It would help if we could get rid of images of electromagnetic (EM) waves passing through a vacuum without a medium, it is not possible. The only other possibility of transmitting energy and information across a vacuum is a ballistic theory, which for light is impossible, as it has no static mass. There appears to be no other possibilities or viable alternatives. Maxwell settled the argument 150 years ago, by establishing the fundamental EM wave theory based on an EM Propagation Medium (PM).
To deny the existence of the propagation medium is to reject Maxwell’s theory, which of course has consistently predicted EM wave propagation by a PM since its inception in 1865. The ether-less aspects of Special Relativity (SR) (1905) are therefore not supported by Maxwell’s theory (those that support time-travel etc.), they can never be verified, they are non causal. Whereas, New Relativity (NR) extends the medium-based theories of Maxwell (1865) and Lorentz (1899), predicting the measured aspects of Einstein’s SR based on a PM and including source and observer motion with respect to the PM
After a century of non causal ether-less relativity, there will be, initially, a reluctance to accept the PM and abandon Einstein’s ether-less concept of relativity. Einstein was convinced that there was no PM. However his thought experiments included ether-less predictions, such as no absolute time and space. Einstein’s reluctance to accept the medium caused considerable problems that have arisen through the medium’s rejection, and numerous accurate predictions based on the medium’s presence. Some of us, who are familiar with Einstein’s theory of relativity or studied it in some detail, admit to a sense of unease. Some aspects of the theory are against one’s intuition, requiring a leap of faith to suppress a disturbing feeling that the physics is not quite right.
There should be no obvious unanswered questions; such as how does light propagate, or how does one solve the wave equation for propagating waves, without a PM? Without a medium, there is no physical mechanism to explain how the basic wave Propagation Time Asymmetry (PTA), Doppler (1842) effect in the frequency domain, can occur. How a moving more dense medium than a vacuum can convect light. How an impulsive wave is formed in Cerenkov (1934) radiation. How two systems can move apart physically, greater than the speed of light relative to the PM, but not relative to each other. Or distinguish between light propagation on Earth, around the Earth or through the Solar System and beyond. Einstein’s invariant inertial frame that encouraged his ether-less beliefs, is not a radiation frame, it requires a PM to be observed.
Viewing the sky at night it is difficult to imagine that the universe is not continuous and absolute, i.e. it is not one piece of spatial fabric. Einstein concluded just that, implying that space is a patch-work of autonomous regions of relativity. Having no propagation medium, Einstein assumed that there was no absolute time and space.
Einstein, in his concept of relativity, believed that only relative motion between space ships was meaningful. Ships could travel notionally at any speed without detection, providing there was no relative velocity between them. This is not a satisfactory situation, how could their actual speeds be measured? According to Einstein’s relativity, either ship could be considered to be moving and the other stationary. Either set of astronauts could be considered to age less than those on the other ship.
Amazingly, against all logic, both situations were considered possible, even at the same time, which is physically impossible (non causal) in the real world, stretching reality too far. Einstein claimed that the situation could not be resolved until one of the ships changed speed or direction. But what would have been the situation immediately before the ships changed course? What would have happened if the ships had never changed course? These questions only arise through not accepting the medium’s presence. Restoring the medium allows these questions to be answered naturally.
Accepting the medium’s presence ensures finite and definitive velocities relative to the medium, removing all ambiguity. The two ships could, for example, approach each other at speeds just below the speed of light, their total speed relative to the medium being almost twice that of light. But relative to each other, through the relativistic addition of velocities, their speed would always appear to be below that of light. The PM makes everything predictable, whereas the ether-less situation is non causal, it cannot happen.
Each ship retains its individual velocity relative to the medium, which determines its rate of ageing, according to Lorentz. Here the system and light speed is added relativistically, making the light speed ‘c’ invariant. This is because time and space in the moving frame shrink by exactly the same ratio maintaining its speed. The light speed in the medium, or to a moving observer, then remains unchanged. This is the medium at work producing completely rational (predictable) effects.
To transmit the field disturbances (waves) and make the predictions causal (solutions of the wave equations), a medium is essential. The medium is not a mathematical artefact that can be removed, as Einstein believed. All observed motional effects are caused through the interaction of the moving system with the PM. The medium determines the wave characteristics, including the wave propagation speed. EM waves are no exception, their electrical medium’s characteristics are finite giving a finite speed. If there was no medium its propagation speed would be infinite, which is not the case.
A vacuum medium, without gravitational matter, is not empty space. It has Maxwell’s (1865) permeability (electrical inertia) and permittivity (electrical stiffness) propagating (bouncing) electrical disturbances through the medium. Einstein’s ether-less relativity cannot distinguish between:
(a) Propagation in a medium at rest in space. This is supported by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, detected by Penzias & Wilson (1965). It is also verified through energy collection increase by motion relative to the CMB radiation, measured by COBE (1992).
(b) Propagation in an Earth centred frame i.e. propagation on Earth to be independent of its orbital speed around the Sun. This is supported by MMX (1887), Sagnac (1913) and Michelson & Gale (1925).
(c) Propagation in a heliocentric frame i.e. propagation through the Solar System to be independent of its motion through the universe, according to Reasenburg et al (1979).
These situations can be explained only if the medium exists, is at rest generally, moves with the Earth locally, and with the Sun and Solar System for inter-solar planetary propagation. Relativists, not believing in a medium, have to make these reference frame transforms without any authority (physical justification).
Thus the medium is generally at rest in space. It is attracted to gravitational bodies, according to Schwarzschild (1916), and through its non-ridged structure moves with the bodies (planets). Here the medium surrounds and orbits with the body within its Gravitational Field of Dominance (GFOD). Stellar aberration, described by Bradley (1725), which was believed would be affected by the medium surrounding and orbiting with the Earth is shown not to be the case. The star light propagating in the medium, ‘at rest in space’, passes through the orbiting medium, forming the aberration angle in an observing telescope on Earth. This is an actual angle embedded in the medium.
It is not a resolved angle between the Earth’s motion and the speed of light that would have resulted if there had been no medium. Filling the telescope with an obvious medium (water), does not affect the stellar angle, confirming the medium’s presence. The medium forms a smooth transition (ray bending), between the moving and stationary situations.
Relativists, not accepting the medium’s presence, attempt to use relativistic arguments to try to explain basic EM motional effects. However, relativistic effects at Earth speeds and short measurement periods are small compared to the instantaneous classical Propagation Time Asymmetry (PTA). Michelson and Morley(1887), Sagnac (1913), Michelson and Gale (1925), Saburi et al (1976) and GPS (1992) are all basically explained using only the medium based classical PTA. The only major difference between classical and EM theories is Lorentz’s contraction in the direction of motion at high speed. Both theories are dominated by the classical medium based PTA. Because the speed of light is invariant, PTA is the vital (variant) part of any causal motional wave theory.
Relativists attempt to argue that no propagation medium exists or indeed is required. They interpret Minkowski’s (1908) rectangular axes space-time four vector analysis, which plots moving systems in space and time, as requiring no medium. However, the vertical and horizontal axes of the space-time diagram use Lorentz’s rectangular axes medium based transform, representing time and space respectively, normalised against the speed of light. The velocity of light then becomes a 45 degree gradient. This is just a mathematical convenience of representing time and space. There is no mechanism or physical justification to remove the medium.
In a further effort to remove the effect of the medium, and support Einstein’s concept of relative motion, Lorentz’s medium based rectangular axes transform was replaced by oblique axes, according to Born (1924). These axes were an attempt, using Minkowski’s space-time, to simulate simultaneity (propagation time symmetry upstream and down) and reciprocity (interchanging sources and observers made no difference to the observations). However, these ether-less properties, where the medium’s absence is argued using medium based concepts (circular arguments), are non causal, they are not a solution of the wave equation. They imply time travel and no absolute time and space, neither of which have been measured.
Credibility is raised further by the fact that no one has ever verified Einstein’s ether-less relativity, nor established the redundancy of the propagation medium. Researchers claiming to have verified ether-less aspects of SR have usually verified the medium based Lorentz Transform (LT). They make no attempt to explain how the observations are transmitted without a medium. Also, Maxwell’s Equations, LT and Relativistic Addition of Velocities are all medium based, using rectangular axes transforms. Whereas, an oblique axes transform, representing ether-less simulations, resulting in paradoxes and uncertainties, should not have been taken to represent reality. They are non causal mathematical simulations, with no physical or experimental evidence to support them.
Einstein’s belief in his invariant, ether-less, inertial frame to observe motional properties is not appropriate. Causal predictions require a medium to solve the wave equation and propagate waves, according to Maxwell. Propagation defined through the causal solution of the wave equation must always be relative to the medium, not relative to the inertial frame, as Einstein believed. The velocity of light is always with respect to the medium, even when there is system motion relative to the medium. The propagation is relative to the preferred reference frame – the medium, where PTA is created.
Einstein’s ether-less universe is not supported by any known data. Without the medium, PTA is not possible and the EM wave equation cannot be solved. Without a solution, measured events cannot be predicted. They are non causal, the effect (observed event) could occur before the cause (source event), which cannot happen in reality. Einstein based his ether-less predictions on relative motion between systems without any physical argument or justification. Einstein’s ether-less inertial frame responsible for his beliefs, cannot predict measured observations. It is Lorentz’s medium based optical frame that correctly predicts the measured events, using a preferred frame of reference.
However, Einstein’s SR does predict measured observations. Although Einstein denied the existence of the PM, with his non causal ether-less predictions, it is easily confirmed from inspection of his motional electrodynamic field equations that he used a medium to obtain and solve the wave equation. His field equations use Maxwell’s and Lorentz’s medium based rectangular axes motional transform, which results in the measured predictions. The same motional properties can be obtained directly from the medium based classical wave equation by simply including Lorentz’s time and space contraction through motion, relative to the medium, independent of SR.
Einstein’s SR is therefore not consistent, it has two contradictory aspects. One is concerned with time and space contraction of structures passing through the medium. This, leads to Einstein’s famous energy equation, E = mc
The new theory unites classical and modern physics, and provides the basis for the unification of electro-magnetism and gravity. Einstein’s medium based aspect of SR, which predicts many of today’s measured observations, is based on Lorentz’s medium based motional theory. Einstein’s ether-less aspects of SR (simultaneity, optical reciprocity, time travel and no absolute time and space), cannot be measured. They are the result of a mathematical simulation equivalent to an oblique axes transform. This oblique axis transform is not a solution of the wave equation, it is non causal and not supported by the medium based Lorentz transform.
No data or causal arguments have been made that justify this oblique transform. To restore reality and propagation with respect to the medium, the oblique axes are returned back to their regular rectangular Maxwellian and Lorentzian positions. This breaks the propagation time symmetry, removes the non measurable simulated concepts of simultaneity and reciprocity, predicted by Einstein’s invariant inertial frame, and restores the variant Propagation Time Asymmetry (PTA) around a moving source, laid down in the stationary propagation medium.
There is no basis for the ether-less aspect of SR, apart from attempting to satisfy the Michelson and Morley Experiment null result (MMX) (1887), which was judged to support an ether-less universe. It is now accounted for quite naturally through the medium on the Earth’s surface rotating relative to the stationary medium surrounding and orbiting with the Earth. This creates an Electro-gravitational Boundary layer (EGBL) between the rotating surface and the surrounding stationary medium orbiting with the Earth. Michelson and Gale’s (1925) fixed optical loop showed that the surface medium rotates relative to the stationary medium surrounding the Earth. Hafele and Keating’s (1972) flying atomic clocks 10 km above the Earth confirmed the medium at this altitude was stationary relative to the Earth’s axis (not rotating around it).
Although Einstein denied the medium’s existence and creatively described elaborate details of an ether-less SR, such as simultaneity time travel and no absolute time and space, these details have not been measured. Einstein actually used a medium in his motional electro-dynamics field equations, referring motion to the medium rather than relative motion between systems. This is in disagreement with his own concept of relative motion, rendering his ether-less aspect of SR as untenable. Einstein’s space in his space-time used to measure distance in his SR, and space time distortion (medium compression both time and space through gravity, according to Schwarzschild (1916)), are in fact the same space used by Lorentz (1899), filled with Maxwell’s (1865) PM. Measured system time and structure contraction, caused by motion through the propagation medium supports the medium. The same medium is used in accelerating observer frames, linking these concepts together.
NR is in agreement with and supported by the transverse Doppler, changes in time, space, mass, momentum and Einstein’s famous energy equation. Also, it is in agreement with and supported by Schrödinger’s (1927) standing wave equation, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM), which is Lorentz invariant, the theories of Dirac (1928), Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) and the Standard Model (SM) in particle physics. Einstein’s GR which results through expressing the LT in terms of Minkowski’s (1908) space-time four-vector analysis and his gravitational theory, which form the basis of astrophysics and cosmology, are all based on the same medium. It is shown that the medium supports the Schwarzschild metric and event horizon. Assuming the medium to be homogeneous and isotropic, the Robertson(1936) and Walker (1937) metric in cosmology is obtained, and through the Friedmann metric (1924), the Hubble constant (1929).
It is believed that it has been shown beyond doubt that the EM medium (ether) exists, and that it is false to believe that electric fields and their disturbances can propagate through space without a propagation medium. Without the medium none of the motional effects could occur. There is no need to remove the propagation medium as Einstein attempted to do, the universe works extremely well with it. This new theory is not remarkable; it simply restores the rationality of EM theory by re-establishing its medium. This in turn restores the connection between classical and modern physics. The confirmation that the medium exists, and that electromagnetic, gravitational and inertial fields all appear to be forms of an electric field, using the same propagation medium, now provides a common basis for a unification theory of the universe. Finally ‘ether’ is preferred, as ‘aether’ usually implies its demise.