Can aether save relativity?

PSI Blog 20191127

“The dark substances that permeate the cosmos could be the aether in disguise NASA/N. Smith (University of California, Berkeley) and NOAO/AURA/NSF”

New Scientist thinks so:

Although reformists might think these claims by regressive physicists are hopeful signs, they should not hold their breath. In addition to aether denial they would have to give up the photon and spacetime along with the rest of the contradictory nonsense associated with relativity. In other words, they could not “save relativity” without discarding it entirely. Current funding sources will not allow that. Best they tread lightly.

A few quotes:

“Tom Złosnik, a cosmologist at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague, is one of those looking to achieve that goal. Like Jacobson, his original intention was to paint a unified picture of quantum gravity that incorporated an aether-like field. But as he and his colleagues got stuck into the mathematics, they made a remarkable discovery. The aether that fit best into their model was one that matched the demands cosmologists made of dark matter. “The result,” says Złosnik, “was general relativity with a dark matter dust.

They published that result in late 2018. At about the same time, Richard Battye at the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics in Manchester, UK, published a paper suggesting the aether could explain dark energy as well. He and his team followed in Złosnik’s footsteps, using an expanded form of Jacobson and Mattingly’s Einstein-aether theory to see how such models tallied with cosmological data.”

The author’s (Brenden Foster) conclusion:

“Whether the aether actually does make up dark matter, dark energy or both, the dark sector may be the best place to look for clues, says Blas. “It opens a window of detection to the aether.” We could check any experiment that probes the properties of dark matter to look for signs of a preferred frame, he says.

If anything does turn up, it would be an irony of truly cosmic proportions. More than a century after its banishment from the realm of respectable science, the aether could be the very thing we need to help make sense of the universe. In the graveyard of failed ideas, something ethereal is stirring.”

[GB: A “preferred frame,” I think not. “Dark Energy,” I think not. There is no “preferred frame” in the Infinite Universe, with each microcosm in motion, whether aetherial or not. They will never discover “Dark Energy” for two reasons: 1) Energy does not exist; it is a calculation and 2) The magical Dark Energy is an ad hoc invented to save the bogus universal expansion idea promulgated by relativity itself.]


Glenn Borchardt said...


Very interesting stuff!

Re dark energy: If dark matter (a/k/a aether) exists, then might movement (vibrations) of the particles that comprise dark matter be considered dark energy? If you are of the view that energy is movement -- and I think you are -- then isn't dark matter a logical place to look for dark energy?

Best wishes,


[GB: Dark matter forms a halo around cosmological bodies (it is decelerated aether). Dark energy was invented as the propellent for the assumed cosmological expansion. It is immaterial and cannot possibly exist or occur.]

Glenn Borchardt said...


Thanks for your reply. In fact, your observation in the blog about dark energy is what prompted my question. I agree that energy does not exist in the corporeal sense -- nor does movement -- but it is a process that causes trains to move and gravity to occur. It is more than a calculation and cannot be dismissed as such. A red-hot steel ball has vibrational movement (a/k/a energy) inside it and because of the vibrations, the ball will burn your hand if you touch it. If the structure of a steel ball can vibrate, why can't aether (or dark Matter) do the same?



[GB: Thanks Duncan. Remember that momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc2) are matter-motion terms. Thus, momentum, force, and energy do not exist or occur. What does exist is the matter (m) and what does occur is the motion (v). Most folks (especially Einstein) have difficulty understanding this—that’s why the E=mc2 equation is usually misinterpreted. Pertinent to your question is the fact (or supposition) that any claim about energy requires a microcosm having mass (m) that performs the motion involved. All three of these matter-motion calculations cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Both aether and dark matter (decelerated aether entrained around cosmic microcosms) are in continual motion and have submicrocosmic motion as you suggest for steel balls.

But, strictly speaking energy per se neither exists nor occurs. Only the moving microcosms exist and only their motion occurs. The problem with the regressive analysis is the failure to indicate what microcosm is moving. That is where the erroneous concept of “matterless motion” comes in. In progressive physics, all motions produce accelerations of other microcosms upon collision. Regressives posit no microcosm responsible for “dark energy.” It is certainly not “dark matter,” which is the entrained decelerated aether that forms haloes around baryonic matter.

Dark energy is the ad hoc responsible for universal expansion. It is a product of magical thinking. Even if there was a non-luminous microcosm involved, its popping up out of nowhere with enough directed motion to expand the universe would be no more likely than the Big Bang itself.]