# Aether, Gravity and 'Axioms': problems for Relativity and modern cosmology.

### Axioms and Postulates are not 'scientific laws', they are philosophical statements based on a logical argument, informed by a world-view.

### Axioms and Postulates

In Science-speak we have ‘postulates’ and ‘axioms’.

These terms are interchangeable. They both refer to the same ‘assumption’ and the underlying philosophical logic which supports that assumption. Creating a ‘postulate’ or an ‘axiom’ was common with ancient Greek philosophers and the medieval schoolmen and naturalists. Neither a postulate, nor an axiom is by itself a ‘truth’. It is not by itself a ‘law’. It is simply an assumption and is used as a ‘starting point’.

· Moons orbit Jupiter.

· Our moon appears to orbit the Earth.

· Therefore, the Earth must orbit the Sun, given the similarities in this relationship that we see with moons and their planets.

· My theory will start with the ‘postulate’ or ‘axiom’ that the Earth orbits the Sun.

· Based on this ‘axiom’ I will declare that the Sun and our solar system must revolve around the centre of our galaxy.

· I will now expand on this hypothesis with my proofs and maths….

The above ‘postulate’ uses an assumption that is assumed to be a truth. I have just accepted that premise and moved on. This is not exactly scientific. A critic could and should go back to my foundational ‘axiom’ or ‘postulate’ and ask for experimental proof. **If the axiom is so obvious, that proof should be readily available**.

### Relativity

Relativity is based on the ‘axiom’ that Copernicanism is simply true. In 1887, Michelson and Morley could find no movement of the Earth compared to the aether or the frame of reference called ‘space’. The result of this complicated experiment was not *null* which is significant. It was not an experimental or equipment issue.

Michelson-Morley simply found no evidence that the Earth moves at 30 km/second as Copernican theory demands. Lorentz, Poincare and many others, using Copernican theory as their ‘axiom’, frenetically created abstract and dense maths to try to explain this away. Einstein copied, simplified, codified and ‘postulated’ their results in the 1905 Special Theory of Relativity or STR.

**There is not a single physicist anywhere in the world, who will dare to go back to the 1887 failure (and thousands of others), to find the Earth’s motion and investigate the data for what it is**. The underlying ‘axiom’ of Relativity is therefore unproven. Its ‘postulates’ are therefore false.

Einstein’s Postulate 1: All ‘reference systems and their coordinates’ are equal.

Einstein’s Postulate 2: The speed of light is constant.

Neither is valid.

### Puzzling Postulates

The first postulate removes the aether (now called ‘Dark Matter’), as an absolute frame of reference. This begs the obvious question that if Dark Matter is ‘real’ how then is ‘Relativity’ still valid? The first postulate basically proposes illogic, to wit:

Space and interferometer equipment measuring light speed on Earth, are thereby ‘independent’ of each, each living within different systems, with different ‘coordinates’ (unprovable),

This entails that an aether with a common parameter for time connecting these systems does not exist (the aether must exist see below),

Given this the aether cannot be the medium for the propagation of light and its motion,

Based on this ‘logic’, velocity and motion must be contingent on the ‘observer’ within a reference system, meaning that all observations within a grid are equivalent,

This means that we cannot measure the Earth’s motion in space given we are moving and there is nothing to measure against (Sjöström, 2019).

The above postulate is unscientitic, or to be charitable, philosophical-mathematical sophistry to explain away the 1887 results and their clanging implications. We can ‘postulate’ that Relativity was constructed to studiously avoid the data output from the 1887 experiment, premised on an underlying ‘axiom’ that the Earth orbits the Sun. It might well move. But you must prove it not just say it.

We know that light propagates as a wave in a medium, or the aether now called ‘Dark Matter’ (Schlafly, 2011). We know that light and sound waves cannot be transferred in ‘nothing’ or a ‘vacuum’. We know that there are absolute reference points since we use them everyday to measure every possible action and velocity.

The second postulate is linked to the above comment and has been eviscerated in many posts. This second postulate from Einstein ‘must’ follow from the first, namely that for Relativity, light must consist of particles. Because of this assumption, it has become **impossible to explain how light particles can maintain a constant speed regardless of the speed of the light source and its ‘reference system’.** Nevertheless, a constant speed, even if wrong, must be assumed (Sjöström, 2019).

Outside of theory and maths, the speed of light is inconstant, cannot be accurately measured, may well vary over time and epoch and certainly varies in media and gravity. It is the **light wave which ‘bends’ in space**, not ‘time merged with space’ which ‘bends’. This second postulate is also junk science and philosophical-mathematical sophistry.

### Newton, gravity and problems

There are many problems with Newtonian physics. Einstein was trying to repair issues with Newton's theories and align them with Relativity which was the only manufactured explanation left to explain away the disproofs that the Earth moved (R. Cahill, pp. 131, 135). This ‘unified’ theoretical approach to improve and align Newtonian physics, Copernicanism and Relativity, is why Einstein was hailed as the new Aristotle (* Einstotle*). Quantum Mechanics, the world of Plancktons and mechanical observations renders Relativity invalid of course.

One problem the Relativists have always faced is that of gravity. Gravity compresses the aether (‘Dark Matter’). This impacts light transmission. The theories of Stokes and Planck express the idea that **matter pulls the aether as it passes **through the medium. This is the opposite of Fresnel who in 1818 proposed that the aether not only pulls matter but **penetrates matter.** Both theories had mathematical and some observational evidence. Maybe they are both right in some way.

However, post 1887 Lorentz and others, using only mathematics, attempted to refute both concepts. Lorentz’s very complicated mathematical refutation of Fresnel and Stokes-Planck was accepted as an ‘axiom’ by Poincare, Einstein and other Relativists. This group then also rejected Lorentz’s ‘postulate’ of a ‘mobile aether’ which was different in structure from the ‘stationary aether’ of Fresnel, Maxwell, Michelson-Morley, Planck and Stokes. Lorentz might be viewed as an aether ‘halfway house’ between the stationary aether of Fresnel-Maxwell-Michelson and Morley; and the ‘no aether’ of Einstein and others (Smarandache, 2010).

The reality of compressed gravity and differential light speeds are simply ignored by Relativists and the amended Lorentz-Einstein equations. The only way Relativists can explain away such physical phenomena would be to delve into ‘string theory’ and surmise that the ‘strings’ which are the basis of particles, attach themselves to matter which holds the matter together and does not compress itself. Therefore, gravity and light speed are immutable. String theory is however wrong and another fantasy world and a theoretical, unproven exercise. But we can see why it was pursued.

### Gravity differentials and a new axiom

Compressed gravity is a problem for the Relativists. An example is the following. It is not heavier to move against gravity on the side of the Earth that is turning in the Earth’s direction as it moves around the Sun. In this case we could prove:

1. An object, with a calculated mass or weight increases its kinetic energy (k.e.) in a linear fashion with its velocity (on the side of the Earth that is turning towards the Sun),

½ mv

^{2}= Kinetic Energy2. The accumulation or impact of the aether will increase as a function of the object’s weight and its velocity,

3. We can calculate energy and the gravitational impact:

· E = M * V+ Md * V,

· where E = kinetic energy, M = visible mass, V = velocity, Md = the aether (Sjöström’s equation).

The equation and related experiments verifying an aether could be done back to front as well.

Here is an ‘axiom’ based on the above:

1. All waves (light, sound, gravity) * must propagate *through a

*(called the aether).*

**medium**2. Light is a wave and must travel through this medium.

3. The density of the aether or medium, must bend the light accordingly.

4. As with light, this medium or aether must also propagate gravitational waves.

5. As with light, the aether must also impact the absolute nature of gravity (compression or similar).

6. Based on the equations of kinetic energy; mass, velocity and the aether must impact energy, and this can be calculated.

The above is obvious, but here is a complication.

Consider non-Relativity forces such as the Coriolis and their impact. What if there is a centrifugal force within the universe, meaning it might rotate? Bah say the clever people! (Schaffner, 1972)

But…. astronomical evidence clearly presents that there are some very large galaxy clusters at great distances, with locations in various concave shapes, which contradict the Big Bang theory (Penrose, 2010). Is it possible that there is a centrifugal force creating these phenomena along with the Coriolis force as given in other posts?

## Bottom Line

Axioms and postulates do not mean anything. They are thought experiments premised on philosophical assumptions and usually, pre-determined conclusions. They inform theory and can be used within processes of mechanical experimentation (aposteriori methods). For whatever reason, the general public hears ‘axiom’ or ‘postulate’ and assumes it is a proven ‘law’.

The problems with Relativity and its ‘postulates’ are legion. Relativity first ignored and then sophistically embraced the aether in an amorphous manner, the rich medium which propagates light and gravitational waves (Physical Review, 1922). However, there must be an impact on energy and light transmission from the aether, but if the aether does not exist how can physics account for these impacts?

Contrarily and exactly the opposite of establishment claims, the Michelson-Morley 1887 proved that an aether must exist which is why the speed of the Earth at ~5km/second was detected, but not the 30 km/sec expected. Something was happening to the light waves, either the Earth is immobile, or it is processing at a far slower rate than current calculations maintain (DeMeo, 2002).

Relativists also ignore universal forces such as the Coriolis which are real and documented. This is because most of ‘modern science’ would be turned upside down and invalidated. The Relativists and the establishment would then be forced to create more fantasy worlds to explain away such phenomena.

We can therefore ‘postulate’ that the ‘axioms’ of Relativity are not ‘laws’, they are philosophical statements, themselves based on unproven axioms and therefore remain unverified philosophical statements.

**Sources**

Roger Schlafly (2011), How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science

Roger Penrose, *Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe, *2010*.*

R. Sjöström, The Search for Gravity: Why Einstein was wrong, 2019.

Reginald Cahill, “The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005: A Critical Review of the Evidence,” in Einstein and Poincaré: The Physical Vacuum, 2006

from July 1925, Dr. James DeMeo: ‘Dayton Miller’s Ether- Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look,’ 2002

The Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson Solar Observatory, *Physical Review*, 19:407-408, 1922

J. E. Persson, (2010) The empirical background behind relativity, Physics Essays Vol. 23, (634-640).

J. E. Persson, (2011) The Great Confusion: Wave or Particle?, .www.lulu.com

Robert Resnick (1972) Wikibook: Special Theory of Relativity, Basic Concepts of Relativity and Early Quantum Theory

C. C. Su, (2001), J. C. Eur. Phys 21, 701-715

Kenneth Schaffner (1972), Nineteenth-century aether theories, Oxford

Florentin Smarandache (2013) Unsolved problems in special and general relativity