Luminiferous Aether Exists!

[OnlyMe]

Laughlin, Robert B. (2005). A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. NY, NY: Basic Books. pp. 120–121. ISBN 978-0-465-03828-2.

I have not read the above. I did just download a sample from Amazon and will try to take a quick look at that sometime in the next few weeks. I will be out of the country for a while.

I do have a couple of questions for you though, referring back to the context issue I raised earlier.

Have you read any of his peer reviewed papers and research? And how do you see the above popularized book, within the context of any of that work?

As I mentioned before context is sometimes more important than a literal reading of the words. There is a big difference between condensed matter research and gravity. At least there remains a significant divide at present. And though there can be insights found in popular publications (lay oriented books), by noted physists, those popular publications are generally not peer reviewed science. At best they are genuine attempts to provide some lay oriented understanding of difficult theoretical subjects, discussions and questions. At worst they are lay oriented books addressing popular issues, for the purpose of economic gain. In many cases one can not tell which, based on the interpretation of the lay reader, who generally approaches the subject either with preconceived notions or insufficient background information.

I do not know you, but the subject matter of your post suggests you fall into the catagory of the poorly informed lay reader, with preconceived notations.

Not having read "A Different Universe", it is difficult to say what Laughlin's intent was, from where I sit. However, after reading some of what you have been preaching, it is also difficult to believe that you have not read the same with a prejudiced ear.

 

[gravitational_aether]

I have not read the above. I did just download a sample from Amazon and will try to take a quick look at that sometime in the next few weeks. I will be out of the country for a while.

I do have a couple of questions for you though, referring back to the context issue I raised earlier.

Have you read any of his peer reviewed papers and research? And how do you see the above popularized book, within the context of any of that work?

As I mentioned before context is sometimes more important than a literal reading of the words. There is a big difference between condensed matter research and gravity. At least there remains a significant divide at present. And though there can be insights found in popular publications (lay oriented books), by noted physists, those popular publications are generally not peer reviewed science. At best they are genuine attempts to provide some lay oriented understanding of difficult theoretical subjects, discussions and questions. At worst they are lay oriented books addressing popular issues, for the purpose of economic gain. In many cases one can not tell which, based on the interpretation of the lay reader, who generally approaches the subject either with preconceived notions or insufficient background information.

I do not know you, but the subject matter of your post suggests you fall into the catagory of the poorly informed lay reader, with preconceived notations.

Not having read "A Different Universe", it is difficult to say what Laughlin's intent was, from where I sit. However, after reading some of what you have been preaching, it is also difficult to believe that you have not read the same with a prejudiced ear.

What it is it about people who consider themselves physicists or knowledgeable about mainstream physics which makes them have no common sense and for them to be unable to understand the obvious?

Non-baryonic dark matter has been shown not to be anchored to matter. This means there is something that physically occupies three dimensional space which has mass which matter moves through.

How are you unable to understand this means aether has mass? What is it about the state of mainstream physics which causes it to refuse to understand the obvious?

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image' http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

Aether has mass.

An objects resistance to acceleration is the force of the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the object.

Inertial mass is the mass of an object as it is accelerated with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists. The object displaces the aether as it moves through the aether. Since it is accelerating the force exerted by the displaced aether toward and throughout the object is not equally applied to the object.

Gravitational mass is the force exerted by the displaced aether toward and throughout an object. When you are standing on the surface of the Earth the aether displaced by the Earth is pushing down and exerting inward pressure toward you.

Both are the same phenomenon. Both are discussing the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward an object.

Relativistic mass is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object is moving with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the more the object displaces the aether the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

 

[Tach]

fnerk gibble wonton lotocatmorible, aether noctamle snarted Einstein and borftol. Quantum gortman der macilination tombo; toto toto waves!

Excellent! I could not stop laughing.

 

[RoccoR]

gravitational_aether, et al,

First, I want to say Thank You. This is entirely new information for me.

• 
  .
• 'Was the universe born spinning?' http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
• "The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"
  .
• The Universe spins around a preferred axis
  .
• 'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe' http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
  .
• The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet. http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html
  .
• The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet.
• Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding.
• What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point.
  .
• In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.
  .
• Dark energy is aether emitted into the Universal jet.
  .
• It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing

(COMMENT)

How much of a difference it makes when you see the accumulated information assembled.

For instance, I cannot tell you how many times I've seen these colorful representations of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) pictures, yet somehow had the impression that it was an image of the energy at the other end of space (the mouth of the jet or cone - I know, how stupid).

My impression was that The Universe was like a balloon. That the Big Bang resembled a balloon being inflated uniformly in all directions and that the CBR image was not a view of the center (a very small point), but what was seen on the surface of the balloon (very large area). And we see this view from a vantage point somewhere between the center of the ball and the surface of the ball. The surface would present a larger picture of energy than the center (the very small point).

Like most rapid expansions, unless there is something else in the equation, the shape would be assumed to be uniform in all directions; unless, there is something there to shape the discharge. So, I never imagined it being a jet of some sort with a shaped exhaust shape.​

For the layman, that I am, this presents an entirely new picture of The Universe.

(QUESTION)

So, if we see the Cosmic Background Radiation when we look towards the beginning of time, what do we see if we look directly away from the beginning - towards the galaxies that formed before the Milky Way and are out there - ahead of us travelling toward the great void?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[OnlyMe]

Non-baryonic dark matter has been shown not to be anchored to matter.

The statement above is an example of just a part of the problem I have with your posts. It is a statement of fact and certainty, on a subject that is inherently about something unknown.

No one "knows" what dark matter is. All that is known is that something that we cannot see or measure, affects the way light moves in space-time, that looks like gravitational lensing.

Further, the nonbaryonic dark matter, that is theorized to contribute to what we observe, includes neutrinos... And neutrinos are not displaced by baryonic matter, that which makes up what we can see.., as in ordinary visible matter. There is nothing to suggest, that if nonbaryonic matter does contribute to the observations leading to the idea that some "dark matter" does exit, that any of that nonbaryonic matter interacts with ordinary matter in any way associated with displacement. It could all pass through what we have come to know and love as ordinary visible matter, as easily as does the neutrino.

You really are jumping to a whole menagerie of conclussions, unsupported by any fact, and calling them proven...!

Nonbaryonic dark matter has not been shown to be responsible for the other wise unexplained gravitational lensing, we currently associate with an unknown origin.., we call dark matter.

The only truth in the statement is that the gravitational lensing we have come to associate with that unknow origin, does not appear to be associated with the visible baryionic matter we can see. We still have nothing but speculation as to why, and what it is.

 

[OnlyMe]

So, if we see the Cosmic Background Radiation when we look towards the beginning of time, what do we see if we look directly away from the beginning - towards the galaxies that formed before the Milky Way and are out there - ahead of us travelling toward the great void?

It does not matter in which direction we look, we are always looking at the past. We are always looking toward the beginning so to speak.

Everything we see in the night sky happened in our past. How far in our past is determined only by how far away from us what we are looking at is.

One exception to that is the CMB. It appears to be generally the same in all directions, to within a very small range of deviation, and does not appear to originate from an identifiable source. Instead it seems to be from everywhere, and a remnant of some very early stage in the evolution of the universe as we know it.

We cannot look away from the beginning, because everything in all directions occurred sometime in our past.

 

[AlexG]

What it is it about people who consider themselves physicists or knowledgeable about mainstream physics which makes them have no common sense and for them to be unable to understand the obvious?

What is it about people who know nothing at all about physics which makes them believe they are qualified to make pronouncements on the subject?

 

[wlminex]

Re: RoccoR post #454: ". . . . that the CBR image was not a view of the center (a very small point), but what was seen on the surface of the balloon (very large area)."

BTW: Has anyone, at any time, tried to graphically "overlay" (register) the CMBR 'map' with an optical view of the same area? . . . might yield some further insight into the observed CMBR anisotropies, or dark matter/energy, or galactic 'clumps'. . . just a thought. If so, can anyone provide a link?

 

[RoccoR]

OnlyMe, et al,

Yes,

It does not matter in which direction we look, we are always looking at the past. We are always looking toward the beginning so to speak.

... ... ...

We cannot look away from the beginning, because everything in all directions occurred sometime in our past.

(QUESTION)

Using the NASA graphic, if we look left, we see the now famous image of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). What do we see if we look right?

[IMAGE]http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html[/IMAGE]​

If we see the CBR in every direction we look, then the shape of The Universe is suspect. Under what conditions could the CBR be seen in every direction? While I understand that light energy takes time to travel to Earth from distant sources, won't it make sense that the sources of the energy would be different looking in directions that are 180 degrees apart; unless! the CBR surrounds us. There are very few shapes that would allow that (being surrounded by the CBR) to occur (as an example, a sphere and a donut shape would permit that). But that would also place the CBR reflection in a different position.

I assume, being so old, that my brain is not working very well. I'm assuming you are correct, and my logic is wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[brucep]

gravitational_aether, et al,

First, I want to say Thank You. This is entirely new information for me.


(COMMENT)

How much of a difference it makes when you see the accumulated information assembled.

For instance, I cannot tell you how many times I've seen these colorful representations of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) pictures, yet somehow had the impression that it was an image of the energy at the other end of space (the mouth of the jet or cone - I know, how stupid).

My impression was that The Universe was like a balloon. That the Big Bang resembled a balloon being inflated uniformly in all directions and that the CBR image was not a view of the center (a very small point), but what was seen on the surface of the balloon (very large area). And we see this view from a vantage point somewhere between the center of the ball and the surface of the ball. The surface would present a larger picture of energy than the center (the very small point).

Like most rapid expansions, unless there is something else in the equation, the shape would be assumed to be uniform in all directions; unless, there is something there to shape the discharge. So, I never imagined it being a jet of some sort with a shaped exhaust shape.​

For the layman, that I am, this presents an entirely new picture of The Universe.

(QUESTION)

So, if we see the Cosmic Background Radiation when we look towards the beginning of time, what do we see if we look directly away from the beginning - towards the galaxies that formed before the Milky Way and are out there - ahead of us travelling toward the great void?

Most Respectfully,
R

It makes sense to read the WMAP site to gather information on the CMBR and the cosmological evolution of the universe. The measurements and analysis are empirical.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/sgoals_parameters_wmap.html
You'll have a better view of the actual science and can ask questions about something you didn't understand.

 

[gravitational_aether]

gravitational_aether, et al,

First, I want to say Thank You. This is entirely new information for me.


(COMMENT)

How much of a difference it makes when you see the accumulated information assembled.

For instance, I cannot tell you how many times I've seen these colorful representations of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) pictures, yet somehow had the impression that it was an image of the energy at the other end of space (the mouth of the jet or cone - I know, how stupid).

My impression was that The Universe was like a balloon. That the Big Bang resembled a balloon being inflated uniformly in all directions and that the CBR image was not a view of the center (a very small point), but what was seen on the surface of the balloon (very large area). And we see this view from a vantage point somewhere between the center of the ball and the surface of the ball. The surface would present a larger picture of energy than the center (the very small point).

Like most rapid expansions, unless there is something else in the equation, the shape would be assumed to be uniform in all directions; unless, there is something there to shape the discharge. So, I never imagined it being a jet of some sort with a shaped exhaust shape.​

For the layman, that I am, this presents an entirely new picture of The Universe.

(QUESTION)

So, if we see the Cosmic Background Radiation when we look towards the beginning of time, what do we see if we look directly away from the beginning - towards the galaxies that formed before the Milky Way and are out there - ahead of us travelling toward the great void?

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe light travels according to the following?

www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

Maybe light travels according to the rindler horizon?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/UHS_geodesics.png

It could just be all paths of light lead to the universal jet emission point.

What we detect as the cmbr is part of an ongoing process.

 

[RoccoR]

gravitational_aether, et al,

I apologize for asking such elementary questions. But I found this most interesting, if not so exciting.

• In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

Aether has mass.

An objects resistance to acceleration is the force of the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the object.

The object displaces the aether as it moves through the aether.

Gravitational mass is the force exerted by the displaced aether toward and throughout an object. When you are standing on the surface of the Earth the aether displaced by the Earth is pushing down and exerting inward pressure toward you.

Both are the same phenomenon. Both are discussing the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward an object.

(FOLLOW-ON QUESTIONS)

OK, if Aether has mass and the first stars condensed from this matter, then, why can we not detect this Aether? Doesn't mass imply something?

Is there a direct relationship between the Fabric of Space and the Aether?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[gravitational_aether]

The statement above is an example of just a part of the problem I have with your posts. It is a statement of fact and certainty, on a subject that is inherently about something unknown.

The following article provides evidence non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to matter.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image' http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012...Dark_Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

That's one of the problems I have with your posts. The statement I made is backed up by the experimental evidence. You deny the physical evidence in order to remain ignorant of what the evidence implies.

Non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to matter is aether with mass.

No one "knows" what dark matter is. All that is known is that something that we cannot see or measure, affects the way light moves in space-time, that looks like gravitational lensing.

Further, the nonbaryonic dark matter, that is theorized to contribute to what we observe, includes neutrinos... And neutrinos are not displaced by baryonic matter, that which makes up what we can see.., as in ordinary visible matter. There is nothing to suggest, that if nonbaryonic matter does contribute to the observations leading to the idea that some "dark matter" does exit, that any of that nonbaryonic matter interacts with ordinary matter in any way associated with displacement. It could all pass through what we have come to know and love as ordinary visible matter, as easily as does the neutrino.

You really are jumping to a whole menagerie of conclussions, unsupported by any fact, and calling them proven...!

Nonbaryonic dark matter has not been shown to be responsible for the other wise unexplained gravitational lensing, we currently associate with an unknown origin.., we call dark matter.

The only truth in the statement is that the gravitational lensing we have come to associate with that unknow origin, does not appear to be associated with the visible baryionic matter we can see. We still have nothing but speculation as to why, and what it is.

Newton understood the state of displacement of the aether causes light to bend. Why can't you?

'The Third Book of Opticks (1718) by Isaac Newton' http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00051

"Qu. 20. Doth not this Æthereal Medium in passing out of Water, Glass, Crystal, and other compact and dense Bodies into empty Spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the Rays of Light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve Lines? And doth not the gradual condensation of this Medium extend to some distance from the Bodies, and thereby cause the Inflexions of the Rays of Light, which pass by the edges of dense Bodies, at some distance from the Bodies?

<325> Qu. 21. Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great Bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer? For if this Medium be rarer within the Sun's Body than at its Surface, and rarer there than at the hundredth part of an Inch from its Body, and rarer there than at the fiftieth part of an Inch from its Body, and rarer there than at the Orb of Saturn; I see no reason why the Increase of density should stop any where, and not rather be continued through all distances from the Sun to Saturn, and beyond. And though this Increase of density may at great distances be exceeding slow, yet if the elastick force of this Medium be exceeding great, it may suffice to impel Bodies from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer, with all that power which we call Gravity."

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether. The aether does not have a variable density. However, Newton was correct; displaced aether is the cause of gravity.

 

[gravitational_aether]

gravitational_aether, et al,

I apologize for asking such elementary questions. But I found this most interesting, if not so exciting.

• In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

(FOLLOW-ON QUESTIONS)

OK, if Aether has mass and the first stars condensed from this matter, then, why can we not detect this Aether? Doesn't mass imply something?

Is there a direct relationship between the Fabric of Space and the Aether?

Most Respectfully,
R

The fabric of space is the aether.

We detect the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed. It is what waves.

 

[AlexG]

Under what conditions could the CBR be seen in every direction?

The CMBR did not originate from a source or sources. It originates from an all pervasive 'fog' of photons which filled the entire universe 377,000 years after the initial expansion. These photons were constantly being absorbed and reemitted by the free electrons which also filled the universe. When the temperature of the universe dropped far enough so that protons could capture and hold electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)), the photons were free to travel, in all directions, from all points in the universe. These photons, now microwaves still fill all of space. There are about 400 million photons of the CMBR in every square meter of space.

So they appear to be coming from every direction because they are coming from every direction.

 

[brucep]

gravitational_aether, et al,

I apologize for asking such elementary questions. But I found this most interesting, if not so exciting.

• In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

(FOLLOW-ON QUESTIONS)

OK, if Aether has mass and the first stars condensed from this matter, then, why can we not detect this Aether? Doesn't mass imply something?

Is there a direct relationship between the Fabric of Space and the Aether?

Most Respectfully,
R

If you're actually interested in the REAL science then any discussion with gravitational_dummy is a discussion with a crackpot.

 

[wlminex]

AlexG: Good to discuss with you again (at least from my POV)!

Your comment: "So they appear to be coming from every direction because they are coming from every direction."

I AGREE! . . . . . although, for a different reason (source) . . . .!

 

[gravitational_aether]

If you're actually interested in the REAL science then any discussion with gravitational_dummy is a discussion with a crackpot.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

 

[OnlyMe]

The following article provides evidence non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to matter.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image' http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012...Dark_Core.html

The above is a wholly false and inaccurate statement. All that can be said with certainty is that the way light appears to be affected is consistent with gravitational lensing, not associated with visible galaxies etc..

You really don't get it at all! Dark Matter, is a place holder, it is an unknown. The purpose of which is to try and make sense of observations that don't agree with the way GR describes gravity and gravitational lensing.., without the addition of mass we cannot account for.

It is almost certain that some small part of "Dark Matter" is baryionic, normal matter that we just cannot see. However, that Dark Matter would move and interact with what we can see, in much the same way as what we can see. Thus, while it could contribute to the galactic rotation issue, it cannot be responsible for the gravitational lensing anomalies

There are at least two major ways the whole issue of galactic rotations and gravitational lensing which does not seem to be associated with the matter we can account for, could be explained.

One is by there being some form of matter or mass that is "dark", that is it does not interact electromagnetically with the matter we can account for, and yet still interacts gravitationally, at least in some weakly defined manner.

The other is that some part of what we currently believe we know about how the universe, space, space-time and matter interact, is itself inaccurate at cosmological scales.

Some very bright people are working on explaining the observational data from both approaches......., and no one has yet found a completely successful solution.

One thing I can say for certain, is that the pap you are spouting, is not new and has been debunked so completely, it is not even worth trying to explain its failures. The arguments are all easily available on the internet.

Gravity is not the result of ether preassure. That idea is so naive it is almost laughable, to even mention it.

As far as matter displacing a relativistic ether, it is far more likely that IF there is a relativistic ether or something that could be characterized as similar to a relativistic ether, matter and that ether would be more likely to pass through each other interacting only weakly.

And to spet off into a highly speculative side track myself... (take the following as a fiction, of imagination)

At least in that case, in a stable inertial system the matter and Dark Matter Ether would act more or less as a whole with equal distribution and kinetic evolutions, over time. While allowing that in the case of the collisions of galaxies and galactic clusters, the two (matter and dark matter) may not be subject to the same kinetic evolutions. IE Their weakly defined interaction leads to different kinetic trajectories emerging from the collision.

 

[gravitational_aether]

The above is a wholly false and inaccurate statement. All that can be said with certainty is that the way light appears to be affected is consistent with gravitational lensing, not associated with visible galaxies etc..

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together."

The above statement is saying the non-baryonic dark matter is not anchored to the matter. The fact that you can't understand this is bizarre.

You really don't get it at all! Dark Matter, is a place holder, it is an unknown. The purpose of which is to try and make sense of observations that don't agree with the way GR describes gravity and gravitational lensing.., without the addition of mass we cannot account for.

It is almost certain that some small part of "Dark Matter" is baryionic, normal matter that we just cannot see. However, that Dark Matter would move and interact with what we can see, in much the same way as what we can see. Thus, while it could contribute to the galactic rotation issue, it cannot be responsible for the gravitational lensing anomalies

There are at least two major ways the whole issue of galactic rotations and gravitational lensing which does not seem to be associated with the matter we can account for, could be explained.

One is by there being some form of matter or mass that is "dark", that is it does not interact electromagnetically with the matter we can account for, and yet still interacts gravitationally, at least in some weakly defined manner.

The other is that some part of what we currently believe we know about how the universe, space, space-time and matter interact, is itself inaccurate at cosmological scales.

Some very bright people are working on explaining the observational data from both approaches......., and no one has yet found a completely successful solution.

One thing I can say for certain, is that the pap you are spouting, is not new and has been debunked so completely, it is not even worth trying to explain its failures. The arguments are all easily available on the internet.

Gravity is not the result of ether preassure. That idea is so naive it is almost laughable, to even mention it.

As far as matter displacing a relativistic ether, it is far more likely that IF there is a relativistic ether or something that could be characterized as similar to a relativistic ether, matter and that ether would be more likely to pass through each other interacting only weakly.

And to spet off into a highly speculative side track myself... (take the following as a fiction, of imagination)

At least in that case, in a stable inertial system the matter and Dark Matter Ether would act more or less as a whole with equal distribution and kinetic evolutions, over time. While allowing that in the case of the collisions of galaxies and galactic clusters, the two (matter and dark matter) may not be subject to the same kinetic evolutions. IE Their weakly defined interaction leads to different kinetic trajectories emerging from the collision.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."