History of the Aether Theory

In 1887 two American physicists, Michelson and Morley, performed what has turned out to be one of the most historic but misunderstood experiments in physics. [i]

It must be emphasized that absolute motion [and therefore absolute space] is not inconsistent with the various well-established relativistic effects; indeed the evidence is that absolute motion is the cause of these relativistic effects, a proposal that goes back to Lorentz in the 19^th century. —Reginald T. Cahill[ii]

Abstract

This article presents the historic development of the aether theory from a scientific (rather than a philosophical) perspective. In step-by-step table format, one may follow the chronology of the exploration of various theories of absolute space. One may follow the twists, turns and detours —the unexpected experimental results, the new theoretical insights, the unfortunate misinterpretations— of one of the most compelling concepts in modern physics.

1 Sans Aether, the Universe Becomes “The Preposterous Universe”

Aether is the basic substratum of all space; aether is the raw essence of the Universe. Aether permeates the innermost recesses of all matter. Without it the universe is contrary to nature, contrary to reason and common sense. Without it the universe is utterly absurd.

And what is worrying is that the scholars who have meticulously assembled our complex picture of the universe know it is absurd.

Consider this: The cosmology that is studied in Universities the world over, and practiced in the relevant research departments, is a cosmology devoid of the concept of aether. Assumed to be a dispensable relic of 19^th century voodoo science, the aether was discarded a long long time ago. And the resulting universe model, missing a vital ingredient, has not worked properly since. In fact, as a depiction of reality the class of expanding universe models —of which the various big bang (BB) models are a subset— has been an utter and complete failure.

Sean M. Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, sums up one of his extensively researched and densely referenced papers on The Cosmological Constant[iii] with the conclusion (which he bases on the no-aether interpretation of the evidence ‘showing’ that the cosmological constant, Λ, dominates the universe, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that the majority of the matter content in the universe must be in an unknown non-baryonic form): “Nobody would have guessed that we live in such a universe. ... This scenario staggers under the burden of its unnaturalness, ...”

As I understand it, a universe that is “preposterous” is (and my Webster Dictionary will back me up) a universe that is "contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; utterly foolish; absurd." Undoubtedly this is the meaning that the professor intended.

One must realize that Sean Carroll[iv] is not some rebellious radical trying to overthrow the expanding universe paradigm, or trying to reinstate the aether. No. As a practicing physicist/cosmologist and a recognized authority on the expanding universe, he is steadfastly committed to resolving the absurdity without venturing outside the BB box, so to speak. In Carroll’s view "... a major challenge to cosmologists and physicists in the years to come will be to understand whether these apparently distasteful aspects of our universe are simply surprising coincidences, ...[whose] underlying structure we do not as yet comprehend."

Unfortunately he is like many others who, for whatever the reason, are unwilling or unable to examine plausible solutions outside of BB cosmology.

What one must realize is that BB cosmology as a plausible theory has two towering handicaps. First, it embraces the unscientific concept of the expansion-of-the-whole-universe. This is blatantly unscientific because it involves an unnecessary extrapolation of a perfectly valid local phenomenon of space expansion (regardless of how space is defined). Second, it is based on an incomplete theory of gravity, Einstein’s general relativity, which implicitly denies the existence of aether-space.

Aether is the ingredient without which these two handicaps cannot be overcome while maintaining that all-important connection with physical reality. Aether is the ingredient without which the picture of our Universe is quite unnatural and simply preposterous.

2 Aether Denial

The history of conventional cosmology, as the science striving to model the real world, is a revelation of failure and after more than a century of Ptolemaic tinkering Academic Cosmology has managed to construct “the preposterous universe.” The cosmology practiced by modern Academia may be said to have originated in 1905 with Einstein’s theory of relativity. In that year, by one of the giants of physics, the foundation was laid; and the fateful error-of-omission established itself. Einstein’s highly influential theory of motion, space and energy was the first theory that embraced the popular misinterpretation of the Michelson and Morley experiment of 1887. In 1905 Einstein incorporated an implied rejection of lumniferous aether. Although there is nothing in the theory explicitly denying its existence, the authoritative message was that aether is superfluous and unnecessary.

When it came time to construct the first scientific model of the Universe, the task naturally involved Einstein, who by 1916 had formulated general relativity, a new theory of gravity. As one would expect, general relativity, being a purely geometric model of space and time, also denied the existence of aether (thereby maintaining consistency with special relativity). Hence, Einstein’s general-relativity-universe model of 1917 and all his subsequent cosmology models contained the implicit aether denial. Furthermore, since almost all 20^th century universe models are based on general-relativity, they compliantly deny aether as well.

The vast majority of journal publishers participate in the denial. Any theory or model that dares to incorporate the aether concept will simply not be accepted for mainstream publication.

There are some serious problems associated with aether denial. The problems are several and multi-layered. I will deal with these later and shed further light on how 20^th century scientific cosmology got it so terribly wrong. But first I will detail the historic development of the aether theory.

3 Motivation for Postulating Aether

Aether was needed for several reasons: (1) Philosophically it has always been difficult to define absolute and total nothingness. For Aristotle there was no void or vacuum. Descartes considered “it contrary to reason to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing.” [v] (2) During the Scientific age there arose the demand for a suitable medium for the propagation of light. In this capacity it was called the luminiferous aether. Isaac Newton, Christian Huygens, and Thomas Young were the early developers of this idea. (3) With Faraday’s discovery of lines of electrical and magnetic force the need for some conducting medium was glaringly obvious. (Remember those lines of force magically revealed by a sprinkling of iron filings?) Faraday’s abstract field concept could be more meaningful if there was some appropriate medium to fill it. (4) Then with Clerk Maxwell’s electric and magnetic wave theory there again was a need for a propagating medium. A more inclusive luminiferous aether was called for. Aether was enlisted to serve for the propagation needs of all electromagnetic waves.

(5) It provided the perfect explanation for the phenomenon called stellar aberration which had been discovered by the English astronomer James Bradley early in the 18^th century. The aberration of starlight is the apparent angular displacement of a star in the direction of motion of the observer. Because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun at a speed of about 30 km/second, an observer will see a star not in its true position but in an apparent position. An explanation of the effect is consistent with the motion of Earth through ‘stationary’ aether.

(6) There was (and still is) a need to establish a frame of reference for the measurement of motion particularly for the measurement of absolute motion. Referencing relative motion was not a problem but since the universe has no walls or boundaries, there is no way to reference absolute motion —no way to answer the question, absolute motion with respect to what? And for nineteen century physicists like Augustin Fresnel, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, and others, aether was just the thing. The frame ‘attached’ to the aether, and motionless with respect to it, serves as a preferred frame of reference. Absolute speed then acquires meaning —absolute speed with respect to aether-space (not with respect to the observer).

The motivation for such a reference was extremely important and should not be underestimated. “Without such a reference ... the very idea of motion becomes vague, and all of the nineteenth century development of physics becomes shaky.” [vi] By mid-nineteenth century it became clear that no material object in the universe represented a state of absolute rest and that absolute motion could not therefore be measured relative to any material object.[vii] It was not merely a hypothetical issue. The need for some kind of absolute reference was real, since physicists were actually dealing with absolute motion. The speed of light, whether particles or waves, is absolute. Undeniably so. Its absolute value is about 300,000 km/second; but absolute relative to what? Not absolute to the observer, because then it would be relative instead.

The contemporary way of expressing the historic question goes like this. If all motion is relative, as Einstein’s special relativity theory claims, then how is it possible to enforce its absolute speed-limit. That strict speed-of-light barrier imposed on all entities (like sub-atomic particles). In a rational world an absolute limit needs absolute motion to which it can be applied. Clearly, the motivation for invoking aether-space resides not only in the historic past.

(7) Both Newton’s “spooky” action at a distance and Einstein’s curvature magic were unacceptable as causal explanations of gravity. Aether was needed to (somehow) convey the gravitational force or effect. René Descartes invoked a swirling aether-fluid to convey gravitation. Newton suggested that there may be variations of some sort in an all-pervading aether. Then jumping to the 21^st century: Reginald Cahill explains gravity as a self-dissipating (contractile) process of aether-space. And DSSU theory (the theory of the Dynamic Steady State Universe) explains unified gravity (Lambda and normal gravity) as a dual-dynamic process of aether.

(8) Undoubtedly the most powerful motivator was the experimental results that demanded the existence of aether. The repeated detection of absolute motion —of Earth’s absolute motion through space— provided the vital evidence of a preferred frame-of-reference which is simply the frame in which the aether is at rest. Beginning with the famous experiment of 1887 and then in at least six other documented experiments, the evidence was found. As we saw earlier, the concept of absolute motion is inseparable from the concept of aether. Thus, if you find evidence of the former then your theory must include the latter.

The notion of a universal medium permeating all space has undergone many vicissitudes and spawned even more variants.

The posited substance called aether has changed considerably over the time period covered by the Table. Sometimes radically. It is a pattern that the history of science has witnessed before. For instance, the electron posited by J. J. Thompson differs radically from the electron defined by Schrödinger’s wave equation, which in turn differs just as radically from the electron defined by Dirac’s relativistic theory of the electron. In the same spirit the static aether of Huygens and Maxwell differs radically from the mono-dynamic aether of Augustin Cauchy which in turn differs radically from the dual-dynamic aether of DSSU theory. Electron or aether, when posited under a more advanced theory was able to explain more phenomena.

4 Chronology of the Development of Aether Theory

Author or Event	Aether Type or Attribute	REMARKS
Pre-scientific development. Aristotle	Fifth element (aka quintessence, the boundless)	Prior to the period called the Scientific Revolution, aether was a recurring idea in ancient worldviews and philosophical doctrines.
René Descartes (1596-1650)	Continuous aether; Gravitational aether	Descartes maintained that the world is a Plenum and there is no true vacuum or void. He believed in a continuous ether that completely fills the space not occupied by solid bodies and mediates their interactions by means of a system of vortices. (Layzer, D. 1984. Constructing the Universe, p7) The planets, for instance, are carried around by a sea of aether moving in whirlpool fashion, producing what we would call gravitational effects. All space was a sea filled with matter that swirled around in large and small vortices (forming the Cartesian Vortex universe). [viii]
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)	Particulate aether; Gravitational aether	Newton’s force-law of gravity lacked a causal mechanism and an explanation was sought of how such a force could be transmitted over vast distances through apparently empty space. “Newton at times thought universal gravity might be caused by the impulses of a stream of aether particles bombarding an object or by variations in an all-pervading aether” but did not advance either of these notions in his Principia because, as he ultimately said, he would “not feign hypotheses” as physical explanations.[ix] His followers, however, proposed that the gravitational effect of a body would be expressed as a distortion of the aether ---a distortion that travels outward as an ‘aether wave,’ much like a sound wave travels through air, and eventually reaches another body and affects it.
Isaac Newton	Luminiferous aether	Newton held the view that light rays consisted of a stream of particles in rectilinear motion and that the light particles stimulated, or were accompanied by, vibrations in an all pervading aether. [Mason, p468]
Christian Huygens (1629-95)	Stationary luminiferous aether	In 1678 and 1690 Huygens proposed a wave theory of light in which waves propagated longitudinally through a stationary aether. The speed of propagation was finite. This aether was continuous throughout space and consisted of hard elastic particles which transmitted impulses without being displaced themselves. [Mason, p210-1]
Discovery in 1728 of stellar aberration		James Bradley detected the apparent displacement of stars; a phenomenon he attributed to Earth’s orbital motion. This was clear evidence that the speed of light is not instantaneous.
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) Swiss mathematician & physicist	Universal medium	The great Swiss mathematician conjectured that the aether transmits not only heat and light, but also magnetic and electric forces and gravitation.[x]
Thomas Young (1773-1829)	Luminiferous aether; aether as a gas	Young’s wave theory of light (1801), like Huygens’, consisted of longitudinal vibrations (similar to sound waves) in a luminiferous aether. [Mason, p468-9] A gas will, of course, readily conducts such waves.
Discovery of the polarization of light by Étienne Louis Malus (1775-1812) in 1808; subsequently guided Augustin Fresnel	Aether as a rigid-gas	The phenomenon of light polarization doomed the longitudinal-wave hypothesis. Polarization seemed to establish the fact that light consisted of transverse waves. And transverse waves demanded a rigid-substance type of medium. In 1817, French physicist, A. Fresnel (1788-1827) introduced the transverse wave theory of light which could account for all the known phenomena of optics; consequently the aether became solid-like and rigid yet allowed the free passage of heavenly bodies. [Mason, p470-1] In Fresnel’s view the aether flowed freely through the interstices of material bodies even on the smallest scale.
George Stokes (1819-1903)	Elastically solid aether	Stokes’ view was that aether was rigid enough to convey transverse light waves, but could not be compressed or expanded ---and simply yielded to permit the movement of objects within it. [Mason, p472] But unlike Fresnel’s aether which flowed unhindered through all matter, Stokes’ aether is somehow restricted in its otherwise free movement. The implication is that Earth, for instance, not only has aether flowing through its mass but also *drags* aether along with it. His was an entrained-aether hypothesis and was later invoked by D. Miller as an explanation of the unexpectedly low velocities his data indicated.[xi]
Augustin Cauchy (1789-1857)	First attempts to make aether dynamic	Theory #1: Aether changed in density. Theory #2: Aether changed in elasticity. Theory #3: Then in 1839 Cauchy proposed an aether that was *contractile* or “labile,” “possessing a negative compressibility.” [Today we would call this a negative Λ or a simple gravity effect.] [Mason, p472]
George Green (1793-1841)	Suspiciously like a gravitational aether	Physicist George Green pointed out that Cauchy’s contractile aether would be unstable tending to contract all the time. [Mason, p472]
Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)	a more inclusive luminiferous aether: electromagnetic aether	Maxwell expanded and developed the qualitative aspects of Faraday’s conception of lines of electrical and magnetic force. Finding “it inconceivable that a wave motion should propagate in empty space” he, therefore, employed the aether of the contemporary wave theory of light. “Lines of force, Maxwell supposed, were tubes of [a]ether rotating on their axes. The centrifugal force of such rotations caused the tubes to expand sideways and contract lengthways, as Faraday had suggested in order to explain attraction and repulsion.” And it is these rotating tubes that carry electrical particles along, from one tube to the next and the next, in what amounts to a form of transverse undulations at the speed of light.[xii] Maxwell’s theory treats aether as the *preferred frame* of reference in which light propagates with constant speed in all directions. Notwithstanding the inclusion of microscopic rotating tubes, aether was viewed as a stationary medium.
Lord Kelvin James MacCullagh Sir Oliver Lodge And others		Many other aether models were proposed during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Some models even attempted to accommodate the properties of matter. [Mason, p484] But for the most part 19^th century aether served only to transmit the force of gravity and the waves of the electromagnetic spectrum but was itself unaffected and therefore could not be set in motion.
PIVOTAL YEAR OF 1887	first detection of aether	Prior to 1887 aether was hypothetical. Post 1887, aether was real.
Michelson-Morley aether experiment of 1887 Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931) Edward Williams Morley (1838-1923)	Physical detection	Using a Michelson optical interferometer mounted on a sandstone base, the aether wind was measured to be 8.8 km/s during noonday observations (and 8.0 km/s during evening) relative to the Earth. Unfortunately this was considerably less than the 30 km/s, which would be expected due to the Earth’s orbital motion about the sun. What at first appeared to be an anomalous finding was downgraded over the years and became the so called ‘null result’ now often quoted but entirely without justification.
G. F. FitzGerald, Irish physicist, in 1891	Aether as the source of relativistic effects	The smallness of M-M measurements was explained “on the hypothesis that the forces binding the molecules of a solid might be modified by the motion of the solid through the [a]ether in such a way that the dimension of the stone base of the interferometer would be shortened in the direction of motion and that this contraction ... neutralizes the optical effect sought in the Michelson-Morley aether experiment.” [xiii] For the first time in history it was proposed that aether has the ability, not merely to change the course of objects (as does gravitational aether), but FitzGerald’s aether had the relativistic ability to contract the dimensions of any object: contraction occurring in the direction of motion and in proportion to the speed through the aether!
Hendrick A. Lorentz (1853-1928), Dutch physicist, in 1895	"	Lorentz developed the FitzGerald hypothesis into a sound theory. Given that the atoms of all solids are held together by electrical forces, then the motion of a body as a whole would, according to Clerk Maxwell’s physics, superpose upon the electrostatic forces between the atoms a magnetic effect due to the motion. “There would result a contraction of the body in the direction of motion which is proportional to the square of the ratio of the velocities of translation and of light and which would have a magnitude such as to annul the effect of [a]ether-drift and in the Michelson-Morley interferometer.” [xiv] The validity of this theory was later confirmed. Whenever the experiment was performed *in a vacuum* the aether-effect on the optical interferometer was (and still is) totally annulled.
Morley & Miller in 1902 Cleveland	Physical detection	The sensitivity of the optical interferometer was increased by making the arm length 430 cm (more than 3 times the length in the 1887 experiment). Then to test the FitzGerald-Lorentz effect upon a different solid, the sandstone base of the optical interferometer was replaced with a pine-wood base. The aether drift measured 10 km/s. Their next experiment was in 1904 and saw the first use of the Michelson interferometer mounted on a steel-girder base. Each arm was again 430 cm long. The instrument measured about 7.5 km/s. In 1905 the same steel-girder apparatus recorded 8.7 km/s.
Albert Einstein in 1905	Superfluous aether	Historically the only serious blow against aether came from Einstein when he formulated his theory of relativity. He was puzzled by the fact that the mathematical laws (Maxwell’s laws) governing electricity, magnetism, and light implicitly define a preferred reference frame in which the speed of light is the same in all directions, whereas Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation do not. Why this lack of mathematical harmony? Electromagnetic phenomena require a special frame of reference; yet dynamic phenomena do not. Einstein was faced with a critical choice. He could concur with the three-centuries-old consensus about the existence of aether, accept the FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation of Michelson-Morley ‘null’ result, and find the special frame of reference that rules motion and gravitation. It would have led to his sought after mathematical consistency. Or he could achieve consistency by attempting to extirpate the preferred reference frame from Maxwell’s laws. He chose the latter course. [David Layzer, 1984. Constructing the Universe, Scientific American Library (W H Freeman & Co. New York) p163-4] But, as the following experimental evidence accumulated, it became ever clearer that he had failed. The preferred frame and the aether refused to go away.
The Sagnac Experiment, 1913	Preferential frame of reference	Whereas the 1887 MM experiment was the first test of absolute translational motion, the Sagnac experiment was the first test of absolute rotational motion. On a rotating platform, M.G. Sagnac split light from a single monochromatic source into cw and ccw rays that traveled identical paths in opposite directions around the platform. He combined the returning rays to form a visible interference pattern, and found that the fringes shifted as the speed of rotation changed. The procedure involved measuring the difference in the travel time of light rays circumnavigating the rotating disk (1m in diameter) in opposite directions. The circular path is achieved by the use of mirrors mounted on the disk along the circumference. As in the MM experiment, the time difference was detectable as a fringe shift of the interference pattern of the recombined light beam. Sagnac found, in agreement with prediction, a significant fringe shift. In fact, a rotational speed of 13 m/s produces a full fringe shift. If the speed of light were locally invariant and always equal to c, then speeding up or slowing of the rotation rate of the platform should not change the location of the fringes. However, *the fringes do change* with speed and *we can determine a preferred frame* —in violation of the second relativity postulate and the hypothesis of locality.[xv]
Dayton Miller in 1921 Mt. Wilson	Physical detection	In April of 1921 Miller’s steel-girder apparatus was test on Mt. Wilson and measured 10 km/s. (Mt. Wilson, California, has Lat. 34°13′ N and alt. 1750m) In Dec of 1921 the steel base was replaced with a concrete one to exclude any possible magnetic effects. Same result, 10 km/s.
Miller in 1922-24 Cleveland	"	Various apparatus changes and procedural methods were extensively tested. Some improvements were made. Tests of intentional temperature variations in “these experiments proved that under the conditions of actual observation, the periodic displacements could not possibly be produced by temperature effects”[xvi] as is so often claimed. Throughout the many trials the optical interferometer never failed to produce consistently positive results.
Miller in 1924 Mt. Wilson	"	Again measured about 10 km/s.
Miller in 1925-26 Mt. Wilson	the direction of aether-flow	While in previous experiments the direction of relative motion between Earth and aether had been assumed, this series of experiments was designed to actually measure the direction. Readings were made throughout 24 hour periods; naturally during the 24 hour rotation of the Earth on its axis there would occur two instances when the fringe shifts became maximum thereby indicating the approximate direction of aether drift (somewhat in the manner by which the ocean tides indicate the direction of the moon). Then, by checking the direction —by repeating the 24 hour test— during different seasons of the Earth’s annual Solar orbit, the experiment establishes whether or not the main component of the aether wind is local or cosmic in origin. A more or less constant direction (in the celestial sphere) indicates a cosmic origin. Data was collected April 1, August 1 and September 15, 1925 and February 8, 1926. The line of motion was established but there was some uncertainty as to which diametrically opposite direction actually represented the apex of the motion. Eventually Miller concluded that the cosmic direction of motion of the Earth and the Solar System is (Right Ascension ~5^h Declination ~70°S) towards the constellation Dorado. The speed was calculated to be 208 km/s. In a non-optical experiment in 1991 (see DeWitte, below) the RA direction of ~5^h was dramatically confirmed.
Maurice Allais (1911- ) During 1954-1960 Saint-Germain, France	the direction of aether-flow	Maurice Allais using a rigid-arm pendulum having a length of only 83 cm found that the plane of oscillation tended to rotate towards a preferential direction (azimuth) that changed with the rotation of the Earth and could not be explained by the well known Foucault Effect. Many months of observations lead Allais "to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum ... there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories." Neither Newton's universal gravitation nor Einstein's general relativity could explain the significant periodic change in the plane of oscillating motion. In 1999 Professor Allais wrote: “Science has lost at least forty years. Not only have my experiments not been followed up, but they have been successfully hidden.” [xvii] It is interesting and useful to note an essential difference between the Foucault and Allais pendulums. In the former the pendulum’s bob and wire do not turn (relative to the Earth frame) since the bob and wire are not free to pivot, only the nonmaterial swing plane turns; while in the latter the pendulum’s bob-and-rigid-arm assembly is free to turn. The Foucault pendulum measures the Coriolis effect while the Allais pendulum measures the direction of aether flow.
Roland DeWitte in 1991 Brussels	the direction of aether-flow	A surprisingly simple experiment (at least in principle). A radio frequency signal travels forth-and-back through a coaxial cable that is 1.5 km long and aligned in a North-South direction. The key data is the difference between the travel times for N-to-S propagation and S-to-N propagation. As the Earth rotates this difference varies. The sidereal time for maximum effect occurs at ~5^h and at ~17^h and confirms the direction found by Miller over 60 years earlier! Furthermore, the flow speed agreed with Miller’s 1925-26 results. This agreement was revealed years later when R. Cahill’s theory of aether-space showed that both experiments give 420±30 km/s. The experiment lasted 178 days and confirmed that the effect was periodic with sidereal time, not solar time. The aether motion was of extra-solar-system origin —or galactic origin.
Yuri M. Galaev 1998-1999, Ukraine, Kharkov	Physical detection using a radiowave interferometer of the 1st order	Supports the theory of the aether as “the material medium which is responsible for propagation of electromagnetic waves.”
Yuri M. Galaev 2001-2002, Ukraine, Kharkov	Physical detection using a optical interferometer of the 1st order	The type of wave interferometer used in this experiment differed from the Michelson-type in that it measures the first-order effect of the velocity difference along two separate paths taken by the electromagnetic waves (while the M- interferometer measures the much smaller 2nd-order velocity effect). The kinematic viscosity of the aether was determined. But most significant is the confirmation that "The velocity of optical wave propagation depends on the radiation direction and ... changes its value with a period per one stellar day." [xviii] Although the intensity of the effect was small, the variation of the measured ether-drift velocity was distinctly dependent on the sidereal daily cycle, and agreed remarkably well with Miller's findings. Galaev determined that the absolute motion of the Solar system is towards the celestial coordinates (RA = ~17.5h, Dec = ~+65º) which is equivalent to saying that the aether is flowing towards the 180º opposite direction (RA= 5.5 hr, Dec = −65 deg).[xix] This is remarkable confirmation of the flow direction (RA= 5.2 hr, Dec = −67 deg) that Miller had painstakingly derived 3/4 of a century earlier. There could now be no doubt that the aether wind is of galactic source from beyond the Solar System. Galaev concluded that the aether is consistent with a medium composed of discrete particles, and that the aether is responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.
Reginald T. Cahill in 2002 Australia	Re-analysis of data from earlier Physical detection	Cahill realized that absolute motion through aether-space is the cause of various well-established relativistic effects. Back in 1887 Michelson and Morley were, of course, unaware of the relativistic effects and had simply used the Newtonian theory for the calibration of their optical interferometer. The M-M and the Miller data were carefully reanalyzed, the new calibration factor was applied, and the full magnitude of the aether drift velocity was at long last revealed. That elusive 30 km/s tangential velocity due to the orbital motion of the Earth through aether had been there all along. It was one of three main components contributing to the net aether-flow vector. The other two aether motions were identified as the space inflow converging on the Sun (42 km/s solar concentric), and a substantial cosmic component of 420±30 km/s in the direction (RA=5.2 hr, Dec=−67 deg). This cosmic component represents the aether flowing through the Solar System. Cahill also exposed the flaw in the experiments that reported null, or near zero, results for the detection of aether. The historic and current evidence clearly shows that only a Michelson interferometer in gas-mode can detect a path length difference, the signature of absolute motion through aether. The light beam must travel through air or some other gas. When the interferometer is placed in a vacuum, aether-flow cannot be detected. (In vacuum mode, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length-contraction renders the instrument totally useless for this purpose.) See Cahill’s paper, The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion. [xx]
Discovery of the mechanism of gravity in 2002	Gravitational dynamic aether	Cahill discovered the causal mechanism of gravity as part of a realization that aether-space is a dynamic fluid and a key component of what is known as Process Physics. Gravity is re-defined as the inhomogeneous bulk inflow of aether-space towards and into matter. The key point is that “It is this inhomogeneity rather than the motion [of aether] itself that actually is the phenomena we know as gravity.” [xxi] This definition of gravity concurs with the one developed independently within DSSU theory.
DSSU theory developed in 2002 Based on the epochal insight that the Universe is cellularly structured into cosmic cells of dynamic aether-space.	A unified aether described as: 1) Lumniferous; 2) Gravitationally dual-dynamic; 3) Boundless.	1) The aether serves as the medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. 2) The aether is gravitationally dual-dynamic in the sense that it expands and also contracts. The actual gravity effect is conveyed by the gradient of the rate of change of the bulk motion of aether-space. 3) The aether serves as the quasi-real substance from which all matter/energy is derived. The aether serves as both a luminiferous aether and a unified gravitational aether. Aether, by being dynamic, is responsible for normal gravity (contractile) as well anti-gravity (generic Λ). The two are regionally balanced so that \|gravity\| = +Λ . Aether-space (on the cosmic scale) expands in certain regions and contracts in other regions. This dynamic activity manifests the cosmic cell structure observed by astronomers. Cells (or unit-universes) are self regulating in size and are in a perpetual steady state of simultaneous expansion and contraction. The cells constitute a Euclidean structure that exists within the *non expanding universe.* The DSSU infinite universe is a quasi-static lattice-like structure of unit-universes. Agreement with observation is unparalleled.[xxii]
Reginald T. Cahill in 2007	Gravitational aether	By successfully applying his *dynamical 3-space* aether theory to galaxies and galaxy clusters Cahill eliminated the need for ‘dark matter.’ [xxiii] Aether was shown to produce the contractile effect (Cahill calls it the *3-space self-interaction effect) that had long been attributed to some kind of mysterious unsubstantiated matter. In effect, Cahill found that dynamic aether* is gravitationally more powerful than is Newton’s force and Einstein’s geometrized space.

Notes: Historically there are three basic types of aether ---Aristotle’s fifth element, luminiferous, and gravitational. The symbol Λ stands for the cosmological constant in most conventional theories, and for the generic expansion of space in DSSU theory.

5 Consequences and Problems Associated with Denial

The denial of aether has led to a chain of misconceptions of the nature of reality that can only be described as incomplete at best and paradoxical at worst. After that initial misinterpretation of 1887, one misconception led to another, widening the non-reality, deepening the unresolvability. The first misconception was the no-preferred-frame idea. Maxwell’s perfectly valid preferred frame of reference was discarded. Then, without a special frame, there can be no absolute motion. It then follows that without absolute motion ALL translational motion must be relative (I have this on the best of authority, Einstein himself). And if all motion is relative what better way is there for describing the physical world than with special and general relativity? The historic chain of misconceptions continued as relativity theory was applied to the whole universe and eventually gave us Sean Carroll’s preposterous expanding universe. Physicists know, or suspect, there is something wrong here. The incompleteness and the paradoxes that have arisen are too easily demonstrated to be ignored.

Unfortunately the premise was invalid from the very start. Unfortunately, the rejection of aether and the consequential incomplete theory of gravity has led theorists to propose highly speculative universes of mathematical genre —abstractions devoid of reality.

Although the premise was flawed, in the course of theoretical development the step by step logic, decade after decade, was wonderfully flawless and found its grandest expression as the golden age of the expanding universes. The 20^th century witnessed an astrocopeia of models based on Einstein’s gravity equations. (Check out the lengthy list of expansion models in Table 2 of the article, Models of the Universe). Like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice whose spell conjured up too many magic brooms, theorists were finding that their magical mathematical equations were producing more and more versions of the expansion scenario.

As I said, it was a golden season; expansion was the big thing, and the harvest was abundant. The problem was, there was and is only one real universe! And any scientist, professional or amateur, will tell you that a theory that allows (or predicts) too many possibilities makes for a very weak theory. A weak theory is more appropriately called a hypothesis or a speculation; and always has problems.

When theorists deny the existence of aether they are left with no medium for the propagation of Maxwell’s electromagnetic waves.

Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion that aether serves as the medium for the propagation of light while claiming that the emptiness of space is filled with all kinds of stuff like quantum particle-pair formation, various entities continually popping in and out of existence, and, of course, vacuum energy. But note that these things are not just scattered around randomly in “empty” space. They permeate all space. Physicist Robert Oerter explains, in his book A Theory of Almost Everything, that there are harmonic oscillators, one at each point in space, wherever there are quantum fields (which happens to be most everywhere). In otherwise empty space, these oscillators are pulsating in their lowest energy state. “We know, however, that a harmonic oscillator has some energy even in its lowest energy state. This [what we call] vacuum energy exists at every point in space ...” [xxiv] Robert Oerter leaves no room for doubt; there are entities at every point in space! Wait a minute ... that sounds suspiciously like a space medium.

Let’s shine a light into this space used by “the standard model of modern physics.” A light beam travels through points in (or of) space; there are oscillators at every point; the light, then, must pass through the oscillators. The light can’t go around the oscillators since there are no gaps, no free points, no free zone. Clearly light is being conducted —conducted by the oscillators along the light ray’s path —by the space medium itself —by the luminiferous aether that physicist have long rejected. What other conclusion could there possibly be? ... Light does travel through a ubiquitous space-medium. Yet almost no physicist acknowledges the fact. (Let there be no doubt about the seriousness of aether denial or aetherphobia. Those afflicted, as if participating in a reversal of a popular fable in which the Emperor IS fully clothed, are claiming He has no clothes!)

The situation with the light-conducting-medium reveals a problem on another level. The age old ‘problem’ of heresy undermining the establishment’s sacred ideas. The guardians of the Official view do not tolerate dissent. Consequently, under the oppressive rules of Academia no one today dares to call it the luminiferous aether let alone generic aether. For two thousand years, few dared to challenge the authority of Aristotle. Today, few dare to challenge the authority of Einstein.

Aether denial, of course, goes hand in hand with the denial of absolute motion —yet absolute motion is surprisingly easy to prove.

The denial of aether led Einstein to two famous but incomplete theories of relativity. One is missing the principle of absolute motion and, therefore, is unable to explain the real difference in the speed of a light ray (along separate paths) observable in any gas mode Michelson apparatus (particularly when calibrated as per Cahill’s method to correct for Lorentzian contraction). The other theory is missing ... How shall I state this? ...

Here we have what may well be the biggest problem of all. Without aether there is no plausible way to convey the effect of gravity. We are left with no way to convey Newton’s force of gravity. And in the terminology of general relativity: we are left with no way to manifest the effect of space curvature.

It is sad to report that more than 300 years after Newton presented the world with a scientific definition of gravity, the cause is still a mystery. Peter Bergmann, a devoted student and follower of Einstein, underscores this dismal deficiency by authoring a book entitled The Riddle of Gravitation. The title refers to the unresolved problem of Einstein’s theory of gravity. For relativity experts like Bergmann, gravity is a mystery for the simple reason that the underlying mechanism is missing. The rejection of aether, and its dynamic properties, is directly responsible for this impasse.

Without aether theorists are led to a totally unrealistic picture of the universe. They arrive at a philosophically untenable picture of an expanding universe with its physically impossible singularity initial state and its questionable end state. They lose sight of the principle that the Universe is the manifestation of existence; and existence does not begin or end; existence is absolute and cannot be qualified in any way.

There is also a major practical problem. Without aether there is no plausible way to explain the abundant experimental evidence detailed in the Chronology Table above. There is no way to explain the findings by using standard physics. But it appears the official institutions are not in any hurry to solve the mystery. For instance, in 1999 NASA set up an investigative commission headed by Dr. David Noever (a NASA scientist) to review the Maurice Allais experiments. Almost a decade later and we’re still waiting on the outcome. The lengthy delay speaks volumes. One suspects there is a desperate effort to avert a revolution in physics and cosmology; and it is likely that the report will never be issued. A website search of NASA [Science.msfc.nasa.gov/] gives only the original 1999 report.[xxv] [xxvi] And more than likely Maurice Allais will not live to see it.

The rejection of aether has now led to a near crisis situation in Cosmology and Physics. The proof of the existence of aether is out there. It is being ignored and even suppressed. See Cahill’s paper, Space and Gravitation,[xxvii] for some of the shocking details; also see the entry for Maurice Allais in the above table. Evidence is ignored, year after year. All the while the experimental physicists keep rediscovering what is not supposed to exist —the aether and its associated absolute motion.

A review of the history of aether reveals that aether is repeatedly being re-discovered; as if its previous discovery has been forgotten, again and again. Forgive the broadness of my question, but what is going on here!? What kind of science is being practiced in society’s noble institutions when solid experimental evidence is ignored? Or worse, censored and suppressed?

While there is mostly silence among the ranks of institutionalized degree holders, this fact remains: Without aether we are unnecessarily burdening ourselves with an incomprehensible “preposterous universe.”

6 The Aether of the New Cosmology

The study and research of a cosmos devoid of its essential ingredient, aether, is as pointless and unproductive as were traditional theological dissertations. Cosmology without the aether concept is a dead-end endeavor —assuming, of course, that one’s goal is the perception of reality.

Cosmology as a belief system is a different matter. Needless to say, if one is practicing cosmology as a quasi-religion then one is free to believe whatever one chooses. Unrestrained by the scientific method, one is free to ignore the paradoxes that arise, free to include the non sequiturs, free to worship any authority. It is indeed sad to report that Academic Cosmology has made a grave digression; it has become a belief system. The aether controversy reveals the century long transformation of Academic Cosmology —a transformation into non-scientific Creationism.[xxviii] Science historian Corey S. Powell in his book, God in the Equation, provocatively and eloquently argues that what Academia practices today is a faith called “science/religion” and details how Einstein, the most popular genius of the century, became the prophet of a cosmological revolution.

The faith-based cosmology dominated the 20^th century. The new cosmology began in the year 2002 with Cahill’s discovery of the mechanism of gravitation and the author’s development of DSSU theory. It is a cosmology based on a new concept of aether.

Contrary to the conventional belief system, embracing the aether theory with its heretical notion of absolute space and absolute motion does not necessarily entail the rejecting and replacing of existing theories. For instance, Einstein’s theory of relative motion remains valid in a restricted sense; the theory is subsumed as relative motion becomes but a special case of a more general theory of absolute motion.

Another misconception is the notion that absolute space is explicitly a static space. True enough, Newton’s space was absolute and static. But it is not a necessary combination. Next, consider a non-absolute space. Einstein’s geometrized space was non-absolute and notably dynamic. And this also is not a necessary combination. These characteristics are but the chosen axioms of a particular theory. Newton chose absolute and static, Einstein chose non-absolute and dynamic. Both choices are problematic. So the obvious question arises; what about a combination of absolute and dynamic? And the answer came in the year 2002. Under a new theory (see DSSU theory in the table above) axioms were selected to make space absolute and dynamic. Absolute because the experimental evidence demands it to be so; dynamic because Einstein and Friedmann proved it to be so. Significantly, in DSSU theory, space, as general relativity unequivocally demands, retains its ability to expand and to contract. Definitively, DSSU aether-space is both absolute and dual-dynamic and not at all static.

Does this make for a superior type of space? To answer this question, consider what the standard theory is missing and what the new-cosmology theory offers. Both Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s gravity do not give an actual cause or an actual mechanism; but a properly constructed aether theory does. The dual-dynamic aether provides Einstein’s mathematical theory of gravity with what the theory has long been lacking —a real-world ‘substance’ with the real ability to convey the gravitational effect (and not as a medium for the propagation of gravitons). In other words, DSSU aether endows the theory of gravity with its essential causal mechanism.

The definition of the phenomena we know as gravity (applicable to DSSU theory as well as Process Physics) is the inhomogeneous bulk flow of aether-space towards and into matter. The emphasis is on the inhomogeneity of the aether flow, rather than the flow-motion itself, and manifests as an acceleration. The foregoing is the definition of normal gravity (i.e., contractile) the related definition for unified gravity simply includes the expansionary aspect of aether-space.

Indeed, the New Cosmology does have a superior type of space. Not only does it provide the causal mechanism for gravity, but it also makes possible a unified theory of gravity.

The aether theorists and researchers of today clearly have the advantage. The case for the existence of aether need not at all be defended —since the experimental evidence is undeniable. It is those who actively deny the experimental evidence or passively ignore the historical and continuing research who are exposing themselves to accusations of scientific malpractice. ... It is they who are responsible for fabricating “the preposterous universe.”

External Links and Resources

The growth of research into aether theory is dramatic. There are now a growing number of websites, papers and essays devoted to the subject. The CellularUniverse.org website is but one of many. One of the best sources for articles relating to aether-space is Mountain Man Graphics.

SELECTED SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DETAILS:
Encyclopedia of Cosmology, Norriss S. Hetherington, Editor. 1993 (Garland Publishing Inc., NY & London)

Science: its History and Development Among the World Cultures by Colin Ronan. 1982 (The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., New York)

