"I do not know what I seem to the world, but to myself I appear to have been like a boy playing upon the seashore and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay before me all undiscovered."
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, there have been two basic theories that have attempted to answer the question: "What is light?" Is light a particle or is there some substance that fills the universe, and light is a wave or signal that travels through this substance, much like sound is a wave or signal that travels through the air? The problem in answering this question is that light has both very strong particle properties and light has very strong wave properties.
The particle theory of light is now called the "photon theory." This theory is that photon particles are created and destroyed by atoms when electrons change quantum levels. This is a simplistic view but is sufficient for now. The particle theory of light was the dominant theory of light on two occasions. Newton believed light was a particle, then called a corpuscle, and his theory held until the very early 1800s. Einstein believed light was a particle, now called the "photon," and his theory has been in force since 1924 and continues to be the dominant theory at the current time.
The wave theory of light is called the "aether theory" or more commonly the "ether theory." One reason for having two spellings is to differentiate the ether that fills the universe versus the gas that can be used to put people to sleep. The ether theory is that the universe is filled with small particles, which I call "ethons." Ether is considered a medium for light, meaning light is a "signal" or "wave" that travels through the medium of ether. The ether theory of light was in favor with the scientific community from the very early 1800s to 1924.
Some people believe in both ether and photons. For example, Einstein admitted that his General Theory of Relativity would not work without ether, but the ether of Einstein's general relativity is vastly different from the ether of Nikola Tesla and Albert Michelson, and will not be discussed in this book.
A person might wonder what Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity ("SR") has to do with the photon versus ether issue. Actually, the SR was designed to be a key part of Einstein's three-pronged attack on ether in 1905.
Ether, as believed in 1905, filled the universe and was stationary (i.e. not moving). This meant that ether formed a "Universal Reference Frame" or "URF." In other words, in 1905 our sun was considered totally "at rest" relative to the universe and our sun was considered totally "at rest" relative to ether. This meant that the ether itself was "at rest" relative to the universe and therefore constituted a URF. Einstein's Theory of Relativity tried to replace the URF of ether with the concept of "Relative Reference Frames" ("RRF"). The removal of a URF is exactly the same thing as a removal of ether. In the introduction to the SR paper, Einstein made this statement: "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." This first prong in the attempt to eliminate ether was called the first postulate of the SR.
Einstein's second attack on ether had to do with the speed of light. In the 1880s, Michelson and Morley had done an experiment to detect the ether by detecting variances in the "speed of light" caused by our earth's motion through the stationary ether, which was considered the medium for light. The experiment received a "null result," meaning they did not detect any variance in the speed of light. Einstein's second postulate in the SR was another attempt to dispense with ether. In this postulate he speculated that the speed of light was a constant to all observers. He used this postulate to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. By using the SR to explain the Michelson-Morley null result, there was no need for "ether drag" (which will be discussed in a moment) to explain the null result, thus opening the door to a particle nature of light.
Because both of the postulates of the SR were designed to dispense with ether, it is clear that the main purpose of the SR was to dispense with ether. Thus, the SR and the photon theory are heavily intertwined.
Einstein's third approach to dispensing with ether in 1905 was to use the "particle nature of light." In his paper on the Photoelectric Effect, he tried to use the particle nature of light to try and disprove the "wave theory of light," meaning he again tried to dispense with ether.
Einstein's three-pronged attack on ether in 1905 was supplemented by other experiments and other observations, such as the blackbody radiation formulas of Plank. Nevertheless, the "particle theory of light," now called the photon theory, was not accepted until 1924. Einstein's Nobel Prize in 1921 was not awarded for his particle theory of light or for his SR, but rather it was awarded for the formulas he developed for the Photoelectric Effect.
While it is true that the particle theory of light is the dominant theory because of light's particle properties, it is also true that light has equally powerful wave properties. Thus, we cannot determine whether light is a particle or a wave by appealing to the particle or wave properties of light. Light has both properties.
In 1997, I designed several experiments to use the "path of light" to detect the expansion of the Big Bang. After months of frustration, it suddenly occurred to me that "ether drag" (which will be discussed in a moment) was literally interfering with my experiment. I did not detect the Big Bang, but I inadvertently detected "ether drag."
With this discovery in mind, I then set about to dissect the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was a key experiment in the proof of relativity. In the Hafele-Keating experiments four cesium atomic clocks were flown around the world, first eastbound, then westbound. They predicted and observed that the clocks recorded different "actual times" (compared to the "actual time" measured by a stationary atomic clock on the ground) when they were headed eastbound versus when they were headed westbound.
What I discovered in my analysis is that the "at rest" reference frame chosen by Hafele and Keating ("a nonrotating point high above the North Pole") creates a very definite coordinate system and that "ether drag" is the only possible substance, force or field that has this same coordinate system and could have caused resistance to the cesium atoms and thus could have caused the "actual time" changes to the atomic clocks. What is unique about ether drag is that it forms a "bubble" around the earth (i.e. ether drag) and this bubble does not rotate with the earth (i.e. it is nonrotating), a property which no other substance, force or field has.
With this in mind, just like Einstein had a three-pronged attack against ether, this book will have a three-pronged attack against both the SR and the photon theory.
The first five chapters of this book, including this chapter, will deal with the Hafele-Keating experiment and SR. For example, in the original SR of 1905, any object (i.e. any reference frame) in an experiment could be used as an "at rest" reference frame. By 1920 Einstein had personally changed this to say that none of the objects in an experiment could be used as an "at rest" reference frame. He stated that only one "at rest" reference frame could be used, and it was the "centre of a rotating disc."
When Hafele and Keating did their experiment, their one and only "at rest" reference point was thousands of kilometers from any aspect of the experiment. I will show that long before the Hafele-Keating experiment, the first postulate of relativity had already been abandoned. I should also mention at this point that there have been two different experiments that have detected a URF, one of which is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation experiments.
But perhaps equally as important as Einstein's own dismissal of RRFs, is that an RRF does not require a "cause." In other words, an RRF is an "apparent reference frame," and as such does not require any causal factor, such as a substance, force or field. When the SR evolved from "apparent time" (i.e. the "apparent time" of an apparent reference frame) to the "actual time" changes Hafele and Keating measured with their atomic clocks, the scientific community failed to make the switch from an "apparent cause" to an "actual cause." Right now in physics the "actual time" changes in Hafele-Keating's atomic clocks have an "apparent cause," meaning an "imaginary cause." "Actual time" changes require an "actual cause!" The only substance, force or field that has the correct coordinate system, and could be the "actual cause" of the Hafele-Keating data, is ether drag.
Furthermore, the SR deals with an "at rest" reference frame that is thousands of kilometers from the experiment and could not have caused the "actual time" changes. Ether drag deals with a substance that comes into direct contact with the cesium atoms in the atomic clocks. My discussion of the H-K proves that the SR is really ether drag and this is my first prong.
Chapters 6 through 10 deal with my two experiments plus the experiments of Lunar Laser Ranging. All three of these experiments involve the "path of light." These three experiment result in several paradoxes that totally eliminate any possibility that light is a particle, meaning it is impossible that photons exist. This is my second prong.
After a chapter on the "particle nature of light" and ether, there is a chapter on whether it is theoretically possible that the "speed of light" can be a constant with the photon theory. The result of this chapter is a paradox that clearly demonstrates that Einstein's second postulate cannot possibly be valid. This is my third prong.
In short, Einstein dealt with the "particle nature of light," the "speed of light," and "relative reference frames" to dispense with the ether theory. I will deal mainly with the "path of light" and "ether drag" to prove that ether exists. Einstein dealt with non-causal postulates. I will deal with causal theories. I will not use the "wave nature of light" as one of my evidences! It is not necessary. When all the dust settles, it will be very clear that ether and ether drag exist.
This chapter will be the first chapter to deal with the Hafele-Keating experiment. Because the Hafele-Keating experiment deals with the SR, it is first necessary to have a short lecture on simple astronomy to understand what the current feeling on the URF is. I will then have a short section of what "ether drag" is. After these two sections, I will start to discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment in detail. After this chapter, the next four chapters will dive into this subject in even more detail.
The Universal Reference Frame - CMBR
It is currently believed that our solar system is moving though space at about 370 kps (kilometers per second). The velocity of our solar system (and thus our earth) is a net speed consisting of two major motions, and several minor motions. These are the two major motions of our solar system:
1) The velocity of our galaxy in the cosmos (with which our solar system is carried along) at 600 kps towards the Hydra-Centaurus supercluster or the Great Attractor, and
2) The velocity of our solar system in orbit around the center of our galaxy towards Deneb in the Cygnus constellation at 230 kps (i.e. the rotation velocity of our galaxy at our distance from the galactic "barycenter," meaning gravitational center of mass).
The net of all of the motions of our solar system is a 370 kps velocity towards the constellation Leo (or slightly below it) and away from the constellation Aquarius.[1,2,3] This net velocity was calculated based on variances in the (2.7 degree Kelvin) blackbody radiation per the COBE satellite, U2 spy planes, high altitude balloons, and even newer equipment. This blackbody radiation is called "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" ("CMBR"). To the best of my knowledge, the CMBR was first discovered in 1978.
The CMBR creates a Universal Reference Frame ("URF"), or "Absolute Reference Frame" ("ARF") for the universe as we know it. It also creates an "Absolute Time Frame" ("ATF") for the universe. Consider this quote: "The data indicate that the earth's velocity is about 400 kps in the approximate direction of the constellation Leo. Even though the principle of relativity says that there is no preferred frame of reference, as the laws of physics look the same to all observers, there is nevertheless a way to determine our absolute velocity with respect to the universe!"
The two major motions of our solar system are very linear, over the period of a few thousand years, hence our solar system is traveling in an extremely linear direction and at an extremely constant speed. Imaging walking on the perimeter of a circle that has a radius of 25,000 light years, our sun's distance from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy!
The total motion of our planet earth is a little more complicated. Because we are orbiting the sun at an average velocity of 30 kps, and because we are carried with the solar system, our earth's average velocity in the universe is still 370 kps, but it ranges from 340 kps to 400 kps. Note that the constellation Leo is on our ecliptic plane (the 2D plane formed by our sun and our earth's orbit).
Prior to the late 1920s, when it was discovered that our universe is expanding, it was generally believed that our sun was stationary in the universe, and that our earth's total motion in space was only 30 kps, due solely to our orbit around the stationary sun. This figure was consistent with "stellar aberration" or "annual aberration," which is a small tilt of telescopes required by astronomers because of our earth's orbital velocity around the sun. For many decades prior to the 1920s it had been known that "aberration of starlight" (i.e. the amount of the required tilt) was a good way to estimate our orbital velocity around the sun. However, with our new knowledge of our total velocity in the universe (i.e. 370 kps instead of 30 kps), a new explanation for aberration of starlight was needed.
Astronomers now have a term for the aberration caused by our solar system's total motion in space, they call it "secular aberration." The U.S. Naval Observatory Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac states in its glossary: “aberration, secular: the component of stellar aberration resulting from the essentially uniform rectilinear motion of the entire solar system in space. Secular aberration is usually disregarded.”
The reason secular aberration is usually disregarded is not because it doesn't exist, it does exist, but because it is so constant that it is virtually impossible to detect. It causes a shift in the entire celestial sphere, meaning the actual position of virtually every star is not where it appears to be because of secular aberration. But since we aren't traveling to any stars any time soon, no one seems to care. Since secular aberration is so uniform over the period of a few thousand years, it is now believed that the "actual" "tilt of aberration" (i.e. the velocity which determines the degree that telescopes need to be tilted) is based on our 370 kps total velocity, but that the "observable" tilt of aberration is based on the "differential velocity" of the earth towards the constellation Leo. The differential velocity of the earth is caused exclusively by our orbit around the sun (I am ignoring several minor issues not significant to this discussion).
In the 1880s, it was felt that our sun was stationary in the universe. Thus, the only motion of our earth in the universe, as they thought at the time, was our earth's orbital velocity around the sun at an average of 30 kps. In the 1880s the ether was believed to exist throughout the universe (the particle theory of light was not accepted by the scientific community until 1924), and it was also felt that the ether was stationary in the universe. Since our earth was moving through this stationary ether at 30 kps, there should have been a 30 kps "ether wind" on the surface of the earth.
In other words, imagine an automobile traveling at 100 kph down a highway, when the air is motionless. The car's surface would experience a 100 kph "wind," even though the air is motionless. Similarly, if the earth were moving at 30 kps through the stationary ether, there would be a 30 kps "ether wind" on the surface of the earth. An experiment was designed by Michelson and Morley to detect the 30 kps ether wind by detecting variances in the speed of light.
(Note: Whether the earth was stationary and the ether was moving or whether the earth was moving and the ether was stationary does not matter, the relative motion of the earth and ether would cause a change in the speed of light, if measured on the earth.)
But they could not detect this ether wind. The null result of the Michelson-Morley Interferometer ("MMI") had scientists scrambling for an explanation. This was perhaps the first major failure of the ether theory since it had been accepted earlier in that century. If scientists of the day had known that our actual velocity in the universe was 370 kps, they would have been even more astonished by the null result of the MMI!
There were several theories that were proposed to explain the null result, including the SR. Michelson (who himself was a Nobel Prize winner) rejected the SR and championed the "ether drag" theory. The "ether drag" theory, which was actually proposed as early as 1831, is that there is a "balloon" or "sphere" of ether that surrounds the earth and is carried or dragged with the earth in its motion in the universe. This is actually a very logical theory. The earth's gravity can attract and hold very heavy air molecules (heavy compared to ethons), called our atmosphere, as it travels towards Leo. Thus it is logical to say that our gravity can also hold ethons, which are much lighter than air molecules. Just as our earth's gravity protects the air molecules from being attracted by the superior gravity of the sun, our earth's gravity would protect the ethons from the superior gravity of our sun.
Both Cauchy and Stokes believed in ether drag decades before the MMI. The ether inside of this balloon is at rest and does not rotate with the earth according to Michelson's version of ether drag. In other words, the ether in the ether drag is stationary, or nearly stationary, and the earth rotates underneath the ether.
To understand ether drag consider this metaphor: Imagine a large beach ball sitting on a table. Suspended at the center of this large beach ball is a golf ball that is rotating on an axis. Since the air in the beach ball does not rotate with the golf ball, a very small object (such as a dust particle) on the surface of the rotating golf ball would experience a small "wind." This wind would not be caused by the beach ball moving (it is sitting on a table), it would be caused by the surface of the golf ball being pushed through the stationary air, inside the beach ball, by the rotation of the golf ball. It is a very small "wind" to be sure, depending on how fast the golf ball is rotating. But even if the beach ball were moving (i.e. suppose it were attached to the top of a car traveling at 100 kph), the "wind" on the surface of the golf ball would be the same.
If the rotating golf ball represents the rotating earth, and if the stationary air inside of the beach ball represents ether, we have the model of ether drag championed by Albert Michelson. The golf ball rotates but the air inside the beach ball does not rotate with the golf ball. Similarly, the earth rotates but the ether in the ether drag (note. "the ether in the ether drag" will simply be referred to as the "ether drag") does not rotate with the earth.
In this model note that no part of the golf ball is stationary inside the beach ball except for the axis of the golf ball. The air above the golf ball, and the axis of the golf ball, are the items inside of the beach ball that are "at rest." The golf ball itself, except for its axis, is in motion relative to the sides of the beach ball, and relative to the air. Thus, any point on the extended axis of the rotating golf ball could be considered "at rest."
Without ether drag, the ether wind would be 370 kps on the surface of the earth. With ether drag, the earth would be totally shielded from this 370 kps ether wind (or even the 30 kps ether wind if the sun's ether drag extends beyond our orbit distance from the sun) and the only ether wind would be caused by the rotation of the earth at a maximum of 0.45 kps on the equator. At the North Pole, the South Pole, or anywhere on the extended axis of the earth, the ether wind would be zero.
The MMI equipment was not accurate enough to detect the ether wind with ether drag (i.e. 0.45 kps maximum), so in 1925 Michelson-Gale and Pearson, now assuming ether drag, designed a different experiment to detect the much smaller ether wind. This experiment was successful to within 2.5% of detecting the rotation velocity of the earth at their latitude. However, by this time relativity had been established and their experiment was simply brushed off by the scientific community.
The Hafele and Keating Experiments
The Hafele-Keating experiments of 1971 are among the most famous experiments in the history of physics. Their experiments were designed to test the validity of Einstein's SR and his General Theory of Relativity ("GR"). Hafele and Keating twice flew four cesium atomic clocks around the world in commercial jets, first eastbound, then westbound. Their experiments proved that "time," as measured by atomic clocks, is a function of the direction, velocity and altitude of jet airplanes. The direction and velocity of the airplanes were factors of the SR and the altitude of the jets was a factor of the GR.[8,9,10,11] I should note that "time" in this case is the "actual time" as measured by the atomic clocks.
Compared to the time kept by a stationary atomic clock at the U.S. Naval Observatory ("USNO"), which stayed on the ground, the eastbound clocks measured time slower than the stationary clock and the westbound clocks measured time faster than the stationary clock. Prior to their experiments, Hafele correctly predicted that the westbound clocks would measure time faster than the stationary clock.[8,9]
The Hafele-Keating experiment is considered a proof that the SR and GR are valid theories. But the H-K used a very different version of the SR than was proposed by Einstein in 1905.
For example, in the "old SR" of 1905, every element in the experiment was considered, or could be considered, an "at rest" relative reference frame. This was the entire intent of the concept of "relative reference frames." For example, if there were ten jet airplanes flying at ten different velocities in ten different directions, any one of these ten airplanes could be used as the "at rest" reference frame, for the formulas of relativity, to determine the "relative time" between it and any of the other planes.
By 1971, however, the concept of "relative reference frames" had been totally eliminated. In the "new SR," used by Hafele and Keating, none of the two sets of jet airplanes or atomic clocks in the experiment were allowed to be considered "at rest." Not even the stationary atomic clock at the USNO could be considered "at rest."
In the "new SR" used in the H-K, only one "at rest" reference frame was allowed and that was "a nonrotating observer looking down on the North pole from a great distance" or to put it more simply: "a nonrotating point high above the North Pole." This "at rest" reference point was not part of the experiment, meaning there was no atomic clock at that point. The "at rest" point in the H-K was many thousands of kilometers from any of the atomic clocks that were part of the experiment! The entire concept of "relative reference frames" was that any object that was part of the experiment could be considered "at rest." No object in the experiment was ever considered "at rest" by Hafele and Keating.
It is important to emphasize that the observer or point is "nonrotating." If the observer rotated with the earth, then a stationary point on the equator, for example, would be viewed as being "at rest" relative to the observer's viewpoint. However, because the observer is not rotating, then a stationary point on the equator would be moving at a velocity equal to the (angular) rotation velocity of the earth at that latitude (i.e. zero degrees north).
Thus, the "stationary" clock at the USNO was considered to be in motion due to the rotation of the earth (i.e. its velocity was measured relative to the rotation velocity of the earth at its latitude) because the observer was not rotating. Thus, the "stationary" clock was actually in "motion."
Let's call a spade a spade. Hafele and Keating could be said to have used a "local or localized Absolute Reference Frame ("local ARF") and a local or localized Absolute Time." By "absolute" I mean that the "at rest" reference frame they chose was not part of the experiment and did not move (relative to other objects), and did not rotate, during the experiment. By "local" I mean that they did not use the URF of CMBR (which had not been discovered by 1971), or the reference frame of the sun's barycenter (which Hafele and Keating obviously would have known about), or the galactic barycenter (which they should have known about), but instead they used a reference frame within the ionosphere, which is "local" to the earth, meaning it travels with the earth in its motions in the universe.
The choice of an "at rest" reference frame thousands of kilometers from the experiment was clearly not the intent of the original SR, but was added by Einstein before or during 1920 when he started talking about the center of a rotating disc as the one and only allowable "at rest" reference point. Einstein's change of mind from using "at rest" reference frames that were part of the experiment, to using a single local ARF that was thousands of kilometers from the objects in the experiment, was undoubtedly due to empirical data. Einstein was known to have been working on the Doppler effect of canal rays (a predecessor to today's atomic clocks) prior to 1908. In fact, the 1919 Nobel Prize was awarded to Johannes Stark for the discovery of the Doppler effect in canal rays, which discovery was made by Stark in 1905.
Hafele and Keating did not invent the concept of using an "at rest" reference frame on the extended axis of the earth, they knew what they had to use before they did their experiments. The two articles written by Hafele before the experiment prove that. They knew that if they used the stationary USNO atomic clock as their "at rest" reference point the formulas of the SR would not have worked with the actual data. Even before the H-K it was known that in order to get the formulas of the SR to work it was necessary to pick a localized ARF on the extended axis of the earth. It is probable that the reason Hafele and Keating used "a nonrotating point high above the North Pole," instead of the center of the earth, is because its use made it easier to visualize and explain why the stationary USNO atomic clock had to be in motion.
The Goal of the SR
The main goal of the original SR was to replace the concept of URF or ARF with the concept of RRFs. In other words, its main goal was to replace the then dominant theory of ether (which represented a URF) with the particle theory of light. But the concept of RRF was dropped in the transition from the "old SR" to the "new SR" as is demonstrated by the fact that the H-K used only one local ARF, not the relative reference frames of the objects that were part of the experiment. Furthermore, a URF has been proven to exist by two vastly different experiments! Both the CMBR experiments, which are ongoing, and the experiments of Roland De Witte in 1991 have detected the URF.
The old or original SR dealt with "relative time" differences of the objects in the experiment, which basically meant "imaginary times." To understand why I use the term "imaginary times," suppose in the above ten jet example, you chose one of the ten jet airplanes as a "target." Suppose you then, simultaneously and independently, picked each of the other nine airplanes as the "at rest" reference frame and calculated the "relative time" of the "target" jet airplane, relative to each of the nine "at rest" reference frames. The "target" jet airplane would have nine different "relative times" simultaneously. This means that "relative time" is really "imaginary time," relative only to the chosen "observer" (i.e. "at rest" reference frame). The "actual time" of the "target" jet airplane would be different than any of the "imaginary times" of the other nine observers per the H-K! That is, unless one of the jets just happened to be "at rest" relative to the axis of the earth.
The concept of "relative time" evolved from being the "imaginary time" of the "old SR" to the "actual time" of the "new SR." In other words, the same term: "relative time," can be used for "imaginary time" or "actual time." This obviously causes a lot of confusion! When the term "relative time" is used, the context must be studied.
Even Hafele and Keating were confused by this. They claimed that their experiment solved the clock paradox. As far as the "old SR" is concerned, their experiment was totally irrelevant to the clock paradox. The clock paradox was a paradox of the "imaginary time" of the "old SR." The clock paradox was resolved, not by solving the problems with the "old SR," but by dropping the "old SR" in favor of the "new SR," which used "actual time," not "imaginary time." By using the same term: "relative time" for both "imaginary time" and "actual time" the authors incorrectly thought they had solved the problems of the "old SR."
The "new SR" dealt with "actual time" differences, meaning the measurements of the atomic clocks were of "actual time" changes of the clocks, not apparent or imaginary time changes. The "actual time" measured by atomic clocks changes as the jet airplane carrying the clocks speeds up, slows down, changes direction, etc. This is profound. Because the H-K talks about "actual time" differences it must then deal with "actual causes" of those actual time changes.
To be more specific, nothing needs to be mentioned to cause "imaginary time" changes, because they are imaginary, thus the cause is imaginary. However, something actual (i.e. a substance, force or field) must cause "actual time" changes! Neither the "old SR," nor the "new SR" officially offer any such causal explanation. In other words, the concept of "relative time" changed from "imaginary time" to "actual time," but the SR failed to make the change from an "imaginary cause" to an "actual cause." This is why the scientific community thinks that an "imaginary cause" can generate "actual time" changes in atomic clocks!
In reality, the ten jet airplanes in the above metaphor do experience ten different "actual time" changes. The H-K proves that. The flaw in the old SR is in allowing any of the ten jet airplanes to be considered "at rest." This leads to paradoxical and conflicting "imaginary time" differences and even incorrect predictions of "actual time." Because the H-K used the correct "at rest" reference frame (which was thousands of kilometers from any of the jets or USNO) for all of the atomic clocks, they did fix that part of the SR. And as will be seen later in this book, the "actual time" differences between any two of the airplanes can be calculated, but it is a two step process, not a one step process as the old SR implies.
My point at this stage of the book is to emphasize that "actual time" changes require "actual causes." More will be said about this below.
The Choice of the "At Rest" Reference Point
At the time of the experiments, both Hafele and Keating should have known that our solar system was rotating around the barycenter of our galaxy, and they would have known that our universe was expanding. But they would not have known about the CMBR, meaning they would not have known our earth's total velocity with respect to the universe. They undoubtedly also knew that Einstein had changed the "at rest" reference frame of the SR to be the center of a rotating disc. They had three nonrotating "at rest" options to choose from based on this new disc theory:
1) Our galactic barycenter, which our sun and earth are rotating around, or
2) The barycenter of our sun-centered solar system, which our earth is rotating around, or
3) A point on the axis of the earth, which the atomic clocks were rotating around.
In 1905, item #2 would have been the logical choice because our sun was considered stationary in the universe at the time, and thus item #2 would have been stationary with respect to the entire universe (i.e. it would have been considered a URF). It would have been the perfect "at rest" reference frame. But relativity claimed there was no such thing as a URF. At the time, in 1905, the axis of the earth was not chosen as the "at rest" reference frame, because the axis of the earth was not part of any experiment.
(Note: In Einstein's original paper he coincidentally mentioned that an object on the equator would measure time differently than an object at the poles, however, this observation had nothing to do with the "new SR," it was part of the concept of "relative reference frames.")
In 1971, the logical choice for Hafele and Keating would have been item #1 above. Since they were not using an "at rest" reference frame that was part of the experiment, they should have been looking for the most "at rest" reference point they knew about. However, an argument over what they should have used is irrelevant because they knew in advance what they must use to get the formulas to work.
But let us consider another point. If an "at rest" reference frame can cause "actual time" changes, as the SR implies because the "at rest" reference frame is so prominent in the theory, note that there are three different "at rest" reference frames in the above list. If an "at rest" reference frame causes "actual time" changes, why didn't all three of the above "at rest" reference frames (plus CMBR) contribute to the "actual time" changes of the atomic clocks?
Or to put it another way: what is it about "a nonrotating point high above the North Pole" that protected and shielded the atomic clocks in the H-K from the "at rest" reference frame of the ARF of CMBR? Also, what is it that protected and shielded the atomic clocks in the H-K from the "at rest" reference frame of the galaxy's barycenter and the sun's barycenter?
In other words, if an "at rest" reference frame causes (or participates in the cause) atomic clocks to change their "actual times," then the center of the earth, the center of the sun, the center of our galaxy, and CMBR, would all affect and cause changes in the "actual time" of the atomic clocks in the H-K. But according to the H-K, only one of these "at rest" reference frames affected their data. So what is it about the axis of the earth that shields the atomic clocks from the other three "at rest" reference frames?
Obviously, an "at rest" reference point thousands of kilometers from an experiment cannot have caused "actual time" changes in atomic clocks. My point is that whatever physically caused the atomic clocks to speed up and slow down must be "carried" with the earth in its motion towards Leo and in its orbit around the sun and it must "shield" the atomic clocks from any extraterrestrial effects related to the universe, galaxy or solar system.
The "new SR" not only failed to deal with what caused the atomic clocks to change "actual times," it did not explain what shielded the atomic clocks from universal, galactic and solar system "at rest" effects or other effects.
Why Relativity is Really Ether Drag
The SR transitioned from the URF created by ether, to RRFs, with the purpose in mind to dispense with the ether theory of light. In fact, the Lorentz Transformation, the key formula Einstein used in his SR, was developed by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, who developed the formulas specifically for the use of objects moving in the ether! In other words, Einstein changed the name and interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation and used a formula designed for ether to disprove the existence of ether!
Now let's think about the earth rotating inside of this ether balloon. The only part of the earth that is not rotating, relative to the ether drag, is the extended imaginary axis of the earth (per the above beach ball/golf ball metaphor). The H-K used a point on the earth's extended imaginary axis as their one and only "at rest" coordinate system in the H-K. This point is "at rest" relative to the ether drag because the observer is not rotating. This means that the one and only "at rest" reference frame the H-K used was a point that was "at rest" relative to the ether drag! This means that the H-K could have used ether drag as their sole coordinate system! In other words, Hafele and Keating used exactly the same coordinate system as ether drag creates!
It was noted above that the "new SR" does not have an explanation for the cause of time changes in the atomic clocks. Nor does the "new SR" have a theoretical explanation for the use of a localized ARF, instead of the CMBR or galactic barycenter or solar barycenter. Nor does the "new SR" have an explanation for what shields and protects the atomic clocks from the "at rest" reference frame of CMBR, the galactic barycenter, or our solar barycenter (i.e. extraterrestrial effects).
The ether drag theory easily explains these issues. Lorentz developed his formulas for the motion of objects relative to their ambient ether. With ether drag, our earth, and its time frame, are protected from the Absolute Time of the CMBR by the earth's ether drag. Thus, there is a logical reason why the ether drag theory creates a localized ARF for objects inside of the ether drag - they are protected from any phenomenon that are related to our total motion in space and even from our orbit around the sun and galaxy.
So how does ether cause "actual time" changes to atomic clocks? Because ethons are much smaller than atoms, ethons would cause resistance to the cesium atoms in the atomic clocks (much like air causes resistance to jet airplanes). Furthermore, the ethons, as part of ether drag, would have the correct velocity relationship to the atomic clocks (i.e. the coordinate system created by ether drag is consistent with the H-K data). In other words, the amount of resistance caused by the ethons would be a function of the "ambient velocity" of the atomic clocks in the ether drag.
This is exactly what Lorentz had in mind with respect to ether when he developed the formulas for ether that Einstein borrowed for the SR. However, Lorentz probably did not believe in ether drag when he developed his formulas, thus he may never have known just how literally correct he had been!
Because the "new SR" deals with "actual time" changes, it is necessary to talk in more detail about causal agents.
What is a Theory?
Since the terms "theory" and "postulate" are frequently used synonymously, let me provide definitions for these terms that clearly delineate between them.
A "theory" is a logical statement of beliefs as to the "cause" of "why" some physically measurable phenomenon occurs."
A "postulate" or "assumption" does not include a cause of why some physically measurable phenomenon occurs.
It is necessary for physics to have two definitions that clearly delineate between theories that have causes, and postulates that don't. Rather than invent new words, I will clarify the definitions of the above three words.
While a dictionary may use the terms "postulate", "assumption" and "theory" synonymously, it is critical that physicists make a clear distinction between two concepts: causal and non-causal. It would be a major roadblock to the progress of physics to think that a postulate or assumption (as I have defined them) has the same logical weight of a theory. Understanding the cause of some phenomenon allows far greater visualization of what is going on and allows far greater progress.
The new SR states that "actual time" is a function of the velocity, direction and altitude of jet airplanes (with atomic clocks inside of them). But it offers absolutely no causal explanation for why "actual time" changes occur. According to my definition of "theory," the "Theory" of Relativity does not even contain a theory.
But this is not all. Some physicists today do not delineate between a formula and a theory. "Shut up and calculate" was a motto of Richard Feynman. But how does a formula tell us why some phenomenon happens? A formula has the same problems for progress and understanding as a postulate or assumption does because none of these things project a cause as to why something happens, and something must cause "actual time" changes!
What Causes Atomic Clocks to Speed Up and Slow Down?
Let us summarize exactly what properties the substance, force or field must have to generate the H-K data:
1) "Actual time" changes must be caused by some substance, force or field coming into direct contact with the cesium atoms in the atomic clocks. An "at rest" reference frame thousand of kilometers away will not suffice as a cause. Ether particles come into direct contact with the cesium atoms.
2) This contact must cause physical resistance (or electromagnetic resistance) to the atoms in the atomic clocks such that the eastbound jets have more resistance than the westbound jets as they fly through this substance, force or field. In other words the westbound jets must be flying in the same direction as the "wind" of this substance, force or field. Our earth rotates eastbound. But the ether drag does not rotate with the earth, thus the "ether wind" caused by the rotation of the earth is headed westbound. Thus the westbound clocks would be moving in the same direction as the ether wind, thus these clocks would experience less resistance, and faster actual time. The eastbound clocks would be flying directly into the ether wind and their time would slow down. More will be said about this in a moment.
3) All of the atomic clocks in the experiment must be protected from the effects of this same substance, force or field, coming from outside of our earth system. In other words, the "at rest" reference frame, relative to this substance, force for field, must not be affected by extraterrestrial effects of this substance, force or field. This means that the substance, force or field that causes resistance to the cesium atoms must form a "balloon" above the earth, high above the jet airplanes, and the balloon must be carried with the earth, in order to protect the jet airplanes from any extraterrestrial effects of this same substance, force or field that exist outside of this balloon.
4) Also, the "stationary" atomic clock must be in motion relative to this substance, force or field, equal to the rotation velocity of the earth at its latitude.
5) Because the westbound jets must experience the least resistance, and because the stationary clock must be in motion relative to the rotation velocity of the earth, it must be concluded that the area between the surface of the earth, extending to above the altitude of the jets, must rotate underneath the balloon created by this substance, such that the westbound clocks are traveling in the same direction as the "wind" of this substance, force or field and the stationary clock is in motion. As just mentioned, the earth rotates eastbound, but the minimum resistance is for the westbound jets, thus the wind must head westbound! The only way for this to happen is if the balloon is stationary, and the earth rotates underneath this balloon.
Summary of Things That Cannot Have Caused the H-K Data
To make sure there is no misunderstanding, let us itemize some of the items (as a representation of other items), that could not have caused the H-K data.
(Note: A discussion of potential extraterrestrial causes of the H-K data can be found in Chapter 5.)
1) The earth's magnetic field: Cannot be valid because it rotates with the earth, thus none of the atomic clocks would have had the right velocity relative to the earth's magnetic field. (Note: the atomic clocks in the H-K were "triply" shielded from magnetism.)
2) The earth's gravitational field (including General Relativity): Same as the magnetic field - it rotates with the earth, etc. The world's record (the last I heard) for stacking bowling balls on top of each other is nine. This should be adequate proof that the stationary atomic clock would have been "at rest" relative to our earth's gravitational field.
3) Electromagnetic waves: These are random throughout the earth's surface. Furthermore, the stationary atomic clock would have been "at rest" relative to these waves.
4) Photons: First of all, photons do not shield the earth from extraterrestrial photons. Second, photons are random, thus the stationary atomic clock would have been "at rest." Third, since the only photons the cesium atoms would have been exposed to would be photons that originated inside of the atomic clock casings, even the traveling atomic clocks would have been "at rest" relative to photons.
I could mention other items, but it is clear that whatever caused the H-K data must form a bubble around the earth that does not rotate with the earth, and the bubble must travel with the earth towards Leo. This substance's bubble must also shield the earth from extraterrestrial effects. Nothing even comes close to ether drag for matching these criteria and matching the H-K coordinate system.
Did the SR Prove That Ether Doesn't Exist?
In summary, the main goal of the SR was to do away with ether and its URF or ARF. Has it been successful? Consider:
1) The SR is a postulate and does not contain any suggestion of an "actual cause" of the H-K "actual data." The ether drag theory offers a logical "at rest" reference frame (ambient ether drag) and a logical causal agent (ethon resistance).
2) The SR used the concept of RRF to dispense with ether, but the RRF has been removed from the original SR and replaced with a localized ARF in the "new SR."
3) The SR dispensed with the concept of URF to dispense with ether, but a URF has been detected - in two vastly different experiments.
4) The H-K used a localized ARF "at rest' reference point that has the identical coordinate system as "ether drag." The SR uses an imaginary "at rest" reference frame, but the "ether drag" uses a substance for measuring "ambient velocity".
5) The SR contains formulas that were developed by Lorentz for objects in the ether and for the motion of these objects relative to their ambient ether. How can a successful formula that was devised for use in ambient ether be used as a disproof of ether?
6) In the "new SR," not even an atomic clock sitting on the ground is allowed to be considered "at rest," because the formulas won't work. In the "ether drag" theory, the stationary atomic clock is pushed through the ether by the rotation of the earth, thus the stationary atomic clock is in motion relative to its ambient ether.
7) The H-K used an "at rest" reference frame that is thousands of kilometers from any object in the experiment. This is a far different concept than the original SR, where only the objects in the experiment were considered "at rest." The ether drag theory uses a substance that comes into direct contact with the atoms in the atomic clocks.
8) Since the "at rest" reference point used in the H-K is part of the formulas of the SR, then it must be part of the physical cause of why actual time is a function of the velocity and direction of the atomic clocks. The axis of the earth is imaginary, and cannot cause cesium atoms thousands of kilometers away to speed up and slow down. Since ether drag technically deals with "ambient velocity," not "relative velocity," the "ambient velocity" is part of the formulas and is part of the physical cause of the clocks speeding up and slowing down (by changing resistance).
9) The relative resistance in the ambient ether causes the electrons to speed up and slow down because there is no mechanism in an atom to detect changes in resistance to the electrons in the atom and to adjust the energy given to the electrons to react to the different levels of resistance, in order to maintain a constant electron velocity. Thus, the electrons must slow down and speed up when the ambient resistance changes. Therefore, "actual time" must speed up and slow down.
10) Not even the "new SR" offers a theoretical reason why the "at rest" reference frame of CMBR is not used in their formulas. They offer no explanation of what "shields" the axis of the earth from the CMBR "at rest" reference frame or the "at rest" reference frame of the barycenter of the solar system or galaxy. But the localized ARF works with the formulas of ether drag and the ether drag theory explains why it works - ether drag protects and shields the atomic clocks from extraterrestrial effects.
If the reader has been paying attention, it should be obvious that the ether and ether drag theories need to be looked at seriously and in more detail. If it is not obvious, the reader should read the lists again until it is obvious.
The above items are simple facts. I haven't even gotten into many of the details of these issues - which is what this book is designed to do. It is totally absurd to consider the SR as a disproof of ether. How can a postulate, which does not contain a causal agent for actual time changes, which is constantly being changed, which uses a formula originally designed for ether, and which cannot justify the use of its own "at rest" reference frame, which is thousands of kilometers from the experiment, disprove the existence of a substance that can logically explain why things work the way they do?
The Second Postulate of Relativity
The first postulate of the SR is basically that any reference frame can be considered to be "at rest," meaning it can be considered to be an independent RRF. As mentioned above, Einstein himself dispensed with this postulate when he chose to use only the "center of a rotating disc" as his local ARF and chose to deal with "actual time." But what about the second postulate of relativity?
In a chapter late in this book, the "Three Space Ship Paradox" will be discussed. This paradox is a proof that the speed of light cannot be the same for all observers. In this paradox three "space ships" are introduced, all of which are traveling at exactly the same velocity relative to a point that is "at rest" relative to CMBR. This means that the atomic clocks in all three of the ships measure "time" exactly the same. However, the three ships are all traveling in different directions (direction is not an issue in this case because the space ships are not rotating with a planet). When a laser beam is fired from the "at rest" reference point, it is shown that all three ships will measure the speed of light differently.
This result should not be a surprise to anyone. Just as the first postulate of special relativity dealt with the paradoxical concept of "relative reference frames," the concept of "relative speeds of light" is equally paradoxical.
I Am Not Alone
Prior to leaving this first overview chapter, I should mention that I am not alone in advocating the ether theory. Others who have devoted many years of their life to promoting the ether theory are: Maurice Allais (Nobel Prize 1988 - Economics), Harold Aspden, Steven Rado, Ken H. Sato, Gordon L. Ziegler, and many others. The list of anti-relativity scientists is even longer (generally scientists are anti-relativity because the verifiable formulas of relativity can be derived from classical physics and in fact many of the formulas used in relativity existed before relativity) (e.g. Stefan Marinov (deceased), Petr Beckmann (deceased), Howard C. Hayden, Tom Van Flandern, Franco Selleri, etc.). Many scientists are both pro-ether and anti-relativity.
Unfortunately, there has not been a lot of unity among the pro-ether forces. Theories are about as diverse as can be imagined. Some have diverted from using the term "ether" altogether. Hopefully, this book will provide the needed unity not only for the current pro-ether scientists, but for all scientists.
With all of this in mind it is important to identify the scientist that had by far the greatest understanding of ether, so that scientists will have a springboard from which to proceed. I don't think anyone would challenge the identity of that person - the super-genius Nikola Tesla. His numerous theories and inventions need to be reexamined in far greater detail.
The Importance of a Knowledge of Ether
How will a knowledge of ether affect the future of physics? Ether has been around since the creation of the universe, and perhaps even before its creation. But the existence of ether is useless to the scientific community unless they believe that it exists. What is clear about ether is this:
1) Ether is the cause of every magnetic field.
2) Electricity could not exist without ether.
3) Ether is the medium for every electromagnetic wave, from radio waves to gamma rays.
4) Every particle in the universe is bathed in a sea of ether, including the orbiting electrons of atoms and plasma (I am sure there is a very interesting relationship between ether and plasma).
5) Ether is how particles moving near the speed of light in a vacuum "know" how fast they are moving, even if they are accelerated very, very slowly.
6) When ether gets cold enough, its properties change, causing strange phenomena to both atoms and light. In fact using very cold temperatures is a way to isolate exactly what ether affects. It may turn out that very cold temperatures are to "ether physics" as accelerators are to particle physics.
7) Ether also contains a massive amount of energy, as predicted by Tesla.
Many of the pro-ether people feel strongly that gravity and ether are tightly integrated. Also, some pro-ether people feel ether can be used to solve the "unified theory." Gordon L. Ziegler is one of those.
There is a famous quote from Nikola Tesla about ether (1891):
"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of
Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians... Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic.? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."
The time has come for scientists to resume the challenge that Tesla made in 1891.
The next four chapters will deal in far more detail with the Hafele-Keating experiment and SR. After the full discussion of the H-K, I will start discussing my own experiments and Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, which combine to add several paradoxes to the current list of paradoxes for the photon theory.