The Local-Ether Model

[Jim Marsen]

Welcome to the Local Ether Model group.

If you clicked on this out of curiosity, I assume you are thinking "what is the purpose of this group?".

The Local-Ether Model is the name of an alternative physics paradigm proposed by the late Professor Ching-Chuan Su in 2000 (which I strongly support).

It is founded on the classical principles of universal time and Euclidean space.  So if you are a confirmed devotee of Einstein's Relativity, you probably should "tune out" now.

But if you have an open mind about fundamental physics, I invite you to read on.

The Local-Ether model postulates that electromagnetic waves (including visible light) propagate as classical waves in a medium. Prof. Su calls this medium the Local-Ether.

A medium for electromagnetic wave propagation is nothing new.  However, the Local-Ether model has some unique properties that distinguish it from other ether models (for example, the universal ether model).  It will be shown that these unique properties make it a viable alternative to Einstein's Relativity.

These unique properties include:  

The Local-Ether has a minute mass density that is proportional to the local gravitational potential. 

This implies that it forms a variable density halo around a celestial body (e.g. the Earth) that extends out to where the gravitational force is equal to the gravitational force of a larger celestial body that it orbits (e.g. the Sun).

It further implies that a halo of Local-Ether is entrained with a celestial body as it orbits a larger body but (crucially) the halo does not rotate with the body that it surrounds.  For the Earth, the Local-Ether halo is at rest with the Earth Centered Inertial Reference frame (or ECI).

The best introduction to the Local-Ether Model is Prof. Su’s paper published in 2001 in European Physical Journal C:

C.C. Su, “A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave”. European Physical Journal C, 21, pp. 701-715, Sept. 2001, DOI:10.1007/s100520100759, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/pdf/df385a7f7935dc125befcdab01ed9af2fee85582

For a fairly complete bibliography of Prof. Su’s papers regarding his Local-Ether Model, I suggest my paper at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350190574_The_Local-Ether_Model_and_Quantum_Electromagnetics_Theories_of_Prof_Ching-Chuan_Su

Note that some of the links it lists are no longer valid.

It is well known that Michelson-Morley type experiments (MMX) have failed to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the (assumed) Universal Ether model (at least 30 km/sec).  These famous “null” results are cited as crucial evidence supporting Einstein’s Relativity,

The Local-Ether model provides a viable alternative explanation for these null results.  It implies that there is a velocity of a fixed location on the Earth with respect to the medium but it is only due to the Earth’s rotation with respect to the ECI in a constant east to west direction of approximately 0.35 km/sec.  This is too small for a typical MMX to detect.  Even modern repititions of the MMX haven’t detected it because the signal to noise ratio is so low and they are not looking for it.

For further details, I suggest my paper at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space

To be continued…

[everything isalllies]

You do not need to conduct such complex experiments in space to show that Einstein's theories are nonsense.  And it doesn't matter if there is an Aether, of varying density, Einstein can still be proven to be wrong.  Special and General Relativity is a massive error so momentous that it can only be a conspiracy by those who want to create a situation where everyone is chasing these fantastical  mesmerising diversions of abstract math, while they alone hole the real truths.
Knowledge is power, and those that have the power are not willing to share it and lose their advantage.  There are many people that have written Papers showing that the Math of Einstein gives contradictions and cant be correct, but because Relativists have many variations, they just hop from one foot to another when challenged.   Unless you realise that all this pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo is intentional deception,  and Universities are not there to disseminate truth, but to hide it, then you will never get to the bottom of this.
So I wrote a plain language document that explains exactly where SR is wrong, with no Mathematics at all.  Because the associated lie of Academia  that claims that "Mathematics is the language of the universe" and "Math IS Physics", because with clever Math juggling you can pretty well find a way to "prove" almost any quack theory.

And as Einstein's theories are all wrong, (all of them), we do not need a "replacement theory"  because Newtons Kinematics is just fine.  Giving 100% correct verifiable results every time.  There is no such thing as Time dilation, Length Contraction, and the Speed of light is FRAME DEPENDENT.   Exactly like the measured speed of ANYTHING that moves.

And Dr. Edward Dowdye (r.i.p)  from Goddard Space Centre, showed how everything that is claimed in support SR can actually be solved with Newtons Kinematics alone.  Muons, Bending of star light, GPS, and Atomic clocks on Planes.  

Einstein's theories are a cancer on Knowledge.

My document can be downloaded from my google drive.  
https://tinyurl.com/yfnh8r7s

Please read and give me some feedback. I believe no one has ever shown that Einstein's Paper is nonsense from this angle.

You will never get anywhere in your efforts to discredit Einstein, because it's now big business, and great way to mentally control millions of students.
Even if Einstein came back from the grave, and announced that he had been  lying all along, the controllers of Education would shoot him, and bury him pronto.

Regards
Mark Ross.
Tasmania, Australia

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I note you say

>>So don’t go adding information or argument points a defence of Einstein’s hypothesis that

was not in the 1905 Paper.<<

Various people who believe in relativity, also believe there are mistakes in that paper that need correcting.

You say

>>Now this paper was presumably “Peer Reviewed” in some form, and then “approved” then finally

Published in a “Prestigious Science Journal”. <<

It wasn't peer reviewed as far as can tell.

What we now know as peer review- wasn't really in effect in his day.

>>Latter it was considered as sufficient importance to

topple Newtonian Physics, so all the information and Einstein’s arguments with supporting Math is

to be found totally within this Paper.<<

It didn't topple Newtonian physics - that was a mistranslation. Einstein published in German in 1905 and wasn't translated into English until 15+ years later. There was nothing about toppling Newtonian physics in the original German; that was an error in translation into English.

The theory was probably more due to Einstein's wife than to Einstein - hence he didn't properly understand the theory; hence why he would have missed the mistranslation problem.

My latest talk on it - should be on 10 August online.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Local-Ether Model" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">the_Local-Ether_Model+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the_Local-Ether_Model/910a8ee1-4183-474d-aa98-3bead09e804bn%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[everything isalllies]

Well, I had expected a bit better response from you.  You begin by pointing out a couple of non consequential details that had little to do with my main argument, then you end it there....  I don’t think you read my document at all, other than the first couple of paragraphs. You seem to be fixated on your own pet hobby horse, and blind to any other possibilities.    For instance it doesn’t matter a fig if Einstein's Wife was the brain behind the paper, that is irrelevant.  And I never said that Einstein claimed to topple Newtons Mechanics in his Paper.  But I did say that toppling Classical Physics was the result of accepting Einstein’s  paper.
 
I think you have focused too intently on a couple of details about Einstein’s theories and now cant take a step back to see the bigger picture.
 
I suggest you have a coffee and then actually read my document, but don’t just search for places that agree or disagree with your current mindset.
It doesn’t matter if there is a “local Aether Model”.  It may exist or not, but that won’t save Einstein as I prove in my Paper.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>it doesn’t matter a fig if Einstein's Wife was the brain behind the paper, that is irrelevant.<<

I disagree

>> And I never said that Einstein claimed to topple Newtons Mechanics in his Paper. But I did say that toppling Classical Physics was the result of accepting Einstein’s paper.<<

In the context you were using "classical physics" is usually taken to mean "Newtonian physics".

>>I think you have focused too intently on a couple of details about Einstein’s theories and now cant take a step back to see the bigger picture.<<

The "bigger picture" is a mess and if "focus" on a couple of details - its still a mess.

>>I suggest you have a coffee and then actually read my document, but don’t just search for places that agree or disagree with your current mindset.<<

Does not make sense. I found problems with the beginning of the paper, why carry on and just pile up more problems.

>>It doesn’t matter if there is a “local Aether Model”. <<

I disagree.

>>It may exist or not, but that won’t save Einstein as I prove in my Paper.<<

Not relevant. Einstein's theory (theories) is flexible to numerous changes, so if one change fails then another can be added.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the_Local-Ether_Model/0115b16c-c421-42ca-a7b9-9711116e8734n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

you say

>>information that Einstein uses to develop his theory is fully contained within that

1905 Paper.<<

I disagree its not there, Einstein discussed physics with the Olympia Academy and he omitted that background information in his 1905 paper.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the_Local-Ether_Model/7b5b38a5.2109b.189966ffa94.Webtop.119%40btinternet.com.

[everything isalllies]

Rodger, (and other members) 

Well  thanks for replying, but is there someone else in the group that can follow a concept in context that I can discuss this with?

I find your statements consisting of two words, "I Disagree"  to not be of much use in a discussion, without some clarification. Maybe there is someone else there that can discuss the hypothesis as written by Einstein and get a decent grasp of the overall direction of Einstein's argument. Because you are missing the point.

For instance, I said that all the information necessary to develop and explain his hypothesis is fully contained within that1905 Paper, but you side-tracked to some other information that is not relevant.  Why did you do this?  What's the point? Special Relativity is even today explained fully according to the core tenants as presented in that 1905 Paper.  What possible reason do you have to disagree with me over this point? What Einstein's discussed with the Olympia Academy doesn't change the hypothesis development in any way.  It a moot point about the methods of Einstein in his life as a budding Physicist and doesn't alter in the slightest his 1905 Paper.

Seems I'm talking about Einstein's theory development, but you are focused on Einstein's personal integrity and who he had sex with, and so can't follow my argument at even a basic level.

Another example of you totally missing the point is when I said, "It doesn’t matter if there is a “local Aether Model”. 

You said, "I disagree"....  despite my following statement, "It may exist or not, but that won’t save Einstein as I prove in my Paper".

Which you think is somehow not relevant on account of this logic, "Einstein's theory is flexible to numerous changes, so if one change fails then another can be added."  

But you see that you have totally missed my point again, because you are focused on nit picking details that are not even able to alter in any way, the way Einstein develops his hypothesis.

My argument and proof that Einstein is wrong in that 1905 Paper, doesn't depend on if there is an Aether or not.  I was just pointing out that even if you can prove or disprove the existence of an Aether, its not able to save or debunk Einstein.  

But you are correct, that arguing against a Relativist, is difficult because they can twist Einstein's theories around any objection.

However you are being just as difficult over nothing substantial yourself. 

My critical review shows that Einstein can't even begin to make any progress in forming a new Physics model.  So a Relativist can twist that around. There is no opportunity to even make an opening remark or statement.

And you DID NOT find any "errors" in my document.   Like the bit about Einstein's wife doing a lot of the math...  this is a prime example of your pointless nit picking. WHO WROTE the Paper, or even if was all Plagiarized, has ZERO to do with the ARGUMENTS contained in the Paper. 

I'm debunking the ARGUMENT that Einstein makes, but you are nit picking in an effort to piss on Einstein, and to also make yourself seem smarter than me. 

So, Is there someone else in the group that can discuss this in a more reasoned manner?

But to demonstrate that you did actually read my Document and understood it, in context,  can you summarize my core argument in one sentence? 

I bet you can not.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>I find your statements consisting of two words, "I Disagree" to not be of much use in a discussion, without some clarification.<<

Well I can expand on it if you like. In the case of - if Einstein's wife wrote the theory of relativity. Then I would consider what she thought the theory was as being different to what Einstein thought.

>>Because you are missing the point.<<

What point?

>>For instance, I said that all the information necessary to develop and explain his hypothesis is fully contained within that1905 Paper, but you side-tracked to some other information that is not relevant. Why did you do this? <<

because it was relevant - Einstein did not provide enough background to his paper - in the paper.

>>Special Relativity is even today explained fully according to the core tenants as presented in that 1905 Paper.<<

I disagree , there have been a lot of changes made.

>> What possible reason do you have to disagree with me over this point? <<

disagree - because it is not true

>> It a moot point about the methods of Einstein in his life as a budding Physicist and doesn't alter in the slightest his 1905 Paper.<<

why?

Scholars who study Einstein have pointed out Einstein changed his methods, so why is that a moot point?

>>Seems I'm talking about Einstein's theory development, but you are focused on Einstein's personal integrity and who he had sex with, and so can't follow my argument at even a basic level.<<

I was talking about "development". I mentioned nothing about "sex"

>>Another example of you totally missing the point is when I said, "It doesn’t matter if there is a “local Aether Model”.

You said, "I disagree".... despite my following statement, "It may exist or not, but that won’t save Einstein as I prove in my Paper".

Which you think is somehow not relevant on account of this logic, "Einstein's theory is flexible to numerous changes, so if one change fails then another can be added." But you see that you have totally missed my point again, because you are focused on nit picking details that are not even able to alter in any way, the way Einstein develops his hypothesis.<<

What point?

>>But you are correct, that arguing against a Relativist, is difficult because they can twist Einstein's theories around any objection.<<

ok

>>However you are being just as difficult over nothing substantial yourself.<<

Don't see. What I am doing is pointing out the difficulties, so why should I then be falsely accused of those difficulties??

>>My critical review shows that Einstein can't even begin to make any progress in forming a new Physics model. So a Relativist can twist that around. There is no opportunity to even make an opening remark or statement.<<

Who wants the "opportunity" to make the "opening remark or statement"?

>>And you DID NOT find any "errors" in my document. Like the bit about Einstein's wife doing a lot of the math... this is a prime example of your pointless nit picking. WHO WROTE the Paper, or even if was all Plagiarized, has ZERO to do with the ARGUMENTS contained in the Paper. <<

I disagree. The "arguments" in the "paper" of Einstein can be altered depending upon conditions such as if - it was incorrectly plagiarized from other sources etc etc.

>>I'm debunking the ARGUMENT that Einstein makes, but you are nit picking in an effort to piss on Einstein, and to also make yourself seem smarter than me.<<

Does that mean - you have an ego problem?

>>But to demonstrate that you did actually read my Document and understood it, in context, can you summarize my core argument in one sentence? <<

Was it - you didn't like Einstein's paper on special relativity?

If yes - I agree - I didn't like Einstein's paper.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the_Local-Ether_Model/1a94d46d-a35b-4826-b3e4-8f9a42ffa793n%40googlegroups.com.

[everything isalllies]

Hi Rodger,  Thanks for your reply.  However your application of the tools of analysis seems somewhat anally retentive.  You are so focused on details that often have no bearing on the outcome, in a way one would expect to see from a person who exhibits Asperger's syndrome.   Its difficult to discuss anything much with you.

You just don't get the big picture, or your comprehension is fragmented like trying to understand a reflection in a seriously fractured mirror.  I knew that you cant give a one sentence summary of the document I wrote, because you never were able to follow the line of thought in a logical manner.

But you are able to dig up specific points that others may miss, so that's possibly valuable.  Just not so much in this case. 

With that, I will say thanks for your comments. 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Mark (?)

So, what are saying (?) That you have some magic power and can medically diagnose people without seeing them ? And the point of our article was not that you didn't like Einstein's paper, but instead that you like it?

You don't make sense.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the_Local-Ether_Model/b3422b4a-ab22-4cb9-9421-f0612f9f93a9n%40googlegroups.com.