Introduction

The term aether is used herein to mean “the vacuum of space”, and nothing else. There is no intent to disparage spacetime or “new aether” as Einstein described them, nor imply a preference for any specific model referred to as aether by anyone else. The hypothesis can be stated most succinctly via these four precepts:

1) There is an aether, an as yet undetectable medium by which light propagates, and through which all matter moves.

2) Motionless subatomic particles and atoms affect the aether around themselves to create their respective field, whether electric or gravitational. A particle or atom induces a state in the adjacent aether, which the aether then recursively and symmetrically induces further outward.

3) Given that this field is recursively induced by the aether through itself, and given that this induction takes time, the field around a particle or atom in motion is distorted as compared to the field around a particle or atom at standstill. Increases in velocity are equivalent to increases in the severity of that distortion.

4) The induction works both ways: if the field around a particle or atom at standstill can be distorted to resemble that of a particle or atom in motion, then that particle or atom will be put into motion concordant with that distortion. The fields of particles and atoms interact with and distort each other to produce electrostatic repulsion/attraction and gravitational attraction.

Approach

The following is a qualitative argument. No math is included. It was assumed that the vacuum of space is a physical medium with properties which contribute to various physical phenomena. An attempt was made to propose a few simple properties of that medium which would account for appropriate phenomena without being self-contradicting. The process was provoked by a handful of observations of the current state of physics.

First, while Einstein provided us with more precise ways to describe gravity, we are really no closer to actually explaining gravity than Newton. The most thorough description to date of a body moving gravitationally is “it is following the shortest path through spacetime”. If a body is held up above the ground at some height x, it is motionless with respect to the celestial body above which it is held. If it is then dropped, relative locomotion is spontaneously created. Relative to the ground, it wasn’t traveling beforehand, so what path was it previously taking that it is now shortening?

Second, interpretations of the double slit experiment are dubious, if not worrisome. The results of the experiment are certainly surprising, but to explain the interference pattern by saying “the electron turns into a wave when not observed by consciousness” seems quite the unscientific leap. This implies that the universe is not only conscious, but also strangely petty.

Third, we don’t have a good explanation for why electrons are not attracted via the electric force all the way into the nucleus of an atom. We can say very precise things about the energy required to move an electron to higher energy states, and very precise things about the energy of a photon emitted when an electron drops to a lower energy state, but not much about why the electron won’t drop from the lowest energy state into the nucleus. We are satisfied to say that like charges repel and opposite charges attract each other, but we lack a compulsion to explain the cause of the attraction and repulsion.

Fourth, we lack a worthwhile explanation for magnetism. We can say a number of things about how unbalanced electron orbitals are the cause of magnetism, but we can’t say why you can hold a magnet over a piece of metal and it will lift the metal.

All of these phenomena involve the creation or alteration of locomotion. It would seem that motion itself is the common denominator, the thing which ultimately requires better explanation. The current mindset is satisfied to say “we thrust a billiard ball, it then moves”. This is not a detailed enough understanding of inertia. The ensuing hypothesis will posit that motion isn’t just freefall, or the meaningless result of the application of force. It is a specific relationship between particles or atoms and the aether. That relationship can be created by the application of force, as with a rocket or golf club, or it can be induced, as with a particle accelerator or gravity.

The Aether

Figure [aether] illustrates that the vacuum of space could be described as being made of currently undetectable arrows, dynamically and reactively sized, and pointing in random directions. This isn’t meant to be taken too literally. It is a harmless attempt to begin to describe attributes that could eventually be expressed in a mathematical model. We’ll call them photoids, in that they are the building blocks of photons.

Like tiny points of vector potential, they are dormant until excited, at which time, they point more forcefully, and in a direction determined by the inducing force. An inducing force can be a particle or a nearby induced photoid. The induced state of an excited photoid induces nearby photoids to imitate its orientation.

Electromagnetic radiation is a pulse or shockwave of organization, aligning and rolling these photoids as it passes through, as shown across the center of the diagram. For example, assuming the electromagnetic wave traveling across the page is moving from left to right, the rightmost photoid was previously induced to point 30 degrees east of vertical by the photoid to its left. That photoid, however is now pointing 60 degrees to the east side of vertical, and thus will induce the rightmost photoid to emulate that behavior. However, to the left of the second rightmost photoid is a photoid pointing due east. It will entice the second rightmost photoid to point in that direction. Likewise, moving right to left, each photoid has been induced by the photoid to its left to point in a direction slightly different from the current position, which is the motion of an electromagnetic wave.

The classical mindset would compare photons to a transverse wave, whipping the fabric of space like a guitar string. This hypothesis suggests that the transmission of light is wavelike, but that instead of space whipping up and down, the photoids are simply mimicking each others behavior. The wave is just the forward induction of the states of those photoids. The amplitude of the wave is expressed in the density and intensity of the pointing.

Experimental observation of optical rotation generated in vacuum by a magnetic field is an article describing an experiment where the Faraday effect was witnessed while applying a strong magnetic field to a laser in a vacuum. This could be interpreted as evidence of photoid-like structures in empty space.

Particles

Figure [particles] shows a proton and electron. There are photoids lining up with them spherically in all directions. The arrows aren’t part of the particle, but represent the reaction of the photoids in the aether to the particle.

The charge of the electron induces the photoids adjacent to it to point towards it strongly. The photoids outside them are induced by those excited photoids to mimic their behavior and also point in the same direction, which happens to be toward the electron. The state of each photoid induces the state of the photoid nearest to it, on and on, away from the particle. As the distance increases, the intensity of the pointing decreases. Below the electron is a graphical depiction of the forcefulness of these inductions, a ratio of inverse squares. The charge of the proton has the same effect on the nearby photoids, except that they point away from the proton instead of towards it.

These inductions emanate out at the speed of light. In other words, if we could create an empty universe, with an aether, and instantaneously create a single charged particle in it, the unexcited photoids of the aether would start aligning next to the particle, and outward from the particle spherically like a shockwave, at the speed of light. Figure [particle motion] represents an electron in motion, moving from right to left. Given that the inductions are not instantaneous, as the particle increases velocity, the forward induction of the states of the photoids has less and less time to induce forward in front of the particle.

Also, when the particle induces the state of the adjacent photoid to an excited state, we’ll say that that photoid has been excited to some state x. If we then accelerate the particle in the direction of the excited photoid, essentially “mashing it up against it”, then that photoid gets further excited to some state >x. This is portrayed in the forward pointing or west axis of the figure. The photoids are shown as closer to each other, meaning they are induced to point more strongly than they would be if the particle was motionless.

These two phenomena combine to create the left side of the graph at the bottom of the diagram. The dotted line is the graph of the strength of the inductions of photoids for a stationary particle, a ratio of inverse squares, as seen in the previous figure. The solid line on the left is the same thing but for a particle moving from right to left. A graph of inverse squares never touches the x axis, but any two points of equivalent height above the x axis for both lines is further from the origin for the stationary particle. This depicts the forward motion of the particle decreasing the amount of forward induction of the photoid states. The point where each graph crosses the y axis is higher for the particle in motion than for the stationary particle. This depicts the usual excitement of the photoids as the particle affects their state as it normally would, and then is pressed closer to them, increasing that state.

Consider two points, A and B, where A is a point on the graph of the stationary particle (the dotted line), and B is a point on the graph of the particle in motion (the solid line), and where B is the same height above the x axis as A. If A and B are both further from the y axis than the intersection (D) of the dotted line and the solid line, then the proportion of the distance from A to B, to the distance from A to the y axis, is equal to the proportion of the velocity of the particle to c. The area under both curves is the same.

On the backside of the moving particle, the opposite effects are observed. The particle induces the state of the adjacent photoid, and then pulls away from it, reducing its effect on that photoid. This effect is passed down from photoid to photoid, further and further from the position of the particle when it originally induced the original state.

As the state of photoids is induced further and further out behind the moving particle, the motion of the particle means that it will take more time for the outermost induced photoids to get the message that the particle is no longer where it was, and to stop being induced in the manner last indicated. These phenomena create the right side of the graph. The solid line (particle in motion) departs the y axis at a lower point and then travels out further along the x axis than the dotted line (stationary particle).

Consider two points, G and H, where G is a point on the graph of the stationary particle (the dotted line), H is a point on the graph of the particle in motion (the solid line), and G and H are the same height above the x axis. If G and H are both further from the y axis than the intersection (F) of the dotted line and the solid line, then the proportion of the distance from G to H, to the distance from G to the y axis, is equal to the proportion of the velocity of the particle to c. The area under both curves is the same.

Four of the lines of photoids have been labelled as the four directions of a compass for ease of discussion. Consider the north axis. The photoid nearest the electron is pointing directly towards it. But each photoid further away along the north axis points further and further behind the current position of the electron. This is because of the time it takes for each photoid to pass along information about the position of the electron. By the time the furthest out photoids have been induced by the photoids near them to point toward the electron, the electron has moved to a new position. This is seen in all the axes that are not directly in line with the direction of travel, including N, NE, NW, S, SE, and SW. The faster the particle is traveling, the more pronounced the effect will be closer to the particle. If the diagram was demonstrating the motion of a proton, everything would be exactly the same, except each photoid would be pointing exactly 180 degrees from its current orientation.

Figure [attraction] depicts two oppositely charged particles near each other. Their effect on the nearby photoids is portrayed as it was in figure [particles]. The surrounding field of each would look this way if no other particles were nearby. In reality, the photoids will interact with and induce each other to reflect some net result of the particles’ proximity to each other. Between the particles and to the left of electron B, because of their opposite charges, the photoids all point in the same direction and double up the effect that would be seen to the left of the electron if it were the only particle in play. Just to the right of the electron, the last photoid shown induced by proton A shows that it will have a tendency to lower the state of induction on the right of the electron B. This can be likened to the lopsided graph of induction seen in figure [particle motion]. In that figure, a more intense field is seen on the front of a particle in motion, and a less intense field is seen on the back. Likewise, proton A will have the induction of the photoids to its right intensified by the induction of photoids by electron B. It will also have the intensity of the induction of the photoids to its left reduced by the opposite state of the photoids of B. Electron A isn’t “attracted” to proton B, it doesn’t know it’s there. A is simply given a relationship with its surrounding aether that is the same as for an electron in motion, which happens to also be in the direction of proton B.

In the same figure, consider the intersection of the NE axis of A and the NW axis of B, specifically photoids D and E. Our definition of photoids states that they induce other photoids to mimic them, so D would induce E to twist in a clockwise direction so that it would be pointing more eastward than due northeast. At the same time, E would be inducing D to twist counterclockwise and point more eastward than due southeast. Looking back at figure [particle motion], that is analogous to what would be seen in a particle in motion, from the perspective of A or B. Looking at all the intersections shows the same thing: that the net vector of any nearby photoid pair would create a pattern similar to that of a particle in motion, and the motion of each particle would be towards the other one.

This could explain why the electron doesn’t get attracted all the way into the nucleus. If we consider only the spokes of photoids fanning out in the directions contained between the two attracted particles (the region labelled F), then as the particles get closer and closer, and as the field lines get shorter and shorter, eventually there are photoids between the particles that oscillate between emulating the proton’s spoke and the electron’s spoke. This oscillation is similar to a magnetic field, which is known to deflect the path of a charged particle, and would thus cause the electron to orbit the proton rather than merge with it.

Another possible explanation for the resistance of the electron to contact the nucleus could have to do with the geometry of the curves. Given that the curves drawn by the photoids decrease in radius as the particle accelerates, and given that the hypothesis suggests that motion of a particle is equivalent to curves drawn by the photoids of a particle’s field, it may be that as two oppositely charged particles get close to each other, the curves drawn by the nearby photoids are tighter than any speed the particles could reach (perhaps c?). In other words, the geometry is impossible. The reaction of the particles to this could be to change direction, bouncing nearer to and farther from each other like an electron cloud is predicted to do.

Figure [repulsion] shows two electrons next to each other, A and B. Along the straight line between and connecting them, we can see that the photoids of each are counteracting the photoids of the other. On the right side of B, however, the photoids of B have not had their effect reduced. Moreover, we can see how a photoid of A is adding to the effect of the photoids on the right side of B. The same is happening to A. On the right side of A, the photoids’ effects have been diminished by the photoids of B, and on the left side of A, the photoids’ effects have been increased by the photoids of B. Electron A is not being repelled by B. Both A and B are being put into motion because of their induced relationship with the aether, which has been made to look the same as the relationship between the aether and an electron in motion.

Looking at photoids D and E, given that we assume induced photoids induce other photoids, we see that their net effect on each other will be to induce each other to rotate and point downwards. Comparing this to the electron in figure [particle motion], this is what would be observed in photoids located behind electrons in motion. The net induction effect of all intersections of photoids would produce the same pattern, the pattern present in electrons moving away from each other.

Magnetism

A particle in motion creates an magnetic field. In figure [magnetic field], A is a proton moving from left to right. The image represents snapshots of the particle at five locations along that path, each the same distance from the adjacent one, marked A1-A5. B and C are dotted lines running vertically across the page to create a window through which to observe the domain lines of aether as the particle makes its trip. For this figure, the individual photoids are represented en masse by straight lines, and the distortion suggested by figure [particle motion] is taken for granted.

When the particle is at position A1, we can see one of its aether/domain lines cuts across the window of observation (BC) as line D, both above and below the path of travel. This line is 30 degrees from horizontal, above and below the path of A. At position A2, between B and C, we can see one of A2’s domain lines crossing section BC as E. This line is 60 degrees from horizontal. At position A3, the particle’s domain line that is visible in the window BC is marked F, and stands at 90 degrees. At position A4, the domain line G crosses the window at 120 degrees, and at A5, line H crosses at 150 degrees. While the image shows this in two dimensions, it’s happening in three. Particle A is traveling from left to right, through the donut hole of a donut standing on its edge on the page, and pressed between planes which are perpendicular to the page, which contain lines B and C. If we cut that donut in half in the plane parallel to the page, we then see lines D through H in that donut. The lines happen all the way around the donut. This is meant to describe the nature and origin of the magnetic field that surrounds the path of a particle in motion. Domain lines emanate out from a particle at all times. If a particle then moves in a straight line, then given one point on its path, in a plane perpendicular to that path, those domain lines are rolling, or flipping, in the aether. This is what we call a magnetic field.

Per the hypothesis, a particle in motion can be described as a particle with shorter lines of affected aether on the front side than the back, or a particle encircled by a magnetic field. A magnetic field has been described as rolling domain lines of aether. With this definition, we can explain the Lorentz force. Figure [Lorentz] depicts an electron traveling up the page, with its resultant magnetic field depicted on either side of it with standard ‘x’ and ‘dot’ notation. The light gray arrows around the x and dot are reminders that this is the direction that photoids are flipping. The other smaller Xs represent an external magnetic field the electron is entering, which directs the path of the electron in a circle to the right. This redirection is because the external magnetic field adds to the field on the left of the electron’s path, while at the same time counteracting the field on the right of its path. Per the hypothesis, the definition of a particle in motion is a particle surrounded by a magnetic field. If the field is unbalanced, then the motion of the particle will reflect that imbalance proportionally. This reinforces the notion that motion of a particle is more correctly expressed as a relationship between the moving particle and the aether.

In simplest terms, a magnet is a molecule whose nucleus is orbited by an electron in a predominantly flat plane, whose orbit is not cancelled out by another opposing (paired) electron’s orbit. In figure [magnetism], A is that unpaired electron, orbiting its atom’s nucleus in a plane perpendicular to the pole of its containing magnet in a clockwise direction. A1 and A2 are depictions of some of its magnetic field lines. B is an unpaired electron orbiting its atom’s nucleus in a plane perpendicular to the pole of another nearby magnet, with depictions of some of its magnetic field lines, B1 and B2. The logical conclusion is that the Lorentz force directs the orbit of B upward because of the external magnetic field of A1 and A2. The force is not enough to pull it from the nucleus it is orbiting, so the nucleus is brought along. If magnet B were flipped, the Lorentz force would also create the expected repulsive force.

Atoms

Figure [waves] shows a hydrogen atom accentuating these precepts so far. A is the electron shell of that atom, B is the nucleus, one proton. D is a small section of the electron shell, isolated for discussion, at the topmost portion of the atom. Because of the attraction towards the nucleus, and because of the subsequent repulsion as dictated by the resultant magnetic field or shock wave between them, the electron vibrates above and below the ideal radius from the nucleus, demonstrated as region E. This vibration creates an electromagnetic wave (F), a transverse wave, propagating outward in the plane perpendicular to the line between the electron and the proton. On the left side of F, the behavior of individual photoids is depicted. The motion of each photoid shown is induced by the photoid to its right, ultimately induced by D. Note how they oscillate between pointing upward and downward, pointing back towards D while moving between those two extremes. Along the line between the electron and the nucleus, and traveling outward from the electron is a gravitational wave, a longitudinal wave by nature, labelled G. It is shown only as a column here, to depict the part of the wave created by isolated section D of the electron shell.

The electron is always producing electromagnetic radiation, but wave F produced by point D is canceled out by the wave produced by the antipode of point D. When the electron drops from a high orbit radius to a lower one, only during the change will there be an uncanceled wave, due to the changing geometry of the electron shell, which will show up as an emitted photon. Similarly, a photon can be absorbed to facilitate the change in geometry of the shell to put the electron into higher orbit. The orbiting electron is not in danger of having electromagnetic radiation slow it down, because the electron’s motion is not inertial. Inertia of a particle is relevant when considering the particle in isolation, which means with regard to its relationship with the aether. When the electron is part of an atom, it is part of a system. Its motion is no longer inertial, but perpetually fueled by the mutual attraction it shares with the proton(s) of the nucleus, caused by the aether.

Gravity and Motion

Gravitation is conveniently analogous to the Doppler effect and sound waves, so some groundwork needs to be done to refer to those similarities. Imagine a sphere sitting motionless in the Earth’s atmosphere, and that it is emitting sound waves. For discussion, let’s say the atmosphere is 50% “dense”, given no real need of a better unit or descriptor. The sphere emits the sound waves by vibrating. It expands slightly more than its natural, non-vibrating size, then shrinks to slightly below that natural, non-vibrating size, and repeats.

When the sphere is expanding, the air molecules in contact with it get pressed outward, closer to the air molecules next to them than they already were. Now, the air immediately adjacent to the sphere is more than 50% dense. We’ll say this area of compression, a sphere of air tightly wrapping and just outside the physical sphere, has increased to 70% dense. As shock waves do, this area of compression expands outward from the physical sphere. In other words, those air molecules that were just pressed up against (by the other air molecules which were pushed out by the vibrating sphere) bounce away, towards the less dense air just outside them, ultimately to more air molecules, repeating the same cycle. The air molecules aren’t moving very far; they all only move as much as the original expansion of the physical sphere. The compression event is what is moving outward.

Immediately after the physical sphere expanded, it then shrank below its normal size. When that happens, the air molecules immediately in contact with the outside surface of the physical sphere rush in to occupy the space the face of the sphere left void, springing away from the air molecules they are next to, creating a shell of air just outside the physical sphere that is less dense than the original 50%. We’ll say it is 30% dense. In the same manner as with the compression event, the air molecules just outside those air molecules that moved spring away from the air molecules just beyond them. This rarefaction event expands outward, following the 70% dense compression event. As the event shells move outward, the intensity of the compression or rarefaction decreases as the radius of the sphere increases, at a ratio of inverse squares.

This activity is presented in figure [stationary]. The dark spot in the center of the circles is the vibrating sphere, the concentric circles surrounding the spot are the compression events expanding outward, and the (centers of the) white spaces between the circles are the rarefaction events expanding outward in sync with them. Below the circles is a graphical representation of the process, with the highs and lows aligned with the corresponding parts of the waves.

Everything explained so far is what happens if the sphere is stationary. Now consider what happens when the sphere moves forward in a straight line. On the front side of the sphere (the side facing the direction of travel), the vibration alone changes the density of the air from 50% to 70%. However, the forward motion of the sphere adds to that compression. For our example, we’ll say the forward motion adds 15% more compression, and the air has increased to 85% density. Also, while the sphere is shrinking enough to reduce the density of the air to 30% when the sphere is stationary, the forward motion of the sphere reduces the net effect. The rarefaction now reduces the air density to 45%. In addition to that, the act of the sphere chasing the waves as it produces them (in the direction of travel) means the sphere is closer to the wave that just departed when it produces the next one. This causes the frequency of the waves to increase on the side facing the direction of travel.

On the backside of the same moving sphere, the opposite effects are experienced. The expansion of the physical sphere is counteracted by the forward motion of the sphere. Instead of the air density changing from 50% to 70%, it is reduced by 15%, for a net density of 55%. The contraction of the sphere in the stationary example reduced the density of the air to 30%. The rarefaction of the adjacent air is amplified by the forward motion of the sphere, so the density is further reduced to 15%. Also, the frequency of the waves on the back side decreases proportionally to the increase seen on the front side. Figure [Doppler] gives a representation of this, including a graph below. Note the shifts of the graph relative to the x axis.

It is worth noting that the amount of energy the sphere is putting into the atmosphere around it hasn’t changed, but the distribution has, as there is more on the front side than on the back. This is a painfully detailed description of what is happening in the Doppler effect, which is experienced day to day as a train whistle sounding higher pitched while approaching than while departing.

Now consider figure [stationary] from a different perspective. The dark spot is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. The immediately adjacent enclosing circle is the electron shell, and the circles enclosing it are the emanating gravitational waves, the compression waves demonstrated in figure [waves] as G.

In the same way, consider figure [Doppler]. The dark spot is the nucleus, immediately surrounded by the electron shell, which is then enclosed by the gravitational waves it has been producing. The atom is moving from left to right. The distance between the nucleus and the frontmost side of the electron shell (A) is smaller than the distance between the nucleus and the rearmost side of the electron shell (B).

Figure [atom motion] is a close up of a hydrogen atom in motion. In the diagram, it is moving from left to right. U is the center point and the eccentric cloudy ring immediately encircling it is the range of possible positions of the electron. The fine-lined circle containing points L, Q, X, and H overlain that ring is the average location of the electron shell. H is the frontmost point, L is the rearmost. If the atom were stationary, the nucleus would be at U, the same distance from all points on the electron shell. The magnetic field or shock wave between the electron and the nucleus would be the same at all points, and thus the vibrations of the electron shell would be the same at all points. The intensity of the gravitational/motion waves emanating out would be the same at all points around the atom. Let’s say that the magnitude of the waves for a stationary atom is 1. Given that the atom is in motion, the nucleus is not centered in the electron shell, but is moved toward the electron shell in the direction of travel, to location V. When the electron is forced closer to the proton, the magnetic field/shock wave generated between them increases in intensity. That increases the magnitude of the vibration of the electron shell at that location, which increases the amplitude of the compression waves emanating from that point on the shell.

For our atom in motion, the proximity of the nucleus at V to the electron at H means a more intense magnetic field is created between them there, which means the electron vibrates harder, which means the gravitational/motion waves are stronger there, or greater than 1. At point X, the nucleus is as far from the shell as it is when it’s centered. At X, the magnitude of the waves is 1. There is a larger proportion of the electron shell between X and L than between X and H. Given that the magnitude of measurements of a wave taken at all points of the shell average out to 1, the magnitude at points between X and H is greater than 1 by a larger amount than the amount by which the points between X and L is below 1. The darkened eccentric circle outside the electron shell labelled Z_{(L, Q, X, H)} is meant to portray a gravitational/motion wave emanating out from the atom, with the differing thickness and shading representing the differing magnitude at different parts on the wave.

The description of what happens to the nucleus of an atom and its electron shell(s) so far is informed by and emulates the Doppler effect. When an omnidirectional sound emitter moves forward, the energy emanating from the front of the emitter (directly in line with the path of travel) goes up proportionally to the increase in speed, while the energy emanating from the back of the emitter goes down proportionally. This increase and decrease is also hypothesized to happen with the gravitational/motion waves emanating from an atom in motion. It is hypothesized that these waves result from the vibration of the electron shell due to the tension produced by its attraction to the nucleus. It is further hypothesized that this tension increases if the nucleus is forced closer to the shell and decreases if moved further from the shell. If we speculate that a Doppler effect is seen in the waves emanating from the front and back of a moving atom, and if we expect those frontward waves to increase in intensity in proportion to the velocity of that atom, and if we are saying that the intensity of the waves on the front and on the back of that atom are a function of the proximity of the nucleus to the electron shell, then we may have a mechanical explanation for length contraction. 

While the relationship between sound wave intensity and the velocity of their source is linear in nature, the relationship between the attraction of the nucleus to the electron shell and the proximity of the nucleus to the electron shell is one of inverse squares. If we assume that the Doppler shifted distribution of energy on the front and back of a moving energy emitter is some kind of law, like the constancy of c or the conservation of momentum, and that the linear relationship between the velocity of the wave emitter and the distribution of energy fore and aft must be maintained, then the length of the atom from front to back must reduce as the atom changes velocity. As the nucleus moves toward the front of the shell, increasing the intensity of gravity waves leaving the front, the distance from the nucleus to the front of the shell is reduced at a lower rate than it would be if the relationship were linear in nature instead of one of inverse squares. Likewise, at the same time, as the nucleus moves away from the back of the shell to reduce the intensity of the waves leaving the back of the atom, the distance is increased at a lower rate than it would be if the relationship were linear in nature and not an inverse square relationship. 

It would seem a safe assumption that at all points along the transition from sphere to oblate spheroid, that the surface area of the electron shell must remain constant. It would also seem a safe assumption, if possible, that the sum total energy being emitted from all points on the shell of the atom must remain equal as the atom morphs from sphere to oblate spheroid. If the direction of travel could be thought of as the pole or axis, then as the sphere flattens, the energy emanating from the “equator” of the spheroid will fall off dramatically, compared to a simple spherical sound emitter. This increase in distance from the nucleus to the equator may require adjustments to the distances between the nucleus and the front and the back of the shell for the surface area and total energy emitted to remain constant while also maintaining the linear changes in energy emission along the line of travel presumed in a Doppler shift. 

According to the hypothesis, this is the definition of a hydrogen atom in motion: its nucleus will be closer to the electron shell on the side facing the direction of travel. It will be emanating gravitational waves in all directions. The intensity of those waves in any particular direction will be directly proportional to the distance of the nucleus from the part of the shell in line with that direction.

The assumptions so far combine together to make gravity work like so: In figure [gravity], A and B are each the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, and A1 and B1 are their respective electron shells. Atom B/B1 is emanating gravitational waves, including D and E. These waves decrease in intensity at a ratio of inverse squares. D is more intense than E, so while D and E are passing through A/A1, A/A1 begins to passively resonate with their effect on the aether in its vicinity. The greater intensity of wave D than E translates to a more intense vibration of A1 on the side nearest B/B1 than on the side furthest from B/B1. That translates to the nucleus moving closer to that side of the atom, which translates to the creation of locomotion in that direction.

The position of the nucleus in relation to the electron shell, whether centered, as in a stationary atom, or off-centered, as in an atom in motion, is a state of equilibrium that is resistant to change. We call that resistance inertia. It has as much to do with the relationship of the atom to the aether and the Doppler shifted waves as it does with the relationship of the protons to the electrons.

The closer the nucleus gets to one side of the electron shell, the more intense the magnetic field or shock wave between the shell and the nucleus at that point. In other words, the space between the two is resistant to getting smaller. If the definition of an atom in motion is one where the nucleus is closer to a point on the electron shell in the direction of travel, and if the speed of that atom increases as the distance between the nucleus and electron shell on the front side is reduced, and if that distance gets more resistant to being reduced as it gets smaller, and if inertia is defined as the amount of resistance a mass applies to being accelerated, then that explains why we would see a mass (inertia) increase in an object as its velocity increases. This would also explain the minute mass increase of a body in a gravitational field, as gravity also causes a shift in the position of the nucleus to create the motion of free fall.

The effect a neutron has on the adjacent aether is not speculated in this document. Nevertheless, if there is a field of effect surrounding a neutron, it is reasonable to assume it is distorted in motion similar to the manner described for the proton and electron, even though electrically neutral. The field effect depicted in figure [particle motion] could be described as Doppler shifted, or having a concentration of energy on the front and a dilution of energy on the back. The neutron’s field, whatever its nature, could be distorted by the tidal effect of the progressively diminishing gravity waves from a nearby atom. From that standpoint, it is reasonable to speculate that a subatomic particle could be induced into motion by the gravitational field produced by an atom.

Gravitation is just induced motion towards a more intense gravitational field. The body being attracted knows nothing of the body doing the attracting, because the attracting body is irrelevant; the aether is doing the work. This can be used to explain the behavior of buckyballs in the double slit experiment. In figure [double slit], A is a buckyball headed up the page towards the double slit apparatus. Its gravitational/motion waves are depicted as explained thus far, and like any other wave, when they hit the slits, they become two wavefronts that interfere on the other side. Those points of interference create paths of increased gravitation (greater motion induction), any one of which will induce A to follow it to the detector, adding one more spot to what will become (after several iterations) an interference pattern.

The double slit experiment has been explained here from the standpoint of buckyballs because the motion of atoms and their accompanying waves make for nice diagrams. The same principle applies to subatomic particles with slight changes. Per figures [magnetic field] and [electromotive], the motion of an electron is a particular relationship with the aether. The wave accompanying its motion may be electromagnetic in nature as opposed to gravitational, but it still is split into two wavefronts which interfere and redirect the particles motion toward the detector. When attempts have been made to determine which slit a particle is going through, it is plausible that detectors used at the slit absorb enough of the wave to keep the particle’s path from being redirected, causing the interference pattern to disappear.

Gravity and Light

With the hypothesis as expressed so far, we can look at gravitational redshift differently. We are now saying that the molecules of a gravitating body are radiating gravity waves, compressing and rarefying the aether like shock waves (figuratively), and reducing in intensity at a ratio of inverse squares.

In figure [gravitational redshift], A is a star with its gravitational waves shown. B is a graph of those gravity waves, which reduce in amplitude at a ratio of inverse squares. D is a graph of the wavelength of light leaving the surface of the star, depicting its decrease in frequency as it gets further from the source of gravity. The light doesn’t lose energy because it is “straining” against the gravitational field. The light is starting at a point of space made dense, or more severely perturbed, by the higher amplitude of the gravitational waves at the surface. This correlates to higher frequency oscillations of light at the surface. Further from the surface, the amplitude of the gravitational waves decreases. The same light wave then responds by reducing in frequency, but only as a function of the density, or reduced perturbation, of the aether it is traversing.

The same phenomenon is the cause of gravitational lensing. The higher amplitude compression and rarefaction cycles closer to the gravitating body affect the aether like a prism. Light is refracted around the body, rather than pulled gravitationally.

Figure [constancy of c] demonstrates how c remains constant regardless of the speed of the observer. Q and R are stars, motionless in space, and P is a hydrogen atom traveling away from Q towards R at .75c. Intuition would say the light meeting P from R is clocked at 1.75c, while light meeting P from Q arrives at .25c. Accepted theory tells us otherwise, that light traveling from each star is measured to be traveling at c, despite the relative motion of P. The reason this is physically possible is that there is a section of compressed aether (T) in front of P, due to its speed. Light coming from R gets slowed down in this section of “denser” space, so that its speed (relative to the universe) is reduced to .25c. Conversely, light approaching from Q reaches a sparse section of aether, labelled S, through which light is actually able to travel faster than c, 1.75c (relative to the universe) to be exact. Thus, when measured at P, light from Q is clocked at c. This, coupled with the mechanical explanation offered for length contraction, explains why the Michelson-Morley experiment produced a null result.

In figure [aberration], A is the surface of the Earth, shown moving from left to right. D and E are observatories located on the night side of the planet near the sunset and sunrise horizons. Solid lines D1 and E1 are straight lines from those observatories to a star exactly 90 degrees from the direction of travel. Dotted lines D2 and E2 are the paths of light from that star as observed due to the effects of stellar aberration. Dashed lines D3 and E3 are the expected paths of light given the gravitational lensing effects of Earth, and disregarding stellar aberration. These effects may be immeasurably small using existing equipment.

Because the Earth is in motion, each of its constituent atoms resembles figure [atom motion], with its nucleus moved closer to the electron shell in the direction of travel, and producing Doppler shifted gravitational waves. The shift of all the atoms can be represented en masse by considering the Earth as a single atom, with line VX as the equivalent of line VX in figure [atom motion]. For Earth at standstill, V would be located at U, and for Earth moving at c, V would be located at H, so the distance from U to V is v/c * radius of Earth. From this, we determine that angle LVX is 89.997 degrees.

Like figure [Doppler], the graph of these waves forward and backward is shown at the bottom. F and G plot the average “density” of the aether along each direction. Presumably, the incoming light is curved toward the denser aether, as F and G both trend upward in the opposite direction of Earth travel. This would appear to be a different mechanism from gravitational lensing, as lensing is due to simple amplitude of gravitational waves, and aberration is due to changes in aether density due to Doppler shifting.

There may be a way to indirectly prove the hypothesis with a simple test of stellar aberration, if modern instruments can measure to the required precision. If a large enough population is available in existing catalogs, it may be that the necessary precision can be statistically inferred. According to the explanation for figure [atom motion], stellar aberration for a star along or very near line VX should be greater when measured from point E than when measured from point D. This is because the amount of energy emanating along arc HX is disproportionately greater than that along arc LX. Gravitational lensing must be accounted for, as it would exaggerate the effect.

Gravity and Orbits

Lense-Thirring precession, also known as frame-dragging, is when the rotation of a massive body causes the path of an orbiting body to precess around that body, as if the surrounding space is being dragged around by the rotation. While it seems to make sense intuitively, the space is not really being dragged around.

Figure [Lense-Thirring D] demonstrates, with references to figure [atom motion]. A is a hydrogen atom in the gravitational field and the equatorial plane of a star whose axis is coming out of the page toward us and centered on B. Star B is rotating counterclockwise, and D is a hydrogen atom located at its surface. In this figure, the path of atom D is directly towards A, so D is not causing frame dragging at this point. Z_H shows the orientation and shape of a motion/gravitational wave that has left D and is now passing through the nucleus of A. The gravitational wave’s intensity decreases evenly on each side of A, as seen previously at point Z_H of figure [atom motion].

Figure [Lense-Thirring F] shows the other end of the spectrum. Here, the path of atom F is directly away from atom A. Z_L shows the orientation and shape of a wave that left F, and the part of the wave centered on A corresponds to point Z_L of figure [atom motion]. This is where the wave is at its lowest intensity, increasing in intensity at equal rates on both sides of A. No frame dragging is happening here either.

But at all points in between them, frame dragging is happening. On figure [Lense-Thirring E], Z_Q shows the orientation and shape of a wave sourced from E, crossing A at its nucleus. Here, point Z_Q of figure [atom motion] is centered on A, and the wave’s intensity increases to the left of A, and decreases to the right. Atom A then passively resonates to that imbalance in the aether. The left side of the electron shell of A vibrates harder than the right side. The nucleus moves closer to the point of the electron shell vibrating with the most intensity, creating spinward motion.

Spinward frame dragging is induced in A by all atoms of the star contained in angle DBF. Atom A would experience frame dragging in the opposite direction as induced by the atoms on the backside of the star, but the greater distance of those atoms from A has their effect diminished and overridden by the atoms on the near side. If atom E were moving in a straight line from right to left, the orientation of Z_Q would be the same, inducing linear frame dragging.

The principle that creates frame dragging also contributes to astrophysical jets. Figure [polar jet] is a compact object, and K is its spin axis, along which we are looking directly downward. H, J, and L are three radii 120 degrees from one another. P, R, and S are hydrogen atoms located along radius J, all in the plane of the equator. S is 1/3 the radius from the axis, R is 2/3 the radius from the axis, and P is located at the surface. Their differing speeds are represented by the distance of the nucleus of each from its electron shell. If an atom were shown centered on the axis, its nucleus would be centered on the atom itself, as it would be motionless (relative to the rest of the star). Radii H and L also have similar atoms represented. Up and to the right, W represents the vantage point of the same presentation on the next figure, [polar jet vertical].

On figure [polar jet vertical] we see the radius, J, seen from (W) a position in the plane of the equator, and the axis, K, vertical on the left side of the page. Atoms P, R, and S are also present. Gravitational waves are emanating out from them spherically, but this figure is only concerned with the part of those waves contained in the plane of radius J and axis K, which is a circle. S_Q1 is one of those waves which left S, immediately followed by S_Q2. In the direction they are traveling, we’ll say their wavelength is 1. But in the direction of K, in line with the axis, at around 45 degrees from horizontal (labelled Y), their wavelength is just under 1.414. Later, when S_Q1 and S_Q2 reach points S_Q1^a and S_Q2^a, their wavelength along K will by Y^a, which is shorter than Y. The wavelength along the axis is relevant because the gravitational waves from all radii (including H and L in the previous figure) are interfering with each other, creating a resultant waveform which travels along the axis.

On the figure, M is a hydrogen atom, centered on the rotational axis K and located at some arbitrary height above the compact object. The wavelength of the interference of the waves along the axis tends down toward 1 as we measure further and further from the equator. This produces a tidal effect on M. The frequency of gravitational waves on the far side of M will be higher than on the near side of M. This is equivalent to more energy, or denser space, or lower gravitational potential on the far side of the atom. This induces an upward motion in M, as opposed to downward. Depending on the geometry of the interference, observations of seemingly superluminal jets may actually be superluminal.

According to the hypothesis, the edges of galaxies tend to gravitate material towards themselves as we would expect. This explains why there are instances of galaxy collisions happening. There is also a region surrounding the poles of galaxies that tend to repel material from themselves. This would explain why space appears to be expanding, especially if galaxies have a tendency to align pole to pole.

De Sitter precession is the phenomenon where the elliptical orbit of one body around a non-rotating massive body will precess around that body, or in the case of a circular orbit, the orbit will move faster than classical calculations would predict. In figure [de Sitter], A is a hydrogen atom circularly orbiting some gravitating body whose center is located above the diagram. B brackets the section of gravitational waves at the altitude at which A is orbiting. The graph labelled B1 is meant to communicate that the amplitude of the gravitational waves in the path of A is constant. Below that, graph A1 represents the motion/gravitational waves of A. To the right of the origin is the direction of travel, where the frequency of the waves increase, and the waveform is shifted up relative to the x axis, indicating compression of space, or increased density of space ahead of the atom. To the left of the origin is the previous path of the atom, where we see the frequency is reduced, and the waveform is shifted downward indicating sparser aether.

Explanations for gravity, the double slit experiment, and Lense-Thirring precession have involved gravitational waves from one body changing the geometry of the atom(s) of an affected body, causing the motion of the affected body to change in the expected manner. Each represents a tidal effect, where the aether is different on one side of the affected atom than it is on the other. With de Sitter precession, this is not the case. As each gravitational wave of B passes through A, crests and troughs are always symmetrically experienced by the frontside and backside of the orbiting atom.

Given that A1 represents the waveform for a hydrogen atom traveling at a given velocity, and given that when atom A travels at altitude B (and in the associated gravity waves), its velocity is greater than that given velocity, then we can induce that the greater velocity is the result of waveform A1 occurring in the presence of waveform B1. If we chose a higher altitude equal to 2(B), say D, then its waveform, D1, would be smaller in amplitude, and the de Sitter effect (the combining of A1 and D1) would be smaller at that altitude as well.

This is analogous to the explanation of the Lorentz force. With the Lorentz force, a particle in motion is wrapped by a magnetic field. When that particle encounters an external magnetic field, the combination of the two fields results in the curving of the particle’s path. The particle and its field are not changed, the particle’s path is curved as a result of the particle and its field in the presence of the external magnetic field. Likewise, with de Sitter precession, the geometry of the orbiting atom and its waves are not changed. The gravitational field accentuates the motion that the atom’s geometry would produce outside of a gravitational field.

Special Relativity

The hypothesis assumes all of special and general relativity is correct except for the reciprocity of kinematic time dilation, which hasn’t been proven experimentally. Figure [kinematic] illustrates a thought experiment regarding kinematic time dilation.

Shown are two spaceships, A and B. Each has a path plotted out before it with matching points of interest E, F, G, H, J, K, L, and M. They are in interstellar space far from relevant gravitational influence and motionless relative to each other at point E. They are each equipped with an atomic clock and a telescope with which to monitor an external display of the other ship’s clock. The clocks are synchronized, and at a preprogrammed time, they accelerate side by side at the same rate for the same amount of time to point F. From point F to point G, they are moving inertially, motionless relative to each other. At point G, the ships execute matching 90 degree 1 g turns in the same plane away from one another until their paths are in opposite directions. They move inertially from points H to J. There, they execute symmetrical 180 degree 1 g turns in the same plane until their paths are directly towards one another. From points K to L, their motion is again inertial. At point L, They execute one more 90 degree 1 g turn in the same plane, returning to paths alongside one another at M, moving inertially and motionless relative to one another.

During the initial acceleration, the first 90 degree turn, the 180 degree turn, and the second 90 degree turn, the effects on their clocks are governed by general relativity. Their experiences are identical through these motions and so the effects on their respective clocks should also be identical. From points H to J, and from points K to L, what they see on each other’s clock is dictated by special relativity. According to special relativity, during these parts of the trip, they should each see the other ship’s clock running slower than their own. After the last turn, because their trips have been identical, their clocks should say the same thing. From this we can deduce that the only way to prove that kinematic time dilation is reciprocal is to capture video of it while it’s happening, as in segment H to J or K to L. Once the clocks in any such experiment are back in the same inertial frame, the reciprocal nature of kinematic time dilation should cancel out and be undiscoverable, because they are no longer in relative motion.

The Hafele-Keating experiment was performed in the 1970s in an attempt to prove kinematic time dilation. In short, a set of atomic clocks was kept at the US Naval Observatory. Another set was sent on a plane around the world heading east. The same set was then sent around the world heading west. At the end of the experiment, the eastbound clocks had lost time when compared to the stationary clocks, and the westbound clocks had gained time. Similar and increasingly more accurate experiments have been performed since, reinforcing the results.

Absent from the output of Hafele-Keating and related experiments is an explanation for why the effects are not reciprocal in nature. From the standpoint of special relativity, when the eastbound clocks achieved cruising speed, the earthbound clocks were the ones in motion, moving away westward. Likewise, when the westbound clocks reached cruising speed, the earthbound clocks saw them as the ones in motion. The calculations used to determine how much time dilation should occur when two clocks are in relative inertial motion can be solved for both perspectives and should yield the same results for both. Yet, Hafele-Keating and subsequent experiments end with only the “faster” moving clock showing a concrete period of slower moving time, proving that kinematic time dilation is not reciprocal in nature.

Lorentz and Poincare argued that kinematic time dilation would be proportional to the velocity of a clock through the undetectable aether, and would not be reciprocal in nature. Hafele-Keating and other experiments appear to support that notion. This implies an absolute motion, but it doesn’t imply that the absolute motion is discoverable. It doesn’t appear to conflict with the rest of relativity.

Superluminal Mechanism

Imagine a large hollow metallic sphere 3 meters in diameter. It is contained inside another hollow sphere 4 meters in diameter. The enclosing sphere is made entirely of permanent magnets, with their poles aligned longitudinally like meridians on a globe. That sphere is also enclosed in another hollow metal sphere, 5 meters in diameter. After pumping electrons from the innermost sphere to the outermost sphere, a large scale facsimile of an atom is approximated.

The hypothesis posits that in an atom, a magnetic field keeps the electron from falling all the way into the nucleus. The layer of magnets serves the purpose of keeping the excess electrons on the outer sphere from reaching the excess protons on the inner sphere by deflecting them 90 degrees as they are drawn inward by their attraction to the protons. Just as in figure [waves], the attraction of the electrons on the outermost sphere to the positively charged inner sphere and subsequent deflection by the magnetic shell would create gravitational waves just as they are created in an actual atom. After a significant charge is built up, actively moving the inner sphere closer to the outer sphere would move the whole device through space in the direction of that movement. This is analogous to the nucleus of an atom moving closer to the electron shell for the whole atom to move in that direction.

The problem in modeling a synthetic atom as a sphere is that the layer of magnets would have a hole in it. If the poles of the magnets that made up the barrier were lined up longitudinally, then the north pole of the model would be where all the north poles of the magnets met and cancelled out, and thus would let electrons through. The south pole of the model would also have the same problem.

Figure [craft simple] demonstrates how to avoid this by reshaping the synthetic atom into a torus. Parts A, B, and C are nested hollow metallic toroids. In the top half of the figure, parts A and B appear to only contain 120 and 240 degrees of their circles, but for the purpose of the diagram, they have been cut away to illustrate their nested nature. Part B is made of a continuous strand of magnets wrapped around the torus like a mobius strip, with its end meeting its beginning. Electrons which have been pumped from part C to part A would be deflected 90 degrees by those magnets if they attempt to jump from A back to C. To put the mechanism into motion, part C is moved closer to part A in the direction of desired travel. The speed would always be proportional to the proximity of C to A, making acceleration irrelevant. To stop, C would be moved back to center, where it was equidistant from A at all points. The waves inside the donut hole of the torus would always cancel out, creating an area completely untouched by the effects of the movements of the craft as a whole.

Referring back to [atom motion], moving C in any direction closer to A will cause the excess electrons on that part of A to experience greater attraction to C. The part of A that is then further from C will have its excess electrons feel weaker attraction to C. These changes will cause a Doppler shifted distribution of energy.

The RF resonant cavity thruster, or EM Drive, could be an accidental proof of this. It could be that the truncated cone in the design reflects the EM waves ahead of and behind the device such that a Doppler like pattern (compressed in front, expanded in back) is created. Referring to figure [waves], it is demonstrated that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves are related. It could be that by creating a certain field of EM activity around the thruster, the thruster’s gravitational field is distorted to a pattern concordant with motion in a given direction. If so, then this hypothesis dictates that motion would have to occur.

The craft as described so far would be a means of locomotion. That doesn’t explain why the hypothesis holds that it could travel faster than light. According to the explanation of figure [constancy of c], light traveling from star Q to traveller P increases in speed to some velocity greater than c, so that it is measured as c from the perspective of P. It is theorized that this speed increase is because of the sparse region of aether trailing P, created by the Doppler effect. More specifically, the motion/gravitational waves trailing P are reduced in intensity and have a longer wavelength than when P is stationary.

Natural matter is individual electrons orbiting nuclei at subatomic distance scales. The motion/gravitational waves that have been discussed thus far are proportional, and thus subatomic in scale also. Our synthetic atom can be created at a much larger scale, with larger distances, a larger magnetic field, and accompanying larger voltage potential. The motion/gravitational wave generated by this model would be of a matching scale, in size and speed. If according to [constancy of c], light is not restricted to c, then matter should not be either. If light can travel faster than c in a natural scenario because of motion waves of longer wavelength, then a longer wavelength motion wave should enable matter to exceed c in a synthetic scenario.

Exotic Matter

It’s plausible that the gravity/motion wave created by electrons trying to “get to” protons is not dependent on the electrons orbiting the protons. Figure [craft inverted] represents cross section D of figure [craft simple]. In this figure, A is an external proton sink, B is still a magnetic barrier, and C is a cloud of free electrons.

Rather than pumping excess electrons onto an external electron sink, where they would risk opposing each other away from (and off of) the craft, they could be pumped from the atoms of the outside proton sink (A) into the inside of the magnetic barrier (B). There would be no need for an internal electron sink, as the electrons would simply flow around inside the magnetic barrier. Motion would be achieved by moving the magnetic electron barrier closer to the proton sink, the outer shell, in the direction of desired travel.

On the side where the barrier is closer to the protons, the electrons would vibrate more vigorously via the increased attraction. This attraction and vibration would also vibrate the protons on A. Now the compression waves emanating from the craft outward would be of the domain lines from the protons and not the electrons. These waves might be considered to have opposite polarity.

Exotic matter is defined as matter that deviates from normal matter and exhibits exotic properties. Normal matter is electrons orbiting a nucleus made of protons. The electrons vibrate toward and away from the nucleus, sending out motion/gravitational waves. By creating a shell of protons, and putting a ribbon of electrons in the center that are making an inverted orbit inside that nucleus, our inverted model of the atom may qualify as exotic matter.

The Alcubierre drive is a hypothetical mechanism which uses a torus made of exotic matter to move through space at FTL speed while transporting a payload contained in the flat space in the donut hole. Discussion to date of a warp drive, including but not limited to the Alcubierre drive, has speculated that compressing the space in front of an object and expanding it behind the object will have the potential to move that object superluminally. According to the hypothesis herein, all natural motion is due to the compression of space ahead of and the expansion of space behind the moving object. This is because of the Doppler effect of the gravitational/motion waves of the underlying atoms, and is not unique to any hypothetical synthetic scenario.

Charge Pump Experiment

Assuming everything else is as theorized, there is a need for a charge pump to move a considerable charge from one sink to another. Looking at the triboelectric series, one finds steel very close to neutral. For an experiment, it was speculated that mercury, being a metal, would probably also be approximately neutral triboelectrically. If so, it could be used to draw electrons from a material on the positive end of the series, and surrender them to a material on the negative end, much like the rubber belt of a simple Van de Graaff generator. Figure [Hg experiment] is a diagram of that experiment.

Part A is a disk made of glass, 3 inches in diameter, 1/2 inch thick. Part B is a disk made of Teflon of the same dimensions. They each have a small divot machined into one side, similar in size and shape as area C. The disks were rinsed with alcohol, allowed to dry, and bolted together with these cavities facing, with a small amount of mercury enclosed. The mercury, labelled D, was an amount roughly between the volume of one and two US nickels, and did not completely fill the void.

A wire was affixed to this, labelled E. It had had both ends (F) stripped, sharpened, and polished to a flat, chisel-like point. The sharpened ends of the wire were held just under 1/8 of an inch from the center of their respective side of the puck. The expectation was that vigorously shaking the entire piece so that the mercury swirled around in its cavity would cause the mercury (assumed triboelectrically neutral) to draw electrons from the glass (established triboelectrically positive) and lose them to the Teflon (established triboelectrically negative). The increasing charge would eventually jump from the Teflon to the nearby sharpened wire, which would conduct the charge to the other sharpened end, which would lose electrons to the nearby positively charged glass. In a completely dark room, ionization was expected to be visible at the ends of the wire, confirming the hypothesis.

Beforehand, a proof of concept was performed with a Van de Graaff generator. Typically, a Van de Graaff generator pulls charge off the wand via the comb at the bottom of the belt, and releases it via the other comb at the top of the belt to the globe. For the test, the wand and globe were removed and the two combs were replaced with the two ends of a single wire as previously described. When the generator was turned on, ionization was seen at both ends, as expected, indicating a circuitous flow of electrons.

Long before assembling the experiment, a test was done with the teflon and glass disks. One was held in each hand, side by side, touching edge to edge. With the half inch thickness of their edges touching like a pair of engaged gears, they were rubbed up and down against each other a distance between 1/4 and 1/2 inch, for 10 to 20 seconds. The small portion of each that had been subjected to the friction against the other part was then slowly moved toward the hair of my forearm to see if a net charge on either would repel or draw in said hair. As expected, the teflon repelled my forearm hair, presumably because of a negative charge. To a slightly smaller degree, the glass drew in my forearm hair, presumably because of a positive charge.

After assembling the experiment, one end of a loose human hair was put into a binder clip. Before swirling the mercury, the loose end of the hair was held close to the glass and then close to the Teflon to see if the hair was drawn in or repelled, demonstrating an existing positive or negative net charge. Each part indicated no net charge.

On proceeding with the experiment, the expected arc was not seen on either side of the puck. However, on looking into the glass side of the puck while shaking it, the mercury was sporadically glowing, and sparking, and going dark. The size of the glowing area was clearly up to the entire mercury volume. The effect seemed to be somewhat dependent on the speed and duration of the swirling motion. It appeared to be picking up enough charge that it completely illuminated. It did not maintain the glow on stopping the motion.

Given that ionization hadn’t been seen at the wire ends, it was speculated that charge could be building, but the small amount of mercury compared to the large volumes of glass and Teflon kept the charge from getting large enough to arc to the wire. The hair was moved close to the glass to see if any charge had accumulated. It appeared none had. On moving it close to the Teflon, it snapped forcefully to the Teflon, seemingly indicating the Teflon had a positive charge, which was opposite of what was expected.

On looking very closely, there was a tiny piece of lint about 1/16 of an inch in length hanging on the end of the hair, and a fraction of the hair’s diameter. On moving the hair close to the glass again, one could see that the lint was being repelled by the glass (even though the hair wasn’t), indicating a very minute negative charge. The lint hadn’t been seen before the experiment, so it is not known if the minute charge was also present before the experiment. This also was opposite of what was expected, though so small that it may be irrelevant.

It would appear from the experiment that while Teflon is on the extreme negative end of most published triboelectric series, the element mercury is considerably more negative. It appears to heroically pull charge from the Teflon to itself, to the point that some leaks over to produce a negative charge on glass, which usually has a positive triboelectric tendency. It may be that mercury itself could somehow become the electron sink in the proposed theoretical drive. Clearly, mercury has interesting triboelectric properties that warrant investigation.

Remarks

It seems a glaring omission to not address the photoelectric effect from the perspective of the hypothesis. I offer that a “wave of photoid states” as implied here is different enough from a true (in the classical sense) transverse wave that a new possibility is being asserted. The original dilemma centered on whether light was a wave or a particle, which was an unnecessary oversimplification. Maybe light isn’t as much “either a wave or a particle” as it is “neither a wave (as currently understood) nor a particle”. Sound waves and shock waves are atomic level phenomena, behaviors that are the result of the elasticity of atoms and molecules in gases, liquids, and solids. While there are convenient similarities, to expect light in the vacuum of space to rigidly adhere to rules of wave dynamics should be seen as an obvious misstep.

To say that the aether is a medium for waves requires a new kind of medium and/or wave. If the gravitational field of an atom is the result of wave dynamics, then those waves of objects made of more than one atom would interfere with each other randomly, and potentially cancel out. The aether wave would require more properties than the flexion of a transverse wave, or the compression and rarefaction of a longitudinal wave; these are processes belonging to atomic matter. The aether would have to be a more complex medium communicating more attributes (as has been implied here with photoids), including vector, magnitude, and polarity. It may require more complex rules than known wave dynamics. Simple constructive and destructive interference may not be enough to describe them.

Some insight may be found in the figures displayed already. In figure [aether], the photoids are completely unexcited and random. Let’s say that this state is mathematically 0. In figure [waves], item G depicts an isolated column of gravitational waves departing isolated section D of electron shell A surrounding nucleus B. As we would expect from longitudinal waves, there are compressions and rarefactions. On looking closely and thinking carefully, however, we see that in the compressed section of the waves, the photoids point back to the electron, and are close together. In the rarefied section of the waves, the photoids still point back to the electron, and are further apart. Pointing at the electron shows their polarity, and their distance from each other represents their amplitude. The compressions and rarefactions of the wave are not represented by 5 and -5, but more properly by 15 and 5. They don’t oscillate through 0. In figures [stationary] and [Doppler], the x axis crosses the y axis at perhaps 10, and not 0. The interference implied by interactions of these waves would always be constructive.

Conversely, our exotic matter warp drive depicted in figure [craft inverted] would produce gravitational waves of an opposite polarity, as it is made of a shell of protons enclosing a nucleus of electrons, and the photoids in the longitudinal wave departing it would point away from it. If waves from an electron shell induce attractive motion between natural matter, it may just be that our exotic matter craft would have a naturally existing force field, inducing the motion of nearby ordinary matter away from it instead of towards it. This is all assuming that when comparing the gravitational waves from the negative shell of any typical atom to the waves from the positive shell of our imagined exotic matter prototype, one truly finds them opposite in polarity, and not just different.

Regarding time and measuring it, it can be reduced to little more than the counting of cycles of a cyclic event. That is usually done by a measuring device made of atoms. The shift of nuclei within their respective atoms could change the periodicity of those atoms. Per the hypothesis, a clock in a gravitational field and a clock moving at a fixed speed far from a gravity well both have the nuclei of their atoms off center in their respective electron shells. According to relativity, both also experience time dilation in the same direction. It could be that time moves slower for those two clocks specifically because of that shift in the nuclei of their atoms.

Though we can’t yet directly detect the aether, we can still infer it’s properties based on the behaviors of other objects. Protons, electrons, neutrons, and atoms are four different objects with different ways of interacting with the aether and thereby, each other. Yes, atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons, but when they combine to form an atom, they become a system, a new “thing” with new behaviors not necessarily similar to the underlying parts. The breakdown in the math between the macro scale and the quantum scale is because they are different phenomena, requiring different models.