It seems to me, to understand the "planes around the earth problem"
quantitative data is needed. In the absence of such data, it seems
reasonable to me that the differences in time can be ascribed in part
to the fact the earth clock is rotating. If the earth were not
rotating, and the earth had no mass, then the two traveling clocks
should show the same final time upon return, and that time should be
less than the earth's clock, due to the acceleration the traveling
clocks experience.
The fact that all three clocks differ must be due in part to the fact
the clock going against the earth's rotation must experience much
greater accelerations to make the trip, assuming the trips are made
in about the same length of time, or assuming that they are made as
orbital flights. It takes much more energy and acceleration to
perform an east-to-west launch than a west-to-east launch, both on
take-off and landing.
In a steady state orbital situation, a coasting situation, it is
interesting as to which clock might be advancing more rapidly, the
earth clock, the east-to-west satellite, or the west-to-east
satellite. From the satellite's perspectives, they should experience
no acceleration during this interval, while the earth based clock, if
in an enclosed box or not, would be, by Einstein's equivalence
principle, experiencing acceleration. It thus seems that the longer
the flights last, the more time the orbiting clocks should gain over
the earth clock. There should not be any *final* difference between
the two orbiting clocks due to this coasting part of the journey.
Final here means when all three clocks are brought back together.
I have to wonder what the data actually looks like.
Horace Heffner
