Chapter 1 - ETHER, Cold and Dark, but does it Matter?

"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." (Donovan Leitch, 1967)

The "early days" of the Next Theory of Space (and added later - Time).

The big question was: how does light get from the sun to the earth through a vacuum of empty space?

When I first decided to tackle this question, I confronted the centuries' long conflict of: Is light a wave as in field or is light a particle as in photon?

It all began after I had read Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time" with only one formula, E=mc2. I started wondering how light moves around, especially through vacuums or empty space that made little to no sense to me but seemed to be something upon which everyone agreed. It was also consistently declared that light was a wave carried in some way by particles, or packets of energy, therefore, this would be a good place to start. Is light a particle or a wave? I decided to start with examination of how a prism breaks light into multiple colors. Since c is a constant (or so we believe), then the light carrying particle, the photon, also had to be a constant, otherwise there would have to be an almost infinite number of light carrying particles because a separate photon particle would be needed for each wavelength. (This may be theoretically possible but not very likely.) So if c and m were constants and striking a surface yet splitting into a rainbow although they all would be arriving at the spot with the same ENERGY, how could they bounce at different angles? I was getting fast but nowhere. So I theorized that the speed of light must not be a constant but, I suspected, varied slightly for each color of the rainbow and we could not measure the small difference. On further review of data I could not find anything that would allow me to change the speed of light for each color from a constant, at least not at this point. Therefore, I had to accept that waves of different energy with different peaks probably could bounce differently even though traveling at the same speed. I was back to square one, almost. Another good theory gone bad. However, I had come to a very important point. Light was transmitted by a wave and not a particle because all the identical light particles traveling at identical speed would have to bounce at the same angle and no rainbow would be present! Whew, now that this was solved, we could move onto the next issue of how light waves got through a vacuum in the first place. Based on the above logic, I concluded that if anyone would argue that light was both a particle and a wave, they would have to be wrong. Light energy movement is a wave, not some of the time, not most of the time, but all of the time.

Everyone agrees with this, right? Since E=mc2 and photon energy E = hf, then let photon (p) mass equal m. Then hf = pc2 and since c and h are constants, then p ~ f. Since almost infinite frequencies occur, then the number of photon particles must also be infinite. But that is only if there are light particles, and there aren't, honestly. We may come back to that later, just play along for now and assume that light is a wave, a whole wave and nothing but a wave, period. Please continue.

I would agree that it is a wave made by a particle being "captured" by or stimulated by a magnetic field, setting off the electromagnetic light wave. Nevertheless, the particle itself is not and is never light. Particles carry light and light moves across particles. If light is generated by particle movement at the sun, how does light (as waves) get to the earth through empty space a vacuum. So I went back to the ocean to think it over. If a rock is dropped in a vacuum, nothing happens (or at least that is the present belief), there are no molecules to bump (sound waves) and no electromagnetic field to disturb (light waves). Drop a rock into water and watch the "almost" perfect circles of waves spread out which is the same in air for sound. So I started asking others how does light get from the sun to the earth through a vacuum but no one would tell me! They might say they are waves of electromagnetic energy and I said but it is not possible to pass waves of anything through a VACUUM. I recently reviewed a video by the Anneberg Educational series on the Mechanical Universe. It was clearly stated that waves must have a particle in order to propagate. I suppose it could be possible to pass particles through a vacuum. Then it would not be a vacuum and as I just deduced above, light is always a wave. Therefore, a carrier of light must be present for light to be present. Yet everyone to whom I suggested that appeared to be upset with that possibility and are quick to point out that I must not be knowledgeable (i.e., ignorant) of Michelson-Morley like experiments that disproved the existence of ether. And they were right, I was ignorant of those results, but I also knew from the above logic, there had to be a carrier of light. Knowing this, I concluded that Michelson-Morley like experiments were in someway incomplete. (For Michelson-Morley "reinterpretation go to link 3.)

Ok, Vera Rubin, Stephen Hawking, and others state the space is full of dark matter (designated from here on as CDM). Would not that be the obvious front runner for the carrier of light? Yes, but finding it is hard. I agree. Seeing it is hard, too. (I know. That is why they call it dark.) Yet before long, I began to see it. (Ok, visualize it.) What would it look like, i.e., the properties? The particle would be small (it turns out to be the primary particle that may or may not be a couplet of pos-neg force - remember this is early theory). It would be everywhere and homogeneous, a matrix like a crystal, very rigid in structural appearance and very elastic (the ultimate shock absorber). Sound waves (waves transmitted by linear kinetic energy) would not be passed on by it, or at least very poorly, but light waves (waves of electromagnetic energy) would be passed on BY it, not move as particles through it. Small particle size and spacing have eliminated most sound transmission, but what would "hold" onto light (electromagnetic waves). The honest answer that I had at this time was a magnet. Now, depending on how magnets are defined, this is also the true answer, but we will clear this up later. At first I thought the matrix was a small pos. center with an orbiting neg. satellite in a repeating matrix pattern. Light is fast and the matrix can carry multiple waves at once. A particle, I figured, such as the orbiting neg. could only be in one position or one velocity at a time. So particle movement could not transmit light fast enough or with enough wave overlap so I had to discard that theory. Now we had a single particle point, fixed non-orbital conducting light waves, but we still had oscillating waves so we had to keep the pos-neg part. So let us see what we have got so far for the matrix of space. Small equally aligned as if in an elastic crystal (this is the supersymmetry that many others have been saying must exist), fixed position particles oscillating with a pos-neg polarity. SOUNDS like the primary particle to me. I will take it. At least for the moment until something better comes along. Again when I presented this idea (which was quite immature at this point), I was repeated admonished that there was no ether, no carrier of light. Michelson-Morley showed it was not present and Einstein said the ether was not needed. There appeared to be some skepticism to my carrier theory.

So where do we go from here? It appears the real problems with ether began around 1900, so I suggest we start near then. What was the state of understanding of ether at that time?

So here we are a few years after Michelson-Morley and a few years ahead of Einstein, although it appears Avery was not yet aware of the Michelson-Morley ether dilemma.

Excerpted from, School Physics, Elroy M. Avery, Sheldon and Company, Chicago, 1895, pp. 312-313.

(My highlights as red and my comments as [note])

254. The Ether.---- Physicists are generally of the opinion that all space is filled with an incompressible medium of extreme tenuity and elasticity. This hypothetical medium is called the ether. The variety of the phenomena for which the ether hypothesis offers the only explanation that modern science can accept (see CH.10) is so great that the unproved existence of the ether is confidently accepted.

(a) It has been estimated that the density of the ether is 9.36 x 10-19, which is enormously great as compared with that which air would assume in interstellar space. It has been estimated that its rigidity is about 0.000,000,001 that of steel, so that masses of ordinary matter readily pass through it. Its structure is assumed to be continuous instead of granular like that of ordinary matter .... It is regarded as an incompressible substance pervading all space and embedded in it and connected with one another by its means. It has been compared to an impalpable and all-pervading jelly through which the particles of ordinary matter move freely; through which heat and light waves are constantly throbbing; which is constantly being set in local strains and released from them, being whirled in local vortices, thus producing the various phenomena of electricity and magnetism.

255. Radiant Energy. ---- Since the ether fills all intermolecular spaces, it follows that the vibrating molecules of a body must communicate their motion to it. The periodic disturbances thus communicated to the ether are propagated through it in, the form of waves that are assumed to be transverse, and with a velocity of about 186,000 miles per second. Conversely, when these ether-disturbances reach a body, they may communicate their energy to the molecules of that body, and thus increase the total energy of the body. The transference of energy by means of periodic disturbances in the ether (without regard to the precise nature of those disturbances) is called radiation. The energy thus transferred is called radiant energy.

(a) The mechanism of radiation involves two correlative processes, emission and absorption, the former term referring to the communication of disturbances to the ether, and the latter to the reception of disturbances from the ether. Any increase in the vibratory molecular energy of a body increases its total radiation. Any increase in the rapidity of those molecular vibrations correspondingly increases the number of ether disturbances in a unit of time, i.e., increases the wave-frequency. There is, therefore, an evident analogy between the phenomena of radiation and those of sound.

Ibid., pp. 429-430

344. Nature of Electricity. ---- The phenomena of electrification indicate that electricity is a perfectly incompressible substance of which all space is completely full, and the question arises, is it not identical with the ether? It has recently been suggested that the ether is made up of two equal opposite constituents, each endowed with inertia, and connected to the other by elastic ties which the presence of gross matter generally weakens and sometimes dissolves, and that these two constituents of the ether are positive and negative electricity. According to this provisional hypothesis, and the general belief of physicists, electricity is a form of matter rather than a form of energy.


I can't say that I agree 100% with Avery, but he has some good points. The accuracy of some of the expressed descriptions are astounding or even eerie, since they fairly accurately describe what I believe is CDM, or the equivalent of ether, the carrier of light.

I cannot really vouch for the accuracy of the density or rigidity, but I believe the above concept of ether is extremely formidable and even irrepressible - such as "whirled in local vortices," omnipresent, "incompressible," and especially light movement as analogous to movement of sound. The 19th century physicists were essentially right in their above considerations. As we will see later, one could go back even further and have to concede that Aristotle was fundamentally right, in stating that "Nature abhors a vacuum," and "Circles are the natural state of motion." (Quotes from Instant Physics, Tony Rothman, Fawcett, 1995). There are some very important concepts which appear to have been overlooked by modern physics. These were essentially set aside once the ether was indubitably, although I believe inappropriately, dismissed by special theory and by lack of confirmation by Michelson-Morley type experiments.

Where do the 18th century physicists appear correct? "All space is filled with an incompressible medium" seems correct as ether, a.k.a. cold dark matter (CDM). What could ether explain that present theory does not? It would explain radiation energy decay as 1/distance squared. The ether would unify the three forces of magnetism (strong), electricity (gravity), and electromagnetism. Radioactive decay is destructive interference of electromagnetic waves created by oscillation of CDM neutrino between positions of magnetism (polar) and electricity (gravity-equatorial). Also note the word, incompressible, which is restated in the electricity discussion and essentially has remained true from the time of this book to the present. If it is incompressible and, I believe this is true, then matter cannot be compressed more dense than the ether matrix or else radioactive decay occurs. Point of fact, I have been unable to find something more dense than osmium (Z=76) or diamond (carbon diamond is more dense per nucleon than Osmium). It has not been possible, Pauli exclusion principle. Keep in mind that currently, I am referring only to the fact that there are a limited number of nucleons per any unit of volume. It appears you may be able to increase the gram density but you cannot increase the particle density beyond carbon diamond. (We'll come back to this in a later chapter.) Any attempt at compressing to a greater density than osmium/diamond in the earth core or star core would result in a nuclear reaction or change in osmium/diamond to a different less dense substance. Big Bang totally ignores this proven physics law of the incompressibility of matter. What breaks down at singularity are not the laws of physics but Einstein's special theory of relativity. At Big Bang singularity, you would have to throw out Pauli exclusion principle, the incompressibility of matter/electricity, and the fact that things become less dense after Osmium (due to radioactive decay). I realize that most people argue that at singularity, all laws break down. But there is a way out without breaking the "law" (any "true" law), there was no singularity, at least not one which fails to comply with Newton's laws and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. With the ether all you have to throw out is the special theory and everything else holds (except, of course the big bang, wave particle theory, quantum orbitals as bonding, fusion, antimatter, and probably a few others that I haven't stumbled onto yet. But the TRUE laws hold. We have just failed to identify the "true" laws, or have been deceived by other laws which we have labeled as true, but will eventually prove to be invalid. (Note Quantum orbital energies are still valid but not in the way presently described because some are magnetism forces (strong - polar), some are gravitational forces (electrical - equatorial), and some appear to be electromagnetic fields. ALL are fields of angular momentum or angular impulse generated by the core gravitron's (electron) retarded (meaning slow) angular velocity. These slow gravitrons which could appear as a hydrogen proton core particle would drag by inertial friction or electromagnetic induction, the surrounding gravitrons to form these quantum orbital fields as differential fields of angular momentum, much like a whirlpool would drag you into if you got too close to its angular momentum "field" effect. Keep in mind the surrounding gravitrons are spinning faster than the core (proton) central particle.

I have only briefly reviewed Minkowski space and it would appear to me that Minkowski mathematically shows that space is NOT compressible, space is ABSOLUTE, a.k.a. the matrix of CDM. Michelson-Morley experimentally showed that space is ABSOLUTE, a.k.a. any space between two equal points always has an equal volume which is identical to equal number of particles (vacuum), a.k.a. carrier of light, dark matter, is absolute. Or at least always equal for the same carrier substance, which would include CDM (as vacuum), air, water, glass, and diamond. I believe by calculating speed of light and distance movement through these media, it should be possible to show particle distance is absolute or the equivalent that space (volume) is absolute. Keeping in mind that the structural angle in CDM would be ~45o while, I believe, diamond would be closer to maximum compression of angle of ~30o.

I also highlighted embedded since all matter is ether (CDM) at different angular rotations. This is why neutrinos are everywhere, why dark matter is everywhere, and why the sun gives off so few neutrinos. Most are rapidly trapped (assimilated) by the CDM matrix of space ether. The neutrinos are given off all the time. They just don't get very far. The analogy to sound is appropriate in some ways but very misleading in others. Sound waves are the result of K.E. generated by is a linear collision (change in linear position) or push. Light (Radiation) waves are the result of K.E. generated by rotational torque (change in angular or spherical position) or pull. Therefore sonic booms rush away from the source and photic booms rush toward the source (lightning). For source movement toward you, sonic Doppler effect is wave compression of molecules resulting in LINEAR frequency increase as higher pitch, and photic Doppler effect is wavelength compression, or frequency increase as shift to higher frequency colors, and, in effect, time compression as 1/f. The faster you move toward a source of light, the slower time (as a function of 1/f) appears to move. This is a Doppler effect and as I think Newton might argue, not a function of absolute time of the universe. Einstein's special theory is K.E. of linear particle movement and fails to deal with rotational force. Einstein even states this in his premise. Time is a rotational definition and has no place in Lorentz transformations, at least not without additional qualification. Any attempt of atoms to exceed certain defined frequencies based on the atomic angular momentum core does not slow time. It results instead in high energy particle decay, i.e., assimilation back into the matrix. Why do "anti-particles" die a vortex "death" in high energy particle accelerators? They are rapidly assimilated into the CDM matrix with a rest acceleration of ~8 e41 rotations/sec2 or rest angular velocity, w, of c2 As part of the matrix, these neutrinos become transparent with almost no measurable mass, velocity, spin, fields since all forces in all directions are in total balance at a CONSTANT acceleration of c4. (It might be c4/2, but close enough and would still be balanced in all directions).. Any attempt to slow core frequencies to a density greater than osmium results in increase nuclear core instability and frequently nuclear core decay, i.e., radioactive decay.

In the nature of electricity, incompressible is absolutely irrepressible when reaching for unification theory. You cannot compress beyond Osmium (actually diamond is denser per nucleon) or if you do, be prepared for instability. Therefore, Big Bang is not possible. Multiple mini bangs are possible as claimed by Lerner from The Big Bang Never Happened. In this book, he also overlooks and in some ways denies ether or dark matter in favor of plasma. From Modern Physics, Dull, Metcalfe, and Williams,1964, Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, page 557, "Inductance in electricity is analogous to inertia in mechanics, which is the property of matter that opposes a change of velocity. If a mass is at rest, its inertia opposes a change which imparts a velocity; if a mass has a velocity, its inertia opposes a change which brings it to rest. The flywheel of mechanics illustrates the property of inertia. We know that energy is stored in a flywheel as its angular velocity is increased, and is removed as its angular velocity is decreased. In an electric circuit, inductance has no effect as long as the current is steady. An inductance does, however, oppose any change in the circuit current. An increase in current is opposed by the inductance and energy is stored in its magnetic field since work is done by the source against the counter emf [field] induced. A decrease in current is opposed by the inductance and energy is removed from its field, tending to sustain the current. We may think of inductance as imparting a flywheel effect in a circuit having a varying current."

Inductance IS a flywheel result of the angular momentum of gravitrons, spinning @ rotational velocity or frequency of c2, rot/sec. The essence of this statement is that the universe possibly has an extremely large amount of energy stored in its "rest" state as CDM particles, rotating at vel c2 for a constant acceleration of c4.

The primary particle, which I prefer to call gravitron, is spinning with a rest (final, inertial) velocity of c which gives it a rest constant acceleration of c4 or possibly c4 /2. Since velocity and acceleration are constant, the induced field is neutral in all directions. This is crucial because now you have the capability of a Universe which is in all directions symmetrical and NON intersecting lines of force. Gravity is NOT polarized in the matrix of CDM. It is totally symmetrical in lines of force such that there are zero net gravity and zero net magnetic forces. Now you have space (volume) WITHOUT mass, because mass requires an acceleration or a deceleration as a volume displacement, and in the matrix these are constant! While Newton's law of gravity is active in the CDM matrix (as a law of angular momentum), it is in total balance. Therefore, a Euclidean space of infinite proportion could exist under the condition which the CDM matrix is assembled and which abides by Newton's Laws of motion, Faraday's-Coulomb's laws of electromagnetism, and modern Quantum mechanics.

Speculation (but with good reason.)

Note quantum orbitals exist as fields of angular momentum but do not appear to me to be directly correlated with molecular binding. The reason I have my doubts, is that the matrix theory clearly shows some of the orbitals are magnetism (strong force which are nucleon binding), some are gravity (electricity or available for molecular-atomic binding), and some are electromagnetic in defined distribution. Molecular/atomic binding is done mostly by gravity (current). However, quantum orbitals could play a key role in switching binding on and off or signaling molecules to breakup or otherwise change structure. When a slow down (opposition) to the induced universal field occurs, energy is stored in a magnetic field called a proton (hydrogen nucleus) or larger fields, depending on the amount of energy being stored. Although I am way out of my league here and readily admit it, the quantum orbital energies and geometries appear to be describing the various angular momentum fields generated by the core proton or protons of an element.

As you have noticed above, I have been hedging between w2 and w2/2.

It would appear that velocity (i) is equal to rotation and velocity (f) for a steady state system with constant velocity such that 2v(i) always equals v(f).

Also, anytime you spin a sphere, you get an instantaneous = and opposite reaction as required by Newton's third law of motion. (In other words, if you try to turn a sphere way, the other half always turns in the opposite direction at the SAME time. Any motion of CDM is instantaneously felt in ALL directions at the same time, but only by 8 contact points of the supersymmetrical system.

Copyright September 12, 1998 - Dewey Birkhofer Return to Homepage or Return to Cold Dark