Blog Ekkehard Friebe

By Ian Montgomery 2008 

Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen
zur Ergänzung der Dokumentation Textversion 1.2 – 2004, Kapitel 4.  

[Kommentar zu: Ricker, Harry H, III.: Einstein’s time dilation experiment. 2008] / Ian Montgomery. – In: The General science journal – 6 S.; S. 2. =
http://wbabin.net/science/ricker41.pdf 

Ricker zitiert mehrere Aussagen von Montgomery. – S. 2: "This writer [Ricker] received a comment from Ian Montgomery as follows: "Really good point on the clock pole/equator experiment, I too now wonder why it hasn’t been seriously done. They could be left there long enough to draw out uncertainties of measurement (why not years, just keep them there and monitor).

And (use) several clock(s) and take averages, or swap them a round after a year or so to prove beyond doubt. And yes, with slight differences in gravitational fields, that can also be measured and accounted for (they wouldn’t exactly offset each other, why would they?) and the clocks left long enough to get statistically significant results. Same with faster speed on one side verses slower on the other offsetting (square law anyway) if aether is not dragged along. Actually could also be a good test for aether being dragged along with earth verses not, and if not, which direction the earth is travelling with respect to the aether."

S. 3: "In his reply to me Ian suggested the following: "With the clock pole experiment, yes plenty of hurdles (real and manufactured). Perhaps the path would be to first get an agreed calculation statement‘ from the establishment (if possible) as to what the time rate difference should be according to relativity theory,

taking all things into consideration (measured gravity difference etc) and then do the experiment as a ‚relativity confirmation‘ test only (at first). Only then after the anomalies are proved, go further to see if centrifugal effects or relative motion with respect to the aether etc is real."

S. 4: "Ian’s reply expressed that he was in full agreement: "I would have to agree with everything that you said below. And once Einstein realized his early error in rejecting the aether, he tried to sneak it back under disguise through GR, I would suspect!"

"Ian’s next mail came after I sent him some scans of papers by Dr Carl Zapffe, which are now posted at the GSJ. Ian responded with the following thoughtful question: "Pondering Carl Zapffe and that discussion we had with leaving clocks at the pole and equator, I googled to see if I could find if in fact anyone had done it and as you said Harry, I couldn’t find anything!! I did see it stated with ‚certainty‘ many times that slower time rate at the equator due to motion will exactly be cancelled by the faster time due to a lesser gravitational field being further away from the earths centre, but no one saying WHY it should EXACTLY cancel (sounds like ’spin‘ to me). Also, they must be saying that being stationary with respect to a rotating reference frame doesn’t count for this to be so (more spin)."

"With Zapffe’s magneto-sphere model, I was wondering also if he says that the aether rotates with the earth. If so, then clock differences (pole vs. equator) can only be gravitational (or gravitational aether velocity for inflow models) whereas if not, then translational velocity plus gravitational. Do you know which he advocated?"

"Regardless, I feel that it’s insane for this experiment not to have been done whichever model is proposed.

Surely it wouldn’t be that expensive (certainly compared to space flights) as people are permanently stationed at the poles. We could learn so much, Makes one wonder if it’s some kind of plot!!"