Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.

Eric Gisse wrote:
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The H&K experiment has been officially recognized as being
>> >> >>statistically
>> >> >> insignificant.
>> >> >
>> >> >Officially recognized by WHO? Who are these officials?
>> >>
>> >> I agree that Henri should give a reference however the H&K experiment is
>> >> flawed according to an article by Dr Scott Murray [1]
>> >
>> >Henri should do lots of things. Backing his statements up with any
>> >element of fact is one of them. I would have been honestly impressed if
>> >he went as far as you did to actually try to invalidate the H&K
>> >experiment.
>>
>> >
>> >> I can email you a copy if you wish.
>> >
>> >I would appreciate that. Sounds like an interesting paper, especially
>> >since I disagree with its' conclusion.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What they were trying to do was to prove the time dilation prediction of
>> >> special relativity but because the planes height varies they had to
>> >> correct for GR effect of height. The basic equation they used was
>> >> according to Murray:
>> >>
>> >> Delta t/t = gh/cc - vv/2cc
>> >> where v = Earths angular Velocity x r x Cos (Latitude) + u
>> >> u = aircraft's speed
>> >>
>> >> where gh/cc is the GR correction for height h above sea level. Murray
>> >> points out that this equation cannot be correct because it implies that
>> >> a much simpler experiment could be performed i.e. park two planes at sea
>> >> level at two different latitudes then u = 0 h = 0 and
>> >>
>> >> delta t/t = [Earths angular Velocity x r x Cos (Latitude)]^2/2cc.
>> >>
>> >> However experimentally we know that delta t/t for two points at sea
>> >> level on the earths surface = 0 to a very high degree of certainty. The
>> >> basic equation they used predicts a result which isn't true.
>> >
>> >Sea level is the same everywhere. So any correction between sea level
>> >and sea level are zero as far as any redshift corrections are
>> >concerned.
>>
>> Cocke is saying that the surface of the sea is not an equipotential
>> surface in the GR sense of the term 'gravitational potential'. If you
>> take 'sea level' as the height relative to the centre of the earth it is
>> not the same height everywhere. The 'height' at the equator is taken as
>> the difference between radius at the pole and radius at the equator.
>> Cocke says you have to do a GR correction for that difference.
>
>Oooooooooooooooops, SHIT.
>
>I should've realised this last night. Of all the talk about the
>oblateness of the Earth numbed me to the reason it IS oblate in the
>first place. It is oblate because the Earth is rotating. The surface is
>NOT a true equipotential because it is under the action of the
>centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation.

Velocity is a vector quantity and acceleration is a change of velocity.
This can take the form of either change of speed or change of direction
or a combination of both. If you have a mass acted upon by gravity then
it will accelerate.

Force = Mass x acceleration

MmG/dd = mg + mvv/r ------------- [1]


Force of = mass x increase + mass x change of
Gravity in speed acceleration direction acceleration

There is only one force acting and that is gravity. The second term is
wrongly referred to a centrifugal force. Gravity is a centripetal force
- towards the centre - not centrifugal - away from the centre.
Rotation does not produce a force, gravity forces something to move in a
circle.

The standard definition of gravitational potential between two points is
the work required to move a mass from one point to the other divided by
the mass. Alternatively it is the work gained when a mass moves from the
higher to the lower potential divided by the mass. On that definition
two points of equal potential are such that a mass cannot fall from one
to the other. On that basis the equator and the pole must be at the same
potential otherwise water would flow until they were. Equation 1 can be
rearranged:

g = MG/dd - vv/r ------------- [2]

Because some of the force of gravity is required to accelerate the
surface into a circle there is effectively less gravitational force to
do work against. g is smaller so gravitational potential gh is smaller.

If Einstein's prediction is just plain wrong, and the reason all clocks
keep the same time is because at mean sea level the forces acting on
them are the same, the gravitational potential is the same - then that
would make sense to me. If water can detect no difference in force
acting upon it then why should a clock? But is Einstein's prediction
wrong? My own analysis below suggests that it isn't.

I am afraid I am someone who likes to visualise what is happening and
that is not easy with relativity. I do not like simply applying
equations. My approach may not appeal to your sensibilities but bear
with me. Accept it as my way of coping. Of homing in on the right
solution.

If you look at the history of relativity then Lorentz theory said that
an observers motion through the ether distorted his measurements so that
it *appears* to him that he is stationary w.r.t the ether. Einstein
attempted to improve upon it by insisting on symmetry. Every observer's
relationship to the ether is equally valid so every observer must
actually *be* stationary w.r.t the ether. The second postulate describes
what an observer would observe if he were stationary w.r.t the ether.

Einstein could not get his 'mobile ether' to work as a believable
concept. In the end he declared it to be a 'principle theory' - a sort
of mathematical model which does not attempt physical explanation.

This obviously makes it difficult to 'visualise' what relativity is
saying but my way is to think of every inertial FoR is a separate
parallel universe. Light travels everywhere in that universe at c
because the ether is stationary w.r.t that universe. This is the only
way I can visualise what the second postulate says.

C A-> v
|
|
|
B


Take this diagram. C is stationary w.r.t B so is in the same universe as
B. B and C's clocks will remain in sync because they are in the same
universe. A is moving. An observer with A is in a different universe to
B in which all light travels at c in his ether. Time dilation is the
result of the speed with which A's universe and B's universe are moving
relative to each other. In B's universe A's clock will be going slower
than B's. In A's universe B's clock will be going slower than A's and an
event which takes place at a particular time in A's universe may take
place at a different time in B's universe. As I say it may offend your
sensibilities but it is a way of visualizing what is going on is
consistent with the maths and follows directly from the second
postulate.

Now clearly A's speed relative to C and A's speed relative to B is
different but B and C are in the same universe so share the same time.
You say:

>Compare any two stationary points on Earth's surface. There is no
>relative movement between them.

There is very little relative motion between A and B but A's dilation as
seen by B must be the same as A's dilation as seen by C so your comment
is not the right way to look at it.

Dilation is not a function of the speed at which A and B are
separating but is a function of the speed of A's universe
compared to B's.

A-> v A'
|
|
|
B

Now assume that the distance A'-B is large. If A is in the vicinity of
A' then B only has to have a small constant CW rotation for the apparent
speed of A to be zero. The time dilation of A's clock compared to B's
cannot be subject to whether B is rotating or not so

it must be a golden rule that to get the right answer
the FoR of the observer is strictly not rotating.

Note that while speed is relative, rotation is absolute.

Let us look at Einstein's prediction. Put an observer P at the pole,
with his clock, on a turn-table so that he doesn't rotate with the
earth. That is our no rotating reference frame. So what is the time
dilation of a clock E at the equator relative to the non rotating FoR of
this non rotating observer P. Now SR only relates to inertial FoR and
the clock on the equator is going in a circle. OK let us instead
consider the clock moving in a series of joined up straight lines each a
tangent to the earths surface. Because E moves in a straight line E is
now inertial. The time dilation observed by P will depend upon the speed
of E's universe compared to P's - let us call that v. Suppose at the end
of one short straight line E changes direction to move on the next
tangent to the circle. It is now in a new universe because it is moving
in a different direction to the previous one but v is the same so the
dilation of E seen by P will be the same. Essentially E travels though a
series of universes each of which is a different universe (because its
direction of movement is different to that of the previous one) but each
of which has the same speed relative to P. If we make the length of
those lines tend to zero then E travels through an infinite set of
universes each of which is travelling at v relative to P's universe and
for which time dilation observed by P will be the same. From which I
conclude that Einstein's prediction is consistent with his theory.

Ignoring practical considerations you could simplify the H&K experiment
and have one plane flying east and the other west around the equator at
a constant height. If the one flying contrary to the earth's rotation
(flying west?) could match its speed so that it is stationary w.r.t our
non rotating polar observer P it could then be compared directly with
the clock in the other plane when they met - The corrections H&K did for
latitude and height would be eliminated. By simplifying the H&K
experiment I hope I have shown that it, and Einstein's prediction share
similar thinking so if you are saying Einstein was wrong then you are
also saying H&K were misguided.

OK let us look at Cocke's argument. Imagine I have my plane X flying at
sea level west around the equator (OK I need to dig some big canals :o)
travelling at such a speed that it is stationary in P's FoR with the
earth turning beneath it. i.e. a stationary plane X, then because of the
bulge at the equator X's gravitational potential is higher than that at
the pole because he is further out from the centre of the earth than the
pole is. It makes no difference to plane X whether the earth is rotating
or not. That is OK so far.

Cocke's argument says that stationary plane X is a point that is in the
reference frame. When the clock wizzing round with the equator passes X
its gravitational potential is the same as X's therefore you have to
make a GR gravitational potential correction and that turns out to be
equal and opposite to the SR component predicted by Einstein.

Now there is a lot at stake here because Cocke's logic is the only thing
explaining what would otherwise be a direct failure of relativity. There
is therefore a strong incentive for a relativist to accept that logic.
I am a sceptic and I am not at all sure.

I agree that a clock in the stationary plane X would have a different
potential to one at the pole but the clock wizzing around the equator is
not stationary w.r.t plane X. Is it legitimate to say that the only
difference between the moving clock and the clock on plane X is that the
moving clock is travelling at v and is therefore subject to time
dilation - which just happens to be equal and opposite to the effect the
difference in gravitational potential has? Well certainly v is not the
sole difference it is also accelerating at vv/r under gravity which
mathematically has the same effect as reducing g i.e. changing the
amount of work required to move a mass - the basis of the definition of
gravitational potential. Arguments which try to draw a distinction
between gravity and 'centrifugal force' are misguided because there is
only gravity.

The water on the surface of the earth would act differently if the earth
did not rotate but the earth does rotate and in that rotating FoR the
water surface is an equipotential surface. Likewise the clock does
rotate and surely the gravitational potential it experiences will match
that of the water not that of a clock stationary w.r.t plane X.

Putting it another way surely there is a difference between referring
measurements to a stationary FoR i.e. predicting how they would appear
to an observer in the stationary FoR and stopping a rotating FoR in
order to examine it. If the surface of the water at the equator is at a
different gravitational potential to that at the pole in the FoR of P
then in the FoR of P the water would flow and in the FoR of P the water
surface would be a sphere.

Sorry my brain hurts :o)


At the moment therefore I accept that Einstein's prediction is in
accordance with his theory but I am not happy as to Cocke's explanation
of why the prediction is wrong. I am also concerned that what has been
accepted as 'the right way of looking at it' has been accepted because
it gives the answer everyone wants. i.e. 'relativity can't be wrong
therefore Cocke's way of defining gravitational potential must be
right'.

>However, look at your figure.

Not mine :o)

> It IS an equipotential in the GR sense
>because the potentials balance everything out so the surface is an
>equipotential. I am annoyed that I didn't realise that, though.

>> It is that correction which is equal and opposite (to a first order) to
>> the SR time dilation due to the fact that the equator is going faster
>> than the pole. The two balance and therefore clocks at mean sea level
>> stay in time - says Cocke.
>
>I agree.
>
>>
>> >
>> >So the only place to look is at the SR correction. The equation Hafele
>> >and Keating cite for the SR correction is (2), look at the one previous
>> >- it is the SR correction.
>> >
>> >/_\t = -[(2R_OMEGA_v + v^2)t_0 ]/2c^2]
>> >
>> >What are the velocities of the two frames in question? Zero.
>> >
>> >So, for the two frames of different latitudes, we have both coordinate
>> >velocities being zero, along with the altitudes with respect to
>> >eachother both equal to zero - no time dilation.
>> >
>> >Unless there are some higher order terms that are being neglected, I
>> >don't see how Murray reaches his conclusion.
>>
>> I will send you his article.
>
>Thanks.
>
>The author's language bugs the hell out of me. Anyone who refers to
>"Relativists" in a serious fashion starts to reek of crank. Too much
>time reading crap by people like Henri Wilson, perhaps.

Henri tends to be his own worst enemy. If he has got anything
interesting to say it gets lost, swamped by his attitude. It would be a
mistake to classify everyone who is sceptical of modern physics as a
crank. Unlike Henri I don't claim to have all the answers, only some of
the questions which are being conveniently ignored.

>I have a harder
>time thinking critically because the notion gets stuck in my mind
>rather fast that the author wants to score a point against relativity
>any way he can, and may 'accidently' ignore a subtle point.

I don't think so. I think he was in the scientific civil service which
would mean that he wouldn't be happy doing an article on a paper without
looking up every reference quoted to see what it said. True he did not
have a high opinion of his fellow physicists in the achedemic community
whom he felt were not nearly critical enough and had allowed
mathematicians to take over. His career was in engineering rather than
theoretical physics which gives him a less esoteric viewpoint.


>I see how he reaches his conclusion. I had trouble coming up with a
>decent explanation for awhile until I considered the principle of
>relativity.
>
>We know that there is no time dilation on the surface in theory and in
>observation. Why?
>
>Compare any two stationary points on Earth's surface. There is no
>relative movement between them.

>Yes, when observed by someone not rotating with them, they are moving
>at different velocities. But both points are co-rotating with the same
>angular speed. In a co-rotating reference frame, there is NO movement
>between two points on the surface.


>Non-inertial reference frames are annoying. I am not entirely sure my
>analysis is right because this IS a non-inertial frame. I am hoping by
>limiting observers to be co-rotating, SR can still apply.
>
>I think this is where the problem lies: Are we applying SR correctly?
>GR, while a part of the debate, is kind of sitting off to the side.
>This is why I want someone more experienced to comment.

I don't think I qualify
- but at least you can understand my comments :o).

>
>As for the GR correction, look at the figure you attached. I like that
>so much I am keeping it with the rest of my GR junk, because its pretty
>nifty. Plus it would take a fair bit of time for me to figure it out
>from scratch.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Now Einstein predicted that a clock at the equator would go more slowly
>> >> than a clock at the pole which more generally means that he predicted
>> >> that clocks at two different latitudes would give different times - just
>> >> as the H&K equation says. When that was found not to be the case a chap
>> >> called W.J. Cocke came up with an explanation. It was that because the
>> >> earth (or rather the ocean as we are talking sea level) bulges around
>> >> the equator the gravitational potential due to the extra height of the
>> >> bulge gives a GR effect which neatly cancels the SR effect. If that is
>> >> correct then H&K should not have used h = height above sea level but h =
>> >> height above the centre of the earth.
>> >
>> >I believe Einstein was incorrect in that particular assertion.
>>
>> What Cocke says is that Einstein would be correct if the earth was a
>> sphere. Einstein did not realise it was an oblate spheroid and that you
>> have to do a GR correction for the variation in radius/height. You seem
>> to be disagreeing with Cocke and Einstein.
>
>Einstein was wrong, his opinion is not part of either theory of
>relativity and it constantly amazes me how often people treat his
>written thoughts as if they are golden OR as actual parts of relativity
>theory. We do not need Einstein's thoughts to use his theory.

Well I have above argued it out to my own satisfaction from first
principles that he was right.

>
>I disagree with Cocke because the potentials balance out to be the same
>everywhere, but I DO see his point.

>> >> However Murray questions Cocke's explanation on the grounds that the
>> >> earth is the shape it is because that shape gives the ocean an
>> >> equipotential surface if it were not the water would flow from a higher
>> >> to a lower potential until it was. Equipotential surface = no GR
>> >> correction so according to SR there should be a difference in the
>> >> timekeeping of clocks at different latitudes and their isn't so a
>> >> failure of SR? No say relativists. Cocke is right if you define
>> >> (re-define) gravitational potential as the gravitational potential which
>> >> would exist at a point if the earth wasn't rotating.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway you choose.
>> >>
>> >> Either Cocke is right and the new definition of potential is correct -
>> >> in which case H&K used the wrong h so their results are flawed
>> >
>> >Cocke's logic is sound, and I agree with it.
>>
>> You don't appear to above.
>
>Hehe.
>
>I don't. Not sure why I wrote that.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> OR
>> >>
>> >> Murray is right - the surface of the earth is equipotential so H&K were
>> >> right in using height above sea level but SR's prediction of change of
>> >> time with latitude fails much more convincingly than H&Ks experiment
>> >> succeeds.
>> >
>> >Murray is right in the first respect - Earth's surface is an
>> >equipotential. I don't see how it could be anything else, actually.
>>
>> Now you are disagreeing with Cocke.
>>
>> >
>> >However, I disagree with his conclusion for the reasons shown above.
>> >Barring any gaping hole in my logic, of course.
>> >
>> >I would like someone more knowledgable to weigh in, I am not as sure of
>> >my knowledge of relativity theory as I would like.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I suspect that
>> >>
>> >> >>The H&K experiment has been officially recognized as being statistically
>> >> >> insignificant.
>> >>
>> >> is the best way out for the establishment.
>> >
>> >I have always mentioned the H&K experiment not because it is the only
>> >one I know of, but because it is a nice macroscopic measurement of
>> >something that is rather subtle and counter-intuitive.
>>
>> Something you might like to ponder on is why the experiment is not
>> regularly repeated. We can now keep more accurate track of aircraft by
>> satellite navigation. I am surprised that every long haul aircraft isn't
>> flying around with a clock and a data logger on board - I have a
>> suspicious nature and it tells me that if the original experiment was
>> what it purported to be it would have been repeated. As far as I am
>> aware it hasn't been.
>
>It probably has been, I am sure someone wanted, at least once, to fine
>tune the error bars by at least an order of magnitude. 10%, imho, is
>pretty big. If not...its your ball, run with it. I don't attribute it
>not being ran again to conspiracy, just noone caring enough to run it
>again - this would be "good enough".
>
>I don't look for conspiracy in every corner, I don't see boogeymen
>trying to prop up the theory of relativity everywhere I look. This was
>worth thinking about, even though it made my headache worse. Were
>relativity completely false, the universe would be a much simpler
>place.

Could it be that the whole basis of the experiment is a bit of a
theoretical minefield when viewed critically. Murray highlighted the
fact that H&K did a sort of mix and match. They justified their
theoretical basis by means of a 'sound bite' from Builder's paper (when
other parts of Builder's paper would be rejected by most physicists).
They seem to have reproduced a 'standard' explanation provided by Cocke
without reading Cocke's actual paper when if they had done they should
have realised that it has deeper implications in it relating to their
own maths.

You say:

>I don't look for conspiracy in every corner, I don't see boogeymen
>trying to prop up the theory of relativity everywhere I look.

But here is an example where a sloppy article supporting relativity has
sailed through peer review giving support to the view that the peer
review system is weighted to prevent articles critical of the status quo
from being published.

I believe that ideas are best honed in an adversarial system and that
the present system is inherently unhealthy. If I had my way 'opposition'
should be funded and encouraged in order to throw up challenges to
orthodoxy. At present it is very effectively suppressed. Whether this is
because of arrogance or insecurity I am not sure.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A challenge to non-SRians
    ... The radius at the equator ... The swing of the pendulum will be unaltered between the pole and the ... but that is compensated for by the greater radius of the Earth at ... the upper bound is when the earth flies ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... >> the equator or back you don't gain or lose energy on this surface. ... Slide a hockey puck from the pole to the equator along this ... so the Earth is transferring energy to the puck ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A challenge to non-SRians
    ... The radius at the equator ... force at the equator with that at the pole, ... The oblateness of the Earth, by itself, _may_ cause an increase in the ... I was finding _an_ upper bound on effect. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR and GR without math
    ... > the world into a thin disk then the pole is at the ... > where the gravity is zero and the gravity at the rim (equator) is ... and equator is correspondingly smaller on Earth than on planet Burger. ... If the oblateness of the Earth were 300%, like a hamburger patty, rather ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: NASA launches Moonbase Alpha today (6-JULY-2010)
    ... calendar correction which brought the calendar back up to the raw ... A location on the Earth is ... This period is called a solar ... the stars appear to be in the same place in the sky. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)