Ether & the Hafele-Keating Experiment

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by wisp</i>
<br />it does not give a reason why it only works if the line through the Earth's axis of rotation is chosen as its reference frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The stated reason is that the Earth-centered inertial frame is the appropriate frame for analysis. The equatorial frame is non-inertial. (Personally, I question the validity of this reason too. But that's what they say.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And it gives no reason why this causes a real physical change in the actual times of the atomic clocks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Clocks in motion relative to the reference inertial frame should slow down. That applies to clocks on the equator. And it is a constant slowdown, not a periodic one. (I agree with the mainstream about that being what special relativity predicts.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is possible to use an ether theory to model the dilation effects using the ether as an absolute reference frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Lots of experiments, starting with Michelson-Morley, appear to rule out an absolute aether frame.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">it predicts that atomic clocks on the Earth are affected by a tiny sidereal fluctuation of around 0.7nS at the equator ... Does anyone know if this effect has been detected?[?]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Better yet, we have GPS satellites going roughly six times faster around the Earth in half the time. So the predicted amplitude is about 12 ns every 12 hours. I looked for that signal myself in the data and, to my frustration, found that it <i>is not there</i>. That eventually convinced me that aether had to be entrained by local gravity. Otherwise, a host of similar experiments are in contradiction with the absolute aether hypothesis. Another major one on that list is the Alley seasonal effect experiments using transported atomic clocks. You also can expect trouble explaining aberration in general and the deSitter double star experiment in particular.

The type of field that survives these observational tests, is entrained by gravity, and has identical behavior to that of the local gravitational potential field, is what we now call "elysium". -|Tom|-

wisp,

Clocks in straight-line unaccelerated motion relative to some “inertial frame” do not slow down just because they are “moving relative” to some other “frame.” This should be obvious since they are moving at various speeds “relative” to billions of other inertial frames too, and they can’t slow down at billions of different rates at the same time. With “relative motion,” alone, no force is placed on the timing mechanism of the clocks, and thus there is no reason or cause for them to slow down.

The “time dilation” used in the SR theory of 1905 was actually taken from the Lorentz time dilation concept as published in “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern” in 1895. But Lorentz didn’t have the dilation caused by just “relative motion”. He had it caused by a force impressed upon specifically atomic clocks (fundamental atoms) as they moved through fields and “the ether”. In 1905 Einstein did not understand that the force was required to cause the clocks to slow down, and he didn’t understand that not all types of clocks slow down at the same rates when experiencing the same forces. Lorentz was specifically talking about atomic clocks, which Einstein finally switched over to in his 1911 gravitational redshift paper.

The 1905 SR theory has clocks slowing down, due to relative motion, in BOTH directions of travel, relative to a “stationary observer” (a non-accelerating observer), which in the Hafele-Keating case, was represented by the observers at the Naval Observatory in Washington DC., and due only to “relative motion”. The fact that the Hafele-Keating experiment revealed the Westbound clocks speeded up, proves that the 1905 version of Einstein’s “time dilation” theory was not correct.

Regarding the “ether”, I’ve read some people say that at the earth’s surface it is equivalent to the gravitational field of the earth, with the field not rotating with the earth. So, if the Hafele-Keating numbers are correct, this concept has the Eastbound flying clocks traveling through the field the fastest (and ticking the slowest), the DC clocks traveling a little slower (and ticking a little faster), and the Westbound clocks traveling the slowest of the three (and ticking the fastest), through a non-rotating gravitational field. This of course is theory, not yet proven. But it was Lorentz in 1895 who first predicted a slow-down in the “tick rate” of atomic clocks due to motion through an area of space in which a resisting force (such as a field or the “ether”) was placed upon the timing mechanism of the clocks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />The type of field that survives these observational tests, is entrained by gravity, and has identical behavior to that of the local gravitational potential field, is what we now call "elysium". -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmm, what would Occam say about that idea? I think he would say, “Forget about the other field, let’s just call the local gravity field ‘the local ether’.”

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br />Hmm, what would Occam say about that idea? I think he would say, “Forget about the other field, let’s just call the local gravity field ‘the local ether’.”<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Occam was all about the simplest explanation. He would not approve of inventing a new concept (absolute aether) when an already existing one (the local gravitational potential field) will serve as is. Inventing new terminology ("elysium") was to avoid confusion in certain contexts, but did not introduce any new concept. Everything we needed already existed in physics without an absolute aether.

BTW, I'm guessing that you may never have had a formal course in special relativity because you said:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Clocks in straight-line unaccelerated motion relative to some “inertial frame” do not slow down just because they are “moving relative” to some other “frame.” This should be obvious since they are moving at various speeds “relative” to billions of other inertial frames too, and they can’t slow down at billions of different rates at the same time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In SR, no clock "slows down" in its own frame. But its rate is literally different for every different frame from which it is viewed. Also, force and acceleration do not affect clock rates in relativity, but motion and potential do.

You might want to acquire a better understanding of the theory if you care to discuss it with others. Your instincts seem to be in the right direction, but others will dismiss your opinions if you make statements in conflict with what is being taught in universities. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />
BTW, I'm guessing that you may never have had a formal course in special relativity...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, thank goodness, I was spared from that.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />In SR, no clock "slows down" in its own frame. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In the Hafele-Keating experiment, all three “frames” observed all three things happening, the Westbound clocks speeding up, the Eastbound clocks slowing down, and the DC clocks not changing. The Eastbound clocks saw this as the DC clocks appearing to speed up a little and the Westbound clocks appearing to speed up a lot. This does not happen in SR theory, so the Hafele-Keating experiment did not conform to SR theory.

In SR theory, both relatively moving observers see each other’s clocks appearing to slow down, but when they united in the first “peculiar consequence” thought experiment, the K’ clock “lags behind” the K clock. This is the paradox. How could the K’ observer see the K clock “slow down” during the relative motion and then wind up “ahead” at the end when they unite? It’s impossible and that is why the SR theory is very flawed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Occam was all about the simplest explanation. He would not approve of inventing a new concept (absolute aether) when an already existing one (the local gravitational potential field) will serve as is. Inventing new terminology ("elysium") was to avoid confusion in certain contexts, but did not introduce any new concept. Everything we needed already existed in physics without an absolute aether.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I’m talking about you calling the local gravitational potential field the "elysium". I see no need to make up a new term. Why not just call it “the local gravitational potential field”? That’s what I meant by mentioning Occam. When you say “elysium”, university professors and students don’t know what you are talking about.