Hi Stephen, > I've heard people claim he did but I have never > seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually > asserted that there must be an aether.
http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aether_and_relativity.html > According to the analyses I have read their result did _not_ show an > aether drift. It was a null result, to within the precision of the > experiment. So I have read in textbooks, and so I've been told by > physicists who've actually worked through an error analysis of the > experiment. There is not a greater display of hypocrisy than by a physicist who tells you MMX fell within the margin of error, and then brags that an SR correction is needed for the GPS system. The SR correction when compared to the ionospheric noise correction of the GPS system has a magnitude less than 1000th. The MMX result showed an Aether drift of 1/20th of what was expected for a *rigid* Aether. The fact that the Aether drift was 1/20th means it exists and that what it proved is that the Aether is not rigid, but fluid. > Not a positive result -- if it could be demonstrated conclusively that > the MMX gave a positive result it would falsify SR. This is not true. Only if the Aether were rigid and it showed a positive result would it falsify SR. A fluid Aether is fully consistent with SR as the Lorentz transformations were developed to explain a fluid Aether and also provided a bases for some of SR theory. The relative time aspects of SR are not only correct when Einstein ignored the Aether, but are also correct when we acknowledge a fluid Aether. Surely, you didn't expect the laws of physics to change just by ignoring certain facts of nature? > I consider people who refuse to learn the mathematics of a > theory yet claim the theory is self-contradictory cranks, So if you don't learn the mathematics of the Aether Physics Model and claim it is wrong that makes you a what? > and I consider > people who pretend to the existence of evidence which doesn't exist to > be cranks. And people who base their physics on a non-equation (E=mc^2) would then be what? As for the existence of Aether, the evidence is incontrovertible. Magnetic fields, electric fields, gravitational fields, particle spin, Solitons, phonons, frame dragging, and space-time are just a few proofs for the existence of Aether. What do you call someone who constantly works with Aether, and yet denies its existence? > People who simply question theories, and decide that they > don't think those theories necessarily describe reality, are not cranks. No, they would be cynics. > So how about you try working through the mathematics of the > contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the > results here? What good does that do? You completely ignore any math that questions the validity of SR. Remember that thing about religion you don't like? What do you call someone who believes in something so much that they will resort to irrational means to avoid discussing it if it proves them wrong? I'm not disagreeing with the Lorentzian aspect of SR, as it was developed around the concept of a fluid Aether. But the mass/energy equivalence aspect of SR, which Einstein presented in his famous paper, has no basis in mathematics. It falsifies easily. There is a better way to understand quantum physics than the mass/energy paradigm. It is the Aether/angular momentum paradigm. When we learn to see nature as it really is, rather than a bunch of abstract and counterintuitive numbers, then we can make significant progress in quantum physics. For now, Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle is what is preventing science from fully uncovering the nature of reality. But enough of complaining about what does not work. I have discovered the correct model of quantum structure. How about looking at it and trying to understand it. Dave
