The Aether disproves Relativity. Einstein's obfuscation and confusion around the Aether.

The Einstotle. Not understanding or even clarifying the aether, simply means that Relativity is not 'science' but philosophy. Einstein the Confusionist.

The quote above is startling. Thousand of interferometer experiments, which Einstein knew about, found no motion of the Earth, but they did detect an aether. A cogent (though probably incorrect) reason why no Earthly ‘translation effect’ (orbit) was found, could have been due to an ‘entrained aether’ which has ‘captured’ the Earth and moves with it, or a less encompassing ‘mobile’ aether (more likely), dynamic, not static which would move with, but not entrain the Earth.

In either case you would not be able to find the Earth’s velocity in space unless you were in the troposphere performing these same experiments. Yet this ‘great scientist’ did not comprehend such facts?

It bears repeating. Einstein was not a scientist, not a physicist, but just another philosopher. The quote above is proof of that. The aether exists in his opinion, but not really. It has no kinematic function, nor materiality. Einstein therefore needs to update his special theory (1905), with a gravitational medium in his general theory (1915) but not negate either.

All is vanity

The profusion of modern physics and its cosmological confusion can be traced back to the rejection of the foundations of classical physics, namely the aether. Whatever way you want to define the term ‘aether’ it exists. Space itself is sometimes called the ‘aether’.

• One may claim that plasma, positrons, electropons, neutrinos, magnetic waves, magnetic fields, gravitational waves, gravitational fields (if they exist), and radiation compose an aether.

• Or one may opine that the ‘aether’ is a ‘container’ of these physical properties in a separate ‘medium’ that sits within ‘space’.

• One can argue the aether has velocity or is immobile.

One can debate it many ways, but the aether has been proven to exist and ‘The Science’ knows it exists.

“We can no longer sustain the simple idea that a vacuum is just an empty box. If we could say that there were no particles in a box, that it was completely empty of all mass and energy, then we would have to violate the Uncertainty Principle because we would require perfect information about motion at every point and about the energy of the system at a given instant of time…”

(John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe, 2002, pp. 204-205)

Since a material, functional, kinetic aether exists, most modern astro-physics and cosmology is wrong.

Even if Einstein sat in the midst of an aether, he would be blind to its reality.

Chasing a wind

Before 1905 Einstein/Einstotle had rejected the notion of an aether filling the constitution of space. The Special Theory of Relativity, 1905, which rejects the aether is still taught as ‘settled science’. In STR the aether was nonsense, superfluous, and cannot be a part of an absolute frame of reference, given that Relativity does not allow absolutes. Einstein wrote in 1905:

“The introduction of a ‘light aether’ will prove to be superfluous, because the view here to be developed will introduce neither a ‘space at absolute rest’ provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity vector to a point of empty space in which electro-magnetic processes take place”.¹

This was reiterated by Einstotle in 1910,

“The first step to be made…is to renounce the aether.”²

From 1910 to 1915 Einstotle’s thinking about the aether turns 180 degrees. Using common sense anyone can ask; ‘How can you have any process, or a diffusion of energy, light, or a mass of anything, without a transferring medium which by definition cannot be empty?’ This was apparently beyond the ken, or more accurately, the philosophy of Einstotle pre-1905.

Einstein’s Word salads

However, in 1915 Einstotle decided, based on common sense and overwhelming evidence, to re-adopt an ‘imponderable’ aether or his ‘Relativistic aether’, as a constituent part of his new theory of General Relativity which attempted to explain gravity, which his Special Theory does not discuss. This ‘Relativistic aether’ was based on Lorentz’s immobile aether (and his fraudulent maths), but with considerable alterations. As Einstotle’s hagiographer Abraham Pais put it:

“The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.”³

Einstein basically reduced Lorentz’s immobile aether and removed all kinematic (energy) or mechanical (motion) properties. He also merged space and the aether. However, in 1915, Einstein writes that the aether does indeed possess physical ‘properties’:

“…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the aether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states

…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity.

One can thus say that the aether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “aether” merge together.⁴

Adding to the confusion, Lorentz wrote a letter to Einstein in which he maintained that the General Theory of Relativity admits of a stationary aether hypothesis. In reply, the Einstotle introduced a new non-stationary aether hypothesis, overturning his previous opposition to a mobile aether ! (Kostro, p. 238)

Let’s consider this charade

Einstotle first removes physical properties from the aether. Then, when subject to some criticism and queries, quietly inserts opaque variety of these properties, without a definition, and without relating how that impacts Relativity. He also first denies the mobility of the aether, but later appends some ideas on aether velocity to GTR. Of course any ponderable aether nullifies Relativty. Hence, the circumspection.

Within GTR, the merger of space-time (itself fraudulent to make the calculus work), means that ‘space’ is composed of fields of gravitation and inertia, with a specific distribution of energy. GTR does not cover electromagnetic fields. This means that the aether within GTR can only be a ‘gravitational aether’.⁵ Yet this is not what the ‘aether’ actually is, nor is gravity its only ‘property’. So again Einstein is wrong.

Einstein’s ‘aether inertia’ has a far simpler, evidence-based description. Given that positrons and plancktons exist in the aether, it is logical to surmise that around every micro and macro-object there are billions of electropon pairs, which vibrate at a frequency proportional to the velocity of the object. This will explain the aether’s inertia and also gravitational fields (which may or may not exist). No need for hocus pocus.

It was a long day of tensor calculus, the piles were building, the nutrients wasting, the philosopher was forced into action.

Vanity of vanities

From the above, an observer will say that what Special Relativity denies, General Relativity will grant! It is embarrassing and yet such an about-face is rarely taught. If GTR is relevant (it isn’t), it negates STR. If STR is relevant (it isn’t), it negates GTR. The 2 Relativity’s cannot co-exist.

Why the Einstotlelian deception about the aether ?

Prior to 1915, Einstein needed to divest physics entirely from the notion of absolute rest and an aether. This was the only way to explain why Arago, Fizeau, Airy, Lodge and Michelson-Morley and many others, could find no movement of the Earth. The only explanation for Copernicans was to mendaciously claim that their experiments could not find the ‘aether’. This was the conclusion that Einstotle took away. But that is not what their observations discovered. They found no movement of this planet, but an aether was identified, the aether ‘wind’ moving between 5-11 km per second, a far cry from the 30 km/second expected gait of the Earth in its serene parade around the Sun god.

Einstein was driven to fictitiously declare that these sundry experiments had disproved the aether, because his own apriori assumption was that the Earth dances 585 million miles every year around the Sun. STR in 1905 was built on this apriori claim. Given his vested interest in his own theory and in his own grandiosity, it is unlikely that someone with the ego the size of Einstotle’s, would willingly admit he was wrong. He wrote in 1938:

“Since the time of Copernicus we have known that the Earth rotates on its axis and moves around the sun. Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance of science. But let us leave this question for the time being and accept Copernicus’ point of view.”⁶

Imagine that. The ‘great man’s’ apriori conclusion might have been disproven by ‘the advance of science’, but ‘let us leave this question’ and just assume that Copernicus the Sun worshipper with his confused system was correct. Thousands of experiments proved that the only way we will be able to mechanically measure the movement of this planet is from the troposphere. Copernicanism remains unproven.

Henri Poincaré and the discontents

Burying the reality of the aether, or the absolute of space, the foundation of Newtonian and Maxwellian science, was not that easy. The great French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré was offended by the incoherence of Relativity. Poincaré continued to insist upon the existence of aether for three main reasons:

• (1) stellar aberration in which light is bent due to the aether (contrary to propaganda, stellar aberration does not prove the Earth’s mobility)

• (2) ‘action-at-a-distance’ whereby gravity and electromagnetism could be transmitted over vast distances (from Newton);

• (3) rotational motions (example is Sagnac’s 1913 experiment which disproved the invariant speed of light).

Poincaré’s learned opinion was backed up by experimental proof. Between 1921 and 1933, American physicist Dayton Miller, using new and improved interferometer experiments, had not only confirmed the lack of Earthly movement, but found the aether. Einstein knew of Miller’s experiments and admitted privately that they destroyed Relativity.

In 1923 Ernst Gehrcke published the article, “The Contradictions between the Aether Theory and Relativity Theory and Experimental Tests”⁷ in which he reexamined the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Miller, and Georges Sagnac experiments. Gehrcke concluded that Relativity had no explanation for the results.

He was not alone. Dozens of European scientists took an axe to Relativity during the 1920s and 30s. German physicist Lenard debated and debauched Einstein in post World War I, long in advance of Nazism. Such men are now labelled as racist anti-semites of course.

Heyl asked hard questions of the Relativity cult and never received an answer.

In the late 1920s, American physicist Paul R. Heyl twisted the knife deeper, posing a different yet related question to Einstein, which Einstotle never condescended to answer. He never bothered interacting with critics or the unwashed. He was far too important:

“…Einstein pointed out that there might be no such thing as gravitational force any more than there is a centrifugal force; that both may be considered as manifestations of inertia aided in the case of gravitation by curved space acting much like a mechanical surface of constraint.

For this reason, it is sometimes said that the theory of relativity has done away with the aether. I hardly think that is a fair statement…If relativity ignores the aether, does it not introduce what is to all intents and purposes its equivalent? The aether was supposed to be a medium filling all space that otherwise would be empty. Einstein supposes space itself to be enough of an entity to have a curvature, and to be “empty” only where and when it is flat.

But if space can be bent and can straighten out again, why can it not repeat this process with sufficient rapidity to be called a vibration? And what difference does it make whether it is space itself that vibrates, or something that fills space? Back in every one of our heads is the idea that there is something which philosophers call a “thing-in-itself” which is responsible for our sensations of light and electricity; and whether we spell it AETHER or SPACE, what does it matter?⁸

Consider Heyl’s complaint.

• First, Relativity and Einstotle propose that gravity is not a force! Climb a tall tree, jump and see experimentally, if that is true!

• Second, Einstotle takes the aether away only to take the ‘medium’ of ‘space’ in GTR and curve it! So, what exactly is curved? (the James Web Telescope tells us the universe is a flat disc by the way)

• Third, Relativity denies the oscillations of de Broglie waves of space but without explaining why? If space oscillations are valid (and they are), the universe could for example rotate around the Earth depending on where the inertial mass point resides (pace Newtonian laws, the author is not saying this is true, but scientifically it is possible).

• Fourth, pace Heyl, whether you call the aether ‘space’ or something else, it very much exists!

Even Relativists have a hard time explaining GTR and Relativity’s confusion about an aether. 1993 Nobel Prize winner, Robert Laughlin admits that Relativity is wrong and the aether is real:

“It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed….

Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the aether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of aether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right….

Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists.

About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids.

Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic aether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo”.⁹

Laughlin admits the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment, that the Earth was found to be immobile and that the aether exists, but ‘The Science’ is not allowed to say so.

The Canon of Relativity contains no wisdom.

Not a book of wisdom

Based on real world data, Einstotle was forced back to at least some concept of an aether, but one that was amorphous enough to satisfy STR and confirm GTR. Einstein’s philosophy meant that the aether was largely massless without particles, and immobile. In 1923, Arthur Eddington, one of Einstein’s disciples, summarised the approach:

“If a substantial aether analogous to a material ocean exists, it must rigidify, as it were, a definite space; and whether the observer or whether nature pays any attention to that space or not, a fundamental separation of space and time must be there. Some would cut the knot by denying the aether altogether. We do not consider that desirable, or, so far as we can see, possible; but we do deny that the aether need have such properties as to separate space and time in the way supposed”.¹⁰

Thanks Arthur. So, the aether exists as an immobile or rigid medium (as Descartes believed), but one that does not separate space and time, which in GTR must be merged and curved to make the tensor calculus work! Yet the leader of the Relativity cult (Einstotle) admitted that the aether might indeed be mobile and might indeed possess physical properties. You guys are obviously ‘The Science’!

Bottom Line

Einstein’s oscillations around the aether demonstrate quite clearly that Relativity is philosophical bunk. He admits that the aether must exist which nullifies STR. However, the aether cannot be of a ponderable nature, subject to measurement or displacement analysis as confirmed in 1925 by Michelson-Gale and Miller from 1921-1933, because that would contravene GTR.

So, what exactly does Einstotle mean by an aether? It is nothing and something. It is there and it is not. It is real but not really. This is what passes for ‘science’. ‘The Science’ now calls the aether a ‘Relativistic ether’ or a medium with ‘reduced energy’ (remember, Saint Einstotle’s canon states that kinematic properties must be removed).

In this manner, Einstein allows his cult to maintain the key to his Relativity theory which is the denial of absolute space and rest, yet have at least a conceptual basis for understanding action-at-a-distance, gravitational waves and rotational motion through GTR.

Although Einstotle says this ‘conceptual’ aether has no ‘particles’ or ‘motion’, he then goes on to say that it has some physical qualities and maybe velocity! Pace Laughlin, we know that space or the aether is full of physical matter and is far denser (quantum mechanics) than Relativists ever considered. The real aether impacts gravitational waves, radiative energy, electro-magnetism and will bend light. It also helps to explain planetary motions and micro-fractional issues such as Mercury’s perihelion.

What is more absurd than Einstotle’s endless waffling about the aether, is that nary a school in the world will teach curious young minds any of what is contained in this post.

Phds in Physics are not even confronted by the disingenuous features of Saint Einstotle’s tortured and frankly absurd theories. They are told to ingest the mutually exclusive theories of STR and GTR and regurgitate on demand. Depending on the question and context, the type of ‘Relativity’ to be employed can be flexible, but the answer is never in doubt – ‘the answer to your question is that xxx proves Relativity!’

So blindly following a maths-philosoper is now ‘The Science’….where all observational phenomena proves the philosophy is right! Absurd.

All hail.

Einstein and his Ether. Refuting his own theories of Relativity and make-believe.

==

¹ “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Annalen der Physik, 4^th series, 17, Sept. 26, 1905.

² “Le Principe de relativité et ses consequences dans la physique moderne,” Archives de sciences physiques et naturalles, 29, pp. 18-19.

³ A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford, 1982, 2005, p. 313.

⁴Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Aether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2. also see Galina Granek’s “Einstein’s Aether: Why Did Einstein Come Back to the Aether?” Apeiron, vol. 8, no. 3, July 2001;

⁵ Albert Einstein, “Letter to H. A. Lorentz, November 15, 1919,” EA 16, 494, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Aether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2.

⁶ Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, 1938, 1966, pp. 154-155.

⁷ German title: “Die Gegensätze zwischen der Äthertheorie und Relativitätstheorie und ihre experimentale Prüfung,” ZftP, 4, 1923, Nr. 9, pp. 292-299, Kostro, p. 135.

⁸Paul R. Heyl, “The History and Present Status of the Physicist’s Concept of Light,” in “Proceedings of the Michelson Meeting of the Optical Society of America,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. XVIII, March 1929, p. 191.

⁹Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, 2005, pp. 120-121. Laughlin can speak about the aether and not be afraid of a career suicide because only physicists who are established beyond reproach could discuss aether-like aspects openly, like George Chapline, Gerd ’t Hooft, Robert Laughlin, or Frank Wilczek…

¹⁰ Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 39.