04/30/2026
Space-time is Aether I
PSI Blog 20260330 Space-time is Aether I
Einstein’s imagined perfectly empty space needed an upgrade.
By rejecting aether, Einstein surreptitiously invented
perfectly empty space, an imagined “nothing” from which the Last Creation Myth
could bloom. Mathematics accommodated with so-called “kinetic theory.” That is
what you propose when you know what happened, but not why it happened. In other
words, you know the effect, but not the cause; you know the collidee, but not
the collider. That is pretty much accepted ever since Newton proposed his highly successful kinetic equation for gravitation.
Despite being the greatest scientist who ever lived,
Newton produced a major screwup involving gravitation. You see, he famously
invented three laws of motion, with the second being the bane of kinetic theory.
It goes like this:
"The alteration of
motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the
direction of the right line in which that force is impressed."
In simple terms, that means all events involve
collisions in which a collider becomes decelerated while transferring its
motion to a collidee, which becomes accelerated. He knew gravitation involved
an acceleration and came up with the correct kinetic equation for it, but
failed to provide the accelerator for it.[1]
Einstein’s aether denial led to all sorts of problems.
For one thing, the transmission of light as a wave was impossible without
a medium. The only other possibility was to construe light as
a particle. This, however, required light to be a special particle that was out
of character for anything previously known to be a particle. To turn light from
a wave in the aether to an imaginary particle required eight ad hocs (Borchardt,
2017, Table 1):[2]
Scientists normally frown upon ad hocs, which reluctantly
are included to prevent a theory from being disproven. But to have eight of
them like this is unheard of. Nonetheless, budding regressive physicists looked
the other way. They continued to do so when Sagnac proved light was a wave in
the aether and de Sitter showed light motion was not additive as it is for real
particles. Both of those came only eight years after what some call
appropriately “Einstein’s Miracle Year” in 1905.
That was the advent of the counter revolution against
the inroads materialism made against religion in the 19th century.
Darwin’s "Origin of Species" became a bestseller among capitalists in
their battle to dominate the ruling class. Marx’s historical materialism
emphasized the collision between capital and labor. It was time to reestablish the
dominance of religion with a great regression in theoretical physics, which
provided the logical foundation for all of science.
The reaction was accomplished by using fundamental
assumptions that were religious instead of scientific.[3] And, as I pointed out in
a previous post,
this shocking development was logically consistent, with all ten religious
assumptions being consupponible with the generally surreptitious assumption of finity.
That presupposition fit long-standing tradition and the empiricism scientists normally
adopt without thinking. The upshot was to regard mathematics and kinetic
theories supreme and Newton's Second Law of Motion as moribund.
Wave-particle Duality
There were numerous vexing problems with that. Even
Special Relativity Theory could not escape. Light continued its wave nature despite
Einstein’s insistence it was a particle. If a particle, some of those “photons”
had to be over a kilometer long! The silliness continued when oxymoronic
“wave-particle duality” was invented. That assumed particles of light could
myopically bring those waves along with them as they travelled from galaxy to
eyeball. That is the nonsense aether denialists got by ignoring Sagnac, de
Sitter, Miller, and Galaev.
Space-time Salvation
In General Relativity Theory Einstein turned time into
an object as well. Now, time is motion and certainly not an object or a
dimension as he proposed. Nonetheless, this seems to have made his perfectly
empty space a little less vacuous, even if still imaginary. I have never read a
decent definition of space-time. This is from Wikipedia:
In physics, spacetime,
also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the
three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single
four-dimensional continuum.
Note that regressive physics claims it to be a math
model of a continuum, which is defined by Webster as “a coherent whole
characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements
varying by minute degrees.” Wow! Does that help? How about this: my favorite is
the space-matter continuum. That involves two imaginary endpoints: perfectly
empty space and perfectly solid matter. Neither of those can possibly exist,
but all things lie on the continuum between. Each portion of the Infinite
Universe has both characteristics. Thus, our simplest atom—hydrogen—contains a
tiny nucleus and an electron with the rest being about 99.9999999999996% “empty
space.”
Here is Gemini AI:
"Key points regarding
Einstein’s view on gravity:
Warped Spacetime:
Massive objects (like stars and planets) distort the "fabric" of
spacetime, and this curvature is perceived as gravity.
Geometry = Gravity:
Einstein replaced Newton's gravitational force with a geometric theory, where
gravity is an aspect of space-time's structure, often summarized as
"matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter
how to move".
Not Just Space: Gravity
also affects time, causing it to slow down closer to a massive object.
Evidence: The theory
was confirmed by the bending of starlight around the sun and has been verified
by numerous observations, including gravitational waves."
How Misinterpretation Sometimes Advances Science
The above is a pretty accurate rendition of the
misinterpretations regressive physicists use to support the existence of
space-time. The one that made Einstein instantly famous was Eddington’s 1919-observation
that starlight was bent when it passed around the Sun. In searching for a
physical reason instead of a mathematical reason for that effect I was
impressed by Dr. Edward Dowdye’s explanation. He was a devout NASA physicist
who presented the view implying it only involved the refraction within the
plasma closest to the Sun. He repeated his conclusions at four different
conferences I attended between 2009 and 2012. I don’t recall anyone challenging
him—I had not yet discovered the aetherosphere. This figure sums up his
analysis:
Dowdye’s (2012) misinterpretation of light bending around
the Sun.[4]
Note that he falsely claims there is no light bending at distances two to five
times the radius of the Sun.
I used AI to check into it, finding this from Bruns[5], who clearly showed deflection far from the Sun:
Einstein Leans Toward Aether
Einstein must have had second thoughts about his
rejection of aether. While General Relativity Theory was as mystical as Special
Relativity Theory, his invention of space-time was something, not nothing. Unfortunately,
it too was a kinetic theory—one that describes effects, but not the physical
causes. This fit with Newton’s attraction theory of gravitation. By definition,
attraction theories are myopic. That is, they imagine things that have
inordinate control over their environments through what appear to be magical
means.
Thus, when discussing GRT, regressive physicists often
ignore Dowdye’s “empty vacuum space,”[6] but term it instead as
the “fabric of spacetime” as seen in the Gemini definition above. Obviously, “fabric”
gives space-time a thing-like character—a step toward physicality, if you will.
While space-time does not really present a physical cause, it has been tested
numerous times, showing physical effects similar to what Bruns did. What is
seldom mentioned by regressive physicists and cosmogonists is the fact that
Einstein recanted his early aether denial a mere year after Eddington anointed him
the world’s greatest genius:
"Careful reflection teaches us that special
relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but
not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ...There is a weighty reason in
favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no
physical qualities whatever.[7]"
Thereafter, he failed to mention his recantation. Regressive
physicists and cosmogonists conveniently ignored it as well. Most likely on further
“careful reflection” Einstein realized that aether denial was the essence of
relativity. After all, perfectly empty space was the surreptitiously assumed
beginning of what was to become the extremely popular “Last Creation Myth.”
In the next post I will present a
summary of the evidence for aether and the aetherosphere that provides the physical
causes for the success of so-called space-time.
PSI Blog 20260330
Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Get your copy
of the just-released Second Edition of “The
Scientific Worldview” to see the step-by-step logic leading to the rational
view of the cosmos. Be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution,” the demise
of the “Last Creation Myth,” and the age of enlightenment to come. Buy
Now.
[1] He made an attempt to provide one, but mistakenly
assumed distal increases in density for his hypothesized medium (Borchardt, 1917,
Fig.43). In effect, that would have
produced a relative vacuum around cosmic bodies in tune with his myopic attraction
hypothesis. The correct physical mechanism involves high velocity distal aether
particles that collide with ordinary matter, becoming decelerated in the
process and tending to accumulate as an “aetherosphere” around said matter (Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The physical cause of
gravitation: Preprint http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0165 )
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017,
Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute,
337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020,
Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science
Institute, 160 p. https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk
[4] Infinite Universe Theory,
Fig. 35.
[5] Bruns, D.G., 2018, Gravitational starlight deflection
measurements during the 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse: Classical and
Quantum Gravity, v. 35, no. 7, p. 075009.
[6] Dowdye, E.H., Jr., 2010,
Findings convincingly show no direct interaction between gravitation and
electromagnetism in empty vacuum space, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of
the 17th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Long Beach, California,
Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 7, p. 131–136 http://go.glennborchardt.com/Dowdye10Findings
[7] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the theory of
relativity, Address given on May 5th: University of Leyden https://gborc.com/AErecant
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little ...
