[Kryptid]

Why do you add the rotating speed of the Earth to the speed of the  east aircraft?

Because that's how you will get the angular velocity.

I offered to overcome this problem: On the same line the aircrafts can go to opposite directions (we can see them on straight line for first 20 minute without rotating motion). If their flying speed are also the same, acceleration is not mentioned.

And that's where your error is. Their velocities relative to the ground are the same, but their angular velocities are not the same. The plane traveling in the direction of Earth's rotation has a higher angular velocity than the plane traveling against the Earth's rotation. Due to the equivalence principle, an acceleration has the same effect as gravity. Gravity causes time dilation. Greater acceleration causes time dilation. The plane with the greater acceleration therefore experiences greater time dilation.

Light has not a measured mass

They have a relativistic mass ala E=mc².

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Why do you add the rotating speed of the Earth to the speed of the  east aircraft?

1- Because that's how you will get the angular velocity.

I offered to overcome this problem: On the same line the aircrafts can go to opposite directions (we can see them on straight line for first 20 minute without rotating motion). If their flying speed are also the same, acceleration is not mentioned.

2/3- And that's where your error is. Their velocities relative to the ground are the same, but their angular velocities are not the same. The plane traveling in the direction of Earth's rotation has a higher angular velocity than the plane traveling against the Earth's rotation. Due to the equivalence principle, an acceleration has the same effect as gravity. Gravity causes time dilation. Greater acceleration causes time dilation. The plane with the greater acceleration therefore experiences greater time dilation.

Light has not a measured mass

4- They have a relativistic mass ala E=mc².

1- In SR, train/aircraft etc. must travel on straight path.

2- In SR,  If a Earth's clock is comparison/reference frame, you have not to add the Earth's speed to speed of train/aircraft etc. If you consider two trains; confusing will be over.

3- Their velocities relative to the ground are the same. I agree. And your figure's analysis get base relative to ground; ground/earth is used as an inertial frame. Please don't upset SR.

4- A photon never get any additive speed from source's speed.

[Kryptid]

1- In SR, train/aircraft etc. must travel on straight path.

Which is why you must also take general relativity into account for the Hafele-Keating experiment, because the paths are not straight.

2- In SR,  If a Earth's clock is comparison/reference frame, you have not to add the Earth's speed to speed of train/aircraft etc. If you consider two trains; confusing will be over.

Replacing the planes with trains wouldn't make any difference, because they are still following a circular path by going around the Earth. So the trains would be experiencing an angular acceleration just as the planes would.

3- Their velocities relative to the ground are the same. I agree. And your figure's analysis get base relative to ground; ground/earth is used as an inertial frame. Please don't upset SR.

The ground itself isn't in an inertial frame either, because the Earth spins. The ground thus has an angular acceleration just as the planes do.

- A photon never get any additive speed from source's speed.

Nor did I ever say that it did.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

I had focused to SR mentality. 

To suggest the GR as evidence for SR is interesting. As if, GR is correct. The flaw of GR had been explained by me (please look at the attach. figure). Natural reality is (interpretation of LCS) figure.


In ancient egypt, zdhoser multiple stage pyramid's third stage  has been formerly built than 1 and 2 stages. Age detection experiments proved this.

The experiments that supports SR are similar this fiction. In technical essence of SR, there is a local postulate and this postulate is wrong at universal scale or for light kinematics: SR ignore the types of relativity, following analyses and inferences never be correct.

Your evidence figure looks like a tactic of misinformation: if you cannot convince,  try confusing.

[Kryptid]

To suggest the GR as evidence for SR is interesting.

It isn't. You just need both to account for the Hafele-Keating experiment.

The experiments that supports SR are similar this fiction.

So then what did the experiments do wrong? What specific step in the process is incorrect?

Your evidence figure looks like a tactic of misinformation: if you cannot convince,  try confusing.

Are you accusing me of lying now?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

To suggest the GR as evidence for SR is interesting.

1- It isn't. You just need both to account for the Hafele-Keating experiment.

The experiments that supports SR are similar this fiction.

2- So then what did the experiments do wrong? What specific step in the process is incorrect?

Your evidence figure looks like a tactic of misinformation: if you cannot convince,  try confusing.

3- Are you accusing me of lying now?

2- I'll repeat: Light kinematics must be analysed with  eight essential factors. If some of them is neglected/ignored, conclusions don' t match with natural reality. As known, SR has two postulates and one of them is wrong and this is weakest point of SR: SR accepts that a photon's speed is "exact/genuine relative" (like the relationship of car and its road). Whereas there are the kinds of relativity; and for light "hypothetical/pseudo relativity" (like ball-player relationship: the distance between the ball and player increase/decrease with the speed  V _ball + / - V _player for following times) is more feasible. To use common-reference frame (like the ground) is gold standard for mechanics and light kinematics. On your evidence experiment the east aircraft's relative speed according to the earth has been given as the value V_earth + V_aircraft. If comparison clock is on the earth; this value is clearly wrong (it is only V_aircraft). We don't need to mention the elementary physics again.

3- NO, I carried an opinion about the content of your figure or Hafele-Keating experiment like other tendential papers (e.g. muon lifetime).

Please examine that link:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gsjournal/einsteiniana-the-hafele-keating-hoax-t4411.html

[Kryptid]

As known, SR has two postulates and one of them is wrong

I haven't seen any postulate of special relativity demonstrated to be wrong yet.

We don't need to mention the elementary physics again.

As long as you keep ignoring the acceleration, I'm going to keep mentioning it.

3- NO, I said my opinion about the content of your figure or Hafele-Keating experiment like other tendential papers (e.g. muon lifetime).

Please examine that link:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gsjournal/einsteiniana-the-hafele-keating-hoax-t4411.html

Oh, so you're accusing the experimenters of lying instead. That's not any better.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Oh, so you're accusing the experimenters of lying instead. That's not any better.

No, I have not a luxury like accusing of lying. We can say that their analysis is wrong; they may convinced  theirselves like Einstein; Lorentz, Poincare, and others; that is, the result is seemed as misinformation. 

[Kryptid]

No, I have not a luxury like accusing of lying.

Then why did you link to a post that stated this?

Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results

The title of that thread even calls it a hoax.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

No, I have not a luxury like accusing of lying.

Then why did you link to a post that stated this?

Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results

The title of that thread even calls it a hoax.

1- When you ask to google, some other objections can also be seen. I shared one of them randomly.

Perhaps, some followers may be feeled desire about using their cognitive performance for questioning SR.

Of course, first step must be the comprehending the types of relativity and their contents. Link: https://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044


2-Perhaps that phrase can define the status: reinforced/aimfully interpretation accompanied by intent to verify SR.

However, to add the earth' s rotating speed to the speed of aircraft is wrong (even, when we assign solar system as reference frame). Competent physicists do not accept this. The evidence is obvious: The airplane of Newyork-Tokyo (east travel) is not got smaller time than west travel. In addition, the atmosphere causes almost one hour delay compared distance. This subject can be used in physics exams.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Is It Really Faster to Fly East Than West?

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/why-is-it-faster-to-fly-east-than-west

Here's where a lot of people start getting confused. Because we know the earth is rotating eastward, there is an assumption that this motion would also help hurl westward flights faster towards their destination. There's just one problem with that. Everything on earth, not just the ground, but also the water (and even the atmosphere), is rotating in the same direction, Forbes reported . Since planes in the sky are being pulled eastward with the earth, it takes more time to go west. Think of it kind of like walking against the wind.

 

[Kryptid]

That's not the same as how long it takes each plane to fly in a circle.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

There is no manipulation. Time lost and time gained are relative to the clock left back on Earth. This video explains it:

All three clocks in the experiment would experience time dilation relative to a clock floating in free space. However, one of the planes experiences more time dilation than the clock on the ground and the other experiences less time dilation than the clock on the ground. This is why one plane is recorded as gaining time and the other as losing time (because it's relative to the clock on the ground). This is consistent with what relativity predicts, not inconsistent with it.

Let me try to think like you accompanied by empathy. If the reference clock is positioned as absolute constant in the outer space outside the world, we can consider the relative displacement of the hours as V_earth+/- V<sub>aircraft [/sub.]But this is not the case in the experiment: the comparison clock rotates on Earth with the world. This explanation has technical significance .Therefore, for the kinematic effect, the speed difference between the clocks on the planes and the clock on the earth should be taken (that is Vaircraft)   The kinematic effect cannot be explained by the special theory of relativity for this experiment.

In scientific analyses, every step must be questioned by stringent discipline. In interpretation of Hafele Keating experiment, relative atomic clocks' speeds (according to reference atomic clock) are only the speed values of aircrafts and they are almost equal. When even the Earth  rotates, the distance between relative clocks and reference clock increases with only the speed of aircraft, not Vearth +/- Vaircraft.</sub>

[Kryptid]

When even the Earth  rotates, the distance between relative clocks and reference clock increases with only the speed of aircraft, not Vearth +/- Vaircraft.

Yes, but the acceleration of each clock is different.

[Bobolink]

Let me try to think like you accompanied by empathy. If the reference clock is positioned as absolute constant in the outer space outside the world, we can consider the relative displacement of the hours as Vearth+/- Vaircraft [/sub.]But this is not the case in the experiment: the comparison clock rotates on Earth with the world. This explanation has technical significance .Therefore, for the kinematic effect, the speed difference between the clocks on the planes and the clock on the earth should be taken (that is Vaircraft)   The kinematic effect cannot be explained by the special theory of relativity for this experiment.

You are not interpreting what is going on in the experiment correctly.
The rotational speed of the earth 1000 mph.  The planes speed 500 mph. 
Initially the planes and the earth are in the same reference frame.  The plane that is going in the direction of the earth rotation accelerated to a new RF that is faster than the Earth's rotation, 1000 + 500 mph.  The plane that is going in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation decelerated to a RF that is slower than the Earth's rotation, 1000 - 500 mph.

It may help to look at the same scenario with linear movement.  If a spaceship moving at 1000 mph sends a probe at 500 mph relative to the ship along the line of travel, an observer at rest relative to the spaceship will see the probe moving at 1500 mph.  If the ship sends a probe at 500 mph relative to the ship, in the opposite direction of travel, an observer at rest will see the probe moving at 500 mph in the same direction as the ship.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

You are not interpreting what is going on in the experiment correctly.
The rotational speed of the earth 1000 mph.  The planes speed 500 mph. 
Initially the planes and the earth are in the same reference frame.  The plane that is going in the direction of the earth rotation accelerated to a new RF that is faster than the Earth's rotation, 1000 + 500 mph.  The plane that is going in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation decelerated to a RF that is slower than the Earth's rotation, 1000 - 500 mph.

looks like that in the first approach, right?

You say "Eastern aircraft travels around the world in 17 hours, and Western aircraft travels around the world in 51 hours".



The relationship of special relativity theory and  humanity are the same: First approach. 

The complex structure of nature facts and events and human intellectual performance are not at the same level. When we analyze the movement of light without considering the types of relativity, we can find fantasy results. and that's exactly how it happened.

[Kryptid]

When we analyze the movement of light without considering the types of relativity, we can find fantasy results. and that's exactly how it happened.

You have yet to make that case.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

When even the Earth  rotates, the distance between relative clocks and reference clock increases with only the speed of aircraft, not Vearth +/- Vaircraft.

Yes, but the acceleration of each clock is different.

Acceleration: I think, you mean the projection of the aircrafts' speed vector on a straigth line. Yes acceleration will be realized and SR does not want acceleration. However GR says that acceleration causes to  bend  of the light's path. 

What is the conclusion? Does this acceleration effect verify the SR?

[Bobolink]

looks like that in the first approach, right?

Yes, and on the second and third too.

You say "Eastern aircraft travels around the world in 17 hours, and Western aircraft travels around the world in 51 hours".

Now you are going to tell lies, to support you position?  Never a good debating tactic.

The relationship of special relativity theory and  humanity are the same: First approach. 

The complex structure of nature facts and events and human intellectual performance are not at the same level. When we analyze the movement of light without considering the types of relativity, we can find fantasy results. and that's exactly how it happened.

Apparently English is not your first language, I think you need a better translating program.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

SR declares that it considers Maxwell's definition about light's propagation; but its analysis verifies fitzgerald contraction of aether hypothesis. This is interesting.

I gave some clues for the flaws of SR. You have to trust only your own cognitive performance to analyse them.

You may see some other complex texts (that are strangled with formulas) against SR.

My studies are simplier (at least without formulas): Please google

Essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity

Weakest point of special relativity

An experiment for Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

Methodological Defects in Relativity Theories and Primary Principles of Light Kinematics

The Path of Light on a Moving Body


Note. I'll answer technical questions.