The History of the Aether Theory
A Compendious
Summary and Chronology of the Aether Theories
Conrad Ranzan
Published on the Cellular Universe website (www.CellularUniverse.org)
2008 (last updated 2019-12)
URL: www.CellularUniverse.org/AA3AetherHistory.htm
In 1887 two American physicists, Michelson and
Morley, performed what has turned out to be one of the most historic but
misunderstood experiments in physics.[1]
It must be emphasized that absolute motion [and
by implication, motion with respect to aether] is not inconsistent with the various
well-established relativistic effects; indeed the evidence is that absolute
motion is the cause of these relativistic effects, a proposal that goes back
to Lorentz in the 19th century.
–Reginald T. Cahill [2]
Synopsis: This article presents the
historic development of the aether theory from a scientific (rather than a
philosophical) perspective. In step-by-step table format, one may
follow the chronology of the exploration of various theories of the medium
of the universe —the medium, sometimes equated with absolute space. One may follow the
twists, turns and detours —the unexpected experimental results, the new
theoretical insights, the unfortunate misinterpretations— of one of the most
compelling concepts in modern physics. ... The highlight of the theory
development came in the pivotal year of 2002 with the introduction of two
testable models based on luminiferous AND gravitational aether: One of these
employs a dynamic aether as the first
luminiferous-and-gravitational aether in the context of the expanding
universe model. The other employs the dynamic aether as
the first luminiferous-and-gravitational aether in the context of the
non-expanding cellular Universe. In both theories, it is the
presence of aether that causes actual relativistic effects.
For a printable copy follow:
The History of the Aether Theory (includes
additional references).
CONTENTS
1. Sans Aether, the
Universe Becomes “The Preposterous Universe”
2. Aether Denial
3. Motivation for Postulating Aether
4. Chronology of the Development of Aether Theory
5. Consequences and Problems Associated with
Denial
6. The Aether of the New Cosmology
External Links and Resources
1. Sans Aether, the Universe Becomes “The Preposterous Universe”
Aether is the basic substratum of all
space; aether is the raw essence of the Universe. Aether permeates the
innermost recesses of all matter. Without it the universe is contrary to
nature, contrary to reason and common sense. Without it the universe is
utterly absurd.
And what is worrying is that the scholars who have
meticulously assembled our complex picture of the universe know it is
absurd.
Consider this: The cosmology that is studied in
universities the world over, and practiced in the relevant research
departments, is a cosmology devoid of the concept of aether. Assumed to be a
dispensable relic of 19th-century voodoo science, the aether was
discarded a long time ago. And the resulting universe model, missing a
vital ingredient, has not worked properly since. In fact, as a depiction of
reality the class of expanding universe models —of which the various big
bang (BB) models are a subset— has been an utter and complete failure.
Sean M. Carroll, a
physicist at the California Institute of Technology, sums up one of his
extensively researched and densely-referenced papers on The Cosmological
Constant[3] with the conclusion (which he bases on the no-aether interpretation of the
evidence allegedly showing that the cosmological constant, Λ, dominates the
universe, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that the
majority of the matter content in the universe must be in an unknown
non-baryonic form): “Nobody would have guessed that we live in such a
universe. ... This scenario staggers under the burden of its unnaturalness,
...”
-ca2019.jpg) |
Professor Sean Carroll
(theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology) is
a proponent of the General-Relativity expanding-universe
—even though he finds it to be
staggeringly unnatural.
Image credit: Rachel Porter. (ca.2019) |
In fact, and in bold print, he calls it “the
preposterous universe.”
As I understand it, a universe that is
“preposterous” is (and my Webster Dictionary will back me up) a universe
that is "contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; utterly foolish;
absurd." Undoubtedly this is the meaning that the professor intended.
One must realize that Sean Carroll[4]
is not some rebellious radical trying to overthrow the expanding universe
paradigm, or trying to reinstate the aether. Not at all. As a practicing
physicist/cosmologist and a recognized authority on the expanding universe,
he is steadfastly committed to resolving the absurdity without venturing
outside the BB box, so to speak. In Carroll’s view, "... a major challenge to
cosmologists and physicists in the years to come will be to understand
whether these apparently distasteful aspects of our universe are simply
surprising coincidences, ...[whose] underlying structure we do not as yet
comprehend."
Unfortunately he is like many others who, for
whatever the reason, are unwilling or unable to examine plausible solutions
outside of BB cosmology.
What one must realize is that BB cosmology as a
plausible theory has two towering handicaps. First, it embraces the
unscientific concept of the expansion-of-the-whole-universe. This is
blatantly unscientific because it involves an unnecessary extrapolation of a
perfectly valid regional phenomenon called space expansion (regardless of how
space
is defined). Second, it is based on an incomplete theory of gravity
—that being Einstein’s general relativity, which implicitly denies the existence of
aether-space.
Aether is the ingredient without which these two
handicaps cannot be overcome while maintaining the all-important connection
with physical reality. Aether is the ingredient without which the picture of
our Universe is quite unnatural and simply preposterous.
2. Aether Denial
The history of conventional cosmology, as the
science striving to model the real world, is a revelation of failure; and,
after more than a century of Ptolemaic tinkering Academic Cosmology has
managed to construct “the preposterous universe.” The cosmology
practiced by modern Academia may be said to have originated in 1905 with
Einstein’s theory of relativity. In that year, by one of the giants of
physics, the foundation was laid; and the fateful error-of-omission
was rooted. Einstein’s highly influential theory of motion, space
and energy was the first 20th-century theory to embrace the popular misinterpretation
of the Michelson and Morley experiment of 1887. In 1905 Einstein
incorporated an implied rejection of luminiferous aether. Although there is
nothing in the theory explicitly denying its existence, the authoritative
message was that aether is superfluous and unnecessary.
When it came time to construct the first scientific
model of the Universe, the task naturally involved Einstein, who by 1916 had
formulated general relativity, a new theory of gravity. As one would
expect, general relativity, being a purely geometric model of space
and time, also denied the existence of aether (thereby maintaining
consistency with special relativity). Hence, Einstein’s general-relativity
universe-model of 1917 and all his subsequent cosmology models contained the
implicit aether denial. Furthermore, since almost all universe models
of the 20th century are based on general relativity,
they compliantly deny aether as well.
The vast majority of journal publishers
for many decades participated
in the denial. Any theory or model that dared to incorporate the aether
concept in a serious way would simply not be accepted for mainstream publication.
There are some serious problems associated with
aether denial. The problems are several and multi-layered. I will deal with
these later and shed further light on how 20th-century scientific
cosmology got it so terribly wrong. But first I will detail the historic
development of the aether theory.
3. Motivation for Postulating Aether
Aether was needed for several reasons: (1)
Philosophically it has always been difficult to define absolute and total
nothingness. Aristotle rejected the notion; in his worldview there was no void or vacuum. Descartes considered
“it contrary to reason to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there
is absolutely nothing.”
[5]
(2) During the Scientific age there arose the demand for a suitable medium
for the propagation of light. In this capacity it was called the
luminiferous aether. Isaac Newton, Christian Huygens, and Thomas Young
were the early developers of this idea. (3) With Faraday’s discovery of
lines of electrical and magnetic force, the need for some conducting medium
was glaringly obvious. (Remember those lines of force magically revealed by
a sprinkling of iron filings?) Faraday’s abstract field concept could be
more meaningful if there was some appropriate medium to fill it. (4) Then,
with Clerk Maxwell’s electric and magnetic wave theory there again was a
need for a propagating medium. A more inclusive luminiferous aether
was called for. Aether was enlisted to serve for the propagation
needs of all electromagnetic waves.
And there were further reasons.
(5) Aether provided the perfect explanation for the phenomenon called stellar
aberration which had been discovered by the English astronomer James Bradley
early in the 18th century. The aberration of starlight is the
apparent angular displacement of a star in the direction of motion of the
observer. Because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun at a speed of
about 30 km/second, an observer will see a star not in its true position but
in an apparent position. An explanation of the effect is consistent with the
motion of Earth through ‘stationary’ aether.
(6) There was a need to establish a frame of reference for
the measurement of what is termed absolute motion. Referencing
relative motion, of course, was not a problem; the details (at least for
classical speeds) had been worked out by Galileo. With his equations, one
could relate the velocity of an object to any arbitrarily chosen frame of
reference (stationary or moving). However, what if one wanted to determine
the motion of something, not with respect to another object or frame, but
rather with respect to space itself? In other words, take away the
“relative” aspect and try to define some sort of fundamental meaning of
motion. If space is truly and totally empty, then there is a problem. Then
there would be no way to reference absolute motion —no way to answer the
question, absolute motion with respect to what? Clearly, something
more than “space” was needed. And for 19th-century physicists
like Augustin Fresnel, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, and others,
aether was just the thing. Aether could give motion its deeper
meaning. The frame “attached” to a proposed aether, and motionless with
respect to it, could serve as a preferred frame of reference. Absolute
speed then acquires meaning —absolute speed with respect to aether-space
(not with respect to the observer).
The motivation for such a reference was extremely important and should
not be underestimated. “Without such a reference ... the very idea of motion
becomes vague, and all of the nineteenth-century development of physics
becomes shaky.”
[6]
By mid-nineteenth century it became clear that no material object in the
universe represented a state of absolute rest and that absolute motion could
not therefore be measured relative to any material object.[7]
It was not merely a hypothetical issue. The need for some kind of absolute
reference was real; after all, physicists were incorporating into their
theories and equations a kind of motion that was inexplicably invariant. The
speed of light —the speed of photon particles or EM waves— is absolute.
It is undeniably so. Its absolute value is about 300,000 km/second; but
absolute (or invariant) with respect to what? The observer is
irrelevant; with or without the observer, the speed has a fixed value. Why?
The contemporary way of expressing the historic question goes like this.
If all motion is relative, as Einstein’s special relativity theory claims,
then how is it possible to enforce Nature’s absolute speed limit. Her strict
speed-of-light barrier is imposed on all entities (entities of all scales).
In a rational world, an absolute limit needs absolute motion to which it can
be applied. Clearly, the motivation for invoking a space medium resides not
only in the historic past.
(7) Both Newton’s “spooky” action at a distance and Einstein’s curvature
magic were unacceptable as causal explanations of gravity. Aether was needed
to (somehow) convey the gravitational force or effect. René Descartes
and Christian Huygens invoked a swirling aether-fluid to convey gravitation. Newton
himself suggested that there may be variations of some sort in an
all-pervading aether. Then jumping to the 21st century: Reginald
Cahill explains gravity as a self-dissipating (contractile) process
of aether-space; and DSSU theory (the theory of the Dynamic Steady
State
Universe) explains unified gravity (Lambda and normal gravity) as a
dual-dynamic process of aether.
(8) Undoubtedly, the most powerful motivator was the experimental results
that demanded the existence of aether. The repeated detection of absolute
motion —of Earth’s absolute motion through space— provided the vital
evidence of a preferred frame-of-reference, which is simply the frame in
which the aether is at rest. Beginning with the famous experiment of 1887
and then in at least six other documented experiments, the evidence was
found. As we saw earlier, the concept of absolute motion is inseparable from
the concept of aether. Thus, if you find evidence of the former then your
theory must include the latter.
The notion of a universal medium permeating all
space has undergone many vicissitudes and spawned even more variants.
The posited substance called aether has changed
considerably over the time period covered by the Table. Sometimes the change
was radical.
It is a pattern that the history of science has witnessed before. For
instance, the electron posited by J. J. Thompson differs radically from the
electron defined by Schrödinger’s wave equation, which in turn differs just
as radically from the electron defined by Dirac’s relativistic theory of the
electron. In the same spirit, the static aether of Huygens and Maxwell
differs radically from the mono-dynamic aether of Augustin Cauchy which in
turn differs radically from the dual-dynamic aether of DSSU theory. Electron
or aether, when posited under a more advanced theory was able to explain
more phenomena.
4. Chronology of the Development of Aether Theory
Author or Event |
Aether
Type or Attribute |
REMARKS |
Pre-scientific development.
Aristotle |
Fifth element ("quintessence", "the boundless") |
Prior to the period called the Scientific
Revolution, aether was a recurring idea in ancient worldviews and
philosophical doctrines.
Aristotle (ca.384-322BC) believed the heavens (that region beyond the sphere of the
Moon) are made of a fifth substance called aether. Unlike the
other four substances, which can be transformed into one another,
aether is unchanging and indestructible. |
René Descartes (1596-1650) French mathematician, scientist,
and philosopher |
Continuous fluid aether;
Gravitational aether |
Descartes maintained that the world is a Plenum
and there is no true vacuum or void. He believed in a continuous
aether that completely fills the space not occupied by solid bodies
and mediates their interactions by means of a system of vortices
---the whole universe was a system of interlocking vortices or “tourbillons.”
The planets, for instance, are carried around by a sea of aether
moving in whirlpool fashion, producing what we would call
gravitational effects. All space was a sea filled with matter that
swirled around in large and small vortices (forming the Cartesian
Vortex universe).[8]
Descartes referred to the aether as the “second matter” and “second
element.” |
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) |
Particulate aether; Gravitational aether |
Newton’s force-law of gravity lacked a causal
mechanism and an explanation was sought of how such a force could be
transmitted over vast distances through apparently empty space.
“Newton at times thought universal gravity might be caused by the
impulses of a stream of aether particles bombarding an object or by
variations in an all-pervading aether” but did not advance either of
these notions in his Principia because, as he ultimately said,
he would “not feign hypotheses” as physical explanations.[9]
His followers, however, proposed that the gravitational effect of a
body would be expressed as a distortion of the aether —a distortion
that travels outward as an ‘aether wave,’ much like a sound wave
travels through air, and eventually reaches another body and affects
it. |
Isaac Newton |
Luminiferous aether |
Newton held the view that light rays consisted
of a stream of particles in rectilinear motion and that the light
particles stimulated, or were accompanied by, vibrations in an all
pervading aether. |
Isaac Newton, 1717 |
Density-varying aether
A corpuscular aether |
In 1717 Newton published his views on the transmission of gravity and other forces
—published in the form of further Queries, added to a new edition of the
Opticks. The central feature was a tenuous medium, filling all
space, which he called the aether. As noted above it was a
luminiferous aether. Furthermore, it conveyed the forces of cohesion
and repulsion by which matter was maintained in ordered systems. But
most interestingly it had a variable density. Newton
supposed the aether to be denser in empty space than in the vicinity
of massive bodies and thereby provide a mechanism for gravitational
attraction: the Earth then moved towards the Sun under the pressure of
the aether, like a cork rising from the depths of the sea.
In the controversy over a continuous versus discrete medium, Newton,
who was now seventy-five years old, conceded that the aether itself
might be corpuscular. |
The Torricelli Experiment
Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647) Italian physicist and mathematician |
Vastly more subtle than air |
It was one of the most significant experiments of the 17th century.
Essentially it eliminated the traditional Greek element “air” as being
identifiable with aether. What the space above the mercury in the
barometer tube contained was “subtle matter” many times lighter than
air.
In order to explain, without employing magical action-at-a-distance,
the transmission of light, heat, and magnetism across the
Torricellian vacuum, it was necessary to postulate a subtle
medium, or aether, which remained when the air was removed. |
Christian Huygens (1629-1695)
Dutch mathematician, astronomer, and physicist |
Stationary luminiferous aether
gravitational aether |
In 1678 and 1690 Huygens proposed a wave theory
of light in which waves propagated longitudinally through a stationary
aether. The speed of propagation was finite. This aether was
continuous throughout space and consisted of hard elastic particles
which transmitted impulses without being displaced themselves.
Huygens, a follower of Descartes, shared the view that gravity was
nothing more than "the action of the aether, which circulates
around the centre of the Earth, striving to travel away from the
centre, and to force those bodies which do not share its motion to
take its place". In 1669, to demonstrate the idea, he conducted a
simple experiment that seemed to support the vortex theory of gravity.
A whirlpool was induced in a bowl of water; this action caused pebbles
to be drawn to the centre of the vortex at the middle of the bowl.
|
Discovery in 1728 of stellar aberration |
|
James Bradley (1693-1762) detected the apparent displacement
of stars; a phenomenon he attributed to Earth’s orbital motion. This
was clear evidence that the speed of light is not
instantaneous. |
Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803)
Swiss mathematician and physicist |
Kinetic aether |
In 1748, Le Sage proposed an aether consisting of tiny particles —he
called them ultra-mundane corpuscles— streaming in all direction
with enormous speed. Le Sage used this aether as the basis for a
kinetic theory of gravity (which theory was based on the mechanical
model of gravity originally proposed by Newton's friend Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in
1690).
According to this theory, the "ultra-mundane corpuscles," moving at
high speed and coming from all directions, are continually impacting
on all material objects. Any two material bodies would partially
shield each other from the flux of impinging corpuscles and establish
a pressure imbalance. This imbalance, then, tends to drive the bodies
together, and so, provides a 'push-gravity' explanation for Newton's
gravitational force.
Le Sage's aether may be considered the first to serve in a theory
of the cause of gravity. But note, it was NOT a gravitational aether;
it was kinetic rather than dynamic! |
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
Swiss mathematician and
physicist |
Universal medium |
The great Swiss mathematician conjectured that
the aether transmits not only heat and light, but also magnetic and
electric forces and gravitation.[10]
Euler was a notable adherent of the aether-wave theory of light, as
opposed to Newton’s corpuscular version. |
Pierre Simon de Laplace (1749-1827)
French mathematician and astronomer |
Variable density |
Laplace investigated the ideas that the density of the aether was
proportional to the radial distance from the center of a body (the Sun
for instance) and that the force of gravity is generated by the
impulse [a pushing action? a kind of gravity wave?] of such aether
medium.
Laplace hypothesized that the effect of gravity is propagated with a
speed between 7-million and 100-million times that of light. [“Traitè
de Mécanique Célèste” 1803; “Exposition du Système du Monde”] This
rules out the notion that the flow of the medium itself is involved in
Laplace’s cause of gravity. |
Thomas Young (1773-1829) “a physician by
profession and a physicist by inclination” |
Luminiferous aether; aether as a gas |
Young’s wave theory of light (1801), like
Huygens’, consisted of longitudinal vibrations (similar to sound
waves) in a luminiferous aether. A gas, of
course, readily conducts such waves. Young’s famous 2-slit
interference-pattern experiment allowed him to precisely measure the
wavelength of light. |
Discovery of the polarization of light by
Étienne Louis Malus (1775-1812) in 1808;
subsequently guided
Augustin Fresnel
and
also guided Thomas Young |
Aether as a rigid gas |
The phenomenon of light polarization doomed the
longitudinal-wave hypothesis. Polarization seemed to establish the
fact that light consisted of transverse waves. And transverse waves
demanded a rigid-substance type of medium.
In 1817, French physicist, Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827) introduced the
transverse wave theory of light which could account for all the known
phenomena of optics; consequently the aether became solid-like and
rigid yet allowed the free passage of heavenly bodies.
In Fresnel’s view, the aether flowed through the interstices of
material bodies even on the smallest scale; but he did allow for
matter to have a small dragging effect on the aether.
Thomas Young, in an effort to accommodate light polarization,
reintroduced his wave theory. This time he proposed a periodic
TRANSVERSE displacement of aether particles.
"Transverse displacements however can be propagated only
in a solid medium, and so began the search, which was to last
throughout the century, for mechanical models of a solid elastic
aether.” –Physics historian Mary B. Hesse |
George Stokes (1819-1903)
British physicist and mathematician |
Elastically solid aether |
Stokes’ view was that aether was rigid enough to
convey transverse light waves, but could not be compressed or expanded
—and simply yielded to permit the movement of objects within it.
But unlike Fresnel’s aether which flowed almost unhindered
through all matter, Stokes’ aether is somehow restricted in its
otherwise free movement. The implication is that Earth, for instance,
not only has aether flowing through its mass but also drags
aether along with it. His was an entrained-aether hypothesis
and was later invoked by D. Miller as an explanation of the
unexpectedly low velocities his data indicated.[11]
It should be pointed out that Cauchy (see entry below) was the first,
as of 1831, to propose a theory whereby the Earth drags the aether.
Stokes adopted the aether-drag concept later around 1845. |
Augustin Cauchy (1789-1857)
French mathematician |
First attempts to make aether dynamic |
Theory #1: Aether changed in density.
Theory #2: Aether changed in elasticity.
Theory #3: Then in
1839 Cauchy proposed an aether that was contractile or
“labile,” “possessing a negative compressibility.” [Mason,
p472] Today we would call this a negative
Λ or a simple gravity effect. |
George Green (1793-1841)
English mathematician and physicist |
Suspiciously like a gravitational aether |
George Green pointed out that Cauchy’s
contractile aether would be unstable tending to contract all the time. |
Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Scottish physicist |
A more inclusive luminiferous aether :
electromagnetic aether |
Maxwell expanded and developed the qualitative
aspects of Faraday’s conception of lines of electrical and magnetic
force. Finding “it inconceivable that a wave motion should propagate
in empty space” he, therefore, employed the aether of the contemporary
wave theory of light. “Lines of force, Maxwell supposed, were tubes of
[a]ether rotating on their axes. The centrifugal force of such
rotations caused the tubes to expand sideways and contract lengthways,
as Faraday had suggested in order to explain attraction and
repulsion.” And it is these rotating tubes that carry electrical
particles along, from one tube to the next and the next, in what
amounts to a form of transverse undulations at the speed of light.[12]
This aether is a quasi-material elastic medium. Whether it is
ultimately continuous or discrete was left undecided.
Maxwell’s theory treats aether as the preferred frame of
reference in which light propagates with constant speed in all
directions. Notwithstanding the inclusion of microscopic rotating
tubes, aether was viewed as a stationary medium. |
Lord Kelvin
James MacCullagh
Sir Oliver Lodge
And others |
Various proposals |
Many other aether models were proposed during
the latter half of the nineteenth century. Some models even attempted
to accommodate the properties of matter. But for the
most part, 19th-century aether served only to transmit the
force of gravity and the waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. Aether itself
was unaffected and therefore could not be set in motion. |
PIVOTAL YEAR OF
1887 |
first detection
of aether |
Prior to 1887
aether was hypothetical.
Post 1887, aether was real. |
Michelson-Morley aether experiment of 1887
Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931)
Edward Williams Morley (1838-1923) |
Physical detection |
Using a Michelson optical interferometer mounted
on a sandstone base, the aether wind was measured to be 8.8 km/s
during noonday observations (and 8.0 km/s during evening) relative to
the Earth. Unfortunately, this was considerably less than the 30 km/s,
which would be expected due to the Earth’s orbital motion about the
Sun. What at first appeared to be an anomalous finding was downgraded
over the years and became the so called ‘null result’ often quoted
but entirely without justification. |
George FitzGerald, in 1889, 1891.
Irish physicist, |
Aether as the source of relativistic effects |
The smallness of the 1887 measurements was explained
“on the hypothesis that the forces binding the molecules of a solid
might be modified by the motion of the solid through the [a]ether in
such a way that the dimension of the stone base of the interferometer
would be shortened in the direction of motion and that this
contraction ... neutralizes the optical effect sought in the
Michelson-Morley aether experiment.”
[13]
For the first time in history it was proposed that aether has
the ability, not merely to change the course of objects (as does
gravitational aether), but to change the size of objects. FitzGerald’s aether had the relativistic
ability to contract the dimensions of any object: contraction
occurring in the direction of motion and in proportion to the speed
through the aether! |
Hendrick A. Lorentz (1853-1928) in 1895.
Dutch physicist |
" |
Lorentz developed the FitzGerald hypothesis into
a sound theory. Given that the atoms of all solids are held together
by electrical forces, then the motion of a body as a whole would,
according to Clerk Maxwell’s physics, superpose upon the electrostatic
forces between the atoms a magnetic effect due to the motion. “There
would result a contraction of the body in the direction of motion
which is proportional to the square of the ratio of the velocities of
translation and of light and which would have a magnitude such as to
annul the effect of [a]ether-drift in the Michelson-Morley
interferometer.”
[14]
The validity of this theory was later confirmed. Whenever the
experiment was performed in a vacuum the aether-effect
on the optical interferometer was (and still is) totally annulled. |
Sir Joseph Larmor (1857-1942), ca.1900.
Irish physicist |
Nonmaterial |
Larmor was the first to recognize that aether is not a
structure made of matter. In the year 1900, he wrote: "... Matter
may be and likely is a structure in the aether but certainly aether is
not a structure made of matter." –J. Larmor, Aether and Matter
(Cambridge University Press, 1900) p vi |
Morley & Miller in 1902
Cleveland |
Physical detection |
The sensitivity of the optical interferometer
was increased by making the physical arm-length 4.30 meters, thereby
increasing the effective length to 32 m (more than 3 times the
length in the 1887 experiment). Then, to test the FitzGerald-Lorentz
effect upon a different solid, the sandstone base of the optical
interferometer was replaced with a pine-wood base. The aether drift
measured 10 km/s.
Their next experiment was in 1904 and saw the first use of the
Michelson interferometer mounted on a steel-girder base. Each arm was
again 4.30 meters long. The instrument measured an aether flow of about 7.5 km/s.
In 1905 the same steel-girder apparatus recorded 8.7 km/s. |
Albert Einstein in 1905 |
Superfluous aether |
Historically, the only serious blow against aether came from Einstein
when he formulated his theory of relativity. He was puzzled by the
fact that the mathematical laws (Maxwell’s laws) governing
electricity, magnetism, and light implicitly define a preferred
reference frame in which the speed of light is the same in all
directions, whereas Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation do
not. Why this lack of mathematical harmony? Electromagnetic phenomena
require a special frame of reference; yet dynamic phenomena do not.
Einstein was faced with a critical choice. He could concur with the
three-centuries-old consensus about the existence of aether, accept
the FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation of the Michelson-Morley ‘null’ result,
and find the special frame of reference that rules motion and
gravitation. It would have led to his sought after mathematical
consistency. Or, he could achieve consistency by attempting to
extirpate the preferred reference frame from Maxwell’s laws. He chose
the latter course.[15] But, as the experimental
evidence accumulated (see entries below), it became ever clearer that he had failed. The
preferred frame and the aether refused to go away. |
The Sagnac experiment, 1913 |
Preferential frame of reference |
Whereas the 1887 MM experiment was the first
test of absolute translational motion, the Sagnac experiment was the
first test of absolute rotational motion.
On a rotating platform, M.G. Sagnac split light from a single
monochromatic source into cw and ccw rays that traveled identical
paths in opposite directions around the platform. He combined the
returning rays to form a visible interference pattern, and found that
the fringes shifted as the speed of rotation changed.
The procedure involved measuring the difference in the travel time of
light rays circumnavigating the rotating disk (0.25 meter radius) in
opposite directions. The circular path is achieved by the use of
mirrors mounted on the disk along the circumference. As in the MM
experiment, the time difference was detectable as a fringe shift of
the interference pattern of the recombined light beam. Sagnac found,
in agreement with prediction, a significant fringe shift. In fact, a
rotational speed of 13 m/s produces a full fringe shift.
If the speed of light were locally invariant,
then speeding up or slowing of the rotation rate of the platform
should not change the location of the fringes. However, the
fringes do change with speed and we can determine a
preferred frame—in violation of the second relativity postulate and the hypothesis of
locality.[16] |
Dayton Miller in 1921
Mt. Wilson |
Physical detection |
In April of 1921 Miller’s steel-girder apparatus
was tested on Mt. Wilson and measured 10 km/s. (Mt. Wilson, California,
has Lat. 34°13′ N and alt. 1750m)
In Dec of 1921 the steel base was replaced with a concrete one to
exclude any possible magnetic effects. Same result, 10 km/s. |
Miller in 1922-24
Cleveland |
" |
Various apparatus changes and procedural methods
were extensively tested. Some improvements were made. Tests of
intentional temperature variations in “these experiments proved that
under the conditions of actual observation, the periodic displacements
could not possibly be produced by temperature effects”[17]
as was so often claimed. Throughout the many trials the optical
interferometer never failed to produce
consistently positive results. |
Miller in 1924
Mt. Wilson |
" |
Again measured about 10 km/s. |
Miller in 1925-1926
Mt. Wilson |
Direction of aether-flow |
While in previous experiments the direction of
relative motion between Earth and aether had been assumed, this series
of experiments was designed to actually measure the direction.
Readings were made throughout 24 hour periods; naturally during the 24
hour rotation of the Earth on its axis there would occur two instances
when the fringe shifts became maximum, thereby, indicating the
approximate direction of aether drift (somewhat in the manner by which
the ocean tides indicate the direction of the Moon). Then, by checking
the direction —by repeating the 24 hour test— during different seasons
of the Earth’s annual solar orbit, the experiment establishes whether
or not the main component of the aether wind is local or cosmic in
origin. A more or less constant direction (in the celestial sphere)
indicates a cosmic origin.
Data was collected April 1, August 1, and September 15, 1925, and
February 8, 1926. The line of motion was established but there was
some uncertainty as to which diametrically opposite direction actually
represented the apex of the motion. Eventually Miller concluded that
the cosmic direction of motion of the Earth and the Solar System is
(Right Ascension ~5h Declination ~70°S) towards the
constellation Dorado. The speed was calculated to be 208 km/s.
In a non-optical experiment in 1991 (see
DeWitte, below) the RA direction of ~5h was dramatically
confirmed. |
Maurice Allais (1911- )
during 1954-1960.
Saint-Germain, France |
Anomalous effect (possibly the direction of aether-flow) |
Maurice Allais using a rigid-arm pendulum having
a length of only 83 cm found that the plane of oscillation tended to
rotate towards a preferential direction (azimuth) that changed with
the rotation of the Earth and could not be explained by the well known
Foucault Effect. Many months of observations led Allais "to the
conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum ... there
are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable
in the framework of currently accepted theories." Neither Newton's
universal gravitation nor Einstein's general relativity
could explain the significant periodic change in the plane of
oscillating motion.
In 1999 Professor Allais wrote: “Science has lost at least forty
years. Not only have my experiments not been followed up, but they
have been successfully hidden.”
[18]
It is interesting and useful to note an essential difference between
the Foucault and Allais pendulums. In the former the pendulum’s bob
and wire do not turn (relative to the Earth frame) since the
bob and wire are not free to pivot, only the nonmaterial swing plane
turns; while in the latter the pendulum’s bob-and-rigid-arm assembly
is free to turn. The Foucault pendulum
measures the Coriolis effect while the Allais pendulum supposedly measures the
direction of aether flow. |
Roland DeWitte
in 1991.
Brussels |
Direction of aether-flow |
A surprisingly simple experiment (at least in
principle). A radio frequency signal travels forth-and-back through a
coaxial cable that is 1.5 km long and aligned in a North-South
direction. The key data is the difference between the travel times for
N-to-S propagation and S-to-N propagation. As the Earth rotates this
difference varies. The sidereal time for maximum effect occurs at ~5h
and at ~17h and confirms the direction found by Miller over
60 years earlier!
Furthermore, the flow speed agreed with Miller’s 1925-26 results. This
agreement was revealed years later when R. Cahill’s theory of
aether-space showed that both experiments give 420±30 km/s.
The experiment lasted 178 days and confirmed that the effect was
periodic with sidereal time, not solar time. The aether motion was of
extra-solar-system origin —meaning galactic origin. |
First discovery of gravity-like waves
1991 |
Aether flow turbulence |
The DeWitte (1991) experiment represents the first detection of
gravity waves as a strong 1st-order effect. (Miller's gravity waves,
in contrast, must be extracted from an extremely weak 2nd-order
effect). After "Removing the earth induced rotation effect we obtain
the first experimental data of the turbulent structure of space," ...
" the data ... show turbulence in the flow of space past the earth.
This is what can be called gravitational waves."
[19] |
Yuri M. Galaev
1998-1999.
Ukraine, Kharkov |
Physical detection using a radiowave
interferometer of the 1st order |
Supports the theory of the aether as “the
material medium which is responsible for propagation of
electromagnetic waves.” |
Yuri M. Galaev
2001-2002.
Ukraine, Kharkov |
Physical detection using an optical
interferometer of the 1st order |
The type of wave interferometer used in this
experiment differed from the Michelson-type in that it measured the
first-order effect of the velocity difference along two separate paths
taken by the electromagnetic waves (while the Michelson interferometer
measures the much smaller 2nd-order velocity effect). The kinematic
viscosity of the aether was determined.
But most significant is the confirmation that "The velocity of
optical wave propagation depends on the radiation direction and ...
changes its value with a period per one stellar day."
[20]
Although the intensity of the effect was small, the variation of the
measured ether-drift velocity was distinctly dependent on the sidereal
daily cycle, and agreed remarkably well with Miller's findings.
Galaev determined that the absolute motion of the Solar System is
towards the celestial coordinates (RA = ~17.5h, Dec = ~+65º) which is
equivalent to saying that the aether is flowing towards the 180º
opposite direction (RA= 5.5 hr,
Dec = −65 deg).[21]
This is remarkable confirmation of the flow direction (RA= 5.2 hr, Dec
= −67 deg) that Miller had painstakingly derived three-quarters of a century
earlier.
There could now be no doubt that the aether wind is of galactic source
from beyond the Solar System.
Galaev concluded that the aether is consistent with a medium composed
of discrete particles, and that the aether is responsible for
electromagnetic waves propagation. |
Pivotal Year of 2002
First utilization of aether as a luminiferous and
gravitational medium |
Luminiferous and gravitational
aether |
Process Physics represents the first testable theory
using a luminiferous and gravitational aether medium in the context
of the expanding universe model.
DSSU cosmology represents the first testable theory using a
luminiferous and gravitational aether medium in the context of the
non-expanding cellular Universe. |
Reginald T. Cahill (1946- )
in 2002.
Australia |
Re-analysis of data from earlier physical detection
|
Cahill realized that absolute motion through
aether-space is the cause of various well-established relativistic
effects. Back in 1887 Michelson and Morley were, of course, unaware of
the relativistic effects and had simply used the Newtonian theory for
the calibration of their optical interferometer.
The M-M and the Miller data were carefully reanalyzed, the new
calibration factor was applied, and the full magnitude of the aether
drift velocity was at long last revealed. That elusive 30 km/s
tangential velocity due to the orbital motion of the Earth through
aether had been there all along. It was one of three main components
contributing to the net aether-flow vector. The other two aether
motions were identified as the inflow converging on the Sun (42
km/s solar concentric), and a substantial cosmic component of 420±30
km/s in the direction (RA=5.2 hr, Dec=−67 deg). This cosmic component
represents the aether flowing through the Solar System.
Cahill also exposed the flaw in the experiments that reported null, or
near zero, results for the detection of aether. The historic and
current evidence clearly shows that only a Michelson interferometer in
gas-mode can detect a path length difference, the signature of
absolute motion through aether. The light beam must travel through air
or some other gas. When the interferometer is placed in a vacuum,
aether-flow cannot be detected. (In vacuum mode, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
length-contraction renders the instrument totally useless for this
purpose.)
[22]
|
Discovery of the mechanism of gravity in 2002 |
“Process” aether
Gravitational (dynamic) aether |
Cahill discovered the causal mechanism of
gravity as part of a realization that aether-space is a dynamic fluid
and a key component of what is known as Process Physics.
Gravity is re-defined as the inhomogeneous bulk inflow of aether-space
towards and into matter. The key point is that “It is this
inhomogeneity rather than the motion [of aether] itself that actually
is the phenomena we know as gravity.”
[23]
This definition of gravity concurs with the one developed
independently within DSSU theory. |
Cosmology theory (called DSSU) developed in 2002
Based on the epochal insight that the Universe is cellularly
structured into cosmic cells of dynamic aether. |
A unified aether described as:
(1) Luminiferous;
(2) Gravitationally dual-dynamic;
(3) Boundless. |
(1) Aether serves as the medium for the
propagation of electromagnetic waves. (2) Aether is gravitationally
dual-dynamic in the sense that it expands and also contracts. The
actual gravity effect is conveyed by the gradient of the rate of
change of the bulk motion of aether-space. (3) Aether serves as the
nonmaterial essence from which, or through which, all matter/energy is derived.
Aether serves as both a luminiferous medium and a conveyor of
gravitational effects. Aether, by being dynamic, is responsible for
normal gravity (contractile) as well as anti-gravity (generic Λ).
The two are regionally balanced so that |gravity| = +Λ .
Aether (on the cosmic scale) expands in certain regions and
contracts in other regions. This dynamic activity manifests as the cosmic
cell structure observed by astronomers.
Cells (of cosmic scale) are self-regulating in size and are in a
perpetual steady state of simultaneous expansion and contraction.
The cells constitute a Euclidean structure that exists within the
non-expanding universe. The DSSU infinite universe is a
quasi-static lattice-like structure of unit-universes.
Electromagnetic phenomena are CONDUCTION properties of the
aether.
Gravitational phenomena are DYNAMIC FLOW properties of
the same aether.
Agreement with observation is unparalleled.[24] |
R. T. Cahill
in 2007 |
Gravitational aether makes “dark matter”
redundant;
(theory application) |
By successfully applying his dynamical
3-space aether theory to galaxies and galaxy clusters Cahill
eliminated the need for "dark matter."
[25]
Process-aether was shown to produce the contractile effect (Cahill calls it
the 3-space self-interaction effect) that had long been
attributed to some kind of mysterious unsubstantiated matter.
In effect, Cahill found that dynamic aether is gravitationally
more powerful than is Newton’s force and Einstein’s geometrized space.
|
Aether turbulence detected 2007-2008
(R.T. Cahill & F. Stokes) |
Gravitational aether with turbulent flow |
Optical-fiber interferometer detected aether speeds of 420±30km/s (RA = 5.5±2hr; DEC = 70±10°S).
The wide variation is indicative of large wave turbulence effects
(i.e., aether gravity waves).[26] |
First ever dynamic aether consisting of non-energy, non-mass, discrete
units (2009) |
Aether as discrete entities with no energy, no mass |
Aether serves as a subquantum substrate —as the
discretized "essence" of the universe. Aether units are essentially
non-energy fundamental fluctuators. And in keeping with a most
remarkable definition of the fundamental process of energy, DSSU
aether is dynamic without the units of aether themselves possessing
energy. This is an unprecedented combination of properties.
(See reference in next entry.) |
Conceptual unification of energy, mass, and gravity (in 2010) |
DSSU aether |
First conceptual unification of aether, energy, mass, gravity, and
"space" (i.e., DSSU’s nonmaterial aether).[27] |
Aether explanation for “refractive” speed variation (of photons).
A DSSU concept (but possibly predates the DSSU revolution). |
Luminiferous |
The phenomenon of light refraction consists of (i) a characteristic
bending and (ii) an apparent decrease in the speed of the light. The
latter has a ready explanation in the aether theory. Essentially, the
speed of EM-waves (photons) in a material medium remains unchanged.
The speed, with respect to the aether, remains unaltered and
unalterable —it is always c with respect to aether. BUT because
of the phenomenon of photon scattering by the atomic structure
of the dielectric medium, the path-length of the photon increases
and thereby gives the appearance of a slowing of wave/photon
propagation —an effect associated with refraction and measured as the
dielectric refractive index.
The increase in path length and its
connection to the refraction index is described, in mathematical
detail, by Professor Cahill (www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-24-04.pdf). |
New explanation found for the “Fresnel drag effect” (2011)
(R.T. Cahill and David Brotherton) |
Luminiferous |
Cahill and Brotherton determined that there is no actual
“drag” phenomenon. Rather, the “Fresnel drag effect” is merely the
consequence of the manner in which photons are conducted (by simple
electromagnetic scattering) within a dielectric medium and
of the velocity (speed & direction) of the luminiferous aether flowing
through the dielectric. The basic principle involved here is that
the one-way speed of light is not constant, but depends on
the velocity of the aether wind.[28]
(It is ironic that
Augustin Fresnel who, in the early 1800s, believed in an aether which
flowed unhindered through all matter, should have his name
associated with an effect whereby a transparent medium, like glass or
water, while in rapid motion, somehow tends to drag the aether
along with itself albeit with a reduced speed. Cauchy and Stokes were
the originators of the aether drag concept.) |
Discovery of the gravity mechanism of cosmic structure (in 2012) |
Gravitational DSSU aether |
The universe consists of autonomous gravity domains
which are perpetually sustained by Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary
gravity processes. (The processes are, respectively, aether
excitation-annihilation by matter/energy, aether self-dissipation in
contractile-gravity regions, and aether expansion by axiomatic
imperative.) In terms of these gravity domains, the universe is a
"dense packing" of tetrahedral and octahedral cosmic-scale gravity
cells.[29] |
Discovery of the cause of the cosmic redshift (2013-2014) |
Aether flow has a velocity gradient.
(The gradient pattern defines gravity wells) |
It is a remarkable fact that wavelengths of light will stretch while
propagating in the descending direction of the gradient AND also while
propagating in the ascending direction of the gradient. The
velocity differential of the flow of aether
is responsible for wavelength elongation. This is known as the
velocity-differential mechanism of the cosmic redshift
[30] and agrees with
astronomical distance observations.
The implications for cosmology are profound ! |
Olbers’ paradox resolved (in 2015) |
' ' |
The velocity-differential redshift mechanism provides the main
factor in the definitive explanation for “darkness” in the
perpetual-and-infinite cosmos —namely, for our cellular Universe.[31] |
Sachs-Wolfe Effect invalidated (in 2017) |
' ' |
The velocity-differential redshift, in accordance with the DSSU
aether theory of gravity, exposes a crushing flaw in the spectral
analysis of gravity wells. It has been clearly and compellingly shown
that the purported Sachs-Wolfe effect rests on an utterly false
premise. (The untenability of the S-W effect serves as a final
devastating blow to the Big Bang hypothesis.)
[32] |
Ultra-energy generation mechanism discovered (in 2018) |
Aether’s ability to induce spectral blueshift |
Discovered was the mechanism of gamma ray production by Terminal Stars
(critical-state neutron stars). First compelling explanation of the
generation of ultra-energy gamma particles and PeV-energy neutrinos,
as well as the associated mechanism responsible for powering
astrophysical jets. Significantly, the mechanism requires neither
structure rotation nor accreting mass!
[33] |
Unification of Gravity (2018) |
Aether’s ability to produce multiple gravitational effects |
The revolutionary unification of gravity theory came about with
the discovery of the natural mechanism that is the key to the
synthesis of the primary cause and the four manifestations of gravity.
Found was the one underlying Factor that unifies gravity’s
convergent, divergent, vortex, and wave effects.
[34] |
|
|
|
Notes:
Historically there are three basic types of aether: (i) Aristotle’s fifth
element, (ii) luminiferous, and (iii) gravitational. The symbol
"Λ" stands for the
cosmological constant in most conventional theories, and for the generic
expansion of the space medium in DSSU theory.
Supplementary Notes
Harold Aspden: British theoretical particle
physicist. Aspden developed an aether consisting of particles which possess
energy in the form of a negative charge. With his gravitation mechanism,
based on graviton “force” carriers, he was able to derive quantitative
values for fundamental physical constants G, h, α (the fine
structure constant), and Λ (the cosmological constant) that conformed
to experimentally measured values.
He embraced the idea, originated by others, that a body in
rotation will develop a magnetic field as a gravitational phenomenon
—offering a natural explanation for Earth's magnetic field reversals.
Published works: Physics without Einstein (1969), Modern Aether
Science (1972), Physics Unified (1980), Creation: The Physical
Truth (2006), and many scientific papers stemming from his research at
Southampton University. (http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Harold_Aspden)
5. Consequences and Problems Associated with Denial
The denial of aether has led to a chain of
misconceptions of the nature of reality that can only be described as
incomplete at best and paradoxical at worst. After the initial
misinterpretation of 1887, one misconception led to another, widening the
non-reality, deepening the unresolvability. The first misconception was the
no-preferred-frame idea. It led to the discarding of Maxwell’s perfectly valid preferred frame
of reference. Of course, without a special frame, there can be no
absolute motion. It then follows that without absolute motion ALL
translational motion must be relative. And if all motion is relative, what
better way is there for describing the physical world than with Einstein’s
special and general relativity? The historic chain of misconceptions
continued as relativity theory was applied to the whole universe and
eventually gave us Sean Carroll’s preposterous expanding universe.
Physicists know, or suspect, there is something wrong here. The
incompleteness and the paradoxes that have arisen are too easily
demonstrated to be ignored.
Unfortunately, the premise was invalid from the very
start. Unfortunately, the rejection of aether and the consequential
incomplete theory of gravity has led theorists to propose highly speculative
universes of mathematical genre —abstractions devoid of reality.
Although the premise was flawed, in the course of
theoretical development, the step-by-step logic for decade after decade was
wonderfully flawless and found its grandest expression as the golden age of
the expanding universes. The 20th century witnessed an
astrocopeia of models based on Einstein’s gravity equations. (Check out the
lengthy list of expansion models in Table 2 of the Web article,
Models of the Universe). Like the
Sorcerer’s Apprentice whose spell conjured up too many magic brooms,
theorists were finding that their magical mathematical equations were
producing more and more versions of the expansion scenario.
As I said, it was a golden season;
expansion was the big thing, and the harvest was abundant. But now it is
wintertime —time for testing survivability. This vast enterprise,
responsible for proliferating and for stockpiling a multitude of theoretical
models, must now face the frigid fact that there was —there is— only one
real universe! ... And any scientist, professional or amateur, will tell you
that a theory that allows (or predicts) too many possibilities makes for a
very weak theory. A weak theory is more appropriately called a
hypothesis or a speculation; and rarely survives.
The point is they —Academic Cosmologists— have
problems. Serious problems.
When theorists deny the existence of aether they are
left with no medium for the propagation of Maxwell’s electromagnetic
waves.
Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency,
physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion, whereby aether
serves as the medium for the propagation of light, while claiming that the
emptiness of space is filled with all kinds of stuff like quantum
particle-pair formation, and various entities continually popping in and out
of existence, and, of course, vacuum energy. But note, these things are not
just scattered around randomly in “empty” space. They permeate all
space. Physicist Robert Oerter, in his book A Theory of Almost Everything,
explains that there are harmonic oscillators, one at each point in
space, wherever there are quantum fields (which happens to be most
everywhere). In what is otherwise empty space, these oscillators are
pulsating in their lowest energy state. “We know, however, that a
harmonic oscillator has some energy even in its lowest energy state.
This vacuum energy exists at every point in space ...”
[35]
Robert Oerter leaves no room for doubt; there are entities at every
point in space!
But wait a minute ... that sounds suspiciously like a space
medium.
Let’s shine a light into this space used by “the
standard model of modern physics.” A light beam travels through points in
(or of) space; there are oscillators at every point; the light, then,
must pass through the oscillators. The light can’t go around
the oscillators since there are no gaps, no free points, no free zone.
Clearly, light is being conducted —conducted by the oscillators
along the light ray’s path —by the space medium itself —by the
luminiferous aether that physicist have long rejected. What other
conclusion could there possibly be? ... Light does travel through a
ubiquitous space-medium. Yet almost no physicist acknowledges the fact. (Let
there be no doubt about the seriousness of aether denial or aetherphobia.
Those afflicted, as if participating in a reversal of a popular fable in
which the Emperor in this case IS fully clothed, are claiming He has no clothes!)
The situation with the light-conducting medium
reveals a problem on another level. It reveals the age old “problem” of
heresy, the undermining of the establishment’s sacred ideas. The guardians of the Official
view do not tolerate dissent. Consequently, under the oppressive rules of
Academia no one today dares to call it the luminiferous aether let
alone generic aether. For two thousand years, few dared to challenge
the authority of Aristotle. Today, few dare to challenge the authority of
Einstein.
Aether denial, of course, goes hand in hand with the
denial of absolute motion —yet absolute motion is surprisingly easy
to prove.
The denial of aether led Einstein to two famous but
incomplete theories of relativity. One is missing the principle of absolute
motion and, therefore, is unable to explain the real difference in the speed
of a light ray (along separate paths) observable in any gas-mode Michelson
apparatus (particularly when calibrated as per Cahill’s method to correct
for Lorentzian contraction). And the other theory is missing ... how shall I
state this?
Here we have what may well be the biggest problem of
all. Without aether there is no plausible way to convey the effect of
gravity. We are left with no way to convey Newton’s force of gravity. And in
the terminology of general relativity: we are left with no way to manifest
the effect of space curvature.
It is sad to note that more than 300 years
after Newton presented the world with a scientific definition of gravity,
the cause is still being reported as a mystery. Peter Bergmann, a devoted student and
follower of Einstein, underscores this dismal deficiency by authoring a book
entitled The Riddle of Gravitation. The title refers to the
unresolved problem of Einstein’s theory of gravity. For relativity experts
like Bergmann, gravity is a mystery for the simple reason that the
underlying mechanism is missing. The rejection of aether, and its dynamic
properties, is directly responsible for this impasse.
Without aether, theorists are led to a totally
unrealistic picture of the universe. They arrive at a philosophically
untenable picture of an expanding universe with its physically impossible
singularity initial state and its questionable future end state. They lose
sight of the principle that the Universe, although the sum total of all the
things and entities that exist, is not itself a thing. While the
existence of things and entities may, and do, begin and end, the existence
of the Universe is absolute and cannot be qualified in any way.
There is also a major practical problem. Without
aether there is no plausible way to explain the abundant experimental
evidence detailed in the Chronology Table
above. There is no way to explain the findings by using standard physics.
Yet it appears that official institutions are not in any hurry to solve the
mystery. For instance, in 1999 NASA set up an investigative commission
headed by Dr. David Noever (a NASA scientist) to review the Maurice Allais
experiments. A decade later and there was still no word on the outcome. The lengthy delay speaks volumes. One suspects there is a desperate effort
to avert a revolution in physics and cosmology; and it is unlikely that the
report will ever be issued. Maurice Allais is unlikely to live long enough
to see it anyway. A website search of NASA (http://Science.msfc.nasa.gov/)
gives only the original 1999 report.[36]
[37]
Two more examples of neglected experiments with solid evidence are the
Dayton Miller 1925/26 studies and the Roland De Witte 1991 tests lasting 178
days. It has been predicted that these two experiments will eventually be
recognized as two of the most significant experiments in physics. The
experiments were completely independent and used significantly different
techniques yet they detected the same velocity of absolute motion.
Furthermore, they detected clear evidence of turbulence in the flow of
aether past the Earth. They had discovered aether-type gravitational waves.
Again, officially sanctioned theories have no plausible explanation.
|
Dayton Miller (1921) |
|
Both Miller and De Witte have been repeatedly attacked for their
discoveries. Sadly, De Witte was never permitted to publish his data in a
physics journal. Tragically, after being dismissed from his research
position, being misled by so-called anti-relativists, and having his
findings ignored and even censured, Roland De Witte became deeply depressed
and suffered an early death.
The rejection of aether has now led to a
near crisis situation in Cosmology and Physics. The proof of the existence
of aether is out there. It is being ignored and even suppressed.[38] Evidence is
ignored, year after year. All the while the experimental physicists keep
rediscovering what is not supposed to exist —the aether and its associated
absolute motion.
A review of the history of aether reveals that
aether is repeatedly being rediscovered; as if its previous discovery has
been forgotten, again and again. For instance, Roland De Witte was
unaware of Miller’s historic work. ... Forgive the broadness of my
question, but what is going on here!? What kind of science is being
practiced in society’s noble institutions when solid experimental evidence
is ignored? Or worse, censored and suppressed?
While there is mostly silence among the ranks of
institutionalized degree holders, this fact remains: Without aether
we are unnecessarily burdening ourselves with an incomprehensible “preposterous
universe.”
6. The Aether of the New Cosmology
The study and research of a cosmos devoid of its
essential ingredient, aether, is as pointless and unproductive as were
traditional theological dissertations. Cosmology without the aether concept
is a dead-end endeavor —assuming, of course, that one’s goal is the
perception of reality.
Cosmology as a belief system is a different matter.
Needless to say, if one is practicing cosmology as a quasi-religion then one
is free to believe whatever one chooses. Unrestrained by the scientific
method, one is free to ignore the paradoxes that arise, free to include the
non sequiturs, free to worship any authority. It is indeed sad to report
that Academic Cosmology has made a grave digression; it has become a
belief system. The aether controversy reveals the century long
transformation of Academic Cosmology —a transformation into non-scientific
Creationism.[39]
Science historian Corey S. Powell in his book, God in the Equation,
provocatively and eloquently argues that what Academia practices today is a
faith called “science/religion” and details how Einstein, the most popular
genius of the century, became the prophet of a cosmological revolution.

|
Professor R.T.
Cahill
The discoverer (in 2002) of the mechanism of gravitation.
(Image credit: R.T. Cahill) |
|
The faith-based cosmology dominated the 20th
century. The new cosmology began in the year 2002 with Cahill’s
discovery of the mechanism of gravitation and the author’s development of
DSSU theory. It is a cosmology based on a new concept of aether.
It should be made clear that the new
aether theory with its heretical notion of absolute space (in the sense of a
ubiquitous space medium) and absolute
motion does not necessarily entail the rejecting and replacing
of existing theories. For instance, Einstein’s theory of relative motion
remains valid in a restricted sense; the theory is subsumed as relative
motion becomes but a special case of a more general theory of
aether-referenced
motion. General relativity theory remains valid in a restricted mathematical
sense and within a narrowly defined domain. However, it does not apply to
the cosmic scale.
Now if the subsummation of Einstein’s relativity is
what is involved here, then most physicists have misconceived the threat to
their belief system. They had always thought that legitimizing an aether
theory would mean the overthrow of Relativity. They simply had not
expected that a theory of absoluteness could embrace Relativity and
incorporate it into a broader theory.
Another misconception is the notion that absolute
space is explicitly a static space. True enough, Newton’s space was absolute
and static. But it is not a necessary combination. Consider a
non-absolute space. Einstein’s geometrized space was non-absolute and
notably dynamic. And this also is not a necessary combination. These
characteristics are but the chosen axioms of a particular theory. Newton
chose absolute and static, Einstein chose non-absolute and dynamic. Both
choices are problematic. So the obvious question arises; what about a
combination of absolute and dynamic? And the answer came in the year 2002.
Under a new theory (see DSSU theory in the table above) axioms were
selected to make space absolute and dynamic. Absolute
because the experimental evidence demands it to be so; dynamic
because Einstein and Friedmann proved it to be so. Significantly, in DSSU
theory, defined space, as general relativity unequivocally demands, retains
its ability to expand and to contract. Definitively, DSSU aether is
both absolute and dual-dynamic and not at all
static.
This is a totally new concept of aether. (Reginald
Cahill’s Process-Physics aether also deserves this claim.)
Does this make for a superior type of space
or space medium? To
answer this question, consider what the standard theory is missing and what
the new-cosmology theory offers. Both Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s
gravity do not give an actual cause or an actual mechanism; but a properly
constructed aether theory does. The dual-dynamic aether
provides Einstein’s mathematical theory of gravity with what the theory has
long been lacking —a real-world ‘substrate’ with the real ability to convey
the gravitational effect. (And this ability has nothing to do with the
propagation of gravitons. The new aether is not a medium for gravitons.) In other words, DSSU aether endows the theory of gravity with
its essential causal mechanism.
The definition of the phenomenon we know as gravity
(applicable to DSSU theory as well as Process Physics) is the inhomogeneous
bulk flow of aether towards and into matter. The emphasis is on the inhomogeneity of the aether flow, rather than the flow-motion itself, and
manifests as acceleration. The foregoing is the definition of normal
gravity (i.e., contractile) the related definition for unified
gravity simply includes the expansionary aspect of aether.
Indeed, the New Cosmology does have a
superior type of "space." Not only does it provide the causal mechanism for
gravity, but it also makes possible a unified theory of gravity.
The aether theorists and researchers of today
clearly have the advantage. The case for the existence of aether need not at
all be defended —since the experimental evidence is undeniable. It is those
who actively deny the experimental evidence or passively ignore the
historical and continuing research who are exposing themselves to
accusations of scientific malpractice. ... It is they who are responsible
for fabricating “the preposterous universe.”
* * *
For a PDF version of this
article (which includes additional details and references) follow:
The History of the Aether Theory.
* * *
This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2008 (last updated 2019-12)
External Links and Resources
The growth of
research into aether theory is dramatic. There are now a growing number of
websites, papers and essays devoted to the subject. The
CellularUniverse.org
website is but one of many. One of the best sources for articles relating to
aether is
Mountain Man Graphics.
For the research
papers of Reginald T. Cahill and the aether theory based on Process Physics
see:
Modern Scientific Theories of Aether
For a significant
collection of aether and aether related articles see:
Aether Theories - Collation of Modern Scientific Theories of the Aether
An excellent chronological
reference:
A Ridiculously Brief History of Electricity and Magnetism (Mostly from
Edmund T. Whittaker’s book: A History of the Theories of Aether and
Electricity...)
SELECTED SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DETAILS:
Encyclopedia of Cosmology, Norriss S. Hetherington, Editor
(Garland Publishing Inc., NY & London, 1993)
A History of the Sciences
by Stephen F. Mason (Collier Books, N.Y., 1962)
The Architecture of Matter by Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962)
Science: its History and Development Among the World Cultures by
Colin Ronan (The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., New York, 1982)
A History of the Theories of Aether &
Electricity, Edmund T. Whittaker (Reprinted: Dover
Publications, New York, 1989)
Aether and Matter, A Development of the Dynamical
Relations of the Aether to Material Systems by Joseph Larmor (Cambridge
University Press, London, 1900)
Notes and References
[1] R.T.
Cahill, Space and Gravitation, Magister Botanicus, Vol.2,
pp.13-22
(Jan 2004)
[2] R.T. Cahill, The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the
Discovery of Absolute Motion. Progress in Physics,
Vol.3 (October 2005) p25 (Posted at: http://www.ptep-online.com/
)
[3] Sean M.
Carroll, The Cosmological Constant, Living Reviews
in Relativity, Vol.4:1 (2001).
Posted at: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-1
[4]
Physicist Sean Carroll’s website: http://preposterousuniverse.com/
[5]
Descartes. Edited by Margaret D. Wilson, The Essential
Descartes (Mentor Books, New York, 1969) p342
[6] Isaac Asimov, Understanding Physics: Light, Magnetism, and
Electricity (Signet Books, New York, NY, 1969) p88
[8] E.R. Harrison, Cosmology, the Science of the Universe
(Cambridge University Press, 1981) p108
and I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science (The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985) p162
[9] I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985) p170
[10] David.Layzer, Constructing the Universe, Scientific
American Library (W H Freeman & Co., New York, 1984) p162
[11] Dayton C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of
the Absolute Motion of the Earth. Reviews of Modern Physics,
Vol.5 (July 1933) p239
[12] Stephen F. Mason, A History of the Sciences (Collier Books,
New York, 1962) p482-3
[13] Dayton C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of
the Absolute Motion of the Earth. Reviews of Modern Physics,
Vol.5 (July 1933)
[14] Dayton C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of
the Absolute Motion of the Earth. Reviews of Modern Physics,
Vol.5 (July 1933); with reference to H.A. Lorentz, Versuch einer
Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern
(Leyden, 1895); and H.A. Lorentz, Theory of the Electron, 195
(1909)
[15] David Layzer, Constructing the Universe, Scientific American Library (W H
Freeman & Co., New York, 1984) p163-4
[16] Robert D.
Klauber, Toward a Consistent Theory of Relativistic
Rotation in Relativity in Rotating Frames (Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, 2004) (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0404027) p6
[17] Dayton C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of
the Absolute Motion of the Earth. Reviews of Modern Physics,
Vol.5 (July 1933) p220
[18] Maurice
Allais, The "Allais Effect" and My Experiments with
the Paraconical Pendulum 1954-1960 (A 1999 memoir prepared for NASA in
response to an enquiry initiated by NASA under the direction of David Noever)
[19] R.T. Cahill, The
Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment. Progress in Physics, Vol.3 (July
2006) (http://www.ptep-online.com/)
[20]
Yuri Galaev, Aether-Drift Velocity and Kinematic Ether Viscosity
within Optical Wave Bands. Spacetime and Substance, Vol.3, No.5,
pp207-224 (2002). (http://www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip)
[22] R.T. Cahill, The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the
Discovery of Absolute Motion. Progress in Physics, Vol.3 (October 2005)
(Posted at: http://www.ptep-online.com/ )
[23] R.T. Cahill, Space and Gravitation. Magister Botanicus,
Vol.2, pp.13-22 (January 2004)
[25] R.T. Cahill, Dynamical 3-Space: Alternative Explanation of the
'Dark Matter Ring', Progress in Physics, Vol.3, Issue 4,
pp13-17 (Oct 2007) (Posted at: http://www.ptep-online.com/ )
[26]
R.T. Cahill, Optical-Fiber Gravitational Wave Detector: Dynamical
3-Space Turbulence Detected. Progress in Physics, Vol.4,
pp63-68 (October, 2007) (Posted at: http://www.ptep-online.com/ )
R.T. Cahill and Finn Stokes, Correlated Detection of sub-mHz
Gravitational Waves by Two Optical-Fiber Interferometers. Progress
in Physics, Vol.2, pp103-110 (April 2008)
(Posted at: http://www.ptep-online.com/ )
[27] C. Ranzan, The
Fundamental Process of Energy –A Qualitative Unification of Energy,
Mass, and Gravity. Part I: Infinite Energy Issue #113 Jan/Feb 2014 &
Part II: Issue #114 Mar/Apr 2014 (www.infinite-energy.com)
[28] R.T.
Cahill and D. Brotherton, Experimental Investigation of the
Fresnel Drag Effect in RF Coaxial Cables. Progress in Physics,
Vol.1, pp43-48 (2011 Jan) (Posted at: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-24-04.pdf)
[29] C. Ranzan,
The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation. Journal of Modern Physics and Applications, Vol.2014:3 (2014)
(Posted at: http://www.CellularUniverse.org/ )
For the 2018 updated version, see reference #34: Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijass.20180605.11
[30] C. Ranzan,
Cosmic Redshift in the Nonexpanding Cellular Universe:
Velocity-Differential Theory of Cosmic Redshift. American Journal
of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Vol.2, No.5, pp.47-60 (2014). Doi:
10.11648/j.ajaa.20140205.11
(Posted at: http://www.CellularUniverse.org/ )
[31] C. Ranzan,
Olbers’ Paradox Resolved for the Nonexpanding Infinite Universe,
American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Vol.4, No.1,
pp1-14 (2016 January) (2015 online). Doi: 10.11648/j.ajaa.20160401.11
[32] C. Ranzan,
Sachs-Wolfe Effect Disproof – The fundamental flaw in the spectral
analysis of gravity wells, International Journal of Astrophysics and
Space Science, Vol.6, No.1, 2018, pp.1-17. Doi:
10.11648/j.ijass.20180601.11
[33] C. Ranzan,
Natural Mechanism for the Generation and Emission of Extreme Energy
Particles, Physics Essays Vol.31, No.3, pp.358-376
(2018). Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-31.3.358
[34] C. Ranzan,
The Nature of Gravity –How one factor unifies gravity’s convergent,
divergent, vortex, and wave effects, International Journal of
Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.6, No.5, 2018, pp.73-92.
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijass.20180605.11
[35] Robert Oerter, A Theory of Almost Everything (Pi Press,
New York, 2006) p230
[36] NASA 1999 ScienceNews report: (Science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm)
[37]
Independent physicist, Miles Mathis, reports (in his recent paper The
Allais Effect and Majorana) the following: "I want to point out a
very strange 'coincidence.' In researching the Allais Effect, I
discovered that the scientist in charge of NASA’s pendulum and
gravimeter experiments at Marshall Space Flight Center was a man named
David Noever. Noever is now AWOL from NASA, and this, we are told, is
one reason we have no data from the 1999 experiments (it doesn’t,
however, explain why we have no data from the other [participants])."
[38] R.T.
Cahill, Space and Gravitation. Magister Botanicus,
Vol.2, pp.13-22 (January 2004)
(Posted at: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS20.pdf )
[39]
It is remarkably easy to make the argument that mainstream cosmology has
been transformed into a new-age religion. Any cosmology constructed
around a cosmic creation scenario with its inherent logical paradoxes
(such as the paradox of first cause) when embraced and promoted
by the Establishment becomes an official doctrine of faith. Twentieth-century creationism-cosmology is a religion and, as such, I personally
have no problem with it. The fire and brimstone genesis of the BB
hypothesis conforms pleasingly to the Biblical Genesis; the possible
gravitational re-collapse of regional matter, if not of the entire
universe, makes a rather fitting apocalyptic cataclysmic ending.
However, not being a believer, I reject the BB Creationist model and
find myself compelled to seek a scientific solution. –CR
|