https://groups.google.com/g/the_Local-Ether_model

From the first post (by the owner of said Google Group, James 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Note that some of the links it lists are no longer valid.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 repetitions 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…

https://groups.google.com/g/the_local-ether_model/c/QeI-1M-yCTs

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:01:14 PM UTC-5, mmx_in_orbit wrote:
> 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,

You are absolutely right that the MMX failed to meet Albert Michelson's expectations, which is a well-known fact. However, what many people do not know is that the MMX was able to detect a smaller-than-anticipated Aether drift. This unexpected finding was precisely quantified by Henri Poincare and Hendrik Lorentz through their renowned "Lorentz transformation" mathematical equations. Interestingly, these equations served as the groundwork for Albert Einstein's Special Relativity theory, and none of the Aether-drift-data-based equations were modified by Einstein. Therefore, any experiment that corroborates with the Special Relativity theory also supports the fluid Aether theory proposed and quantified by Poincare and Lorentz.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the Michelson, Miller, and Morley interferometer experiments, which yielded the data crucial for the formulation of the Lorentz transformations, I recommend reading this enlightening article authored by Dayton Miller.
https://sota.aetherwizard.com/images/Documents/MillerScience1926.pdf

Hence, all accomplishments in Special Relativity can be regarded as achievements of the Poincare-Lorentz fluid Aether framework. The sole disparity between Special Relativity theory and Lorentz fluid Aether theory lies in Albert Einstein's assertion that the outcomes should be explained in terms of time dilation rather than Aether drift. However, there exists a significant flaw in Albert Einstein's proposals.

The fluid nature of the Aether has recently been confirmed, implying its inherent quantum structure akin to the molecular composition of water in oceans. Abundant evidence supports the existence of a fluid Aether, including the Sagnac effect, frame dragging, subatomic particle half-spin, magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, the length density limit of General Relativity, and more. However, there is no evidence suggesting the existence of physical matter in any time frame other than the present moment. The possibility of physical matter undergoing time dilation (time travel) becomes implausible in the absence of physical matter in different time frames. Moreover, the presence of physical matter in alternate time frames lacks a scientific explanation for its origin or replication across each frame. Consequently, each time frame would remain static and devoid of change, precluding the appearance of objects or entities from other time frames.. This notion becomes even more far-fetched when considering that consciousness, traversing these isolated, static physical Universes, would necessitate perfect synchrony among all consciousnesses to remain within the same time frame.

The concept of consciousness still remains a mystery to physicists, and the flow of consciousness across static physical universes remains unexplained.. Additionally, the scientific foundation of Albert Einstein's Special Relativity theory is dependent on the existence of evidence for a physical timeline.

David Thomson