I believe it cares about it more much than you would like to know. I think you have gotten very lucky using such language in a paper and still managing to get it to be published. The thing is that a lot of physicist get approached by cranks about aether, but few of them actually provide the mathematics to back it up. They probably just felt sorry for you, because it is a very popular misconceived notion...
Well, one can have a constant appearing speed of light with an aether theory , as Einstein knew and pointed out. However, Einstein's argument for rejecting such theories is that they rely on an unknowable preferred frame of reference to which no aspect of physics points.
Of course I don't accept wrong claims, and I have told you about the error: The Lorentz ether, which makes exactly the same predictions as SR, because it is based on the same mathematics (the theory was initially simply named "Lorentz-Einstein theory") was not falsified 100 years ago. It predicts the same results as SR also about measurements of the speed of light too. It only uses slightly different names, related with a different interpretation. In the Lorentz interpretation, clocks and rulers are distorted if they move relative to the ether, in such a way, that measurements of the speed of light give always the same result.
I have my theory published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is you who is making a fool of himself.
Why should I care about what you find difficult to believe? For me, you are just a fool who, based on some misunderstood popular literature, thinks he is able to argue about scientific questions with a professional scientist.
LOL, you can be certain that no reviewer feels sorry if he gets a nonsense paper. I have reviewed some papers myself, and some of them rejected without any such feelings. If there is a paper using the e-word, the reviewers have, of course, strong prejudices. But at least for some of them the prejudice is not strong enough to reject it without any reason, and to give a review based on a very, very critical evaluation of the content. My papers have survived this. The mathematics given there - take a look at the paper, there is a lot of it - have been impressive enough.
The ether model here is not really undetectable - all what we see are fields which describe properties of the ether. There is only a problem that the ether distorts clocks and rulers, which makes measuring absolute space and absolute time almost impossible. But in reality there is no such problem, because there is a global preferred system of coordinates - the CMBR frame. And there is also a whole class of preferred coordinates, which have the same main properties as the preferred coordinates of Newtonian theory, namely that the equations in these coordinates become much simpler: the harmonic coordinates. Above approaches nicely fit, because the spatial coordinates of the CMB frame are harmonic.
True, obviously you are a professional scientist, but that alone does not make you a "correct" scientist, nor does it necessarily mean that us non professionals need to sit back in awe and wonderment....I mean you yourself have criticised respected professionals on this forum that happen to disagree with you. Then like the crank that calls himself god, you go on about popular literature in a derivitive fashion....Not realising that if your own paper would have been encompassed and at least on a par with GR, yours too may have been what you so often derisively refer to as "popular literature"
Correct, a new theory is a theory, a hypothesis. There are no experiments yet which would allow to distinguish my theories from the established theories, GR and SM. I can claim strong advantages, like the possibility of quantization, compatibility with local energy and momentum conservation, causality and realism in comparison with GR, and a lot of explanatory power in comparison with the SM, but all this are theoretical advantages, and there is no decisive experiment yet which would make the difference.
Of course, feel free to criticize, no problem. But if you criticize a professional, it would be better if your critique is an appropriate one as judged by professional criteria. If one does not even know that the Lorentz ether is equivalent to SR and not falsified by any experiment known 1905, this is not really a good basis to criticize working physicists.
That's what I'm saying.
We only have your word for that.
I don't claim authority and never have, and likewise I do not recognise your authority as a so called freelance independent scientist, who differs from mainstream on certain issues, and has trouble criticising properly, other even more extreme crank views that are put on this forum with regards to science.
Scientists do research and publish the results. Other scientists can cite the work either in support of research or as a refutation of the work they're citing. Or just ignore because it's not very interesting.
Requiring hidden variables of absolute time, space, and an undetectable ether makes your work a contrivance. Probably a good reason why it's been ignored. I think your Gravastar is theoretical nonsense. Even when Matt Visser was discussing the theoretical physics of Gravastars he didn't invoke any hidden variables so he isn't aware of your work or he doesn't think it's worth mentioning. That's been your advantage.
This is a position I can understand. Because my common sense has told me similar things before, and even many times - first when I had found the ether interpretation, then when I have found the theory of gravity, when I have found the derivation of the Lagrangian from first principles. Then when I have found an ether-compatible variant for the Dirac equations for fermions, and then when I was able to incorporate the strong force into the model. And then when I have been able to incorporate the EM and weak force too. And, last but not least, when it was published. All these times there was the feeling that now I have reached a result strong enough to be published, and, then, to accepted at least as an interesting alternative theory.
In the past, I have spend more time criticizing cranks, I have simply given up to do this, because they usually appear uneducable. You may have seen in my answer to the river model http://ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/river.pdf that I think the ether interpretation of GR may be helpful to get rid of ether cranks - because it offers them an alternative, which is, on the one hand, compatible with modern science, but, on the other hand, is compatible with the classical ideas and concepts of absolute space and time. So, the crank could modify his position into a reasonable one, without giving up his fundamental beliefs about absolute space and time, causality and so on. His position would remain different from the mainstream position, but only in interpretational questions - questions which are important for him, but considered unimportant by many scientists. He would no longer have a reason to doubt nor the mathematics, nor the agreement with observation of modern gravity, so, he could give up anti-relativistic conspiracies against modern science in general.
Probable. What has motivated me to propose such a hidden background was a quantization argument, http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0909.1408 which I was unable to publish. So that it is simply unknown.
That he did not mention it does not mean that it isn't there.
Which meant that the ether is undetectable.
Why do people so ignorant of cosmology always put this myth forward? It isn't even possible in cosmology to use the CMBR frame. At best, one can use an approximation to this frame. Regions of space vary from whatever the CMBR frame may be taken to be and their relative distance from this frame has no bearing on almost all of the physics that goes on in the region. The only effect that a difference from the CMBR frame might have is in the specifics of the background radiation that can be detected. To approximate out the reference frame, we first have to do a lot of physics ignoring it and then extrapolate.
You might like such solutions, but this won't be of any help to anyone who needs to do physics without such a condition.
Einstein did show that the ether he was talking about had these qualities (see his work). However, as decades of research has shown, we don't even need the little bit of the ether theory that Einstein was considering.
Sure. If you want to ignore the idea that not all physical situations are such that harmonic coordinates are applicable, then many physicists with actual problems will have no use for your work. The CMBR frame is an abstraction, and corrections to that abstraction are a big part of contemporary cosmology.
Sure, with an artificial restriction on possible physical states, it could be easier to do limited physics.
Yes, similar to the atomic models, which have been developed over a long time until the atomic structure has become detectable.
There is no point at all where calculations become more complicated. Where I expect a jump of joy is for solving important open problems of modern physics, namely quantization of gravity, and explanation of the SM from a more fundamental theory.
I don't understand your point. Some attempts to make sense of it:
Given that GR as well as my ether theory have covariant formulations, one can use every system of coordinates. Locally, every solution of above theories allows harmonic coordinates. Restrictions appear only if you want a global preferred system of coordinates. So, you can do all the physics you want in harmonic coordinates. If you prefer, for whatever reasons, other coordinates, you can do this, as in every well-defined physical theory.
No, Einstein did not show this. If you think different, please quote him, with reference so that I can look at the details.
Let me get this straight. You are under some kind of impression that you have been discussing matters with professional scientist on these forums? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Except that there was some evidence for an atomic model and on the nature of atoms, whereas there is absolutely no evidence about the nature of the ether. We know this because we can do all of physics without any ether whatsoever.
If you are able to do this, it would be great. As it stands now, you have only the commitment to metaphysics that has no physical influence and that does not improve any calculation anywhere. Indeed, you rule out large swaths of what we can do in physics today by restricting all spacetime physics to regions where one can use a harmonic solution.
Undoubtedly. You seem to have latched on to a very basic understanding of cosmology and decide to run with what you have heard that might fit your metaphysical position.
Sure. Yet you use this identification of the rough distribution of the matter and energy in the universe as a non sequitor argument for your particular metaphysical entity, the ether.
There is a nice way to introduce foliation, but for many applications, there are other preferred metrics to use. You have to establish that there is some sort of special physical relationship between the rough distribution of matter and energy in the universe and fundamental physics. So far, there is absolutely no reason to suppose this.
I can only point you to the very address cited, everything he ever wrote on relativity, and pretty much every textbook on the subject.
Please stop such defamatory claims. Where I have said that I do not accept the results of Michelson & Morley? There is no reason to do this, because the results of Michelson & Morley are exactly those predicted as by the Lorentz ether, as by my own ether theory. What could motivate me not to accept an experiment which has exactly the results predicted by my own theory?
There was no evidence, except explanatory power. The atomic model was able to explain things we have observed. But all the math could have been done also without these explanations. Say, temperature T or pressure p may be simply some fields, and the equations of thermodynamics simply some field theory. Without any fundamental explanation what temperature is - it is some field, that's all. Mach has argued very long time, up to the observation of atomic effects, that one can do all of physics without any atoms whatsoever.
What is excluded by the ether interpretation are solutions with nontrivial topology and with closed causal loops. But, sorry, up to now you cannot do any real physics with nontrivial topology or with closed causal loops. These are up to now only purely theoretical speculations.
No, it is not an argument, it is a nice natural candidate for a set of preferred coordinates. Which, moreover, nicely corresponds to my theoretical preference for harmonic coordinates: For the flat FLRW solution, the spatial coordinates are already harmonic.
I guess you mean preferred coordinates (not metrics)? Anyway, it sounds strange, I do not remember to have seen FLRW universes used in other coordinates then in the usual ansatz.
Not really. A homogeneous universe is preferred by Ockham's razor, an approximately homogeneous the next best choice. The ether theory itself has a preferred frame, which automatically defines some physical influence of the background on the ether, and that such an influence can lead to an almost homogeneous initial distribution is sufficiently plausible.
This is nothing. If Einstein has proven something, he has proven it in a particular paper, with some particular theorem, and you would have the possibility to give this evidence. I claim he has not proven this, which is something I cannot prove, because it is impossible in principle to prove such a non-existence. You have the burden of proof. Once you cannot give the reference to the proof of Einstein, the issue is settled in favour of my position.
I really see no such need for there to be preferred frames of references in order to account for divergence. Richard Feynman discovered that this could be described by taking into account all the possible vectors which a particle could take, and the average of all these is where a particle would most likely be. I tend to agree with Richard Feynman. I also am a firm believer in the Copenhagen Interpretation, and I fail to see how adding a preferred frame could account for this. I don't see how particles could be described as accurately as Richard Feynman described them using every possibility by only using a lesser number of possibilities. Suffice to say, I think this would prevent your theory from ever being able to be 100% completely accurate to the Standard Model.
