Relativity Principle Revisited

On 26 Aug, 07:32, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
My advice is: don't "bet" on theories, instead put your trust in the
EXPERIMENTS.

Indeed, it is an excellent advice.

You should take it.

If you do so, you'll find that to explain them ALL you need
SR or a theory equivalent to it (for those experiments within the domain
of SR).

This is nonsense. As I have pointed out, the following combination
must not be true at the same time. If so, we have the twin's paradox

Look at the EXPERIMENTS that directly implement the "twin paradox" and
show that it occurs in the world we inhabit (cited below, with brief
explanation). Bailey et al is particularly decisive.

You simply do not understand SR. If you did, you would know your claims
about theoretical inconsistencies are wrong.

Tom Roberts

Tests of the "Twin Paradox"
---------------------------

The so-called twin paradox occurs when two clocks are synchronized,
separated, and rejoined. If one clock remains in an inertial frame, then
the other must be accelerated sometime during its journey, and it
displays less elapsed proper time than the inertial clock. This is a
"paradox" only in that it appears to be inconsistent but is not.

Why not Roberts Roberts? In 1918 Einstein tried to prove the greater
youthfulness of the travelling twin was a result of the acceleration
but failed (the failure is officially recognized in Einstein criminal
cult). Also, you are lying that "the other must be accelerated
sometime during its journey" - there are scenarios where any
acceleration is avoided and yet the same time dilation result is
obtained. But this means that the question "Why does the clock at rest
run faster than the travelling clock?" or "Why is there no reciprocal
time dilation?" remains unanswered. In other words Roberts Roberts,
the theory does NOT predict, in a consistent way, that the travelling
twin will return younger. Why then should one believe Hafele and
Keating and disbelieve Kelly? Because YOU say so?


* Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal) Science
Vol. 177 pg 166-170 (1972) (experiment).

They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world
in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks
with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound
clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns;
these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental
resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). By using four
cesium-beam atomic clocks they greatly reduced their systematic errors
due to clock drift.

Criticised in: A. G. Kelly, "Reliability of Relativistic Effect
Tests on Airborne Clocks", Inst.Engineers.Ireland Monograph No. 3
(February 1996),http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm. His
criticism does not stand up, as he does not understand the properties of
the atomic clocks and the way the four clocks were reduced to a single
"paper" clock. The simple averages he advocates are not nearly as
accurate as the paper clock used in the final paper-that was the whole
point of flying four clocks (they call this "correlated rate change";
this technique is used by all standards organizations today to minimize
the deficiencies of atomic clocks).

Also commented on in Schlegel, AJP 42, pg 183 (1974). He
identifies the East-West time difference as the Sagnac effect, notes
that this is independent of the clock's velocity relative to the
(rotating) earth, and proposes a coordinate system in which it is
treated just like the international date line (for use in highly
accurate time transfer around the world); this has been supersceded by
the ECI coordinate sytem of the GPS.

Don't be silly Roberts Roberts. Sagnac's results c'=c-v and c'=c+v are
officially recognized in Einstein criminal cult, the problem is that
criminals want to deprive them of any physical meaning, as in the
following case:

On 20 Aug, 16:40, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

"(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between two speeds, It
is NOT the speed of anything relative to anything!"



* Vessot et al., A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a
Space-borne Clock, Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181-204. Test of
Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 45 2081-2084.

They flew a hydrogen maser in a Scout rocket up into space and
back (not recovered). Gravitational effects are important, as are the
velocity effects of SR.

* C. Alley, Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with
Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses, in Quantum Optics,
Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum
Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363-427.

They flew atomic clocks in airplanes which remained localized
over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.

* Bailey et al., Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for
positive and negative muons in a circular orbit, Nature 268 (July 28,
1977) pg 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979).

They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime.
When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest

And you measure the muon lifetime at rest....how Roberts Roberts? By
making muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes
from about 300000km/s to zero? You are still to give a relevant answer
Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...d1af61851c041?

Pentcho Valev

this
becomes a highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the
stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the
lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest: Meyer et.al.,
Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et.al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974);
Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the
clock hypotheses (below).