The Great Ether Debate

[EtherQuestions]

I would like to hear arguments and evidence against and for the existence of an Ether. Please do play the devil's advocate if you have any good scientific and logical arguments for either side of this debate (for either side) as this will help bring us closer to what is the most logical scientific approach to a complete physical theory. I'm mainly interested in arguments against an Ether, but both are welcome.

First it should be noted:
1.) The MM Experiment was only negative within its margin of error, this assumed a stationary rigid Ether/Aether relative to the Earth's rotational displacement through space. Not an Ether dragged along the surface, which is the only Ether theory that can work post-Maxwell because if the alternating magnetic field of an EM Wave is a wave undulation, then the magnetic field must be the Ether in motion at a given velocity equivalent to its flux density. This means the Earth's magnetic field must be considered as Ether drag.
2.) Modern relative light-velocity experiments (including the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment) often apply relativistic adjustments to the experimental apparatus post results. If relativistic length contractions are applied to the original MM Experiment the results would be a lot smaller as the distance of the light travel is reduced, and thus the velocity decreased depending on the orientations.
3.) The photoelectric did make a strong case for a particle interpretation, but can also be explained by theoretical interpretation involving resonance. The atomic structure itself is still up for debate it has not been observed.
4.) Light quantization experiments such involving double refractive mediums only prove lights interaction with them is quantized.
5.) The lack of dragging effects on light by the moving Ether (magnetic field and stellar aberration) is expected if the Ether has the properties similar to a super-fine gas that behaves as a fluid, this is because if the magnetic field surrounding a current is a rotational clockwise-anticlockwise vortex and acceleration/deceleration of this vortex creates a transverse vortex induced vibration, then the resultant rarefactions and compressions at the wavefront will alter the Aether's properties making it resistant to drag by a change in flow. This was the major error of Stokes theorem, he had a pre-Maxwellian model of light that assumed 100% Ether drag, and his succesors tried to irrationally explain stellar aberration with impossible irrotational dragging vortices.
6.) The Doppler Effect is huge evidence for an Ether, or non-relativistic corpuscular photon/particle theory. It is observed in every other wave, from sound to fluid, where objects reflect, absorb, and create shorter/longer wavelengths depending on their relative motion to the wavefront and the medium.
It is impossible if light is invariant and the same velocity for all moving observers as it would mean a different observed photoelectric effect for each moving observer as the frequency for the entire wavetrain must be altered, also overtaking the frequency of photon emission if the observer is moving toward the source.

[crawler]

Reg Cahill's papers are good arguments for aether, which he calls dynamic space. In particular DeWitte's speed of light X.

Cahill doesn't mention Demjanov's MMX, using twin media (air & carbon disulphide), the best MMX ever, showing an aetherwind varying tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during a sidereal day (or stellar day) at Obninsk on 22 June 1968 i think.

However the best way of thinking about it is that the fundamental essence is Praether, & Aether is a vibration etc of Praether. Hencely Aether can be easily annihilated, but Praether cant. And everything in our quantum world is a process of subquantum Praether & Aether.

I doubt that Einsteinians can talk their way out of DeWitte & Demjanov. But i hear that they can talk their way out of aberration & Sagnac & the MGX & IAAAD.

Re arguments against aether, perhaps u could count the bending of light passing the Sun. Aetherists don't have an explanation for the double-Newtonian bending (1.75 arcsec). Aether theory gives in effect the single-Newtonian ballistic number (0.87 arcsec). The missing angle might be due to Einstein's GTR theory that light is slowed by the nearness of mass. Photons would be slowed moreso on the near-side to the Sun, hencely the extra bending. But Einstein's spacetime has nothing to do with it. My own theory re that-there slowing is that photons are slowed by photaeno drag.

Re Mercury's perihelion, i don't think that aetherists can explain the missing 43 arcsec. But neither can Einsteinians. My answer is that the 43 arcsec doesn't exist.

Aetherists cant explain LIGO's GWs, especially that GWs travel at c kmps. Aetherists would i think say that GWs if they exist travel at over 20 billion c. However Cahill has detected aetherwind turbulence (of approx. 30 kmps) that travels south to north throo Earth (Adelaide to London) at approx. 500 kmps, & he calls this turbulence a GW of sorts. I don't remember what time scale Cahill puts on this turbulence, it might be a one second thing or it might be a one millisecond thing. LIGO is looking for a 10 millisecond thing i think.

[JP Michael]

I would be interested in a starting definition.

I understand the general concept, that is, a requisite medium through which light and matter travels.

But how do you define 'aether', let alone describe its attributes?

[webolife]

The greatest difficulty I see with aether lies in the inevitability of action across distance. Let me attempt to explain:
My starting premise for this explanation is scalability of physical relationships. Action is observed to occur across space [let's leave that undefined for now as a "void"]. To make this observation more palatable to the materialistic mind, mediating particulate interactions are imagined. The mediating particles [aether] must be virtually infinite and likewise infinitesmal, in order to be as pervasive and undetectable as they seem to be. Otherwise there is still a void between them as they interact, whether as a wave medium or particle "train". If the aether void is conceded, there is no longer a need for the aether, as it is seen that action occurs across a void. On the other hand, infinite and infinitesmal is most easily resolved by the term infinitely dense, evoking a "super-solid" aether permeating existence. Currently no evidences for this solid state aether can be shown.
Which is to say that permeability of space is ubiquitous. Or another possibility, space is the paramount superconductor. Aether doesn't seem to be in the cards, imo.

[paladin17]

Evidence for: it's fancy, because it's nonconformist.
Evidence against: it's not required in special relativity; in quantum field theory it was already introduced by the name of "electromagnetic field". So here no need for "ether" either.

[crawler]

I would be interested in a starting definition.
I understand the general concept, that is, a requisite medium through which light and matter travels.
But how do you define 'aether', let alone describe its attributes?

The best way of thinking about it is that the fundamental essence is Praether, & Aether is a vibration etc of Praether. Hencely Aether can be easily annihilated, but Praether cant. And everything in our quantum world is a process of subquantum Praether & Aether.

Subquantum stuff cant be detected or measured, by definition. But that aint correct. We can detect the aether, by detecting the aetherwind, using MMXs etc.

[crawler]

The greatest difficulty I see with aether lies in the inevitability of action across distance. Let me attempt to explain:
My starting premise for this explanation is scalability of physical relationships. Action is observed to occur across space [let's leave that undefined for now as a "void"]. To make this observation more palatable to the materialistic mind, mediating particulate interactions are imagined. The mediating particles [aether] must be virtually infinite and likewise infinitesmal, in order to be as pervasive and undetectable as they seem to be. Otherwise there is still a void between them as they interact, whether as a wave medium or particle "train". If the aether void is conceded, there is no longer a need for the aether, as it is seen that action occurs across a void. On the other hand, infinite and infinitesmal is most easily resolved by the term infinitely dense, evoking a "super-solid" aether permeating existence. Currently no evidences for this solid state aether can be shown.
Which is to say that permeability of space is ubiquitous. Or another possibility, space is the paramount superconductor. Aether doesn't seem to be in the cards, imo.

Zero aether is non-thinkable (or in my case zero praether is non-thinkable). However praether might involve subquantum things moving in a greater void (like a gas). Or it might be a solid matrix -- however Cahill has measured an aetherwind that possesses turbulence, so a solid matrix is excluded. So the gas analogy looks best. Or, possibly, praether is a solid infinite matrix, but aether is like a gas.

Something gives us our quantum energy & force etc. Something has to be waving. A void cant wave. A void cant conduct. A void cant transfer action.

I don't like theories that say that aether (praether) has a variable density.

Vibration of praether gives us aether. Annihilation & vibration of aether gives us the free-photon. Electrons quarks etc are a confined photon (that has formed a loop)("bottled light" according to Jeans).

The acceleration of the bulk flow of aether into matter (where aether is annihilated) gives us gravity & mass & inertia.

Ranzan & Cahill (& others) say that aether is contractile, ie that it is self-annihilating or something, which i don't understand. And that aether is self-creating.

The only thing missing now is charge & magnetism & electricity etc. I fix that with my photaenos (an annihilation & vibration of aether), that radiate from the central helical body of every free-photon & confined-photon.

Fairly simple. But of course any explanation raises deeper questions. Such is life. But non-belief in some kind of praether-aether is a form of mental imbalance. But it can be cured by reading & thinking.

[crawler]

Evidence for: it's fancy, because it's nonconformist.
Evidence against: it's not required in special relativity; in quantum field theory it was already introduced by the name of "electromagnetic field". So here no need for "ether" either.

Einsteinologists cant invoke aether, hencely they use other terms. Likewise anti-Einsteinians need to use other terms if they want to keep their jobs & if they want to sneak their ideas past the gate-keepers. We have......
Quantum foam.
Dynamic Space.
Fields.
Spacetime.
Membranes.
Branes.
Strings.

But aether is not nonconformist, in the sense that it was believed thousands of years ago, & has always had a following up to today. Einsteinology is nonconformist, but has sidelined aether to such an extent that Einsteinology now rules. But this Einsteinian Dark Age will soon end, koz the times they are a-changin.

[crawler]

I would be interested in a starting definition.

I understand the general concept, that is, a requisite medium through which light and matter travels.

But how do you define 'aether', let alone describe its attributes?

I like to read Hector A Munera -- From the classical ethers of Descartes and Newton to cosmons & sagions -- Apeiron, Volume 20, No2, December 2015. http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V2 ... 15-MUN.pdf

Munera mentions........ dynamic ethers, stationary ethers, solid ethers, luminiferous ether, fluid ether, cosmological gaseous ether, cosmonic gaseous ether, sagions, aether, a dynamical medium, gaseous atomic ether, an energy-like substance, gas ether, ether particles, grains of cosmos, cosmons, a vacuum having "physical" properties, a vacuum filled with something, cosmonic gas, solid crystal, a unit ether-particle, cosmon sphere of exclusion, a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies, a medium required for the propagation of gravity, something else that is not material, an agent acting constantly, a gas formed by discrete corpuscles, an ethereal substance capable of contraction and dilation, a four dimensional hydrodynamic ether, uncompressible fluid ether, ether corpuscles, spirits emitted, ether was formed by preons, a flow of preons leaving 3D space, a flow of preons entering 3D space, deformable ether, fundamental fluid, exceptionally subtle matter, energy-like sagions, a continuous flow of tiny ultramundane corpuscles bombarding our world, gravitational ether, the ethereal medium, elastic ether, entrained ether, non-entrained ether, the solid elastic ether, dynamical ether, ether wind, ether waves, resonant ether waves, ether speed, ether drift, ether squirts, fringe shifts, ether-earth interphase, ether boundary layer, a light carrying medium, Elysium, a gravitational fluid, classical kinetic ethers, a gas-like ether with an infinite variety of particles, viscous ether, a uniform stationary ether.

[spark]

Source of Text: https://www.youtube.com/user/FractalWoman/community

Here is a question I get all the time. So, I thought I would put it here so that a I can reference it, next time I get asked this question.

Question: Did the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the Aether?

Answer: NOPE. They had the wrong model of the Aether. That is what went wrong. They disproved the WRONG model of the Aether. That is a good thing. My Aether model actually PREDICTS a NULL result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. I am glad that the MM-Experiment disproved THEIR Aether. It was wrong. We are NOT moving through a static Aether. We are at rest with respect to the Aether, ALWAYS. If we are moving, then Aether is moving. Matter follows Aether.

Here is an analogy. Take a stick and throw it into a moving river.

https://youtu.be/sA5WGvP8FUc

Very quickly, that stick will be at rest with respect to the water. The river will (very quickly) start moving the stick at the same speed that the river flowing. From the perspective of the stick, the water is not moving. If the stick did an EXPERIMENT (any experiment), to detect its motion with respect to the water, it would get a NULL result. According to the logic of the MM-Experiment, the stick should conclude that water does not exist.

THAT is why the Michelson-Morely experiment got a NULL result. A NULL result does NOT mean that the Aether doesn't exist. It means that we are at REST with respect to the Aether. That is all it means. All these years and all the endless repetitoin that the null result Michelson-Morely experiment meant that the Aether doesn't exist. THEY WERE WRONG.

Gnomesaying?

[JP Michael]

If Earth is at rest with respect to its surrounding aether, how does our moon have a different orbital velocity? Or are we looking at it from a plasmaspheric scale rather than mere planetary (ie. the plasmasphere is the 'bubble' which 'floats' at rest on/in the aether; the planet is but the 'nucleus' of its cosmic 'cell')?

How do the other planets have different orbital velocities with respect to the solar system's aether flow, if matter always follows aether?

What is the interaction between plasma double layers and aether? That is, do plasma double layers form 'borders' for aether flow, if indeed neutral matter sits at rest in respect to flowing aether?

@spark
In regards to your river analogy, the wood (matter) of the stick has intrinsic properties that permit it to be carried at rest with respect to its flowing medium. Use a rock, however, and the analogy breaks down. How could the analogy be altered to account for this?

[spark]

I think every star, planet, moon and galaxy has ether vortex surrounding them which is the reason for masses orbiting each other. Also ether accelerates towards the masses producing gravity. Masses cause a difference of pressure and density in the ether which is the reason for ether vortex surrounding all masses which is usually called gravitational field but is actually a vortex. Lower ether pressure and density on surface and inside the earth, higher ether pressure and density in space. This causes acceleration of ether towards the earth at 9.8 m/s2 like water going down the drain. Earth pulls the ether like a vacuum pump, accelerating ether in turn pushes everything towards the earth with it like how water going down the drain pushes all objects in the water towards the drain with it, we experience that as gravity. All matter is being pushed by the motion of ether with it therefore matter follows the ether. Ether becomes progressively denser the further away from earth, outside the galaxy being where ether is at highest density. There is no empty space.

If you use a rock, the analogy breaks down in case of water since the rock is denser than water where as in case of matter and ether, its other way around, its the ether that's denser and rock/matter is lighter compared to the ether.

Aether Gravity and Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLikwZRk1Y

emf006: New Gravity and The Unified Field Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Oc3ymm3m0

emV023: Ether Whirlpool model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fljIP4l9lRM

emV040: Ghosts in The Ether (On density of ether)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JA0fBvVWPE

How Ether/Aether Works In This Universe. Theory.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 10&t=17480

[crawler]

Source of Text: https://www.youtube.com/user/FractalWoman/community
Here is a question I get all the time. So, I thought I would put it here so that a I can reference it, next time I get asked this question.
Question: Did the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the Aether?
Answer: NOPE. They had the wrong model of the Aether. That is what went wrong. They disproved the WRONG model of the Aether. That is a good thing. My Aether model actually PREDICTS a NULL result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. I am glad that the MM-Experiment disproved THEIR Aether. It was wrong. We are NOT moving through a static Aether. We are at rest with respect to the Aether, ALWAYS. If we are moving, then Aether is moving. Matter follows Aether.

Here is an analogy. Take a stick and throw it into a moving river.https://youtu.be/sA5WGvP8FUc

Very quickly, that stick will be at rest with respect to the water. The river will (very quickly) start moving the stick at the same speed that the river flowing. From the perspective of the stick, the water is not moving. If the stick did an EXPERIMENT (any experiment), to detect its motion with respect to the water, it would get a NULL result. According to the logic of the MM-Experiment, the stick should conclude that water does not exist.

THAT is why the Michelson-Morely experiment got a NULL result. A NULL result does NOT mean that the Aether doesn't exist. It means that we are at REST with respect to the Aether. That is all it means. All these years and all the endless repetitoin that the null result Michelson-Morely experiment meant that the Aether doesn't exist. THEY WERE WRONG.
Gnomesaying?

I suppose that a good name is MMMX. I usually say MMX, but it was Michelson at first (ie an MX), then Michelson & Morley (ie an MMX), & then Morley & Miller (ie an MMX), & then Miller (ie an MX). I think Morley Michelson & Miller died in 1906 1931 & 1948. So from now on i will use the name MMMX to cover the whole range of MXs. With due respect to Pearson & Pearson & Pierce & Gale.

At first they were looking for a static aether with Earth orbiting & spinning throo it at 30 kmps & 0.4 kmps, but they found only a fraction of that kmps. Then they were looking for partial aether drag, ie due to walls etc, but they found no evidence of such drag, & no evidence of any elevation effect. Then they were looking for an aetherwind in any direction, & they found a wind of approx. 200 kmps, but at first they had the direction as being north to south, later they realised that it was south to north.

In the middle of all of that they realised that an MMMX suffers length contraction as per Heaviside FitzGerald Lorentz Larmor, which tends to negate any fringe shift.

We now know that at no time did they have a good knowledge of the correct calibration for an MMMX, ie to relate fringe shift to kmps of aetherwind. They did not realise that the key signal was due to Fresnel Drag in air (Cahill). They did not realise that an MMX in vacuum can only give a 3rd order fringe shift, ie near'nuff zero fringe shift for them in thems days (Cahill).

We know that Michelson stuffed up re the averaging of his fringe shifts (Munera). We now know that the aetherwind near Earth blows at approx. 500 kmps south to north approx. 23 deg off Earth's axis.

We know that there are at least 10 bona fide aetherwind signals measured by an MMMX. Some are periodic in a halfturn, some are periodic in a full turn, & some are not periodic but are almost linear. In addition there are of course instrumental errors, & experimental errors, & we have margin of error.

In addition we now know that the aetherwind suffers a turbulence of approx. 30 kmps (Cahill). And this propagates south to north at the aforementioned 500 kmps. Thusly, some of the supposed noise in the MMMXs is not noise at all, it is true signal. We might call this a kind of Schnoll Effect.

We know that Shanklands hit job of 1955 saying that Miller's signal was due to temperature was Einsteinian krapp.

I know that Roberts' hit job of i think 2002 saying that Miller's background (or foreground) fringe shift incline was not linear & therefore could not be simply averaged-out (Miller called it "compensation") is not a big problem. But for sure Roberts makes a good point needing a good answer. And i am just the guy to find that answer. In the past i have called it a linear ever-growing non-periodic fringe-shift, ie LEGNPFS. The cause is a mystery. Demjanov in his MMMX says that he minimized it by (1) having the axis directly under the beam-splitter, & (2) using the backs of the mirrors so that photons do not have to pass throo glass, & (3) using very thin glass in his beam-splitter. But Demjanov hasn't explained. But i will. Still thinking.

[crawler]

If Earth is at rest with respect to its surrounding aether, how does our moon have a different orbital velocity? Or are we looking at it from a plasmaspheric scale rather than mere planetary (ie. the plasmasphere is the 'bubble' which 'floats' at rest on/in the aether; the planet is but the 'nucleus' of its cosmic 'cell')?

How do the other planets have different orbital velocities with respect to the solar system's aether flow, if matter always follows aether?

What is the interaction between plasma double layers and aether? That is, do plasma double layers form 'borders' for aether flow, if indeed neutral matter sits at rest in respect to flowing aether?

@spark
In regards to your river analogy, the wood (matter) of the stick has intrinsic properties that permit it to be carried at rest with respect to its flowing medium. Use a rock, however, and the analogy breaks down. How could the analogy be altered to account for this?

A good model goes like this. Photons are an annihilation & vibration of aether, which propagates at c kmps in the aether. Matter is bottled light (Jeans). Matter thusly annihilates aether, & aether flows in to matter to replace the lost aether.

Thusly in our quantum world particles are holes in the aether (not important).

Gravity is due to force due to the acceleration of aether. Inertia & inertial mass is due to the acceleration of particles. A particle moving at a constant velocity suffers no drag, ie aether aint viscous in that sense. Re non-inertial mass, ie ordinary mass, there aint no such thing. Or if u like then mass is the property of annihilating aether, & everything annihilates aether.

There might be an exception to that specification for mass. There is a possibility that motion or acceleration also annihilates aether, in which case that would create faux-mass or quasi-mass (not important)(just saying).

Ranzan & Cahill say in effect that aether annihilates aether, ie that aether is contractile (which i don't understand).

In our good model the aetherwind blowing near Earth is made up of Earth's spin (0.4 kmps), Earth's orbit (30 kmps), inflow to Earth (11.2 kmps), inflow to the Sun (42 kmps), & a background aetherwind blowing south to north at approx. 500 kmps approx. 23 deg off Earth's axis.

Then we need to add the aetherwind due to the centrifuging of aether due to Earth spin (& orbit) -- aether is sucked in at Earth's equator & is spat out at the poles.

Re my mention of LEGNPFS (ie Miller's "incline"), its not much good reading Hicks & Richi & Hendricks papers etc. They explain some of the periodic signals (ie halfturn & fullturn effects), but i don't think that any of their stuff relates to the heart of LEGNPFS. Still thinking.

[JP Michael]

in case of matter and ether, its other way around, its the ether that's denser and rock/matter is lighter compared to the ether.

But how does one demonstrate this empirically?