THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE AETHER IN PHYSICS:
A REVISION OF THE AETHER CONCEPT
The Supposed Proofs Against the Existence of the Aether
This web page will answer each of the main critiques or "proofs" against the existence of the aether. The first
has to do with gravity; the second two, with light. They are as follows:

  1. The aether was hypothesized to be motionless to explain the seeming necessity of the inviolable
    constancy of the speed of light. The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect such a
    motionless aether.
  2. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect stated that light must be a particle (photon) to transfer
    energy to electrons discontinuously. Furthermore, Compton's experimental proof that photons have
    particle-like properties because of the way they collide with electrons.
  3. Light was hypothesized to travel as a transverse wave to explain the phenomena of birefringence (or
    double refraction or polarization) and to account for the perpendicular undulating electro- and magnetic
    portions of light. To transmit this kind of wave the aether would have to have extraordinary and
    inexplicable equilibrium-restoring forces to transmit transverse waves at the speed of light, and at the
    same time, allow a massive body like earth to move through it.
  4. The aether must be six million times denser than steel, and at the same time, allow a massive body like
    earth to move through it. (This is true and possible.)

As I will show, the assumptions of immobility and transverse wave are wrong: the aether moves, and light is not
a transverse wave (or a longitudinal one). Furthermore, I show in the Part on
Light that it can be entirely
explained as a wave phenomenon; which, of course, solves the massively problematic and illogical wave/particle
theory of light (and matter). A "photon" is nothing than a section of this wave.
The Aether as Immobile: The Michelson-Morley Experiment
The Null-Result is to be Expected
The Michelson-Morley null result does in fact disprove the existence of motionless aether. But a null result of the
Michelson-Morley-type experiments is actually to be expected when the necessary revision is made to the
aether—that it is not motionless--that the aether particles move at or near the speed of light. Rejecting Maxwell's
erroneous assumption of the constancy of light based on an immobile aether, allows for the revival of a moving
aether. Review the
Gravity pages for an aethro-kinematic description of the movement of the earth with the
aether. It describes how the earth orbits the sun because it is within the spiral vortex of the sun. The vortex of
aether of the sun carries the earth around it.

Why there is a Null-Result
What actually occurs is this: the aether carries earth in its stream—as my explanation of gravity will show—which
means earth does not move relatively to the aether. There is no “aether-wind” on earth because the earth
moves with the aether not through it. Therefore, detection of fringe shifts of light directed towards light, will not
be found, since the light is "normalized" once it enters the stream of earth's aether flow.

A Revised Michelson-Morley Experiment: Rotation of Earth a Motion Relative to the Ather
As I will explain below, while the Earth moves with the aether as it orbits the sun, the earth moves at variance to
the aether as it rotates about its axis. This means the rotational motion of the Earth creates a detectable aether
wind that can be deduced from the discrepancy in the measured speed of light.
Light as a Photon
Light as a Transverse Wave
Rather than repeat here what I've already discussed, please visit the Light web page to learn what light is, and
why it need not be considered a
transverse wave to explain the phenomenon of polarization.
Rather than repeat here what I've already discussed, please visit the Light web page to learn what light is, and
how it travels in "quantums of energy." Also review an explanation of the
photoelectric effect and two-slit
experiment in terms of a non-dualistic nature of an electron.
Most of the major objections to the aether theory have been counter-refuted. Experimental Proof of the
aether has been presented

Objections Resolved
  • The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment: based on the assumption that the aether is motionless.
Correction: the aether moves. This correction involves explaining the stellar paradox in terms of a mobile aether,
and revising Maxwell's fallacious assumptions of the constancy of speed of light.
  • Einstein's photons: based on the quantum of energy of Planck.
Correction: waves can deliver "energy" discontinuously.
  • Light travels as a transverse wave: used to explain polarization.
Correction: A wave in a three-dimensional medium cannot travel transversely. How it does travel in three     
dimensions explains the phenomenon of polarization.
Reinstatement of the Aether: Summary
Summary

This Page
  • The Supposed Proofs Against the Aether
  •        The Michelson-Morley null result (based on the theory of the aether-as-immobile as Maxwel proposed).
  •        Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect; the Compton Effect.
  •        The wave half of the particle/wave duality of light proposed to be transverse to explain the
    phenomenon of polarization and the electromagnetic nature of light.
  •        The required density of the aether medium to support the high frequencies of light.

Proof's of the Aether's Existence
  • Experimental Proof of the Existence of the Aether (Orbital Motion versus Rotational Motion)
  •        Michelson-Gale Experiment (1925)
  •        Allan et al. Global Positioning System (1985)
  • Rado's Proposed Experiment to Prove the Existence of the Aether and Disprove Einstein's Special Theory of
    Relativity
The Aether as Much Denser than Steel
Rather than repeat here what I've already discussed, please visit the Atoms web page to learn how all "atoms"
are systems of motion of the aether. Since all atoms consist mostly of "empty space" (filled by the aether of
course), it is plausible, and actually required, to hypothesize that the aether is six million times denser than steel.
There is much "space" between the "electromagnetically" bonded sub-atomic "particles".
In sum: Light is a semi-hemispherical compression pulse of the aether.
Explanation of Stellar Aberration in Terms of the Revised Aether Concept
This explanation requires an understanding of how an aether hypothesized to be moving explains gravity
systems like earth. This is explained on the
Gravity pages.

Fluid Aether Concept
The revised aether theory theorizes that the aether pervades all space and is all matter. Thus, when Young
said: “Upon considering the phenomena of the aberration of the stars I am disposed to believe, that the
luminiferous ether pervades the substance of all material bodies with little or no resistance, as freely
perhaps as the wind passes through a grove of trees” (Young 1804, pp. 12–13), this does not necessitate
an immobile aether, but rather a fluid aether that (is and)passes through atoms.

Earth is at the center of a spiral vortex. The spiral vortex of earth is within an inner part of the spiral vortex
of the sun. The direction of motion and angular speed of earth as it orbits the sun depends on the motion of
that part of the sun's vortex and earth's inertia. Ultimately, it is the transverse velocity of the sun's vortex
imparted to the vortex of earth as a whole that causes stellar aberration.

The Shape of the Aberration
The elliptical shape the apparent positions of the star takes is in a direct ratio (taking into consideration the
angle between the star and earth) to the orbit of the earth. This is because the spiral vortex of earth has a
constantly variable angular speed described by Kepler's Laws. Recall that the degree of aberration is
dependent entirely on the transverse velocity of earth. This transverse component is added to earth's spiral
vortex by the sun's spiral vortex.
Thus, ultimately, the transverse portion of the vortex motion of the sun,
which imparts its motion on earth, is the cause of aberration of light as seen on earth. The aberration is
not apparent but actual (refraction of the traveling light as it passes through the aether wind of the
sun's vortex).

Technical Description
A beam of light from a distant star will appear to be coming from a little "in front" of its true position because
of the motion of the Earth and its associated vortex, at an angle to the true position determined by the
Earth's vortex's speed, divided by the speed of light, times the sine of the angle between the direction to
the star, and the direction of the Earth's vortex's motion. Since the Earth's orbital velocity is one ten-
thousandth (1/10,000) of the speed of light, the star's position changes by up to one ten-thousandth of a
radian (360 degrees divided by 2p, divided by 10,000), or approximately 20 seconds of arc when the star is
near the Ecliptic Pole, or when it is in the plane of the Ecliptic, but at right angles to the Earth's current
direction of motion.
The Aether as Immobile: Stellar Aberration
Click Here for an explanation of the cosmic fringe (red shift) without theorizing a "Big Bang" and "Expanding Universe"
The Big Bang Theory
The "Constancy" of the Speed of Light and the Special Theory of Relativity
The constancy of the speed of light has never been proven and has often been experimentally contradicted.
These experiments are: Hafele-Keating “Time Dilation on High Speed Jets as Measured with Atomic Clocks”
(1972); Frisch and Smith (1963) and Bailey et al. (1977) “The Extended Life of Muons”; the Michelson-Gale
experiment; and Global Positioning System experiments. And, as Sagnac's experiments have shown, an earth-
centered inertial frame of reference is the only frame of reference in which “c” is correct; any other frame of
reference involves an ether wind and hence the speed of light varies. The General Theory of Relativity, since it
too can also account for the measured variability of light using complex gravity (space-time) equations based on
the speed of light being a constant in any frame, has impeded the rejection of the constancy of the speed of
light. At this point, as I mentioned before, when two theories are able to explain the same phenomena, that
one which is more logically consistent, assumes the least amount of unverifiable assumptions, and has the least
ad hoc hypotheses, is the superior theory. The new aether theory is that.
       

       
The classical principle of relativity states that the laws of physics remain the same for all reference frames
that are moving at uniform velocity with respect to each other (inertial frames of reference); and, that the
predicted results of the laws of physics begin to deviate from measured results in reference frames are
accelerating with respect to each other. The constant speed and direction of an object is relative—that is, must
be defined with respect to some other object. Maxwell's equations, like all other physics laws—since light has
never been proven to constant—must be adjusted to the frame of reference it is in. In terms of a revised aether
concept, they must account for the immediate fluid state of the aether. Maxwell's equations, then, which were
derived for an immobile ether reference frame, cannot be expected to be the same for reference frames moving
with respect to the ether. In other words, we may not conclude that the speed of light is constant for all inertial
frames; we must conclude that it varies.
       

       
It is unnecessary to refute the STR's conclusions—mainly, the relativity of simultaneity, mass, length of
objects and all inertial frames of reference—since they all depend on the false assumption of the constancy of
light, and fall away as the concept of “c” is rejected. While time is still considered to be relative, because time is
just a measure of motion—and the measure of motion is relative as the classical principle of relativity describes—
mass and length are not. Accordingly, Lorentz' transformation equations quantify the material and actual affect
of the aether on objects as the latter move through the former.
The Aether as Immobile:
The "Constancy" of the Speed of Light
The Michelson-Morley Experiment
Stellar Aberration
THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM OF AETHER THEORY AND WITH THE ILLOGICAL-CONCEPTUAL CONTENT OF RELATIVITY AND
QUANTUM THEORY ARE TWO UNJUSTIFIED
ASSUMPTIONS:

  • That light propagates as a transverse wave.
  • That the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.
Revision of the Aether Concept as its Reinstatement
Since the speed of light has never proven to be constant, since its speed has been observed to
vary, and because Maxwell's equations do not necessitate that the speed of light be constant, it is
necessary to revise the theory of the aether. Revising it such that the aether is conceived to be
always in motion makes it a power theory for explaining, in a logical and mechanical way, the
propagation of light, the action of gravity, the mechanics of magnetism, the structure of atoms. It
also, of course, can be used to give explanations of the many experiments that either seem to
disprove the aether, or require of it impossible mechanical properties.
Source: Author
In sum: One compression pulse of a light wave is equivalent to a quantum of energy.
In sum: The tired light theory suggests that the galactic red shift may be connected with the depletion of the
amplitude of light travelling through immense cosmical distances. The shifting of the spectrum towards the
red (lower frequency lower energy) occurs because of the immense distance the light travels from the
galaxy to earth.
       The restriction of the ether to being only a medium for the propagation of light waves—which began after Newton
disproved Descartes' (circular) solar vortex theory of gravity, with the success of his own equations of gravity, and with the
supposition that gravity is a force of attraction acting over a distance between two bodies—is released by simply revising, or
perhaps clarifying, the supposition that cosmologically-sized vortices would not rotate in a circular way, but in a way more
consistent with vortices observed on earth. It is entirely reasonable to base a theory of gravity on a mobile aether that
rotates in a non-circular way, which restores the aether to its original position of being an all-encompassing theory of physical
phenomena, as Descartes first intended.
The Restriction of the Ether to Being Only the Luminiferous Ether