Dear John-Erik,

Thank you for your comments. I am glad we both agree on the necessity of an aether. A colleague of mine has formulated an aether theory that provides a new theory of gravity that is different from all the others. I notice you commented on Fatio, a genius who was well ahead of his time. Tom van Flandern got me interested in gravity some decades ago, and I am well versed in most gravitation theories, except for QLG. Here I have only read Carlo Rovelli's book which I enjoyed very much, although I do not always agree with him.

I will read "How Science became fiction" and then maybe we can talk about it.

Regards,

Marts

Dear Marts,

Thanks for your gracious comment. If, as I believe, the local gravity field serves as the medium of propagation for light, then the ether is detectable. As Otis remarks above, the Michelson-Gale experiments support this interpretation perfectly. I'm working on new papers but a year old paper:

Everything's relative, or is it?

supports several of these points, starting at page 40 and going to page 55.

Quite a number of us are starting to converge, hopefully toward the truth.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Marts

Interesting essay you have written, I enjoyed it very much. It is interesting that I also cite Robert Laughlin in my essay. I was not aware of Wilcek's. In my essay and a couple of references related to this topic: The preferred reference frame reloaded and On the experimental determination of the one-way speed of light I deal with these issues. The paper on the preferred frame was a forth prize winner in the 2012 FQXi contest. I would be glad to hear some feedback from you.

Best Regards

Israel

    8 days later

    Dear Israel,

    Thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I very much enjoyed reading both your FQXI essays as they philosophically resonate with the way I think. I also enjoyed an analysis of MMX that you wrote years ago.

    In your paper "On the experimental determination of the one-way speed of light" you conclude ..."we have justified with some examples why the two methods, independently of their spatial orientations, yield the measured speed equal to c provided that u~ u-~ c."

    In Demjanov's experiment, that I quote in my essay, he purposely makes u different to u- to allow first order effects. He concludes "Thus the reality of the first order with respect to (v/c) Michelson interferometer is experimentally demonstrated. Experiments show that the shift of the interference fringe occurs in optical media and is absent in vacuum. The first order interferometer is (v/c)-1 ~1000 times more sensitive to aether wind than the second order Michelson interferometer. The first order interferometer shows the ratio signal/noise ~ 100 all round the clock. Such the resolving power and stability of measurements at any time of day and night and any season attests confidently the presence of the absolute reference frame with the Earth moving relative to it with the velocity that is above 480 km/s."

    You also noted "However, since in most experiments the paths followed by the PEs are closed, one is really impeded to determine its one-way value". In addition I noted Stephen Gift uses one way paths in his GPS timed measurements, and retrieves the motion of the Earth's rotation.

    Your concluding sentence "In this respect, the present investigation was intended to boost and encourage the experimental and theoretical investigations to overcome these technical conundrums.", which I support and thus I hope budding experimentalists take up the challenge of further demonstrating that the aether is alive and well.

    Regards

    Marts

    6 days later

    Dear Marts Liena, Your very thorough investigation of Aether undecidable has greatly interested me, since I usually highly appreciate an essay that talks about ether, which is close to my topic about the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter. According to this identity, space is matter, and matter is space that moves relative to itself, since it is matter. Ether in this convention is a synonym for matter and, conversely, matter is a synonym for ether. The ether, which is matter, creates infinite space and time. That's right, I suppose, we should think.

    聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

    聽聽聽聽聽聽At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a circular motion of an infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, the laws of motion of the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.

    Further, mathematical formulas follow that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

    Visit my essay:

    FQXi Boris Dzhechko

    Regards, Dizhechko Boris

      Dear Dizhechko Boris,

      Thanks for your comments. I haven't read your essay yet but I will schedule it soon. Re your comment "According to this identity, space is matter, and matter is space that moves relative to itself, since it is matter. Ether in this convention is a synonym for matter and, conversely, matter is a synonym for ether. The ether, which is matter, creates infinite space and time."

      I would generally agree.In my picture of the Universe there is only aether and matter (two different kinds of particles) and together they make up all of space (no voids larger than the scale of the aether particle). Being forms of energy they also "create" time. (Well technically humans create time, particles only respond to forces by way of motion and some neat tricks of energy transference by Maxwellian waves). However I do not believe in infinite space as I think the Universe is bounded. I am old school and do not believe in more than 3 spatial dimensions (like Descartes).

      I'll look forward to reading your essay and posting some more on your page

      Regards

      Marts

      17 days later

      Marts,

      Great essay, flagged up by a co-author as we closely agree. (from my 2011 essay onwards). I've long worked on this but you still found pertinent quotes etc. I'd missed. Well done, & thanks! More recently I've studied the bright light it shines on ALL other Physics; last years essay shockingly deriving a classical mechanism for QM, and a recent publication deriving a Higgs Condensate gravity, and even a cyclic cosmology! (see this yrs essay).

      I'd expected discussion of Stokes, MGP, Hatch & Wang. I see you note MGP & Wang above and assume you're familiar with the others. You note no 'magic bullet' flawless solution emerges. I agree won't as long as the aether has to magically 'change' light speed to maintain local c between different moving systems. However Johm Minkowski and I DID finally find a 'magic' solution matching ALL experiments! I hope you'll study it, viz;

      We know free electrons absorb and re-emit all light. We also know they condense at high densities at the boundaries of moving systems, so moving lens surfaces (fine structure), and ionospheric bow shocks (2-fluid plasmas with MHD turbulance between) between the suns Barycentric and Earth orbiting ECI frame. Then ALSO our rotating ECRF! Each is equivalent to Maxwells NEAR/FAR FIELD transition zone (TZ), position known to all antenna engineers.

      Of course we find re-emitted light propagates at c in the ELECTRON rest frame. Now if we hypothesisze that all electrons re-emit at the same speed in their rest frame, we've derived local CSL AND Birefringence, as found by Miller at different heights UP Mount Wilson. Whats more Einstein actually FOUND this model in his 1952 paper (appdx.V p.139) as 'bounded spaces in motion within spaces'. but was ignored, then died.

      That model overcomes the issues with Stokes 'aether drag' but is otherwise equivalent, and explains ALL experimental inconsistencies. There is no one 'absolute' frame, just always local backgrounds. Most can't easily rationalise it but I perceive you can. Do let me know, or ask any questions. I hope you'll also comment on mine.

      But very well done for your essay. It deserves a boost which my well earned top score will give. The Aether is indeed 'decidable' by intelligent minds, if not suffering cognitive dissonance'!

      Very Best, and Thanks

      Peter

        Dear Marts, indeed, Descartes introduced ether into consideration to fill the voids remaining between the large particles. However, when he claims that nature is afraid of emptiness and, if it is formed somewhere according to the will of God, then its walls are instantly closed - this means that everything, including ether, is matter. The point here is different, as neocartesian physics draws attention to, in his era it was not assumed that the speed of any movement is limited by the speed of light and therefore the walls of the resulting void do not close together instantly, but exist for a short period of time sufficient to be real - these are and can be attributed to the ether, which moves matter. I appreciate your essay and wish you success.

        Regards, Boris Dzhechko

        Dear Marts,

        Thanks for the discussion (and quotes) of Einstein's changing views of the aether.

        Best wishes,

        Vesselin

        Dear Boris Dzhechko,

        Thanks for your comments. At first reading your essay ideas seem very novel, much like those of a former colleague of mine. He has noted in various posts to essayist blogs on this site that matter and aether cannot be seperated, and that it is aether that forms the volume of space that we humans experience. His gravity idea has vortexs of aether pulling matter together. I am wondering how this can be mathematically formulated from a string perspective.

        You seem to have established a mathematical framework around your ideas quite well.

        I appreciate your comments on my aether essay and wish you success with yours.

        Marts

        Thanks ever so much for your comments. I searched out the missing link by looking you up on arxiv and found "Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies". Wow, had I known about your work I would have surely referenced you, as I should also do with Israel Perez's Aether work.

        It seems as though we are on the same page, but I defer to your much deeper probings. And I feel more confident now that the matter will be decided in the hopefully near future.

        I am currently reading your iqbit essay from a few years ago. I admire your ground breaking work!

        Best wishes,

        Marts Liena

        G'day Marts

        I thank you for your kind comments, I enjoyed your thoughtful discussions on both the variable speed of light (VSL) and the aether. I have no problem with VSL however I have no sensible comments to make about an aether that is Lorentz invariant or relies on particles or provides a medium for electromagnetic (EM) fields or waves to propagate in. For the moment I have chosen to accept "action at a distance at light speed." Having said this I believe in an aether that is comprised of EM fields and waves emanating from observable astronomical objects, along with the gravity fields and waves from the same astronomical objects. Such an aether has the reference frame of the fixed stars and we are moving through it, the CMBR which Is black-body radiation from dust in the intergalactic medium and has the same reference frame as the aether, in fact, It is a component of the aether. Zero-point radiation (ZPR) Is also a component of our new observable aether.

        This new aether incorporates the Mach principle and Newton bucket of water thought experiment.

        The ZPR must be Lorentz invariant also. This Is achieved by putting a cap on the maximum energy that the ZPR can contain, approximately equal to the maximum energy OF cosmic rays that we have ever detected. This aether also contains a lot of metal and carbon dust emitted by supernovae, which can result in changes in the permeability and permittivity of the aether, and therefore bend and focus light, as well as influencing the VSL. This dust can also contribute to non-Doppler red-shift, as well as dimming the standard candles, therefore, influencing dark energy calculations.

        This Machian Newtonian aether is not intended to compete or replace any other forms of aether but could complement other aethers.

        Good luck

        Barry

        Marts,

        Thank you kindly. We certainly are on the 'same page'. I hope my 'discrete field' model will help your work. I was surprised & pleased to find it matched Einsteins own final ('52) re-interpretation that all have ignored. The key is in removing the speed modulation function resolving all the issues, from the condensate. Did you read the latest published Higgs Condensate paper referred in the essay? Also read C C Su 2001.

        Your comprehensive analysis was also certainly worth the top score and I've just applied it. That now takes it well above mine to 7, so I hope you'll return the compliment, to less effect as mine has more scores (inclusing a number of 1's, from near neighbours I assume!)

        Very best

        Peter

        Dear Marts,

        I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

        Gravity is a dynamic process. For example, Michelson and Morley established that the earth moves relative to the medium of light propagation at a speed of 8 km / s; consequently, a gravitational potential equal to the square of this speed is formed on the Earth. In my work, this is all explained in detail:

        Quantum pilot-wave mechanism for the formation of gravitational potentials. (2019)

        While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

        I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

        Warm Regards, `

        Vladimir

        Write a Reply...