Why is Ether Physics Frowned Upon?

[electrafixtion]

Since Einstein himself did in fact understand and subsequently promote the irrefutable nature of both space and ether, the entire scientific premise that the ether does not exist is flawed. Why is this? Why is the world's global progress not firmly and expediently fastened to Ether Physics and the tremendous alternatives that the science implies?

Seems extremely foolish to me, but admittedly my knowledge of applied physics is a grain of sand on the beech of life compared to other members here. What do these members think and why are we seemingly still stuck as a society in the darkest ages of Relativity?

I know so little in reality with respect to the great and encompassing science of physics, that I thought it best to include this post in the pseudosciences section of the forum. Your thoughts and considerations are very appreciated.

[one_raven]

The common prevailing interpretation of Michelson & Morley is that it disproved the Aether.

[quantum_wave]

The greatest minds and the best experiments could not detect the aether. That does not mean that there is no aether of course. If mass and the aether are so connected that as mass moves it drags the aether with it then the best experiments still couldn't detect it.

You are right about the advantages of aether physics. It would provide a medium across which gravity waves would be transmitted so that mass wouldn't have to warp the fabric of spacetime.

[CheskiChips]

ÆTHER = SPACE-TIME

The earlier was static, the later dynamic.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

They decided the aether does not exist but now claim space is made of something, is curved, expands. It's like saying I don't believe in God, I believe in Yahweh.

[electrafixtion]

I would have to contend that scientists/discoverers like Hutchinson have and can on a repeated basis, prove the existence of Aether. (my apologies for calling it ether if in fact that was incorrect) The problem seems to be not being able to fully explain it in terms that all physicists are forced to ponder and then accept via typical empirical review. Fringe scientists that remain outside the accepted empirical social clique of science, seem to be forced to create eccentric languages to define even their more common findings. This in turn makes forwarding their legitimately repeatable experiments & tests to respected academics for further analysis unlikely. In short, it's ridiculous. It would seem as though the real body of science would be all for the uprooting of outdated power mongers and technologies that just serve to rip the world to shreds. Could science honestly be that tainted by entrenched monies?

If you get a chance, over the weekend or whatever time it takes, could I get some feedback on this presentation? I think it's very interesting to say the least. Thanks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834

[jerrygg38]

The greatest minds and the best experiments could not detect the aether. That does not mean that there is no aether of course. If mass and the aether are so connected that as mass moves it drags the aether with it then the best experiments still couldn't detect it.

You are right about the advantages of aether physics. It would provide a medium across which gravity waves would be transmitted so that mass wouldn't have to warp the fabric of spacetime.

JG: We live in a universe in which the composition of galaxies and pure empty space are identical. Galaxies are merely concentrations of pure empty space.
Ultimately both are composed of dots and dot-waves.
We are constantly bombarded by dots and dot-waves. As the Earth moves
around the sun a huge moving dot field travels within the orbit. The gravitational attraction is caused by pressure from the dots and dot-waves upon the Earth and sun.

Einstein's space time is a mathematical solution to the complexity of the dot and dot-wave interactions. Space is an ocean of dot waves. The proton is a concentrated collection of dot waves. There are 2.27883E41 dot-waves per proton as per Dot-wave unified field theory calculations.

[jerrygg38]

[QUOTE=electrafixtion;2050974]Since Einstein himself did in fact understand and subsequently promote the irrefutable nature of both space and ether, the entire scientific premise that the ether does not exist is flawed. Why is this? Why is the world's global progress not firmly and expediently fastened to Ether Physics and the tremendous alternatives that the science implies?

Seems extremely foolish to me, but admittedly my knowledge of applied physics is a grain of sand on the beech of life compared to other members here. What do these members think and why are we seemingly still stuck as a society in the darkest ages of Relativity?

JG: Good question. Unfortunately when people are taught things they become brainwashed. It becomes very difficult to deny that the brilliant Einstein could have made some serious mistakes. This is in light of the great discoveries he made. Einstein advanced our scientific understanding greatly.

For orbital motion Einsteins equations are the best fit to a more complex non-linear solution. He has the root mean square solution. Nothing can beat that. I use Doppler Space Time solution which has a forward mass larger than the rearward mass. However the root mean square of Doppler is Einstein.

For linear motion, the Doppler Equations are best. Thus the Doppler length to the front is different than the Doppler length to the rear. This matters little. The biggest problem with Einstein & Company is that the far stars are not moving away from us at the speed of light. If they were their masses would be infinite. Thus relativity is incorrect. We stand relative to the Aether.
Thus the far stars are as stationary as us.

The red shift is due to the expansion of the Aether. Our galaxy has expanded since big bang but the distance between galaxies has been basically constant. If we look at a galaxy 10 billion light years away, the Aether has expanded. In doing so the photons have lost energy. Thus the redshift is due to the loss of photonic energy per unit distance or time.

[quantum_wave]

JG: We live in a universe in which the composition of galaxies and pure empty space are identical. Galaxies are merely concentrations of pure empty space.
Ultimately both are composed of dots and dot-waves.
We are constantly bombarded by dots and dot-waves. As the Earth moves
around the sun a huge moving dot field travels within the orbit. The gravitational attraction is caused by pressure from the dots and dot-waves upon the Earth and sun.

Einstein's space time is a mathematical solution to the complexity of the dot and dot-wave interactions. Space is an ocean of dot waves. The proton is a concentrated collection of dot waves. There are 2.27883E41 dot-waves per proton as per Dot-wave unified field theory calculations.Well I'm glad someone actually quantified that. Give me a link and let me decide for myself :). I agree with you about the aether but this dot-wave thing, is it like quantum waves. Is there a force involved. Are all dots the same amount of energy. What causes mass to form out of the dots? Where is that link?

[OilIsMastery]

Why is Ether Physics Frowned Upon?
I don't know; good question.

Science is too dogmatic to consider that which lies outside the religion and peer-reviewed scripture.

A big reason why people bought into Wegener and rejected Hilgenberg is because Hilgenberg proposed Aether as the mechanism for planetary expansion.

[BenTheMan]

electrafixation---

If there is an aether, Michelson and Morley showed that it cannot have an absolute reference frame. Think of the aether like air---in order for sound to travel, it needs to propagate through something. That is, if there is no "something", there is no sound. Another way to think of sound is as a vibration along a slinky---but a vibration which works by compressing the slinky a bit, and letting the disturbance propagate along the slinky.

So sound is a compression wave. Let's ignore the fact that light is not a compression wave (light is mediated by photons, which are actual particles). The medium through which sound is propagated is air---and air has a reference frame. That is, you can be "still" with respect to the air, or you can be "moving" with respect to the air.

If sound and light are similar phenomena (and they were, in the 19th century before we discovered that light and sound were VASTLY different types of waves), then we might (naively) expect that the aether is similar to air. It makes sense, and it seems correct. But the problem is that when you do experiments to try and test this hypothesis, you find a negative result. This is the experiment and result of Michelson and Morley.

So, one implies that if there IS an aether, it can't have a reference frame. But if the aether doesn't have a reference frame, then it is utterly undetectable. The conclusion is, if there is an aether, then it is undetectable. And if it is undetectable, then we can do without it. As Einstein said---"Gentlemen, we haven't disproved the concept of an aether, we've only shown that we don't need it for calculations."

I will make some minor points here: Science can never prove something doesn't exist, it can only set limits on it.

Second, it is a supreme mistake to assume that Einstein was so intelligent that he couldn't be wrong. Einstein had some unique insights into the universe, but most of his ideas were wrong. Most ideas are wrong, period. So to say "Einstein thought this was right" is absolutely no grounds for any type of logical argument.

[jerrygg38]

Well I'm glad someone actually quantified that. Give me a link and let me decide for myself :). I agree with you about the aether but this dot-wave thing, is it like quantum waves. Is there a force involved. Are all dots the same amount of energy. What causes mass to form out of the dots? Where is that link?

JG: The Dot-wave theory is hot off the press. I just sent 100 copies of the theory to 100 universities and await a response. I will discuss the theory on this group and several other groups. I set up the Dot-wave theory on MSN groups but I have only posted some of it. Besides MSN is going out of business in Feb. I have been working on the dot wave theory for 27 years. My book "Doppler Space Time" is available on Amazon.com or book stores. It is out of publication and I make no money from the sales of the used books. It will never be reprinted because unfortunately it chose a sister solution. Thus for Doppler Space Time it is okay but for the dot-wave unified field theory, it is incorrect. I self publish small quanties. It cost me $6000 for 1000 copies. I give most away since this is my hobby. It costs me money but I enjoy working on the solution to the universe.

As far as mass forming out of the dots. A plus dot has a charge Qd and a minus dot has an equal and opposite charge. When the dots merge together, they form a bipolar dot. In effect two opposite charges in a space time "well" develop the property of mass. They are like an AC electromagnetic field. The dots by themselves make up photons.

Plus dots attract minus dots. Plus dots and minus dots merge together to form bipolar dots. They form structures like subparticles. They obey simple laws but are in constant motion.

You cannot write a law of attraction of the individual dots because force relates to huge quanties of dots. An electron has 1.41605E38 minus dots and 1.24109E38 bipolar dots while a proton has 1.41605E38 positive dots and 2.27883E41 bipolar dots.
Our laws and measurements relate to huge amounts of dots whereas the dots themselves obey other laws. However the photon is composed of plus and minus dots and no bipolar dots. Therefore the photon and the electromagnetic fields enable us to view the effects of the dots. Still a typical photon has a huge amount of dots.

All the dots have the same amount of energy at the present time. As the space of the universe shrinks the energy of the dots increase. As the space of the universe expands, the dots size increases and the dot energy decreases. Thus the hydrogen atom today is much larger that the hydrogen atom soon after big bang. A photon today is much larger than a photon long ago. In addition as space expands the energy of the photon drops.
Thus a galaxy 10 billion light years away at big bang emitted whiter light because it was smaller. Our ruler was smaller as well. Thus the light should remain the same. However as the light wave from the far galaxy expands and space expands, we get an additional lose of energy and the light is red.
The center of galaxies in general remains constant distances. The light wave keeps expanding and losing energy. It is incorrect that the far galaxies are moving apart from us at the speed of light. They are quite stationary.

[jerrygg38]

[QUOTE=BenTheMan;2065755]electrafixation---

"If there is an aether, Michelson and Morley showed that it cannot have an absolute reference frame. "

JG: There were two solutions to the experiment. Einstein chose the constant light speed solution. Others chose the variable light speed solution. This necessitated the shrinkage of the instrument in the direction of motion. This is more plausible to me.

"So, one implies that if there IS an aether, it can't have a reference frame. But if the aether doesn't have a reference frame, then it is utterly undetectable."

JG: The universe is the reference frame. The aether consists of dot-waves which travel at 2C. They collide back and forth giving a forward velocity of C for low energy photons and electromagnetic field. Some photons consist of packets of dots themselves. Some merely use the existing dots of space.



"The conclusion is, if there is an aether, then it is undetectable. And if it is undetectable, then we can do without it. As Einstein said---"Gentlemen, we haven't disproved the concept of an aether, we've only shown that we don't need it for calculations."

JG: Einstein was happy with his mathematical calculations. People want to know how things work. The universe works by practical things. A mathematical universe is merely an explanation of something unknown. Once we eliminate the aether, we eliminate a huge amount of matter/energy in the universe. Einstein produced great equations. But as an Engineer I want to know how things work and not merely equations for how things work.


"Second, it is a supreme mistake to assume that Einstein was so intelligent that he couldn't be wrong. Einstein had some unique insights into the universe, but most of his ideas were wrong."

JG: I disagree. Einstein produced great equations for orbital space time. Doppler space time produces better results for linear motion. Einstein gave us the mass to energy conversion formula.
Einstein was originally correct when he stated that the universe was stationary. Hubble & Company produced the red shift and Einstein accomodated them. It is false that the far stars are moving at light speed. Relativity is false. So we are lead by great ideas and some false ideas. Nevertheless Einstein contributed greatly to the advancement of science.

[electrafixtion]

JG: The Dot-wave theory is hot off the press.


Jerry
Could you please provide the most basic of insights as to what a clear understanding of the Dot-wave theory would allow for in terms of practical application?

Would this understanding create new possibilities with respect to mechanical applications? Or is this understanding more so a revised understanding of universal laws in action? Even so, what type of beneficial improvements could we look forward to as a result of your theory in practice?

BTW, thanks to everyone for expounding on these matters. For myself, to even come to a better rudimentary understanding of these principles, is a truly great thing. Thanks!

[BenTheMan]

There were two solutions to the experiment. Einstein chose the constant light speed solution. Others chose the variable light speed solution. This necessitated the shrinkage of the instrument in the direction of motion. This is more plausible to me.

Why?

JG: The universe is the reference frame. The aether consists of dot-waves which travel at 2C. They collide back and forth giving a forward velocity of C for low energy photons and electromagnetic field. Some photons consist of packets of dots themselves. Some merely use the existing dots of space.

Ehhh evidence? We've yet to find any problems with special relativity, and it permeates ALL of theoretical physics. So if SR is wrong, then violations should show up somewhere. If SR and your theory are the same (i.e. give the same predictions), then the simpler one wins.

[MetaKron]

Lorentz wrote that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments led him and Fitzgerald to decide that the dimensions of bodies change as they move through the ether. That's the first page of the article "Electromagnetic Phemonena in Any System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light" You will find it in the compilation work titled "The Principle of Relativity".

If the motion of the ether was genuinely not there to be detected, there could have been "frame dragging." A constant speed of light would be observed if the Earth dragged its frame of reference with it. If "ether" is a substance it doesn't have to be anchored to an absolute frame of reference. The idea of foreshortening was introduced to explain a lack of detectable motion through the ether, not a lack of the ether itself.

Who said that there was no such thing as the ether?

[jerrygg38]

[QUOTE=electrafixtion;2066482]Jerry
Could you please provide the most basic of insights as to what a clear understanding of the Dot-wave theory would allow for in terms of practical application?

Would this understanding create new possibilities with respect to mechanical applications? Or is this understanding more so a revised understanding of universal laws in action? Even so, what type of beneficial improvements could we look forward to as a result of your theory in practice?

JG: The most important application of the theory is the production of the proton to photonic converter. A machine no larger than 10 feet in diameter will produce a pulsating spherical electromagnetic field which will concentrate the field at a pinpoint. This will release the energy of protons at the center of the field.
As will be shown later, the binding energy of the proton is 3.482MEV while the output energy of the process is 938.272MEV. thus 3.5 MEV of electrical energy will produce 938 MEV of photonic energy.
It will cost approximately 1 billion dollars to build the first photonic converter. After that it will cost perhaps 10 million dollars for the converter units. These units will provide unlimited power for future man upon this Earth.
Of course it is necessary to understand the dot-wave makeup of the proton and electron. Once this is understood production can begin on the new machine which eliminates the need for oil and coal in the future.
The great thing about the photonic converter is that it can be used as a rocket engine. The light beam can flow outward and spaceships in the future will ride a beam of light.
the downside is military applications. The beam can destroy incoming misiles but it can also be used to destroy cities. Thus the new technology can be used to benefit mankind or destroy mankind.

[jerrygg38]

Why?



Ehhh evidence? We've yet to find any problems with special relativity, and it permeates ALL of theoretical physics. So if SR is wrong, then violations should show up somewhere. If SR and your theory are the same (i.e. give the same predictions), then the simpler one wins.

JG: Space and time are subject to non-linear equations. The best fit is the geometric mean. For orbital motion Einsteins formulas are the best fit. I use the Doppler Equations
Mass front = Mo (C/(C-v)
Mass rear = Mo (C/C+V)
The Doppler geometric mean mass is

Mx = [Mo / ( 1- (V/C)^2 ]^0.5

Thus Einstein is the geometric mean of Doppler . This is shown in my book
"Doppler Space Time" . (Available at used books or Amazon.com) I have no financial interest in the books. I only purchased 1000 and gave most away to libraries and those who wanted them on the internet. I self publish as a hobby and not a business. Right now I need to save $6000 to self-publish "Dot-wave unified field theory". I have sent 100 copies of the manuscript to 100 universities and await some responses. I am a retired EE, going to be 70 on Christmas eve. I get social security and a small pension. I like to work as a part time handyman helping older people for small pay. It is another hobby business but it earns a little money. I have been working on the dot-theory for 27 years.

In any event Einsteins equations are excellent for orbital motion but not good for linear motion. Experiments at MIT long ago verified that the mass in front of the moving object is larger than the mass in back of the moving object. Other universities verified MIT's findings.
The interesting thing is the Doppler length which helps explain the double slit experiment physically.
the Doppler length front = Lx (C/(C-V)
Doppler length rear = Lx (C/ (C+V)

The moving object has a forward length which approaches infinity as the velocity goes to light speed. The rearward length is cut in half. Thus as an object starts to move, it projects an image in front of it.

Doppler space time is only an approximation to the complexity of non-linear space time. It shows important characteristics which are useful. For example as we move a spaceship to higher and higher velocities, we run the risk of destruction by space particles. We can fortify the image in front of the spaceship by using the Doppler Length. Thus the particles will hit the forward defense image which will protect the spacecraft.

In this manner we can get up to 0.4 C before the spacecraft distortions destroy the occupants. As shown in Doppler Space Time, we can get to the moon in 3.5 hours by constant acceleration at 32 feet per second for half the trip and a constant deceleration of 32 feet per second for the remaining half of the trip. No weightlessness is involved since the occupants only feel normal gravity. The reversal of the proton thruster engine necessitates the reversal of seating during a short weightless period of less than one minute.

It would take 25.4 days to reach pluto. It would take 2 days and 5 hours to reach Mars or Venus. Of course such things are for the future since it will take time to produce the proton/photon engine.

[jerrygg38]

Lorentz wrote that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments led him and Fitzgerald to decide that the dimensions of bodies change as they move through the ether. That's the first page of the article "Electromagnetic Phemonena in Any System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light" You will find it in the compilation work titled "The Principle of Relativity".

If the motion of the ether was genuinely not there to be detected, there could have been "frame dragging." A constant speed of light would be observed if the Earth dragged its frame of reference with it. If "ether" is a substance it doesn't have to be anchored to an absolute frame of reference. The idea of foreshortening was introduced to explain a lack of detectable motion through the ether, not a lack of the ether itself.

Who said that there was no such thing as the ether?

JG: Lorentz was correct. The thing is that the Earth itself is shortened in the direction of motion. Any instrument is shorted by the Earth's field in the direction of motion. You really have to be in outerspace far from the galaxies to have a perfect non-distorted instrument.

[jerrygg38]

I don't know; good question.

Science is too dogmatic to consider that which lies outside the religion and peer-reviewed scripture.

A big reason why people bought into Wegener and rejected Hilgenberg is because Hilgenberg proposed Aether as the mechanism for planetary expansion.


JG: Science is like religion. It is difficult to scientists to overcome what they have been taught. First they must reject what they have been taught and start over with the basics. How do you find truth?
"Deny everything until you can no longer deny it!

JG: As far as planetary expansion is concerned, everything expands. The hydrogen atoms expands everyday. That is the reason for gravity. The proton has been expanding since after big bang. It was zero size long ago.
The expansion of the proton and the hydrogen atom causes space to push upon them.

[jerrygg38]

Lorentz wrote that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments led him and Fitzgerald to decide that the dimensions of bodies change as they move through the ether. That's the first page of the article "Electromagnetic Phemonena in Any System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light" You will find it in the compilation work titled "The Principle of Relativity".

If the motion of the ether was genuinely not there to be detected, there could have been "frame dragging." A constant speed of light would be observed if the Earth dragged its frame of reference with it. If "ether" is a substance it doesn't have to be anchored to an absolute frame of reference. The idea of foreshortening was introduced to explain a lack of detectable motion through the ether, not a lack of the ether itself.

Who said that there was no such thing as the ether?


JG: Lorentz was correct.

[Reiku]

Actually, you guys, aether takes on the form of a quantum aether; so aether is actually needed, just not in the same form that the Michelson-Morley experiement searched for. The quantum aether describes matter spontaneously bubbling from the vacuum.

[prometheus]

The aether implies a preferred rest frame. The "quantum aether" (and I wouldn't call it that) doesn't do that.

[quantum_wave]

The aether implies a preferred rest frame. The "quantum aether" (and I wouldn't call it that) doesn't do that.Is that when you consider the aether a light bearing medium or when you consider it a gravity bearing medium?

[OilIsMastery]

JG: Science is like religion. It is difficult to scientists to overcome what they have been taught. First they must reject what they have been taught and start over with the basics. How do you find truth?
"Deny everything until you can no longer deny it!

JG: As far as planetary expansion is concerned, everything expands. The hydrogen atoms expands everyday. That is the reason for gravity. The proton has been expanding since after big bang. It was zero size long ago.
The expansion of the proton and the hydrogen atom causes space to push upon them.
God bless you. Welcome to SciForums.Com...:D

[OilIsMastery]

As Einstein said---"Gentlemen, we haven't disproved the concept of an aether, we've only shown that we don't need it for calculations."
Hey Ben. Thx for the awesome quote. Can you provide a reference for that please?

[one_raven]

Hey Ben. Thx for the awesome quote. Can you provide a reference for that please?

I would like that as well.

[BenTheMan]

Yeah I don't know.

Somehow I think at least one of you is missing the point of the quote, though.

[OilIsMastery]

Yeah I don't know.

Somehow I think at least one of you is missing the point of the quote, though.
I agree with the quote. I just want a citation and confirmation Einstein actually said it.

[AlphaNumeric]

JG: There were two solutions to the experiment. Einstein chose the constant light speed solution. Others chose the variable light speed solution. This necessitated the shrinkage of the instrument in the direction of motion. This is more plausible to me. Except we know by observation that the speed of light has been constant for more than 10 billion years (or so close to constant it's beyond our ability to measure). The speed of light is more than just something which appears in relativity (and thus cosmology), it permeates every facet of modern physics. When you work out things which in any way rely on something to do with field theory, electromagnetism or relativity there's factors of c knocking around your equations. The strength of electromagnetic bonds is a function of c. The strength of the force holding the nucleus of atoms together is a function of c. The strength and behaviour of gravity is a function of c.

There's a great many phenomena which are sensitive to small changes in various parameters in physics. Changing the speed of light by say 10% would radically alter the stability of nuclei and atoms. It would alter the rate and products of nuclear fusion in stars, meaning they'd be different in shape and size and colour to what they are at the moment. Gravitational fields would be altered, maybe excluding stable orbits, so galaxies and solar systems don't form. All of these things are dependent on various constants like G, c, \hbar, k etc etc being very close to their current values and not varying outside those narrow ranges.

Since we do see distance galaxies looking much like close ones, with stars orbitting the galaxies' centre, supernova having the same kind of spectrum we see in nearby galaxies and the stars we observe have the same kind of emission spectra our galaxy's stars have. So experiment tells us that if c is a dynamical quantity, its dynamics are very very slow and over a very very small range. So it would seem that a varying speed of light is not simpler than relativity because you have to explain why the speed of light is dynamical yet seems to remain in just the right range so as to allow the universe we see. By allowing it to vary you have given yourself a fine tuning problem of a serious kind.

[merkababozo]

Q: Why is Ether Physics Frowned Upon?

A: Because of some award winning idiot (calling himself Zephir) made a complete mockery of it (deservedly so).

[darksidZz]

What is wrong here :( I use to believe in ether physics but sadly after awhile I realized it was just nonsense. You see there are NO applications as far as I know that demonstrate it's existence. One would expect an anti-gravity generator, a neat device in itself, or just something to show although it's not detectable ether exists. NONE EXIST.

Ether is not real, you know this but wish it was, I do have my doubts about SR though. This concept is very simplified and I do not think it's right. Well it isn't simple, but I doubt it's right :L shrugs

[Prosoothus]

electrafixtion,

Since Einstein himself did in fact understand and subsequently promote the irrefutable nature of both space and ether, the entire scientific premise that the ether does not exist is flawed. Why is this? Why is the world's global progress not firmly and expediently fastened to Ether Physics and the tremendous alternatives that the science implies?

I really don't know. I've been at sciforums for several years now, and I'm surprised how many highly intelligent individuals can believe that an observer can contract space and dilate time in his/her entire frame of reference (which by the way is the entire universe), by simply moving. I always thought that energy was required to change the properties of any object, but obliviously no energy is required to change the properties of space-time. What's even more boggling is that an observer, by moving, can somehow change the properties of space-time a million miles away. That's kind of cool isn't it? The enormous gravitational field of a black hole can only curve space-time in its section of the galaxy, but I can contract space and dilate time in the Andromeda galaxy by simply moving. I must be a god!! :p

Seriously, the scientific community was to eager to accepts Einstein's relativity because, I believe, that they look at Einstein as being some kind of god. I guess there's religion in everything, even science.

I personally believe that the space, or space-time, or ether, or whatever you want to call it, is the medium that light travels through, but that it does not determine the speed of the light. I believe that the speed of light is not constant for all observers, but is only equal to c for an observer that is stationary in a gravitational field. In other words, I believe that the speed of light would change for an observer moving through a gravitational field, because the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the gravitational field that light is moving through at any given moment.

To go one step further, I would suggest that the gravitational field of a photon is not uniform like regular matter, but may be a dipole. This causes the photon to be accelerated when it is placed in an external gravitational field until it reaches the speed of c in that field, because c is the speed of the gravitational interaction.

Therefore, I believe the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment do not prove that the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers, but instead may prove that the speed of light was only equal to c in the Michelson-Morley device because the device was stationary in the Earth's gravitational field. I believe if you moved the device relative to the Earth's gravitational field, the speed of light in the device would change by the same amount.

[quantum_wave]

You point out some interesting relationships. Mass and gravity are two sides of the same coin. If we discuss gravity from the reference frame of the mass from which the gravity emanates, then because gravity has an infinite reach, it passes through all reference frames, just like light. If there is an aether across which gravity is transmitted, it would seem to make sense that light traverses the same medium.

Gravity and light traveling at the same speed across the aether seems to suggest that their speed is aether dependent. That is why I was entertaining the idea that the force of quantum action and the resulting expansion of energy quanta across the aether at the speed of light would provide the mechanism for both light and gravity to travel. If the spherical quantum energy waves travel at the speed of light then both gravity and light could utilize the same aether medium.

If this were true, then the speed of gravity would be frame dependent just like the speed of light.

And the aether would consist of the energy waves emitted by mass and so the aether would be dragged along with mass instead of mass moving through the aether, thus explaining why it is not detected by interferometry.

[electrafixtion]

Hey Ben. Thx for the awesome quote. Can you provide a reference for that please?

I believe the exact quote is found in one of William Lyne's books but I am not sure. I couldn't find it.

These are interesting sources for the premise of the quote. I am not waving the flag of validation because I am not qualified to do so, but these are interesting links nonetheless.

http://www.mu6.com/einstein.html

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF

http://www.16pi2.com/Einstein_Aether.htm

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

[OilIsMastery]

I believe the exact quote is found in one of William Lyne's books but I am not sure. I couldn't find it.

These are interesting sources for the premise of the quote. I am not waving the flag of validation because I am not qualified to do so, but these are interesting links nonetheless.

http://www.mu6.com/einstein.html

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF

http://www.16pi2.com/Einstein_Aether.htm

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)
Thx man I really appreciate it.

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether."

Love that quote. In other words, those who deny ether also deny relativity.

Check this out: Fluid Dynamic (Ether) Sink Gravity (http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/11/fluid-dynamic-ether-sink-gravity.html)

[AlphaNumeric]

Thx man I really appreciate it.

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether."

Love that quote. In other words, those who deny ether also deny relativity.Just because Einstein developed GR initially doesn't mean all he says is correct. There have been many physicists who have understood GR better than him. Einstein also did work in quantum mechanics but he didn't agree with it's fundamentally probabilistic nature, though we know him to be wrong. Relativity has been developed a great deal since Einstein's day. The golden age of GR was in the 60s, after his death.

It's funny how you will cling to that quote by a mainstream physicist because he has said something you agree with but when it comes to the many thousands of papers physicists publish in things like geology (ie the areas relevant to your claim of expanding planets and moons) you ignore them all. Cherry picking what you cling to.

Considering you don't know even high school physics, you certainly have no clue of whether relativity would be consistent or possible with or without an aether. You don't know the first thing about it other than what you can gleam from Wikipedia and pop science magazines.

[quantum_wave]

Just because Einstein developed GR initially doesn't mean all he says is correct. There have been many physicists who have understood GR better than him. Einstein also did work in quantum mechanics but he didn't agree with it's fundamentally probabilistic nature, though we know him to be wrong.

...This is a bold statement. When you say we know him to be wrong about the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics are you saying that there is proof. Give us a link to the proof and don't use wiki or some pop science mag.

[AlphaNumeric]

Look up the Bell inequalities in whatever quantum physics textbook you happen to have. Not that I think you have one.

[quantum_wave]

Funny. So Bell's theorem is proof. What in your mind constitutes proof of Bell's theorem?

[AlphaNumeric]

No, the experimental demonstration of the validity of the Bell Inequalities shows that either quantum mechanics is probabilistic or Einstein was wrong about relativity's description of causality. So he's wrong either way.

[quantum_wave]

OK, if you put it that way.