[mpc755 (OP)]

That paper is truly interesting But he wrote it thinking of QM and the 'hidden energy' as I think of it. Also I presume that he had the same questions as I have on what 'space' really is. After all, it exists

The truly fascinating aspects of time dilation, and its relative counterpart Lorentz contraction is what it tells us about motion and gravity, at least to me. It seems possible to see it as something where any point is defined differently than what we perceive normally, with motion becoming a dubious expression, in a strange way equivalent to what we call gravity.

In our world we differ those two, but to 'time' they seems to be treated as one. Now, you can look at it as if they are two different aspects of your 'reality', but I don't. I think they have all too much in common.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.

Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

[yor_on]

And he used ether differently than you. He did not define it as having a pressure or a friction.

"A direct consequence of Lorentz's conception of the stationary ether is that the velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light (or its frequency, amplitude, or direction of propagation in the ether, etc.).

Einstein adopted a slightly-but crucially-modified version of this conclusion as his second principle: There is an inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant, independent of the velocity of its source. A Lorentzian ether theorist could agree at once to this statement, since it was always tacitly assumed that the ether rest frame is an inertial frame of reference and Einstein had "only" substituted "inertial frame" for "ether."

But Einstein's omission of the ether was deliberate and crucial: by the time he formulated SRT he did not believe in its existence. For Einstein a principle was just that: a principle-a starting point for a process of deduction, not a deduction from any (ether) theory. (I am here getting ahead of my story and will return to this point later.) The Lorentzian ether theorist would add that there can only be one inertial frame in which the light principle holds. If the speed of light is a constant in the ether frame, it must be non-constant in every other inertial frame, as follows from the (Newtonian) law of addition of velocities. The light principle hence seems to be incompatible with the relativity principle. For, according to the relativity principle, all the laws of physics must be the same in any inertial frame. So, if the speed of light is constant in one inertial frame, and that frame is not physically singled out by being the rest frame of some medium (the ether), then the speed of light must be the same (universal) constant in every other inertial frame (otherwise the democracy of inertial frames is violated). As Einstein put it in 1905, his two principles are "apparently incompatible." Of course, if they really were incompatible logically or physically, that would be the end of SRT.

Einstein showed that they are not only logically compatible, but compatible with the results of all optical and other experiments performed up to 1905 (and since, we may add). He was able to show their logical compatibility by an analysis of the concepts of time, simultaneity, and length, which demonstrated that the speed of light really could have the privileged status, implied by his two principles, of being a universal speed, the same in every inertial frame of reference."

[mpc755 (OP)]

And he used ether differently than you. He did not define it as having a pressure or a friction.

"A direct consequence of Lorentz's conception of the stationary ether is that the velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light (or its frequency, amplitude, or direction of propagation in the ether, etc.).

Einstein adopted a slightly-but crucially-modified version of this conclusion as his second principle: There is an inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant, independent of the velocity of its source. A Lorentzian ether theorist could agree at once to this statement, since it was always tacitly assumed that the ether rest frame is an inertial frame of reference and Einstein had "only" substituted "inertial frame" for "ether."

But Einstein's omission of the ether was deliberate and crucial: by the time he formulated SRT he did not believe in its existence. For Einstein a principle was just that: a principle-a starting point for a process of deduction, not a deduction from any (ether) theory. (I am here getting ahead of my story and will return to this point later.) The Lorentzian ether theorist would add that there can only be one inertial frame in which the light principle holds. If the speed of light is a constant in the ether frame, it must be non-constant in every other inertial frame, as follows from the (Newtonian) law of addition of velocities. The light principle hence seems to be incompatible with the relativity principle. For, according to the relativity principle, all the laws of physics must be the same in any inertial frame. So, if the speed of light is constant in one inertial frame, and that frame is not physically singled out by being the rest frame of some medium (the ether), then the speed of light must be the same (universal) constant in every other inertial frame (otherwise the democracy of inertial frames is violated). As Einstein put it in 1905, his two principles are "apparently incompatible." Of course, if they really were incompatible logically or physically, that would be the end of SRT.

Einstein showed that they are not only logically compatible, but compatible with the results of all optical and other experiments performed up to 1905 (and since, we may add). He was able to show their logical compatibility by an analysis of the concepts of time, simultaneity, and length, which demonstrated that the speed of light really could have the privileged status, implied by his two principles, of being a universal speed, the same in every inertial frame of reference."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.

[yor_on]

So the aether should be a frictionless 'superfluid' exerting a 'pressure'?
But not on light then? As we nowhere find light to travel other than at 'c' in a vacuum, not caring about its direction relative the experiment . But still able to 'pressure' time, via gravity that then is? what? The force of the 'aether' pressuring on 'matter'?

I'm getting a headache here

[mpc755 (OP)]

So the aether should be a frictionless 'superfluid' exerting a 'pressure'?

Correct!

OK. Now to explain the details. Let's start with an analogy. You are bowling. You are bowling in a bowling alley full of a frictionless superfluid. You bowl the ball towards the pins. The pins are light years away. As the bowling ball moves towards the pins the bowling ball displaces the frictionless superfluid. Is there an empty void behind where the bowling ball was? No, the frictionless superfluid fills-in where the bowling ball had been. The frictionless superfluid exerts force towards the bowling ball. However, since the interaction of the bowling ball and the frictionless superfluid is frictionless the bowling ball never slows down. Whatever energy the bowling ball uses to displace the frictionless superfluid the frictionless superfluid exerts towards the bowling ball as the frictionless superfluid 'displaces back'. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of the bowling ball and the frictionless superfluid.

But not on light then? As we nowhere find light to travel other than at 'c' in a vacuum, not caring about its direction relative the experiment .

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether. Including the rate at which the clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light.

But still able to 'pressure' time, via gravity that then is? what?

Not pressure 'time'. Determine the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time. Another analogy. You own a battery operated clock. The clock begins to tick slower. Has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurs physically in nature to cause the battery operated clock to tick at a different rate.

The force of the 'aether' pressuring on 'matter'?

Correct. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force towards the matter.

I'm getting a headache here

There's more...

[yor_on]

But we already have space? Which to us is empty macroscopically. Quite satisfactory so too if I may add. What you're doing is creating/defining a 'substance' that we can't detect, and expecting it to be 'space', as you define it as matter 'pushes' on it.

Why?

Space is already here. We can in a way 'measure it' by matters boundaries, and it works without friction or pressure. The ideas of friction and pressure is made from some sort of definition of a 'null state'. We have our in space. In QM you might discuss Casimir forces and quantum foam, but then we're no longer on the plane we exist and observe macroscopically. You have to see where we are, to imagine our world as a quantum phenomena may be entirely possible, but not 'real'. What is 'real is where we exist, and live daily.

That we might be outcomes of 'probability' doesn't mean that we are doubtful in any way. Everything we do and everything we define comes from us being here, for 'real' So an unmeasurable aether consisting of pressure without friction ?

Show me one possible experiment to prove that idea.

[mpc755 (OP)]

But we already have space? Which to us is empty macroscopically. Quite satisfactory so too if I may add. What you're doing is creating/defining a 'substance' that we can't detect, and expecting it to be 'space', as you define it as matter 'pushes' on it.

We do detect the aether.

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Matter does not travel with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets >10 arcsec. The >10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.

The analogy is a submarine moving through the ocean. You are underwater in the ocean. Two miles away from you also under water are many lights. A submarine moves equi-distant between you and the distant lights. As the submarine moves through the water the submarine displaces the water. There will be an offset between where the submarine is and where the 'gravitational center' is determined to be by the light which travels through the water displaced by the moving submarine.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter
'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.

Why?

Do you want to understand what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity or don't you?

Do you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment or don't you?

Space is already here. We can in a way 'measure it' by matters boundaries, and it works without friction or pressure. The ideas of friction and pressure is made from some sort of definition of a 'null state'. We have our in space. In QM you might discuss Casimir forces and quantum foam, but then we're no longer on the plane we exist and observe macroscopically. You have to see where we are, to imagine our world as a quantum phenomena may be entirely possible, but not 'real'. What is 'real is where we exist, and live daily.

What is real is aether, and it has mass.

That we might be outcomes of 'probability' doesn't mean that we are doubtful in any way. Everything we do and everything we define comes from us being here, for 'real' So an unmeasurable aether consisting of pressure without friction ?

Show me one possible experiment to prove that idea.

The examples above are evidence aether exists and has mass.

The following is an experiment which will provide evidence of aether displacement on the quantum scale.

All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by understanding conservation of momentum and a moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

In the image on the right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment
When the downconverted photon creates a photon pair, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is conserved. This means the photon pair have opposite polarizations. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism.

There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves
create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0.

Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4.

Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0.

The following experiment will provide evidence of Aether Displacement:

Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0.

[yor_on]

Could you show me a schematic of that last experiment? with clear simple notations.

As for a aether I'm still wondering why you feel you need it. Space is already here, when it comes to any sort of analogy with super fluids made out of matter, even with bosonic properties when super cooled. Then this is true, you will need energy to keep them in the state of a 'super fluid', that means that it cost energy to create and maintain such a state. I assume your aether is not costing the universe anything? Somewhat like 'space' right?

Well, then there is a difference. Space is where nothing exist, a emptiness free of mass to be filled by matter. Your aether on the other hand is presumed to be 'something', is it not? As for the pdf? Where do it state that it expect an aether to explain their conclusions?

That QM and the Casimir effect describes something different? Well, they describe entanglements too, seen any superimposed chairs lately? Or entangled? It's two different reality's, it really is. That one goes into the other and begets new properties is called 'emergences' in chaos theory and is the closest I can come to why they are connected (as water into ice). But they are not 'the same', and macroscopically you do not see those quantum effects. And 'dark matter' is still only a theory as far as I know? Myself I rather believe in dark energy. As for light 'propagating' in space your aether seems very strange. Does it agree with Einstein there? If so, why?

But I can see that you're convinced of your idea yourself. So show me that schematic of the experiment you expect to prove it.
==

And there are more incongruity's  to it. A pressure do not join particles, not if it is evenly dispersed on the objects, gravity attracts. Thinking of it in 3D you have a analogue in the marble and the rubber mat where the mat bends to the invariant mass of the marble, and so creates a 'hole' in space, in where other thingies also can fall (be attracted to). In your system I fail to see how this would work? Also I'm not pleased with the concept of gravity being a pressure. It's nowhere to be seen in practice.
==

And making one more thing clear, I asked you if light would act the same as in Einsteins universe earlier. Einstein found the first proof of his theory, in measuring the angle at which light bent around the sun, if I remember rightly? Why does light do so in your ideas? In Einsteins it is gravity doing it, but in yours?

[mpc755 (OP)]

Could you show me a schematic of that last experiment? with clear simple notations.

No.

As for a aether I'm still wondering why you feel you need it.

Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.
Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

In Einsteins it is gravity doing it, but in yours?

Displaced aether.

[CPT ArkAngel]

I agree with you on one thing, there is indiscernible light waves explaining quantum entanglement because they travel in space and not in time. They propagate instantaneously. Their reach is still limited by the speed of light though. It is not aether but space itself. Why do you think gravity bend spacetime and light path?  [:0]

What we see from gravitational lensing seems to be particles of Dark Matter with zero apparent electric charge... You must take in account, the fact that the Dark Matter and the gas cloud occupy a very large space, gravity is thus very small compare to the electromagnetic force during the collision. Einstein's spacetime replaces aether in Relativity: constant speed of light for any observer...

Time is local and it is associated to energy quanta posessing a mass (or inertia)...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25689

[yor_on]

Here you have the Relativistic aberration of light. Can you show me how your 'displaced aether' do the same?

Perhaps you should read The Theory of Relativity by Pickering, W. H. too as he describes it in a little more detail. I think you will find it most satisfactorily for your understanding of my opinion.

[yor_on]

CPT that article was from 2006. Not all agree, here you can read a rebuttal "But the Bullet Cluster" - Proof of Cold or Warm Dark Matter in galaxy clusters is but a myth.

[imatfaal]

You never addressed the fact that H&K is entirely explained by einstein's theories

Interesting side note on superfluids - thanks.  Still unsure how this anomalous single property of superfluids affects your ideas but..

Your explanation of spontaneous parametric down conversion is quite incorrect in dealing with polarisations and momentum conservation - but the experiment as described works because the photons are entangled which is the important bit.   You would be better off describing one photon path as the red path and the other as the blue just as wikipedia did.     

Your changes to the dcqe are unusual and ineffective.  Firstly, it's a bit of a poor show when yoron, who has be very generous in his engagement with this subject gets a blank "no" in response to his request for a schematic.  Secondly, the set of beam splitters after mirror a and mirror b are totally superfluous.  Thirdly, the interference will disappear - it does not matter how many spurious beam splitters, mirrors, and detectors in the way your experiment will just duplicate detectors D3 and D4 which receive only one pathway of light.  If a photon is detected at D3 or your new D1a or D1b - the slit will be determined and no interference will be seen.  Unless I have misunderstood your variation - which is where a schematic would have helped - you are merely replacing a single D3 with a triplet of D3 D1a and D1b and replacing D4 with D4 D2a and D2b; this branching of paths with no interaction or recombination with the other possible path removes all interest and reverts the experiment to a situation well known and well understood before dcqe experiment.

Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.
Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

The first is a noble cause - and if you are seeking a proximal cause then look at general relativity - it's one of the most accurate and highly tested physical theories in the history of science.  Funnily enough the explanation of the double slit experiment and quantum mechanics in general is the other most accurate and highly test physical theory in the history of science.

So far in this thread all you have offered is assertions that experiments and observations with accepted explanations and theories are, in fact, explained by the existence of your aether.  by occam's razor we don't need your aether - we can explain the action of gravity and the double slit experiment; although perhaps not the underlying reasons for the way the universe behaves in this manner.   if gravitational attraction is caused by the curvature of space time by mass/energy then what can your aether add - and if you claim this is not the case then you need to provide quantification of how to calculate the orbit of a body around a much more massive body that does not rely on einstein

[imatfaal]

CPT that article was from 2006. Not all agree, here you can read a rebuttal "But the Bullet Cluster" - Proof of Cold or Warm Dark Matter in galaxy clusters is but a myth.

Interesting blog - but a little one-sided I think, whilst correct to state that the bullet cluster is not (and could never be) proof positive.  The original article was one a shamefully long line of over-hyped articles from Nasa and does need a critical approach.

It is a little disingenuous to talk about explaining the BC via Modified Newtonian Dynamics - the whole reason that dark matter had to be postulated was that no system could be found that would explain different scale gravitational effects all at the same time.  if we choose different sets of laws and constants for different situations we can explain anything!

[yor_on]

Take a look here for more articles about dark matter. Links to related Nature papers dealing with issues relevant to the Dark Matter Problem. not that it seems necessary for an aether?

And yes Imatfaal, but isn't that just what the bullet proof did too, cited theory for proving a 'fact'.

[CPT ArkAngel]

I am not impress by that rebuttal. I don't see any good arguments. It is true, it is not an absolute proof of the existence of cold dark matter, but it really looks like it. It would have been very surprising that the LCDM model were right, simply because they just don't know how Dark Matter is created, what is the sizes and mass of DM particles and does it interact with the weak force. There is more Dark Mass than matter mass in the Universe. It sounds obvious that if the accepted laws of gravity were so wrong, we would have already seen the proof of it elsewhere. And people should understand that the LHC produces only high energy collisions by the accelerations of charged particles having a very long life (protons and electrons) in a low density medium, which is a strong limitation to the type of particles that it can generate.

[mpc755 (OP)]

I agree with you on one thing, there is indiscernible light waves explaining quantum entanglement because they travel in space and not in time. They propagate instantaneously. Their reach is still limited by the speed of light though. It is not aether but space itself. Why do you think gravity bend spacetime and light path?  [:0]

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS gravity. Light paths bend because they move through the displaced aether.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.

Bent spacetime is displaced aether.

What we see from gravitational lensing seems to be particles of Dark Matter with zero apparent electric charge... You must take in account, the fact that the Dark Matter and the gas cloud occupy a very large space, gravity is thus very small compare to the electromagnetic force during the collision. Einstein's spacetime replaces aether in Relativity: constant speed of light for any observer...

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no such thing as matter traveling with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract

"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre (measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets >10 arcsec. The >10 arcsec separations are significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.

The analogy is a submarine moving through the ocean. You are underwater in the ocean. Two miles away from you also under water are many lights. A submarine moves equi-distant between you and the distant lights. As the submarine moves through the water the submarine displaces the water. There will be an offset between where the submarine is and where the 'gravitational center' is determined to be by the light which travels through the water displaced by the moving submarine.

Time is local and it is associated to energy quanta posessing a mass (or inertia)...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25689

The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. The ticks of a clock are a physical process. If you own a battery operated clock and the clock begins to tick slower has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to cause the battery operated clock to slow down.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exits. Just as time did not change because the battery operated clock began to tick at a different rate, neither does time change because an atomic clock begins to tick at a different rate.

[mpc755 (OP)]

Here you have the Relativistic aberration of light. Can you show me how your 'displaced aether' do the same?

The aether is displaced far past the moon. Think of placing a bowling ball into a tank of frictionless superfluid and spinning the bowling ball as you move the bowling ball through the tank of frictionless superfluid. Even though the bowling ball is spinning and being moved through the tank the state of the displaced frictionless superfluid will be almost the same throughout its rotation and almost the same all around the bowling ball as you move it through the tank.

When you get to something as large as the Earth and the amount of aether it displaces it is difficult to detect a change in the state of the aether as the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

Perhaps you should read The Theory of Relativity by Pickering, W. H. too as he describes it in a little more detail. I think you will find it most satisfactorily for your understanding of my opinion.

I'll check it out.

[mpc755 (OP)]

You never addressed the fact that H&K is entirely explained by einstein's theories

I agree with most of SR and GR. What I am doing is explaining what occurs physically in nature to cause the clocks in the H&K to tick at different rates. Now, you might say it is because of gravity. What I am doing is explaining what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. As part of this explanation is an explanation of what occurs physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at the rate they do.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS gravity. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.

Interesting side note on superfluids - thanks.  Still unsure how this anomalous single property of superfluids affects your ideas but..

It allows for the propagation of transverse waves. As far as I know, the ether of Lorentz and the ether looked for in the Michelson Morley experiment is an ether which is not mobile in order to support transverse light waves. It is an ether at rest which the Earth moves through. This is an incorrect description of the aether. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Your explanation of spontaneous parametric down conversion is quite incorrect in dealing with polarisations and momentum conservation - but the experiment as described works because the photons are entangled which is the important bit.   You would be better off describing one photon path as the red path and the other as the blue just as wikipedia did.

Photons are not entangled. I do describe one photon 'particle' path as the red path and the other photon 'particle' path as the blue path. In aether displacement, there is an associated physical aether wave traveling both the red and blue paths with its associated photon 'particle'. In aether displacement, a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave. de Broglie's wave mechanics correctly defines wave-particle duality where a moving physical particle has an associated physical wave. In aether displacement, the associated physical wave is an aether wave.

In the experiment described, the photon 'particle' travels a single path and the associated aether wave travels the available paths. When the paths are combined the aether wave creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels.

Your changes to the dcqe are unusual and ineffective.  Firstly, it's a bit of a poor show when yoron, who has be very generous in his engagement with this subject gets a black "no" in response to his request for a schematic.

The other poster continues to reply with "I don't see why you need an aether" when the whole point of this thread is aether displacement explains what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity and what occurs physically in nature to cause the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment. It's one thing to disagree with the concept and notions of aether displacement. However, it is quite another to exchange in multiple posts with someone who continually says, "I don't see why you need an aether" when what I am saying is:

* Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter IS gravity.
* A moving physical particle has an associated physical wave. In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether wave which enters and exits both slits. The associated aether wave enters and exits both slits and creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exists a single slit, the direction it travels is altered by this interference. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

Now, obviously, you do not have to agree with this correct understanding of what occurs physically in nature. However, after several iterations of this if your response is, "I still don't see why you need an aether" then I think my short response was appropriate.

Secondly, the set of beam splitters after mirror a and mirror b are totally superfluous.  Thirdly, the interference will disappear - it does not matter how many spurious beam splitters, mirrors, and detectors in the way your experiment will just duplicate detectors D3 and D4 which receive only one pathway of light.  If a photon is detected at D3 or your new D1a or D1b - the slit will be determined and no interference will be seen.  Unless I have misunderstood your variation - which is where a schematic would have helped - you are merely replacing a single D3 with a triplet of D3 D1a and D1b and replacing D4 with D4 D2a and D2b; this branching of paths with no interaction or recombination with the other possible path removes all interest and reverts the experiment to a situation well known and well understood before dcqe experiment.

What you are failing to realize is the detection of the photons are D1a, D1b, D2a, and D2b can be correlated back to the two interference patterns which are being created at D0. The interference patterns are occurring at D0 regardless of what else occurs. What the detection at the other detectors allows for is discerning the two interference patterns from each other at D0.

Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.
Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

The first is a noble cause - and if you are seeking a proximal cause then look at general relativity - it's one of the most accurate and highly tested physical theories in the history of science.  Funnily enough the explanation of the double slit experiment and quantum mechanics in general is the other most accurate and highly test physical theory in the history of science.

General relativity does not explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. General relativity discusses curved spacetime. Curved spacetime physically exists in nature as displaced aether.

Quantum mechanics does not explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. Aether displacement does.

So far in this thread all you have offered is assertions that experiments and observations with accepted explanations and theories are, in fact, explained by the existence of your aether.  by occam's razor we don't need your aether - we can explain the action of gravity and the double slit experiment; although perhaps not the underlying reasons for the way the universe behaves in this manner.

Aether displacement is the underlying reason why the universe behaves in this manner.

[mpc755 (OP)]

CPT that article was from 2006. Not all agree, here you can read a rebuttal "But the Bullet Cluster" - Proof of Cold or Warm Dark Matter in galaxy clusters is but a myth.

Interesting blog - but a little one-sided I think, whilst correct to state that the bullet cluster is not (and could never be) proof positive.  The original article was one a shamefully long line of over-hyped articles from Nasa and does need a critical approach.

It is a little disingenuous to talk about explaining the BC via Modified Newtonian Dynamics - the whole reason that dark matter had to be postulated was that no system could be found that would explain different scale gravitational effects all at the same time.  if we choose different sets of laws and constants for different situations we can explain anything!

Where dark matter falls short is not understanding what is postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. It is not simply this additional mass which makes the calculations correct. It is the force exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter which IS gravity.