By email:

Dear Sepp,
Michelan-Morley failed to realize that a change in fluid mass velocity does not change fluid velocity. Silvertooth measured the Doppler frequency shift resulting from Earth's passage through space.

There is no excuse for M and M's ignorance. They did not know what they were doing. Are physicists ignorant of fluid wave function and mechanics? They need to stop riding a dead horse and realize that the valid data dictates the presence of an aethereal fluid. Once this hurdle is cleared, the fluid properties and constiuents can be deduced from interpretating the significance of DeBroglies Equation. Simply the equivalence of Planck's Frequency to the particulate density of Einstein's mass which identifies h as the kinetic energy of an aethereal particle.

Puzzled by the absence of logic.

Bob Kerr

Here is an emailed comment:

Re:" Did Michelson and Morley prove that the aether does not exist?"

My reading of the literature from Bearden ad others, Sepp, is that Michelson and Morley were said to have confirmed a non-material vacuum of space, but I don't recall that the term "aether" was mentioned in their report; they did not, I believe, say there was no aether. Others, like Einsten, simply assumed there was no aether as a result of their experiment. But apparently, Einstein later changed his mind when Quantum Physics was established, in that energy was in the vacuum, what we could once again call the "aether", but it was immaterial, pure scalar potential. My "conventional" technological associates have difficulty with that concept, although they accept that Planck, Dirac etc. did confirm mass-free energy in the Vacuum. They just feel it is unuseable (F-E people feel otherwise, except for some "cold-fusioneers"), and cannot bring themselves to call the Vacuum and its apparently mass-free energy, "Aether", because it smacks of the old pre-Michelson-Morley concept of a material aether.

Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC.

Hal, as far as I remember, there were expectations that Michelson and Morley's experiments would show aether drift effects on the propagation of light of a higher magnitude than those actually observed. This was variously interpreted as due to
a) the earth dragging aether along with it so the effects could not be observed on the planet's surface
b) aether does not exist and (later)
c) length contraction of the instrument negated the measurability of the effect.
So far, the "aether does not exist" seems to have won out.

Cahill brings a new impetus to the discussion in that he mentions a 2002 reinterpretation and consequently recalibration of the MM and subsequent aether detection experiments.

I recommend reading his actual paper A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment which describes the new interpretation of the original experimental results of Michelson-Morley and other researchers after them.

As for aether being material or immaterial, I believe it is neither. It probably is the link between the immaterial patterns and energies and the material we see manifested as the physical world around us.

TWO FATALITIES IN PHYSICS

1. The dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the light source.

2. Einstein's choice of the field concept of light.

See

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN MAKES FUN OF THE ZOMBIE WORLD

Einstein knew all along that the speed of light in a gravitational field is variable and obeys the formula c'=c(1+V/c^2), and that the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of this variability. However Einstein was looking for fun and performed an experiment. He offered two questions and two answers to the zombie world:

Question 1: Is there any relation between the variable speed of light c'=c(1+V/c^2) and the gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2)?

Question 2: The gravitational redshift f'=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of what?

Answer 1: Who cares.

Answer 2: Gravitational time dilation.

The zombie world had to find an answer for either question. It did it successfully and Einstein had a lot of fun.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Comment received by email:

Hi Sepp,
I have been doing some research on Space Plasma. I really don't see any difference between the theoretical Aether of classical philosophy/science and Space Plasma, which is proven to exist. Space plasma is an electro-magnetic medium which apparently permeates the universe. Its waves and currents give us Space Weather. Newton and Einstein both based their theories on action at a distance through empty space, which is now proven to be filled with a medium of plasma. Is it possible that the Stars and Planets are formed by a vortex of Plasma? I think all atomic particles/matter are formed out of Plasma. Why do the old school professors still insist that space is empty and Aether does not exist? Are they completely ignorant of Plasma Science?

Dugan,

you might be quite right about this one. Certainly there is a lot of information around about Space Plasma, and even a cosmology based on it.

(Plasma Cosmology)

Some people seem to be allergic to the term aether, rather than actually rejecting the idea, they reject the term...

Reg Cahill does not perform an error
analysis. And, of course, "superb agreement with Miller" is the kiss of
death because Miller's results have been known to be bogus. He compares to a
half dozen "experiments", most of which perform no error analysis. The only
one that does an error analysis (Torr and Kolen) shows their result is
not significantly different from zero but Cahill ignores that (!) and quotes it in his favor (!).

Sepp,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. It seems that the term aether is considered heresy by the old school dogmatists who have enshrined Newton and Einstein as infallible. If we use the term space plasma instead of aether, perhaps they will eventually come around. Explaining the universe without positing some type of space medium is like trying to make a plum pudding without the pudding. It simply can't be done. I recall how it took the Catholic Church more than 300 years to recant and admit that Copernicus and Galileo were right about the sun centered solar system. Maybe it won't take that long for the Physics Establishment if we force them to look at space plasma as synonymous with aether. We have tons of scientific proof that space plasma exists. It is an electromagnetic medium which appears to permeate the universe. I intend to go back through my paper on the Origin of Force, and replace the term aether with the term space plasma in the hopes that it will squeak past those confounded peer review/ censorship committees who refuse to publish science papers mentioning the aether. I am hereafter convinced that space plasma is the fundamental physical substance which is known to permeate all of space. All universal phenomena which we can absorb and detect with our sense organs are generated out of the whirls, waves and currents of space plasma. Einstein's space-time continuum, or space fabric, should hereafter be known as space plasma. The reason Michelson and Morley were unable to detect any aether wind on the surface of the Earth was due to the fact that the Earth is surrounded by shields of plasma, consisting of the magnetosphere and ionosphere which protects Earth from the constant waves of space plasma, a.k.a.solar wind (aether wind) or space weather. These waves are induced by the Sun's turbulent rotation which impacts the surrounding space plasma. There is most definately an aether wind, you simply have to fly above the ionosphere before it can be measured. I also believe that all galaxies, stars, planets and atoms are vortices which spin electromagnetically in the universal plasma of space. In my forthcoming paper I will employ Occam's razor to reduce the superfluous dogma of the old school physicists and display the gravitational effect in terms of the plasma flow and plasma density of a vortex.

R.D.King writes:
"These waves are induced by the Sun's turbulent rotation which impacts the surrounding space plasma. There is most definately an aether wind, you simply have to fly above the ionosphere before it can be measured."

Don King answers:
-Are you sure?
Ionosphere is a spehre of 600km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere)

The GPS sattelites are at 12,000 miles up in the sky, WAY outside the ionosphere (http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/)

GPS runs the Michelson Morley and the Sagnac experiments on a permanent basis (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/)
so, in effect GPS is a living disproof of your statement above. Before you write any paper, I suggest that you read on GPS, this way you will not be disappointed when your paper gets rejected.

R.D.King writes:
"These waves are induced by the Sun's turbulent rotation which impacts the surrounding space plasma. There is most definately an aether wind, you simply have to fly above the ionosphere before it can be measured."

Besh P.Presh answers:
Ionosphere is a sphere of radius=600km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere)

The GPS satellites are at a radius of 12,000 miles up in the sky, way outside the ionosphere (http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/)

GPS runs the Michelson Morley and the Sagnac experiments on a permanent basis (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/) so, in effect GPS is a living disproof of your statement above.

RELATIVITY AND SELF-DESTRUCTION

Photons move in a gravitational field and either undergo acceleration (e.g. their speed becomes c'>c=300000km/s) or do not undergo acceleration (that is, their speed remains c=300000km/s). If they undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to the variable speed of light, in accordance with the formula c'=Lf', where L is wavelength and f is frequency. If the photons do not undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength, in accordance with the formula c=L'f'. It is easy to see that c'=Lf' and c=L'f' are the only possibilities. Roughly speaking, either variable speed of light and no gravitational time dilation, or gravitational time dilation and constant speed of light.

Initially Einstein chose c'=Lf':
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm :
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

However later Einstein had to camouflage the fact that the frequency shift is due to variable speed of light and introduced gravitational time dilation - a concept extremely dangerous for human rationality. Two identical clocks in identical conditions (identical gravitational fields) allegedly have different rates. Rationality is immediately destroyed and the victim starts worshipping both the miracle and its creator.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

MASS OF THE PHOTON AND EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE

Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond "What if Einstein had not been there? A Gedankenexperiment in Science History":
"In modern terms, think of the situation if the photon finally had a nonzero mass, however small; light would not travel with the invariant velocity..."

Wolfgang Pauli (1954) "Matter". In: Muschel, H. (ed.), Man’s Right to Knowledge. New York:
"Matter has always been and will always be one of the main objects of physics.....even light has become matter now, due to Einstein’s discoveries. It has mass and also weight; it is not different from ordinary matter."

Note that, as far as Einstein's second postulate is concerned, "Does the photon have a mass?" can be replaced by "Do photons accelerate in a gravitational field?".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Reginald Cahill is absolutely correct.

I've shown the very same thing in my new book coming out in December that you can preview from this pdf link below:

http://www.amperefitz.com/us_20061020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf

Since the entire book of over 190 pages is in the file it may take a while to open on slower computers.

Cheers

Fitz

R.D.King writes:
"These waves are induced by the Sun's turbulent rotation which impacts the surrounding space plasma. There is most definately an aether wind, you simply have to fly above the ionosphere before it can be measured."

Answer:
-Are you sure?
Ionosphere is a sphere of 600km (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere)

The GPS satellites are at 12,000 miles up in the sky, WAY outside the ionosphere (http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/)

GPS runs the Michelson Morley and the Sagnac experiments on a permanent basis (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/)
so, in effect GPS is a living disproof of your statement above. Before you write any paper, I suggest that you read on GPS, this way you will not be disappointed when your paper gets rejected.

A comment received by email:

Sepp;

I have posted a new article on my website, about the Standard and QCD Models, http://home.earthlink.net/~rarydin/higgs.htm . Cahill's new gravity theory has a quantum component that seems to agree with Robert Heaston's idea that the weak force should be replaced with a quantum force as the last of the 4 fundamental forces, because Planck's constant covers all scales from small to large.

Roger

Dear Sepp:

The measurement of the "one-way light velocity" is not the only possible means to determine the presence of a background fluid filling all space in which light is propagated. There is an entirely different way to provide evidences in support of the presence of such a background. But it is not the light eather fluid proposed. It is a very dense background fluid in which all forms of matter, fields, and propagations in the universe exist as superimposed fluid motions.
If such a background fluid is to exist a necessary assumption is that the background fluid must expand in accord with Hubble’s law, or the distance, d(t) between any two fluid elements is given by γ d(0), where γ = 1+t/т, t is time, т is the Hubble age of the universe, and d(0) equals the distance at the present time, t = 0. Thus, one satisfies the modern Copernican view that the universe appear the same on a large scale for observers in any galaxy of the universe.
A fundamental property of Euler’s equations for an ideal fluid determine that the Hubble law for the fluid elements of the background fluid must pervade all fluid motions superimposed on it. For example, all distances, volumes, and energies associated with the superimposed fluid motions have respectively γ, γ3, and γ-2 as multiplying factors. The ideal fluid is monatomic and adiabatic, i.e. all interactions between its fluid elements are due to the fluid pressure, and all interactions follow Newton’s three laws.
The pervasive parts of Hubble law are zero presently, t = 0, and they change with time at the exceedingly slow rate of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. Nevertheless they suggests fundamental changes to mathematical physics, answer outstanding questions, removes paradoxes, determine the Hubble age to be 10.5 billion years, find preferential coordinates for the special theory of relativity, show that Newtonian, atomic, and planetary ephemeris time are different time scales, and many other matters described in the web site http://www.drleifrongved.com.

Sincerely, Leif

Ummm... I'm no expert, but Einstein's Theories of Relativity specifically say that the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant. Of course, if you introduce a gas into the interferometer, the light will interact with that gas and effectively vary in speed. These experiments did not detect motion relative to an absolute space, they detected the motion of the gas relative to the apparatus.

Doh...

I would stronly recommend people read the original papers of Dayton Miller, who did detect the ether and ether-drift, and it is not only Cahill's earlier experiment with fibre-optics which got a similar result, but also the Ukranian scientist Yuri Galaev, in additional to Michelson (atop Mt. Wilson, with Pease & Pearson).

The axis of drift lines up among all those independent experiments, along with other research areas not related to optics, such as the findings of Piccardi, Reich, and even Bernabei's work on "dark matter wind".

The cites for these are given in my paper here:
http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf

An additional new alignment is also recently found, which confirms the "Axis of Horror" which gives nightmares to the orthodox thinkers, precisely because it demands some unifying field principle of quite a powerful nature, well beyond anything possible from standard big-bang creationism. See: "Evidence for a Preferred Handedness of Spiral Galaxies, by Michael Longo of the Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3793