I have had this question nagging at me and making me lose sleep for over a year now, and I can't find the answer anywhere.
Hopefully someone here (or at the other physics forum I got to) can help.

OK.
Let me just preface the question with some information.
If you know me through my posts, you may already know all of this.

I am not a Physicist.
I have never even taken a physics course in High School.
The little I do know about Physics I have learned through reading books and papers, discussing the topic with scientists I have known and by asking questions on Internet forums.
I am doing this for nothing more than my own edification and to satisfy my curiosity.

The main stumbling block I have come up against in my self-education on Physics is my limited math skills.
Learning the required math (on my own) has (as expected) proven to be a slow and arduous process.

In the meantime, I have been attempting to learn as much as I can relying on reason.
I have been fairly successful to this end, but obviously, it has its limitaions.
I have a respectable understanding of SR (have not tackled GR yet), its reasoning and implications.

When deciding to undertake the process of teaching myself Physics, I decided to take nothing for granted and face everything (even crackpots) with an open mind.
Since I was in grade school, no matter what the teacher taught me, if (s)he couldn't explain to my satisfaction the hows and whys, I didn't believe it.
Some teachers loved me bacause of it, some hated me.
If Feynman, Hawking or Einstein says it's true, that doesn't necessarily mean it is and vice versa.
On the other hand, I am also not one of those nit-wit conspracy theorists that will disregard anything out of the box because the "scientific powers that be" stand behind it. As I said, I am open minded.

I have also read a number of papers by "anti-relativity" Aether proponents.
Some of them make some sense.
Some of them argue that Relativity is not supportable because of this flaw or that one in the supporting experiments, or that it is counter-intuitve due to it not being in compliance with Classical Newtonian Physics yet their hypothesis is far more flawed and/or makes Relativity look like elementary mathematics in light of their unsupportable fanciful explantions regarding 12th dimensions and swirling vortices of imaginary energy.

I know that SR is fully supportable by experimental results.
I know that the math makes complete sense, and is accurate.
I have been told (and am taking it on faith for the time being) that GR makes up for what SR does not account in various "paradoxes" that SR fails to explain on its own.

I have read the accounts of the Michelson Morely experiemnts (and other similar experiments since).
I have read what the Aether proponets claim is flawed in them.
I have read what Relativity proponents have replied to that.

I do agree that relativity is counter-intuitive in some aspects, but I am also fully aware that counter-intuitiveness alone is no reason to discount anything.

I am not attempting to disprove Einstein, nor have I fully accepted Relativity yet.

I have only one question (unanswered by either camp) remaining that allows the Aether to still exist as a reasonable possibility in my mind, and that is the purpose of this post.

The question may very well have been answered, I have just not come across that answer yet.

I know that after reading this preface some people would have rolled their eyes by now and assumed I am an idiot, loaded their guns ready to shoot me down.
If you are one of those people, please do us both a favor and don't bother.
Keep assuming I am an idiot and click the back button on your browser rather than wasting your precious valuable time on me.


The Relativists that I have read, in their explanations about why the Aether theories are not valid, invariably point to the lack of "Aether-wind".
This explanation, is contested by Aetherists by various different (seemingly spurious at best) descriptions of faulty or limited equipment, limited test conditions, what have you.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that we have firmly established an uncontested lack of "Aether-wind".
As far as I can tell, this lack of "Aether-wind" would be sufficient evidence to disregard any "static" Aether theory, but I have yet to come across anyone providing evidence against a "dynamic" Aether theory.
Let me explain what I mean by "static" and "dynamic".

If the Aether were a "solid" substance or "fabric" (as some refer to it as) then the planets would be moving through this substance, and the M&M based experiments would have detected a wind.
That is a given.
However, what if the Aether were not A substance, rather space was filled with discrete particles (perhaps fundamental) that were, in effect, individual EM radiation tranducers of sorts.
Radiation would pass from one of these particle (radiation carriers) to the next.
First, this "formation" would explain Einstein's results from his photoelectric experiments that led to the current wave/particle duality view of EM radiation:
They are discrete particles.
The particles do not move in wave formation, however the energy would move as a wave through the particles, adhering to the inverse square rule.
It would also explain the lack of "Aether-wind", because each of these discrete particles would be affected by gravity, therefor being dragged along with bodies.
The particles being affected by gravitational fields would also explain the bending of light around massive bodies.

There are other things this would address, but I am tired, and if this hypothesis has already (or can be) proven wrong by experimental evidence (or through reason), it would be a waste fo time pointing out all I have considered.

In short, I have spent a lot of my spare time over the past year or so doing research trying to prove my hypothesis wrong, and have have not been able to.
I am not posting here to tell you that I am right and why.
I am posting here asking you to do what I could not.
Punch holes in this and show me why it is wrong.

Again, let me remind you that my math skills are limited.

I believe it was Einstein (I could be wrong) who said basically that if you can't explain your theory to your grandmother, then you don't truly understand it yourself.

Explain it to me like I am your grandmother.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

BTW, I don't plan on being online again until, at least, December 1st, so do not expect replies before then.

Essentially what you are proposing is the same as "Ether drag", a proposal that has already been made. The problem with it is that it doesn't jive with certain astronomical observations, namely stellar aberration.

To explain: Imagine a car sitting on the road in the rain.(assume the rain is the light from a distant light source.) If the car is sitting still, the rain fall straight down with respect to the car. Now let's assume the car is driving down the road. The rain will now fall at an angle to the car, and fromt he point of view of someone in the car, the rain appears to originate from somewhere ahead of the car in stead of from directly above.

The same thing happens with light from the stars; we see the light originate from a slightly different position due to the Earth's motion around the Sun. And since the Earth travels in a circle, This position shifts over the course of a year. (The stars change positions slightly relative to each other over a year's time)

Now imagine that the rain(light) is a light mist, one that is easily affected by air(the aether).

The M&M exeriment would be like shooting a fine mist into the air while driving and noting how the "wind" caused by your driving effects the way the mist behaves. The results were that there was no wind and that the mist always behaves as if there were no wind.

Your explanation is that the car drags a little "bubble of air" around it that stays motionless with respect to the car that protects the mist from the wind.

The problem is how this will effect the mist (light) coming from a source outside the car. As the mist falls straight down, it will hit the air bubble at an angle like before, but the instant it does, the air bubble will start to drag it along. (it won't retain its initial horizontal velocity with respect to the car.) By the time the mist reaches you, the mist will have been robbed of all its horizontal speed with respect to you and it will seem to fall from straight above.

If the mist experiment did show a "wind drift" (no protecting bubble) then we would expect to also see a "mist aberration"

To return to light, Ether drag would mean that there is would be no stellar aberration and we woudn't see the stars shift positions.

But we do see stellar aberration and the M&M experiment does not detect a aether drift, either.

This rules out both rigid Aether(Aether drift and stellar aberration) and a "fluid" Aether(no Aether drift and no stellar aberration.)

Originally posted by one_raven
[B]rather space was filled with discrete particles (perhaps fundamental) /B]

What are discrete and fundamental particles?

Janus58:

To return to light, Ether drag would mean that there is would be no stellar aberration and we woudn't see the stars shift positions.

I don't agree! A variable density aether (unlike this bubble that you speak of), created by mass, surrounding it and then dragged with it, would easily account for aberation.

There's no problem with ‘space-time drag’ being accepted, which is essentially what happens in relativity theory – and THAT causes aberration!

Originally posted by dav57
Janus58:

To return to light, Ether drag would mean that there is would be no stellar aberration and we woudn't see the stars shift positions.

I don't agree! A variable density aether (unlike this bubble that you speak of), created by mass, surrounding it and then dragged with it,
would easily account for aberation.

Having read many of your posts on Relativity and related subjects, I have a good feel for your grasp of the subject matter. Based on that, I give no little to no weight to whether you agree or not.

[b[
There's no problem with ‘space-time drag’ being accepted, which is essentially what happens in relativity theory – and THAT causes aberration! [/B]

Frame dragging, as I assume you are refering, is many magnitudes smaller in effect than Aether drag would need to be in order to influence the speed of light as it is supposed to.

Thus frame dragging's negating effect on aberration would be negliable, while Aether drag's would be considerable.

one_raven,

As Janus58 pointed out, according to the dynamic aether theory, gravitational fields would drag light around. Since this hasn't been detected, it is logical to assume that the dynamic aether theory is wrong.

However, if instead of gravitational fields influencing the aether, which in turn influences photons, what if gravitational fields directly influenced photons? If that were the case, then the gravitational field of a moving mass would not change the path, or direction, of a beam of light travelling through it, it would only change the speed of the light so that the light would be travelling at c relative to the gravitational field.

Gravitational fields cannot affect photons because photons have no mass.

Excuse me? Experimental verification that gravity does indeed affect light, in spite of it's having no (rest) mass, was one of the first important verifications of general relativity.

Redrover,

Gravitational fields cannot affect photons because photons have no mass.

I'm assuming that there are two kinds of particles: One kind have uniform unipolar gravitational fields surrounding them (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc), and the other kind have dipolar gravitational fields (photons, etc).

When a particle with a dipolar gravitational field, like a photon, is placed in a local gravitational field, the local gravitational field will accelerate the particle until the speed of the particle is equal to c relative to that field. This would mean that all light-speed particles use gravitational fields as propulsion, and therefore gravitational fields would be preferred frames of reference.

Since all experiments that measured the speed of light were done on the surface of the Earth (stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field), it's not surprising that they all show the speed of light to be nearly constant (excluding the small effects of the Sun's and the Moon's gravitational fields on the light in the experiments).

Janus58:

Having read many of your posts on Relativity and related subjects, I have a good feel for your grasp of the subject matter. Based on that, I give no little to no weight to whether you agree or not.

And knowing of countless bygone heavyweights of science (slightly further up the intellectual ladder than you, I hasten to add) that have turned out to be wrong, I don’t feel the slightest bit offended by your statement.

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Excuse me? Experimental verification that gravity does indeed affect light, in spite of it's having no (rest) mass, was one of the first important verifications of general relativity.

A photon in a gravitational field doesn't change speed or direction because a photon doesn't have mass and gravity only affects things with mass. The reason we see light being affected by gravity is because space is curved by gravity.

And to Prosoothus, what are unipolar and dipolar gravitational fields?

I just ran across this tonight. I was going to post it as a topic.

It is somewhat lengthy but for two reasons I am impressed with it: It is called RCM theory.

1 - It conforms to my own view of the invariance of light being a function of an energy gradient. That is light being produced is percieved as a function of energy of the observer to the source.

2 - It proposes a test which can determine which view is valid SR or RCM.

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/german1/german1.doc

Antimated illustrations of Time Dilation and RCM

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/

Originally posted by one_raven
"I believe it was Einstein (I could be wrong) who said basically that if you can't explain your theory to your grandmother, then you don't truly understand it yourself."

Did anyone ever check with Einstein's grandmother on that?

Originally posted by one_raven
"Explain it to me like I am your grandmother."

We'd all love physics to be explained to us that way. Just think of the saving on education costs. But it just never happens.

The paper at this link may answer some of your questions.

http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindner/Writings/Space/Physics.htm

Fairfield

Fairfield

Henry Lindner's theory has been discussed here already and it was glaringly obvious his theory was flawed.

Why do you use it as a reference?

One Raven

Here is one zany approach to ether theory.

Zeno suggested that motion is illogical if spacetime (the real thing, not the model) is quantised. I agree with him. But what does it mean to say that spacetime is not quantised? It would mean that at a fundamental level the fabric of reality is continuous, and that however small a thing is it can be made smaller, and however short a moment is it can be made shorter.

This is not just a matter of co-ordinate systems or how we measure things. If spacetime is not quantised then the fabric of reality is continuous.

Does this suggest that there is a continuous medium underlying the physical world, some form of ether? I think you can look at it either way.

According to Zeno if there is an ether then it must be continuous. By a process of reduction any such ether must, at the limit, consist of no more than mathematical points in timelessness. That is to say if spacetime is continuous then logically matter and time can be reduced without end. This seems unlikely, since it suggests that the universe is made out of nothing.

If there is not a continuous ether then matter and time must reduce only as far as fundamental quanta. However Zeno has shown us that in any world made out of fundamental and indivisible quanta there is going to be something logically paradoxical about motion.

The fact that neither option, a quantised spacetime or a continuous one, seems to make sense has long been something of a paradox.

The stalemate between these options suggests that there is third option. To meet the above objections this would have to be a continuous ether, but of a very strange kind. Somehow it must exist, yet have no extension and be intemporal. This sounds absurd, but it’s where the logic seems to lead.

Does this idea make sense? It probably depends who you ask. A Buddhist would say yes, that’s it exactly. What’s the problem? But I think most people would assume it to be daft.

It’s not quite as daft as it sounds. Physical extension and temporality are properties of physical things. If one assumes that the ether, the medium and substrate of physical existence, is non-physical then the above logical objections to its existence disappear. In fact there can be no scientific objections to something that is without extension or temporality.

There is only one non-physical thing we know of that exists but has no external attributes and that is consciousness, what philosphers define as ‘what it is like’ to be. If one assumes that there is ‘something that it is like’ to be non-physical, and that this is a subjective state of emptiness in which one becomes one with the continuum, intemporal and non-existent as either a physical point or, at the limit, even a point of ‘self’, then the idea of an ether begins to sound more plausible. Not very likely perhaps, but not actually illogical.

Unfortunately there can never be any scientific evidence for it, other than the absence of any other sensible explanation. As well as Buddhists and other non-dual philosophers there is some support for the idea from Meister Eckhart, Spinoza, Roger McGinn, Robert Kaplan and others. (E.g. McGinn currently speculates that consciousness may derive from a non-spatial reality pre-Big Bang)

Crazy yes, but so far all the non-crazy answers don't seem to stand up to close analysis.

Redrover,

And to Prosoothus, what are unipolar and dipolar gravitational fields?

A particle with a unipolar gravitational field has either a uniform positive or negative gravitational field surrounding it. Regular mass (matter), for example, has a uniform positive gravitational field surrounding it. Think of regular matter as being similiar to electrons, and their electric fields, only with the gravitational force, like poles attract and opposite poles repel.

A particle with a dipolar gravitational field has two poles, one positive and one negative, just like a magnet. If a particle with a dipolar gravitational field is placed in a positive gravitational field, the positive gravitational field will attract the positive pole of the particle, and, at the same time, push against the negative pole of the particle. This will cause the particle to begin to accelerate. If the particle has little, or no, regular mass like a photon, the acceleration would be almost instantaneous. Of course the particle would accelerate until it's speed matches the speed of the gravitational field that is pushing/pulling it (which is equal to c).

This model not only explains why photons travel at c, but it also explains why an observer that is stationairy in a gravitational field, like the Earth's, will always measure the speed of light to be equal to c (or very close to it). It also would mean that time would slow down for an object travelling through a gravitational field, not because of time dilation, but because the change in the speed of light in that object is causing the reactions in that object to occur at a slower rate.

Janus:
I am not sure how stellar abberation and a Dynamic Aether would be mutually exclusive.
I have read a few explanations, and understand what is being presented, but I am not convinced.

The "bubble" would not be traveling and rotating with the Earth uniformly.
The further you get from the Earth, the less effect gravity would have on the particles.
Picture it like a whirlpool in water.
The further you get from the center, the weaker the effect of the whirlpool, the less speed the water rotating around the center would have.
In the stellar abberation refutation, it seems to (please do correct me if I misunderstood) assume that the Aether outside the Gravitational Field of the Earth would be moving relative to Earth, but the Aether within the Gravitational Field of the Earth would be stationary relative to the Earth.
If the particles were affected by Gravity, this would not be the case.
As you move further away from the Earth, the movement of the Aether (relative to the surface of the Earth) would slowly increase until it was out of the range of the Earth's gravitational field.
If this were the case, stellar abberation would still exist.
No?
If I misunderstand the stellar abberation refutation, or if my explanation of how it is nto valid to apply it in this instance is incorrect, please explain to me where I went wrong.
Thanks.


Originally posted by Redrover
What are discrete and fundamental particles?
Discrete- meaning consisting of distinct separate parts that are unconnected.
Fundamental- meaning impossible to break down further: not made up of smaller parts: indivisible.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
As Janus58 pointed out, according to the dynamic aether theory, gravitational fields would drag light around. Since this hasn't been detected, it is logical to assume that the dynamic aether theory is wrong.

However, if instead of gravitational fields influencing the aether, which in turn influences photons, what if gravitational fields directly influenced photons? If that were the case, then the gravitational field of a moving mass would not change the path, or direction, of a beam of light travelling through it, it would only change the speed of the light so that the light would be travelling at c relative to the gravitational field.
I am somewhat familiar with your "Alternative to Special Relativity", but not fluent in it.
Explain to me why light appears to curve around massive objects if a gravitational field would not change the path or direction of a photon.

What I am proposing is that the particles themselves do not move (in the way that we view photons whizzing through space, anyway) they just pass the energy to their "neighbor".
The gravitational fields would influence the particles that act as EM Transducers.
The energy propagating "over" them would still have the tendency to travel in a straight line.
The particles, being affected by gravity, would be more densely packed around massive objects, and the energy would take the path of least resistance, so would appear to curve around massive objects.

Originally posted by Redrover
Gravitational fields cannot affect photons because photons have no mass.
Originally posted by Redrover
A photon in a gravitational field doesn't change speed or direction because a photon doesn't have mass and gravity only affects things with mass. The reason we see light being affected by gravity is because space is curved by gravity.
OK, so what is this "space" that is curved?
If it is a dynamic Aether, then it would "curve" around massive objects.
When viewed on a macroscopic scale, the particles would appear to act as a single entity, and being more desely packed around massive objects, this entity would appear to be curved.
What I have suggested does not fly in the face of any of the observations made by Einstein at all.
It simply questions the popular interpretation of those observations and the implications of that interpretation.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
This model not only explains why photons travel at c, but it also explains why an observer that is stationairy in a gravitational field, like the Earth's, will always measure the speed of light to be equal to c (or very close to it). It also would mean that time would slow down for an object travelling through a gravitational field, not because of time dilation, but because the change in the speed of light in that object is causing the reactions in that object to occur at a slower rate.
I am not sure if I agree with the whole "Time Dilation" alternative, however, I do see what you mean here.
But how does it explain how two massive bodies (both with "positive" field) would be attracted to each other?

Originally posted by MacM
I just ran across this tonight. I was going to post it as a topic.

Mac,
I will have to take some time to read this and get back to you.
I wanted to reply to the rest, but I didn't want you to think I am ignoring you.

Originally posted by Fairfield
We'd all love physics to be explained to us that way. Just think of the saving on education costs. But it just never happens.
I disagree.
You need the math to use the theory to predict outcomes, but explaining the cause/effect relationships and the implications of any theory can be done with language through reason, allegory, hypotheitcal examples and such.

I have never heard of Henry Lindner or his theory, but I will take a look at the article and look for the debate that took place here (that Q mentioned).


The rest of this was originally posted by Canute
Zeno suggested that motion is illogical if spacetime (the real thing, not the model) is quantised. I agree with him.
Is this the famous "Zeno's Paradox" I keep hearing mentioned?
I have to get around to reading that.
Maybe tonight.
In the mean time...
Why would a quantisized model make movement illogical?


According to Zeno if there is an ether then it must be continuous. By a process of reduction any such ether must, at the limit, consist of no more than mathematical points in timelessness. That is to say if spacetime is continuous then logically matter and time can be reduced without end. This seems unlikely, since it suggests that the universe is made out of nothing.

If there is not a continuous ether then matter and time must reduce only as far as fundamental quanta. However Zeno has shown us that in any world made out of fundamental and indivisible quanta there is going to be something logically paradoxical about motion.

I agree that if the Aether is not continuous it would have to be comprised of fundamental matter.


The stalemate between these options suggests that there is third option. To meet the above objections this would have to be a continuous ether, but of a very strange kind. Somehow it must exist, yet have no extension and be intemporal. This sounds absurd, but it’s where the logic seems to lead.

Does this idea make sense? It probably depends who you ask. A Buddhist would say yes, that’s it exactly. What’s the problem? But I think most people would assume it to be daft.

Well, this is where we have to start splitting hairs.
If the Aether is continuous and static, then it would be, by nature, intemporal.
Without movement or change then time is irrelevant, even non-existant.
I don't see the problem with that at all.

However, Buddha taught that nothing, not even "The Absolute" was static.
Even if you are a non-Dualist, the concept of a static anything goes out the window.
And if nothing is static, everything experiences time.
This can go quite far into metaphysics, so I will try to get away from that in this thread.


It’s not quite as daft as it sounds. Physical extension and temporality are properties of physical things. If one assumes that the ether, the medium and substrate of physical existence, is non-physical then the above logical objections to its existence disappear. In fact there can be no scientific objections to something that is without extension or temporality.

I never really saw "The Absolute" as a non-physical entity.
As I have understood it (Buddha's version as well as Vedanta Philosophy), it is the root of all that is physical, and, although it is not what it appears to be due to our skewed perception, it is, in fact, "real".

There is only one non-physical thing we know of that exists but has no external attributes and that is consciousness, what philosphers define as ‘what it is like’ to be. If one assumes that there is ‘something that it is like’ to be non-physical, and that this is a subjective state of emptiness in which one becomes one with the continuum, intemporal and non-existent as either a physical point or, at the limit, even a point of ‘self’, then the idea of an ether begins to sound more plausible. Not very likely perhaps, but not actually illogical.

Unfortunately there can never be any scientific evidence for it, other than the absence of any other sensible explanation.
We have already been through the discussion of whether consciousness exists, and what it is, but, again, that goes into metaphysics.
I think the line between physics and metaphysics is too blurred as it is.
They are two separate things, and can be addressed as such.
The question may be, "Where is that line?", but I do think there is a line.

Originally posted by one_raven

Is this the famous "Zeno's Paradox" I keep hearing mentioned?
I have to get around to reading that.
Maybe tonight.In the mean time...
Why would a quantisized model make movement illogical?
Another time, it'd divert this discussion. (There is a thread somewhere)

However, Buddha taught that nothing, not even "The Absolute" was static.
Did he?

And if nothing is static, everything experiences time.
Except nothing.

This can go quite far into metaphysics, so I will try to get away from that in this thread.
Can you discuss the ether and not be doing metaphysics?

I never really saw "The Absolute" as a non-physical entity. As I have understood it (Buddha's version as well as Vedanta Philosophy), it is the root of all that is physical, and, although it is not what it appears to be due to our skewed perception, it is, in fact, "real".
I think this is seeing a contradictions between 'real' and 'non-physical' that is epistemilogical rather than actual.

We have already been through the discussion of whether consciousness exists, and what it is, but, again, that goes into metaphysics.
I think the line between physics and metaphysics is too blurred as it is.
They are two separate things, and can be addressed as such.
The question may be, "Where is that line?", but I do think there is a line. [/B]
I won't divert the discussion by banging on, but I don't think you can develop an ether theory and avoid metaphysics. You're dealing with the fabric of the physical world.

Thanks for not ignoring my very off the wall post anyway.

Canute

one_raven,

I am somewhat familiar with your "Alternative to Special Relativity", but not fluent in it. Explain to me why light appears to curve around massive objects if a gravitational field would not change the path or direction of a photon.

You misunderstood my statement. A gravitational dipole in a non-uniform positive gravitational field would rotate, and therefore its path would curve, until it aligns with gravitational field. However, there is no evidence that a moving mass will "drag" light along with it.

To use an analagy, imagine if you had a magnet in a positive uniform magnetic field. The magnet would accelerate because the magnetic field would push against the positive pole of the magnet, and pull against the negative pole of the magnet. The magnet would not rotate, and its path would not curve because the strength of the magnetic field around the magnet is equal on all sides of the magnet.

Now, if you put that same magnet in a non-uniform positive magnetic field, the magnet will rotate until it's negative pole is facing the stronger part of the magnetic field. If the magnet is moving as it rotates, its path will curve.

Photons behave the same way except their positive poles are attracted to the stronger positive regions of a non-uniform positive gravitational field.

I am not sure if I agree with the whole "Time Dilation" alternative, however, I do see what you mean here.

As I explained, the speed of light for an observer that is moving through a gravitational field would increase or decrease depending on the direction that the observer, and the light that the observer is measuring, is travelling. However, even though the speed of light would increase, or decrease, for the observer, the average speed of light for the observer would always decrease. If you do the math, you'll find that the time it takes light to make a roundtrip between two points that are travelling through a gravitational field together will always be greater than the time it would take if the two points were stationairy.

Now, if the average speed of light decreases for an observer travelling through a gravitational field, then you would expect this to influence certain fields since some fields are composed of an exchange of light-speed particles. So for example, if the average speed of the particles that make up the electrostatic fields in a moving observer decrease, then the strength of the electrostatic fields will decrease as well. Since the speed of chemical reactions are directly related to the strength of electrostatic fields, the speed of the reactions would decrease as a result of the decreased average speed of light.

I used chemical reactions as an example, but in reality all reactions that result from fields that are caused by particle exchange would slow down. Even electronic circuits would slow down, since the movement of the electrons in those circuits are influenced by the speed of the electric fields originating from the power source of the circuit.

But how does it explain how two massive bodies (both with "positive" field) would be attracted to each other?

I have no idea. I'm still working on it. :)