<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Carl, <br></div><div><br></div><div> Weren't you the one who also argued that the Sagnac effect isn't real?? Considering I have observed the Sagnac effect thousands of times in experiments, I guess I must be hallucinating : ) <br></div><div>So now you are also saying the Hafele and Keating results are fake?? <br></div><div>Doug<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:45 PM <<a href="mailto:cj@mb-soft.com">cj@mb-soft.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><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 size="2" face="Arial">To Doug:</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Your coimments i8nvolve several incorrect aspects
of logic, which are the sources of the confusion you have. Some of these
even appear in the reasoning of my fellow Physicists.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Your thoughts regarding your three people are based
on a serious logical flaw, which even my associates at NASA often get
wrong. In 1971, NASA tried to do the Hafedle-Keating experiment, because
they thought they were going to prove that Special Relativity existed. At
the time, I madee some fun of saome of my NASA friends due to the serious
logical errors. SR is mathematically very simple and BASA decided that
they understood it. This was only a few years after Einstein had died, so
he was no longer around to explain to them that they HAD TO ALSO account
for GR (which they did NOT do)</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">The scale of the SR experiment they wanted to do is
very minimal, and even thoughy they included FOUR Cesium atomic clocks in each
airplane, the experiment was a dismal failure due to differences between the
four clocks having Error Factors that were greater than the result they hoped to
find. That data is still available, and it is obvious from that data that
their expriment had no chance of success.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">But worse, my friends at NASA were NOT willing to
understand that GR also was in effect in that experiment. They understood
the simpler SR, due to our "velocity of rotation of the Earth" (although even
those calculations were NOT acttually done properly). But as we each
personally revolve around the Earth each day, we necessarily ACCELERATE DOWNWARD
(raidially) as part of that same motion. That is Centripetal
acceleration. The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics gives the (roughly)
correct value of the Centripetal acceleration for someone at the Equator.
That value can be used in the Equivalence Formula of GR to calculate the GR time
rate effect of GR (WHICH NASA never bothered to do).</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">We know the dimensions of the Earth really well,
and so it is easy to calcunate the SR (time dilation) effect to a precision of
18 places. It turns out that by using the Equivalence Formula, we can also
calculate the GR time rate effect for that same person at the Equator (or
anywhere else on earth. I was shocked when I firat did those precise
calculations about twenty years ago. Since we are always BOTH "spinning"
with VELOCITY" and "centripetally acceleration", continuously, we must MULTIPLY
those two time rate effects to learn the NET Relativistic time effect".
Feel free to repeat my calculations, which are included in <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html" target="_blank">http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html</a>
The result was a shock to me, where the NET Relativistic time rate effect
on us, no matter where we are on Earth, is always EXACTLY 1.000 000 000 000 000
000 . In other words, the two Relativistic effects, SR and GR
always exactly cancel each other out regarding "time rate passage"</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Your three "observers" each would have DIFFERENT GR
time rate effects, which nulls out the result you claim you would
find.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">IF those statements were TRUE, yes, it WOULD be
"fattal" to Relativity, but since they each contain logical flaws, then no, it
is fine.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Your other reasoning is also not correct, but xsue
to other logical flaws.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I encourage you to read <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilations.html" target="_blank">http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilations.html</a></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">This shows some basic logical errors that nearly
everyone triess to apply to SR.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Carl Johnson</font></div>
<div> </div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">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/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>