Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

If that test was done again which result would be verified? Would the accepted conclusion be the clock was or wasn't slowed by the fact it was in motion? TVF says(I think he says) this test is done every day by GPS hardware and the clocks do slow because of motion.

Jim,

Two points:

1 - If the H&K test data refutes time dilation then one must ask why we are even having this discussion. My take on the information was two fold.

a - The data was far to erratic to draw any conclusions.

b - They apparently doctored the data result in publication to make a stronger claim.

That being the case the test results are in question and the claim of time dialtion is in question.

2 - You are correct Tom does say GPS verifies it. But the problem here is the same with all such claims.

There is no clock on earth today that measures time. Each is a function of a process and processes may change without any affect on or by time perse. Such test have not even shown that time exists much less behaves in a particular fashion.

If I measure time by the evaporation rate of water in a pan and I then heat the pan to accelerate the evaporation rate, have I accelerated time?

Of course not I have accelerated the rate of evaporation. Where motion may enfluence a process rate one simply cannot assume that it is time that has changed.


Knowing to believe only half
of what you hear is a sign
of intelligence. Knowing
which half to believe can
make you a genius.

I have made to believe no two clocks can be made to keep the same time so I think maybe the data was influenced by that. Why not do the test now with better everything and see what the result is? You can't get that from GPS but it would be a simple matter to do the test over would it not? I don't want to go to the other stuff you have here.

Jim,

We agree that the test should be repeated every time there is an improvement in technology but I simply think it is not prudent to disregard the underlying problem with assuming the data proves what they claim it proves:

"If I measure time by the evaporation rate of water in a pan and I then heat the pan to accelerate the evaporation rate, have I accelerated time?

Of course not I have accelerated the rate of evaporation. Where motion may enfluence a process rate one simply cannot assume that it is time that has changed."





Knowing to believe only half
of what you hear is a sign
of intelligence. Knowing
which half to believe can
make you a genius.

If the data is bogus new data will correct that problem whatever it means is a completely separate matter. You guys are saying the data has been falsified so do it over then and when there is reliable data you can debate what it means. First things first, yaknow.

Jim,

Actually there is no disagreement here. For me the primary issue isn't even that they leaned on their penciles to make the results confirm preconcived conclusions. the issues is even if the data hadn't been falsified or should a new test validate the old conclusion they are making assumptions about the data that are unjustified.

Doing a successful test producing the results predicted would not resolve the prolem because more alternative explanations exist. It merely becomes one of many possibilities and concluding it is this particular one has logical problems compared to other conclusions. A failure on the other hand would be signifigant.

Knowing to believe only half
of what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe can make you
a genius.