A Model to Reject Relativity!

Let’s see if we can establish a common ground of understanding by analyzing a landmark experiment that is almost a century old, a crucial part of modern navigational technology, but without anything like common agreement in theory .. the Sagnac eXperiment.(SagnacX).

From this analysis will arise a conceptual model, proven by natural testing, that rejects relativity and points to a familiar absolute frame for measuring motion and a universal background as the arena in which all events occur - the EM aether.

Navigation Guide

Start with the Background reading section (left column).


In the topics section, the Fizeau and Sagnac experiments then provide motivation for the ALFA model and Consequences .


Tests supporting and extending ALFA predictions are the Michelson-Morely, Michelson-Gale, Foucault, Aether motion, and Galaev tests.

Claims to refute ALFA are covered by the Aberration, Airy and Parallax topics.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Absolute Time


Absolute Time

Newton had an abstract concept of absolute space and time, though neither could be defined concretely for measurement.  Does the absolute space frame of the ALFA model have a corresponding well-defined specification of absolute time… capable of being measured?
The conditions for having an absolute time-keeper are:
·         Global synchronization
·         Universal accessibility across the world
·         Immunity from environmental changes
·         Stable
·         Autonomous operation
There is really only one clock that fills all these slots – the most ancient of time-keepers, the heavenly procession of the stars – astronomical time - star time!  Along with the lab or ECEF frame in space, stellar motion  provides  a suitable universal master clock in the time domain.
Clones of the master clock – or slave clocks – can be used just as now, as long as they are monotonic and can be scaled to the master clock in the heavens.    This resolves the issue of time dilation, but there are other hurdles to consider….
Astronomical time based on periodic celestial motion was the scientific standard chronometer – until replaced about 50 years ago by atomic time, using nuclear EM vibrations in atomic clocks.   This was based on the need for higher precision timing in technology.
But atomic timing had several inherent technical problems. Atomic clocks are subject to drift at variable rates and to jump ahead or backwards sporadically. Neither effect is predictable.  The atomic clock will not keep its frequency for unknown reason. It can change its frequency within one week, according to the Haferle-Keating experiment.  An atomic clock could run erratically - faster this week and slower next week then back to faster again. Time must be independent from all the tools we use to measure it.
The term ‘master atomic clock’ is in fact a misnomer; a group of clocks are used and the actual time is decided by vote – by seeing what time most clocks agree on!  Atomic clocks are subject to environmental changes on Earth, not all of which are known or can be compensated for. 
Cosmic time is free of local influences and is truly universal, being accessible anywhere on Earth. 
Once atomic time was the standard, astronomical events, like the completion of a year, had to be adjusted to agree with the new standard. Atomic time was found to differ from star time by a fraction of a second every year.  The discrepancy is detected as the difference between atomic (EM) clocks and the sidereal year, measured by stellar periods - the astronomical/gravity clock. So the practice of occasionally adding a leap second to the calendar year was introduced,   as the astronomical time based on gravity seemed to be running slower than the electromagnetic time based on atomic transitions.  See http://www.iers.org/ ; http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/ ;http://hpiers.obspm.fr/icrs-pc/
Now the cosmic clocks would agree with the earthly clocks (instead of vice versa in the ALFA model!). The leap seconds were cited as proof that the Earth is slowing down… instead of the equally valid conclusion that EM atomic frequencies were increasing.
In the heliocentric mainstream model the apparent slowing of stellar rotation was attributed to the actual slowing of the Earth’s rotation by tidal friction, the stars, of course, being fixed.  And, of course,  the geocentric ALFA model  says the Earth is not moving at all, making its slowdown an impossibility.

To resolve this conflict let’s look at the method for determining anomalies in the Earth’s ‘rotation’. …. Very Long Baseline Interferometry(VLBI).
Support for changing back to star time comes from an unlikely source…. the Pioneer 10,11 anomaly, 1972 – 2004. The Ranada-Tiemblo explanation covers the annual leap-secs as well as the Pioneer anomaly; probably also other phenomena that we haven't recognized yet.
Pioneer anomaly

Pioneer Anomaly

Pioneer 10,11 anomaly, 1972 – 2004
The anomaly consists of a frequency blue drift of the radio signals from the Pioneer 10 and 11, detected in the microwave signal of the Pioneer 10 and other spaceships by Anderson and manifested  by a residual Doppler shift that increases linearly with time.  At first attributed to a small constant acceleration sunward, the drift is uniformly changing at ~ (5.99 ± 0.01) ×10-9 Hz/s, effective from ~20 to 70 AU from the Sun.
After 35 years the anomaly is still unexplained, yet very well-defined and said to be possibly new physics.
Ranada and Tiemblo have shown that the Pioneer and Earth flyby anomalies can be due to a difference in the temporal rate of atomic/EM clocks and celestial/gravity clocks, an inherent difference in EM/atomic time and astronomical/gravity time. Atomic time was use in communication with the Pioneer probes for navigation while the trajectory was plotted using a Newtonian/gravitational model.  See the Pioneer anomaly as a quantum cosmological effect:  http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1904
They have measured the Doppler shifts of receding galaxies with atomic time and compared them with gravitational theory based on star time with the Friedmann equation – a Hubble law effect.
Are there two separate but coupled time bases and aethers- gravity and EM?  A question that merits in-depth analysis.
.                                                                  
 Stars                                 Atoms
The anomaly is an apparent acceleration, not a real one, caused by a progressive desynchronization of the astronomical and the atomic clock-times, after a prior synchronization.  The desynchronization could be caused by a coupling between the gravitational aether and the EM aether. The coupling necessarily exists between gravity and EM aether since both pervade the universe.
Since gravitational theory uses star time and the Pioneer observers use atomic time (devices based on quantum physics), this desynchronization necessarily causes a discrepancy.  The observed velocity of the spaceship is smaller than the predicted one, in such a way that the Pioneer seems to lag behind its expected position.
An adiabatic acceleration of light, and a small acceleration of the Pioneer towards the Sun could be mistaken the one for the other, because they do have the same fingerprint: a blue shift.
It turns out that the observational effects of a universal adiabatic acceleration of light and of an extra acceleration towards the Sun of a spaceship would be the same: a blue shift increasing linearly in time, precisely what was observed. The phenomenon would be due to a cosmological acceleration of the proper time of bodies with respect to the coordinate time.
It is argued by Ranada and Tiemblo that the permittivity and permeability of empty space are decreasing adiabatically, and the light is accelerating as a consequence of the progressive attenuation of the EM aether.  The chronic inability to unify gravity and EM gives support to this fundamental difference in time between these two natural forces. This proposal gives exactly the same results for radar ranging observations as standard physics and does not conflict with any established law.
 Astronomical time is defined by celestial periodic motion, while atomic time is founded on the oscillations of atomic systems. The effect is the relative march of the atomic clock of the detectors with respect to the astronomical clock of the orbit. An unavoidable coupling between gravitation and EM aether causes a progressive desynchronization of the astronomical and atomic clock-times  and the observed velocity to be  smaller than predicted - a deceleration.
Final notes:
·         These two clocks could be different in principle - ticking at different rates - since they are based on different physical laws, time is more philosophical than physical, and we lack a unified theory of gravitation and quantum EM. 
·         Astronomical time is never used to measure EM interactions, which may explain why the coupling effect has escaped ection to date .
·         Anderson et. al. have assumed that the Pioneer acceleration is directed Sunward, but the direction cannot be distinguished from Earthward, an artifact of the transmission direction. The Sun and Earth subtend less than a degree at Jupiter’s distance. 
·         Aren’t satellite periods also affected by the different time bases?
Yes, but the time delta is only a second every one or two years – the leap second of the IERS.
The slowing of the Earth’s rotation – which the leap second is meant to correct - is thus an illusion created by the difference in GI and EM chronometry.  This is a major paradigm shift which surely deserves more attention – the Earth’s rotation is not only constant – the constant is zero(0)!
·         If gravity and EM have a fundamental temporal difference – a different heartbeat - that can never be unified,  the unification researchers  should be told.  After all, this is the goal of the GUT, TOE and String theories.  
·         The divergence of gravity and EM clocks seen in the Pioneer anomaly is apparent in other contexts.


VLBI

The VLBI details:   
·         uses a radio quasar as source
·         longer wavelength than optical means poor resolution
·         distances to target quasars is unknown - see Halton Arp’s refutation of the deep-space quasar contention
·         multiple array antennas have individual atomic clocks which introduces independent random errors.
Radio astronomy VLBI uses a single quasar source as reference source for a multiple array antenna system!  So the projected motions of Earth are based on the motion of one(1) star! ( geodetic VLBI applications use multiple sources.)  The motions detected by VLBI’s single object are attributed to the Earth which is assumed to be rotating. In GC systems any motion must be external- that is, in the heavens.
Mainstream  VLBI uses HC and special relativity models to correct for the Earth’s orbital speed of 30 km/s.  This actually introduces errors such as receiver aberration, Lorentz length contractions and dilation of the atomic clock time. Also corrections are made for the elliptic ‘orbit’ of the Earth, the gravity field of the Moon, long term polar motion, precession and nutation. 
The GC model makes no such ‘corrections’. 
To synchronize remote stations, the Earth is often considered to be temporarily at rest, for a fixed time.  Imagine that - the Earth at rest! Sometimes the change is permanent by using the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial ) reference system, which fixes the stars in the Earth’s aether system, not the lab frame. To eliminate gravity effects on the signal, the SSBC (Solar System BaryCentric) frame is used. But there’s a small problem here – no one has tested that this is true, or that the SSBC is properly located by using observations in that frame…. as the scientific method requires.
The VLBI receiving antennae on the Earth’s surface are definitely moving in the SSBC frame, so complex transformations must be used to convert GC ground station data into the preferred frame of the SSBC (preferred frame?? – doesn’t that violate relativity dogma?  …. Be quiet and read your Einstein.)
Proper stellar motion is the apparent(?) motion of a star relative to its neighbors.   But a star’s local neighborhood is without depth perception … defined  as  stars within a certain angle of the target, while they may be trillions of miles away in reality!
The definition makes a patchwork of the sky where some areas are considered not moving and others as moving, even though they may contain a few common stars! The logical conflict is – as usual – ignored.
More problems - The rotation models published by standard agencies - like the IERS and the GFSC – are different!
After all these corrections, there’s no surprise that the quasar source appears to move in the VLBI network. The HC interpretation is that all the stars move like the target star….. and that’s  because the Earth changed its rotation!
In the reference at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLBI , the very first sentence reveals the flaw in the VLBI network – a single target is used.   In the ALFA GC model, each star can have its own proper motion, driven by its local aether flow.  To detect individual motion with respect to its local neighborhood, at least two other stars (forming a triangle) should be used.  Separate stellar motion is detected then by any change in the triangle’s shape.   Using only one object as target will not distinguish whether the star has an anomalous rotation…. or the Earth.
To show that the Earth’s spin has changed slightly requires that all the stars show the same slight motion at the same time, since the source of the observed extra motion is the entire Earth.  This is a necessary but insufficient condition, since the star could all slow down at the same time, with the Earth being at rest.
The VLBI data for single sources as presently used is useless for determining where the extra motion resides, and so cannot discern whether the HC or GC model is correct.