is a problem for the theory, not the experiment. <br></div><div><br></div>Doug<br><div><br><br><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:01 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cj@mb-soft.com" target="_blank">cj@mb-soft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">You need to be more careful in your assumptions
regarding your A and B clocks.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">There are two very different situations, which
require rather different math. The experiment I have tried to get NASA and
ESA to do, and in two years, hope to get Japan's JAXA to do, of soft-landing a
Cesium clock on the surface of the Moon. This is specifically a "mind
experiment of Einstein" where the Equivalency Principle centrally applies (and
SR and Time Dilation does not). The two situations have DIFFERENT
gravitational fields (by a facttor od about six). The Equivalency
Principle easily calculates that (permanent difference) of GR on the surface of
the Earth and Moon. I encourage you to do the calculation again, where I
get that the Earth Cesium Clock will count <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">10,976 times more ticks every hour. NO SR effects
occur in that expewriment.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The other sort of experiment which may be done is
like for the guy standing at the Earth's Equator. BOTH forms of Relativity
exist for him. He is racing around the Earth at over <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">1,000 mph (velocity) by which we calculate the SR
time-rate effect (using Lorentz) due to velocity. We separately must
calculate his downward centripetal force (the ACCELERATION he constantly
experiences) to determine his Equivalency Principle. As noted earlier,
amazingly, those two very precise time-rate factors EXACTLY cancel each other
out.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Yes, it IS possible to do both of those Relativity
calculations from a Non-Inertial Reference Frame, such as from London, but the
math is then really obscure, as you then have to use either Hyperbolic or
Elliptic Geometry. It DOES still show that both effects still cancel each
other out, whether for the Equator or for any other location on Earth.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I chose having an Observer at the North Pole and
the "Traveler" standing at the Equator because I thought the math might seem
more easily digested in using Euclidean math.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I wish to apologize to you annd others. I am
fairly old and I have pretty severe Parkinson's Tremors, and so my keyboard
seems to like to include duplicate letters. I actually know how to spell,
but my fingers don't always cooperate.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">In any case, your A and B example can therefore be
describing two very different situations. One (Moon and Earth) ONLY
involves GR, and your A and B then only works in one direction. The other,
for any person or object like orbiting at our Equator, then BOTH forms of
Relativity applies, but the two effects exactly cancel each other out, so A = B
and B = A.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Please note that your arrangement of your
experimental apparatus requires additional definition, to more correctly define
the difference or similarity of your A and B clocks.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">In the '60s, NASA did not understand this and they
"totally ignored GR" in many satellite experiments and also in the Hafele jet
airplane experiment (all of which failed" . You have certainly informed
kids that "walking straight west" forever, includes you ALSO curving downward as
you walk. Ditto for the jet airplanes, which forever curved downward
(thereby accewlerating and thereby invoking GR).</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Did I help clarify the subject? Even most
Theoretical Physicists do not fully understand General Relativity, and for
decades, I have been frustrated in trying to explain this stuff, even to
them.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Carl Johnson</font></div>
<div> </div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>