Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

> I imagine the article explains how certain numerical solutions of GR
> suggest that space-time has properties that are similar to a fluid.
> Then the concept of "aether" was mentioned in passing, and you latched
> on.

Unfortunately, the article wasn't written about your imagination. Here
is a relevant section of the December 2005 Scientific American article:

"Applied to real black holes, the fluid analogy lends confidence that
Hawking's result is correct despite the simplifications he made.
Moreover, it suggests to some researchers that the infinite redshift at
a gravitational black hole horizon may be similarly avoided by
dispersion of short wavelength light. But there is a catch. Relativity
theory flatly asserts that light does not undergo dispersion in a
vacuum. The wavelength of a photon appears different to different
observers; it is arbitrarily long when viewed from a reference frame
that is moving sufficiently close to the speed of light. Hence, the
laws of physics cannot mandate a fixed short-wavelength cutoff, at
which the dispersion relation changes from type I to type II or III.
Each observer would perceive a different cutoff.

Physicists thus face a dilemma. Either they retain Einstein's
injunction against a preferred frame and they swallow the infinite
redshifting, or they assume that photons do not undergo an infinite
redshift and they have to introduce a preferred reference frame. Would
this frame necessarily violate relativity? No one yet knows. Perhaps
the preferred frame is a local effect that arises only near black hole
horizons-in which case relativity continues to apply in general. On
the other hand, perhaps the preferred
frame exists everywhere, not just near black holes-in which case
relativity is merely an approximation to a deeper theory of nature.
Experimenters have yet to see such a frame, but the null result may
simply be for want of sufficient precision.

Physicists have long suspected that reconciling general relativity with
quantum mechanics would involve a shortdistance cutoff, probably
related to the Planck scale. The acoustic analogy bolsters this
suspicion. Spacetime must be somehow granular to tame the dubious
infinite redshift.

If so, the analogy between sound and light propagation would be even
better than Unruh originally thought. The unification of general
relativity and quantum mechanics may lead us to abandon the
idealization of continuous space and time and to discover the
"atoms" of spacetime. Einstein may have had similar thoughts when
he wrote to his close friend Michele Besso in 1954, the year before his
death: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
the field concept, that is, on continuous structures." But this would
knock out the very foundation from under physics, and at present
scientists have no clear candidate for a substitute. Indeed, Einstein
went on to say in his next sentence, "Then nothing remains of my
entire castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of modern physics." Fifty years later the castle
remains intact, although its future is unclear. Black holes and their
acoustic analogues have perhaps begun to light the path and sound out
the way." --end of quote

The Aether Physics Model does provide the clear substitute for the
Relativity foundation of physics. That is why we are looking forward
to the print release of this article.

> Your aether model is not Lorentz-invariant. So who cares what you say
> when you haven't even taken the time to look at the literature about
> the subject you have a pet theory about?

Obviously, you have no clue what our theory says. Our theory is
limited in scope. It merely describes the structure of the quantum
realm; the foundation of physics. You might as well accuse Einstein of
not explaining the structure of DNA. As it turns out, our theory
actually supports Lorentz invariance, but with specific conditions. It
also supports General Relativity theory, but without confusing the
nature of General Relativity by describing it as gravitational.
However, it is not necessary for me to repeat the work of others, or
even to expound on it. Our theory is a theory about quantum structure,
which includes the unification of the forces. The next problems I'm
going to work on are nuclear binding, electron binding, and atomic
spectra equations, which is the next logical step from this theory.

You see, by first quantifying the correct structure of the quantum
realm, we can systematically develop the entire Universe, one step at a
time. This is a far more productive and useful path for physics than
what presently exists.

Dave

.