These types of tests are fully fabricated tests. A brilliant example of a fabricated test is the Hafele-Keating experiment (supported by mathematical equations based on the “famous” results of the special theory of relativity).
During October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist (Department of Physics, Washington University), and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer (Time Service Division, U.S. Naval Observatory), took cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world in opposite directions near the equator (first eastward, then westward with different sets of clocks), and compared the clocks with reference clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. The reported result of the experiment was that a time dilation was registered as differences between the three sets of clocks – that their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
According to contemporary physics, “the reported results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous relativistic “clock-paradox” with macroscopic clocks”.
The theoretical staging of the experiment is presented in the paper “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains” as follows:
“Special relativity predicts that a moving standard clock will record less time compared with (real or hypothetical) coordinate clocks distributed at rest in an inertial reference space.” (Hafele & Keating, 1972a).
This assertion is an inaccurate interpretation, due to the perhaps inaccurate definition of the frames of reference used in the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, where the special theory of relativity was published. In fact, in the section “Definition of Simultaneity” of his article, Einstein argued the use of the term “stationary system” in the following way:
“In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.” (Einstein, 1905a).
The lack of a precise definition of reference systems by Joseph Haflej and Richard D. Keating has also led to their mixing, and that is very misleading.
The lack of an exact definition of the frames of reference by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating has also led to their mixing… and this is very misleading. But let us distinguish the really existing reference systems as they are in this report:
• Moving frame of reference – related to the surface of the Earth, which moves in the“reference space” with the respective linear velocity of the Earth’s surface at the equator. Actually, the origin of this coordinate system is the starting point of the travel with the airplanes (on the equator), and the x-axis is directed to the east. In this frame of reference (as accepted in this report), the airplane velocity in the east direction is +v (for an eastward circumnavigation of the Earth (v>0)), and the airplane velocity in the west direction is -v (for a westward circumnavigation of the Earth (v<0)).
• “Stationary” reference system – related to the stationary “non-rotating space”. Usually, the examination of the experiments is in the “Earth-centered inertial (ECI) frame of reference”, but in this report, the origin of the coordinate system is the North pole:
“For this purpose, consider a view of the (rotating) earth as it would be perceived by an inertial observer looking down on the North Pole from a great distance.” (Hafele & Keating, 1972a).
In this stationary reference system (for the “inertial” observer from the North Pole):
“A clock that is stationary on the surface at the equator has a speed Rω relative to nonrotating space, and hence runs slow relative to hypothetical coordinate clocks of this space in the ratio (1-R2Ω2/2c2), where R is the earth’s radius and Ω its angular speed. On the other hand, a flying clock circumnavigating the earth near the surface in the equatorial plane with a ground speed v has a coordinate speed RΩ+v, and hence runs slow with a corresponding time ratio 1-(RΩ+v)2⁄2c2. ” (Hafele & Keating, 1972a).
• first, that the North Pole observer is actually stationary in the non-rotating space, because they are located on the axis of rotation of the Earth; and
• secondly, that for them (in this frame of reference related to the stationary space): the ground linear velocity at the equator is RΩ; the velocity of the airplane flying eastward (in the direction of rotation of the Earth) is (RΩ + v); and the velocity of the airplane flying westward (against the Earth’s rotation) is (RΩ – v).
It turns out, however, that the authors of this paper make a mistake about the considered frames of reference – which are totally mixed.
That is why and the conclusion, which the authors give, certainly provokes perplexity for the supporters of the special theory of relativity:
“Consequently, a circumnavigation in the direction of the earth’s rotation (eastward, v > 0) should produce a time loss, while one against the earth’s rotation (westward, v < 0) should produce a time gain for the flying clock if |v| ~ RΩ.” (Hafele & Keating, 1972a).
According to the special relativity, the observer’s clock in the inertial reference system, called a “stationary system” by Einstein “to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others” (see the quotation in the given here analysis), should be faster than the clocks that move in relation to it, regardless of the direction of moving. In other words, the clocks on the flying airplanes must be lagging (the time must go slower) in relation to the clocks in the U.S. Naval Observatory – regardless of the flight direction of the airplanes! It turns out that the experimenters are not aware with the results of the special theory of relativity, i.e. with the results, whose validity they want to prove!
But not only this inaccuracy makes it clear that the experiment was fabricated. This is also evident from the reported results.
The reported results of the experiment presented in the article “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains” (Hafele & Keating, 1972b), published in the journal “Science” (the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), today with a five-year impact-factor equaled to 35.26), are:
1) The clock on the airplane, flying to the East (in the direction of rotation of the Earth), runs slower than the clock located in the U.S. Naval Observatory (Latitude: 38° 55′ 16.5403″, which is far from the North Pole, the point, where the experimenters have indicated that is in the “non-rotating space”) :
• according to the theoretical formulas presented in the article – with (-40 +/- 23 ns), and according to the clock readings – with (-59 +/- 10 ns).
2) The clock in the airplane, flying to the West (contrariwise of the direction of rotation of the Earth), runs faster than the clock located in the U.S. Naval Observatory (Latitude: 38° 55′ 16.5403″, which is not the North Pole, i.e. not in the “non-rotating space”):
• according to the theoretical formulas
presented in the article – with
(+ 275 +/- 21 ns), and according to the clock readings – with (+ 273 +/- 7 ns)
The final reported conclusion of the experimenters (and approved by the journal “Science”), is :
“These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock “paradox” with macroscopic clocks.” (Hafele & Keating, 1972 b).
However, some of the questions that readers of this article may ask are:
First, the reference clocks, as indicated, (in relation to which the experimenters measure the differences with the “flying clocks”), are located in the US Naval Observatory (latitude 38° 55′ 16.5403″) – which is far from the North or the South Pole (as shown in the formulas presented).
Secondly, as already mentioned, in the results of the special theory of relativity there is no assertion that the time will run slower or faster, depending on the direction of the motion of the inertial system!
Thirdly, according to the special theory of relativity, time runs slower (time slows down) at a higher speed of movement. Consequently (if the special theory of relativity is true), the clock of an observer located on the equator will run permanently slower in regard to the clock of an “inertial” observer located on the North or South Pole (the intersection of the axis of rotation of the Earth with the Earth’s surface), because the linear velocity of the surface at the equator is approximately RΩ = 0.46 km ⁄s (1,656km/h), and the speed of the Earth’s surface on the poles is zero. In other words, an atomic clock in Sweden will be constantly faster than an identical atomic clock located near to the Amazon River in Brazil… and that experiment would not have been needed!
So, if the special theory of relativity is true, why do not we adjust the clocks according to the latitude? The answer may be only one:
The “experiment Hafele-Keating” is a brilliant example of a fabricated experiment and the extent to which the “internationally recognized physics journals” are scientific!
(see the subpages of “THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL SOCIETY”)
The truth is that the atomic clock will run faster in regions with a weaker intensity of the gravitational field. The technology development and the accuracy of measurement make possible tests proving the change of the properties of atoms when changing their location to regions with different intensity of the gravitational field. For example, many experiments confirm this fact – that the atomic clock runs faster at higher altitudes (in the mountain). This is a prediction of the general theory of relativity, and in fact proves that the characteristics of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the atoms change, depending on the intensity of the gravitational field (see subsection 8.3 of the book).
Increasing the frequency and wavelength of the same electromagnetic radiation emitted by the same atom can be experimented on a space station, such as “the International Space Station (ISS)”. This would also show unambiguously that the speed of light in vacuum increases in regions with a weaker gravitational field. This will launch a new realistic concept of the physical reality of the Universe.