He did no such thing. If he had he would have figured out the following.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
Aether Displacement
- Thread starter mpc755
- Start date
He did no such thing. If he had he would have figured out the following.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
All you just did was argue with me by repeating the same thing as I said, and that is just ignorant. I think you are a computer bot, and something doesn't make sense about your replies.
That is not what I am saying the aether is.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.
The aether is not rigid. Matter displaces the aether.
I can't help it if you are unable to understand the correctness in the following.
Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
You quote Einstein from a 1920 address at the University of Leyden titled, "Ether and the theory of relativity". But you continue to quote only a few phrases and fail to take into account the audience he was speaking to at the time.
In 1920, the general theory of relativity had only been published for five years and the special theory of relativity only fifteen years. Most of the people studying physics at least as undergraduates were still being educated from within the context of an aether based understanding of electrodynamics.
He was in that address comparing the space of GR with Maxwell's, ether of electrodynamics and Lorentz's ether (that included mechanics).
I do not believe that Einstein was saying that GR included "the ether". What he was doing was describing the interaction of space and matter in a way his audience could understand his intent. He was explaining that from the perspective of GR, space itself had to have some fundamental intrinsic "substance" of its own, which enabled the interaction of matter and space. This interaction from the perspective of GR leads to the curvature of space and that curvature is what we experience as gravity.
There were a lot of qualifications to the analogy in that address. He seemed overly cautious about confusing the substance of space with the substance of ordinary matter.
In the end the key quote of that address is found in the third paragraph from the end,
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnctic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and matter.
Bold emphasis mine.In this address Einstein was using the terms "space" and "ether" interchangeably. He was connecting the concept of ether from their education, with the concept of space from the context of GR. It was a long way around to saying, "Well, you could think of space, as ether if you wanted to.., light moves through space they way you have been taught that it moves through the ether."
When trying to understand the things anyone is trying to communicate it is of some importance to understand the context within which their explanation was given. In this case the context was the existing knowledge base of his audience.
From the same address Einstein stated the following.
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"
What Einstein was unable to figure out is the cause which conditions the state of the ether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places. This is the state of displacement of the aether.
"Gravitational ether" is the force exerted by displaced ether toward matter.
Not really true. Einstein reluctantly replaced the Aether with space-time because he could not get his head around the Aether not showing up in experiments. I have fixed that part. If Einstein was around to hear my fix, he would go back to Aether with a new theory, and replace relativity.
Great, then start your own thread.
Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
What then is "space"?
I believe you are wrong here. The space-time of GR was a natural progression, derived from the application of SR to the problems of gravity. In SR Einstein discarded Newton's static view of an absolute space. Once space was no longer a fixed background for the interaction of objects and the speed of light in vacuum was elevated to the level of a universal constant, curved space-time was an inevitable conclusion, of the mathematics of 4-D space-time. (Einstein had long been a fan of Minkowski 4-D space-time. He just carried it a bit further than his old teacher had.)
Great! Glad we cleared that up.
Now could you answer my question on your idea:
What is the mathematical model of how the galaxy moving through the 'aether' would form a halo?
Use any approximations or assumptions you like - just identify them.
When I first figured out what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity I called it spacial displacement. The spelling of spacial was intentional to denote it was space which was displaced by matter. However, there could be confusion as to what is actually being displaced. Is it three dimensional space or is it that which physically occupies three dimensional space which is displaced by matter? Since it is that which physically occupies space which is physically displaced by matter I renamed it to aether displacement.
Last edited:
Great! So you now understand the following statement of yours could not be more incorrect?
"Ah yes, Einstein, he was that fellow that showed that the concept of an aether should be abandoned."
Well flow results in curved space-time. With any theory, you should always go with the predominate factor, the cause. If you add flow to Aether into the Earth you get both curved space-time, and fix the Michael Morley experiment. You also get gravity, and magnetism, and the bubbles. I know you get the bubbles because I predicted them with this theory in 2004 before they were found. I know that Einstein would rather go with the cause, than the effect.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Only one problem with your theory is that mass evolves to space, continuously. The earth is moving away from the sun. The moon is moving away from earth. Our solar system is moving away from the black hole that is the center of our galaxy.
This outward motion over time means that back in time these objects were closer, and for good reason, they departed their cores. The Earth came from the sun!
So you think of gravity as an acceleration of earth towards the sun, and the moon towards the earth, but the distance is increasing, not decreasing. That makes it pretty tough for you to say that the earth is accelerating towards the sun due to gravity, when in fact the earth is getting FURTHER AWAY from the sun, wouldn't you say?
Gravity is not what you think it is.
Yes.. curved space time is the Aether with the properties of a superfluid that doesn't flow. I forgot.
Aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid.
Start your own thread.
When you start talking about "the flow" and gravity it begins to sound more like a LeSage style kinetic model of gravity. Not new and rife with its own inherent problems.
I like the idea of a kinetic gravity model. There would seem to be some potential to resolve some of the conflicts between GR and QM within such a model. The problem lies in that every serious attempt to reconsider a kinetic model of gravity runs into fatal flaws. Most common among them being the vaporization of matter. An event that in itself is not consistent with experience.
There are also a number of fringe models out there. Of those that I am aware they never get to the point of atom vaporization, since they never address what the flow is composed, where it is going, or how energy is transferred.
Any such model, involving a kinetic transfer of motion, must address not only the mechanism of transfer but how sufficient kinetic energy can be transferred to atoms to account for gravitational force and inertia without that same kinetic energy leading to the destruction.., vaporization of the atom and thus the universe as we know it.
Simply saying, it is the flow.., is no better than saying it is displacement. Both ideas need to be further explained such that they represent an accurate account of experience.
With all of this reference to a superfluid, perhaps a definition is in order.
The terms superfluid and perfect fluid both originate from within QM and I don't think either act in the way either of you believe they do.
Still from within GR gravitational force is often modeled using perfect fluid and condensed matter models. However, this most likely has more to do with the complexity of attempting to model the mass distributions of real astronomical objects, than it does anything else.