Re: 1971 Time dilation plane experiment looks flawed

guskz_at_hotmail.com
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: 9 Feb 2005 07:42:42 -0800

Bill Hobba wrote:
> <guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107904956.253482.70110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
> >
> > 1. Two planes left at the same speed off the surface of Earth but
their
> > time dilation is not calculated from the surface of Earth because
Earth
> > is also moving(spinning) but instead the calculations are based on
the
> > CENTER of Earth as the Inertial Reference Frame. (They called it
> > kinematic time dilation)
> >
> > 2. It seems that if they left off the surface of Earth, therefore
the
> > Time dilation should be measured from the location of separation
> > (Surface) and not the center of Earth.
> >
> > 3. As well who says the center of Earth is not also moving
(opposite to
> > Inertial)
>
> ??????? - Opposite to inertial? All inertial frames are equivalent.
>
> > like the surface of Earth since the Earth is spinning about
> > the Sun and both may be moving quite fast within the Universe and
even
> > the Universe may be moving....
>
> The assumption is the center of the earth is stationary in some
inertial
> frame - the fact the earth rotates etc makes no difference to the
fact that
> the center of the earth is stationary in an inertial frame if you
> specifically consider a coordinate system where it is.
>
> >
> > Even the clock on the surface of the Earth exibited a time dilation
by
> > calculations with relations to the center of the Earth.
> >
>
> It exhibited time dilation due to the fact it is in a gravity well.
Such is
> not present when considering the centre of the earth is stationary in
an
> inertial frame - if you are far enough away from the earth. Now not
having
> seen the detail of the calculations you are doubting I can not be
sure but I
> would suggest if the effect of gravity were ignored it was because
they
> would have made negligible corrections.
>
> >
> > So why stop at only the center of the Earth...why not the Sun or
the
> > Universe as Inertial Reference Frames to determine time dilation???
>
> Since all inertial frame are equivalent we can choose any we like -
the one
> where the center of the earth is stationary is simply convenient. In
fact
> it may not be strictly inertial - but I have no doubt, for the
calculations
> being considered, any deviations would be negligible.
>
> I have read a couple of your posts ands honestly I think you are very
> confused about quite fundamental things. You should get then
straight
> before criticizing a theory.
>
> Bill

The Earth's surface is moving lateraly away form the Center INERTIAL
Earth at say 10km/s.

The 1971 plane's Time dilation was based on the Center of the Earth and
not in anyway from the Earth's surface where they took off (nor in
relation with the revolving Atmosphere around the Earth).

So pretend the Earth's center was invisible, all they could see was the
Earth's surface where they took off....they could therefore not
calculate the time dilation = stupid.

Likewise what if the Earth's center is moving very fast around a
centered Universe....why did they stop their Inertial Reference Frame
at the center of the Earth instead of the Universe's (Once again the
atmosphere had nothing to do with the Calculations).

Be honest....you do see the flaw.

There test provide tangeable values PERHAPS only because the center of
the Earth is the center of the strongest gravity around them.....and
gravity affects time dilation with the same gamma factor (meaning not
linearly).

My guess it could be a relationship with velocity and gravity that's
generating the kinematic time dilation they specified in the 1971
Experiment.
(Perhaps more of a Relavisitic Mass(hence gravity) increase with
velocity rather than velocity increase alone affecting Time
Dilation....for they aslo specify very clearly that gravity affects
time dilation (see link provided)).

Relevant Pages