a few thoughts for the Aether theory

  • a few thoughts for the Aether theory

    Posted by Jerry on February 5, 2022 at 11:41 pm

    Actually, I wrote this almost two decades ago. I have some doubts though, as to if there were a definite detection of the aether. If there was, what conclusions would that lead us to? Would we find out what our earthly position is within the universe? Or how the sun is said to stay in motion, within the galaxy? Of course, this experiment was performed before the Big Bang, so they were dealing with what was often considered a “static” universe. Anyway, please offer your views, further ideas, suggestions, questions, objections, or constructive criticism. Thanks.

    The Aether, Michelson and Morley and their experiments with the Interferometer

    Decades before Einstein arrived on the scene with Special Relativity in 1905, there was

    the ancient idea of the “aether” that was prevalent at the time, which was theorized as

    an invisible medium or “substance” that permeates the entire universe. Since sound

    clearly needs a medium to travel through, such as the air, or water, many thought the

    aether idea could explain how light is propagated through empty space.

    For over two centuries before Einstein had formulated Special Relativity, the idea was

    accepted that “all inertial reference frames are equally valid“. This means that there isn’t

    a universal frame of reference to measure the velocity of objects, and that any point we

    could arbitrarily consider stationary. This theory was credited to Galileo Galilei. Since

    scientists realized how everything seems in motion, they theorized that the aether itself

    must be stationary, while allowing the propagation of objects, light, various particles,

    waves, and so forth.

    Michelson and Morley set up an elaborate experiment, the interferometer, to detect how

    the earth travels through the aether. By examining the earth’s spin and rotation around

    the sun, they figured they could calculate the motion of the sun through the galaxy, and

    the galaxy through the universe, relative to what was theorized as “stationary” aether.

    Most accounts say that Michelson and Morley conducted their experiment for months,

    and couldn’t find or detect the aether at all. Since then, there have been other points

    of view that says there was a slight detection except much less than expected. Anyway,

    according to “popular” reports, Michelson and Morley decided the aether doesn’t exist,

    since their experiment failed to detect it. Actually, even Einstein eventually said that if

    the aether is there, it is superfluous and can’t be detected.

    FitzGerald’s Length Contraction and Lorentz’s Increasing Mass

    Since the aether had been accepted in the scientific community for quite a while, (the idea

    first arose in at least Ancient Greece) the theory would seem difficult to “give up”, so some

    tried to maintain the aether theory, to explain why the experiment had failed.

    FitzGerald first advanced the idea that an object’s length would “contract” while traveling at

    a high velocity in the direction of its motion. He actually suggested the equipment itself was

    “pushed” and foreshortened by the stationary aether, by the motion of the earth revolving

    around the sun, and the sun’s motion through the universe, causing the negative results

    of the experiment.

    Shortly thereafter, Lorentz took FitzGerald’s equations and “deduced mathematically” that

    when the length contraction occurs to an object traveling at a high velocity, its mass would

    also increase. There were experiments done a while later which seemed to confirm the

    idea of gaining mass by Lorentz.

    <font color=”#000000″>After this view was proposed, scientists found a way to accelerate charged particles to see </font>

    <font color=”#000000″>if </font>their mass while in motion would turn out different from their “rest mass”. However, what

    they were measuring though, were the particles’ inertia. The inertia of the particles seemed

    to increase when accelerated, so this experiment was offered as proof of Lorentz’s idea

    that mass increases at a high velocity.

    However, in this experiment, they weren’t observing any visible increase in mass.

    They could have mistaken the object’s increase in inertia, or kinetic energy, with a

    physical increase in mass. For instance, when a baseball is thrown, the faster it

    travels, relative to the earth, the greater its inertia, relative to objects at rest relative

    to earth. The faster the ball is thrown, the more force the ball will exert on an object

    “stationary” relative to earth. If this is the truth, wouldn’t this apply to the velocity of

    all objects? That mass is actually growing at any velocity seems highly improbable.

    <font color=”#000000″>Also, scientists of the time knew they couldn’t actually see the charged particles as they </font>

    <font color=”#000000″>”dashed by” at such high velocities to tell if their lengths had changed. However, at the </font>

    <font color=”#000000″>time, some felt the need to maintain FitzGerald’s length </font>contraction since Lorentz’s idea

    of mass increase was supposedly derived from it mathematically. They also hadn’t have

    wanted people to realize there was possibly some “mathematical trickery” going on.

    <font color=”#000000″>
    Whatever their reasons for keeping these concepts, which were originated to justify the </font>

    <font color=”#000000″>mistaken aether theory, have become somewhat “established” in the realm of physics </font>

    <font color=”#000000″>as part of Special Relativity, widely accepted to this day. </font>

    Marco replied 8 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Members · 28 Replies
  • 28 Replies
  • David

    February 6, 2022 at 3:44 pm

    Hi Jerry, I have seen basically the same ideas presented over the years by countless individuals, including myself. The stories I see posted about the Michelson Morley experiment cover a wide range of opinions, perceptions, and plot variations that sound more and more like legend, and myth.

    In the end, I have found that the only version of the Michelson Morley experiment that is worth knowing is the version told by the one man who actually did the experiments and worked with the original experimenters; Dayton Miller wrote the article below in Science magazine.


    Everyone else is a spectator with an opinion (which of course we are entitled to be). Before we make judgments about what the experiment means, we need to be familiar with the history, method, and data of the experiment as told by Dayton Miller.

    As for finding our position in the Universe by examining the Aether, it is like a fish trying to determine its location in the ocean by examining water molecules. The fish will ultimately discover that a fluid is incapable of storing information about location due to its fluidity. And if the fish thinks like a Relativity theorist, then the fish will likely conclude that the ocean does not exist.

    We must not make the mistake of ignoring the absolute structure of the quantum of water when looking at an ocean; and neither should we make the mistake of ignoring the quantum of space when looking at the ocean of space.

    The Aether is absolutely quantifiable at the quantum level. Even the mechanics of the fluidity of the Aether is quantifiable in electrodynamics theory and fluid mechanics (I was reading Maxwell’s paper last night and I am writing a commentary on it). Why would we dismiss the Aether just because the Aether is not frozen like a block of ice?

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by  David. Reason: Typo
    • Jerry

      February 7, 2022 at 12:42 am

      Hi David.

      Did you mean to say of what I wrote, that you’ve seen the “same ideas presented over the years by countless individuals”, that this view is meaningless or naïve? If you once had the same or a similar viewpoint, why did you eventually “abandon” the idea(s)? Also, I personally haven’t heard the views of many other scientists who share the views and ideas of those few paragraphs.

      I was just earlier reading the link you sent. Thanks! Does Dayton have that much of a different story, compared to so many other individual’s accounts of the Michelson and Morley experiment? The fact that he performed the experiment with Michelson and Morley, doesn’t automatically mean he’s most qualified to speak of their ideas, plans, and intentions. Maybe he was though.

      Something I haven’t ever had a clear understanding of, was what was the purpose of their experiments with the interferometer? What types of results did they expect? If the experiment had even turned out “perfectly” (in their eyes), what would that tell them? What ultimate conclusions were they looking for?

      • David

        February 8, 2022 at 9:30 pm

        Hi Jerry,

        Please don’t interpret my words to imply someone else’s view is meaningless or naive. It was just a statement of observation as seen by me. Everybody’s view is meaningful. My intent is to say that out of the billions of people who have lived on this planet, many people have come to the same conclusions, and that there are groups of people that have considered nearly every idea that can be thought. I have found that many ideas that I once thought were original had been, in fact, considered by others.

        Even though I am even now writing a book about ideas that I believe are original to me in the sense that I developed these ideas on my own, I do not assume that they are actually original ideas. I consider it very likely that someone, somewhere, and at some time, has already reached the same conclusions about various topics that I have.

        Not everybody who has a view about the Aether is a physicist. As you noted, ancient writers had a concept of the Aether, Rene Descartes had a very good concept of the Aether, most of the physicists of the 1800s were convinced of an Aether and tried to quantify it, and even young Albert Einstein at age 16 wrote a very lucid paper describing the properties of the Aether. The alt-physics groups on the Internet are filled with people interested in physics who have varying ideas concerning the Aether, and many of these ideas coincide with your ideas and with my ideas.

        “Does Dayton have that much of a different story, compared to so many other individual’s accounts of the Michelson and Morley experiment?”

        Yes, if you read the accounts of the Michelson Morley experiment by physicists who teach Special Relativity theory, there are stories of how the MMX produced a “null result,” about how the Aether was disproved, and about how the science is now settled and unquestioned. None of that is true.

        Dayton Miller was an accomplished and highly respected physicist. He was meticulous in the scientific method and sought accurate results. Miller had hands on experience with the experimental apparatus, and also the surrounding environment, and he was acutely aware of the smallest details that could give false results. Anybody sitting in the peanut gallery can make cynical claims about errors in the experiment, but Dayton Miller adequately addressed those issues raised by the critics.

        When one studies the actual experiments, and the lack of hands-on experience of the critics, one realizes that the anti-Aether, Special Relativity physicists never made an effort to repeat the experiment for themselves and provide alternative data to refute the experiments of Michelson, Morley, and Miller. The only thing we have heard from the critics is cynicism, and their favoritism toward Special Relativity theory.

        We must keep in mind that Special Relativity theory is actually based on the equations developed by Poincare and Lorentz, and in which those equations quantified the actual measured Aether drift. All Albert Einstein did with those equations was add his two postulates, which changed the interpretation of the measured data from a fluid Aether drift theory to a time dilation (time drift – time travel) theory. Those postulates were all that Albert Einstein contributed to the science in producing his Special Relativity theory. Special Relativity is based on the measured Aether drift results of Michelson and Morley, and later by Morley and Miller.

        So to hear people discredit the Michelson Morley experiment while promoting the success of Special Relativity theory is pure hypocrisy. Special Relativity theory would not exist if the Michelson and Morley experiments did not measure an actual Aether drift.

        Albert Michelson proposed his experiment initially because Michelson believed the Aether was rigid, and that each quantum of space remained fixed relative to every other quantum of space. It was due to his hypothesis of a fixed Aether that he expected to measure the Earth’s movement through this rigid Aether. In effect, if Michelson was correct, it would be akin to navigating a submarine through solid ice and being able to note your position based on your position within the ice.

        As it turned out, the experimental results, as analyzed by Poincare and Lorentz, showed that the Aether was fluid, and that each quantum of Aether flowed relative to every other quantum of Aether in much the same way that liquid water molecules behave. In fact, many physicists employ fluid dynamics equations to describe the physical properties of space.

        Michelson, Morley, Miller, Poincare, and Lorentz (among many others) discovered that the Aether was fluid to the Earth in much the same way as a liquid ocean is fluid to a submarine. A submarine cannot be located by marking its position relative to the water molecules of the ocean, because the water is fluid. The same is true for space. Although space has a quantum unit, those quantum units are fluid, and they constantly move relative to each other.

        • Shiva

          February 9, 2022 at 4:31 am

          Hi David, I thought I was the only one who still used “MMX” as an abbreviation, haha.

          I prefer Miller’s 1933 paper because of the maturity of his experience by that point: https://www.anti-relativity.com/Miller1933.pdf

          As for the time aspect for special relativity, time was already part of Larmor’s contributions before even Lorentz. Einstein simply was concerned with the electrodynamics and didn’t learn the meaning of the kinematics well enough before using the system. Time dilation, however, is still part of aether, it’s just that it’s within absolute simultaneity.

          It was actually Minkowski that really screwed the pooch (1907) when he codified constancy by conjoining space and time. That is what made the time-travel nonsense possible.

          I think you’ll enjoy my paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01846

          • David

            February 9, 2022 at 6:04 pm

            Hi Shiva, I enjoyed reading both the Miller paper and also your paper, just as you thought I might.

            I am very appreciative that you have provided a copy of the Miller paper, which is by far the best and most exhaustive account of the Michelson Morley (and related) experiments that I have ever read. I cannot thank you enough.

            I was also very pleased in reading your paper. We definitely have much in common in our views and are working toward the same end. I also have very minor disagreement with some of your interpretations, and I will explain why.

            First, while Miller et al were primarily concerned about the hydrodynamics of the Aether as a greater fluid of space, my focus has been on defining the quantum unit of Aether, which underlies the Aether fabric. Just as we must first understand the structure and mechanics of water molecules before we can fully understand the fluid mechanics of larger bodies of water, we must also understand the quantum nature of space before we can fully understand the macro structure of space.

            As I see it, space and Aether are synonymous. When talking about time, it is improper to say “spacetime” because Aether already implies a temporal dimension. It would be more accurate to say “volume-time” when discussing the four-dimensional space.

            Furthermore, I see the temporal dimension of space as two orthogonal frequencies, which is resonance. The two temporal frequencies of Aether (space) are forward-backward time frequency, and right spin torque-left spin torque frequency. It is the right and left spin temporal torque of the Aether that gives us normal matter and antimatter. It is the forward-backward time frequency that applies to the half-spin nature of subatomic particles, and which results in the appearance of physical matter existing in only the forward time direction of the Aether.

            The natural temporal state of the Aether is a rapid oscillation between forward time and backward time, which gives us the experience of the “present moment.” Physical matter (subatomic particles) physically exists only in the present moment, but physical matter only spins in the forward time direction within the present moment. It is our memories within our brain that creates the illusion of a linear timeline when we focus on physical matter.

            So it is impossible to travel to the past or to the future since there is no physical matter in either the past or future temporal reference frames. The only reason we think there is a past or a future is, again, because we have the memories and imagination in our brain.

            Without a physical linear timeline, time dilation is also impossible.

            The reason why clocks will read slightly different times when one clock travels through a higher altitude than another clock at lower altitude is because of an Aether density gradient that surrounds all massive objects. I have a simple new equation, as an extension of the Schwarzschild solution, that quantifies the length density gradient established by the physical limits of the quantum Aether units. The length density gradient applies to the radius of the massive object and is implied in the Schwarzschild solution.


            With more space density at higher altitudes, there is more Aether per length than there is at lower altitudes. This means that an atomic clock must travel through more dense space at higher altitudes, and within each quantum of space (Aether unit) the clock must tick. More space density means more ticks per length. There is no time dilation. It is strictly a space density effect, exactly as quantified by General Relativity theory. The time dilation interpretation only arises after the Riemannian solution for space density gradients is applied to Minkowski coordinates, which is nonsense. If the Riemann solution could have been calculated in Minkowski coordinates, then why bother with Riemann curvature? When Einstein tried to calculate the Einstein tensor in Minkowski coordinates he ended up with 0 = 0, which again, is nonsense.

            The speed of photons, by the way, is determined by the quantum frequency of forward-backward time. Since physical matter moves only in the forward time direction due to its half-spin nature, and since the Aether has a quantum length equal to the Compton wavelength, then photons can only move through space one Aether unit at a time, which is the Compton wavelength times the quantum frequency. And yes, the absolute frequency of the Aether unit defines simultaneity of time throughout the physical Universe.

            All Aether units are simultaneously beating according to the frequency of the Gforce. The Gforce, which I describe in detail, is the common factor of the electrostatic force, magnetic force, and gravity, and which creates and maintains the entire physical Universe. Albert Einstein died while trying to find the Gforce, which I found twenty years ago. As a result, I have successfully unified all the fundamental forces:


            I am way ahead of the game in understanding the quantum structure of Aether. As a result, I have recently cracked the mystery of how to completely revamp Maxwell’s theories into a precise and fully functional electrodynamics theory. I am presently working on this project, and I am fully willing to share this development with anyone interested in participating.

            And as for the interferometer experiments, the older physicists failed to make a crucial connection between General Relativity theory and the Aether drift. General Relativity theory quantifies a space density gradient, which means the Aether is less dense at lower altitudes and more dense at higher altitudes. Thus, if anybody ever wanted to physically prove the existence of the Aether, all they would need to do is turn the interferometer up on its edge such that the plane of the interferometer bisected the Earth, instead of turned tangent to the Earth’s surface. Obviously, with their mercury “bearing” for turning the device, Miller et al could not turn their interferometer on its side. However, with modern technology, this enterprising German experimenter did exactly that:


            • Shiva

              February 17, 2022 at 6:22 pm

              “I also have very minor disagreement with some of your interpretations, and I will explain why.”

              Not sure what the specific disagreement is with but I’m not sure what experimental or mechanical basis you have for your spin ideas, so it makes sense we’d deviate at that point. I currently know of no experimental regime or basic mechanics that fit with the brief explanations you’ve given thus far.

              “Without a physical linear timeline, time dilation is also impossible.”

              No, you don’t need for there to be a physically extant future or past for the rate of change to be different in one place versus another. All you need is a variable speed of light.

              Time is just a measure of change and the present moment certainly changes. One can, therefore, certainly measure the relative rates of change of things and discover an alteration of those relationships. This has occurred in numerous experiments.

              What is impossible without a physically extant future and past is relative simultaneity. And with this I agree. There is no such thing as relative simultaneity. That’s an artifact of Minkowski attempting to justify isotropic constancy by conjoining space with time.

              “The reason why clocks will read slightly different times when one clock travels through a higher altitude than another clock at lower altitude is because of an Aether density gradient that surrounds all massive objects.”

              Yes, aether density was what I posited and explained back when I first started anti-relativity.com and that view has become dominant among aether theorists. That, however is a mistake I’ve corrected in recent years. It’s a mistake that comes down to us all the way from Fresnel. (and my personal mistake back then was not considering the independence of rigidity and density and their opposing effects on wave speed)

              “With more space density at higher altitudes, there is more Aether per length than there is at lower altitudes. This means that an atomic clock must travel through more dense space at higher altitudes, and within each quantum of space (Aether unit) the clock must tick. More space density means more ticks per length.”

              I’m afraid you’ve gotten something a bit muddled here. “Time” passes more quickly in space than on earth. (atomic processes occur more swiftly)

              More ticks of a clock …to do what? You must apply this reasoning to a specific task to understand it better. If there is more space to traverse then the same processes will occur more slowly by comparison. Please think this through critically for a moment. If light must traverse a space and there is more of it, then, further, if the rate of its traversal is left the same, more time is required to perform the same action.

              I believe your idea that “more ticks per length” has been left arbitrarily assumed and you need to revisit it. Why would a clock tick more? By what mechanism? We can’t just have a statement that it does so; that’s circular reasoning or statements of faith, not an explanation.

              More particles cause more ticking? How? Why? You appear to be making this leap of faith without a reason. If there were more particles traversing matter per unit of comparative time and somehow each traversal of an aether particle interacting with the parts of a clock somehow mediated time, then, sure maybe it could work, but that’s not what you’re saying. (and it would require a theory of aether flow mediating time, not aether density)

              A clock’s rate, if determined by interparticle interactions, would require more time by comparison to a clock’s rate governed by fewer particle interactions or less intervening space. (or quanta of aether)

              More particles equals more time, yes, but the “more” here refers to the amount of time required to accomplish the same task compared to a place with less. (more time to accomplish a single tick of a time keeping device) Thus more time to accomplish the same ticks is slower time, not faster.

              In an aether density model, one requires that the aether be more dense near the earth and less dense in space to alter the wave speed within the medium in the way desired, to make light faster in space and slower near the earth. (in accordance with experiment)

              The mistake I believe I personally passed along (and improperly influenced a generation of aether theorists) is the impression from things like steel that density and rigidity were basically the same and therefore faster wave speed occurs in denser things. However it is not greater density, but greater rigidity that increases wave speed and greater density slows wave speed. The confusion from hard metals comes from the fact that rigidity goes up much faster than density in these materials compared to others.

              “If the Riemann solution could have been calculated in Minkowski coordinates, then why bother with Riemann curvature?”

              Because curvature provides a preferred frame and makes Minkowski coordinates just Lorentz coordinates which then allows GR to behave like an aether theory again and not be nonsense. It destroys the one thing Minkowski gave, frame independent constancy, and gives us a variable speed of light. (and gives a single and defined direction of relative simultaneity at worst)

              “then photons can only move through space one Aether unit at a time, which is the Compton wavelength times the quantum frequency.”

              …and this would make time occur more slowly in denser space instead of more quickly, as is verified by numerous experiments.

              “all they would need to do is turn the interferometer up on its edge”

              Unfortunately that’s functionally the same as Pound-Rebka and would do nothing to convince people that GR is in any way related to aether. (even though it is)

              Either way it seem you have some drawing-board issues you need to revisit. “More ticks” of a clock compared to another ticking clock, does indeed, indicate faster time but more space and more particles or more things to accomplish or traverse for an equivalent task of ticking, means slower time.

              You’ve mapped more-to-more instead of more-to-less.

              More space to traverse = less accomplished.
              Less accomplished = slowed time.

              You currently have time running slower in space when, via experiment, we know it runs faster.

              I used to make, basically, the same mistake.

            • David

              March 9, 2022 at 5:08 pm

              “I’m not sure what experimental or mechanical basis you have for your spin ideas”

              The spin ideas I use are not my own; they are those of Wolfgang Pauli. I provide a clear discussion of these spin ideas in terms of Aether here:


              The geometrical understanding of spin I provide is unique. The geometrical structure of spin is inferred from the geometrical constant of the Aether where a quantum Aether unit is quantified precisely as A.u = 16pi^2 * k.C and k.C is Coulomb’s constant. I demonstrate how the A.u constant appears in, and is related to, many different physical measurements, equations, and constants. The quantum Aether unit is a quantum rotating magnetic field, is the quantum of space, and provides the basic structure for the subatomic particles.

              You have expressed your expertise based on years of telling people what the Aether is. I claim no expertise. My only claim is that I can provide the actual physics that describes the physical structure of space, and which also describes the physical structure of the resulting physical Universe.

              “All you need is a variable speed of light.”

              Physics is not about perception. Physics is about physical measurements. There is no physical evidence for a variable speed of photons. However, if the physicist relies on perception, rather than physics, the physicist will imagine such things as a variable speed of photons.

              “Time is just a measure of change and the present moment certainly changes.”

              Careful! You are correct that time is just a measurement of change. However time is only a subset of the present moment. The present moment is not time. Your idea that time can be variable is in conflict with your statement that “time is just a measurement of change.” Time is not a thing that flows at a rate; time is just a measurement of change. Your thinking is still wired to believe that time is something that makes things change; rather than time just being a measurement of change. When you work from the perception that time is something that causes change to flow, then you are still thinking that there is a physical past and a physical future. It is more difficult than people realize to understand that time is just a measurement of change. To fully understand the illusion of time, one must first fully understand the physics of the present moment.

              “There is no such thing as relative simultaneity.”

              Yes, we are in full agreement here. When the physics are fully understood, it is clear that there is only one present moment. The physical fact that there is only one present moment is tied to the physical fact that there is only one speed of photons in space. There is only one “metronome” that drives the oscillation of every quantum of space throughout the physical Universe. And this knowledge is empirically derived from the known physical constants of physics.

              “Yes, aether density was what I posited and explained back when I first started anti-relativity.com and that view has become dominant among aether theorists.”

              Please, let us keep our egos at bay. Maxwell discussed Aether density long before we did. If you have contributed something unique to the physics of Aether density, then please share the physics.

              my personal mistake back then was not considering the independence of rigidity and density and their opposing effects on wave speed”

              It is a mistake to think that rigidity, density, and wave speed have a life of their own. Like time… rigidity, density, and wave speed are just measurements. The Aether is the thing with the life of its own. The Aether has many different physical attributes, but all of these attributes are brought together in a quantum Aether unit. The rigidity of the Aether applies to the quantum Aether unit, yet the density of the Aether applies to the sea of Aether units.

              Air molecules have rigidity, yet air as a volume of molecules has density. The same quanta and fluid analogy applies to the Aether.

              “I’m afraid you’ve gotten something a bit muddled here. “Time” passes more quickly in space than on earth. (atomic processes occur more swiftly)”

              You should by now realize the mistake in your thinking. You again referenced time as something that “passes more quickly.” Time is not a thing that moves at any rate. Time is just a measurement of change; the measurement is not the agent of change. The present moment is the agent of change.

              Just because the present moment does not flow according to our imaginary concept of a linear timeline does not mean the present moment is inert or static. The present moment is quite dynamic. It is the dynamic nature of the present moment that allows for physical matter to change within the present moment.

              “More ticks of a clock …to do what? You must apply this reasoning to a specific task to understand it better.”

              The task being applied to is a clock parting from a reference clock a low altitude, and from the surface of a massive object, while moving to a higher altitude, and then returning to the reference clock at the lower altitude.

              “If there is more space to traverse then the same processes will occur more slowly by comparison.”

              First of all, we are talking about Aether, and not about geodesics. According to mainstream physicists, geodesic space has no physical structure and merely exists as a mathematical concept for understanding physical matter. According to Aether theory, each Aether unit is a quantum of a greater volume of Aether units.

              Physical matter can move only one quantum unit of space per present moment interval, hence the constant speed of photons. Therefore, a clock moving at higher altitude is moving through space at the same speed as it would at lower altitude. The fact that the clock has more space per length to cover due to the space density gradient only means that the clock will have to tick more times due to the denser space. You really need to fully visualize the concept of space density from outside the concept Euclidean coordinates, and from within the concept of Riemann coordinates.

              The clock has not changed its tick rate, and the vehicle carrying the clock follows the Euclidean physical laws for velocity. When the clock arrives back to its reference clock, it simply has more ticks on it due to variations of the Aether density at different altitudes. Time is just a measurement, remember?

              The only reason people perceive time dilation is because people insist on believing that time is a thing that flows, and that can therefore dilate. There is no “thing” called time that makes things flow temporally; there is no temporal flow. There is only the present moment; and physical matter changes only within the present moment. The concept of flowing time keeps creeping back into people’s thinking.

              The brain has a region called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is responsible for creating, storing, and recalling memories. The hippocampus replays these memories to our consciousness, and it is this brain activity that we are interpreting as flowing time. Time is just a perception of the brain. In the physical world, there is only a dynamic present moment which allows half-spin subatomic particles to see only the forward time component of present moment. The present moment is an oscillation between forward time and backward time at a fixed rate (hence the present moment makes no progress toward either the past or toward the future).

              “A clock’s rate, if determined by interparticle interactions”

              A clock’s rate has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. It is the rate of the present moment which is the metronome of the physical Universe, and which establishes the constant speed of photons. As long as a clock is accurate and does not lose or gain time, then it can be used for testing General Relativity theory. Atomic clocks are accurate to one second in more than a billion years.

              “More particles equals more time, yes, but the “more” here refers to the amount of time required to accomplish the same task compared to a place with less. Thus more time to accomplish the same ticks is slower time, not faster.”

              For someone who started a reply with “time is just a measurement” you really are contradicting yourself. Time is not a thing that can increase or decrease accomplishment. Time does not affect anything. Time does not move fast or slow. Again, it is very difficult for people who rely on perception, rather than physics, to understand physics. The perception of time is what your brain produces. The physics operate in the present moment.

              “…and this would make time occur more slowly in denser space instead of more quickly, as is verified by numerous experiments.”

              Again, time is just a measurement. Time does not occur slower or faster anywhere. The only physical thing that occurs is the space density gradient. And no, space is not denser near the surface of a massive object.

              The physics of the space density gradient is caused by neutron formation. A neutron is an electron whose space has folded over on top of the space of a proton, thus pinching the Aether fabric. Half the mass of normal matter composes from neutrons. The more massive an object becomes, the more neutrons it contains. The greater the density that an object obtains, the smaller its radius becomes. The mass per radius of massive objects is what the Schwarzschild radius of General Relativity theory quantifies.

              The neutrons of a physical object stretch the surrounding Aether in toward the physical object, thus creating a low space density at the object’s surface, which gradually increases back toward the relaxed Aether fabric density, as the distance from the object increases.

              You are of course entitled to make your own personal judgments about my work, however, you may want to keep an open mind for revising your own understanding rather than dismissing mine. Your ideas (like all of mainstream physicists) are clouded by the perceptions of the mind, rather than executed strictly according to the physical laws of the physical Universe.

            • Jerry

              June 5, 2022 at 10:33 pm

              Hi. I have a few questions. What evidence is there for the idea that the aether has various levels of density throughout different areas of the universe? If the aether is found as highly dense within a given area, what of the other extreme, where the aether isn’t dense at all? Is there ever areas of the aether that don’t “completely cover” the underlying empty space?

              • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Jerry.
            • David

              June 6, 2022 at 3:16 am

              The variable Aether density is actually well quantified and experimentally proved. It is known as General Relativity theory, and more specifically the equations for the circular deflection angle and the orbital perigee precession angle for massive objects. Both of these equations calculate the Aether density gradient, regardless of how mainstream physicists attempt to deny that fact.

              The Aether does not cover space. The Aether IS space. The Aether is a sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields much the same way that the ocean is a sea of water molecules. Space itself experiences a density gradient in the presence of physical matter. This is because physical matter is actually made from space. Electrons fold over on top of protons to produce a single neutron particle; the neutron has the effect of pinching the fabric of space to produce the space density gradients.

              Physicists are busy looking through telescopes to find the edges of the physical Universe. The “edge” of the physical Universe is not like the walls of a room. The “edge” of the physical Universe exists within each quantum rotating magnetic field of space. The is a maximum mass that each quantum of space can handle, there is a maximum magnetic charge each quantum of space can handle, there is a quantum volume for each quantum of space (Compton wavelength cubed), and there is a quantum frequency that each quantum of space vibrates between forward time and backward time (which results in the constant speed of photons).

              The Aether therefore has limits of length density such that as physical mass density increases, the Aether density decreases. When a certain length density is reached, a black hole forms as the fabric of space gets ripped.

              The Aether density gradient is real enough, and we can measure its effects by observing the path trajectory of photons and physical objects around massive objects. However, we cannot directly see the space density gradient from within the Aether. Within the Aether, space always appears flat (Euclidean space). It is only when we observe the path trajectories around massive objects that we can see the effects of the space density gradient (Riemann space).

            • Jerry

              June 6, 2022 at 2:18 pm

              Hi David. Thanks for your response.

              I had to look up “circular deflection angle” and “orbital perigee precession angle”, and I don’t see how these concepts point to a variable aether density at all. Plus, using the flawed theory of General Relativity doesn’t seem to provide a point in it’s favor either. They seem more attributable to gravity, which General Relativity mistakenly says is caused by “curved space-time”.

              You said that the aether doesn’t cover space, that it IS space, then you went on to say that the aether is a “sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields”. I hadn’t ever heard, except from yourself, that the aether is composed of magnetic fields. How does the magnetic field get there? Does each given area of space (or aether) have a magnet around the vicinity that produces it? Does that also mean that aether is composed of both positively and negatively charged particles? Such as how every magnet has two poles? Also, how could all of this exist, if it didn’t occupy empty space? How is it that something that has physicality is somehow the space itself?

              I’ve actually heard a myriad of different properties and functions of the aether, even when presented as “modern aether”, many of which have seemed highly inconsistent with each other.

              • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  Jerry.
            • David

              June 6, 2022 at 3:01 pm

              ” I don’t see how these concepts point to a variable aether density I don’t see how these concepts point to a variable aether density”

              The circular deflection angle equation and the orbital perigee precession angle equation are not just concepts, they are equations. The equations are based on measurements, and the result is a measurable quantity. These equations are real physics, and Albert Einstein deserves full credit for their discovery, even though Karl Schwarzchild and myself have made improvements to these equations.

              General Relativity theory is a broad philosophy, which includes the highly successful circular deflection angle and orbital perigee precession angle equations. General Relativity theory also includes several much less successful cosmological equations. It means nothing to talk about “General Relativity theory” since it is a broad philosophy with mixed results. The equations are the real meat of physics, and not the generalized philosophy of time dilation interpretations based on unprovable postulates.

              My Aether theory is based on successful equations and a new system of units based on distributed charge. The distributed charge concept comes from the cgs system of units, and fixes an error in the charge dimensions caused when the MKS system of units was developed. There are no postulates in my work. Any philosophy in my work comes as a result of the equations; the equations do not arise from the philosophy.

              The math capability for the posts on this forum sucks. I can’t imagine a serious science forum that does not have Latex turned on. I could give fresh discourse to your questions, but it doesn’t work well without math equations. You can read about the Aether, as I present it, here:


              As you make your way to the bottom of the page, it answers your questions.

              The quantum rotating magnetic field of the Aether is in agreement with Standard Model Quantum Field Theory. However, instead of presenting the quantum fields in terms of energy, I present the quantum fields in terms of charges. There is the electrostatic charge, which is quantifiable and different from magnetic charge. These are two essential and distinct types of charges. To understand the fundamental forces, and to fully unify them mathematically, requires that physicists acknowledge these two types of charges, and also to acknowledge their source in the quantum rotating magnetic fields that form the physical structure of all space.

              And yes, each quantum of space has a magnetic dipole as well as an electrostatic dipole. In addition, each quantum of space also has two spin directions, which produces matter and antimatter.

              The quantum rotating magnetic field of space is fully quantified as Coulomb’s constant times 16pi^2. From this very simple quantification of space we can quantify the entire physical Universe including the space density gradient that arises from Albert Einstein’s General Relativity theory.

            • Jerry

              June 7, 2022 at 10:25 am

              Wow. Is that your personal website? There’s so much there! It looks highly interesting. Could I ask around where my questions get answered? I plan to read this at some point though. Maybe today.

            • David

              June 7, 2022 at 3:36 pm

              Yes, this is my personal website. I am available to answer questions about my work, and I am interested in learning new ideas and hearing the input from others.

              I am still writing this website, as there is much more information than I have not yet had time to record. All of my work is fully quantified and I continually add new references to other works.

        • Jerry

          February 11, 2022 at 2:00 am

          Hi David. My apologies for what I wrote the other day. I didn’t mean to misinterpret your words. I honestly thought you meant such views were naïve. I’m guessing though, that you at least think some of ideas aren’t correct, otherwise, why wouldn’t you currently accept them?

          I have a question. Has the goal to find the truth of what the interferometer was designed to find out, been achieved yet? If so, what was it?

          I hadn’t heard that Special Relativity is based on aether drift results. What were these results? Were you referring to how it’s similar to time dilation? Actually, my personal view is that time dilation was developed to account for the discrepancy that seems apparent when considering the relative motion and position of objects. It often seems implied that the constancy of the velocity of light creates a universe where time and space themselves seem somewhat “blamed” (or perhaps “credited”) for the relativistic effects, of the space that stretches and the time that dilates. That they seem to “bridge the gap”.

          The ideas of length contraction and mass increase with velocity were arrived at by FitzGerald and Lorentz, at least two decades before Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. However, the sole purpose they had for these ideas was to maintain the aether theory. They were trying to account for why the Michelson and Morley experiment failed to detect the aether. FitzGerald suggested the aether itself foreshortened the equipment, a view that continues to seem accepted to this day.

          • David

            February 12, 2022 at 2:13 pm

            Hi Jerry, I tend to refrain from being judgmental. However, my intense and focused nature often makes me blind to social etiquette, resulting that many times I have inadvertently offended people.

            You are correct that I do not always agree with ideas. My willingness to completely let go of a situation and start over from scratch has been both a blessing and a curse. My physics views took a major turn twenty years ago when I noticed there were two distinctly different manifestations of electric charge in a high potential, high frequency electrical circuit. I wondered how a spark on one end of a coil could be thin and purple, and the spark on the other end of the same coil could be thick and white. After reexamining the known physical constants and the equations relating to charge, I discovered that there are actually two distinctly different manifestations of charge even in dimensional analysis.

            This led me to an understanding that all charge in all units and equations should actually be expressed as a distributed dimension (charge squared). I then reexamined the concepts of dimensions entirely. From these new insights, I discovered a completely new and yet far more accurate and useful system of units, which I call Quantum Measurement Units, and which I describe here:



            Unfortunately, I am the only person so far who sees the value in these new insights, and so while a certain concept is crystal clear within my own mind, others do not share the same underlying framework of thought. Compounding this problem is the fact that thousands more people have presented new ideas to the physics community for several hundred years, and many of these ideas did not result in fruition, or were unfairly suppressed for one reason or another. Not only am I reluctant to agree with ideas that I have good reason to question, but others have good reason to be reluctant to look closely at my ideas.

            The goal for the interferometer was clearly laid out by Dayton Miller in the paper I linked to earlier, and expounded on much more thoroughly by Dayton Miller in the paper posted by Shiva. The intent of the interferometer was to provide evidence for the existence of a rigid Aether. Instead, the interferometer showed evidence for a fluid Aether.

            The interferometer was testing the Aether fabric. What the physicists really needed to do was to first identify the quantum of the Aether fabric so they would understand how the fabric was made in the first place.

            In order to identify the quantum Aether unit, it was essential to have the correct system of units, which is what I discovered. The quantum Aether unit is the primary unit from which all physics units descend from. Just as oceans are made from water molecules, the Aether is a sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields (Aether units). The key measurements for the Aether unit were already known in the late 1800s, which were the speed of photons, the conductance of space, the permeability of space, and the permittivity of space. It is just that nobody put the parts together quite right. The quantum Aether unit is exactly quantified as:

            A.u = 16pi^2 * k.C

            or sixteen pi squared times Coulomb’s constant. Coulomb’s constant is exactly equal to the speed of photons times the conductance constant times the permeability constant divided by the permittivity constant:

            k.C = c * Cd * u.0 / e.0

            With the quantum measurements unit system and the Aether unit, you can properly unify all the fundamental forces using simple Newtonian type force laws, exactly calculate General Relativity equations, and vastly improve Maxwell’s equations. You can also calculate the electron and nuclear binding energies for all isotopes.

            Time dilation requires a physical timeline. A physical timeline is not the same thing as the dimension of time. The dimension of time is just a measurement of duration. A physical timeline is a physical past and a physical future where physical matter physically exists in all time frames in both past and future. In order to dilate into time, there has to be a physical place for physical matter to dilate into. This means that each time frame must include a complete, static physical copy of the entire physical Universe such that in each time frame all clocks read the same universal time code. And because each time frame is static, then consciousness must somehow be connected to physical matter such that all consciousnesses of all living things move through the time frames in unison at the same rate and in the correct sequence. A physical timeline is physically impossible, and therefore so is time dilation.

            There is a quantum of space called the Aether unit. The Aether units are independent of each other but produce a sea of Aether units. Space can drift relative to other space, but there is no physical timeline which things can dilate into a different time frame.

            Since Special Relativity is a time dilation theory, and because it is also a dominant theory, I am often not in agreement with other physicists.

  • Bo_

    March 12, 2022 at 5:49 pm

    Structural Artifact of Experiment?

    Grusenick’s Experiment:

    Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version

    A reconstructed version of the experiment by another man, testing a more firmly secured apparatus, finds unchanged patterns, proposing Grusenick’s experiment was flawed.

    Vertical Michelson Morley Experiment 11 15 2010 Frank G Pearce


  • David

    March 13, 2022 at 4:30 am

    Bo, I was hoping to see the video, but the link is bad. Can you check the url?


  • Deleted User

    December 31, 2022 at 3:28 am

    Hello Jerry and Happy New Year.

    I am new to this forum and not yet familiar with how to post info to get it to appear where desired. I have read a lot of your posts and it seems we have similar interests and viewpoints. I have posted a few paragraphs on the home page titled “THE AETHER IS ON MY MIND” I have experimentally detected the Aether and some of its’ properties and described the experiment in that posting. I hope you will take a look and let me know any thoughts you might have on the info there.



  • Marco

    June 16, 2023 at 9:43 pm

    Hallo @Theo,
    I put here your post:

    Hi All,

    Kasim Muflahi saw my questions on Quora and referred me to your website. I have watched some of the YouTube videos in the past (eg. David de Hillster). I have posted many questions about SR (special relativity) at Quora, but have been frustrated by the dogma of SR supporters in Quora.

    I was wondering if someone in the group have published a flaw in SRT that can withstand peer review, yet is not so complicated that it becomes a matter of interpretation? I have a few ideas, but first want to know if it is already published- one doesn’t want to reinvent the wheel.

    To be more specific, I am looking for possible flaws in RoS (relativity of simultaneity) in SRT, which is claimed distinguish SRT from LET (Lorentz ether theory)?



    • Marco

      June 16, 2023 at 9:47 pm

      I think LET and SR are matematecally equivalent, so it’ll be very hard to find a difference.

    • Marco

      June 16, 2023 at 9:51 pm

      If you want to find a flaws you can look for the retarded potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential


      Best regards

    • David

      June 16, 2023 at 11:00 pm

      The only difference between the Lorentz fluid Aether theory and Special Relativity is the postulates. The postulates are written in various forms and in such a way as to hide their true meaning. Essentially, the postulates are that there is no fixed Aether (absolute space), and the local space determines the speed of photons, not the relative speed of the observer(s).

      These postulates are misleading. Lorentz’s theory is not based upon the fixed Aether of Albert Michelson but on the concept of a fluid Aether; therefore, the first postulate is moot concerning the Lorentz fluid Aether theory. The Lorentz fluid Aether theory also claims that the Aether is not fixed (rigid).

      The second postulate is also moot. In the Aether theory, the speed of photons is determined by the physical characteristics of the space (Aether) the photons are moving through. These postulates are thrown at the reader, implying that the Lorentz fluid Aether theory sees things differently, which it does not.

      The Aether has an absolute quantum, it does not have an absolute frozen structure as envisioned by Albert Michelson. It is like a submarine in the ocean. The submarine cannot fix its location to the water molecules of the ocean because the water molecules are fluid and continually move relative to each other. The fluid Aether acts in the same way, there are absolute Aether units, but the Aether units continually move relative to each other and so no material thing can fix its location relative to the Aether.

      When this situation occurs with submarines and the ocean, we do not say the ocean is non-existent because we cannot fix our location within it. Yet, Albert Einstein convinced the world to dismiss the Aether as non-existent because we cannot fix our position within it. The Aether still has physical characteristics even though it is fluid.

      The killer of Special Relativity theory, however, is the physical timeline. Einstein claimed he could explain physics without the Aether drift by reinterpreting the Lorentz transformations as time drift (time dilation). Einstein claimed there was no physical evidence for the existence of Aether, and yet he interpreted the Lorentz transformations in terms of a physical timeline, for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

      For physical matter to time-dilate, there must be physical matter in past and future time frames. No physical measurement of physical matter exists simultaneously in different time frames. Furthermore, suppose physical matter did exist in a time frame other than the present moment. In that case, there must be a mechanism for physically copying the physical matter of the entire Universe for each grain of time, which Einstein and his followers have never addressed. Further still, if the Universe had physical time frames, each time frame would be completely static and unable to change, and consciousness would move among the various time frames. No physicist has ever defined or quantified consciousness such that it could move through an infinite number of static physical Universes and where all consciousnesses moved exactly in unison through the same time frames.

      The physical matter has ever only been observed in the present moment. No physical object has suddenly appeared anywhere in the Universe from a different time frame, and no physical object has ever been observed to leave the present moment. The only “evidence” for time dilation is clocks that lose synchronicity with other clocks in the present moment. The synchronous anomaly is easily explained with the fluid Aether drift theory of Lorentz but not with the physical timeline theory of Albert Einstein. Ironically, Albert Einstein proved the existence of the Aether density gradient with his General Relativity theory and using Riemann’s five-dimensional curvature mathematics.

      Einstein’s Aether density gradient fully agrees with the Lorentz fluid Aether theory.

      The bottom line is that Special Relativity theory requires a physical, linear timeline, which physically does not exist.

      • Marco

        June 17, 2023 at 8:34 am

        Hallo @Aetherwizard ,
        you wrote a good summary of LET, but I think Einstain was not so countrary to ether, but are other scientist and media that oppouse to ether existence.

        Here are a pair of Einstain thoughts:

        «It would have been more correct if in my first publications I had limited myself to emphasizing the impossibility of measuring the speed of the ether, instead of mainly supporting its non-existence. Now I understand that the word ether means nothing other than the need to represent space as a bearer of physical properties.”

        ( <small>Albert Einstein, from a letter to AH Lorentz, 1919 <sup>[4]</sup></small> )

        Denying the ether would lead, according to Einstein, to “supposing that empty space does not possess any physical properties, which is at variance with the fundamental experiences of mechanics”: [5 <sup>]</sup>

        «Even if in 1905 I thought that in physics one absolutely could not speak of ether, this judgment was too radical, as we can see with the next considerations of general relativity. It is therefore permissible to assume a filling medium in space if we refer to the electromagnetic field and therefore also to matter. However, it is not permissible to attribute to this medium a state of motion at every point in analogy with ponderable matter. This ether cannot be conceived of as consisting of particles.”

        ( <small>Albert Einstein, Basic ideas and methods of the theory of relativity presented in their development , § 13, 1920</small> )

        Have a nice day

        • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by  Marco.
        • This reply was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by  Marco.
        • David

          June 17, 2023 at 12:58 pm

          Hi @Marco, Those quotes are quite intriguing, and I must incorporate them into Secrets of the Aether. It’s worth noting that Albert Einstein, on several occasions, expressed support for the Aether, which I have duly mentioned in my work. However, historical records attribute an overall antagonistic stance to Albert Einstein regarding the Aether, as it allowed him to replace the Aether drift with the concept of time dilation. Furthermore, I should emphasize that there exists no physical evidence for a tangible timeline. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge the physical existence of the Lorentz fluid Aether, as the Poincare-Lorentz transformations lack a solid foundation without the empirical data provided by Michelson, Morley, and Miller. The interferometer experiments indeed detected an Aether drift, and it was due to the magnitude of the observed drift not aligning with Albert Michelson’s expectations that the rigid Aether hypothesis gave way to the fluid Aether hypothesis.

        • David

          June 17, 2023 at 1:39 pm

          I found the first reference, but I am having difficulty locating the second reference, “Albert Einstein, <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>Basic ideas and methods of the theory of relativity presented in their development , § 13, 1920″. Can you provide a URL, book number, or other clear identification for reference?

          • Marco

            June 17, 2023 at 2:41 pm

            Hi @Aetherwizard ,
            I find that cit. in it.wiki, and I translate it in English, but original lenguage is German:

            “<i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt”

            I don’t know German, but looking for it with google, something were find…

            You can try to look for it and translate

        • David

          June 17, 2023 at 2:15 pm

          Hi @Marco, to comment directly on Albert Einstein’s words, to acknowledge the Aether as having physical properties is the key point. Albert Einstein does not get to choose what the Aether is or is not; that is for scientific evidence to determine.

          I would have been more accurate in my earlier publications if I had limited myself to emphasizing the nonreality of the ether’s velocity rather than the nonexistence of the ether in general. For I see that with the very word “ether” one is saying no more than that space must be conceived as a carrier of physical properties.

          The fact that the Aether carries physical properties means the Aether does exist. Furthermore, Einstein admits to having denied the existence of the Aether’s reality and now agrees that he was wrong.

          As to the velocity of the Aether, if the Aether does exist, and it is not rigid as evidenced by the data of the Michelson, Morley, and Miller experiments, but rather is a fluid as accurately quantified by the Poincare-Lorentz fluid Aether theory, then the Aether must be quantum and the quanta must be able to move relative to each other, which means the Aether does have real velocities.

          I see another thing, too. My view that the state of the ether (i.e., the $g_{\mu\upsilon}$’s) must be determined entirely by the matter alone has nothing compelling about it.

          This comment comes from the same letter. It is a fair assessment of Albert Einstein to say that space does not move on its own but the state of the Aether changes only in the presence of physical matter. Aether of its own is just empty space and has no mechanism for changing. It is the presence of physical matter, namely neutrons, that causes space to curl around massive objects and alter the straight path trajectories passing near them (General Relativity). Also, the movement of matter through space must displace the space in front of it, and as it passes, the surrounding space must fill the void behind it (as described by Rene Descartes and others). The movement of space therefore must have velocity in the presence of physical matter (Poincare-Lorentz Aether theory).

          Although in the other quote Einstein stated that Aether could not be particulate, he did not state that the Aether could not be quantum. In order to be a fluid, the Aether must be quantum. And as can be shown, the Aether is quantum and it is the quantum structure of Aether that makes subatomic particles quantum. The Aether is not a material particle, and neither can it be, but the Aether is quantum nonetheless as a quantum rotating magnetic field.

          furthermore, Albert Einstein’s two key equations (circular deflection angle and orbital perigee precession angle equations) can easily be expressed in terms of the quantum Aether unit and expressed in simple Newtonian type equations:



  • David

    June 17, 2023 at 11:46 am

    It’s not a question of whether Einstein was for or against aether. It is a question of whether it is a good model. Mainstream science is a joke. That I agree. But the aether model has too many flaws that none of the aetherists address.