The Aether-Gravity relation

© 2021 Jeremy Fiennes (jeremyfiennes@gmail.com)

(rev: 05/05/2021)

Abstract
The Hafele-Keating experiment and C-.C. Su's satellite signal time analysis
suggest that in the region of the Earth light propagates through a 'local aether'
that accompanies its orbital motion. Cahill's breakdown of Miller's interfer-
ometer results however contradicts this. The exact nature of the aether-
gravity relation remains obscure.

CONTENTS
HAFELE-KEATING AETHER INFLOWS
Hafele-Keating (1) p.1 Inflows (1) p.9
Hafele-Keating (2) p.3 Inflows (2) p.11
GPS General p.10
General p.6 DISCUSSION
LOCAL AETHER Further indications p.11
General p.7 Problems p.12
Gravitational BIBLIOGRAPHY p.11
potential p.8 ENDNOTES p.12

HAFELE-KEATING
Hafele-Keating (1)
a
The 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment, carried out under the supervision of a U.S.
government agency, comprised four atomic clocks being flown twice around the world
aboard commercial airliners, first eastward and then westward. And then compared with

a
Joseph Hafele (1933-2014), American physicist.
Richard Keating (1941-2006), American astronomer.
 2

similar ground clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. Due to their height, the
a
flying clocks needed a gravity adjustment, correctly given by General Relativity .
In his preliminary analysis published in Nature Hafele wrote:
"The standard answer – that moving clocks run slow – is almost certainly
incorrect. The difference between theory and measurement is disturbing.
Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
b 1
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything."
In his final report published in Science in 1972 he however stated:
"The theory predicted that, compared with the ground clocks, the eastward
clock should lose 40 ns and the westward clock gain 275 ns. The values of 59
ns and 273 ns obtained provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the
2
famous 'clock paradox'."
A 1972 Nature leader echoed this:
3
"The agreement between theory and experiment was most satisfactory."
So how could Hafele's initial "The difference between theory and measurement is
disturbing" have become "the agreement between theory and experiment was most
satisfactory", a complete about turn? According to the en.wikipedia:
"In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the Earth's centre, the east-
bound clock flying in the direction of the Earth's rotation moves faster than the
one on the ground, and the westbound clock flying against the Earth's
rotation moves slower. The outcome was in agreement with predictions of
4
relativity to a high degree of confidence."
Wait a minute! Firstly, a frame of reference at rest with respect to the Earth's centre,
the one that works, is a "preferred reference" that directly contradicts Special Relativity,
which specifically states that there is no such thing. But that all inertial observers' views
5
are equally valid .
Secondly, clock slowing in SR depends on the relative speeds of the observers. With
respect to the ground observer B, the relative speeds of the airborne clocks A and C are
the same, Fig. 1. They should therefore show equal time lags, which they blatantly
didn't.

Fig. 1. Hafele-Keating (1).

a
Below.
b
Sic. SR says that moving clocks lose time.
 3

Thirdly, since the flying clocks A and C move relative to each other, they should each
6
run slower than the other. This is a nonsense, effectively the 'clock absurdity' again.
So how did H&K attempt to justify their 180-degree about turn? Their argument was
that because the ground clock rotates with the Earth it, isn't inertial, and so doesn't fulfil
the prerequisites of Special Relativity. Another reference frame had to be found. This
a
turned out to be the 'ECI' frame, with the Earth's centre as its origin and axes fixed
with respect to the distant stars.
Exactly the same argument, however, applies to the flying clocks, which likewise
rotate together with the Earth. On this basis the whole experiment is invalid as a test of
Special Relativity. H&K's argument effectively ran:
– we carried out an experiment to verify Special Relativity
– the results refuted Special Relativity
– no problem, because the experiment wasn't a valid test of Special Relativity
– we found another, non-relativistic way of interpreting the results
– therefore Special Relativity is resoundingly confirmed
And the prestigious mainstream peer-reviewed journals Science and Nature both
underwrote this travesty of logic and Science!
In fact, the H&K argument that an observer moving at steady speed on the Earth's
surface is not inertial is invalid. He is subject to a downward force perpendicular to his
motion in exactly the same way as an observer in linear inertial motion, Fig. 0-2. The
only difference is the magnitude of the downward force.

Fig. 0-2. Inertial motion.

Hafele-Keating (2)
7
Do some calculation based on the Lorentz aether model and an ECI reference
frame. H&K took the airliners' mean cruising speed to be 830 km/h = 0.23 km/s. The
Earth's has a circumference of ~40k km, and hence a periferal speed at the equator
vb=0.46 km/s. At the latitude of the flights it will be somewhat less, say vb = 0.321 km/s.
The aether speeds of the three clocks are then those of Fig. 0-3. The eastbound
clock A has the highest speed of va=0.32+0.23=0.55 km/s. The earthbound clock B is
next highest: vb=0.32 km/s. The westbound clock C is the slowest at vc=0.32–0.23=0.09
km/s.
a
Earth Centred Inertial.
 4

Fig. 0-3. Hafele-Keating (2)..

On the aether model, the time t on a clock moving at speed v though the aether in
terms of that, t0, on a clock stationary in the aether, is given by:
t = t0 / γ ≈ t0 (1 – ½ v / c )
2 2
eq.1]
where γ is the Lorentz factor.
For two clocks A and C at aether speeds va, vc respectively, their differential time lag
a
Δtac is then :

eq.2]
b
Assume an effective overall travel time of t0 =181'000s . Substituting this and the
above values into eq.2, the differential time lags for clocks A and B with respect to clock
C:
eq.3] ∆tac = 297 ns; ∆tbc = 95 ns

Turning to the experimental results, each flying clock was subject to:
– 1) a kinematic time lag due to its speed though the aether
c
– 2) a gravitational time gain due to its lower gravity
eq.4] overall lag = kinematic lag – gravitational gain
The kinematic lag then becomes the measured overall lag plus the estimated
gravitational gain.
For clock A with an overall lag with respect to the ground clock B of 59 ns and an
estimated gravitational gain of 144 ns, the kinematic lag ∆ab:
eq.5] ∆ab = 59 + 144 = 203 ns.
a
For clock C, the corresponding values of –273 ns and 179 ns give a kinematic lag
∆cb :

a
Where clock A is the faster of the two.
b
~50 hrs. We discuss this value shortly.
c
Negative lag.
 5

eq.6] ∆cb = –273 + 179 = –94 ns

Referred to clock C, adding 94 ns to the differential lags of eq.5, eq.6 gives:
eq.7] ∆tac = 297 ns; ∆tbc = 94 ns
b
In other words, almost exactly the predicted values !!
Well! Given the uncertainty inherent in some of the parameters, an agreement as
amazingly precise as this raises the suspicion of a certain 'fudging'.
The mean aircraft cruising speed, for instance, was set at 830 km/h. How was this
value calculated; and with what tolerance? Similarly, the Earth's periferal speed at the
latitude of the flights was set at vb=0.321 km/s. But again, with what margin of error?
The values adopted for these two quantities were undeniably plausible. One however
nevertheless suspects that the principal reason for their exact values was that they
c
"happen" to predict correctly the ratio between the measured time lags .
Similarly, the effective overall flight time was set at t0=181'000 s. Again an
undeniably plausible value. But how was its exact value determined; and with what
margin of error? Maybe because it predicts correctly the overall measured kinematic
lags?
H&K's "accuracy" was in fact completely dependent on auspicious choices for three
parameters for all of which there was a considerable latitude. All the experiment
effectively demonstrated was that:
– 1) given suitable values, an aether-based model is capable of correctly predicting
the measured time-lags
– 2) Special Relativity is not
In addition to which, in their 1972 paper H&K didn't publish their original measure-
d
ments. When Al Kelly obtained them from the U.S. Naval Observatory, he found firstly
that extensive undisclosed alterations had been made to the raw data. And secondly,
8
that the accuracy of the atomic clocks no way justified the conclusions . The inventor of
e
the atomic clock, Louis Essen , agreed that:
“The clocks were not sufficiently accurate to detect the small effect pre-
9
dicted.”
Kelly concludes:
"The H&K experiment may well rate as one of the biggest hoaxes in the
10
history of modern Science."

a
Negative, because it was a time gain.
b
eq.3.
c
eq.3, eq.7.
d
Al Kelly (1926-2005), Irish engineer.
e
Louis Essen (1908-1997), English physicist, director of the National Physical Laboratory. .
 6

GPS
General
Related to the H&K experiment is the GPS (Global Positioning System). Its basis is
shown in Fig. 4. It comprises a network of 24 satellites, in roughly 12-hour orbits,
carrying atomic clocks that at synchronized instants broadcast their positions. Points on
Earth are located via the transit times ta, tb, tc of the signals from three visible satelites
a
A, B and C , whose positions are determined by ground stations using the same
principle.

Fig. 4. GPS system (1).

In 1-d terms, imagine that one receives position information from two satellites A and
B at exactly the same instant. One concludes one's location to be the midpoint between
them, Fig. 0-5a.

Fig. 0-5. GPS system (2).

Now imagine that one receives satellite A's signal later than satellite B's by the time
light takes to travel 200 km. One deduces one position to be 100 km nearer to satellite B
than to satellite A, Fig. 0-5b. And so on.
The question however is: can one be certain that the satellite clocks were accurately
synchronized; i.e. that their position information was broadcast exactly simultaneously?

a
In fact four. The extra satelite provides a time check.
 7

Obviously not. To provide a check, a further satellite C is introduced, Fig. 0-5c. This
enables one to make three independent estimates of ones position, taking the satellites
in pairs. If all three calculations give the same result, it is presumably reliable.
The fundamental requirement of the GPS system is thus the exact synchronization of
its satellites' clocks. It is accomplished via synchronizing signals emitted by ground
stations, Fig. 0-6a. Whereby the signal travel time must be taken into account. Including
the so-called 'Sagnac effect': that a satellite moves somewhat during the signal travel
time, Fig. 0-6b.

Fig. 0-6. Synchronizing signal.

The ground stations thus need to know:
– 1) the satellites' exact positions and speeds at the instant of a signal's emission
– 2) the respective speed of light
The question then becoming: speed of light c with respect to what?

LOCAL AETHER
General
a
The late Prof. C-.C. Su studied signal propagation times for Earth-orbiting satellites
and interplanetary spacecraft, finding that signal speeds are constant in ECI and
heliocentric frames respectively. This effectively implies a local aether that accompanies
a massive body's orbital motion, but is unaffected by its rotation. Su wrote:
" It is proposed that in a region under the influence of the gravity due to a
massive body there forms a local ether that is stationary with respect to the
gravitational potential of that body. For earthbound and interplanetary
propagation the medium is stationary in a geocentric and a heliocentric
inertial frame respectively. Electromagnetic waves propagate at a constant
speed with respect to the associated local ether."

a
Ching-Chuan Su (??), National Tsinghua University, Taiwan.
 8
a
In the region of the Earth where its gravitational potential dominates , signals travel
at a constant speed c in an Earth's local aether stationary in the ECI frame, Fig. 7a. And
where the Sun's gravitational potential dominates, in a Sun's local aether stationary in
the heliocentric frame, Fig. 7b.

Fig. 7. Local aethers.

On this basis massive bodies 'drag' their local aethers around with them in their
orbital motion. Implying that the Earth drags its own local aether through the Sun's at the
Earth's orbital speed of 30 km/s, Fig. 7b. We discuss this idea further in a moment.

Gravitational potential
The gravitational potential at a point is defined as the work required to move a 1 kg
mass from it into outer space:
gravitational potential = work required to move 1 kg into outer space
Zero gravitational potential being defined as that in outer space, the potentials of
other points are always negative. For simplicity we will in general omit the negative sign,
leaving it as implicit.
The gravitational field at distance r from a massive body is given by Newton's law,
Fig. 0-8a. Work being force times distance, the area under the curve from the point to
outer space represents the gravitational potential at the point. It is plotted in Fig. 0-8b.
The corresponding curve for the Sun-Earth system is shown in Fig. 0-8c.
.

Fig. 0-8. Gravitational field, potential.

a 6
Up to about 10 km away.
 9

The force Fr on a body of mass M2 at distance r from a body of mass M1 being:

2
eq.8] Fr = GM1 M2 / r
where G is Newton's gravitational constant, integrating from the point to outer space, the
a
corresponding gravitational potential Vr :
eq.9] Vr =  Fr dr = – GM/r.
Imagine setting out from planet Earth towards outer space in a direction away from
the Sun, Fig. 0-8c. Over the first part of one's journey the Earth's gravitational field and
potential dominate. This is the region of the Earth's local aether.
But since the Earth is relatively small, the effect of its gravity quickly falls off. After
this the Sun's gravitational potential comes to dominate. Still further out, this too
diminishes and the galaxy's gravitational potential prevails. And so on.

AETHER INFLOWS
Inflows (1)
b
In 2003 Reginald Cahill re-analyzed Dayton Miller's interferometer results. He found
that the aether speed at the Earth's surface comprises components:
– 420 km/s towards the centre of the galaxy
– 42 km/s towards the Sun
–11.2 km/s towards the Earth's centre
11
– 30 km/s due to the Earth's orbital speed
They are shown in Fig. 0-9. The component of 11.2 km/s into the Earth's centre
doesn't show in a horizontal interferometer, so this is an estimate.

Fig. 0-9. Aether inflow (1).

The first three components suggest a relation between a gravitational potential and
an aether inflow. Doing some more calculation: the Milky Way has an estimated mass of

a
Here including the negative sign.
b
Reginald Cahill (1948-) Australian theoretical physicist.
 10
12 a 42
0.89..1.54 trillion Suns . Taking the lower value gives its mass as 1.78x10 kg. The
20
galaxy's centre is ~100k light-years = 9.46x10 m away.
The solar system lies out towards one edge of our galaxy, but is still well within it. To
account for this, take the galaxy's effective mass for the purpose of gravity calculations
42
as 70% of its actual value, i.e. 1.25x10 kg.
30
The Sun has a mass of 2x10 kg and is 150 million km away. The Earth has a mass
24
of 6x10 kg and a radius of 6400 km.
b
Substituting these values and Newton's gravitational constant into eq.9 gives
gravitational potential components at the Earth's surface:
10 8 7
eq.10] Vgalaxy = 8.79x10 ; VSun = 8.9x10 ; VEarth = 6.26x10
Hypothesize that the aether inflow to a massive body at a point varies as the square
root of the respective gravitational potential there. Calculating the ratio (aether inflow) / -
½
(gravitational potential) for the galaxy, Sun and Earth respectively gives:
–3 –3 –3
eq.11] galaxy: 1.41x10 ; Sun: 1.41x10 ; Earth: 1.42x10
c
That the ratio is almost identical in the three cases confirms the hypothesis an gives
the general relation:
–3 ½
eq.12] aether inflow = 1.4x10 (gravitational potential) .
Remembering that the galaxy's mass was arbitrarily set at its lowest value. And was
further reduced by a 'guestimated' factor of 0.7 to allow for the solar system being within
the galaxy. And that the inflow of 11.2 km/s to the Earth's centre is an estimated, not a
measured value.
Had these choices not given the constant ratios of eq.11, á la Hafele-Keating we
would have "adjusted" them till they did.

Inflows (2)
There therefore seems to be a definite correlation between an aether inflow and a
gravitational potential. It is interesting that Newton had a similar idea, writing in a 1675 letter:
d
"Gravity is the result of a condensation causing a flow of aether , with a
corresponding thinning of its density associated with the increased velocity of
flow."13
The gravitational deflection of light can visualized in these terms. A light wave
passing close to the Sun is deflected by the corresponding aether inflow, Fig. 0-10a.

a
Discussed below.
b –11
G=6.674x10 .
c
At least in this specific case.
d
Like all sensible scientists, even with his corpuscular theory of light Sir Isaac accepted the
existence of the aether.
 11

Fig. 0-10. Aether inflow (2).

Correspondingly, a black hole event horizon can be visualized as the point where its
aether inflow reaches the speed of light, preventing any internal light from escaping from
a
it, Fig. 0-10b .
In terms of the wave-particle duality, both of these are effectively wave models for
phenomena that are normally described in 'particle' (photon) terms.

DISCUSSION
Further indications
A number of other considerations reinforce the idea of an aether-gravity relation. For
instance:
– 1) the wave-particle duality. Light waves propagate through their medium, the aether.
Light particles (photons) have mass, associated with gravity.
– 2) clock slowing is caused both by an aether speed and also a gravitational potential.
– 3) atomic clocks, whose functioning depends on nuclear processes; hence matter;
b
and by extension gravity; in practice show the clock slowing predicted by hypothetical
photon clocks that depend on the speed of light through the aether.
c
– 4) assuming that one can trust LIGO results , gravitational waves travel at the same
d14
speed as light waves, at the characteristic speed c of the aether .
And so on. There are evidently other examples, but these are the ones that come to
mind.

a
Distinguishing 1) a speed through the light medium, the aether, which cannot exceed c =300k
km/s. And 2) the speed of the medium itself relative to some object such as a black hole. Which
could well have no such limit.
b
Aka 'time dilation'.
c
Which many, including me, consider questionable.
d
Discussed in the reference.
 12

Problems
The two major problems arising from the above are:
– 1) Dayton Miller's measured aether speed of ~400 km/s includes an Earth's orbital
a
component of 30 km/s . But the Hafele-Keating and Su results indicate a local aether
stationary in the ECI frame. In which case there should be no corresponding Earth's
orbital component.
– 2) if the aether behaved as normal fluid, its inflow speed into a massive body whould
2
vary as as 1/r , the inverse square of the distance, Fig. 0-11.

Fig. 0-11. Aether-inflow 93).

The gravitational potential Vr, however, varies as the simple inverse 1/r of the
b
distance . Meaning that on this basis the aether flow should be proportional to the
square of the gravitational potential Vr, and not to its square root as in eq.12.
I personally can see no reconciliation for these apparent contradictions. This so-
called "luminiferous" aether evidently has some "enlightening" to do before we
understand it !

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cahill, R.T (2003) Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational Waves
(https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312082)
Cahill, R.T. (2008) Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured
Light Speed Anisotropy (arXiv.org/pdf/0804.0039)
Einstein, A. (1905) "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", Annalen der
Physik 17:891, 1905
Fiennes, J. (2021a) The Aether (https://ufba.academia.edu/JeremyFiennes)
Fiennes, J. (2021b) The Lorentz Aether Model (https://ufba.academia.edu/
JeremyFiennes)
Fiennes, J. (2021c) Special Relativity: the Clock Absurdity (https://ufba.academia.

a
p.9.
b
eq.9.
 13

edu/JeremyFiennes)
Selleri, F. (2004) "Recovering the Lorentz Ether", Apeiron , 11, 246
(http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Ether.pdf)
Su, C.-C. (2001) "A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave", Eur.
Phys. J. C 21, 701–715.

ENDNOTES
(for internet references, the main site name and year and month of access
(yy\ mm) only are given.)

1
cartesio-episteme (00\08).
2
Science 177, 166 (1972).
3
cartesio-episteme (00\08).
4
en.wikipedia (09\12).
5
Einstein 1905.
6
Fiennes 2021c.
7
Fiennes 2021b.
8
wbabin (01\03).
9
wbabin (01\03).
10
wbabin (01\03).
11
Cahill 2003, 2008.
12
en.wikipedia/Milky_Way (21\04).
13
en.wikipedia/mechanical explanations of gravitation (21\04).
14
Fiennes 2021a, p.50.