Notes: Historically there are three basic types of aether: (i) Aristotle’s fifth element, (ii) luminiferous, and (iii) gravitational. The symbol Λ stands for the cosmological constant in most conventional theories, and for the generic expansion of space in DSSU theory.

5 Consequences and Problems Associated with Denial

The denial of aether has led to a chain of misconceptions of the nature of reality that can only be described as incomplete at best and paradoxical at worst. After the initial misinterpretation of 1887, one misconception led to another, widening the non-reality, deepening the unresolvability. The first misconception was the no-preferred-frame idea. It led to Maxwell’s perfectly valid preferred frame of reference being discarded. Then, without a special frame, there can be no absolute motion. It then follows that without absolute motion ALL translational motion must be relative. And if all motion is relative, what better way is there for describing the physical world than with Einstein’s special and general relativity? The historic chain of misconceptions continued as relativity theory was applied to the whole universe and eventually gave us Sean Carroll’s preposterous expanding universe. Physicists know, or suspect, there is something wrong here. The incompleteness and the paradoxes that have arisen are too easily demonstrated to be ignored.

Unfortunately, the premise was invalid from the very start. Unfortunately, the rejection of aether and the consequential incomplete theory of gravity has led theorists to propose highly speculative universes of mathematical genre —abstractions devoid of reality.

Although the premise was flawed, in the course of theoretical development the step by step logic, decade after decade, was wonderfully flawless and found its grandest expression as the golden age of the expanding universes. The 20^th century witnessed an astrocopeia of models based on Einstein’s gravity equations. (Check out the lengthy list of expansion models in Table 2 of the Web article, Models of the Universe). Like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice whose spell conjured up too many magic brooms, theorists were finding that their magical mathematical equations were producing more and more versions of the expansion scenario.

As I said, it was a golden season; expansion was the big thing, and the harvest was abundant. But now it is wintertime —time for testing survivability. This vast enterprise, responsible for proliferating and for stockpiling a multitude of theoretical models, must now face the frigid fact that there was —there IS— only one real universe! ... And any scientist, professional or amateur, will tell you that a theory that allows (or predicts) too many possibilities makes for a very weak theory. A weak theory is more appropriately called a hypothesis or a speculation; and rarely survives.

The point is they —Academic Cosmologists— have problems. Serious problems.

When theorists deny the existence of aether they are left with no medium for the propagation of Maxwell’s electromagnetic waves.

Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion, whereby aether serves as the medium for the propagation of light, while claiming that the emptiness of space is filled with all kinds of stuff like quantum particle-pair formation, and various entities continually popping in and out of existence, and, of course, vacuum energy. But note, these things are not just scattered around randomly in “empty” space. They permeate all space. Physicist Robert Oerter, in his book A Theory of Almost Everything, explains that there are harmonic oscillators, one at each point in space, wherever there are quantum fields (which happens to be most everywhere). In what is otherwise empty space, these oscillators are pulsating in their lowest energy state. “We know, however, that a harmonic oscillator has some energy even in its lowest energy state. This vacuum energy exists at every point in space ...” [27] Robert Oerter leaves no room for doubt; there are entities at every point in space!

But wait a minute ... that sounds suspiciously like a space medium.

Let’s shine a light into this space used by “the standard model of modern physics.” A light beam travels through points in (or of) space; there are oscillators at every point; the light, then, must pass through the oscillators. The light can’t go around the oscillators since there are no gaps, no free points, no free zone. Clearly, light is being conducted —conducted by the oscillators along the light ray’s path —by the space medium itself —by the luminiferous aether that physicist have long rejected. What other conclusion could there possibly be? ... Light does travel through a ubiquitous space-medium. Yet almost no physicist acknowledges the fact. (Let there be no doubt about the seriousness of aether denial or aetherphobia. Those afflicted, as if participating in a reversal of a popular fable in which the Emperor IS fully clothed, are claiming He has no clothes!)

The situation with the light-conducting-medium reveals a problem on another level. It reveals the age old “problem” of heresy, the undermining of the establishment’s sacred ideas. The guardians of the Official view do not tolerate dissent. Consequently, under the oppressive rules of Academia no one today dares to call it the luminiferous aether let alone generic aether. For two thousand years, few dared to challenge the authority of Aristotle. Today, few dare to challenge the authority of Einstein.

Aether denial, of course, goes hand in hand with the denial of absolute motion —yet absolute motion is surprisingly easy to prove.

The denial of aether led Einstein to two famous but incomplete theories of relativity. One is missing the principle of absolute motion and, therefore, is unable to explain the real difference in the speed of a light ray (along separate paths) observable in any gas-mode Michelson apparatus (particularly when calibrated as per Cahill’s method to correct for Lorentzian contraction). The other theory is missing ... How shall I state this? ...

Here we have what may well be the biggest problem of all. Without aether there is no plausible way to convey the effect of gravity. We are left with no way to convey Newton’s force of gravity. And in the terminology of general relativity: we are left with no way to manifest the effect of space curvature.

It is sad to note that more than 300 years after Newton presented the world with a scientific definition of gravity, the cause is still being reported as a mystery. Peter Bergmann, a devoted student and follower of Einstein, underscores this dismal deficiency by authoring a book entitled The Riddle of Gravitation. The title refers to the unresolved problem of Einstein’s theory of gravity. For relativity experts like Bergmann, gravity is a mystery for the simple reason that the underlying mechanism is missing. The rejection of aether, and its dynamic properties, is directly responsible for this impasse.

Without aether, theorists are led to a totally unrealistic picture of the universe. They arrive at a philosophically untenable picture of an expanding universe with its physically impossible singularity initial state and its questionable end state. They lose sight of the principle that the Universe is the manifestation of existence; and existence does not begin or end; existence is absolute and cannot be qualified in any way.

There is also a major practical problem. Without aether there is no plausible way to explain the abundant experimental evidence detailed in the Chronology Table above. There is no way to explain the findings by using standard physics. Yet it appears that official institutions are not in any hurry to solve the mystery. For instance, in 1999 NASA set up an investigative commission headed by Dr. David Noever (a NASA scientist) to review the Maurice Allais experiments. A decade later and we’re still waiting on the outcome. The lengthy delay speaks volumes. One suspects there is a desperate effort to avert a revolution in physics and cosmology; and it is unlikely that the report will ever be issued. Maurice Allais is unlikely to live long enough to see it anyway. A website search of NASA (http://Science.msfc.nasa.gov/) gives only the original 1999 report.[28] [29] Two more examples of neglected experiments with solid evidence are the Dayton Miller 1925/26 studies and the Roland De Witte 1991 tests lasting 178 days. It has been predicted that these two experiments will eventually be recognized as two of the most significant experiments in physics. The experiments were completely independent and used significantly different techniques yet they detected the same velocity of absolute motion. Furthermore, they detected clear evidence of turbulence in the flow of aether past the Earth. They had discovered aether-type gravitational waves. Again, officially sanctioned theories have no plausible explanation.

Both Miller and De Witte have been repeatedly attacked for their discoveries. Sadly, De Witte was never permitted to publish his data in a physics journal. Tragically, after being dismissed from his research position, being misled by so-called anti-relativists, and having his findings ignored and even censured, Roland De Witte became deeply depressed and suffered an early death.

The rejection of aether has now led to a near crisis situation in Cosmology and Physics. The proof of the existence of aether is out there. It is being ignored and even suppressed.[30] Evidence is ignored, year after year. All the while the experimental physicists keep rediscovering what is not supposed to exist —the aether and its associated absolute motion. The most recent rediscovery occurred in 2006. (See the Chronology Table). It involved a new method —method number three, if your keeping count.

A review of the history of aether reveals that aether is repeatedly being re-discovered; as if its previous discovery has been forgotten, again and again. For instance, Roland De Witte was unaware of Miller’s historic work. ... Forgive the broadness of my question, but what is going on here!? What kind of science is being practiced in society’s noble institutions when solid experimental evidence is ignored? Or worse, censored and suppressed?

While there is mostly silence among the ranks of institutionalized degree holders, this fact remains: Without aether we are unnecessarily burdening ourselves with an incomprehensible “preposterous universe.”

6 The Aether of the New Cosmology

The study and research of a cosmos devoid of its essential ingredient, aether, is as pointless and unproductive as were traditional theological dissertations. Cosmology without the aether concept is a dead-end endeavor —assuming, of course, that one’s goal is the perception of reality.

Cosmology as a belief system is a different matter. Needless to say, if one is practicing cosmology as a quasi-religion then one is free to believe whatever one chooses. Unrestrained by the scientific method, one is free to ignore the paradoxes that arise, free to include the non sequiturs, free to worship any authority. It is indeed sad to report that Academic Cosmology has made a grave digression; it has become a belief system. The aether controversy reveals the century long transformation of Academic Cosmology —a transformation into non-scientific Creationism.[31] Science historian Corey S. Powell in his book, God in the Equation, provocatively and eloquently argues that what Academia practices today is a faith called “science/religion” and details how Einstein, the most popular genius of the century, became the prophet of a cosmological revolution.

The faith-based cosmology dominated the 20^th century. The new cosmology began in the year 2002 with Cahill’s discovery of the mechanism of gravitation and the author’s development of DSSU theory. It is a cosmology based on a new concept of aether.

It should be made clear that the new aether theory with its heretical notion of absolute space and absolute motion does not necessarily entail the rejecting and replacing of existing theories. For instance, Einstein’s theory of relative motion remains valid in a restricted sense; the theory is subsumed as relative motion becomes but a special case of a more general theory of absolute motion. General relativity theory remains valid in a restricted mathematical sense.

Now if the subsummation of Einstein’s relativity is what is involved here, then most physicists have misconceived the threat to their belief system. They had always thought that legitimizing an aether theory would mean the overthrow of “relativity.” They simply had not expected that a theory of absoluteness could embrace “relativity” and incorporate it into a broader theory.

Another misconception is the notion that absolute space is explicitly a static space. True enough, Newton’s space was absolute and static. But it is not a necessary combination. Consider a non-absolute space. Einstein’s geometrized space was non-absolute and notably dynamic. And this also is not a necessary combination. These characteristics are but the chosen axioms of a particular theory. Newton chose absolute and static, Einstein chose non-absolute and dynamic. Both choices are problematic. So the obvious question arises; what about a combination of absolute and dynamic? And the answer came in the year 2002. Under a new theory (see DSSU theory in the table above) axioms were selected to make space absolute and dynamic. Absolute because the experimental evidence demands it to be so; dynamic because Einstein and Friedmann proved it to be so. Significantly, in DSSU theory, space, as general relativity unequivocally demands, retains its ability to expand and to contract. Definitively, DSSU aether-space is both absolute and dual-dynamic and not at all static.

This is a totally new concept of aether. (R.T. Cahill’s Process-Physics aether also deserves this claim.)

Does this make for a superior type of space? To answer this question, consider what the standard theory is missing and what the new-cosmology theory offers. Both Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s gravity do not give an actual cause or an actual mechanism; but a properly constructed aether theory does. The dual-dynamic aether provides Einstein’s mathematical theory of gravity with what the theory has long been lacking —a real-world ‘substance’ with the real ability to convey the gravitational effect. (And this ability has nothing to do with the propagation of gravitons. The new aether is not a medium for gravitons.) In other words, DSSU aether endows the theory of gravity with its essential causal mechanism.

The definition of the phenomenon we know as gravity (applicable to DSSU theory as well as Process Physics) is the inhomogeneous bulk flow of aether-space towards and into matter. The emphasis is on the inhomogeneity of the aether flow, rather than the flow-motion itself, and manifests as an acceleration. The foregoing is the definition of normal gravity (i.e., contractile) the related definition for unified gravity simply includes the expansionary aspect of aether-space.

Indeed, the New Cosmology does have a superior type of space. Not only does it provide the causal mechanism for gravity, but it also makes possible a unified theory of gravity.

The aether theorists and researchers of today clearly have the advantage. The case for the existence of aether need not at all be defended —since the experimental evidence is undeniable. It is those who actively deny the experimental evidence or passively ignore the historical and continuing research who are exposing themselves to accusations of scientific malpractice. ... It is they who are responsible for fabricating “the preposterous universe.”