Einstein's Fabric and the Luminiferous Ether

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there was no physical substance called the ether, yet the very nature of a wave requires something for it to propagate in.

Einstein came along and created space-time, a nonsensical analogy that reifies two non-physical concepts into a physical concept that can be warped by mass. If the alleged fabric of space-time can be warped by mass, then so too, it should be able to propagate a wave.

It is known that an electromagnetic wave can propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light in a vacuum. We also know that nature abhors a vacuum and that no such thing exists in nature. These tubes that we call vacuum tubes; what truly are they? While they may be devoid of anything that we consider physical or matter, is it devoid of the universe itself? Though a vacuum tube is void of all matter still an em wave can propagate, this, therefore, suggest that the 'ether' that allows the wave to propagate is not of matter, is not physical, is not a substance. If it is not these things then what is it?

What is mass? What is a wave? They are both different expressions of energy. Mass is the expression of bound energy or energy in a seemingly(according to our physical senses) static state. A wave is energy in a non-static state, it is energy in motion. The greater the mass, the greater the energy bound within, the greater the density. The greater the oscillation of the wave, the greater the energy in motion the further the wave travels. Mass is energy at rest and a wave is energy in motion, either way they are both energy, therefore if one can interact with Einstein's space-time fabric then they should both be able to interact with it.

I do not know the maths, my approach here is a philosophical mind game. It seems to me that Einstein's biggest mistake was in his analogy or it is the oversimplification of his analogy when he showed space-time as a two dimensional trampoline surface. I am ignoring the later addition of curved space which Einstein added to account for the wrongly interpreted redshift quantization of stellar objects as an expanding universe(which was the attempt of a priest to get his creation myth accepted as science). Arp, in my opinion showed empirically and conclusively this is not so.

Space is a concept of location in three dimensions. Time is a process, it is that which allows change to occur. Both are non-physical concepts. When EInstein wove them together and presented his trampoline analogy, it gave the impression of a two dimensional physical surface that can be warped by mass contradicting his vision of space-time as a four dimensional construct.

[Space=3D]+[Time=1D]=4D

This is contentious for is time an actual dimension? We can certainly create dimension in time when we measure it with our mechanical devices or when we experience it. But unlike the dimensions of space which are static and unmoving, time is nonstatic and constantly moving. One cannot go back in time to remeasure/re-experience that period in time over, like one can with space. I can return to that location in space and measure its three coordinates over and over again, but not time. This then leads me to conclude that space is static and time is not.

Space is static and consists in 3D and it is height, width and length that allows room for the existence of matter(static energy).

Time is nonstatic and provides the room(?) for a wave to function in all three of its parts(or are these dimensions?) beginning, middle and end which are required to define that wave's oscillation.

Are the 'x,y,z' coordinates of space equivalent to the 'b,m,e' coordinates of a wave? Is time the product of the three dimensions of a wave? Is space the product of three dimensions? Or is the question; Is matter the product of three dimensions of space? From this perspective space-time is not a four dimensional construct, it is a six dimensional construct of which I have no idea what it looks like. Does this even makes sense? What are the relations between space & matter(mass) and time & wave? If time is a function of the wave then so too is space a function of matter.

Space-time perhaps should be thought of as the matter-wave.

space/matter 3D(x,y,z) + time/wave 3D(b,m,e) = 6D(x,y,z)(b,m,e)

There certainly is a relationship between these concepts of space and time. We could not have one without the other. They are both needed for the existence of static energy(matter) and nonstatic energy(wave). Einstein marrying these concepts to define what gravity is, is not an act of absurdity as his critics assert. What was absurd was his trying to compare it to a trampoline and give it physical properties when it has none. If an 'em' wave/light can propagate in a vacuum void of physical stuffs then the notion of an underlying non-physical fabric/ether is a possibility.

Is gravity a Newtonian force or an Einsteinian field?

Gravity is a weak force/field. Magnets and even static electricity defy it. If it is a field it is static, if it is a force it is nonstatic. Can it be both static and nonstatic? Is the ether a field or a force? Can it be both? While i find it difficult to accept the idea of Einstein's explanation of gravity, I do think that he was onto something. Whether we talk of Einstein's fabric of space-time or the ether of emission theories we are talking it seems of things that are quite similar. Whatever gravity is, the maths that define it work rather well as it is being used to sling shot satellites around planets. I lean towards the electric dipole explanation of gravity but is that an effect of the electric field, or is it an effect of the electric force? Or is it both.

It seems the perception of duality is everywhere.

#daemon-nice