teh

Properties of the ether will be established by examining the photon as a partocle in a medium rather than a projectile. Here is a guess as to what the ether could look like. 1 Assumptions Space & Time are human concepts without physical components. Atomic matter consists of the nucleus, the electron cloud, & an ether field consisting of photons at least. Properties of the ether - 2 Gravity. Why has the graviton not been detected? The photon is involved in electromagnetism & magnetism & gravity are considered to be linked, so it should be involved in gravity. To establish the extent of the field for the Earth start at the point between the Sun & the Earth where the gravity is Zero & go round keeping the fields at equal strength, giving a pear-shaped effect. Thus the Earths field is held within the Suns field etc. 3 Electrostatic field is a distortion in the ether 4 Magnetism is a distortion at right angles to the above. 5 Light is an oscillation between 3 & 4 as per Maxwells equations. 6 The ether may effects within the atom. 7 The velocity of light decreases with distance from matter, except it also decreases very close to matter, which is why light bends rouns stars - refer time experiments with clocks going slower near the ground 8 The photon should have mass. This should explain the orbit of Mercury as the gravitational force on it would be that of the Sun plus that of the ether in the hollow sphere with radius Mercurys distance from the Sun as the orbit obeys less than inverse square even after relativistic corrections. 9 The ether should responsible for inertia since it is there. If not something else needs to be found.

Velocity of light as a constant. Einstein assumed the low result of the Michelson inteferometer to be experimental error & deduced that light consisted of projectiles. Strangley, the photon he found had inertia but no rest mass. If the photon is a particle in a medium the mass would be difficult to detect - everything floats. Einstein faced a problem in that light arrives at the same velocity irrespective of the velocity of its source, whereas the velocity of a projectile should be the velocity of the projectile with respective to its source plus the velocity of its source. He assumed the velocity of light to be a constant in mathematical terms, & working from the Lorentz transformation produced equations that allowed something to be added to the velocvity of light without altering it. Although the maths was general he restricted its use to a vacuum. Outside a vacuum what maths must be used? Are they still projectiles? But experiments have shown that the velocity of light increases passing the Sun, in a vacuum. The assumption of a constant produces problems with space & time. If space is curved it must consist of something but nothing has been detected. Experiments with atomic clocks have shown that they run slower near the ground than higher up, the theory being that light is slower near the ground. This implies that light has a physical component, which has not been detected. Common sense dictates that the clocks run slower near the ground because light is slower there, thus bending the light wave round the Earth.

Apologies for the double entry - must be something to do with a new page. Swansont Relativity can't explain why spin is absolute. Inertia requires something "frictionless" out there to explain it, so ether should be a candidate. If not , what is the alternative? There is some evidence that the photon is frictionless. The Earth orbits unperturbed through a mass of photons coming from the Sun & elsewhere (Relativity model) so should be able to do so if the photons are part of the ether. Hopefully my explanation that stellar aberration has the same cause for both models is satisfactory. Pantheory Heaven knows why they cling to Relativity. The fable of the Emperors new clothes springs to mind. Most of the use of Relativity is in tracking moving objects (the stellar aberration issue) which is sound & works. Relativity is generally considered to work so why start from scratch with a new theory? We need to point out that relativity doesn't make sense & is not helpful in understanding outstanding problems like gravity & inertia.

My last reply does not appear - will try again. Stellar aberration does not depend on whether light is a wave or a stream of projectiles, & is caused by the fact that the speed of light is finite. When a moving body is observed, its image takes time to reach an observer during which time the body moves on, so the image lags behind. The position of the body is deduced by using maths derived from the Lorentz transformation, which is the basis for Special Relativity, which works. It does not require the assumption that the velocity of light is a mathematical constant, which is where Einstein went wrong.

I ignored stellar aberration because it is not relevant to the ether model. When the image of a moving object reaches an observer, because of the finite speed of light, the object has moved on, thus the image is out of date & needs to be corrected. This is done using maths based on the Lorentz transformation, which is the basis for Special Relativity, & it works. It is not dependent on whether light is a wave or a projectile. Einsteins subsequent assumption that the velocity of light is a mathematical constant is where things go awry.

Properties of the ether have yet to be determined so I can't answer your questions. Evidence for ether abounds - the photon is involved in electromagnetism, occurs in experiments to investigate space, has no rest mass, Maxwells equations, 2 slits experiment, Sagnac & Michelson interfereometers, time experiments, etc.

In the original experiment, the interfereometer was expected to pick up the speed of the earth orbiting the sun if the ether was present. It got a low result, which Einstein assumed to be experimental error & deduced a null result. But that low result could refer to the movement of the earth about its axis in ether that moved with the earth through space. Thus if the experiment was done in orbit it should get a higher reading.

Pantheory Aligned with the eather means moving with the eather thru space. Thus in my testable model when the spaceship in orbit is made to free fall an inertial frame exists which is not aligned with the eather & should not give a zero result. Mississippichem The interferometer attached to the earth will give a low reading because of the earth's rotation on its axis

Swansont - testable model Your reply is based on relativistic theory. The michelson interferometer gives a low result on earth. Predict it will give a higher one in orbit which will not change significantly in freefall.

Testable model Put a Michelson Morley apparatus into orbit. It should detect the speed of the spacecraft. Then apply thrust to negate the gravitational force, giving it a constant velocity. It will now be an inertial frame & according to Relativity the MM apparatus shoild read zero.

Photons are particles in a field around the earth moving with the earth thru space enclosed in the sun's field/ether & rotating round the sun on a yearly basis. Responsible for gravity inertia. Electrostatic & magnetic fields are distortions in the ether at right angles to each other, EMR being an oscillation between them. Satisfies Michelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments. Relativity works if the inertial frame aligns with the ether.

Photons are particles in a field around the earth, moving with the earth thru space, enclosed in the sun's ether & rotating round the sun yearly. Responsible for gravity inertia. Electrostatic & magnetic forces are distortions in the ether at right angles to each other, light being oscillations between them. Satisfies Michelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments. Relativity works if the inertial frame is aligned with the ether.