General Relativity and the Ether
"Classification of mathematical problems as linear and nonlinear is like classification of the Universe as bananas and non-bananas."
Altitude and the H-K
As far as the H-K is concerned, General Relativity ("GR") is concerned with gravity. Gravity, of course, is stronger near the surface of the earth as opposed to at high altitudes. The intent of this chapter is to explain how ether and ether drag can logically and easily explain the "altitude" or GR portion of the H-K experiment. Other topics will also be discussed.
Hafele and Keating predicted, because of GR, that at higher altitudes the atomic clocks would operate at a faster speed. And, of course, they were right. At the higher altitudes, gravity is less potent, and the atomic clocks actually measured time faster than time measured at ground level. Other experiments have also verified this.
It should be remembered that these are "actual time" changes. The direction of the flights had no affect on the GR portion of the data.
Sometimes an experiment gives us clearer insight into a phenomenon. Tesla described ether much like a person would describe a hydrogen gas atom. Whether this is right or not, it is important to know whether ether is compressible and whether it is compressible by the earth’s gravity? The Hafele-Keating experiment gives us the answer. Since the atomic clocks operated faster at higher altitudes, it is logical to say that there is less resistance (i.e. FROS) to the cesium atoms at higher altitudes. Thus, if the FROS is less at higher altitudes, the density of ether must be less at higher altitudes. This means that the density of the ether is a function of gravity. This, in fact, makes perfect sense when thinking about the Tesla model of ether. Certainly, our atmosphere is the key, both our atmosphere (i.e. the air) and ether "thin out" at higher altitudes.
Since the density of ether is directly proportional to the strength of gravity (this is not an accident, it is a clear "cause and effect" relationship), it is clear that the FROS formulas for altitude would be similar, if not exactly the same, as the GR formulas for altitude (at least as far as measurable and verifiable formulas are concerned). The variation of density by altitude is also a strong indication that gravity is what is holding the ether drag to the earth.
It should be mentioned, however, that the "density" of ether may not be a matter of ethons becoming physically further apart at the higher altitudes. It may be an issue of energy. For example, if gravity energizes ether (or vice versa), the ethons may be the same physical distance apart at higher altitudes, but the energy levels of the ethons may less, and thus provide less resistance to the electrons in the atomic clocks at higher altitudes.
In any case, Hafele and Keating did make a major discovery in their experiment, but it was not the one they thought they had made. They discovered that the "density" of ether varies by altitude and thus FROS varies by altitude and thus "time" varies by altitude.
Can Ether Be A Solid?
While the reader may think that this book favors the theory that ether is a gas, such is not the case. Is ether a gas or a liquid or a solid? The answer is probably "none of the above."
Knowing that ether drag exists, how could ether be a solid? The answer is that if ether were a solid, the earth's gravity could locally "energize" the ether as it travels through the ether, thus giving the illusion that there is physical ether drag. But there is a problem with this theory as I will now explain.
In this discussion, the reader must keep in mind the difference between ether (i.e. "ethons") and the signal traveling through the ether (i.e. light). This is similar to separating in our minds the difference between "air" and "sound."
Consider a fiber optic cable that spans 100 kilometers. During the time the fiber optic signal is traveling down the fiber cable, the earth and the fiber itself are moving towards Leo at 370 kps. If ether were a solid, the earth and the fiber optic cable would be traveling through the ether at 370 kps. We know that the signal does not travel with the earth towards Leo, or else the signal could not stay inside the cable for 100 km. But it is possible that the signal does stay within the cable, while the cable itself travels through the ether at 370 kps.
This is difficult to understand so let me provide a metaphor. Suppose you have a long cylinder of chicken wire (chicken wire is mostly air, the wires are very thin and are very far apart), which has a radius of 1 meter and a length of 100 km. Suppose this chicken wire is towed underwater by two tug boats at 10 kph. The tube of chicken wire is perpendicular to the direction of the tug boats. While it is being towed, someone shoots a water balloon down the length of the chicken wire at 30 kph. The chicken wire (i.e. the fiber optic cable) will travel through the water (i.e. the ether) as if the water wasn't even there. However, the water balloon (i.e. the signal) is confined to stay within the chicken wire. It cannot leave the chicken wire. This is an example of how to separate the ether (i.e. the water) from the signal (i.e. the water balloon). The mirrored surface inside of the fiber optic cable would act as the chicken wire. It would contain the signal, but would travel through the ether as if it weren't there.
Thus, if there were no physical ether drag (i.e. ether was a solid), the cable (i.e. the chicken wire) would be traveling through the ether (i.e. the water) at the same speed as the planet. However, the signal (i.e. the laser beam) would be confined to staying within the fiber optic cable (i.e. the chicken wire).
However, if a laser is fired in open-air there would be no mirrored fiber optic cable to contain the signal. It would make sense that the signal would attach itself to the ether, which is assumed to be a solid in this case. If so, we could easily detect that the signal is attached to the ether, not the earth (i.e. not to the fiber that is attached to the earth). In my first experiment, if this were the case, I would have clearly gotten an ellipse! But my experiments make it clear that the signal is not attached to the ether (this discussion is assuming that ether is a solid). It is for exactly this reason that I personally reject the theory that ether is a solid (at least the ether that light travels through as a signal, there may be other kinds of ether). It makes logical sense that in open-air the signal would attach itself to the ether, not the earth, even if the earth energized the ether particles as it passed by them. In any case, that is my opinion.
The priority of this book is to deal with the existence of ether, not to speculate as to "what" it is. This book will refer to ether as a gas or liquid (i.e. fluid), but this is only for convenience.