of the Null Result of Michelson Morley Experiment

and the Motion of the Earth through an Absolute Space

In order to explain this absence of any effect of the Earth's translation (in the Michelson/Morley experiment), I have ventured the hypothesis, that the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change, of the order of v2/c2, when it moves through the ether. From this point of view it is natural to suppose that, just like the electromagnetic forces, the molecular attractions and repulsions are somewhat modified by a translation imparted to the body, and this may very well result in a change of dimensions. The electrons themselves become flattened ellipsoids. .. This would enable us to predict that no experiment made with a terrestrial source of light will ever show us an influence of the Earth's motion. (**Hendrik Lorentz**, 1906)

His (Einstein's) results concerning electromagnetic and optical phenomena agree in the main with those which we have obtained in the preceding pages, the chief difference being that **Einstein** simply postulates what we have deduced from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. By doing so, he may certainly take credit for making us see in the negative result of experiments like those of **Michelson**, Rayleigh and Brace, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the manifestation of a general and fundamental principle. Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in the favor of the form in which I have presented the theory. I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its **vibrations**, as endowed with a certain degree of **substantiality**, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (**Hendrik Lorentz**, 1906)

For owing to the alteration in the direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical system ( ether ) throughout the whole year. However the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non equivalence of different directions. This is a very powerful argument in favour of the principle of relativity. (**Albert Einstein**, 1916)

Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts. (**James DeMeo**, Ph.D. Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab.)

Introduction Michelson Morley - Summary Michelson Morley Experiment - Lorentz / Einstein on Michelson Morley - WSM Explains Lorentz - Motion of Earth & CMBR - Albert Einstein on Space - Related Links - Top of Page

It is clear that if there is an Absolute Space then the Earth is moving through this Space. For example, the surface of the Earth spins at about 0.5 km/sec. The Earth is revolving around the Sun at about 30 km/sec. The Solar System is moving around the Milky Way Galaxy at about 250 km/sec. And our Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the Local Group of galaxies at about 300 km/sec.

This led to the famous Michelson Morley experiments to try and detect this motion of the Earth through an Absolute Space. Their famous 'null results' suggested that either space moves with the earth, or there is no Absolute Space. Generally the results are held as confirming there is no Absolute Space, and thus apparently confirming Einstein's relativistic view that we can only consider the motion of the earth relative to other matter, not relative to an absolute space (which does not exist as something separate from matter).

In fact this is a strange conclusion to come to when Lorentz explained the null result of the **M****ichelson-Morley experiment** as being due to a contraction in length of a moving body (the foundation of Einstein's Special Relativity), and most importantly, that this contraction occurred in an Absolute Space. (The Lorentz Transformations provide formulas for the change of ellipsoidal shape and dimension of matter with motion.)

The purpose of this webpage is to confirm Lorentz's view that an Absolute Space exists, and that matter contracts in length (and changes ellipsoidal shape) with motion - this being the cause of the Null Results of the Michelson Morley experiment. This is explained from the foundations of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter.

Introduction Michelson Morley - Summary Michelson Morley Experiment - Lorentz / Einstein on Michelson Morley - WSM Explains Lorentz - Motion of Earth & CMBR - Albert Einstein on Space - Related Links - Top of Page

**Fig. 1 The Michelson Morley Experiment.**

The Michelson - Morley experiment became famous because it ultimately led to Einstein’s Special Relativity and the belief that there could be no Absolute Space.

Let us then, look more closely at the ideas relating to this experiment. To really understand the significance, and importance of this experiment, we must understand why the classical view is incorrect. Further to this, we must consider how Lorentz partly solved the problem, and finally, how Einstein developed, and generalised his Principle of Relativity, which effectively denied an Absolute Space and thus the very question of the motion of the Earth through Space becomes meaningless.

** The Classical View**

According to this view, the time taken for light to go along one path (arm 1) should be different to the time taken on the other path (arm 2), due to the motion of the Earth, and therefore also the motion of the apparatus, through the ether.

The theory runs as follows;

If we assume (incorrectly, though classically) that due to our motion through space with velocity v, the velocity of light moving out along arm 1 would appear to the observer, to have only the velocity of c-v.

Conversely, the light coming in along arm 1 must have velocity c+v. Hence it is argued that the time for the light to travel arm 1 must be different than for arm 2 (which is perpendicular to the observer’s motion). Given a long enough path length L then due to the difference in time, a changing interference pattern should be observed if the apparatus is rotated.

However, no significant interference is observed in this experiment, which shows that this classical view is wrong.

The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) obviously assumes that the classical view (founded on 'particles') is wrong, so let us now consider what the WSM predicts for this experiment. To begin, it is necessary to better understand Lorentz's solution to the Michelson Morley experiment.

Introduction Michelson Morley - Summary Michelson Morley Experiment - Lorentz / Einstein on Michelson Morley - WSM Explains Lorentz - Motion of Earth & CMBR - Albert Einstein on Space - Related Links - Top of Page

The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter tells us that there is no discrete particle and instead we are considering the behaviour of the wave-center of Spherical In and Out Waves. Thus we realize that the motion of the particle through Space is actually the apparent motion of successive wave-centers which are determined by where each successive spherical (in reality ellipsoidal) In-wave meets at its respective wave-center. As the spherical In and Out waves combine and then cancel one another, the particle effect of the wave-center appears in a discrete point in Space, then disappears, then re-appears again as the next In-waves meets at its wave-center (roughly 10^{20} times per second). As **Wertheim** explains;

In the quantum world, subatomic particles lurch about, suddenly disappearing from their starting points and reappearing as if by magic somewhere else. (**Wertheim**, 1997)

Further, this apparent motion of the wave-center (particle) is caused by a difference in velocity of the In-waves from one direction, and this also necessarily changes the spherical shape of the In-waves (they become squashed or stretched spheres / ellipsoids)

Fig. 2 This diagram is only a rough approximation of the Ellipsoidal Shape of a Moving wave-center. If the In-waves on the right are slowed down as they travel in through Space then they change ellipsoidal shape (rather than being exactly spherical) and have a shorter wavelength. It is this change in velocity, ellipsoidal shape and wavelength of the In-wave which causes the apparent motion of the wave-center and the Lorentz Transformations.

This then leads to the idea of objects having differing lengths in different directions due to the electron’s motion through space. This change in ellipsoidal shape and dimension with motion is the cause of much difficulty and confusion (which is hardly surprising!). The very foundations of Euclidean Geometry, as Einstein explained, become only approximations.

Mathematical Physics has a very complex problem: solid bodies are not truly solid and constant. All bodies are elastic and their shape and dimension are dependent upon their velocity through space. (As Einstein discovered, the solution lies in the utilisation of pythagoras’s theorem (in Einstein's metric equations), which remains true, despite the ellipsoidal change in dimension. See Physics: Albert Einstein's Theory of Special & General Relativity )

So let us now consider the work of Lorentz (which founds Einstein's Relativity).

The** Lorentz Transformations** provide formulas for this change of ellipsoidal shape of matter (Spherical Standing Waves) with the apparent 'motion' of the 'particle' (wave-center) and how this affects Mass, Time and Length/Dimension. This explains the null result of the **M****ichelson-Morley experiment** as **Lorentz** explains;

In order to explain this absence of any effect of the Earth's translation (in the Michelson/Morley experiment), I have ventured the hypothesis, that the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change, of the order of v2/c2, when it moves through the ether. From this point of view it is natural to suppose that, just like the electromagnetic forces, the molecular attractions and repulsions are somewhat modified by a translation imparted to the body, and this may very well result in a change of dimensions. The electrons themselves become flattened ellipsoids. .. This would enable us to predict that no experiment made with a terrestrial source of light will ever show us an influence of the Earth's motion. (**Lorentz**,1906)

Fig. 3 The Michelson-Morley experiment with the center of an ellipsoidal wave system as the observer. Due to our dimension being determined by wavelength, we shall always measure arm 1 of an interferometer, to be the same length as that of arm 2, irrespective of which direction we may rotate the interferometer. The arms are both 7 wavelengths long. From this we can conclude that it will take the same time for the ellipsoidal In-Waves to propagate in to the center along arm 1 as it does along arm 2. This must be true, as the electron ‘particle is caused by the Wave-Center of the ellipsoidal wave system, and this is where the ellipsoidal wave meets, obviously at the same time. As there is no time difference for the two paths, no interference is observed. This explains the Null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment (as Lorentz explains) and that we can never observe this change in shape and dimension due to the Earth’s motion through Space.

The **Michelson Morley experiment** confirms that this is true, and that the light takes the same time to travel each path. This is a general principle, and is the cause of Albert Einstein’s principle of special relativity.

This enables Albert Einstein to postulate that the velocity of light is always measured to be the same, as this is true. Albert Einstein writes;

The so called special or restricted relativity theory is based on the fact that Maxwell's equations (and thus the law of propagation of light in empty space) are converted into equations of the same form, when they undergo a Lorentz transformation. (**Albert Einstein**, 1954)

Now it is this relationship of the change in wavelength (and thus ellipsoidal dimension) with Motion that is at the heart of Relativity. As **Lorentz** importantly says;

It is clear that, since the observer is unconscious of these changes, (the contraction of a measuring rod in the direction of motion), relying on his rod, he will not find the true shape of bodies. He will take for a sphere what really is an ellipsoid. & Attention must now be drawn to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by **Einstein**.

... Let us now imagine that each observer (one is moving with constant velocity relative to the other) is able to see the system to which the other belongs,

... It will be clear by what has been said that the impressions received by the two observers would be alike in all respects. It would be impossible to tell which of them moves or stands still with respect to the ether. His results concerning electromagnetic and optical phenomena agree in the main with those which we have obtained in the preceding pages, the chief difference being that **Einstein** simply postulates what we have deduced from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. By doing so, he may certainly take credit for making us see in the negative result of experiments like those of **Michelson**, Rayleigh and Brace, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the manifestation of a general and fundamental principle. Yet, I think, something may also be claimed in the favor of the form in which I have presented the theory. I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its **vibrations**, as endowed with a certain degree of **substantiality**, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (**Lorentz**, 1906)

Most profoundly, **Lorentz** first deduced the foundations of **Einstein's Relativity** from the assumption of a rigid Space (ether) that had the properties of a wave-medium (i.e. vibrations). Though **Einstein** related relative motions of matter only to other matter and not back to an Absolute Space like **Lorentz** did, (which is mathematically simpler I suppose) the important point is that the logic of Relativity is founded on, and completely consistent with, an Absolute Space. By only considering relative motion Einstein effectively renounced the concept of Absolute Space and Motion and instead tried to represented matter as a spherical (spatially extended) field;

Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. (**Albert Einstein**, 1961)

Since the field exists even in a vacuum, should one conceive
of the field as state of a 'carrier', or should it rather be endowed with
an independent existence not reducible to anything else? In other words,
is there an 'aether' which carries the field; the aether being considered
in the undulatory state, for example, when it carries light waves? The question
has a natural answer: Because one cannot dispense with the field concept,
it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical
properties. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description,
irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the
theory of Newton. (**Albert Einstein**, 1954)

These quotes are worth close attention, for they highlight Einstein's error. We now realize that the continuous force field is an approximation of many discrete standing wave interactions (see Quantum Theory), and further, the field is an empirically founded (*a posteriori*) concept and thus cannot be fundamental. Hence we must reject the field (and the particle) thus it is not only preferable, but necessary, to consider the 'carrier with hypothetical properties', i.e. Space existing with the properties of a wave-medium.

It is now possible to show that Einstein's ideas need only a slight modification, from his foundation that matter is a spherical spatially extended 'field', to a foundation based upon Space rather than matter, and that matter is caused by Spherical Standing Wave Motions of Space.

The epoch- making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamic and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies show that, ... the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence. ... If we now assume that the relative differences between the electrical masses constituting an electron, remain unchanged during the motion of the electron, we arrive at a law of motion of the electron which does not agree with experience. Guided by purely formal points of view, H.A. Lorentz was the first to introduce the hypothesis that the form of the electron experiences a contraction in the direction of motion in consequence of that motion, the contractual length being proportional to the expression .

This hypothesis, which is not justifiable by any electrodynamical facts, supplies us then with that particular law of motion, which has been confirmed with great precision in recent years.

This theory was of a purely electrodynamical nature, and was obtained by the use of a particular hypothesis as to the electrodynamical structure of matter. (Albert Einstein)

(The reason for this contraction can be seen in Fig. 3, and is due to the slowing of the incoming ellipsoidal waves, which ultimately causes this contraction in dimension and the 'motion' of the Wave-Center 'particle'.)

Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result - a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the ether produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. ... from the standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one. (Albert Einstein)

Einstein then develops this idea into a more general principle. That is, the principle of special relativity.

But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory.

According to this theory there is no such thing as a specially favoured (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the ether idea, and hence there can be no ether drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it. (Albert Einstein)

What Einstein has realised, based upon Lorentz’s mathematical translation for moving electrons, is that it is only the relative difference in velocity between the two matter reference frames which determines the solution to the equations. Hence the existence or non existence of a fundamental space is irrelevant to the development of the mathematical logic.

This is a fundamental point. Einstein argues that the beauty of the special theory of relativity is that we need make no assumptions about the structure of the electron itself, nor the nature of space. As he says;

The theory of relativity leads to the same law of motion without requiring any special hypothesis whatsoever as to the structure and behaviour of the electron.

In other words, is there an ether which carries the field; the ether being considered in the undulatory state, for example, when it carries light waves? The question has a natural answer: Because one cannot dispense with the field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties. (Albert Einstein)

Now there is a beautiful simplicity to this general principle of relativity. To explain the Michelson Morley experiment, we need simply say that there is no Absolute Space / Absolute Reference Frame thus there there is no difference between the velocity of the light source and the velocity of the observer. Therefore there will be no observed interference effect. Mathematicians would love the simplicity.

The point is that Einstein does not give any logical argument as to the non-existence of a fundamental space/ether, he simply says that it is irrelevant when determining the behaviour of moving bodies using Lorentz’s mathematical transformation, which is of course true. This is the power of mathematics as a logical relationship language. (See the headings lower on this page for Einstein’s arguments on the existence of a fundamental space.)

There is a logical solution based upon a fundamental space though, as the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains (and which is consistent with Lorentz).

The Wave Structure of Matter tells us that the motion of the wave-centre is related to the shape of the incoming ellipsoidal waves. (Where each successive in-wave meets determines the future position and hence motion of the wave-center 'particle'.)

Fig. 3: The Michelson Morley Experiment. Both Arm 1 and Arm 2 are the same length (7 wavelengths long in this simplified diagram). It must take the same time for the ellipsoidal wave/light (as represented by the dashed circle) to travel in to the center along Arm 1 as along Arm 2. Therefore, as light travels the same distance (7 wavelengths) in the same time, the velocity of light is always measured to be the same, and no interference is observed in this experiment.

In effect, for any change in the velocity of the incoming ellipsoidal waves, there is a corresponding change in wavelength and thus dimension, which leads to a change in where the incoming waves meet at there wave-center. (We see this as a 'force accelerating a particle'.) The net result is that the effects compensate one another, such that the velocity of light is always measured to be the same, the light always meets at the wave-center 'particle' at the same time, and no interference is observed.

(Please realise that this is a different interpretation from that of Einstein, who used the assumption that the velocity of light c is constant, and time varies.)

Let us formalise this idea, for it leads to a general principle which is equivalent to Einstein's Principle of special relativity.

The Wave Structure of Matter describes the electron as the point like location in space where the ellipsoidal in-wave meets itself at the wave-center. Events in space, which occur the same distance from the center, must be by definition be part of the same wave, and always meet at the center at the same time. i.e. Dimension is determined by wavelength.

Hence in our above diagram, we can say that light coming in from the end of arm 1 and arm 2 will always be observed at the center at the same time. This is the same as saying that we always measure the velocity of light to be the same.

The reason for this is not because the velocity of light is constant, but because any change in velocity of incoming ellipsoidal waves causes a corresponding change in wavelength, shape and dimension, which results in a change in the motion of the wave-center (i.e. the point where the waves meet, and we define as the electron).

The general principle is simply this:

Irrespective of the motion of the wave-center 'particle', each incoming ellipsoidal wave always meets at its own wave-center at the same time.

It is this principle which is the physical cause of the mathematical relationships developed by Einstein in special relativity.

The net result of this is that for any change in the velocity of light, there will be a corresponding change in length, such that the change will not be observable and the velocity of light will always appear to be constant.

I have included (below) some discussion from the WSM group that is particularly relevant to Michelson Morley and the Lorentz Transformations.

Hi Gab,

Great Post (see below). Well said! Some further comments below (mainly to Caroline). But as you say, Lorentz's explanation of Michelson Morley experiment is important and should be understood by WSM. Will reply to your past several emails tomorrow (I hope). Geoff

I know that Caroline is suspect about the Michelson Morley experiments. I strongly suggest she read Lorentz (who was very good) - some is on my website http://www.spaceandmotion.com

Caroline - This is not a matter of theory but of experimental data. The original Michelson-Morley experiments were not "null" in the sense in which the text books assume. Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley, did more investigation and confirmed that one really could observe patterns that correlated with the motion of the Earth. No amount of theory can nullify the observations!

Geoff - Caroline, I read your link to http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

My understanding as follows.

The earth orbits sun at about 30Km/s and the sun orbits our Galaxy at about 250Km/s (there are further motions, but this will do.) Caroline is probably correct, the results were not entirely null, Dayton Miller's experiments show some interference which correlates to a velocity of about 20Km/s. Nonetheless, the results are less than 10% of what we would expect, and could be caused by many other factors. Thus it is still reasonable to assume that Lorentz is correct in explaining 'null result' of Michelson Morley by Length contraction - particularly when WSM deduces this contraction.

I think that Caroline also considers it possible that space moves with earth (entrainment?) to explain null results. IMO this is not sensible, as it is contrary to both Lorentz and Einstein, would mean the Lorentz contraction / transformation is incorrect - which would be staggering since it explains so many things about how electrons curve in magnetic fields at different velocities (experimentally confirmed, and founded Lorentz's work). It would also lead to a much more complex WSM if the underlying space could flow around, and I just don't see any evidence of this flowing motion of space when we look at the universe. Reality seems to agree more with Lorentz and Einstein, that Space / Space-Time is rigid (nearly rigid - allows wave motions / vibrations). So Caroline, do you have any other reasons why you think space can flow? I am inclined to think that liquids and gases are naive real things, caused by relatively weak bonds between wave centers / atoms in a nearly rigid space. It is the rigidity of Space that allows waves to form solid bodies when their in and out waves become trapped in coherent standing wave patterns. But I realise that Space is very different to the matter that we observe - so I am inclined to assume the most simple properties of space that explain the most things.

Geoff Haselhurst

Gab - Re: The Lorentz transformation.

I made a new animation showing how a scanner can explain the Lorentz transformation. Warning! Large file, 64 images 1.1 Meg here:

http://glafreniere.com/images/Lorentz_scanner.gif (No longer online - sorry)

In my opinion this scanner will be a significant step to a better understanding of the Lorentz transformation. Most often, scientists just present a set of equations and they do not explain what it is for. I am writing a web page on this, which will be ready in two or three days from now. Please examine this animation. It shows that the Lorentz transformation is just the result of the Doppler effect. The scanner can produce this effect, but it could also cancel it while working on a Doppler animation.

However the most interesting point is that the white line does not scan every part of the image in the same time. This white line represents the orthogonal plane where the t' time from Lorentz's equations is always worth 0. This is Poincaré's time shift.

Moreover, the scan speed and the print speed are not the same in order to obtain perfectly spherical waves. This phenomenon leads to a contraction which perfectly match the Lorentz's contraction.

Here the system speed is half of the speed of light, so beta = .5, and the theta angle is worth arc sin beta = 30°. The scan speed is worth 2 wavelengths (1 / sin theta) per period. The print speed is worth 1.732 wavelengths (1 / tan theta), and so the contraction is worth 1.732 / 2 = .866. This .866 contraction is the Lorentz contraction g value: g = SQRT(1 - beta ^ 2)

I think that a good knowledge of the Lorentz transformation is a must for this WSM group. This transformation is fully true. Moreover it is well accepted by most scientists, so it is a very powerful tool for us. We are almost the only people on this Earth who know that matter is made of waves, and the Lorentz transformation is highly compatible with this point of view.

Gabriel LaFreniere

Comparing the Electron's Magnetic Moment, Lowest Temperature and Kinetic Energy Relative to CMBR

For owing to the alteration in the direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical system ( ether ) throughout the whole year. However the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non equivalence of different directions. This is a very powerful argument in favour of the principle of relativity. (Albert Einstein, 1916)

This question of the existence of an Absolute Space is a fascinating subject, and one that is at the very heart of our existence, and of course central to both modern physics and the Wave Structure of Matter in Space.

As Einstein (and common sense) confirm, if there is a fundamental space, then the Earth must be moving through this space. This requires that all the matter of the Earth must obviously also be moving through space. And as both Lorentz and the WSM realise, this matter must therefore have a particular ellipsoidal shape, which relates to this velocity. Should we not then be able to measure the effect of this with some experiment on Earth?

As stated in the introduction, we know of the movement of the Earth, relative to some things in space. The Earth orbits the Sun at about 30 km/s. The Sun orbits our galaxy at about 250 km/s and our Milky Way Galaxy is also moving through Space. Let us then, consider three experimental results,

i) The Magnetic Moment of the Electron

ii) The Lowest Temperature of an Electron

iii) The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

The reason for comparing these three things, is because they should each equally be affected by their absolute motion through an absolute Space.

As Einstein explains, there is a direct relationship between the magnetic field of a charged particle / electron and its motion / kinetic energy.

... J.J.Thomson pointed out that an electrically charged body in motion must, according to Maxwell's theory, possess a magnetic field whose energy acted precisely as does an increase in kinetic energy to the body. (**Albert Einstein**, 1954)

Thus if the Earth is moving through an Absolute Space then every electron on earth should have a characteristic magnetic moment that relates to this energy of motion. Is this supported by experiment?

As Feynman explains, the experimentally determined Magnetic Moment of an electron on Earth is consistent with this motion through Absolute Space. He writes;

Finally, I would like to return to that number 1.00115965221, the number that I told you about in the first lecture, that has been measured and calculated so carefully. The number represents the response of an electron to an external magnetic field - something called the magnetic moment of an electron. When Dirac first worked out the rules to calculate this number, he used the formulae E (A to B) and got a very simple answer, which we will consider in our units as 1. (Richard Feynman, 1985)

If we assume that this difference in the number is due to the effect of the motion of the electron through Absolute Space we can convert the energy of the electron's magnetic moment to kinetic energy and thus velocity.

Doing the calculations gives a result of **347 Km/s** which is very reasonable for the motion of the Earth through Absolute Space.

Let us now consider the lowest temperature of the electron which should likewise have a slightly positive value due to this motion through Absolute Space.

Curie’s Law states that the magnetic susceptibility of a substance is inversely proportional to absolute temperature. Thus the energy of the electron's magnetic field, which relates to the kinetic energy of the electron, must also relate to the temperature (which is logical as temperature is merely the average kinetic energy of the 'particles' that make up matter - They in fact use this relationship as a method of magnetic cooling).

Now what would you expect to be the lowest temperature that you can cool an electron down to?

Calculations show that the Earths motion of 350Km/s would correlate to a temperature of **3.5 millidegrees Kelvin** for electrons moving at this velocity.

K. Mendolson wrote 'In Search of Absolute Zero', that the lowest temperature achieved for an electron is **3 millidegrees Kelvin**.

He states (p-175) this temperature can be taken as the lowest temperature experimentally achievable for an electron. This was in 1960 and recent experiments have confirmed this value.

Effectively, the Wave Structure of Matter in Absolute Space suggests that absolute zero would equate to zero magnetic moment, which is an exactly spherical Standing Wave where Wave-Center 'particle' would have no motion in Absolute Space. This is not possible on the Earth, and the 3 millidegrees Kelvin relates to the particular ellipsoidal shape (and kinetic / magnetic / temperature energy) that all the wave systems constituting the matter of the Earth must have as they move through Absolute Space.

Let us now consider the final piece of experimental evidence, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

In 1992 NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite observed accurately, for the first time, the cosmic microwave background radiation. The temperature of this radiation equates to 2.73 degrees Kelvin. Interestingly though, the radiation does not have the same energy in all directions. The difference in energy intensity (through 180 degrees ) is about **3.5 millidegrees Kelvin**. This again strongly suggests that the Earth is moving relative to this background radiation.

Using the relativistic formulae for the Doppler shift we can equate the change in temperature to the change in wavelength which allows us to calculate a relative velocity of **380 km/s** for the Earth relative to the cosmic background radiation.

These three similar experimental results are very significant in my opinion, as they are completely consistent with the idea that the wave-centers of the spherical Standing Waves which make up the matter of the Earth, have a particular ellipsoidal shape and energy due to their motion in Absolute Space.

For more information on the CMBR see;

Physics: Cosmology: CMBR - Cold Hydrogen in Space (not Big Bang) as the Cause of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

In ending this section I must remark that these relationships seem very obvious to me, I first worked them out back in 1997 (when the idea of the Wave Structure of Matter first occurred to me). It was only later, when I realised how pervasive was Einstein's influence of relativity (and thus no absolute space) that I realised why no one else had every considered these obvious connections - simply because it never occurred to them to check, as they did not believe the Earth was moving in Absolute Space (as Michelson Morley / Einstein had 'supposedly proved!)

So let us now apply this knowledge to the arguments of Albert Einstein against an Absolute Space.

A Sensible Solution to Einstein’s Arguments for the Non Existence of a Fundamental Space

Einstein considered space in terms of spatially extended matter represented as spherical fields. He therefore concludes that there is no meaning to the idea that matter moves through space. They are one and the same thing. We may only consider the motion of matter, relative to other matter.

Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning.

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)

Einstein is correct, there is no discrete particle, matter, time and forces are all connected to Space. His error was to describe Space in terms of Matter rather than Matter in terms of Space - and metaphysics requires reality to be described from one thing (space) rather than many things (matter).

Further, Einstein continued to use continuous spherical force fields to describe matter, when these fields evolved from measurements of how matter 'particles' changed the motion of other matter 'particles' around them. Thus by rejecting the particle, he should have also rejected the field that necessarily evolved from this discrete conception of matter (to explain action-at-distance). Then it is just a matter of taking the waves discovered by Quantum Theory, and using them to describe matter as spherical standing waves in Space. Like most things, it is simple once known!

So let us now consider this absolute Space. Is there a logical problem with the existence of a fundamental space? There does not seem to be, it just becomes difficult to determine what motion / acceleration may be measured relative to, as Einstein explains;

As Ernst Mach insistently pointed out, the Newtonian theory is unsatisfactory in the following respect: if one considers motion from the purely descriptive, not from the causal, point of view, it only exists as relative motion of things with respect to one another.

"It compelled Newton to invent a physical space in relation to which acceleration was supposed to exist. This introduction ad hoc of the concept of absolute space, while logically unacceptionable, nevertheless seems unsatisfactory. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Thus (according to Newton) physical reality was conceived as consisting, at least in principle, of space and time on one hand, and of permanently existing material points moving with respect to space and time on the other. The idea of the independent existence of space and time can be expressed drastically in this way: if matter were to disappear, space and time alone would remain behind (as a kind of stage for physical happening).

This standpoint was overcome ... with the 'concept of field' and its final claim to replace, in principle, the idea of a particle (material point).

According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, objects) does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the coordinates of space and time. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.

In accordance with classical mechanics and according to the special theory of relativity, space (space-time) has an existence independent of matter or field. i.e. If we consider that which fills space (e.g., the field) to be removed, there still remains the metric space which would also determine the inertial behaviour of a test body introduced into it. On the other hand .... If we imagine the gravitational field, i.e. the functions Gik, to be removed, there does not remain a space (as above), but absolutely nothing, and also no 'topological space'.

There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a space without field. Space time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.

At the present time (1954), the main question is whether a field theory of the kind here contemplated can lead to the goal at all. By this is meant a theory which describes exhaustively physical reality, including four dimensional space, by a field. The present day generation of physicists is inclined to answer this question in the negative. In conformity with the present form of the quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurements attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality (particle and wave structure) can be realised only by such a weakening of the concept of realty. I think that such a far reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory.

The solution to Einstein's problem. Abandon the continuous spherical field as well as discrete particles in Space and Time. Replace them with spherical waves in one thing space. In hindsight this is obvious, e.g.

Particle wave duality - they never tried real waves in space, a spherical wave structure of matter to explain particle effect - strange!?

Standing wave interactions explain discrete energy states of light and matter (Schrodinger's equations), QT is founded on Wave equations / resonance.

Fields act on particles, thus if Einstein wanted to get rid of particles (with good reason) he should have also rejected fields.

Spherical continuous fields tend to infinite field strength as radius tends to zero at wave center, led to the very dubious maths of Feynman and his 'renormalisation' (replace infinity with empirical finite value). Spherical standing waves in space do not have this problem of infinite field strengths at the Wave-Center.

It is important to realise that Einstein did not know how matter existed in Space and his electromagnetic field theory of matter is Inductive (empirical / *a posteriori*) and describes effects (of matter relative to other matter).

The theory of relativity leads to the same law of motion without requiring any special hypothesis whatsoever as to the structure and behavior of the electron. (**Einstein**, 1954)

Thus Einstein's theory is empirically (*a posteriori*) founded from observation of how matter 'pushes' other matter around (thus his 'representation' of matter as spherical force fields). Metaphysics, as a true description of Reality, must be based on *a priori* causes. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion is founded on the *a priori* existence of Space and its properties as a wave-medium, that Space must first exist for matter to be able to exist and move about in Space.

Einstein was also profoundly influenced by the famous relativists Leibniz and Mach and it seems this greatly contributed to Einstein's belief that Matter caused Space. (The Wave Structure of Matter is the opposite, the Wave-Motion of Space causes Matter Time and Forces.)

Mach, in the nineteenth century, was the only one who thought seriously of the elimination of the concept of space, in that he sought to replace it by the notion of the totality of the instantaneous distances between all material points. (He made this attempt in order to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of inertia.) (Albert Einstein, 1954)

(Describing motion relative to all other matter in the universe) overcomes a deficiency in the foundations of mechanics which had already been noticed by Newton and was criticised by Leibniz and, two centuries later, by Mach: inertia resists acceleration, but acceleration relative to what? Within the frame of classical mechanics the only answer is: inertia resists acceleration relative to space. This is a physical property of space - space acts on objects, but objects do not act on space. Such is probably the deeper meaning of Newton's assertion spatium est absolutum (space is absolute). But the idea disturbed some, in particular Leibniz, who did not ascribe an independent existence to space but considered it merely a property of 'things'. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Newton was partly correct with his conception of Absolute Space, his error was to also assume Absolute Time, Matter as discrete 'particles', 'Forces' acting instantly at-a-distance, and that matter did not change the properties of Space (it does, Einstein was correct in this regard).

As above, the solution is to unite these great philosophers with the work of Christiaan Huygens, to realise that Space has the Properties of a Wave-Medium - that Matter, Time and Forces are caused by Spherical (Ellipsoidal) Standing Waves in Space.

Because we only observe the motion of matter relative to all the other matter in the universe, thus Einstein thought that matter, rather than Space, must be the central perspective for representing Reality.

Descartes argued somewhat on these lines: space is identical with extension, but extension is connected with bodies; thus there is no space without bodies and hence no empty space.

Again, the problem with this 'relative' conception is that it is empirically (*a posteriori*) founded from observing the motion of matter relative to other matter. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion is founded on the *a priori* fact that Space is first necessary for matter to be able to exist and move about. Einstein is empirically correct, and at the same time this was his error because Metaphysics (and thus Reality) is not founded on empirical observations. In reality there is no motion of matter, there is only the spherical wave-motion of Space, and the changing location of the wave-center gives the 'illusion' of the motion of matter 'particles'. Thus Einstein's Relativity is founded on an illusion that matter moves, when it is Space which is moving (as wave motions / vibrations.)

Thus Newton was ultimately correct;

And so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in Philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. (**Newton**, 1687)

Further, Lorentz's assumption of an Absolute Space is the foundation for the Lorentz transformations and thus for Einstein's Relativity.

I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (**Lorentz**, The Theory of the Electron, 1906)

Einstein choose to ignore Space / Aether and work with relative motions of matter to other matter, with matter being represented by spherical fields.

The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else. (Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)

In other words, is there an ether which carries the field; the ether being considered in the undulatory state, for example, when it carries light waves? The question has a natural answer: Because one cannot dispense with the field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties. (Albert Einstein, 1950)

Once we realise that the particle and the continuous electromagnetic field it generates are both merely ideas, human approximations to reality, then we solve these problems. We return to Lorentz's foundation of One thing Space, and its properties as a wave medium (vibrations) and replace the spherical particle & field with the spherical wave Motion of Space. The idea of the field theory of matter misled Einstein, and yet Einstein also realised that there must somehow be a Space that interconnects matter.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. (Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)

The success of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory has given great confidence in the validity of the e-m equations for empty space, and hence, in particular, in the assertion that light travels 'in space' with a certain constant speed c. Is this assertion of the constancy of light velocity valid for every inertial system? If it were not then one specific inertial system or, more accurately, one specific state of motion (of a body of reference) would be distinguished from all others. This, however, appeared to contradict all mechanical and electromagnetic-optical experimental facts. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Einstein is correct in one sense, there is no preferred reference frame with respect to the measured velocity of light - it is always measured to be the same irrespective of motion. There is however an Absolute Space and thus an Absolute Reference frame, but because the wave velocity and wavelength / dimension of matter changes with motion (due to its spherical wave structure, and thus how the in-waves determine the future location of the wave-center 'particle') then the velocity of light is always measured to be the same - though it is actually changing.

Deceptive and confusing. Indeed it is. But once you understand this it clears up many problems. And from a purely scientific outlook it should be acknowledged that the constancy of the velocity of light is a theoretical interpretation of the empirical fact that we always measure the same value for the velocity of light, irrespective of motion. This is correct and the Wave Structure of Matter explains why.

We can now use this knowledge to correct the following errors in Einstein's reasoning;

Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an ether a rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the e-m field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter in the theory of Newton. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Since the field exists even in a vacuum, should one conceive of the field as state of a 'carrier', or should it rather be endowed with an independent existence not reducible to anything else? In other words, is there an 'aether' which carries the field; the aether being considered in the undulatory state, for example, when it carries light waves? The question has a natural answer: Because one cannot dispense with the field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties. & The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. (**Einstein**, 1954)

We now realize that the continuous force field is an approximation of many discrete standing wave interactions (see Quantum Theory), and further, the field is an empirically founded (*a posteriori*) concept and thus cannot be fundamental. Hence we must reject the field, thus it is not only preferable, but necessary, to consider the 'carrier with hypothetical properties', i.e. Space existing with the properties of a wave-medium, as Lorentz correctly argued;

I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter. (**Lorentz**, The Theory of the Electron, 1906)

You can read more on this at: Physics: Albert Einstein's Theory of Special & General Relativity

The concept of the 'curvature of space' is a mathematical construction of Einstein's general relativity. In reality Space is not 'curved', instead (for gravitational forces) the mass-energy density of space varies dependent upon the nearby proximity of matter (Spherical Standing Waves), and this causes a variation in the velocity of waves/light which changes the ellipsoidal shape of matter and causes the curved path of matter and light in Space. And this caused Einstein considerable problems (it took him ten years to work out the ellipsoidal geometry for gravity/general relativity!)

But the path (of general relativity) was thornier than one might suppose, because it demanded the abandonment of Euclidean geometry. This is what we mean when we talk of the 'curvature of space'. The fundamental concepts of the 'straight line', the 'plane', etc., thereby lose their precise significance in physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Further, the four dimensional space-time continuum simply means that three spatial dimensions and a time dimension are required to define the motion of bodies and the path of light in three dimensional Space.

The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of 'four-dimensional' things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Space is a three-dimensional continuum. ... Similarly, the world of physical phenomena is naturally four dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z, and the time co-ordinate t. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The inseparability of time and space emerged in connection with electrodynamics, or the law of propagation of light.

With the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity, space and time were merged in a single continuum in a way similar to that in which the three dimensions of space had previously merged into a single continuum. Physical space was thus extended to a four dimensional space which also included the dimension of time. The four dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

In fact the spherical wave Motion of Space requires three spatial dimensions and a motion dimension (rather than a time dimension, as motion causes time). Now this is very important, for it is this 'curvature' that largely led to Einstein's early fame. It was the prediction by Einstein that light curved as it grazed the sun (subsequently confirmed by observation during a solar eclipse on the 29th May 1919) that resulted in his General Theory of Relativity becoming widely accepted and very famous. His general principle is correct though, matter does determine the geometric properties of Space;

According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

A fundamental contradiction has emerged with respect to Einstein’s arguments relating to the movement of the Earth through space. Let us look at his argument.

For owing to the alteration in the direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical system ( ether ) throughout the whole year. However the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non equivalence of different directions. This is a very powerful argument in favour of the principle of relativity. (Albert Einstein, 1916)

An analysis of the fundamental concepts of space and time has shown us that the principle of the constant velocity of light in empty space, which emerges from the optics of bodies in motion, by no means forces us to accept the theory of a stationary luminiferous ether. On the contrary, it has been possible to frame a general theory which takes account of the fact that experiments carried out on earth never reveal any translatory motion of the earth. This involves using the principle of relativity, ... (Albert Einstein, 1914)

In Einstein’s time, this was true. It is no longer true due to the experimental measurements from the COBE satellite for cosmic microwave background radiation.

So now we have a contradiction between Einstein’s relativity theory and experimental fact.

The experimental fact is that the intensity of the background radiation varies in a manner that exactly corresponds to the earth’s motion in Absolute Space.

This is an important contradiction, and it is based upon his argument, and experimental fact. I am simply showing you that this contradiction does exist.

Let us then consider Einstein’s own opinion on this relationship between theory and experimental fact.

... the truth that knowledge cannot spring from experience alone but only from the comparison of the inventions of the intellect with observed fact.

We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.

Once a theoretical idea has been acquired, one does well to hold fast to it until it leads to an untenable conclusion.

The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole idea seems impossible. (Einstein, 1954)

With respect to the movement of the earth through space, Einstein’s relativity no longer seems completely consistent with experimental fact. Further to this, we can show, that Einstein’s other arguments against a fundamental space appear to be quite weak. Let us then look at some further arguments which Einstein used to dismiss the ideas of a fundamental space or ether which was the carrier of light waves.

In the first quarter of the nineteenth century it was shown that the phenomena of the interference and motion of light could be explained with astonishing clearness when light was regarded as a wave-field, completely analogous to the mechanical vibration field in an elastic solid body.

One thus felt compelled, even in space that had hitherto been regarded as empty, to assume everywhere the existence of a form of matter, which was called ether.

By the introduction of the field concept in electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted, because of the equality of their velocity of propagation.

Nevertheless, it was at first taken for granted that electromagnetic fields had to be interpreted as states of the ether, and it was zealously sought to explain these states as mechanical ones. But as these efforts always met with frustration,* science gradually became accustomed to the idea of renouncing such a mechanical interpretation. (Einstein, 1954)

Einstein explains that many experiments were undertaken to determine the behaviour of the supposed ether.

The results of all these facts and experiments, except for one, the Michelson Morley experiment, were explained by H.A. Lorentz on the assumption that the ether does not take part in the motion of ponderable bodies, and that the parts of the ether have no relative motions at all with respect to each other. Thus the ether appeared, as it were, as the embodiment of a space absolutely at rest.

**Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H.A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an ether at rest.** (Einstein, 1954)

* If we compare the three quotes above we see that the **efforts did not always meet with frustration**, in fact Lorentz was successful in explaining all of them.

In spite of all these beautiful successes the state of the theory was not yet wholly satisfactory, ... the foundation of electromagnetic theory taught that a particular inertial system must be given preference, namely that of the luminiferous ether at rest. This view of the theoretical foundation was much too unsatisfactory. Was there no modification that, like classical mechanics, would uphold the equivalence of inertial systems ( special principle of relativity )?

Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an ether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. (Einstein, 1954)

Special relativity does not prove the untenability of the hypothesis of an ether at rest. If we refer to what Lorentz has to say, we immediately see the weakness of Einstein’s argument.

It is clear that, since the observer is unconscious of these changes, ( the contraction of a measuring rod in the direction of motion), relying on his rod, he will not find the true shape of bodies. He will take for a sphere what really is an ellipsoid, ...

Attention must now be drawn to a remarkable reciprocity that has been pointed out by Einstein. ... Let us now imagine that each observer ( one is moving with constant velocity relative to the other ) is able to see the system to which the other belongs, ...

It will be clear by what has been said that the impressions received by the two observers and would be alike in all respects. It would be impossible to tell which of them moves or stands still with respect to the ether. (Lorentz, 1906)

We note from what Lorentz says, that we shall always measure our dimension as spherical, be it ellipsoidal due to motion, and that we can never tell who is in fact moving. So it becomes impossible to tell if the observer is moving or at rest with respect to the luminiferous ether, or space.

Hence Einstein’s argument, that the existence of the ether infers that a particular inertial system must be given preference, namely that of the luminiferous ether at rest, is not correct.

It seems more correct to say that the idea of an ether as described by Lorentz, is in fact consistent with the special theory of relativity; and that no inertial reference frame, or ether, can ever be **observed** to be unique or at rest.

We can in fact say that Lorentz’s ideas are supported by the Michelson Morley Experiment.

In conclusion, a fundamental space is logically acceptable, and experimental results relating to the lowest temperature and magnetic moment of electrons on earth, are consistent with the idea that the earth is moving through a fundamental space.

The COBE satellite further confirms this view, and contradicts Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments - by James DeMeo, Ph.D. Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab. 'Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.'

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

SITE MAP: Metaphysics
- Physics
- Philosophy
- Theology
- Evolution

Contact Email - About Us & Site Statistics - Legal Disclaimer & Privacy Policy

New! Sign up to our Newsletter - Send a Free Postcard - Philosophy / Physics Quiz and Survey coming soon!

Contact Email - About Us & Site Statistics - Legal Disclaimer & Privacy Policy

New! Sign up to our Newsletter - Send a Free Postcard - Philosophy / Physics Quiz and Survey coming soon!

Facebook Connect | Tweet | Follow @philosophytruth |
Share | Philosophy Shop |
Free Postcards |
RSS |

- Send a very cool philosophy / wisdom postcard - RSS

Facebook Connect

Connect in an Inter-Connected Universe!

Connect with Geoff Haselhurst at Facebook - Add as Friend

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."(Thomas Hobbes)

Help Humanity

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."(Mohandas Gandhi)

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...

Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...The

free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life.... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)Our world is in great trouble due to human behaviour founded on myths and customs that are causing the destruction of Nature and climate change. We can now deduce the most simple science theory of reality - the wave structure of matter in space. By understanding how we and everything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the fundamental problems of human knowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, health, evolution and ecology, politics and society.

This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.

Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.

It is easy to help - just click on the social network sites (below) or grab a nice image / quote you like and add it to your favourite blog, wiki or forum. We are listed as one of the top philosophy sites on the Internet (600,000 page views / week) and have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so people will appreciate your contributions. Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst - Karene Howie - Email

## Connect with Geoffrey

Support simple sensible science that works

YouTube MySpace Facebook Twitter

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."(Edmund Burke)