The Hafele-Keating Experiment Supports Special Relativity

Pro thinks the numbers in his graph display the actual time changes of the clocks, and most of his argument relies on this premise. Since this premise is false, his argument collapses like a house of cards.The numbers do not display the actual time changes measured on the clocks. The numbers are fudged, plain and simple. They are the end result of an extremely contrived, and ultimately deceptive, analysis of the raw data.If Pro had provided the entire graph, instead of a misleadingly cropped portion, the fraudulent nature of the numbers would have been more apparent.The top of the graph (which Pro cropped out) says: Table 1. Observed relativistic time differences from application of the correlated rate-change method to the time intercomparison data for the flying ensemble. The numbers Pro gives are the result of the raw data after being subjected to 'the correlated rate-change method'. Although the 1972 paper provides a general overview of what this entails, it doesn't go into too much detail; it doesn't show the math. So what exactly was done to arrive at these fudged numbers is unknown; its deceptive nature, however, is obvious, since I have the actual raw data right in front of me, and linked to it in my previous round. This raw data screams something very different constrated with the numbers in Pro's graph, as explained my previous round.Here's the complete screenshot of Pro's graph: What Pro said about the guy I gave credit to at the bottom of my last round is completely off-base. It's just poisoning the well; it doesn't matter even if the guy is schizofrenic or thinks he can turn lead into gold (neither are true, I'm just making a point), it doesn't mean that just because I gave credit to him where credit is due, my entire argument somehow crumbles.Pro's objection to the credibility of my math is completely unfounded. I gave two examples of my complete mathematical analysis at the beginning of my round, and just gave the end results for the others since I figured too many numbers would be distracting. However, if Pro has a problem with my math (if he thinks I made a mistake), he can point to a single, tiny error. If he can't find any error, he has to drop this absurd insinuation and apologize. All the most important raw data is right here, in Table 3 of Hafele's 1971 report: This graph can be found at the U.S. Military website here, which I already cited in the previous round, but which I will link to again: http://handle.dtic.mil...If Pro demands that I provide all my math with a complete justification, I will do so in my final round. For the first few numbers in my previous round, I performed the math myself on the raw data to confirm that A.G. Kelly's math was correct. Since it turned out to be trustworthy, I didn't see a need to repeat the work myself for the rest of the data, so I just copied his. I repeat, Pro has not pointed to a single mathematical or conceptual error in my computations, even though I explained my math thoroughly in the case of Clock 408 (and it applies to every single clock) and all the raw data I used is in the graph I just displayed.At most, Pro might be able to find a tiny error in my rounding of significant figures, but even that's unlikely, and it wouldn't alter the conclusion anyways.Refuting the rest of Pro's arguments require at least some understanding of how the two papers relate to each other. Let me explain.The experiment was performed by Hafele & Keating in 1971. Hafele (alone, it seems) wrote a preliminary report on the data. He noted that no single clock supported the existence of time-dilation, and their numbers were pretty wild (scattered all over the place). He also noted that if one were to average the data of all 4 clocks, then it would be qualitatively consistent with the predictions. In other words, on the trip predicted to lose time, the clocks, on average, lost time, and when predicted to gain time, the clocks, on average, gained time. However, the average quantity lost was within the range of experimental error: "It is amusing to notice that the values for the eastward trip are in excellent agreement despite our expectation that we would not be able to detect a definite effect in this direction." So it's not statistically significant, and therefore, utterly useless in serving as a confirmation of theory. Regarding the Westward trip, even though on average they did gain time, the average was far below the predicted amount; indeed, not a single clock gained the predicted quantity of time: "the effect for the westward trip was predicted to be considerably larger and detectable, but the observed value is more than one standard deviation below the predicted value." None of them gained enough on the Westward trip, and indeed, as noted earlier, one lost time!I hate that it has come to this, but my opponent opened Pandora's Box by suggesting, without justification, that I made an error in my calculations, and also by needlessly attacking the reputation of Doctor Kelly. Clearly, this is the first time Pro's encountered the 1971 report and it's raw data (which was not in the public eye until relatively recently), and he has never felt the need to read either paper with a critical lens, or even try to understand them fully; he prefers to put his faith in Dr. Thomas Swanson's interpretation of the reports. I recommend my opponent actually read them both himself, in full, and also look long and hard at the raw data given in Table 3 of the 1971 paper; after that, he can then formulate his next argument with a necessary understanding of the subject matter.Or, he can continue to poison the well and focus on questioning my math skills without basis. Whatever floats his boat.Back to the story:So, after all those discrepancies between theory and data in Hafele's 1971 analysis, he ends the report on an optimistic note by promising to do another analysis and see if he could make the results look more favorable to Special Relativity: "Although the final analysis of our data is not yet completed, we have established, with an intermediate level of analysis, that portable cesium beam clocks are capable of showing relativistic effects with relatively inexpensive commercial jet flights. The results of this analysis are in reasonable agreement with theoretical predictions. However, those who doubt the validity of conventional relativity theory, and there are many people in this category, probably will not be converted by the results shown in Figure 4. Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in Figure 4 [the color-coded figure from my previous round] is disturbing, and if our final analysis does not improve agreement, an improved version of this experiment should be given serious consideration." Having quoted that, I feel compelled to point out why these claims are so disingenuous: "we have established[...] that portable cesium beam clocks are capable of showing relativistic effects" This is not true at all. Such optimism regarding 2 trips of 4 clocks, where the average time lost was not statistically significant, and the average time gained wasn't anywhere close to sufficient, and where 25% of the individual time 'dilations' were in the opposite direction predicted, doesn't 'establish' anything other than a blinding bias in favor of Relativity and a glaring lack of objectivity. "The results of this analysis are in reasonable agreement with theoretical predictions" Right, notwithstanding the fact that half of them were statistically insignificant (Eastward), and the other half weren't significant enough (Westward). "However, those who doubt the validity of conventional relativity theory, and there are many people in this category, probably will not be converted by the results shown in Figure 4. Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in Figure 4 is disturbing" Finally! A glimmer of objectivity shines through. "if our final analysis does not improve agreement, an improved version of this experiment should be given serious consideration." Since nowhere can the complete math for their 'final analysis' (which was performed to arrive at the fudged numbers in Pro's graph from the 1972 paper) be found, Hafele and Keating have not demonstrated experimental support for time-dilation, and in fact, if anything, have only falsified it.This is important to note: there was only one experiment, and it spawned the 1971 report of the raw data. The numbers in the 1972 report were manipulated in order to bring them into glowing agreement with Relativity.I ask the voters to just take a look at the color-coded graph in my previous round, and honestly ask themselves if their is any possible way that a mathematical operation on this data could result in a genuine, non-contrived agreement with the predictions which were so obviously not in accord with the actual results.Pro said that "I have proven that every number offered by Con either supports special relativity or was not the number that Hafele and Keating actually measured." I just proved this is false, and Pro only claims this because he thinks his graph depicts the actual data 'measured' from the clocks.Pro also said: "In regards to two, Hafele's words are being twisted and distorted to take on a different meaning. As his actual words show, Hafele firmly beleived that his experiment offered support for special relativity." I did not distort Hafele's words. His language in the 1971 report was far more reflective of reality than in the 1972 publicaton that brought him and his coexperimenter to worldwide fame. And yes, it seems that Hafele ended up convincing himself that his results confirmed time-dilation, but if that's the case, he's deluded himself. In his desperation to force a favorable report from his data, he must have been decieved by his own contrived math. The fact that (apparently) he refuses to reveal his math to the public supports this theory.But if Pro can find me this math, I'm willing to take this back.