Chapter 5
What Does the Hafele-Keating Tell
Us?
"I do
not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642)
Separating Data From the Cause
Let me remind the
reader that my definition of a "theory"
includes the concept of a cause of why something happens
(see Chapter 1). Furthermore, a
hypothesis or assumption, by my definition, does not contain a statement of
cause.
In any experiment,
the experiment can be divided into two very distinct areas. In fact these areas are so distinct that
they should be kept separate (i.e. bifurcated). First, is the "data" or "formulas"
of the experiment. These items are
hopefully very "objective." The data can be duplicated by others and the
formulas tested. Second, is an
explanation of why the data occurs, meaning an explanation for the cause
of the data. This is the
"theory." Theories can be
very subjective
because different scientists may have different opinions about the cause of the
same phenomenon or data.
There have been many
situations in the history of science where every scientist believed the same
theory, and all of them turned out to be wrong. The classic example is Ptolemy's epicycles: "If it is made
complex enough, the Ptolemaic system can predict planetary positions
correctly. But the Sun-centered system
is much simpler, and ultimately we prefer it for that reason." Tom Bethell (The Americal Spectator Online,
April, 1999)
Many
"theories" in physics, even today, are vulnerable to further
refinement or total rejection. In
quantum mechanics, general relativity, special relativity and the photon
theory, actual data has driven theories to be increasingly irrational and
paradoxical.
But if the data is
correct, no one can debate the actual data (particularly if it is verified
independently by others). The formulas
can come before or after the actual data, but almost always the formulas come
after the data, unless similar formulas already exist for some comparable
phenomenon. In rare cases a scientist
may keep it a secret that their formulas were actually based on empirical data,
but they may claim that their formulas were based solely on theory and that they
correctly predicted the data, when in fact they already knew what the data was
going to be.
Let me give a case
study of why it is important to separate the "data" from the
"theory." Later in this book
there will be a chapter on the De Witte Effect. De Witte is an engineer in Belgium. During a 178-day long experiment, he detected a consistent phase
shift in electrical frequencies. What
was amazing about these phase shifts was that they followed a consistent
sinusoidal curve with a "sidereal day" period. I will explain what all of this means in the
later chapter, but for now I want to emphasize that this was his
"data."
De Witte's web site[19], and his claims as to what his data
implied, are quite dramatic. He claimed
to detect the ether, which is something the scientific community does not take
lightly. To use my terminology, his
"theory" was that he had detected ether. He also could be found on the Internet news groups debating other
scientists.
Those few scientists
who were aware of De Witte's experiment rejected his theory. But in doing that, they also
rejected his data! It is
totally inexcusable that any scientist would reject data just
because they reject a person's theory. It is not science!
Data is data and data needs to be totally separated from a person's
personality, the way he or she dresses, the way they comb their hair, how many
kids they have, their personal lifestyle, their education, and their
theories. Even if De Witte had claimed
to prove the moon was made out of cheese, the scientific community should have
taken his data very seriously. They
didn't.
While it is true that
some scientists have created bogus data, generally data that leads to new
concepts can be verified or be proven to be false. No one has ever proven or even suggested that De Witte's data was
bogus or false. In fact, my experience
in the fiber optics field tells me his data is quite plausible and
believable. But for the scientific
community to reject his data because they reject his theory is simply
inexcusable.
Unfortunately,
journals reject many articles, and the data that accompanies those
articles, because they do not like the author's theory, or because
the theory is not popular, or because the author doesn't have the right
credentials, ad nauseum.
Because of this there is a tremendous amount of critical data that is
lost to the scientific world.
The case of Special
Relativity is exactly the opposite of the De Witte experience. In the case of the SR and GR, because the
formulas of the SR and GR seem to work, the scientific community blindly accepted
the "theories" of the SR and GR. The fact that Einstein's formulas worked should not have been a
surprise since many of them existed before he published them. But because his formulas worked, his
theories were accepted, even though the SR contains no causal agent and the GR
is totally obfuscated.[20] In the case of De Witte, the data
was rejected because the theory was rejected. In the case of Einstein, because
the formulas were accepted, the theory was accepted. It is exactly the same error. Data and theories need to be kept totally
separate.
I once received a
letter from a journal that included this statement: "The theory of
relativity, ..., is one of the most thoroughly tested theories in modern
physics." [italics added] This
common statement is a direct result of using a definition of "theory"
that is so general that it allows assumptions, that contain no causal
explanations, to be considered a "theory." It is a matter of semantics, but it is an example of how the
scientific community ignores the issue of cause. The "theory" of relativity has never been tested, nor
can it be tested, because there is no "theory" in the SR. But yet it has been accepted as a full
fledged "theory" that explains the cause of the H-K data! The "formulas" of the SR have been
thoroughly tested in many situations, but there are competing models that do
contain actual theories, that lead to basically the same formulas. In other words, unlike the SR, these
competing models include a logical causal agent as to why the data results.
The scientific
community should learn from their lessons.
They should learn that everything must have a cause. Maybe we don't know what the cause is, or
maybe no one can comprehend a model that fits the data, but everything, everywhere,
must have a cause. While the subject of
"action at a distance" may be up for debate, the issue of
"everything must have a cause" is not up for debate.
The Hafele-Keating
experiment contains "data."
The SR and GR are used to explain why the data resulted. But the "theory" of special
relativity is identical to the "theory" of Team A in the Anemometer
Metaphor. The SR provides formulas, but
offers no logical causal agent as to why the formulas work.
As mentioned in the
anemometer metaphor, if the observer is running behind the car it will not
change the velocity of the cups rotating on the anemometer. We could ask the same question here. Suppose we flew a helicopter high above the
north pole. Suppose we put an atomic
clock inside of this helicopter and declared that this helicopter was our
"at rest" reference frame for a new "Hafele-Keating"
experiment. Suppose that during the
experiment the helicopter started flying towards Oslo at 500 kph. Would the motion of our "at rest"
reference frame change the "actual time" measured by our new atomic
clocks? Of course not.
Yet this would have
been allowed in the 1905 SR. Clearly
the choice of the "at rest" reference frame was simply to get the
formulas to work, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the "actual
time" measured by the atomic clocks in the H-K. On the other hand, if there was some way to get the ambient ether
drag in motion (ambient to the clocks), it would have an affect
on the "actual time" measured by the clocks.
Is "Relativity" Logically Consistent With the
Hafele-Keating Data?
The vast distance,
many thousands of kilometers, between the "at rest" coordinate point
and the atomic clocks in the H-K provides us with a new tool to view the
ether-photon debate. In both 1905 and
1924, the "steady state" theory was generally believed. This theory was that our sun is perfectly
"at rest" in the Universe.
This "at rest" reference frame would have been believed to be
totally "at rest" with respect to the entire universe
in 1924. Einstein basically stated that
if there was a URF, he would use it. At
that time in history, the center of the sun was considered
a URF! In 1920, why didn't
Einstein state that the center of the sun was his choice for an "at
rest" reference frame?[21] Such a choice would have been the perfect
choice in 1920, but obviously he had access to some empirical data. But with the modern knowledge of astronomy,
we know of things even more at rest than is our sun. But in spite of this, "a point high above the North Pole"
is still the one that works.
Since the imaginary
axis of the earth is the only "at rest" reference frame that gets the
formulas to work, then the axis of the earth must be a very significant part of
the cause
of the data (remember, "relativity" is a postulate). In other words, there must be something
about the imaginary axis of the earth that causes the frequency of cesium
atomic clocks, thousand of kilometers away, to change their frequency as a
function of the direction and velocity of the jets that carry them, to the
exclusion of all other "at rest" reference frames.
In physics the
"cause" of the data and the "formulas" that predict the
data should be kept separate in our minds, but on the other hand they also
should be logically related. Because the
"at rest" reference frame is part of the formulas of
"relativity," it must therefore be part of the cause (postulate or no
postulate) of actual time changes in atomic clocks thousands of kilometers
away. But all of this sounds
illogical. An imaginary axis that is
thousands of kilometers from the experiment logically cannot be a cause of
actual frequency changes in atomic clocks and cannot prevent other "at
rest" reference frames from also causing time changes to the clocks.
To put this another
way: is the choice of the "correct" at rest reference frame a
contributing cause of the data or does it's choice simply tell
us something about the properties of the substance, force or field
(i.e. causal agent) that does cause the resistance to the cesium atoms? In the case of the H-K, the answer is
logically "neither." An
imaginary axis thousands of kilometers away is neither the cause of the data,
nor does it tell us anything about the substance, force or field that does
cause the data because there is no substance, force or field emanating
exclusively from the imaginary axis of the earth that has the correct
coordinate system.
The axis of the
magnetic field of the earth is close to being the rotation axis of the earth,
but the magnetic field of the earth rotates with the earth, thus the stationary
clock would not be in motion relative to the magnetic field of the earth. In other words, the stationary clock would
be "at rest" relative to the flying clocks and could have been used
as the "at rest" reference frame.
Because the formulas don't work if the stationary clock is considered
"at rest," we can reject the magnetic field of the earth as a cause
of resistance. Ditto for the earth's
gravity (GR). Furthermore, if we used
the earth's magnetic field or the GR, the data from the flying atomic clocks
would have been backwards.
However, remember
that there are two "at rest" reference frames the H-K could have
used, not just one. The imaginary axis
is clearly illogical, but the other choice is perfectly logical. Suppose the H-K had used a
"bubble" around the earth as their "at rest" reference
frame. Suppose this bubble is filled
with a substance, force or field that is stationary (i.e."at rest")
inside the bubble (i.e. it doesn't rotate with the earth) and it extends high
above the altitudes of the jet airplanes.
This choice of an "at rest" reference frame would work with
the formulas, would have the correct coordinate system, and would even shield
the cesium atoms from the reference frame of the sun (i.e. the sun's ether
drag), for example.
But in addition, this
choice is logical because the substance, force or field that creates this
bubble comes into direct contact with the atoms in all of the atomic clocks - it
is not thousands of kilometers away.
Thus, there is a logical relationship between the formulas and the
substance that causes resistance to the atoms in the clocks! This is a far more
logical choice for an "at rest" reference frame than an imaginary
axis thousands of kilometers from the experiment, coupled with a postulate that
offers no explanation for a physical cause.
We now have enough
information to ask some key questions.
We now know that the substance, force or field that caused actual time
changes in the H-K atomic clocks must have at least the following properties:
1) It must be able to
cause resistance to electrons. I say
"resistance" because as the clocks move faster through the substance,
force or field, the time measured slows down.
2) It must
"shield" the earth from the affects of this substance, force or field
from the motion of the earth's orbit around the sun and our total motion in
space or else the substance (i.e. extraterrestrial substance) would cause data
that was not consistent with the formulas of relativity. This means the substance, force or field
must create a "bubble" around the earth at least to the altitude of
the H-K jets to shield the atomic clocks (this eliminates nutrinos and the
sun's gravitational field, for example).
3) This substance,
force or field must be virtually motionless inside of its own bubble, such that
it does not rotate with the earth (this eliminates the magnetic field of the
earth and the gravitational field).
4) Objects on the
surface of the earth (such as the stationary atomic clock) cannot be motionless
with respect to this substance, force or field. They must be exposed to resistance at the same velocity as the
rotational velocity of the earth at their latitude (this also eliminates the
earth's gravitational field and magnetic field).
The list could go on,
but it should be clear from Chapter 1 and this chapter that the only substance,
force or field that meets all of these criteria is ether and ether drag.
What if Contact
Enhanced the Cesium Atoms?
Suppose someone were
to say that the faster an object flies through a substance, the faster
its "time" will be measured.
This theory might be put forth to claim that the magnetic field of the
earth "enhanced" the cesium atoms the faster they flew through the
earth's magnetic field (or ditto for the gravitational field). There are two problems with this theory.
First, the
Hafele-Keating is a "slow" version of the SLAC. It is clear, that because electrons require
more energy to speed up as they get near the speed of light, that some
substance, force or field is causing resistance to the
SLAC electrons. It would be hard to
image that less energy would be needed to accelerate the electrons as they got
closer to the speed of light. Since
both the SLAC and H-K deal with some substance, force of field coming into
direct contact with electrons, it is clear that it is the same
substance that affects both experiments.
This means that resistance is the cause of the data of both experiments.
Second, as has
already mentioned, because of the choice of the "at rest" reference
frame, the ground-based atomic clock at the USNO must be in motion at the same
velocity as the rotation of the earth at its latitude. This means the magnetic field and
gravitational fields of the earth are eliminated from consideration.
To understand what I
am talking about, consider that in order for a substance to have caused the H-K
data, and in order for this substance, force or field to have
"enhanced" (i.e. sped up) the "actual times" of the atomic
clocks, the faster they flew through this substance, it
must have two properties. First, for
the atomic clocks in the jets, the substance must rotate with the earth. This would work for both the magnetic and
gravitational fields of the earth. But
for the stationary atomic clock the substance on the surface of the earth would
have to rotate the same direction as the rotation of the earth, but move at twice
the velocity as the rotation speed of the earth at that latitude. It would have to fly at twice the speed as
the earth because the stationary clock is sitting on the ground, thus if the
substance, force or field simply rotated with the earth, the stationary clock
would be motionless. Such a substance
does not exist.
In
conclusion, we can totally eliminate the first postulate of Special Relativity
as being of any value. While it is an
interesting mathematical observation, it is non-causal and invalid in the real
world (even Einstein dropped it by 1920).
Ether drag, on the other hand, is logical, causal and is valid in the
real world.
It
is now time to move on to the five chapters which deal with my two experiments
and Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, all of which deal with the "path of
light" and the photon theory.
(Note: There is one more section in this chapter that is for
those who are concerned there might be some extraterrestrial cause of the H-K
data. Most readers can safely skip the
next section.)
Extraterrestrial
Causes of the H-K Data
There are two general possibilities for galactic gravity or
a galactic magnetic field. The first is
that there is an object at the center of the galaxy that creates a
gravitational field (or magnetic field) that reaches to the far edge of the
galaxy. The second is that galactic
gravity (or magnetic field) is simply the summation of the gravity (or magnetic
fields) of the stars and other objects in the galaxy. This second option is mathematically illogical, but more
importantly can be reduced to a discussion of the sun as our primary source of
extraterrestrial gravity or magnetic field, thus it will be ignored as a
separate option.
The first option to consider is that the gravitational field
or magnetic field (and I use these only as examples to represent many
possibilities) is centered at the center of the universe, the center of the
galaxy or the center of the sun and it is nonrotating. In this case our earth would be moving
through this field at 370 kps, 230 kps or 30 kps, respectively. This option is rejected because these
numbers do not fit the Hafele-Keating data, meaning such numbers do not show up
in the formulas.
The second option to consider is that the gravitational
field or magnetic field is rotating.
Data does not support the theory that our universe is rotating. While our galaxy is rotating, whatever
object is at the center of the galaxy probably does not rotate once every
225-250 million years (which is the time it takes our sun to orbit completely
around the galactic center). Likewise,
our sun rotates every 25 days (at the equator), but our earth orbits the sun
every 365 days, both counterclockwise (viewing from the North). In both cases the rotation velocity where
our sun or earth are located, is not the same velocity as our orbit
velocity. This means there is a
significant differential between our orbit velocity and the rotation velocity
of the gravitational or magnetic field.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the difference
between the rotation velocity and our orbit velocity was 10 kps. This means that atomic clocks that had
angular velocities and vectors that happened to be parallel with our orbit
vector at that time, and happened to be moving "into"
or "headed towards" this rotating field, would measure time very
differently than an atomic clock on the opposite side of the earth at the same
moment which is moving "with" or "in the
same direction" as this rotating field.
In other words, atomic clocks on opposite sides of the earth would not
synchronize with each other due to the 10 kps differential velocity (one would
be moving into the "wind" and the other would be
moving with the "wind"). The difference would essentially be double
the rotation velocity of the earth.
Likewise, an atomic clock, stationary on the equator, would
speed up and slow down daily as the earth rotated due to this 10 kps difference
in velocity (i.e. at times it would be moving into the
"wind" and at times it would be moving with the
"wind"). Again, the
difference would be double the rotation velocity of the earth. The differences in atomic times would surely
have been noticed and detected by now.
The third possibility is that some substance, force or field
creates a stationary bubble around the galaxy or sun, and our earth moves
within this stationary bubble. What
would this substance be? Undoubtedly it
would be ether drag. Whether it is the
stationary ether of the universe, a bubble around our galaxy or a bubble around
the sun, our earth would be moving through this stationary ether at a velocity
of 370 kps, 230 kps or 30 kps, respectively.
Michelson and Morley designed their experiment to detect an absolute
velocity of the earth of 30 kps through this stationary ether. They got a null result. This possibility was eliminated in the
1880s.
I
could go into these issues in more detail or discuss other scenarios, however,
the reader should realize that the "at rest" reference frame that
worked with the Hafele-Keating data moved with our earth in its motion, and
extraterrestrial effects were shielded from the atomic clocks. This makes the possibility that
extraterrestrial effects coincidentally caused the Hafele-Keating data extremely
remote.