Is Ether Negatively Charged?

My response to Jim Wright, a member of the NPA Chat group, who presented charge data for some of the planets in the solar system under the heading “The Aether-Intrinsically Negative?”:

Jim:

Excellent work and extremely interesting! I also ran across some data that might be explained by a negatively charged ether. I plotted the ether drift measurements of Galaev (2002) and Miller (1933) with respect to altitude and got a relationship that was a square-root function instead of the direct function I expected to see as a result of gravitation (see Fig. 8-2 below from p. 202 in my recent book, “The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein”). As you know, atmospheric pressure reduction is a direct function of altitude, being mostly the result of gravity’s effect on nitrogen and oxygen molecules. None of my physicist friends has been able to explain the result for the ether drift data though. It seems to me that, with the surface of the earth being negatively charged, a negative ether would tend to be repelled. I suspect that the square-root function means that the etherosphere follows Coulomb's Law. Jim, can you or anyone else write the equation for it?



Fig. 8-2. Maximum ether drift measurements versus altitude from the experimental data of Galaev in 2002 and Miller in 1933. Ether drift measurements (V) vary as the square root of altitude (A), whereas atmospheric pressure reduction (Pr) is a nearly direct function of altitude. Projection of the data shows that the full complement of drift due to the Earth’s orbital velocity (30 km/s) could not be measured within the troposphere. [From Borchardt (2007)]

References

Borchardt, Glenn. The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2007, p. 202.
Galaev, Y.M. "The Measuring of Ether-Drift Velocity and Kinematic Ether Viscosity within Optical Waves Band (English Translation)." Spacetime & Substance 3, no. 5 (2002): 207-24.
Miller, Dayton. "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth." Reviews of Modern Physics 5, no. 2 (1933): 203-42.