Hafele and Keating revisited: A novel interpretation of the results of the Hafele‐Keating experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hafele‐Keating experiment showed the occurrence of time dilation in clocks placed on two airplanes, one moving eastward and one moving westward relative to the Earth’s rotation. However, the application of the special theory of relativity failed to account for the significant differences in the data. This problem is solved by a novel approach that focuses on the absolute velocities of the clocks with reference to the Earth’s rotation and uses space as a fixed reference point. The basic idea here is that time dilatation is an experimental fact and, therefore, independent from the theory behind it, so it is independent from relativism. Time dilatation also can occur under absolute conditions. Up until now, it is not clear if the concept of relativism is correct or not. The existence of time dilatation cannot be proofs for relativism as time dilatation also can occur under absolute conditions. Here, it is established that the eastbound plane had a higher absolute velocity than its westbound counterpart, resulting in time dilation figures of 50 and 140 ns, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".