THE “ROTATING CHAMBER” EXPERIMENT

Let’s assume, fig.1, that we have a sealed chamber S, which is rotating on an axis AB with constant angular velocity ω and radius R .
Rotation is achieved by e.g. a rope or a metal rod, of a length R.
Inside the chamber is an observer O, who has no contact with the external environment.
In addition, axis AB is motionless in relation to an inertial reference system S’ (observer O’).

Fig.1

The problem that emerges from the above is as follows:

THE PROBLEM

The observer O , who is inside chamber S may prove, by conducting various experiments (e.g. Mechanics) within the chamber:
1. The kind of motion performed by the chamber S, and
2. Whether or not there is a mass M outside the chamber, which affects the various experiments conducted within the chamber.

THE ANSWER OF OBSERVER O

In order to answer the two questions (1) and (2) of the above problem, the observer O, who is inside chamber S (without any contact with the external environment), acts as follows:

a. Let’s assume that o.xyz is the reference system of chamber S of observer O.
The observer O activates a gyroscope G, which he places in a position within the chamber.
He immediately observes that axis xx’ of the gyroscope G moves gradually away from position P₁, where it was placed, and towards position Ρ₂ , where it settles.
According to the data at hand, at position Ρ₂, the axis xx’ of the gyroscope G is parallel to the axis of rotation AB.

b. Following that, the observer O places two springs (dynamometers) (a) and (b) on the walls of his chamber, to the ends of which are attached, respectively, masses m₁ and m₂ (m₁ < m₂).
He immediately observes that the force F₁, shown by the dynamometer (a) is constant, which results in mass m₁ remaining motionless on the same point m₁ (x₁, y₁, z₁) of the reference system o.xyz of chamber S.
He also observes that the force F₂, shown by the dynamometer (b) is constant, which results in mass m₂ remaining motionless at the same point m₂ (x₂, y₂, z₂) of the reference system o.xyz of chamber S.

c. Finally, observer O observes that the springs of dynamometers (a) and (b) (i.e. the vectors of forces F₁ and F2) are always parallel to each other.

After the above experiments and observations (a), (b), and (c) made by observer O, he draws the following the conclusions:

A. From observation (a) he concludes that chamber S is moving along a curved trajectory and it is not possible for it to be on a straight trajectory, because in that case the axis xx΄ of the gyroscope would not move from position P₁ to the final position Ρ₂, but would remain motionless at the original position P₁, where it was placed.

B. From observations (a) and (b) he concludes that it is possible for a mass M to be outside the chamber, and for the chamber S to be motionless in relation to it, at a distance (height) of e.g. h. However (according to the observer O), this possibility is ruled out, because if that were the case, axis xx΄ of the gyroscope would remain motionless in its original position P₁, where it was placed, rather than moving from P₁ to the final position Ρ₂.
Therefore (the observer O concludes) there cannot be a mass M outside the chamber, affecting the outcome of his experiments. 
Consequently, the force field within the chamber S is an inertial force field, and under no circumstances a gravitational force field.

After the observations (a), (b), and (c) and the conclusions (A) and (B) discussed above, observer O draws the final conclusion that:

CONCLUSION

I. The chamber S is in circular motion with a radius R and constant angular velocity ω around an axis AB, which is motionless in relation to an inertial observer O’.
II. There is no mass M outside chamber S affecting the experiments conducted within chamber S.

Consequently the force field within the chamber S is an inertial force field, and under no circumstances a gravitational force field.

The above conclusions (I) and (II) of observer O, who is sealed inside the chamber S (without any contact with the external environment) are obviously the answers to questions (1) and (2) of our problem.

NOTE: Chamber S of the “Rotating Chamber” experiment is identical (e.g. in size) to the one used by Einstein in his well-known thought experiments in the Theory of Relativity (e.g. the elevator experiment, etc), in order to “prove” (as he claims) the equivalence between a body’s inertial and gravitational mass, and the curvature of light, within gravitational fields.
The only difference is that inside the chamber used by Einstein in his well-know thought experiments in the Theory of Relativity there are now a gyroscope G, two dynamometers (a) and (b), etc.

AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION

1. The observer O, by conducting experiments within the chamber S using a known mass m and based on the Coriolis force phenomenon, may calculate the radius R of the circular trajectory, the velocity υ at which it rotates, and the angular velocity ω , etc, of the chamber S.

2. The same logic applied to the “rotating chamber” experiment, may be applied to the “satellite” experiment, as follows:

The “satellite” experiment

An observer O (astronaut), who is sealed inside the chamber S of an artificial satellite, which is orbiting a body with a mass M (e.g. the Earth), on a circular orbit with a radius R and constant angular velocity ω, then:
(http://geocities.com/bugrep238.htm)
Through various experiments (e.g. Mechanics, similar to those used in the “rotating chamber” experiment), he may prove:
1. Which kind of motion is performed by the chamber S, and
2. Whether or not there is a mass M outside his chamber, which affects the various experiments he conducts within the chamber.

Specifically:
a. The satellite cannot be on a straight trajectory (performing either uniform or varied motion), and that is proven by the displacement of axis xx’ of the gyroscope G, which is inside the satellite.
b. The satellite cannot be on a curved trajectory either, because in that case the masses m₁ and m₂, on account of the centrifugal force within the satellite, ought to move from their initial resting position, where they were placed.

Consequently, the only possibility that remains is that there is a mass M outside the satellite, which the satellite orbits in one of the following ways:
1. It draws an elliptical arc and eventually falls onto mass M.
2. It is in circular orbit.
3. It is in elliptical orbit.
4. It is in parabolic orbit.
5. It is in hyperbolic orbit.
Thus, through various experiments that the astronaut can perform within the satellite (like, e.g. experiments based on the Coriolis force, or by applying the “bright urchin” method – see the “Sealed chamber” in free fall experiment), the astronaut may establish the type of trajectory he is on, i.e. which of the above five options (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) describes the motion performed by the satellite, and may also calculate the mass M, which is outside the satellite, and which it orbits.

EPILOGUE

As is well known, according to the Theory of Relativity and specifically the “equivalence principle”, the observer O cannot, under any circumstances and through no experiments that can be performed within the chamber S, answer the two questions (1) and (2) of our problem.
Because, however, (as demonstrated above) those answers do exist and are provided by conclusions (I) and (II), that means that, once more, and based on the “rotating chamber” experiment, the Theory of Relativity is proven to be an erroneous theory of Physics.
In addition, the philosophy upon which the Theory of Relativity is based, regarding the non-existence of privileged reference systems, is also wrong, as demonstrated above, because:
Privileged reference systems do exist in Nature and one of those is the Ether system, as described in Electrogravitational Theory.

©  Copyright 2001 Tsolkas Christos.  Web design by Wirenet Communications