[PmbPhy]

Why are you so obsessed with aether theories and why are you posting them in the wrong forum. You've just posted a "new theory" in this forum and this is not the appropriate forum for new theories.

[McQueen (OP)]

 No computer, will explain in my reply tomorrow.

[vacuum]

Hi Mc Queen , hi all forum members. Probably You find something interesting developing the consequences of the complex solution of wave equation for electrical displacement in vacuum. This development is consistent with your statement of electron charge isn't the fundamental unit, however, is that corresponding to the charge of half cycle of the photon. That way You can deduce Planck's equation from Maxwell equations (photon's energy proportional to the frequency). You can calculate in purely theoretical form the ratio of the electron charge and the charge of a half cycle of the photon, simply by analyzing the creation of an electron - positron pair from the collision of two photons. Also in purely theoretical form, without using any empirical data, You can calculate the fine structure constant, which depends only on the ratio of both charges. Also You can calculate for each, the electron and positron, the ratio between potential energy and kinetic energy (magnetic) within the constitution of each particle. That ratio will allow You to explain why the electron is much more stable than the positron and generally, why matter is more stable than antimatter. You'll also get the spin of the photon and Einstein's equation of mass and energy. All that absolutely deduced from Maxwell's equations, ie, from classical electrodynamics, which appears in that form as the basis of quantum postulates, besides what all treaties show that classical electrodynamics is the basis of the relativistic postulates.

I do not know how similar is your idea of aether compared to the nature of the polarizable vacuum inherent in Maxwell's equations. Obviously, something polarizable has a different physical nature of an insensitive and inactive space. Still, it is a medium without a trace of matter. And probably, when there are no events in one region, no trace of electric charge within that region. A portion of vacuum may be neutral, negatively charged or positively charged. I don't know the underlying cause changes and manages a portion acquires or loses electric charge. The vacuum is able to create pairs of opposite charges when necessary, although those couples not previously exist. It is also capable of annihilating them and return to neutrality. If we could make a comparison between electricity and topology, probably neutrality, negative charge and positive charge would be comparable to three geometrically different, but topologically identical forms. The electrical "topology" of vacuum does not change when a region passes from neutrality to charge, or from charge to neutrality.

[GoC]

I am excited with the direction this thread is going. I might add some insights not being included so far.
1. Mass might not be removing ether particles (photons, dark mass energy) in dilation only increasing the distance between the particles.
2. Particles may already have energy spin to move the electrons removing the term charge associated with electrons and converting your understanding to flow.
3. If the ether c energy spin moved electrons in a grid pattern it would cause a cork screw motion in electrons.
4. Gravity would be mass attracted to a less dense energy state. The electron moves from inside the proton to free ether spin particles. Spin particles inside of the proton and neutrons but more dilated. The electron travels out towards less dilated energy and curves back to the most dilated position (the proton) and moves back into the proton pushing out another to do the same. Mass dilates space so mass is attracted to mass.

These issues might be to early for you in your stepwise progress. The particle (dark mass) and spin (dark energy) are just two aspects of the same thing. Trying to tie this to current models is impossible. Tying it to Relativity brings us out of postulates and into mechanics. Dark Mass Energy is quantum mechanics.

Once again I realize the leap is to great at this time. But I am excited with the progress

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

AND if the speed of light is constant because it propagates through a medium, then a lot of the premises of special relativity and general relativity in particular will no longer hold true.  In the same way the holy grail of Quantum Mechanics , namely the principle of wave/particle duality will be out of the window.

The speed of light is always determined to be 'c' because the aether is relativistic. Meaning, the atomic clocks used to determine the speed of light tick at the rate they do due to the state of the aether in which they exist.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit, it is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

""due to the state of the aether in which they exist.""

 yes...

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

In space, we do see a sea of photons - it is variously called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) or Sunlight, depending on its spectrum and source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The CMB is a cosmic background radiation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiation

Cosmic background radiation is electromagnetic radiation

I am not referring to photons traveling at 'c'. I am referring to the sea of photons which fill 'empty' space analogous to the H2O molecules which fill the oceans.

It is the sea of photons filling 'empty' space which are displaced by the particles of matter the Earth consists of. It is the sea of photons displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth which is gravity.

Yes for most, but not as a sea of photons, but instead each "starsphere" as being a delimitation of density of a area, and the sea of photons a single photonic tissue that has a base density, that is changed and restabilished by masses, cause as you describle ("filling 'empty' space which are displaced by the particles").
 Not as a sea of photons that need to be massless to be able to travel at C. But as C being directly related with the density of the photonic tissue, in this example inside heliosphere photonic density, determinated by suns mass and energy but occuring on and belonging to the tissue...

 Something like a "whole photonic tissue", when in the presence of light, as you ates it sort of opens up to matter, so it does to light, light than not being "one photon" as real particle traveling trough the mediun, but light being as matter, as energy traveling between the mediun, C speed being constant where it is occuring....
 The photon not as being a real particle that travels, but as something that is already everywhere as a whole, it does have density,this density determinates the speed of C on that area, and the speed of C determinates the acceleration, so C would always be constant, cause there is no photon traveling trough inside out a gass cloud loosing speed, only the constant speed in function of the mediun it is traveling between, reajusting itself to the density of the mediun on that specific area.
 Most important as soon as C leaves the gas cloud are it was passing it instantaneously readquire the speed, cause there never was any loss or gain of speed, not even speed, the C is always constant, and the speed always proporsional to the density of the mediun it is traveling between, I use between because such as a planet, space indienty both light and matter as holes and pehaps rags on it's fabric, sompressing them, away from the point of origin in a straight line, planets are spheric and influenced by the sun's horizontal plate they have where to lock-on, light is different, like a gost it have no bounds, space will than keep compressing the light on a single dirrection when in vaccum...
 This compression will be homogeneous and will give velocity to the light, as for the photon, not a real particle, but more a "temporary construction of space fabric tissue", that happens whenever energy/matter is presented...
 Atest that a photon cease to exist is correct and worng at the same time, for the photon as "the" has never trully "existed" as the term sujests, it seems to be a pseudo particle to deal with energy...
 What I mean is, that "the photon" at saturn, and "the photon" at Earth, are the same "photon", after and even before any light was presented on both location, but even as being one that has never trully traved at the speed of light, but intead opened up and compressed against the light traveling between, falling towards each part of the ray with the same compression provinient from its density, as space is compressing earth from all directions, from the moment the light leaves the source it, space, conserve that original speed, even of the density of the mediun change at some point due precense of energy/mass, the constant is still the same, as soon as the light moves to a less dense are aof the tissue it does not require to speed up, the density of the mediun is always compensating the constant...
 As result, the speed of light will always be constantly different in function of the density of the mediun, space, that also will be aways constantly different...

[GoC]

   the problem with any static Aether is that it was disproven by the MMX. In 3d a tissue representation is misleading. 3d has to be point oriented rather than fabric oriented. Spin of the points at c is the only explanation mechanically. For them to move electrons there has to be a rotation path. This leads to perpendicular offset (45 degrees) complimentary spins of the particles. This would spin electrons and keep them cycling by density dilation. Mass causes an increase in dilation (expansion). This expansion is related to Relativity (the gamma term). The areas which have the greatest expansion of energy (least dense energy state) has the greatest expansion because mass has no energy that is not given to it by the grid spin structure. Light is just a propagated wave on this structure. The expansion is the inverse square of the distance. The view of an object is the inverse square of the distance as a reduced view. The cause of relativity is the grid spin structure.

[jerrygg38]

   The question of the Aether or no Aether requires us to understand what the gravitational field and the electromagnetic fields are made of.  The other question is what constitutes mass? Einstein’s special relativity and general relativity are excellent mathematical solutions which match experimental data. So they give true answers to measurements. But do they tell us what the gravitational field consists of? Do they tell us what the electromagnetic field consist of? What are the lowest quanta of charge in the universe? What are the lowest quanta of mass in the universe?  Thus we want to know that the fundamental construction of the universe consists of.
   If we compress space-time from infinity toward zero radius, we get photons and particles that have mass and charge. Thus we compress the Aether and get the physical universe. If the Aether did not exist then we would not exist. It is obvious that the Aether is not a stationary entity. It is also obvious that there are huge numbers of negative and positive sub-particles which form the electromagnetic fields. It is also obvious that there are huge numbers of bipolar sub-particles which make up the gravitational field and the photonic waves.
  We then live in a sea of plus, minus, and bipolar sub-particles. The energy levels are so small and their charges are so small that we cannot detect them. In addition small groups of them make up tiny masses and tiny photons. The tiny masses make up the dark matter in the universe and the tiny photons make up the dark energy in the universe.
  The question is how do they work? And why does Einstein’s relativity provide us with the excellent describing function as to how they work? In any event we do not have a stationary Aether. We live in a universe that in many respects mirrors the general gas law except the photonic sub-particles are all traveling at the speed of light C. That validates Einstein’s work as the best fit describing function.

[McQueen (OP)]

jerrygg88:
 Einstein’s special relativity and general relativity are excellent mathematical solutions which match experimental data. So they give true answers to measurements. But do they tell us what the gravitational field consists of? Do they tell us what the electromagnetic field consist of? What are the lowest quanta of charge in the universe? What are the lowest quanta of mass in the universe?  Thus we want to know that the fundamental construction of the universe consists of.

At this point I have to ask about the latest experiments that have been conducted to prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant ? I don't mean this in the normal sense of  measuring the speed of light which indubitably is  299,792,458 metre per second but rather in the sense that the speed of light does not obey Galilean transformations. Today it is very easy to test this hypotheses. Have one beam of light, it could be a laser, follow a path 300 kms long and another beam of light follow a path 300m long and see if they meet up in exactly the middle of a tube that is 300m long at the end of their journey. Practically anyone can do this experiment. Has anyone done it ? What result did they come up with ? I would really like to know.

[GoC]

What would you use for simultaneity? Knowing simultaneity of relativity would complicate the timing issue.

[McQueen (OP)]

GoC: What would you use for simultaneity? Knowing simultaneity of relativity would complicate the timing issue.

The sensible thing to do would be to test the hypotheses, which as I had stated is now-days not such a difficult thing to do, if the beams of light do not coincide,  and if the difference in the timing of their respective  arrival at the detector is within acceptable error, then the light is simply following Galilean transformations and there is no need to go into the question of simultaneity. If however, the beams of light do coincide then it really would be necessary to examine the question of simultaneity because it is such an unexpected result.
 

[GoC]

GoC: What would you use for simultaneity? Knowing simultaneity of relativity would complicate the timing issue.

The sensible thing to do would be to test the hypotheses, which as I had stated is now-days not such a difficult thing to do, if the beams of light do not coincide,  and if the difference in the timing of their respective  arrival at the detector is within acceptable error, then the light is simply following Galilean transformations and there is no need to go into the question of simultaneity. If however, the beams of light do coincide then it really would be necessary to examine the question of simultaneity because it is such an unexpected result.
 

You are confusing meta data which is a relativistic view and the physical position which is Galilean transformation. When you understand relativity of simultaneity is not the actual position of real time everything becomes clearer. Unfortunately the modern interpretation is non Euclidean rather than understanding the observations properly.
Einstein said in one of his papers all views are equally valid. This is true because non are valid.

[McQueen (OP)]

GoC: [/color]Y[/color]ou are confusing meta data which is a relativistic view and the physical position which is Galilean transformation. When you understand relativity of simultaneity is not the actual position of real time everything becomes clearer. Unfortunately the modern interpretation is non Euclidean rather than understanding the observations properly. [/color]Einstein said in one of his papers all views are equally valid. This is true because non are valid.

[/color]You are making a simple observation unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. All I am saying is that the theory that light does not obey Galilean transformations and that time dilation and length contraction exist can easily be proved or disproved by conducting a simple experiment as enumerated above. If the theory is contradicted it merely proves that time dilation and space curvature cannot be taken at face value. There would be no need then to enter into complicated scenarios as to how that result could have come about!

[GoC]

GoC: [/color]Y[/color]ou are confusing meta data which is a relativistic view and the physical position which is Galilean transformation. When you understand relativity of simultaneity is not the actual position of real time everything becomes clearer. Unfortunately the modern interpretation is non Euclidean rather than understanding the observations properly. [/color]Einstein said in one of his papers all views are equally valid. This is true because non are valid.

[/color]You are making a simple observation unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. All I am saying is that the theory that light does not obey Galilean transformations and that time dilation and length contraction exist can easily be proved or disproved by conducting a simple experiment as enumerated above. If the theory is contradicted it merely proves that time dilation and space curvature cannot be taken at face value. There would be no need then to enter into complicated scenarios as to how that result could have come about!

To understand relativity correctly it takes allot of thought. Only when you put in the thought will you understand its beauty. I can give you clues I used to understand dilation. For proof of dilation caused by gravity a galaxy has a lens where dilation of space it occupies has a visible threshold. If we understand space has a medium of energy (dark mass energy) there is a threshold of dilated energy that becomes less dilated. This is relativity of a curved space. The curve is 3d onion like and not just a 2d curve with a tenser. So yes it can be taken at face value. Your inability to see past that hurdle is you giving up on the reality of relativity. Mathematicians generally are not mechanically inclined so they can have a constant without a cause. The gamma factor is real and physical for mass GR. It is only visual in SR. Geometry of motion just using 7th grade geometry and light being independent of the source shows variation of reflection with variation of vector speed. What is truly amazing is the GR physical dilation is equivalent to the SR reflected view. The constant frame is c always in motion. Why it is in motion is a true quandary. But most likely another physical cause. As a realest everything has to be mechanical and not magic.

[McQueen (OP)]

GoC: To understand relativity correctly it takes allot of thought. Only when you put in the thought will you understand its beauty. I can give you clues I used to understand dilation. For proof of dilation caused by gravity a galaxy has a lens where dilation of space it occupies has a visible threshold. If we understand space has a medium of energy (dark mass energy) there is a threshold of dilated energy that becomes less dilated. This is relativity of a curved space. The curve is 3d onion like and not just a 2d curve with a tenser. So yes it can be taken at face value. Your inability to see past that hurdle is you giving up on the reality of relativity.

Fine, yes agreed, to understand QED or Maxwell's equations or even Huygens wave theory also requires a lot of thought and all are supremely beautiful spell binding theories. But that doesn't mean that they are right.  For the moment, let us just suppose that experimentally verifiable phenomena is preferable to phenomena established on purely theoretical or  with implausible experimental proof. From this point of view the speed of light being constant in a vacuum is much more acceptable if a medium is present than to give no explanation at all as to why the speed of light is constant. 

[GoC]

The medium is the cause of the speed of light. It is also the cause of electron motion. This is true because the photon and electron are confounded in every frame. You are trying to remove relativity from the medium while the medium is the cause of relativity and motion itself. You are in the correct direction but on the wrong track.

The photon sea is spacetime, dark mass energy or an ether. Call it anything you like but fundamental energy is in the spacetime. There is no such thing as charge only flow caused by c. c spin flow energy is quantum mechanics. Electrons move as a half rotation between spinning particles at the speed of light. Vector speed is less than the speed of light due to the rotating angle. There is a grid pattern that allows motion the same in every direction. The grid is stationary the spin allows the results of the MMX. The Doppler is the stretching of the grid structure which propagates same as light, radio waves and all spectrum waves. Gravity is dilation of the grid structure caused by moving the electrons. The increased space of the electron movement causes the red shift in light produced when measured in a less dilated position in space. So the basis of quantum mechanics is spin energy of space which cause relativity. So yes relativity will be alive and well with little regard for our belief in its reality.

[mad aetherist]

What would be the implications if new proof became  available that an aether did in fact exist?  What exactly would be the implications and repercussions for established physics.  Of course the old concept of a stationary, extremely stiff aether such as is described in the luminiferous aether theories, has been disproved beyond any reasonable doubt by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which also led to new proof of the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, similarly aetherosphere theories, wherein the aether exists in a small pocket around the earth are also unrealistic and defunct.  Yet the possibility of a dynamic type of aether is a stronger possibility today than it was in the 1920's when the idea of an aether was abandoned and Einstein's relativity theories came to the fore....................

No gas-mode MMX has ever given a null result. Michelson's main problem was that he totally messed up the calibration factor relating fringeshift to kmps (for the aetherwind). Miller likewise to a lesser extent.

The best MMX was the twin media MMX by Demjanov in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 -- this 1st order MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the original 2nd order MMXs. It showed that the horizontal projection of the aetherwind varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during a day. The background aetherwind blowing throo the solar system is 500 kmps south to north 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis.

Electro-magneto-charge fields are not carried by photons, they are carried by (what i call) photinos which are (tornadic tentacles if u like) emanating from the main (helical probably) body of a photon, probably propagating at c. Photinos probably involve a vibration or spin or swirl of the aether (perhaps tornado-like). The main (helical) body probably involves the annihilation of aether  -- hencely giving aether inflow to replace lost aether, the acceleration of the inflow giving the photon mass & gravity -- the helical main body propagating at c.

Aether is subquantum, it has no mass or energy etc of the ordinary kind -- but we can see-feel any acceleration or turbulence or vibration or swirl etc of the aether -- & annihilation of aether gives us gravity & in a different way gives us free-photons (eg light) -- free-photons being the primary quantum particle (or quasi-particle if u like) -- free-photons can become confined-photons which are our elementary particles (electrons quarks etc).