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, 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. 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? 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.