Your just funny, Just because you got something published dosnt mean its even close to being viable or mainstream, it just means it cant be dismissed fully. even mediocre research is published... why is it that many peeps in here think that being published is a rubber stamp... it AINT!

Of course, a lot of BS is published. But don't forget that in fact the criteria for publishing are a little different inside and outside the mainstream. To publish an ether theory with arguments of the ER=EPR level would be simple impossible.

Whatever, once you don't accept the publication itself as a recognition that the theory is viable, feel free to give arguments about the content, why it is not viable. If not, you reduce yourself to a paddoboy-like standard - unable to argue anything about the content, and rejecting everything not mainstream without any argument. (No wonder that he has liked your post)

and your Aether theory may be intresting, may be published... but SINCE YOU HAVENT BEEN CLAIMED "EINSTEIN ANNO 2016" stop using the "im published" argument its more or less worthless.... but still fun to watch.

It is the one argument which is comprehensible even to completely stupid laymen. The papers are published, and nobody has published a refutation. Point. To say more, you have to evaluate the content.

In fact, even as a layman you have some chance to evaluate some part of it, simply read the abstract, which contains what is claimed, and then simply accept that what is claimed in the abstract is actually reached. Because if this is not the case, this would be a clear reason to reject the paper. Try these:

--------------

A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit

I. Schmelzer

Does relativistic gravity provide arguments against the existence of a preferred frame? Our answer is negative. We define

**a viable theory of gravity with preferred frame. In this theory, the EEP holds exactly, and the Einstein equations of GR limit are obtained in a natural limit.** Despite some remarkable differences (stable "frozen stars" instead of black holes, a "big bounce" instead of the big bang, exclusion of nontrivial topologies and closed causal loops, and a preference for a flat universe) the theory is viable.

The equations of the theory are derived from simple axioms about some fundamental condensed matter (the generalized Lorentz ether), so that, in particular, the EEP is not postulated but derived.

The theory is compatible with the condensed matter interpretation for the fermions and gauge fields of the standard model.

Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242

10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7

arXiv:gr-qc/0205035

-----------------

A condensed matter interpretation of SM fermions and gauge fields

I. Schmelzer

We present the bundle Aff(3) x C x /(R^3), with a geometric Dirac equation on it, as a three-dimensional geometric interpretation of

** the SM fermions**. Each C x /(R^3) describes an electroweak doublet. The Dirac equation has a doubler-free staggered spatial discretization on the lattice space Aff(3) x C (Z^3). This space allows a simple physical interpretation as

**a phase space of a lattice of cells** in R^3. We find

** the SM SU(3)_c x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y action** on Aff(3) x C x /(R^3) to be

**a maximal anomaly-free special gauge action** preserving E(3) symmetry and symplectic structure, which can be constructed using two simple types of gauge-like lattice fields: Wilson gauge fields and correction terms for lattice deformations. The lattice fermion fields we propose to quantize as low energy states of a canonical quantum theory with Z_2-degenerated vacuum state. We construct anticommuting fermion operators for the resulting Z_2-valued (spin) field theory. A metric theory of gravity compatible with this model is presented too.

Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009)

10.1007/s10701-008-9262-9

arXiv:0908.0591 [physics.gen-ph]

-------

I have emphasized here some key phrases. A viable theory of gravity, with the Einstein equations of GR obtained in a natural limit. You understand this phrase? Fine.

With the second paper, it may be more difficult. But you may be able to get the idea that the SM fermions are interpreted as a phase space of a lattice of cells. And that, then, the action of the SM gauge group on these fermions is identified with some maximal action, assuming some properties. That means, it is computed, starting with some assumptions for the model. Find another approach which claims to be able to compute the gauge group of the SM and its action on the fermions.