Part Two: The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science
This is Part Two summarizing James DeMeo’s new book indicating that modern cosmology erred in hastily dismissing the evidence for a cosmic ether. Part One is here.
In my search to understand why the positive results of the Michelson-Morley-Miller experiments had been so systematically ignored or misrepresented by astrophysics, and treated with dismissive abuse by the followers of Einstein, I uncovered a series of additional optical interferometer experiments by other researchers which gave considerable support to the ether.
In 1928, Michelson-Pease-Pearson detected a 6 km/sec ether velocity, but dismissed it as being too low (repeating again the error of Newtonian static-ether theory). Michelson’s Irvine Ranch “speed of light” experiment of 1930-1931 (again with Pease and Pearson) found an inexplicable, persisting variation in their measures “with an average deviation of 11 km/sec from the mean”.
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment (image above) of 1932 detected a light-speed variation of from 10 to 24 km/sec, but dismissed it with the incredible statement that…
“In view of the relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometers per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result.” (DeMeo Dynamic Ether 2019, p.145-164)
Then there was the work of Georges Sagnac, who in 1913-1914 detected the ether in light-speed variations on a rotating table-top interferometer, proving that c+v was greater than c–v, and laying the basis for the modern optical gyroscopes.
More recent scientists, such as Hector Munera in Bolivia, Yuri Galaev in the Ukraine, and Reginald Cahill in Australia, also detected the cosmic ether wind using modern equipment, blowing across a very similar set of cosmic coordinates as determined earlier by Miller at Mount Wilson. (DeMeo Dynamic Ether 2019 p.167-184)
Taken together, the 11 successful ether-drift experiments I reviewed show an altitude-velocity dependency of around 1 km/sec of ether velocity increase for every 150 meters of altitude. (DeMeo, Dynamic Ether, 2019, p.186) Meanwhile, the unsuccessful ether-drift experiments I reviewed were found to be based upon seriously Newtonian static-ether assumptions which affected their experimental designs.
Such experiments were undertaken in basements of heavy stone buildings or inside metal pipes, and at low altitudes. A few were undertaken at higher altitudes but with extremely short light paths, and heavy metal covers over their instruments. Often as not, they detected an ether-drift signal, but dismissed it as too low to be of significance.
My investigations also uncovered 17 additional, independently detected cosmic “winds”, mostly accepted by modern astronomy, all of which had sidereal azimuths and declinations within the same small region of the cosmos as identified by the ether-drifters.
This “drifting-wind” region and direction is roughly bounded by the northern pole of the solar system’s ecliptical plane, ranging over RA 16 to 19 hours sidereal, and down towards the star Vega, whose RA of ~18.5 hours roughly aligns with the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The region is identified generally by the constellations of Draco, Lyra and Hercules, in the northerly declinations.
These 17 winds include the interstellar wind, cosmic ray anisotropy, neutrino wind, dark matter wind, the Planet 9 gravitational anomaly, and the ether-drift vectors as determined by Miller, Galaev, Munera and a few others. In most cases, the theoretical models used by the modern ether researchers are quite different from the dynamic gravitational cosmic ether as I advocate, but their experimental results are nevertheless congruent with it.
Also there are similar cosmic determinations from outside of astronomy, as with the cosmic biological clock discovery of biologist Frank Brown, the cosmic water-activation discovery of chemist Giorgio Piccardi, and the banned and burned research of the widely-slandered 20th Century heretic Wilhelm Reich, whose objectively discovered cosmic life energy moved along similar vectors of celestial motion. This latter group of researchers expands our understanding of the cosmic ether, to be something reactive with water and biology.
While all these 17 different cosmic winds are given separate explanations by modern astrophysics, with some being attacked and ignored, or generally unknown, my book provides a reasoned and evidence-based overview, and logical argument (with some of my own experimental evidence) that…
they are all misunderstood expressions of a material and dynamic, gravitationally active cosmic ether wind, which also has chemical and biological influences upon the Earth, atmosphere, chemistry and living matter.
It is interesting that the cosmic motions described here do not agree with the CMBR anisotropy at Leo, which is about 90˚ off from the collective 17 determinations. The CMBR is therefore most likely an intrinsically warmer spot in the cosmos, though of an exceedingly tiny quantity (+/– 0.00057˚K), and not a factor related to cosmic motions.
By comparison, a ~10 km/sec ether-wind velocity, with these additional correlated vectors, appears as a more significant and “ponderable” quantity, and yet it was nearly erased from the history of science. Given widespread disciplinary blinders and biases, my findings on the correlations between these different cosmic motional axes have heretofore gone unnoticed.
Modern astrophysical theory, including Einstein’s relativity, the big-bang singularity, redshifts as distance indicators, quantum entanglements, black holes and a whole lot more, all take a devastating blow from these findings. They cannot be reconciled, at the basic foundation level, with a universe filled with a cosmic ether having measurable properties and a preferred direction of motion.
This is so, even as the empirical, experimental findings and direct observations from astronomy, the space program, engineering and materials science, remain with us, unchallenged, as solid facts. One must separate out empirical facts, from theories about facts. Facts are immutable, while theories change as new factual evidence is uncovered.
I also determined that none of the observations claimed to support Einstein’s theory of relativity are unequivocal. For example, a cosmic ether in dynamic spiral vortex motion, with a variable density that increases close to planetary or stellar masses, appears to be the best and most simple explanation for the perihelion shift of Mercury, and for the refractive bending of starlight near to the Sun.
Both might be understood from Einstein’s metaphysics, but he demands we accept the falsehood that space is empty of anything like a cosmic ether with specific measurable properties, where the speed of light could be influenced. Einstein himself stated this in his early 1905 paper (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”), then later in his 1920 speech at Leiden University in the Netherlands (“Ether and the Theory of Relativity”), and finally in worried sentences to his associates only a year later, when Dayton Miller’s early Mount Wilson experiments produced a strong positive ~10 km/sec ether drift.
For example:
“I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”
— Albert Einstein, letter to Robert Millikan June 1921
“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
— Albert Einstein, letter to Edwin Slosson, 8 July 1925.
What has changed since the time when Einstein worriedly wrote how Miller’s work, even at the “low” variation in light speed of ~10 km/sec, would destroy his theory of relativity? Nothing has changed! Except today few scientists even know about it. And we have even more evidence to affirm the cosmic ether and direction-dependent variations in light speed.
Even the modern LIGO/ALIGO experiments (above), applying gigantic Michelson interferometers, are not immune to criticisms along the lines of the original positive ether-drift experiments. The LIGO/ALIGO detections may harbor a hidden systematic sidereal signal verifying the “ordinary” ether-drift variations in light speed, if they dared to look for it.
And their more isolated “gravitational wave” events may simply be an expression of severe ether-wind turbulence, possibly associated with cosmic factors, but detected by variations in light speed. Such heresy is incomprehensible from the viewpoints of an ether-less “empty space”, but it makes reasonable good sense within a universe filled with a material and dynamic cosmic ether, with gravitational properties. (DeMeo, Dynamic Ether 2019, p.298-304)
Likewise, the various claims about “black holes” and MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) become unnecessary metaphysics, given a dynamic ether wind able to interact with planetary, stellar and galactic matter, thereby imparting gravitational effects upon them.
A singular material dynamic ether in spiraling vortical motions, with consequently gravitational properties, is the most simple explanation, thereby making it unnecessary to salt-up the universe with never-observed black holes (I critically debunk the M87 black hole image claim in the book, p.328) or MACHOs.
As to WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), something is detectible within NaI(Tl) scintillators, but strangely shows an unexpected seasonal variation in abundance, interpreted as a velocity variation and termed the “dark matter wind” (as from the Bernabei San Grasso experiments). I argue, this too is an expression of cosmic ether wind. (DeMeo, Dynamic Ether 2019, p.283-287, 324-330)
The cosmic ether changes everything! And by Occam’s Razor, it is the most simple and singular explanation for understanding the modern empirical observations of astronomy, even as the major theories of modern astrophysics are exposed as deeply flawed and extremely complicated metaphysics. They postulate mystery objects or events that have never been, and cannot ever be directly observed.
I am reminded in this case of an unforgettable 1980 lecture I attended at the University of Kansas Physics Department, where Nobel Prize winner Arno Penzias, who helped to discover the 3˚K CMBR, stated that “before the big bang, space, matter, time and energy did not exist”!
How agreeable is this persisting theory of Big Bang Creationism, firstly proposed by the Catholic priest and physicist George Lemaitre (pictured above with Einstein), to the Biblical creation story, except in elapsed time? Does astrophysics deny the cosmic ether for reasons of theological belief? Surely, if you dare question it, then you become a heretic to be attacked, censored and thrown out of the Church of Astrophysics! Indeed, the astrophysical emperors still wear no clothes!
The above discussions summarize or are extracted from chapters of my new book, The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science, with over 100 historic photos and graphical illustrations, full index and 16 pages of citations.
This work reflects my own ~40 years of investigation into questions on cosmic ether drift, the nature of space, and other findings in astronomy, chemistry and biology, which all speak to the issue of just what exists within the vacuum of so-called “empty space”. It is developed for the educated layperson and student, with minimal maths, but most scientific professionals will find it eye-opening and refreshing, speaking of things they also were never taught in the universities.
Part One of this summary of James DeMeo’s new book is here.
The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science is available now at amazon.com for only $29.95
Also available internationally from Natural Energy Works http://www.naturalenergyworks.net. A downloadable pdf Preview of the book, with the Table of Contents and Index is also found at this same weblink.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Don’t forget, if the Aether IS the field of energy we know of as time, then we are definitely moving through it and the experimental evidence of this motion is the Dipole Anisotropy. When you move through the field of time, you will observe a blue shift of the light from ahead of you, but a red shift of the light from behind you. This is because the speed of light IS the speed of time and it is the varying rate of time that gives us the varying frequencies of light (in all cases).
There is much evidence of this idea in the science of today, although this is not recognised by the mainstream. Take CPT Symmetry as one example – If time is quantised, as I present, then these quanta must vary sinusoidally over duration, in order to produce the wave of energy I mentioned in my comments on part 1. BUT, and this is the key, the question then arises – “What lies BETWEEN these quanta in order to keep them separate?” There must be something to maintain an overall continuity and to avoid the whole universe having to “re start” at each successive Planck time or quantum. We are forced to deduce that there is another “set” of quanta operating in opposition to the first set, giving us a Binary field of time. The positive universe we see, must have an exact, negative, counterpart, and this explains what CPT Symmetry really means in physical terms. This idea proves CPT Symmetry, where all the anti matter went, the wave nature of light, quantum entanglement, something from nothing, inertial time dilation, the preferred reference frame or field, the vacuum catastrophe, the cosmological constant, Dark Energy, the “curvature” of time (and space), the Magic telescope results from Makarin 501 and the SN1987 supernova results, the nature of inertia, the Higgs field, Newton’s bucket and Mach’s principle, even the beginning of everything, and finally, a causal interpretation for the results of the double slit experiment.
You may wish to read my book “The Binary Universe” – A Theory of Time. https://uppbooks.com/shop/product/the-binary-universe-a-theory-of-time/
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
But be careful, we should not throw away Einstein’s theories just because we may have found a flaw. The indications are that general and special relativity are both correct. We just need to find a way to bring this Aether view into line with the theories, rather than reject them in a knee jerk reaction. It is sensationalist to conclude “Einstein was wrong”, when in fact he was not.
Binary Universe Theory, (B.U.T.), aligns perfectly with relativity theory whilst also allowing for the Aether, a wavelike field of energy made up of trillions of energy quanta within each wave cycle. The classical world exists in the large and slow, above the scale of the wave, for events which experience many wave cycles, but the quantum realm exists in the small and fast, for events which complete in less than one wave cycle. Clearly, such events do not experience time or change in the same way we do in the classical realm. Ultimately, at the smallest, fastest scale, each energy quanta (Planck time), does not experience time or change at all.
Instead of attributing some magical, wavelike property to particles which we have no evidence for, try attributing this wavelike behaviour to the vacuum, to the space between the slits and the screen behind. This view, when applied to the double slit results gives us a physical, causal and intuitive understanding of the results of this experiment. It brings together Copenhagen, Pilot Wave Theory and Einstein’s real world view in a logical understanding of QM.
Go on, give it a try. What have you got to lose?
Reply
James DeMeo
| #
I will get your book, and recommend you do the same, and read my own Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space. I also am critical of the particle theory of light, mostly because the primary experiments laying the basis for it appear to be quite flawed. The double-slit experiment at low light levels is a primary example, as all use sensors arrays which react to low light levels in an on-off mannner, as with crystal lattices on a film emulsion, or CCD pixel arrays. A wave action even at low amplitude could trigger individual pixels or lattices to react, at different times with a slow build-up, based upon varying levels of sensitivity. And the quantum theory which gives individual “photons” some magical intelligence by which to know where to land on a given spot, is simply metaphysics. I call it “quantum magic”. Physicist Carolyne Thompson, when alive, wrote many articles debunking the big claims about quantum entanglement also. So from the evidence I have seen, and describe in my book, the particle theory of light is false, and Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” is really “Heisenberg’s error”, expressing a limitation of experimental apparatus of his time period. Light waves are also very self-evident with the most simple of observations and experiments, while light particles require elaborate experiment and numerous suppositions. It seems we are in agreement on criticisms of many things in the conventional viewpoints, but differ primarily on the nature of the cosmic ether medium. The cosmic ether, in my view, utterly destroys Einstein’s theory of relativity, and he knew it. His cooperation with his devotees Shankland et al in an article in 1954 totally misrepresented Miller’s work, and was an unethical hatchet-job. Einstein died a few months after it was published, and I’ve other quotes in my book from him expressing, in his last years, a very low level of confidence in his own theories. Cheers, JD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
The rational for a particle nature of light and the photon is not valid. The photoelectric effect does not pose a valid objection to the wave nature of light In metals and crystals electrons have separated from atoms and are bound by ionic forces. You do not need to add all the energy to dislodge an electron from an atom, all you need is enough force to distort an ionic bond and increases the repelling force on the electron. The photoelectric effect is another version of the piezo electric effect where a distortion causes a current. In the photoelectric it is a electromagnetic wave of the right wave length distorts the bond instead of mechanical pressure.
Light is a disturbance traveling in the electric (matter) and energy (magnetic) fields. There is no electromagnetic force. There is a force of matter (electric) and a force of energy (gravity/magnetic) and they have opposite behavior.
When the opposite poles of two magnets approach each other they combine and the strength and size of the magnetic field increases. When two opposite charges approach each other the electric charges cancel each out and the size and strength of the electric fields decrease. When two similar poles of magnets approach each other the strength and size of the magnetic fields decrease. When two similar charged particles approach each other the size and strength of the electric fields increase.
The energy fields of objects combine to form larger objects (Earth and moon) while their electric field repel each other preserving their identity as distinct objects.
Herb
Reply
James DeMeo
| #
I’ve always had difficulties to accept the idea of “electron holes”. Your points on the oppositional reactions of Magnetism vs. charged particles are perceptive. Thanks, JD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ken and James
I am curious; what theory (idea) do you use to explain the structure of water and carbon dioxide molecules?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James DeMeo
| #
I’ve studied structured or activated water, mostly from the viewpoint that energy must be imparted into water to render it into an activated or structured condition. I like the term “charged” water, even though a base electrical charge into water may not affect its structural components. What did make such an affect was highly controversial, by sitting a bowl of water inside a Reich orgone accumulator for a few days. It then gained a spectrographic signature of high UV absorption in the 200-300 nm range, with a fluorescence in the near UV and blue frequencies. This is where the water touches nothing but the interior of the glass vessel in which it is contained, and the orgone accumulator device is fully darkened on the interior, with minimal air motion. A control cardboard box, lined with plastic tape on the interior, also darkened with similar minimal air motion within a nearby similar thermal and humidity condition, imparted no such effects. This finding was presented to the Pollack group conference on the Physics, Chemistry and Biology of Water, in Bulgaria, now published in the open-access Water journal: http://waterjournal.org/volume-10
See the third item down, Anomalous “Living” Spectrographic Changes in Water Structures: Explorations in New Territory”.
Reich’s orgone discovery was slandered, books burned by the FDA, thrown in prison to die, back in 1957. But his findings were replicable, and I did the first university-level investigations, confirming much of his findings and theory. He also advocated for the cosmic ether, but only knew of the conventional “null” misreporting, and so called the abandonment of the ether “a disaster for science”. His orgone accumulator could boost the longevity of C3H cancer mice by 300%, three times the lifespan of controls, with two subsequent studies verifying this, showing “only” a 200% increase. I did investigations of its influence upon plants, finding about a 38% increase in sprouting growth lengths, and other positive indications. More info and cites along this line in the Water paper. Rather mind-blowing, but this is what the world has missed out by following the lead of Einstein and others into the wasteland of “empty space” and a dead universe. Cheers, JD
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James Demeo:
I’ve studied structured or activated water,
James McGinn:
The current paradigm on hydrogen bonding between water molecules contains a huge flaw. I refer to this huge flaw as Pauling’s omission. This huge flaw has been rendered invisible by the current paradigm.
This conceptual invisibility pivots off a central confusion that stares us in the face but we, typically, don’t notice it. Our current theory on hydrogen bonding in water predicts that it should be structured always. Nobody (except me) ever notices this. Think about it. The currrent paradigm indicates that the polarity of H2O molecules is static (it isn’t). This assumption dictates the conclusion that H2O should never be witnessed to have low viscosity. Nevertheless low viscosity (high fluidity) is plainly apparent throughout the whole temperature range of liquid H2O.
This blatant contradiction sets the human mind spinning with cognitive dissonance. And the cognitive dissonance beats down and defeats our ability to recognize our own confusion, and we stop being critical and just accept it.
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote: “I’ve studied structured or activated water, mostly from the viewpoint that energy must be imparted into water to render it into an activated or structured condition.”
I see I made a mistake by asking: “what theory (idea) do you use to explain the structure of water and carbon dioxide molecules?” Instead it seems I should have asked: What is the measured physical structure of the water molecule and what is the measured physical structure of the carbon dioxide molecule?
Then, after you have established what these measured structures are, you might consider my question again.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James DeMeo
| #
On that question, I’ll plead ignorance. Except in the sense that the energetic signature imparted to water from Reich’s orgone accumulator is documented to exist, but with only very general measures of quantity or amplitude of reactions. I found that longer periods of water-charging yielded higher amplitudes of absorbance and fluorescence. How to transfer that into your query about the “measured physical structure” I could not say, as I’m not sure what kind of measurement you would reference, what kind of instrumentation.
tom0mason
| #
“This is so, even as the empirical, experimental findings and direct observations from astronomy, the space program, engineering and materials science, remain with us, unchallenged, as solid facts. One must separate out empirical facts, from theories about facts. Facts are immutable, while theories change as new factual evidence is uncovered.”
IMO nature has the truth that we attempt to discover. These truths are there regardless of our perceptions of, or feelings about, them.
Man imaginatively defines ‘facts’, these are just our error prone interpretations of these natural truths, and as we probe further into natural truths with our limited measuring devices so we have to adjust our (man-made) ‘facts’. That is to say our ‘facts’ are mutable. The truths and the nature of them are however still there, unmoved by our thoughts of them.
If nothing else science is not a search for ‘facts’ but the never ending refinement of our perception and knowledge about the truths in the universe about us.
‘Only those who can look will see.’
P.S. Thank you James DeMeo, I will be searching out your book and attempting to understand how you see our universe.
I look because I wish to see.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
TomOMason:
Man imaginatively defines ‘facts’, these are just our error prone interpretations of these natural truths, and as we probe further into natural truths with our limited measuring devices so we have to adjust our (man-made) ‘facts’. That is to say our ‘facts’ are mutable. The truths and the nature of them are however still there, unmoved by our thoughts of them.
If nothing else science is not a search for ‘facts’ but the never ending refinement of our perception and knowledge about the truths in the universe about us.
James McGinn
Excellent comment!!!
James McGinn
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
Reply