Forum Replies Created
DavidMemberMarch 13, 2022 at 4:30 am
Bo, I was hoping to see the video, but the link is bad. Can you check the url?
DavidMemberMarch 6, 2022 at 2:50 pm
I can provide a strong defense for Aether theory. The problem with the debate format is my severe hearing loss. One of my hearing aids has been broken for over a year. Also, I have been dealing with health issues this past Winter.
However, I can provide a solid presentation for the empirical evidence for Aether, and for equations demonstrating the mechanics of Aether. The Aether is very real and essential for understanding physics; the real problem lies with the weaknesses of the physicists who deny the Aether.
DavidMemberFebruary 6, 2022 at 4:23 pm
Hi John-Erik, No, the Aether is not a reference frame. The Aether is a sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields; thus the Aether is a medium. A reference frame is a perception as seen from an individual point of view within an array of many points of views.
Yes, we agree the Aether is fluid (as a field) and capable of having states of motion which change from point to point.
I quantify subatomic particles (electrons, protons, etc) as quantum Aether units with absorbed strings of mass (the string of mass is dark matter). A subatomic particle therefore is equal in structure to the quantum structure of space, except that it contains that string of mass. By containing the string of mass, I show how the string of mass develops magnetic charge due to its behavior within the quantum Aether unit. I show how the Aether electrostatic dipole contributes a particular electrostatic charge to the subatomic particle. I show how the Aether is the source of gravity, electrostatic force, and magnetic force. I further show that the weak interaction is the proportion of the electrostatic force acting on the magnetic force. I also show how space (Aether) can physically interact with matter.
1. A ray or beam is a macro structure of light, or any long, thin material that begins at a point and extends to another point or as a specific vector. These macro structures obtain their properties from their quantum structures, and the macro structures develop emergent qualities not present in the quantum structures.
2. and 3. According to Dayton Miller, tilting the reference arm in the Michelson Morley experiment had no effect on the data results. The smaller than expected Aether drift measurement was present regardless of the tilt.
4. The Sagnac effect occurs within the space surrounding a rotating object and within the space density gradient nearer the surface of the rotating object. A certain amount of space (Aether) rotates with the Earth, which affects the apparent motion of photons much in the same way as the space density gradient around the Sun creates a circular deflection angle (defraction). The very small “inaccuracy” of the calculated circular deflection angle around the Sun is likely due to the Sagnac effect caused by the Sun’s rotation.
It is my view that the Pioneer anomaly is caused by a space density gradient at the outer edges of the Solar system due to the distributed mass of the Oort cloud and the electrostatic headwind of the out-gassing solar wind. However, this is not a calculation that I have made, and I may change my view about the Pioneer anomaly when better data emerges.
DavidMemberFebruary 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 1 year, 3 months ago by David. Reason: Typo
DavidMemberJune 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.
DavidMemberJune 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.
DavidMemberJune 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).
DavidMemberMarch 14, 2022 at 3:30 am
David, although this comment was not directed to me…
“I say that my father and I’s particle model could all be wrong. Can you say that the aether model can be wrong?”
I would like to put this comment into perspective. “Right” and “wrong” are judgments. You can find judgments in religion and philosophy, but not in true physics. Nobody is right or wrong in physics. Physics is about the quantification of the physical Universe. Either the quantifications work, or they do not work. If reproducible quantifications are not being presented, then physics is not being discussed.
The Aether Physics Model I provide is a complete system for quantifying physical existence within the paradigm of Aether. Any comments I make about my interpretations of the equations are not the physics. Interpretations fall in the category of philosophy, and yes, I agree with you that philosophy is a valid component of science. We can say our philosophies (interpretations) may be right or wrong, but again, this is judgment.
It is fair for the moderator of the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society forum to discuss philosophy, and to even consider the philosophies presented as debate material. But we must remain aware of the fact that philosophy is not physics. Physics is the quantification of the physical Universe. If you and your dad are presenting quantifications of physical phenomena that are reproducible, then the quantifications either work, or they do not. Nobody is in a position to judge your equations as being “wrong” if the equations are giving valid results.
DavidMemberMarch 11, 2022 at 4:26 pm
This would not be a debate in any case. Read your comments in this order:
“This is not a talk on “aether” and how well it works or how an aether model does “X”. It is strictly a debate on whether or not aether is a better model when compared to the other two models of lattice and the particle model (Bob de Hilster).”
And then you say…
“this is a debate on aether’s existence.”
“There are many many problems associated with aether and that is one of the problems: aetherists don’t address them. Or at best, they cherry-pick one or two and ignore the rest. Aetherists need to confront these problems and that is what the debate is about.”
A debate format starts with a well defined question. A debate cannot take place when a moderator starts with a firm conclusion.
But this is not surprising. I have seen the same dynamics in this forum. Nobody here seems interested in working on actual physics. This is a philosophical club where philosophical dominance is sought. And in all fairness, this forum is hosted by the “Natural Philosophy Society.”
So have at it, and may the best philosopher win this “debate.”
DavidMemberMarch 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.
DavidMemberFebruary 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.
DavidMemberFebruary 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:
DavidMemberFebruary 8, 2022 at 9:30 pm
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.
DavidMemberFebruary 6, 2022 at 4:54 pm
I have just read your paper. We agree that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of light, however, I explain this misunderstanding in this way:
Electrons in atoms jump their orbitals to produce true quantum photons. All quantum photons are identical and are quantified as:
phtn = h * c
where h is Planck’s constant and represents the angular momentum of an electron. The Aether then carries this ripple of angular momentum, and it is Aether that imparts the speed c.
Atoms do not fire off single photons and imbue the photons with inherent frequency. The frequency component of light is caused when each atomic isotope produces photons in succession at unique frequencies according to the type of isotope. The unique atomic frequencies are the basis of the science of spectroscopy. So light is actually the production of photons at frequencies:
ligt = phtn * freq
Light is not moving; the photons are moving. Light is the condition of space being filled up with a steady stream of photons, all of which are moving at the speed of c, and which some photons are produced at different rates than other photons based on the isotopes involved.
The true photons spread out according to the Compton function such that the amount of angular momentum from any given photon is spread out over a great space, and only a tiny amount of that angular momentum reaches a valence position in another atom. The amount of angular momentum that arrives at another atom is proportional to the distance between the emitter and receiver, which is the basis for the inverse square law of irradiance.
Receiver atoms must fill an empty valence position with a specific quantity of energy equal to the mass of the electron times the speed of light squared. We can call this quantum of energy “enrg” and quantify the light it receives as:
enrg = m.e * c^2
enrg = ligt / c
which is the same thing as:
enrg = angm * freq
where angm is the portion of angular momentum arriving at the valence position from any original photon, and freq is the frequency at which those original photons were produced.
In mainstream physics, there is a mythology of a photon being equal to Planck’s constant times inherent frequency:
Photons are not emitted as energy packets; photons are received as a collection of angular momentum to fill a valence position. The observation of filled valence positions has led to the incorrect concept that a photon must have also been emitted as an energy packet, which it was not.
So when physicists are talking about light, they really have no clue what they are talking about since they have quantified light incorrectly. Light does not move; light is the condition of photons moving and spreading out. Light is just space (Aether) filled with photons.
Aether can move! Aether flows and swirls as a fluid. The movement of space contributes to our perception of photon behavior. The physical reality of space must be recognized to properly understand the physics of light.
DavidMemberJanuary 31, 2022 at 11:03 pm
Hi John, “Light speed is constant, but in relation to what? Something must define that constant and something must be called ether. Therefore, the same ether must also be defining the reference for speed.”
Yes, I fully agree.
“Light is a behavior of the ether. So, we must use the wave model for light and our problem is that we do not understand the wave model and therefore we use something better understood – namely particles. This is the wave-paticle confusion.”
Please explain to me why waves and particles are the only two choices we have for understanding Aether and light? Is it possible that the confusion is caused by limiting our understanding to just these two choices?
“Another confusion is space-ether confusion. Space is the container of the ether.”
It sounds like you have a theory that separates space from Aether. Could you explain it? Or are you making a postulate that space is the container of Aether?