The Aether exists: is it immobile, mobile, a partial or full entrainment? Is this why the Earth's motion cannot be experimentally proven?

Aether denialism is negating real science. Doesn't the aether explain much of cosmic phenomena? Aether-denialism due to philosophical worldviews, not science.

The above statement, issued by Einstein as a scientific theory, and which is accepted and adored by ‘The Science’, is simply unscientific and wrong:

1. Light speed is variant, as proven in thousands of experiments.

2. Galilean Relativity, used by NASA has been proven. Bodies in motion and receivers in motion affect light speed, namely, (c + v) > (c-v); (c=light speed, v = velocity), as common sense would also indicate.

3. The aether exists as proven by both light experiments and quantum mechanics, not to mention the common-sense realisation that a medium is needed to propagate light, energy, gravity, particles etc.

4. Space is therefore not a vacuum.

5. 1, 2, 3, 4, completely nullify ‘Relativity’.

6. Space-time is also impossible, and entirely unproven, given that space is objective, time is subjective and sequential.

Einstein was a philosopher, a metaphysician, an abstract hermetic, who built a church and holy scripture dedicated to the idea that reality does not exist.

A confused theologian

Stripping out the aether in 1905, the Einstotle reinstated it in 1915. He had to. Denying an aether, denies physics. Cue the metaphysical contortions.

“But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.”

(Einstein, Speech at Leyden, 1920, which was largely a justification of his ‘Special Theory’ of Relativity)

Einstein must have known by 1920 that the aether, and the aether drift, had been proven by the Americans Michelson, Morley in 1887; Morley and Miller from 1900-1905; and Miller from 1905-1913 with hundreds of thousands of light interference readings. Einstein took the aether out of science in 1905 with his ‘Special Theory’ of Relativity but as any good magician is wont to do, the great philosopher reinserted the aether into his 1915 ‘General Theory’. Given the aforementioned light experiments and mechancial proofs, he had no choice.

This aether ‘resurrection’ (Einstein’s word) was an ‘imponderable’, largely mass-less, pseudo-gaseous entity, not of any great materiality or mobility (see quote above). He used it to explain ‘gravity’ within his 4th dimension of the unproven spacetime merger. This conjuring was of course a philosophical trick, it was not based on experimental evidence.

The aether which disproves Relativity, would explain many observed phenomena including; the impossibility to detect the Earth’s motion from its surface; the cosmic transmission of light, gravity and particles; ‘stellar aberration’ and the bending of light (which is also bent due to gravity). If the aether is full of material, this would also explain both the laws of inertia at the molecular level and Newtonian gravitational-force at a distance at the macro-level.

In other words, you don’t need the magic shows of Relativity to explain anything, macro or micro.

Look, the dog barked, the cat jumped, the bird flew and you blew your nose. See, all of these prove that Relativity is real. Precisely and exactly as our maths and models predicted. Don’t be a denier. Chewy believes. So should you.

The Problem

Thousands of experimental failures to detect the Earth’s movement in space, or indeed its own purported rotation, are rarely if ever discussed. The 36 observations from Michelson-Morley in 1887, found a 5-8 km/second aether drift, but not the Earth’s translation (orbit). Miller’s 300.000 observations from 1900-1933 confirmed the same results and found the aether wind and drift. In reality these failures provoked desperation within physics. They generated a need for the philosophical-mathematical-theory of ‘Relativity’.

Relativity by itself does not prove that the Earth moves, nor that it rotates. Relativity provides a philosophically-premised, multi-dimensional abstract tensor calculus mathematical-model, to explain why we cannot measure our planet’s movement. It fails Occam’s razor test (logical simplicity and lack of proofs).

The special theory of Relativity (STR) rejected the aether. Lorentz’s original calcuations, used by Einstein, assumed an immobile aether. Einstein would have none of it. There could be no absolutes within Relativity. Yet many, despite Einstotle’s early furious objections, proposed that the aether was the reason for the failure to find the Earth’s motion. This seems far more sensible.

Luminiferous meaning the transference of light through a medium

Aether models

If this quite ponderable material-presence exists, than logically it is found around the Earth. The question is what happens with it?

If the apriori assumption is that the Earth moves, it could be proposed that the aether will either move with the planet, or the planet is moving through the aether medium. This could ‘blanket’ the Earth and prevent the calculation of an independent motion in relationship to the cosmos. This is not an insensible idea.

It is the same phenomenon when a plane flies east. If this planet is rotating west to east at 1000 mph at the equator, you should be able to elevate your position directly above where you are now, to a few thousand feet and wait for the locations west of you to ‘catch up’. However, the multi-layered atmosphere, which is at least 1000 miles (roughly 5 million feet) in altitude, moves with the Earth so the entire system is rotating west to east. A plane still needs to fly to move eastwards, it can’t remain immobile and change its location via the Earth’s rotation to the east

Aether Entrainment

The ‘aether entrainment’ model is summarised in the image below. Many models of the aether had existed for centuries of course before 1887, and the entrainment concept can be dated back to Newton and beyond. Yet after 1887, it was more vital than ever to come up with some ‘science’ (aka maths), to save Copernicanism and specifically the assumption that the Earth orbited around the Sun. There are roughly 2 competing aether theories - the immobile and the mobile. Both can propose a fully, or partially entrained aether.

The absolute aether of ‘classical physics’ negates Relativity because it assumes an absolute frame of reference namely space itself. This means that all motion can be measured against that fixed absolute. In this view the aether is fixed, immobile and is a part of space, the very medium and materiality of space itself (light, energy, waves, plancktons, neutrinos etc). This aether does not ‘move’ per se based on mass attraction. It just ‘is’. It does not necessarily ‘envelope’ the Earth down to sea level, but it would present around the Earth as the medium through which the planet passes.

A second model, developed in contrast to Descarte’s idea of a fixed absolute, was the idea of a mobile aether and full or partial entrainment of the Earth. In this view the aether, whilst remaining an absolute, moves with the planets. The mass attraction of the Earth, as it moves at a high velocity (30 km per second), will carry with it the medium of space surrounding it.

This model also by default must reject Relativity given it still mandates an absolute reference point – space. In this model the aether can fully ‘entrain’ the Earth, or partially entrain the Earth with gradations of aether from sea level, to the upper atmosphere.

Michelson-Gale, 1923-25

Michelson and Gale were American physicists who attempted to understand the Michelson-Morley failure of 1887, by performing similar light interference experiments in the mid 1920s. The Americans were supporters of both Copernicanism and Relativity.

Their experiments, performed at Mount Wilson and then at Clearing Illinois (O’Hare airport today), resulted in some 269 observations. Their observations supported the failure of Michelson-Morley in 1887 and detected a strong aether wind but no Earthly rotation. The Americans had found that light speed was greatly variant. In order to hide the results, they employed data averaging, which is not what you do when you perform experimentation.

“…data averaging procedure smoothing out its significant variation, ranging generally from -.0.030 to +.550 fringe, a variance of 0.580 fringe. This variation was more than twice the calculated and theoretically null 0.236 fringe value (which is the average they published)….their experimental result was prima facie evidence that light speed was significantly variable during the experiment refuting Einstein’s basic postulate and affirming the Fresnel-Miller expectation of a partially-dragged cosmic ether.”¹

M-G found more evidence of a partial entrainment and as with Sagnac and many others, the variance of light speed. Their results indicate that it is unlikely that there is a full entrainment of the Earth by the aether (see below). But a partial-entrainment could explain why there is no calculated motion of the planet, but only an aether wind, or light infringement against the photographic plate.

Einstotle was well aware of their efforts. Experimental evidence once again revealed the presence of an aether and disproved the philosophy of Relativity. The ‘science media’ of course twisted and distorted the experimental results as much as possible to claim that (as usual), it ‘proves Relativity’ (the media will also report that since the cat jumped while the bird flew away, this is obvious proof of Relativity).

Modern interpretations

As we would expect, ‘modern’ variants of the aether-entrainment model extend the original idea further. Most of the modern adherents embrace Relativity. They believe (quite passionately) in the moving and rotating Earth theorem: ‘The Earth’s field ‘translates’ with the Earth, but it does not rotate with its rotation.’²

By ‘translate’ they mean the Earth’s orbital movement around the Sun. What many physicists believe is that the translation or high speed effect of the Earth around the Sun (67.000 mph) ‘entrains’ the aether making motion calculation impossible. However, the rotational effect of the Earth at a far slower velocity (1.000 mph) does not capture the aether. In other words, a partial aether entrainment.

Though there is certainly an aether in space, and a medium of ponderable materiality, it is unproven that this aether fully captures or entrains the Earth.

Entrainment Logic

We can summarise some of the key aspects of an entrainment model which attempts to marry the absolute space of Newton, with Copernicanism:

1. · Michelson, Morley and thousands of experiments failed to detect the large translation effect, or the Earth’s movement around the Sun. They do detect the aether drift (5-11 km per second).

2. · Many decades after 1887, a smaller rotational effect was detected, based on more refined clocks. But even with more and more accurate instruments investigators still have not been able to detect – and it is safe to say they never will detect – the translational effect (Earth’s motion), unless they perform these experiments in the troposphere.

3. · If the aether was fully-entrained by a moving Earth, then the Michelson-Morley apparatus (and every other experiment including Dayton Miller’s), would show no fringe shifting. But given that their results were positive to at least one-sixth of what they expected, then the aether had to be moving against the Earth to that degree and therefore could not be fully entrained.

4. · Another possibility is that the aether is only partially entrained around the Earth as it moves 585 million miles per year, around the Sun. This would require the Earth to have only a small fraction of the power needed to hold aether close to its surface, but the full power to hold all of the atmosphere close to its surface as it twirled around the Sun at a leisurely pace of 67,000 mph.

5. · Moreover, a fractional aether entrainment would require a mechanism to demarcate the entrained aether from the non-entrained aether, or at least employ some gradient levels of entrained aether (such a demarcation needs proof, which is offered in Borchardt, 2017ⁿ)

6. ·It is still unclear why Michelson-Morley, Gale, Miller and thousands of other experiments did not pick up the Earth’s rotation, or at best with finely calibrated clocks; a rotational effect a small fraction of what is expected.

In essence, the major problem with the full-aether entrainment theory, is that it would only be viable if these thousands of light experiments showed no positive result. This is not what they show. They have positive results, ranging from 5 km to 11 km per second. It is not the Earth’s speed, nor its purported rotational velocity. The results are nowhere near the expected rates. By default, logically, they must be measuring the aether, quite likely the aether ‘wind’, or a partially entrained aether, which is what the immobile aether theory predicts.

“The problem with these (full) ether entrainment models is a serious one. It is that we appear to have ether entrainment for the velocity around the sun, which is a very fast velocity, and no apparent ether entrainment for the rotational velocity at the equator of a thousand miles per hour. So why is it that the faster speed has no entrainment and this lower speed does?”³

The full aether entrainment model seems somewhat problematic. Partial entrainment, or the immobile aether, seems more logical and is akin to the what was once called the ‘aether wind’ as described by most physicists since the time of Descartes, until the era of Relativity.

Light Interference experiments since 1887, have discovered an aether drift of between 5 km / sec and 11 km / sec depending on the altitude and time of year.

Living a lie

In a previous post we mentioned the American physicist, Herbert Ives. Ives was a critic of Einstotle’s fantasy world and being a practical engineer, like Tesla, he had no time for the abstruse maths of Relativity. Ives was the man most responsible for the system to enable the distribution of images and sound over distance (aka television, we won’t hold that against him). Ives summarise why an entrained aether and hand-waving away the real results of Michelson-Morley’s results is anti-science.

“The frequent assertion that ‘the Michelson-Morley experiment abolished the ether’ is a piece of faulty logic…..The experimental demonstration of the variation of measuring instruments with motion, in exactly the way to produce a null result, shows … evidence for a transmitting medium, as derived from aberrational and rotational phenomena [cf., Arago, Airy, et al.], as strong, if not stronger, than ever.”⁴

Ives is right. ‘The Science’ has been living a lie for 140 years. All of these light-interferometer experiments are confirming an aether, which is probably not fully entrained and not fully captured by the Earth’s motion. It appears that there is an immobile, partially-entrained-aether, and the Earth if it does move, would move through this aether, generating an aether ‘wind’ (or if the Earth is immobile, the aether generates its own ‘wind’ around the Earth).

Bottom Line

Einstein admitted to the aether when he reinstated the medium back into General Relativity (1915) after taking it out of Special Relativity (1905). As he and his marketer Eddington both commented, physics is impossible without the aether. Relativists have long known that a measureable, mass-rich, aether exists.

For 140 years light-experiments have proven the existence of an aether, and probably an aether wind, and have quite simply disproven Relativity and call into question the entire corpus of belief in Copernicanism. The Earth might well move, dance, chorus line, spin like a Russian ballerina and sing like Rossini’s Figaro as it effortlessly moves 585 million miles every year. But no physical, mechanical or experimental proof supports this theory. Propaganda and maths notwithstanding.

We need to measure the Earth’s mobility from the troposphere. Only then may we find its motion. For whatever reason ‘The Science’ is not actively pursuing this idea. Wouldn’t this be a priority for real science in lieu of tautological maths and metaphysical assertions by Einstein et al? Or, is avoiding the aether, and never admitting that an aether exists, the real objective?

‘Science’ cannot simply dismiss the aether with tensor calculus maths. ‘Science’ fully comprehends that you don’t need the philosophy of Relativity to explain anything. Looking at the data for what it is, and losing the immutable philosophy of Relativity, would be a good place to start when doing some real ‘science’.

All hail.

===

¹James DeMeo, ‘The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space’, p, 139, 2019

² Tom Bethel, Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?, 2009, p. 181

³ Martin Selbrede, The Principle, 2012.

⁴ Herbert Ives, “The Measurement of the Velocity of Light by Signals Sent in One Direction,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, Oct. 1948, vol. 38, no. 10, p. 879

ⁿ Glenn Borchardt, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

n.b. Whittaker, ET, 1910, ‘A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity’ provides a detailed if difficult-to-read-history of the aether.

19th and early 20th experiments which found no movement of the Earth around the Sun.