The Hafele-Keating Experiment Supports Special Relativity

Ave(I switched from 12pt to 14pt font to make the text larger. I know what it's like to read a lot of complex information written in tiny text.) I would like to note that Con is basing many of his arguments off of the link he offers at the bottom. Firstly, he fails to explicitly attribute any of this to the author, which I find concerning. Secondly, the author himself is a conspiracy theorist who denies that Hafele and Keating even published the numbers that they actually measured. This is a radically unhistorical view of Hafele and Keating that is not accepted by the consensus in either the history of science or science itself. Furthermore, despite the fact that he has a PhD, he provides no evidence of any legitimate academic credentials or publications. I myself did a search on google scholar and could not find any scientific publications from him. For these reasons, the validity of this source is seriously in doubt. Con’s first argument is that the times measured on the clocks were different from the times predicted by special relativity. He claims that these numbers are based on Hafele and Keating’s paper, even linking us the paper for us to verify his claim on our own. Unfortunately, Con’s claims are totally inconsistent with Hafele and Keating’s paper. Here is an image of their paper stating the results of their experiment. From "Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains". Published in the journal Science in 1972. [1]Con claims that clock 408 gained 165 nanoseconds when traveling in the eastward direction. However, Hafele and Keating’s results clearly state that clock 408 lost fifty-five seconds in the eastward direction, as special relativity would predict. Con claims that clock 408 gained 101 nanoseconds in the westward direction. The actual number was 266 nanoseconds, but even if it was 101 nanoseconds, special relativity predicts a gain in nanoseconds in the westward direction. For this reason, Con supports special relativity when he states that clock 408 gained milliseconds in the westward direction.Con claims that clock 361 lost 54 nanoseconds in the eastward direction. Again, he is supporting special relativity here, as special relativity predicts a loss of time when traveling in the eastward direction. Con claims that clock 361 lost 44 nanoseconds in the westward direction. This is false, as Hafele and Keating clearly state in the above image that clock 361 gained 284 nanoseconds in the westward direction, as special relativity would predict.Con claims that clock 120 lost 196 nanoseconds in the eastward direction. Again, he is supporting special relativity here, as special relativity predicts a loss of time when traveling in the eastward direction. Con claims that clock 120 should have gained 275 nanoseconds in the westward direction, but actually gained 413 nanoseconds. In reality, clock 120 gained 277 nanoseconds.Con claims that clock 447 lost 96 nanoseconds in the eastward direction. In actuality, clock 447 lost 51 nanoseconds in the eastward direction. Both numbers, however, are consistent with special relativity’s prediction of a loss of time in the eastward direction. He claims that Hafele and Keating predicted clock 447 to gain 275 nanoseconds, but measured that it only gained 26 nanoseconds. However, their paper clearly shows that the measured a time gain of 266 nanoseconds.Con claims that clock 447 was the “most stable and “experienced the least time dilation”. Since it experienced the least time dilation, Con takes this as proof that time dilation is just caused by clock instability. His argument is clearly absurd, as clock 408 experienced time dilation that was approximately equal to clock 447’s, yet was described by Con as “drifting very erratically”. If time dilation is caused by instability, then we would expect the “stable” clock 447 to experience less time dilation than the “unstable” clock 408. However, they both experienced similar amounts of time dilation. Therefore, Con’s hypothesis is demonstrably false.Con concludes by writing that “only 2 out of 8 data points are consistent with special relativity”. In reality, all of the clocks in the eastward direction lost time, and all of the clocks in the westward direction gained time, which is exactly what special relativity would predict.Con quotes Hafele as stating that “"the difference between theory and measurement[...] is disturbing".”. Hafele did state these words, but their meaning has been distorted. In the very same paper, Hafele writes that “The results of this analysis are in reasonable agreement with theoretical predictions.” He also states that "In any event, this experiment verifies unequivocally the existence of the predicted east-west directional asymmetry; only more precise magnitudes remain to be established.” Is Hafele contradicting himself in the same paragraph, or has the meaning been distorted? The latter option is abundantly clear. Dr. Thomas Swanson, professor of physics at Oregon State, says that the quote “is taken from a section where he has prefaced his discussion by saying it after the preliminary analysis; the westward time delay is centered at 150 nsec, with large error bars. In the final analysis, published in Science, it ended up at 273±7 nsec. (the preliminary nature is abundantly clear if you read the entire paper; it is specifically discussed in the transcript of the Q&A at the end)“. He concludes by stating “There are other quotes, and not particularly careful examination is needed to show that these, too, are taken out of context so as to change the meaning”. [2]Con quotes Hafele as stating that “"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything". Professor Swanson states that the quote “is actually taken from a broader statement about the reasoning behind taking four clocks so that they can be averaged, because the precision of one clock was insufficient to do the experiment.” [3] Hafele’s meaning has been distorted once again.Con's argument relies on two things. 1) The interpretation of the numbers he offered and 2) The interpretation of the quotes he offered. In the case of 1), I have proven that every number offered by Con either supports special relativity or was not the number that Hafele and Keating actually measured. In every case where Con incorrectly stated the number measured by Hafele and Keating, the correct number was predicted by special relativity. 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.Con's argument amounts to nothing more than false information or out of context quotes. For this reason, a Pro vote is the most justified Vale References http://www.sciencemag.org... http://www.scienceforums.net... Ibid