# Luminiferous Aether Exists!

What .Am i completely ignored over here??
Pressure cannot work.... I have given the proof...

"I Don't exactly understand why are you telling me this to explain the relationship between pressure and mass.. But you just tell me what is wrong in my explanation and don't give some other articles to prove that you are correct.

Aether has mass.It occupies space. An object is placed in the space.Object needs to occupy space. So it displaces aether.
Aether tries to put pressure on that object.You define that as gravity.I.e pressure on that object.

Different objects displace aether is different way.so different objects have different gravitational effects.
Look You said aether has mass. It needs to occupy volume. A large object has to occupy larger volume.
That larger object displaces the aether more.So it will have more gravity.
Here i meant large as that object has larger circumference(This is the case of a round body).
So you found that aether pressure depends upon circuference or larger object and is not irrespective of mass.
So your gravity theory is wrong... ( I am not saying that your light theory is wrong.I have to think about it a little bit more)

So say what is wrong in my explanation. We can settle like that way and not providing different articles.. And your explanation should be made as simple as possible so that a common person can understand!!!"""

Answer to this..I am sure that there is nothing wrong in that explanation...

You will have to answer for this for sure..

Larger object having smaller mass displaces more aether because It NEEDS to occupy space...

And i am sure that there is nothing as floating in aether you are introducing to solve my problem.That only happens in the case of water and nothing as....

For sure that pressure thing is enough to show that your gravity theory is wrong.. This is just a very simple argument...

The 'curvature' of the aether does account for gravity. What Einstien referred to as curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. The displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the matter. Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter gravity.

The aether also waves.

If you place a bowling ball into a tank of water the water is displaced by the bowling ball. If you also toss a rock into the tank of water the water ripples. The ripple is a wave in the water. So, the water is displaced by the bowling ball and the water also waves.

The aether doesn't curve to explain QM. The aether is the wave of wave-particle duality which explains what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid. The aether is displaced by particles of matter which exist in it. If enough particles of matter are close enough together the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the particles of matter is gravity. A particle moving through the aether creates a wave in the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether through both.

Gravity and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment are two completely different physical phenomena both caused by aether being displaced by matter. Gravity is caused by the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter. The observed behaviors in a double slit experiment are caused by a particle moving through the aether having an associated aether displacement wave.
I do not beleive that aether waves or spacetime waves or gravitational waves. For two reasons mainly, one : gravitational waves predict a difference in the speed of light, and two : experiments to try and detect this difference in the speed of light have failed. It is easy to get caught up into this type of thinking when your taught that paticles act like waves on the surface of water and they proposed an aether substance that permeated space as though it was an actual thing. So, your not the first person to consider this type of theory, but I don't think the theory really works out. I beleive the interaction between spacetime and particles traveling through a two slit experiment is much different than what you have described.

I have an alternative theory. I don't think the particle interference is due to wavelike behavior of space, but it is due to spacetime contraction. Say for instance that an electron in the two slit experiment is traveling close to the speed of light. Then instead of trying to imagine riding that particle as it travels the speed of light, like Einstein, but then try to imagine you saying that you are at rest because it is traveling at a constant speed. (must have not been as much of a thrill seeker as Einstein, lol) One of the basic principles of relativity as that any observer traveling at a constant speed can assume that he is at rest. Okay, then now that your are sitting on an electron that is saying that it is at rest you ask yourself, what do you see? Well, since you are saying that you are at rest then everything else in the two slit experiment would be seen to be traveling close to the speed of light in the opposite direction. Then since the experiment is traveling close to the speed of light in the opposite direction, you say that time has slowed down for the experiment and space has contracted in the direction of the experiments motion. So then now you have a two slit experiment that is seen to be almost contracted to zero in length and the experiment itself last for only a very small fraction of time, and the amount of time in order for the experiment to speed by you is almost instantanous. So then the screen in the back of the experiment just hits you in not even a blink of an eye. Then you say ah that was a fun ride, now lets do it again, but this time lets ride a different electron. Then you notice something peculiar, since the time of the experiment was almost contracted to zero, when you get on the secound electron it see's almost the same thing at and at almost exactly the same time, since the total lifetime of the experiment was only a fraction of a unit of time. So then when you go for the secound ride, you notice that the electron you rode before also saw itself to travel through the experiment at almost the same instant as the when you rode the secound electron! Then you end up running into yourself and it causes an interference in both trajectories of each electron that you rode. So then I think this is how one electron being shot after another electron can cause an interference pattern between those electrons. As you can see the "spacetime medium" was only contracted and never distorted into some type of wave, also there is no need for this so called supersolid.

What .Am i completely ignored over here??
Pressure cannot work.... I have given the proof...

"I Don't exactly understand why are you telling me this to explain the relationship between pressure and mass.. But you just tell me what is wrong in my explanation and don't give some other articles to prove that you are correct.

Aether has mass.It occupies space. An object is placed in the space.Object needs to occupy space. So it displaces aether.
Aether tries to put pressure on that object.You define that as gravity.I.e pressure on that object.

Different objects displace aether is different way.so different objects have different gravitational effects.
Look You said aether has mass. It needs to occupy volume. A large object has to occupy larger volume.
That larger object displaces the aether more.So it will have more gravity.
Here i meant large as that object has larger circumference(This is the case of a round body).
So you found that aether pressure depends upon circuference or larger object and is not irrespective of mass.
So your gravity theory is wrong... ( I am not saying that your light theory is wrong.I have to think about it a little bit more)

So say what is wrong in my explanation. We can settle like that way and not providing different articles.. And your explanation should be made as simple as possible so that a common person can understand!!!"""

Answer to this..I am sure that there is nothing wrong in that explanation...

Several of the following articles describe gravity as pressure exerted by the aether toward matter.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

You will have to answer for this for sure..

Larger object having smaller mass displaces more aether because It NEEDS to occupy space...

And i am sure that there is nothing as floating in aether you are introducing to solve my problem.That only happens in the case of water and nothing as....

For sure that pressure thing is enough to show that your gravity theory is wrong.. This is just a very simple argument...

Several of the articles in my previoius post describe gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

I do not beleive that aether waves or spacetime waves or gravitational waves. For two reasons mainly, one : gravitational waves predict a difference in the speed of light, and two : experiments to try and detect this difference in the speed of light have failed. It is easy to get caught up into this type of thinking when your taught that paticles act like waves on the surface of water and they proposed an aether substance that permeated space as though it was an actual thing. So, your not the first person to consider this type of theory, but I don't think the theory really works out. I beleive the interaction between spacetime and particles traveling through a two slit experiment is much different than what you have described.

I have an alternative theory. I don't think the particle interference is due to wavelike behavior of space, but it is due to spacetime contraction. Say for instance that an electron in the two slit experiment is traveling close to the speed of light. Then instead of trying to imagine riding that particle as it travels the speed of light, like Einstein, but then try to imagine you saying that you are at rest because it is traveling at a constant speed. (must have not been as much of a thrill seeker as Einstein, lol) One of the basic principles of relativity as that any observer traveling at a constant speed can assume that he is at rest. Okay, then now that your are sitting on an electron that is saying that it is at rest you ask yourself, what do you see? Well, since you are saying that you are at rest then everything else in the two slit experiment would be seen to be traveling close to the speed of light in the opposite direction. Then since the experiment is traveling close to the speed of light in the opposite direction, you say that time has slowed down for the experiment and space has contracted in the direction of the experiments motion. So then now you have a two slit experiment that is seen to be almost contracted to zero in length and the experiment itself last for only a very small fraction of time, and the amount of time in order for the experiment to speed by you is almost instantanous. So then the screen in the back of the experiment just hits you in not even a blink of an eye. Then you say ah that was a fun ride, now lets do it again, but this time lets ride a different electron. Then you notice something peculiar, since the time of the experiment was almost contracted to zero, when you get on the secound electron it see's almost the same thing at and at almost exactly the same time, since the total lifetime of the experiment was only a fraction of a unit of time. So then when you go for the secound ride, you notice that the electron you rode before also saw itself to travel through the experiment at almost the same instant as the when you rode the secound electron! Then you end up running into yourself and it causes an interference in both trajectories of each electron that you rode. So then I think this is how one electron being shot after another electron can cause an interference pattern between those electrons. As you can see the "spacetime medium" was only contracted and never distorted into some type of wave, also there is no need for this so called supersolid.

I agree with de Broglie.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.

"the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

In de Broglie wave mechanics there is a particle and a wave. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave.

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

'New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle'
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Strongly detecting the particle turns the aether wave into chop. The particle gets knocked around by the chop and continues on the path it is traveling.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

As you undoubtbly know the sock puppet Gravitationl Aether pulls in half understood concepts and then proceeds to pick aspect from them that he thinks helps his conjecture and ignores the parts he thinks don't. He has no knowledge of physics and no mathematical skills apparently.
I was trying to see if he even knows the simplest of concepts, like mass and volume, but he won't answer my point that he can't give aether in kg and m[sup]3[/sup], since there is no aether. Instead he answers with spurious stuff that wouldn't be relevant even if it were true.

He says things lke the aether acts like a super solid and no energy is lost as matter moves through it - in the next breath he says matter moving through the aether produces waves - he then says these waves interact with photons and matter - then he jumps back and says the matter does not interact with aether.
Yeah as if there is no energy associated with the frequency that it "waves" (whatever that means) and no momentum associated with "displacement" of its "mass". That's more black magic than a luminiferous wind ever was.

He is the worst kind of psuedo science hack out there. He is the king of obfuscation and dodging and I really think that he is so self deluded that he cannot see the absurdity of his arguments, he really believs this silly crap! Quite pitiful.
I wonder what happened to him that makes him hang on to this rote recitation, without even adhering to the most basic principles of science taught in junior high, much less the elementary treatment of first principles one might glean from a freshman physics class. And then, without the faintest hint of any discipline, he pretends to take on the most leading edge questions of the day--as if he's got the gift of simply transcending all of human knowledge. It's like a fixation with delusions of grandeur. He turns the original question, as bogus as it was to the nuts that preceded him, into a question of mental health, or something along those lines.

This isn't an alternative theory for physics but a question for behavioral science. We should probably be discussing the syndromes that lead to delusional thinking. You're giving him a run for his money though. He's cutting and pasting bogus cites faster than Wyle E. Coyote can conjure up more Acme products to catch the Roadrunner. It's kind of funny like that, all fantasy and caricatures of manipulative personalities, and kind of childish. Maybe that's it. Maybe he didn't get to watch cartoons as a kid, or else maybe he was still watching them while his classmates were beginning to grapple with vector algebra, differential equations and the basics of kinematics. Meep-meep.

Several of the following articles describe gravity as pressure exerted by the aether toward matter.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

Why you aren't reading my posts????
You just didn't criticize what i said and you haven't justified what is wrong in my explanation.. You just gave me articles....I read all of them and i didn't get my answer..What is wrong???

Several of the articles in my previoius post describe gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

Don't you understand????

I proved that your gravity theory is not proportional to mass...Isn't that enough to prove that all other results are wrong???? I mean all other articles??? You doesn't seem to care...

Why you aren't reading my posts????
You just didn't criticize what i said and you haven't justified what is wrong in my explanation.. You just gave me articles....I read all of them and i didn't get my answer..What is wrong???

It appears to be a game which he convinces you to follow his links. He can't speak for himself or address a direct question with a direct answer. Maybe there's a rush with thinking he's holding knowledgeable people at bay on a site that where he's out of his league.

I was trying to see if he even knows the simplest of concepts, like mass and volume, but he won't answer my point that he can't give aether in kg and m[sup]3[/sup], since there is no aether. Instead he answers with spurious stuff that wouldn't be relevant even if it were true.

You should read the articles I linked to where gravity is described as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

Why you aren't reading my posts????
You just didn't criticize what i said and you haven't justified what is wrong in my explanation.. You just gave me articles....I read all of them and i didn't get my answer..What is wrong???

What specifically in the articles where gravity is described as pressure exerted by aether toward matter is incorrect?

Don't you understand????

I proved that your gravity theory is not proportional to mass...Isn't that enough to prove that all other results are wrong???? I mean all other articles??? You doesn't seem to care...

Gravity is proportional to the aether displaced by the particles of matter. The more particles of matter the greater the displacement of the aether the greather the pushing back and pressure exerted by the aether toward the matter the greater the gravitaitonal force of the displaced aether.

It appears to be a game which he convinces you to follow his links. He can't speak for himself or address a direct question with a direct answer. Maybe there's a rush with thinking he's holding knowledgeable people at bay on a site that where he's out of his league.

Why don't you learn to understand what supersolid means. A supersolid is displaced by objects moving through it. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of a supersolid and an object moving through it because that is what supersolid means.

What specifically in the articles where gravity is described as pressure exerted by aether toward matter is incorrect?

Hello,,, I didn't say that your article describes that your theory is wrong....
I have read all of them....

I think you haven't Even read my posts,I described why your theory is wrong...Look at my previous posts carefully..... I explained in a simpler way your theory is wrong in my own words and i haven't even said that your articles says that what you said is wrong....

Do you have problem in understanding what i said.. Should i repeat my post again saying that your theory is wrong??? (My own explanation)

Hello,,, I didn't say that your article describes that your theory is wrong....
I have read all of them....

I think you haven't Even read my posts,I described why your theory is wrong...Look at my previous posts carefully..... I explained in a simpler way your theory is wrong in my own words and i haven't even said that your articles says that what you said is wrong....

Do you have problem in understanding what i said.. Should i repeat my post again saying that your theory is wrong??? (My own explanation)

The articles say gravity is a pressure exerted by aether toward matter. That is what I am saying. I am saying there is a pressure because the aether is displaced by the matter.

If you understand the articles are correct then that means you understand I am correct.

Why don't you learn to understand what supersolid means. A supersolid is displaced by objects moving through it. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of a supersolid and an object moving through it because that is what supersolid means.
Why don't you answer a direct question directly. If aether has mass and volume, state it in kg and m[sup]3[/sup]. You can't because it doesn't.

You should read the articles I linked to where gravity is described as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.
Pressure is inversely proportional to surface area, irrelevant to gravity. It's a force, and has no need for contemplating surface area. In any case, gravity is purely dependent on the quantity of the masses (which you can't specify for aether since there is no such thing) and distance between them. No accounting for aether is made in the calculation. So aether can't have anything to do with it.

Why don't you answer a direct question directly. If aether has mass and volume, state it in kg and m[sup]3[/sup]. You can't because it doesn't.

Why don't you read the articles I linked to? Why don't you learn to understand what supersolid means?

Pressure is inversely proportional to surface area, irrelevant to gravity. It's a force, and has no need for contemplating surface area. In any case, gravity is purely dependent on the quantity of the masses (which you can't specify for aether since there is no such thing) and distance between them.

There is not enough mass of the matter to account for the rate at which galaxies spin so physicists made up non-baryonic dark matter which was assumed to be anchored to matter. The missing mass has now been shown not to be anchored to the matter. This means galaxies move through the missing mass. This means the missing mass is the aether.

No accounting for aether is made in the calculation. So aether can't have anything to do with it.

So, you didn't read any of the articles? The back reaction described in the first article is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether toward the matter. Other articles specifically refer to a gravitational aether where the pressure exerted by the aether toward the matter is gravity.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

The articles say gravity is a pressure exerted by aether toward matter. That is what I am saying. I am saying there is a pressure because the aether is displaced by the matter.

If you understand the articles are correct then that means you understand I am correct.

I don't think you understand the papers you are citing. None of them present a compelling arguement, for the conclusions you seem to be dreaming up. One hint should be the citation records. Those which are cited by other papers seem to be cited by papers from the same authors. Not a lot of "other" physicists jumping on their band wagon.

There has always been and will continue to be interest in ether theories that are consistent with GR. GR is a geometric description of how objects interact, not a fundamental description of why. It does not explain the mechanism(s), only the result.., the geometry... So far no ether theory has been entirely successful in duplicating the success of GR, in a rigorously consistent manner.

The way you state some of your assumptions, is not clear enough for anything other than comment of rejection. No aether preassure theory of gravity has yet been presented that deserves any real consideration. That said there have been some attempts to addresses gravitation from QM, that to a lay person may sound and appear to represent an ether of sorts and preassure derived source of gravitation. In all of the credible papers I have read through on the subject the limited success has been clearly defined.., no one to my knowledge has yet presented a mechanism that is wholly consitent with observation. And the task only becomes more difficult as time passes and our observations of the universe expand.

The ether as you seem to believe it to be, does not exist, and gravity is not the result of the preassure of the ether.

As I alluded to earlier, there is/are some QM models (SED), that could be understood as a preassure model, addressing gravitation as an interaction between matter and the ZPF of vacuum energy (in a manner similar to our current understanding of the Casimir effect).., but they have not yet been entirely successful and they are not the only game in town.