[Round Eyes]

Curious if FET believes in Time Dilation as described by Einstein's Special Relativity?  I believe FET does not believe in General Relativity, but was curious about SR and Time Dilation in particular?  I have some follow up questions depending on the answer, but i was not able to find out thru a search of the wikik

[Dr David Thork]

For those flat earthers that believe in Universal Acceleration, Special Relativity and consequently time dilation are essential. They explain how the the earth can keep accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and yet never reach the speed of light.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

I suspect your follow up questions will relate to gravity and you'll show me some awful hotch potch shoe horned thing like this ...



But scroll up from the image on that page and you'll see it is a misleading diagram.
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_massive/index.html#Misleading

You may then be tempted to bring in the bending of light, but I'll give you fair warning on that one, bendy light is something that goes in FE's favour. I'll refer you to our resident bendy light expert 'Parsifal' for a better explanation of that one. In case you are wondering, Pete Svarrior is our resident bendy darkness expert, but that is advanced FE mechanics.

[Round Eyes]

For those flat earthers that believe in Universal Acceleration, Special Relativity and consequently time dilation are essential. They explain how the the earth can keep accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and yet never reach the speed of light.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

I suspect your follow up questions will relate to gravity and you'll show me some awful hotch potch shoe horned thing like this ...



But scroll up from the image on that page and you'll see it is a misleading diagram.
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_massive/index.html#Misleading

You may then be tempted to bring in the bending of light, but I'll give you fair warning on that one, bendy light is something that goes in FE's favour. I'll refer you to our resident bendy light expert 'Parsifal' for a better explanation of that one. In case you are wondering, Pete Svarrior is our resident bendy darkness expert, but that is advanced FE mechanics.

well, my question has nothing to do with any of the information posted, and i had my suspicions that FE believed in time dilation.  As a side note, I (and any one else that has knowledge in physics) despises that illustration of the gravity and time-space curving.  I brought this up in my Tides thread that  has seem to have lost interest after my last series of unanswered questions.

Interesting again that you confuse basic physics terms...why would my follow up question relate to General Relativity when i specifically said FET didnt beleive that and my question was on General Relativity.  Do you know the difference between these?

My question for the FE experts relates to the Hafele-Keating experiment conducted back in early 70s/late 60s if i recall correctly.  They did an experiment to verify Einsteins prediction of time dilation using atomic clocks.  One plane flew west around the world, the other flew east around the world.  Both went around twice if i recall.  The experiment was to compare the time difference of the clocks on those planes versus the control clocks left on the ground.  both flew at the same height roughly so time change relative to gravitational potential is negligible.  The plane travelling east had a greater overall velocity (travelling with rotation of the earth) compared to one going west.

The results of this test matched up nearly perfect as predicted by Einstein's calculations, within 2% of the expected result if i recall correctly.

now the ONLY way for that to happen is the world is rotating.  if we were on a flat earth, the two should be the same relative time, they did not. 

this experiment has been conducted again since then with even more precise clocks, once in the mid 1990s using multiple clocks and the difference from predicted by formulas was even closer.

what would be the FET explanation for this?

[Round Eyes]

I'll refer you to our resident bendy light expert 'Parsifal' for a better explanation of that one. In case you are wondering, Pete Svarrior is our resident bendy darkness expert, but that is advanced FE mechanics.

by expert, you mean these people have advanced physics and mathematical training?  something beyond an entry level physics course that a psychology major might have to take?  doesnt matter as all the maths i put forth are all covered well in any entry level course, but i have wondered if there are any FET folks that are indeed experts?   would be fascinating to know the technical background on some of these people as it relates to being able to provide answers.  I see a lot of ideas, but not much maths so far on this website.  Most RE items can be explained mathematically.  for example, the time dilation question in my above response, i can provide the math that shows the expected time loss between the stationary clock and the clock that went west and one that went east by assuming the rotation speed of the earth.  OR, we could indeed take the actual results and back calculate what the earth's rotation speed would have to be to get those results.  not the same can be said about many FE theories, but i will be addressing those in subsequent posts, sorry for the tangent.

[Dr David Thork]

Interesting again that you confuse basic physics terms...why would my follow up question relate to General Relativity when i specifically said FET didnt beleive that and my question was on General Relativity.  Do you know the difference between these?

Again? Have I conversed with you before? And it is not me confusing anything. You have 22 posts. How do I know what you are thinking? You said you had follow up questions. Most people go from special relativity (the building block for Universal Acceleration) straight to gravity (the counter to UA), the idea being to try to show orbital mechanics to be correct and there for earth must have formed into a ball under its own weight and be round.

My question for the FE experts relates to the Hafele-Keating experiment conducted back in early 70s/late 60s if i recall correctly.  They did an experiment to verify Einsteins prediction of time dilation using atomic clocks.  One plane flew west around the world, the other flew east around the world.  Both went around twice if i recall.  The experiment was to compare the time difference of the clocks on those planes versus the control clocks left on the ground.  both flew at the same height roughly so time change relative to gravitational potential is negligible.  The plane travelling east had a greater overall velocity (travelling with rotation of the earth) compared to one going west.

The results of this test matched up nearly perfect as predicted by Einstein's calculations, within 2% of the expected result if i recall correctly.

now the ONLY way for that to happen is the world is rotating.  if we were on a flat earth, the two should be the same relative time, they did not. 

this experiment has been conducted again since then with even more precise clocks, once in the mid 1990s using multiple clocks and the difference from predicted by formulas was even closer.

what would be the FET explanation for this?

Why does the earth need to spin? Only a distance needs to be travelled. If I get in a rocket and travel faster than light away from a clock, the theory is the clock goes backwards. If I am under the speed of light but still fast, the clock slows. If I accelerate towards the clock it speeds up. Where is the necessity for spin? They happened to make a cock and bull story about going around the globe, but a circle around the equator of a flat earth would achieve the same thing. It is about motion through time and space, not spinning balls.

[Round Eyes]

Interesting again that you confuse basic physics terms...why would my follow up question relate to General Relativity when i specifically said FET didnt beleive that and my question was on General Relativity.  Do you know the difference between these?

Again? Have I conversed with you before? And it is not me confusing anything. You have 22 posts. How do I know what you are thinking? You said you had follow up questions. Most people go from special relativity (the building block for Universal Acceleration) straight to gravity (the counter to UA), the idea being to try to show orbital mechanics to be correct and there for earth must have formed into a ball under its own weight and be round.

My question for the FE experts relates to the Hafele-Keating experiment conducted back in early 70s/late 60s if i recall correctly.  They did an experiment to verify Einsteins prediction of time dilation using atomic clocks.  One plane flew west around the world, the other flew east around the world.  Both went around twice if i recall.  The experiment was to compare the time difference of the clocks on those planes versus the control clocks left on the ground.  both flew at the same height roughly so time change relative to gravitational potential is negligible.  The plane travelling east had a greater overall velocity (travelling with rotation of the earth) compared to one going west.

The results of this test matched up nearly perfect as predicted by Einstein's calculations, within 2% of the expected result if i recall correctly.

now the ONLY way for that to happen is the world is rotating.  if we were on a flat earth, the two should be the same relative time, they did not. 

this experiment has been conducted again since then with even more precise clocks, once in the mid 1990s using multiple clocks and the difference from predicted by formulas was even closer.

what would be the FET explanation for this?

Why does the earth need to spin? Only a distance needs to be travelled. If I get in a rocket and travel faster than light away from a clock, the theory is the clock goes backwards. If I am under the speed of light but still fast, the clock slows. If I accelerate towards the clock it speeds up. Where is the necessity for spin? They happened to make a cock and bull story about going around the globe, but a circle around the equator of a flat earth would achieve the same thing. It is about motion through time and space, not spinning balls.

well first off, i am sorry that i didnt go down the path that you liked that you had a pre-made repost ready to go and required some additional thought.  But my post was very clear, you are the one that decided to try and interpret what i was going to maybe ask.  i was just looking for confirmation that yes, FET agreed.

As for the experiment, i understand how time dilation works.  the original experiment and subsequent re-do in the 1990s showed there was indeed a velocity difference between the two flights.  one went east, the other west.   if the earth wasnt spinning, how would you account for the significant difference between the two??!   

but your last line is what i was kind of expecting, the whole thing was faked.  how about the experiment in the 1990s then to replicate it?  they provided real time tracking of the two airplanes throughout the entire trip to show speed and distance covered.  they also repeated it and used multiple clocks.  Same result.  the earth is a sphere that rotates, thus the velocity difference between two planes.

[Dr David Thork]

well first off, i am sorry that i didnt go down the path that you liked that you had a pre-made repost ready to go and required some additional thought.  But my post was very clear, you are the one that decided to try and interpret what i was going to maybe ask.  i was just looking for confirmation that yes, FET agreed.

Fine, FET agrees. Most people find one word answers very unrewarding, but I didn't realise I was talking to a machine that doesn't know how to use a search function. Either you wish to converse or you wish to find out information. If you want information, use the search function. Its all there and stop wasting my time. 

As for the experiment, i understand how time dilation works.  the original experiment and subsequent re-do in the 1990s showed there was indeed a velocity difference between the two flights.  one went east, the other west.   if the earth wasnt spinning, how would you account for the significant difference between the two??!   

but your last line is what i was kind of expecting, the whole thing was faked.  how about the experiment in the 1990s then to replicate it?  they provided real time tracking of the two airplanes throughout the entire trip to show speed and distance covered.  they also repeated it and used multiple clocks.  Same result.  the earth is a sphere that rotates, thus the velocity difference between two planes.

It is hard to take such a small sample set seriously. I leave you with a quote from a review of the experiment by Dr Kelly.

It seems that every time I evaluate one of the experiments said to confirm SRT or GRT either the data or the interpretations are poor. Hafele-Keating is no different. You might ask: “Aren’t all important experiments confirmed by others?” Actually, this is seldom the case—of my 320 publications, only one was repeated by others in any detail (see Wills and Borchardt, 1993 vs. Turner and others, 2008). Except for some refinement, the results were essentially the same. To go to the trouble of redoing an experiment, one must be a highly motivated skeptic. Being the second Einstein is not enough. The skeptics I referenced remain unpublished in ranking journals and they probably could not get funds to redo the experiment in any case. Apparently, slip-shod work in favor of relativity has a ready market among believers; those opposed present only a minor inconvenience to the conventional wisdom.

The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science. If they actually had obtained data that supported Einstein’s idea that clocks are slowed simply by increases in velocity, the UD approach still would be necessary to provide a physical explanation. We would have to consider the microcosm (the cesium beam clock) and the macrocosm through which it travels. A hint for the necessity of this is found in the International System (SI) definition of a second as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields (italics mine).” At minimum, cesium beam clocks have to be heavily shielded from magnetic effects—the Hafele clocks were triple shielded. The general appellation “external fields” is a bow to the possibility that there may be other fields to consider. Of course, there are all manner of particles in the Earth’s atmosphere and in the etherosphere (TSW, p. 202). How these would affect the clocks physically was and is still not well known. Clocks on the ground show less variability than the mobile clocks used on the planes, so the macrocosm evidently played an important part in the erratic results. A proper analysis would require an exploration of such effects.

By the way, I also re-read your explanation for the apparent stellar-shift (viz a viz the Eddington eclipse experiment) as being due to refraction in the ‘etherosphere’ and is not evidence for a gravity well or curved space-time around the sun. Such an elegant and simple explanation. Thank you.

You are welcome Bill. You might want to read Moody (2009), which is a similar analysis of the data that Eddington claimed to be the first experimental proof of GRT, catapulting Einstein into the limelight in 1919.

They got the results they wanted to prove the earth is a ball. To hell with the method. When you criticise that as a scientist, you are stoned walled by those adhering to conventional wisdom.

[Round Eyes]

They got the results they wanted to prove the earth is a ball. To hell with the method. When you criticise that as a scientist, you are stoned walled by those adhering to conventional wisdom.

Thork, neither experiment had anything to do with proving the earth was a ball.  why would they, in the 1960s we had known the world was a globe for nearly 2000 years!  the point of the experiment was to prove experimentally Einstein's time dilation equation, which they nailed by the way.  The second experiment had nothing to do with fixing any errors, it occured on the 25th anniversary of the original test and they wanted to see if they could improve upon the accuracy of testing, which they did.

The time dilation equation is quite simple, so maybe if you dont agree with the math used by these experiments and/or the flight paths you could use your flat earth map to draw to flight paths, one going west and one going east and do the math to show the alternate flights as you proposed could provide the same results?

[Dr David Thork]

They got the results they wanted to prove the earth is a ball. To hell with the method. When you criticise that as a scientist, you are stoned walled by those adhering to conventional wisdom.

Thork, neither experiment had anything to do with proving the earth was a ball.

No, they were calculated on the ASSUMPTION the earth was a ball.

why would they, in the 1960s we had known the world was a globe for nearly 2000 years!  the point of the experiment was to prove experimentally Einstein's time dilation equation, which they nailed by the way.

I hardly think ... and I quote ... "The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science" is an example of them 'nailing it'.

The second experiment had nothing to do with fixing any errors, it occured on the 25th anniversary of the original test and they wanted to see if they could improve upon the accuracy of testing, which they did.

The 2nd experiment was a tribute to the first, done in just the same way with all the same errors. It also contains junk data.

The time dilation equation is quite simple, so maybe if you dont agree with the math used by these experiments and/or the flight paths you could use your flat earth map to draw to flight paths, one going west and one going east and do the math to show the alternate flights as you proposed could provide the same results?

Do what maths?

The earth is flat, the times are the same.

Or do you want me to do the maths based on the globular nonsense and bad data from Hafele and Keating to get the same bad answers?

[Round Eyes]

The earth is flat, the times are the same.

Or do you want me to do the maths based on the globular nonsense and bad data from Hafele and Keating to get the same bad answers?

no, i was interested in what the math would work out on a flat earth for the flights "around the world" and how that could possibly result in similar observed results?  taking an assumed route/length per the flat earth map of your choice.  Since both planes went around the world the proper distances would be similar, and those can be plotted.  so i was thinking we could plot the paths for two round trips, one going east and one going west and we could use that to determine velocity based on the time they took (to match the hafele/keating experiment for takeoff and arrival times) and do the simple calculations on what the expected time dilation would be. 

[Dr David Thork]

Again, you would expect no time dilation. And being as the aforementioned experiment is "an embarrassment to science", I don't see why I'd have to make any effort to shoehorn our theories to fit those numbers.

For us if the distance is the same, the altitude is the same, the flight time is the same, cruising speeds are the same, then the dilation is the same. No maths needed, both sides of the equation balance ... difference = 0.

[Round Eyes]

Again, you would expect no time dilation. And being as the aforementioned experiment is "an embarrassment to science", I don't see why I'd have to make any effort to shoehorn our theories to fit those numbers.

For us if the distance is the same, the altitude is the same, the flight time is the same, cruising speeds are the same, then the dilation is the same. No maths needed, both sides of the equation balance ... difference = 0.

given your parameters, i would agree, the difference would be zero (between the two planes).  but it wasnt.  meaning velocities were different, and the only explanation was that going east vs west and accounting for the spin of the earth.   

So Baby Thork...this is awkward...but do you just realize you proved the Earth is a rotating sphere 

[Dr David Thork]

Again, you would expect no time dilation. And being as the aforementioned experiment is "an embarrassment to science", I don't see why I'd have to make any effort to shoehorn our theories to fit those numbers.

For us if the distance is the same, the altitude is the same, the flight time is the same, cruising speeds are the same, then the dilation is the same. No maths needed, both sides of the equation balance ... difference = 0.

given your parameters, i would agree, the difference would be zero (between the two planes).  but it wasnt.  meaning velocities were different, and the only explanation was that going east vs west and accounting for the spin of the earth.   

So Baby Thork...this is awkward...but do you just realize you proved the Earth is a rotating sphere 

You seem to very conveniently miss the part where I've quoted 3 times for you ... and now a 4th

The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science.

You've proved sod all, apart from the fact you have trouble reading.

[Round Eyes]

Again, you would expect no time dilation. And being as the aforementioned experiment is "an embarrassment to science", I don't see why I'd have to make any effort to shoehorn our theories to fit those numbers.

For us if the distance is the same, the altitude is the same, the flight time is the same, cruising speeds are the same, then the dilation is the same. No maths needed, both sides of the equation balance ... difference = 0.

given your parameters, i would agree, the difference would be zero (between the two planes).  but it wasnt.  meaning velocities were different, and the only explanation was that going east vs west and accounting for the spin of the earth.   

So Baby Thork...this is awkward...but do you just realize you proved the Earth is a rotating sphere 

You seem to very conveniently miss the part where I've quoted 3 times for you ... and now a 4th

The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science.

You've proved sod all, apart from the fact you have trouble reading.

i didnt ignore anything, that statement isn't true.  no one thinks the data was an embarrassment to science, well other than FET folks who find their results very damning to there model and way of thinking.   i actually read thru the full link (found it elsewhere as well) and the person who wrote that has been discredited and provided to not understand how and what the test proved.  its nonsense.  there are no credible physics institutions that agree the data was an embarrassment to science.  At the time the test was performed there was no one trying to say the world was flat, so the after the fact discrediting of that experiment now that it conflicts FET is quite telling.

But seriously, congratulations on proving a round earth    it was a compliment.

[rabinoz]

For those flat earthers that believe in Universal Acceleration, Special Relativity and consequently time dilation are essential. They explain how the the earth can keep accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and yet never reach the speed of light.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Equivalence Principle
The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".

And "those flat earthers that believe in Universal Acceleration" seem to rely on the Equivalence Principle but that was just a stepping stone on Einstein's development of General Relativity.
General Relativity (in the low velocity, low mass limit) includes all the Newtonian Laws of Motion and Gravitation. It seems strange to me that "those flat earthers" are prepared to believe Einstein so far but no further.

I suspect your follow up questions will relate to gravity and you'll show me some awful hotch potch shoe horned thing like this ...



But scroll up from the image on that page and you'll see it is a misleading diagram.
https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_massive/index.html#Misleading

Sure "you'll see it is a misleading diagram" if you regard the vertical as "curved space".
That article Einstein for Everyone, Gravity Near a Massive Body by John D. Norton is certainly an excellent explanation of GR near earth and it points out little space is really curved.

You may then be tempted to bring in the bending of light, but I'll give you fair warning on that one, bendy light is something that goes in FE's favour. I'll refer you to our resident bendy light expert 'Parsifal' for a better explanation of that one. In case you are wondering, Pete Svarrior is our resident bendy darkness expert, but that is advanced FE mechanics.

No, I doubt that "bendy light is something that goes in FE's favour".
FE needs light to be bent the wrong way up to 90° and, if memory serves me correctly, GR has it bending 1.75 arcseconds if it just grazes the sun - about 333,000 times as massive as earth.
Bring on your bendy light hypothesis!