Somethings for you to consider in respect to Einstein’s two relativity theories

An informational search-and-find task for adventurous physics thinkers

Also see

You will need to do most of the heavy lifting with respect to the information that I am providing for you today. I am merely providing you with scientific clues for you to ponder about and draw your own conclusions.

  1. I ask you to consider this question. Was the 1887 Michelson and Morley (M and M) ether experiment a nul result or not? Conservative physicists say it was, and more open-minded (liberal thinking) physicists say it was not. These latter scientists say the results were inconclusive. Entrenched attitudes by both sides of this physics argument divide remain unto this day. There is extensive material to be found on line if you want to follow the happenings relating to this debate from 1920 onwards. Keep in mind that the merits or otherwise of Einstein’s Special Relativity theory at that time hinged upon whether the M and M results were nul or not!
  1. Also consider this. In 1926, and for a period of around three years the highly acclaimed American physicists Dayton Miller demonstrated that it was likely that the original Michelson and Morley experimental results were not nul. He showed from extensive measuring methods over the period, and with more sophisticated measuring equipment that M and M had in 1887, that the earth was moving through ‘something’ that might be likened to the ether that M and M were looking for in 1887. However, Miller’s new results were dismissed by his peers because they found a minor flaw in his mathematics (that he duly adjusted). Also, Miller could not fully explain what was happening for him to record the types of results that he did. There is extensive on line material about this debate.
  1. I believe that the following contemporary physics results also need to be considered by you with respect to the possible existence of some type of ether in the universe or not. In contemporary times it has been scientifically demonstrated that the earth is moving through ‘something’ at the rate of 502 k/ms per second. Random Event Generator devices have measured this speed of travel of the earth. These findings have been confirmed by other means as well such as those devised by Cahill and his associates. Importantly, these contemporary readings confirm those determined by Dayton Miller as discussed above. For example see the paper ‘Perth-Muenster REG-REG Correlations: Remarkable New Evidence for Dynamical Space’ presented by Morris and the associated mathematical results therefrom entitled ‘Estimating 3-Space Velocity from REG-REG Correlations’ also posted by Morris. Both of these informational results were determined by means of the cited international Random Event Generator devices.
  1. I feel that you should also consider the little known physics lecture delivered by Einstein in Berlin in 1920 entitled Ether and the Theory of Relativity with respect to the existence of ‘something’ in space that Einstein refers to as ‘ether’. If you read this paper you will note that Einstein says that without an ether theory his theory of General Relativity would not work (especially see the last summarising paragraph). Einstein also said on two subsequent occasions later in his career that:-


(both from the same source)

A. “..My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory. — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925”

B. “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error (they weren’t). Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)” ((I italicised)

If this is the case then perhaps we should consider if ether must be a key component of Einstein’s General Relativity model. If so, then why does Einstein’s Special Relativity theory depend on there being no ether for it to work? Can the universe have both some sort of ether and no ether at the same time? Do you think that there might be some form of contradiction of Einstein theories here?

I hope that my few words today might have contributed towards you further developing your own ideas about how ‘things’ might come together and work in the manner that they do in the wider universe around us. It is important for you to know that both of Einstein’s relativity theories are NOT altogether wrong. I understand from my readings that a (dynamic) common ether like reference frame between both of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity models would ‘fix’ the alleged physics dilemma that I have asked you to consider.

John Raymond


Remarkable evidence that non-locality in physics is real

Why recent physics experiments with respect to non-locality are likely to change the nature and style of scientific research forever

Also see

These two experiments demonstrate that all “things” in the universe act in a coordinated way even though no force passes through the space between them. These words strongly imply that the universe is aware of itself and furthermore the conditions at the time of the Big Bang were without time and non-local as well.

Link to the story

A contribution to the Australian bipolar mental health debate

I have learned that this medical condition is still questioned by some members of the mental health community. This also includes the general public

Also see

I present informational excerpts from the literature. This may assist readers to obtain clearer and more informed understanding of what bipolar and similar neurological mental health disorders. This includes how easy it is for these disorders to be misdiagnosed by mental health practitioners.

I notice that this document was never posted. It is a draft that was never completed. I believe that the contents are self explanatory and meaningful. I apologize for the shortcomings you will find in this presentation.

The link to the story

A look at our universe that perhaps can be best described as being in a perpetual state of change and decay

I briefly discuss this topic in relation to clock time and what the natural order of the universe might be

Also see

All ‘things’ and associated events in the universe are subject to the process of change. Material things and events both change and decay. In both instances they change without time, because clocks change and decay too. * Thoughts, patterns of thoughts, intuition and alleged clairvoyance are everyday examples of phenomena without time. Protons in light have no rest energy (mass) and so they can also be seen to be without time (travel for ever) unless they somehow interact with ‘something’ along the way.

These words imply that all change and decay of things and events (all objects and associated influences and effects such as cutting and slicing an apple) in the universe are somehow related to some type of ‘hidden’ laws within it. By this I mean that the universe does have predictable ‘order’ within it and this is despite that all things and events are interacting with each other in ever-differing averages, densities and ratios with each other. This is in respect to not only each other but also the universe itself as a single reference frame. I suggest by this that the biggest objects (like Galaxies) and ‘bundles’ of various energy types in the universe seem to mostly get along quite well with the smallest objects in the universe such as quantum particles.

Because clocks are perpetually changing and decaying too this means that these differing averages, densities and ratios cannot be accurately observed or measured by an observer. This includes attempting to measure the speed of light with such clocks because of the process of change and decay with them as well. This is an implicit (mysterious) observable scientific paradox in science. This scientific paradox is further complicated (reduced to being chaotic) by the ever-changing condition of the universe wherein energy types and their associated, influences and effects are forever changing as well. It also should be kept in mind with these universal changes that observers similarly change and decay within the reference frame (system) of the universe too. These words then question as to how accurate can a changing and decaying observer, employing a changing and decaying clock accurately observe and measure changing and decaying things and events in the universe. I suggest that the best they can do so is to randomly do so as best they can.

I see this difficulty as being a significant failing in contemporary scientific research and discovery

In other words there appears to be no reliable mechanical mechanism that can indefinitely measure the process of decay and change of things and events in the universe unless the universe has a determinable (by clocks) some sort of end time. Unless scientists can determine a specific end time (a time reference frame) for the universe then this seems to raise a difficult question. which is:- what type of reference frame are all things and events in the universe changing and decaying in relationship to except to each other? You cannot successfully observe, analyze and count a two hundred-liter barrel containing hundreds of different types of small swimming fish let alone with no barrel at all.

Furthermore if a single proton is capable of traveling forever (unless it ‘hits’ something in its journey) then this suggests to me that the universe might simply be a without time, non-materialistic, nothing reference frame. In other words I am implying that nothing except perhaps an indeterminable (like the hidden rules of nature) stochastic** neural network type of ‘nothing’ reference frame that we could never observe and measure in the first place. This is although it might be mathematically demonstrated to be otherwise.

Could this nothing, however, be aware of itself as well as all things and events taking place within itself in this course of events in this process and does not need mechanical devices such as clocks in order to do so? I believe that this is the case.

*This notion of decay/change can be mathematically demonstrated by means of employing entropy theory in physics. Entropy theory in science explains Quote: “… the lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder…”) Source

** ** Quote: “…Having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely…” (ex Wikipedia).

John Raymond
10th April 2019