The Aether, Yes or No
by Ken Seto
The consequences of these two interpretations of space give rise to two camps of physics: In the aether—no camp we have the combined theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. In the aether—yes camp we have Model Mechanics. Obviously, only one of these camp has a chance to be right (either there is aether or no aether) and the problem is to determine which camp is right. The purpose of this posting is to lay out the current state of the art and the experimental facts of both camps and let the readers decide.
THE AETHER—NO CAMP:
The aether—no interpretation arose from the Michelson-Morley experiments and special relativity. The main consequences of this interpretation can be summarized as follows:
- Time is not absolute—it is flexible and dilatable.
- There is no preferred frame of reference and the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames.
- The speed of light is the same in all directions and all inertial frames;
- Lights and particles have duality properties (i.e. they can behave like particles sometimes and like waves sometimes). This interpretation is necessary because of the aether—no interpretation leaves no other alternative to interpret the results of the quantum experiments such as the double slit experiments. Also, this interpretation is necessary because it would give the mean for a particle to be anywhere in the universe in any given time.
- Since there is no aether occupying space physicists must find an alternative way to transmit the forces of nature. The fields of virtual particles (force messengers) were invented for this purpose. The existence of the virtual particles are, in turn, financed by the provisions of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is formulated as a result of the uncertainty of measurement of a pair of conjugate properties such as energy/time.
With these consequences in mind, the current state of our universe as envisaged by the combination of quantum mechanics and relativity is as follows:
Space is occupied by different fields that are superimposed on top of each other. When a field is quantized the quantized pieces are the quanta of the field. When a field has sufficient energy its quanta can have permanent existence (e.g.: electrons and quarks). When a field is based on borrowed energy financed by the uncertainty principle then its quanta will have a very fleeing existence and these are the force messengers. The electromagnetic force between particles is the result of exchanging virtual photons. The nuclear weak force is the result of exchanging W and Z virtual particles. The nuclear strong force is the result of exchanging colored virtual gluons. There is no viable theory of quantum gravity. Gravity must be described by general relativity which is the result of objects following each other’s geodesic path. There are approximately 78 fundamental particles (including antiparticles) postulated by quantum mechanics. With the exception of electron, up quark, down quark and electron neutrino all the other particles are extremely unstable. This description of the current state of the universe is known as the Standard Model. The most successful theory of the Standard Model is the QED. The predictions of QED have shown to be agreeing with experiment to an accuracy of one part in a billion. However, the Standard Model has problems. To begin with, it is not capable of uniting all the forces of nature under a single framework. Furthermore, quantum mechanics uses abstractive processes to explain real processes. This practice leaves the theory full of abstractions which, in turn, are in need of explanation.
There is another frontier theory in the AETHER—NO� camp and that is the superstring theory. The superstring theory is supposed to be able to unite all the forces of nature and explain all the fundamental particles. However, physicists are not able to solve the equations of superstring. Also, the theories are not testable because the energy requirement are so high. Also, superstring theories require 6 additional dimensions to work. There is no chance that we will ever be able to detect these extra dimensions in our universe. Therefore the existence of these extra dimensions are at best questionable.
THE AETHER—YES CAMP:
In the aether—yes camp we have Model Mechanics. There may be other theories out there that endorses the idea of an aether but undoubtedly Model Mechanics is the most comprehensive. For those readers who are not familiar with Model Mechanics, I strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of my book. The book is entitled “Model Mechanics: A New Interpretation of Nature,” and the ordering info is in my web page: or you can order the book by sending me an email <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
To introduce the new readers to Model Mechanics I am including the table of contents, the preface and the conclusion of my book for their reference.
Chapter 1 A Brief History of Modern Physics ……………………………1
Chapter 2 A Modern Interpretation of Relativity…………………………13
Chapter 3 A Modern Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics………………27
Chapter 4 A Modern Interpretation of Cosmology……………………….67
Chapter 5 A New Interpretation of Mathematics…………………………79
Chapter 6 Model Mechanics……………………………………………..87
Chapter 7 Cosmology as Interpreted by Model Mechanics……………..129
Chapter 8 The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model Mechanics………145
Chapter 9 Conclusions………………………………………………….155
Selected Bibliography………………………………………………….. 179
Physicists have determined that there are four forces of nature; they are: gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear weak and strong forces. The Theory of Everything, The Final Theory and The Holy Grail of Physics are terms used by physicists to represent a theory that can unite all the four forces under a single framework. The Standard Model of quantum mechanics gives a good description of the electromagnetism, nuclear weak and strong forces individually. Also, it provides a partial mechanism that unites the electromagnetic force and the nuclear weak force under a single framework. However, it is not capable of including the nuclear strong force in this unification process. A more speculative theory—The Grand Unified Theory (GUT)—can describe these three forces under a single framework. However, so far, GUT has no experimental support. Also, neither the Standard Model nor the GUT are capable of including gravity in their description of the forces. The theory of general relativity gives a good description of the gravitational force but it is not capable of describing the other three forces. Since the invention of quantum mechanics and general relativity in the early 1900’s, all attempts by physicists to unite these theories into a single framework have failed. It is the objective of this book to review the causes of these failures and to propose a unified theory for all the forces of nature.
I developed an interest in searching for a unified theory in the early 1980’s. Initially, I followed the traditional approach by building on top of existing theories. However, after many years of fruitless search, I came to realize that there is a real danger with the traditional approach, even though it is the most logical way to formulate a new theory. The problem of the traditional approach is that it will inherit all the flaws of the past theories. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to arrive at the correct final theory with this approach. Furthermore, any theory derived this way could give us a false sense of security that we are heading in the right direction. This could prevent us from considering other alternatives that may be more promising. This is especially true if the new theory yields results in a limited range that agree with experimental data. Perhaps the best example of this is the duality concept for light and particles postulated by quantum mechanics.
I came up with a new approach for problem solving and I called this the Pyramid Techniques. The Pyramid Techniques enabled me to screen all my ideas of the initial and present state of the universe quickly. Model Mechanics is the result of these screening processes. The term Model Mechanics represents a group of new theories that describe the microscopic world of atomic and subatomic particles. Also, it describes the macroscopic world of ordinary objects, such as billiard balls, and extends to include the large scale universe. Model Mechanics is capable of unifying all the forces of nature. Also, it provides the realistic answers to such fundamental questions as: Why do the forces of nature have such different strengths? What is mass and how is it manifested in a particle? Why do particles have the masses they do? What are electric charges and how are they manifested in particles? Why does an object possess inertia? How did the universe come into being? How were the large galaxies and galactic clusters formed? On this basis, Model Mechanics is better able to describe the processes of nature than quantum mechanics and relativity combined.
In their quest for a Theory of Everything, physicists often stress that simplicity and beauty are the essential ingredients. Model Mechanics fits this description perfectly. It is simple because it reduces everything in the universe that we see, sense or hear into two things. They are: the E-MATRIX (a substance that occupies all of space) and the S-Particles (the only truly fundamental particles that exist in the universe). The motions of the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX give rise to all the other particles and all the forces of nature. It is beautiful because this simple system has organized itself into the immense complexity that we see today.
I have presented Model Mechanics to a number of physicists and their immediate reaction was that I did not have a full understanding of quantum physics and relativity. Also, they pointed out that quantum mechanics and relativity had been confirmed to a high degree of accuracy by numerous past experiments. The reviewers rejected Model Mechanics because it is not based on the accepted quantum theory and relativity. I pointed out to them that I would not have been able to come up with the theories of Model Mechanics if I had followed the normal course of development. So far, no one has been able to come up with a valid reason for rejecting Model Mechanics. One physicist remarked that we were in competition with each other and that it would not be to his interest to help me confirm Model Mechanics. His reaction shocked me considerably. I told him that we were not in competition with each other and that Model Mechanics could offer a way out of the current difficulties experienced by the current frontier theories.
The main purpose of this book is to give frontier physics a different alternative. Since the beginning of modern physics, we have been conducting experiments with the assumptions that all fixed earth bound experimental apparatuses were motionless relative to light. Therefore, we excluded the effects of motions of the experimental apparatuses in all our interpretations of experimental results. The consequence of this misconception forced us to use abstractive and holistic properties to explain some seemingly otherwise unexplainable results. It is my profound wish that Model Mechanics can provide a new insight to clear up this misconception and to set a new direction for frontier physics so that it can flourish again as it did when quantum mechanics and relativity were first introduced.
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS
The human mind is boundless. It has the tendency to shelter itself from the unknowns with endless abstractive constructions.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most successful theories in the history of physics. However, in spite of their successes, these theories failed to describe many processes of nature. In particular, they failed to unify the forces of nature and to give a realistic origin of the universe and of life. It turns out that a series of erroneous interpretations of mathematics and experimental results was the common cause of the failures. The main events that led to these erroneous interpretations are as follows:
- Michelson and Morley conducted experiments to detect the aether atmosphere. The results of these experiments ruled out the existence of aether atmosphere. This, in turn, led to the erroneous conclusion that there was no substance of any kind occupying space. 2. Einstein supported Michelson and Morley’s conclusions. He invented the special theory of relativity that eliminated the need for any substance in space. However, in this process he was forced to make the erroneous conclusion that time is a flexible quantity.
- Einstein invented the general theory of relativity to describe the gravitational force. He used abstractive mathematics to construct his equations. Also, he made the erroneous interpretation that all the particles in the universe exert an attractive gravitational force on each other and that their relative direction of motion has no effect on this force.
- Max Planck discovered that light existed in the form of discrete packets (quanta) and Einstein advanced the idea of a particle of light (photon). The results of the Compton shift experiments was erroneously assumed to confirm the particle properties of light. The double slit experiment was erroneously assumed to confirm the wave properties of light. Therefore, it was concluded erroneously that light had dual properties. It turns out that there exists another explanation. A photon can be interpreted as a short pulse of light waves in a specific E-STRING. All lights come in short pulses—due to the constant motion of all the light sources in the E-MATRIX. What about the results of the double slit and the Compton Shift experiments? The motions of the experimental apparatuses relative to the light pulses gave rise to these results.
- Louis de Broglie advanced the idea that a particle, such as an electron, can have wave-like properties. C. J. Davisson and L. H. Germer carried out the electronic version of the double slit experiment to confirm the wave properties of the electron. This led to the erroneous interpretation that particles, such as an electron, must have dual properties. It turns out that this erroneous interpretation can be avoided when the effects of the motions of the experimental apparatuses relative to the electrons are included.
- Werner Heisenberg advanced the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle posits that any pair of conjugate properties, such as momentum and position of a particle, cannot be accurately measured at the same time because the more accurately one measures its momentum, the less certain one can determine its position and vice versa. Physicists have a tendency to over-extend the provisions of this principle. One example is the use of this principle to interpret (finance) the existence of virtual particles and the origin of the universe. On this front, Model Mechanics posits that for each property of a particle, there exists a measured and an unmeasured value. The unmeasured value is forever unknown because every time we try to make a measurement of it, it collapses into the measured value. This Model Mechanical postulate will prevent the over-extension of the uncertainty principle.
- Erwin Schroedinger constructed his famous wave equation based on the abstractive concept of the electron wave. This equation describes, among other things, the allowed energy levels of the orbiting electron. The term Y (psi) function in Schrodinger’s equation was interpreted as the wave front of the probability waves. The intensity of the wave front at a specific point represents the probability of the described particle at that point. This abstractive interpretation was advanced by Max Born and Niels Bohr and it is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. The use of abstraction to interpret a real process is not allowed by Model Mechanics. As it turns out, if we include the effects of the motions of the experimental apparatuses in the E-MATRIX, there is no need for the abstractive Copenhagen Interpretation.
These events are the vital parts of the foundation of modern physics and yet, in every case, the interpretations were erroneous and abstractive. It turns out that these erroneous interpretations were the results of not including the effects of motion of the experimental apparatuses. This means that the processes of nature, as interpreted by relativity and quantum mechanics, are flawed. On this basis, I have concluded that it would be impossible to come up with a realistic Theory of Everything based on relativity and quantum mechanics. It was this conclusion that led me to the Pyramid Techniques of doing physics. Model Mechanics was the result of using the Pyramid Techniques.
The use of abstractive mathematics contributed to the erroneous interpretations. The current trend of solely using abstractive mathematics to conduct frontier physics troubles me greatly. Why? Abstractive mathematics can only lead to abstractive interpretations and therefore, it is not capable of leading us to the real Theory of Everything. In Chapter 5, I have demonstrated that a simple equation can contain infinite sets of real, as well as abstract, initial conditions. Therefore, if we want to interpret the provisions of an equation correctly we must discard those initial conditions that are abstractive. This new idea on the interpretation of mathematics led me to conclude that all real events must be based on real processes that preceded them. Going one step further, all the real processes in the universe must be traceable back to the basic process—the motion of the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX.
The ultimate quest of modern physics is to find a theory that can unite all the forces of nature. With Model Mechanics, I have expanded it to include the origin of the universe, the origin of matter and the origin of life. It turns out that these quests are included in Model Mechanics automatically. The present state of the universe, according to Model Mechanics, is as follows: All of space is occupied by a substance identified as the E-MATRIX. In other words, the E-MATRIX is space. The E-MATRIX is, in turn, composed of E-STRINGS. The geometry of the neighboring E-STRINGS, originating from any point in the E-MATRIX, obeys the inverse square law. The S-Particle is the only truly fundamental particle in the universe. All the motions of the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX are unimpeded. The orbiting motions of the S-Particles give rise to all the observable particles of the universe. The relative motions of the S-Particles give rise to all the forces of nature. Model Mechanics posits that there exists a fifth force—identified as the ISL force. The ISL force between two particles traveling in the same direction is repulsive. The other significant feature of Model Mechanics is that it is capable of being confirmed experimentally. The experiments that I proposed will confirm the existence of the E-MATRIX, as well as the absoluteness of time (indirectly).
In the cosmological arena, Model Mechanics provides a realistic beginning of the origin of the universe. Also, it provides total solutions to all the puzzling problems of modern cosmology. The recent observations received from the Hubble Space Telescope suggest new problems of the best current theory on cosmology. They are associated with the age of the universe and the galaxy formation processes. These problems will probably mean the demise of the popular cold dark matter theory that astronomers depend on to explain the large scale universe. In that case, the Model Mechanical theory is a good alternative as its replacement.
One of the best features of Model Mechanics is that it is capable of explaining the origin of all matter. It also provides answers to previously unanswered questions, such as: What is the mass of a particle? What is the electric charge of a particle? How many fundamental particles exist in nature?
In the course of discovering Model Mechanics, I dabbled in its implications on the processes of life. It turns out that it is capable of providing answers to such fundamental topics as: the origin of life, the cell division processes and the consciousness processes. It appears that these processes of life are the results of the competition between the dynamic and ever changing ISL force and the constant electromagnetic force. The E-STRINGS that connect the neurons in the brain play a big role in the consciousness processes.
It appears that Model Mechanics could be the Theory of Everything that the physicists are seeking. However, at a deeper level God is the Theory of Everything. Since God is infinite to all extents, we will forever be engaged in the pursuit of a Theory of Everything and not finding it. On the other hand, this may be the grand design of God for our existence. In that case, the way we evolve is the will of God; there is no greater purpose for life than to serve the will of God.
During the last few months of posting in the net, I found that most readers are interested in the step by step procedure for the Pyramid Techniques and it is as follows:
- Search the literature and identify the major problems of relativity, quantum mechanics and modern cosmology.
- Formulate a group of theories that can account for these problems. The formulator is free to assume any model of the current state of the universe. The resulting group of theories must be capable of explaining all the processes of nature. The model chosen must be realistic and non abstractive. In other words, one cannot use abstractive properties or mathematics in the formulating process. In this regard, the formulator must adhere to the fundamental principle that all particles in the universe are dumb. However, their motions in space could give the appearance of them possessing holistic properties. I named the resulting group of theories Model Mechanics to emphasize the processes used to derive these theories.
- The next step is to check the consistency of the postulates of the formulated theories with past observations and experimental results. Specifically, include those results and observations that can support the new theories exclusively.
- Design realistic experiments that can confirm the newly formulated theories.
- Develop the equations based on the newly formulated theories. Clearly, Model Mechanics is at this stage of development.
- Perform the designed experiments for the final confirmation.
The current state of the universe, according to Model Mechanics, can be visualized as follows: Space is occupied by a substance called the E-MATRIX or conversely the E-MATRIX is space. The E-MATRIX, in turn, is composed of E-STRINGS. These E-STRINGS are oriented randomly in all directions and this property is responsible for the famous inverse square law of physics. The E-STRINGS are perfectly elastic. They can be distorted by the motions of particles in the E-MATRIX. When an E-STRING is distorted, it will try to restore itself to the non-distorted state immediately. The S-Particle is the only truly fundamental particle existing in the universe. The different orbiting motions of the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX give rise to all the matter particles of the universe. Also, the different relative motions of all the particles give rise to all the forces of nature.
With this current state of the universe, the concept of absolute time and the fact that all matters in the universe are in a state of constant motion, I was able to formulate the realistic theories of Model Mechanics. The main postulates of Model Mechanics are as follows:
(1) Time is absolute. Now here is now everywhere. When Einstein postulated time dilation, he merely transferred the absoluteness of time to the erroneous idea that all time pieces can keep the same rate of flow of time in different inertial frames. Under Model Mechanics, the confirmed time dilation effects observed were the results of the inability of all time pieces to keep the same rate of flow of time in different inertial frames.
(2) All radiation and energies are waves in the E-STRINGS. They are being transmitted at the speed of light. The speed of light is invariable with reference to the E-MATRIX.
(3) The orbital motions of the S-Particles around specific E-STRINGS in the E-MATRIX give rise to all the other particles in the universe. A clockwise orbiting motion give rise to a positively charged particle. A counterclockwise orbiting motion give rise to a negatively charged particle. A cork-screw like motion give rise to a neutral particle such as the neutrinos. The speed of the orbiting motion give rise to the intensity of the charge. The diameter of the orbiting motion give rise to the mass of the resulting particle.
(4) The different relative motions of all the particles in the E-MATRIX give rise to all the forces of nature. Relative motions in the same direction give rise to an attractive force. Relative motions in the opposite direction give rise to a repulsive force. These effects were confirmed with the electric experiments of current (a lot of electrons) flowing in the same direction give rise to an attractive force and current flowing in the opposite direction give rise to a repulsive force. Also, I am including a description of the new fifth force—the ISL force and a new description of gravity according to Model Mechanics for your reference.
(5) The E-STRINGS and the S-Particles are not compatible with each other. An S-Particle feels a repulsive force from the surrounding E-STRINGS in all directions. This enables it to move freely in the E-MATRIX.
THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW FORCE—ISL FORCE
To understand the ISL force, it is necessary that the reader be familiar with the inverse square law of physics. This law states that the intensity of light, gravity and electromagnetic force decreases with increasing distance from the source. The rate of decrease is related to the inverse square of the distance from the source. The geometry of all neighboring E-STRINGS also obeys the inverse square law. In other words, the density of E-STRINGS in a given unit area will decrease with increasing distance from the source. Therefore, any neighboring detectable particles that are confined to these E-STRINGS will follow their geometry at a speed of Vbb. This will have the effect of a repulsive force that these detectable particles are exerting on each other. This repulsive force is identified as the ISL force and it exists among all neighboring detectable particles. The ISL force can also be visualized as follows: The S-Particle of a detectable particle is in orbiting motion around a specific E-STRING. The orbiting motion confines the detectable particle to that specific E-STRING and therefore, it will follow the geometry of that E-STRING. Visualizing all detectable particles this way coupled with the postulate that the geometry of the E-STRINGS obeys the inverse square law gives rise to the ISL force between the interacting detectable particles. With this interpretation, the ISL force is an undetectable integral part of all the other forces. Its effect on all interacting particles is always repulsive.
The ISL force played an important role in the formation of our universe and is continuing to do so today. In the next chapter, we will see how the ISL force, along with gravity, shaped the primeval universe into the universe that we see today. The ISL force also played an important role in the manifestation of the nuclear weak force. In fact, without the ISL force, there would be no nuclear weak force because it is the repulsive nature of the ISL force that initiates the radioactive decay in the first place. Perhaps, the most important function of the ISL force is the role it has in conjunction with the electromagnetic force on all the processes of life. I will discuss this in some detail in Chapter 8 of this book. The effect of the ISL force on the nuclear strong force is limited to the de-coupling of the stacked interaction of the strong force. The result of this de-coupling process gives rise to the nuclear weak force.
The reader will recall that general relativity describes gravity as the result of the gravitating objects following each other’s curvature in space-time. Model Mechanics posits that all the forces (including gravity) of nature are the results of different relative motions between the interacting objects. With this concept, gravity is a complex force that has many components. These components arise from the different relative motions of the detectable particles that make up the gravitating objects. The description of these different components of gravity is as follows:
1) The main component of gravity between gravitating objects is derived from the Vbb motion that had its origin from the Big Bang explosion (see Chapter 7). The direction of the Vbb motion of all the neighboring objects is the same; it is outward and spirals away from the point of the Big Bang explosion. With this motion, all the neighboring objects in the E-MATRIX are exerting an attractive force on each other.
2) Another component of gravity is the uniform rotating motion of a celestial object, such as the earth. This motion of an object also creates an attractive force among all the detectable particles within the object..
3) The third component of gravity is the corresponding ISL force generated from the Vbb motion. This component of gravity is repulsive.
4) The fourth component of gravity is the corresponding ISL force generated from the rotating motion. This component of gravity is also repulsive.
The net resulting force of these components is gravity, the combined result of the attractive forces minus the corresponding repulsive ISL forces. This is part of the reason why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. The Model Mechanical view of gravity gives rise to the following question: What prevents the earth from spiraling into the sun? The answer to this question is as follows: All the detectable particles on both the earth and the sun are confined to some specific E-STRINGS. This confinement of the detectable particles forces both of them to maintain, individually, a common direction of motion. At the same time, the attractive force between the earth and the sun is accelerating them towards each other. The apparent orbiting motion of the earth around the sun is the net result of these two competing motions.
Locally, the result of the Model Mechanical description of gravity is similar to that of general relativity. However, there are distinctive differences and they are as follows:
- The Model Mechanical description is not abstractive.
- The Model Mechanical description will not lead to singularity and infinite mass density as is the case with the general relativity description.
- General relativity posits that all the particles in the universe exert a gravitational force on each other. Model Mechanics posits that only those neighboring particles that are traveling in the same general direction will exert an attractive force on each other. It also posits that those particles that are traveling in the opposite directions will exert a repulsive force on each other.
- Model Mechanics posits that the universe will continue to expand in all directions and that the rate of expansion is Vbb.
Past experiments and observations supporting Model Mechanics:
- The double slit experiment
- The Compton Shift experiment
- The photoelectric experiment
- The Lamb shift experiment
- And more in the book
There is no known observations that will contradict the theories of Model Mechanics. The most notable observations that appear to support only Model Mechanics is the behavior of light in a clear dense medium. The following is a description of this phenomenon:
Speed of Light in A Clear Dense Medium
It is well known that light travels slower in a clear medium such as glass and that light will regain its speed instantaneously when it re-emerges from the glass. The existing wave and particle theories of quantum mechanics cannot explain these observations completely. If light travels slower in glass because it goes through the absorption and emission processes, it should be completely scattered when it enters the glass, and that was not the case. If light really traveled slower in glass, then the problems arise when we try to visualize the processes by which light regains its speed instantaneously as it re-emerges from the glass. Model Mechanics resolves these problems automatically. The processes involved can be visualized as follows: The glass is in constant motions in the E-MATRIX. These motions curved the E-STRINGS within the glass and when light enters the glass, it is being transmitted by the curved E-STRINGS and thus, it appears to travel slower. When light re-emerges from the glass, it is being transmitted by normal E-STRINGS (not curved) and thus, it appears that light regains its speed instantaneously.
New Designed Experiments Detecting the Existence of Aether (E-MATRIX)
In 1987 Silvertooth performed experiments that detected the existence of aether. Concerning the Silvertooth experiment: The Michelson-Morley experiment, which did not show any translational motion through an aether or other medium of propagation, was later shown to have a fundamental flaw: the standing waves that are reflected back onto a mirror become phase locked on the mirror, and hence to its motion through space. Silvertooth built a standing wave experiment that avoids the phase locking encountered in the Michelson-Morley setup. It uses a configuration similar to the Sagnac experiment, which many years ago did detect motion relative to an aether. Silvertooth’s addition was a sensor capable of measuring the spacing between standing wave nodes. This spacing is dependent upon the orientation of the apparatus relative to the Earth’s motion, and this fact made the Earth’s motion measurable. Silvertooth measured the 378 km/s motion of the Earth in this experiment.
In the book I have included designed experiments to detect the existence of the E-MATRIX and a simplified version of them is as follows:
The following is an example of the one-way experiments to measure the difference of the speed of light in the opposite directions. If the aether is an elastic string-like medium and light is wave in this medium then these one-way measurements can be made as follows:
Aa l—————–Pm——————l Bb———–> v
Let the length be AB, a and b are detectors, P is a common light pulse source in the middle and the rate of light pulses being send out is Pm. Then the rate of light pulses receive at B is Pb=Pm(1-v/c) and the pulse rate at A is Pa=Pm(1+v/c).
It is important to remember that both detectors ‘a’ and ‘b’ have a different velocity relative to the light pulses and that the velocity of the light source is immaterial.
NOW AETHER—NO VS. AETHER—YES
The best way to compare these two camps is by comparing the current state of the universe advanced by these two camps. Before we do that, it is important that we remember that there is only one true description of the current state of the universe in existence. With this in mind, I will review what of each camp has to offer: AETHER-NO Camp: The current state of the universe described by this camp is very complex. There are large number of fundamental particles; abstractive processes and mathematics were used to describe the current state of the universe; the theories require all particles to have holistic and magical properties and the derivation of these properties were not explained; there were numerous infinities in the theories and they were dismissed from the theories by a mathematical trick known as renormalization; a lot of ad hoc factors were needed to make the theories consistent; there is no quantum theory of gravity; quantum mechanics and relativity are not compatible with each other; physicists were not able to unify the forces of nature; there is no experimental support for the superstring theories; the equations of the superstring theories are so complex that physicists were not able to arrive at a solution; the superstring theories need at least 6 extra dimensions of space to be workable but there is no evidence of these extra dimensions exist.
THE AETHER—YES CAMP:
The current state of the universe described by this camp is very simple; no abstract processes were used in the formulation of the theories; S-Particles are the only truly fundamental particles in the universe and the motions of these particles in the E-MATRIX (AETHER) give rise to all the other particles and all the forces of nature; there is no need for the S-Particles and the resulting particles to have holistic (e.g.: duality, the ability of a quark to change color to become a different quark, the decaying process of the various unstable particles…..etc.) and magical properties, their motions in the E-MATRIX impart the appearance of them having these properties—in fact, one of the fundamental postulate of Model Mechanics is that all particles are dumb the only activity they can have is their motions in the E-MATRIX; Model Mechanics provides a framework for the unification of the forces of nature; Silvertooth’s experiments confirm the existence of Aether; newly designed experiments are also capable of confirming the existence of Aether.
With the above comparison of the current state of the universe, it is clear that the AETHER—YES� camp won hands down. On this basis, I think the physical community should make an effort to confirm the validity of Model Mechanics. The facts are there and the superstring theory is no longer the only game in town.
I welcome all readers to post their views in this thread.