I'm not surprised there are no responses.
Because no one thinks it's worth giving you much of the time of day.
Aether waves simply undergo frequency shifting or chirping. Frequency chirping is of the form $$cos(at^2 + bt + c)$$.
Except you haven't demonstrated that is what happens. You had to ask here about varying frequencies, someone linked you to the chirplet and now you're running with that. That isn't actually how light behaves when moving through a gravitational field. You need to solve null geodesic equations in relativity.
When the strong acceleration fields of a black hole cause a photon to frequency shift, it can be described as
frequency chirping. The acceleration of gravity and the frequency chirp are coupled together. When a frequency chirp is repeated at a high repetition rate, an aether wave image of the gravity field forms. This image will be a lot weaker than the original gravity that can cause a frequency chirp like that.
Thanks for showing you're just pulling things out of your backside. As I said, you've latched onto chirplets because someone else told you they do varying frequencies, not because you've derived them from the behaviour of photons in a black hole's space-time. The behaviour of photons is not as described in chirplets. This is a demonstrable
fact because the black hole metric actually applies to the Earth and Sun too (it's for spherical objects in general) and thus we know from experiments that GR is an accurate model for photon behaviour. Photons moving around a black hole do not behave as you claim.
Thus your claims are falsified.
No doubt you'll now make excuses and claim that your aether suddenly doesn't say it's a chirplet but something else. Unfortunately for you you obviously lack the necessary knowledge and brainpower to do the relativistic modelling of the photons. The best you've managed maths-wise is just copying basic equations you obviously don't understand.
There have been no experiments to confirm whether or not a repeated frequency chirp will create an image of a gravity potential. In the absence of experimental data, this remains an unanswered question.
Wrong! Photons in black hole backgrounds do not follow the chirplet profile. So if your claim frequency shifts and gravitational potentials are equivalent then a chirplet experiment (assuming your experiment weren't fundamentally wrong in other ways) wouldn't give that gravity potential.
This is the problem with knowing bugger all and trying to deceive people into thinking you are doing something viable. When you just borrow (or rather
steal) ideas you don't understand from all over the place you have no way of determining whether they are consistent with one another or reality. And in this case it's led to a demonstration your claims are just that, random unjustified claims you've borrowed from other places without understanding them. How long do you plan to keep this up? Do you think this is going to go anywhere?
You are bullshitting your way out of the question
Wow, talk about hypocrisy. You have repeatedly claimed you think common sense is the ultimate guide, you claim it's common sense to say all things which exist must have a cause and you believe in a god which is the creator of everything. Those beliefs are contradictory and I've repeatedly asked you to address that but you ignore me. That was an explicit demonstration your claims about common sense were flawed. Now we've got another demonstration your claims are just nonsense.
Here it is again: Why do individual particles wave when they go through both slits in the Double slit experiment?
A result nicely and easily explained using wave functions. Wave functions
which are not aether. Saying "It's an aether wave!" doesn't make your case. Quantum mechanical fields are not aethers. Saying they are is abusing definitions and very dishonest. It's like calling a dog a cat because it has 4 legs and a tail. Yes, but there's distinguishing features which mean they aren't the same.
Can you provide a working model of the system which gives the interference patterns? I don't mean some arm waving and some BS. I mean provide a model which describes particle emissions from a point source which result in a field intensity which is a standing wave on the detection screen. What's your model's version of say the Schrodinger equation, a central equation which allows you to model various physical systems and extract quantitive results. And no, you cannot just say "Well it's the Schrodinger equation" because you haven't shown you can derive such a thing from postulates pertaining to aether concepts. Until you can do such a thing
you don't have an explanation for the double slit experiment.
If you don't know, then just say so.
Why don't you follow your own advice? You obviously don't know about any of the science pertaining to what you make claims about yet you don't admit it. You go so far as to say aliens told you.
Here's another question for your common sense. If someone claimed to speak directly to god about how the universe works yet made errors so basic children know better and who is demonstrably just sticking together disparate results from maths and physics, none of which he can do himself, would it be common sense
not to believe his claims about understanding physics and speaking to god? Common sense would say he's not talking to god. And if he believes himself to be in contact with god but the evidence says otherwise then what does common sense tell you about his mental well being? Common sense says he should see a doctor as he's manifesting signs of a mental illness.