Physicist Peter Morris seems to think so.
There is also deep seated allied physics information contained herein which you might care to consider along the way as well. Treat the presentation as a discussion.
As a Sub-quantum physicist I broadly agree with Morris, but for different reasons. Before you proceed I urge you to take notice of a recently held meeting of some of the worlds most highly acclaimed physicists. This was on the island of Heligoland in Europe in June 2025. The underlying theme of the get together was to discuss what does Quantum Mechanics theory in physics mean. This has been the mysterious case for a hundred years. Quantum Mechanics only makes predictions. All predictions, once tested, have proven to be correct. The short video above might assist you in your better understand the concepts and ideas that I am sharing with you today, and why. I am talking about what I see as being the probable existence of cosmic ether in the universe and the likely hood of the earth moving in respect to it. To this end I also suggest that you peruse the reference below. It is from Morris’s theory cited above. It might give you a bit better idea as to where Morris is coming from and why. Also make note of where he cites the physics theories of Dayton Miller. Morris and I are both considering the fundamental and entangled nature of cosmic reality. This asks if Einstein’s space time theory is the sole major property of the universe. There are other allied matters that I draw your attention to as well.
My position is as follows:-
I say the universe has the properties of cosmic ether comparable to an undetectable gas. I suggest that if you care to understand the phenomena of all inclusive ‘reality’ you should consider the following words. First employ the meaning of properties (make things tick) in physics, and then add the words influences and effects to it. An all encompassing definition of properties might then be “Properties refer to characteristics or attributes that describe local and non-local phenomena (like materialist and metaphysical). This is as they relate to, with time, information as it is pertinent to matter. This is as well as information that is, without time, ‘metaphysical’. They help us to understand how such attributes, and their allied influences, interact within the universe. An example of this is cosmic particles (tiny bits of matter) that can either be waves or particles”. You may assume that where I employ the word properties the influences and effects are entangled within it.
By connecting these three words this also means that then the single word, properties, becomes an accurate representation of holistic reality. I say it is an absolute reality. My position is that every unit of information entangled within the universe can be seen as being a single package of properties. Every influence and effect in the universe are representations of properties. Properties do not relate to individual ‘things’. They relate to the influences and effects of things. They represent never ending change within the universe which means the infinite creation of new properties, influences and effects is continually taking place within the universe. This means changes and movement of properties that are always within a perpetual continuum with each other within it. You might say that the universe is effervescent.
My position is that the properties of the universe are entangled with the properties of a separate cosmic ether that moves through the universe at the speed of gravity. This is ether-gravity that is weak, difficult to detect, and without the limitations of time. This ether is entangled with another without time platform that does not have the same properties as ether. It has its own and is without time. It could be seen as being the properties of ‘wider-reality’. Einstein’s space time theory is a property of the ether. It has time. They are entangled as if they are one. Space time is local, matter and movement properties related, and ether is non-local, and not. It is ‘metaphysical’.
Curvature of space is by means of the properties of mass and energy entangled within the properties of space time, which is a property of ether. This means that the properties thereof in space time influence small physical properties to be subsequently influenced by larger ones within its properties, this is regardless of size. These discussed properties are properties of ether. Within this entangled process they are drawn to each other, including by the properties of entangled non-locality. These properties are different to the properties of gravity. The properties of ether-gravity can be seen as being the common fingers and toes between all the influences and effects relating to ether. Quantum field theory represents the collective properties of ‘storage, distribution and movement’ within ether.
Albert Einstein said much the same thing when he said…
Copied quote: (Note: ME = my additions to the text)
“…Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether (ME, not a moving ether entangled with the property of gravity) According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light (ME, light is already entangled within the properties of ether) but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. (ME, it would because the properties of Einstein’s space time theory are entangled within the properties of ether ie are different fields within the basket of properties). But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.(ME, as follows, it can in self referential ether).”
All properties contained within this process are self referential. It is from these collective properties that the properties of matter emerge. In the first instance these include the fundamental particles of protons, neutrons and electrons. The properties of these are collectively amongst the foundation properties of the properties of space time, which in turn, are properties of ether. All properties entangled within ether, including those of ether, are self organising patterns and structures. These are as represented by the properties of ‘multi layered’ quantum fields.
It is as if these fields, represented by the properties of properties of the unified three key properties cited above, are not only aware of themselves but also what each others units of informational-properties are doing under any circumstance. The properties of waves and inherent intelligence of the overall system come into this equation. These words mean that ether is a dynamic process that is guided by gravity. This is conjunctionally with its ‘more minor’ entangled properties of radiation. In a broad sense this along the lines of Penrose’s theory .
In my opinion, what Morris and others like him, including me, are demonstrating is that the properties of the earth are moving forward in relationship to the properties of ether, not the commonly known properties of Einstein’s space time. This is at around 502 k/s. Whereas Morris’s theory is built upon Cahill’s ether model, I have developed my ideas around the phenomena of properties and their entangled relationship with causal influences and effects. Morris relies upon what he calls reality physics phenomena, this is rather than upon totally unproven or unreliable physics theories. I debate these issues along similar lines.
My approach to this phenomena is that the properties of the earth are travelling at 502 k /s through my description of the properties of a moving ether. The properties of ether are travelling at the speed of the properties of a weak universal gravity. This is as waves which are non-locally beyond the speed of light. The properties of ether are entangled with the properties of the wider universe (reality) which is at rest. This is also in relationship to the properties of the independent movement of the earth in space which is turning on its axis and orbiting around the sun. Albert Einstein seems to confirm this phenomena when he says…
Quote:
“….This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events…”
The predictions of collective Quantum Computer theories seem to validate these points. Lorentz transformation theory also seems to, as does Multi-Universe theory. Various experiments, including those using optical light speed anisotropy interferometers and zener diode quantum detectors also seem to support Morris’s findings, perhaps my Properties theory too? As you might note from Morris’s work, and others such as Cahill cited in the reference, Random Event Generators also do this. All these mechanical tests support Morris’s theory that the properties of the earth, travelling through the properties of ether, is at the rate of around 502 k/s. As stated, my view is that it is travelling through space via the properties of ether which is also entangling Einstein’ space time properties of the universe. Later you will find that in my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with Einsteins Relativity theories! It is mostly the reference frames of both models that differ.
What interests me in this debate is if Morris’ findings are correct why is it that Dayton Miller’s 1927 ether experiment findings continue to be set aside by main stream physics? Miller’s findings were published in Nature magazine in February 1934. If you are interested in this area of physics you will find his magazine submission here.
By way of back ground to this important issue, it seems to be scientifically pertinent at this time, that in 1887 two physicists, Michelson and Morley (MM) , conducted an experiment to determine if cosmic ether existed or not. This was in the basement of the Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio in the United States of America. Cleveland is slightly elevated above a nearby flood plane. It had long been assumed in science that there was ether. There were other related phenomena which they were testing as well. At the time it was determined by various physicists that the results of this ether experiment was inconclusive. MM employed apparatus was a self made interferometer which had two measuring arms, on an axis. This location is important. Shortly, I will explain to you why. Main stream physicists today mostly say that the result at the time was nul, not inconclusive. This means that there was no ether detected and this remains the case today.
Miller’s later interferometer apparatus was very similar to MM. Having read the literature Miller’s positioning of the apparatus was seemingly more modern and considered. This is in respect to its construction and operating properties. As I have indicated, the properties of their locations and on site positioning were different. Miller’s was on a mountain, not a basement, and he was atop it. The mountain, which is Mount Wilson in California, is 1740 meters high.
In this sense I say that Miller was probably in a better position to measure the earths motion in respect to the sun as well as gain more predictable and measurable temperature readings. I am talking about if the earth is being ‘dragged’ along by ether in space and at what rate, this is in respect to the wider atmospheric conditions at the time. There may have been other benefits as well.
From my perspective, these multitudinous numbers of properties variables (physicists refer to them as being questionably, hidden variables), it seems inevitable to me that Miller’s experimental findings were more reasonably correct than MM. This is that Miller seems to have confirmed that MM inconclusive experimental findings in 1887 had at least some greater merit than those originally determined in 1887, and the subsequent nul findings by other physicists around the time, lacked it. This is especially so as MM announced their conclusion as-follows:
“…Considering the motion of the earth in its orbit only the
observations show that the relative motion of the earth and the ether is
probably less than one-sixth the earth’s orbital velocity and certainly less
than one-fourth. That is, it is less than 71/2 kilometers per second…”
De Meo and others seem to agree with Miller’s findings, but not for all the above reasons. If you care to know more about Miller’s original experiment, and how he set it up, you will find it here. A major problem for Miller is that he could not explain to his peers exactly how it was that he could not explain how his findings were as different to MM as they were. This is the specific, all inclusive, properties related to his findings. At the time he could only speculate. It is only around these times today that physicists know otherwise. These include Morris and other physicists like him.
If my readers are interested in the physics history and physicists debates around those times, I will today present additional information as follows. I consider this history is the back drop to where present physics theories sit today. It is well recorded that there are many international disputes about it. In turn this seems to further highlight the significant degree of incompleteness of the Standard Model of Physics, not its over all credibility. It is widely respected and in my opinion should be seen as so! As I have implied it seems to me that the fundamental problems in contemporary physics is that it is continuing to try to set aside what I consider to be the dominate role of non-local (sub-quantum) phenomena in their theoretical modelling. This is in lieu of, for the want of a better description, strict materialism. I am saying that such physicists are trying to squeeze mechanical modelling into modelling that it will probably never fit into. This seems to be as reflected by the contemporary numerous interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. This also might be why certain attendees at the recent Heligoland conference made the negative comments about the current status of international physics.
As I understand from the debates, if Albert Einstein had modeled the properties of his Special and General Relativity theories upon the properties of Lorentz’s relativity theory the history of physics might have been quite different than it is today. Lorentz was a peer of Einstein, he released his own relativity model in Amsterdam in 1904. Einstein released his Special Relativity in 1905. Lorentz originally embodied ether as being at rest in his model. It seems that if Einstein had built his ideas upon certain properties of Lorentz’s original 1904 model (including ether at rest within it) he would never have had to take ether out of his theories in the first place. This is ether as it had been considered as being typically valid for many hundred of years.
If this is correct, both Einstein’s and Lorentz’s models would be more valid and workable, Lorentz’s less so. This is because it is more difficult to work with. This is as I referenced above. With these words in mind I draw your attention to a quotation from one of Lorentz’s writings around the time. I see it as supporting my ether related ideas at this time.
Quote
“…That we cannot speak about an absolute rest of the aether, is self-evident; this expression would not even make sense. When I say for the sake of brevity, that the aether would be at rest, then this only means that one part of this medium does not move against the other one and that all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies in relation to the aether…” (I italicised the text)
What Lorentz seems to me to be implying is that his concept that the properties of a stationary ether has at least one other entangled property; I say properties. He does not seem to be saying that both properties are rest. He seems to me to be suggesting that the properties of both do not move against each, nor does he say that they are not somehow entangled with each other. I see them both as being separate properties of influences and effects and as such different reference frames. The properties of the movement described are solely relative to that of the entangled property of ether within its designated, by us, reference frame. This is the properties of ether that can be reasonably described. If this interpretation is correct I suggest that the wider stationary properties of the universe (reality) , from which the properties of the ether emerged, is in accord with the cosmic debate that I am talking about at this time. This is that all properties, regardless of their characteristics, embody common influences and effects, not necessarily the immediate and actual inherent influences and effects thereof. It is these two primary influences and effects that are entangled with each other, including those that are non-local. They are all different reference frames and are perpetually changing. I say that this is in respect to the properties of the flow of gravity waves, entangled with radiation, throughout the properties of the ether. This means that the properties of the entangled properties arrangement can be moving at the same rate as ether. These include the properties of cosmic particles of matter. In my opinion Einstein seems to be confirming this position, this is where he talks about the mathematics pertinent to the subject…
Quote:
“…What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places (it moves and can vary in types), which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields (not so with ether) is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same…” This is a moving ether.
It is in this sense I feel that this relationship is like an entangled field of properties of actualities. This means realness, not just theories. I believe that such an arrangement can be supported by Euclidean geometry as if multi dimensional, space geometry. This is in lieu of the more commonly employed Minkowski geometry that is usually employed in Einstein’s space time theories.
What I find especially interesting in this discussion, and keep in mind what I said above about ether, is that in 1921 Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Robert Milliken and allegedly said, quote “… I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller [Dayton Miller] experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards …”. Source
Furthermore in in a letter that he wrote to his friend Edwin E. Slosson on the 8th of July 1925 he said “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.”
You might draw your own conclusions from these words. In my opinion what Einstein is saying is that if there is a cosmic ether his two Relativity models would not work. This is as he originally planned and described that they would in his earlier modellings.
As earlier stated the international physics community continues to debate many of the issues cited herein.
I will draw your attention to what I consider to be the most pertinent features of this presentation.
1. There seems to be sound evidence to suggest that the earth is being ‘dragged’ through space (I say ether) at 502 k/s
2. There appears to be significant anxiety within the international physics community. This seems to be in respect to community’s inability to soon being able to say that it has worked out the ‘ingredients’ of a theory of everything (GUT).
3. There seems to be a wide spread reluctance in the physics community to accept the notion that there is merit in publicly acknowledging that there is valid room for sub quantum (non-local) phenomena to be employed within their modelling theories. This includes saying that metaphysical phenomena is understandably real, and without it in physics does not make sense.
4. There seems to be sound reasons why physicists should seriously consider the importance of building a single, non-local, continuum upon which to build their physics modelling upon.
5. The existence and associated influences of ether in the universe is necessarily real and that Albert Einstein supports such a notion.
6. The existence of a universal reality-ether has been reasonably described and demonstrated.
7. The properties of universal reality-phenomena has been demonstrated and described.
8. Politics within the international physics community has never been helpful unto itself, or the wider interests of the community.
9. The usefulness of mechanical tools and instruments to help to explain the validity of ideas and theories contained herein have mostly been mechanically demonstrated and explained.
I acknowledge that, apart from Morris, I continue to identify with Cahill’s Process Physics model theories. I also acknowledge that a good deal of this presentation lacks suitable referencing. I apologise for this. I take the view that, at this time, my message is of greater importance to my readers. I may re write it one day.
Keep in mind that my words are those of a sub quantum (non local) physics theorist.
.Presented by John Raymond.
Please treat my words as being indicative. Also please respect my copy right privileges.
Reference
Evidence for Cahill’s dynamical space
Peter C. Morris
Adelaide, South Australia. May 19, 2017
(I do not fully understand it)
Quote:
“… Prof. Reg Cahill has reported [1] that Random Event Generator (REG) devices can detect passage of dynamical 3-space waves. Herein we describe an attempt to find addi-tional evidence for this discovery, using data from a REG located in Perth, Australia and from another in Manchester, U.K., for fifteen days centered on each full moon during a period of one year. For each day we applied correlation analysis to determine travel times for putative waves. Then wave speed and direction, over each 24 hour period, were determined by fitting to the observed travel times, theoretical curves of how travel times would vary with Earth rotation. We thereby derived an average incoming RA, declination, speed and associated standard deviations for the waves of each day. Following this we examined the directions and speeds to determine if they were consis- tent with a real physical phenomena, rather than being artifacts of random correlations. To this end we made use of probability density plots and other statistical techniques. On the way we recognized that wave orientation is not the same as 3-space flow direction and that it is the latter rather than the former which is of principle interest. Geometryimplies that variation of flow speed will cause the detected speeds of wave fronts mov-ing parallel to 3-space flow to have standard deviations than those moving across the flow. On this basis we preferentially selected the 50% of days with the largest speedstandard deviations as being the most likely proxies for space flow direction.
A probability density plot of directions for these days exhibited a peak near RA = 4.5 h, consistent with previous determinations of incoming 3-space flow direction by Cahill[3] and Dayton Miller [9]. Moreover, removing Earth orbital and gravitational in-flow velocities from the observed velocities allowed a peak of higher density to be obtained, which is consistent with what one would expect of a real physical phenom-ena.
The peak indicated a most probable galactic flow direction of RA = 4.14+0.83
−0.81 h,
dec = −77.8+2.7
−2.1 deg, and wave speed of 500+20
−10 km/s.
1 Introduction
In Prof. Reg Cahill’s theory of dynamical space [1], gravity is caused by acceleration of space into matter. The equations governing this process are nonlinear and nonlocal and predict fractal dynamical 3-spacewaves. These are a type of gravitational wave but differ from those predicted by General Relativity. Random Event Generator (REG) devices generate random numbers by detecting the quantum to classical transition of electrons tunnelling through a barrier in a tunnel diode. According to the standard inter-pretation of quantum theory the transitions should be completely random, however Cahill’s theory and experiments [1] suggest that this is not the case and that the transitions are driven by passage of dynam-ical 3-space waves (this is akin to my Properties-gravity and radiation arrangement). If so, then the random numbers output by different REG devices may not be 100% independent and correlation analysis of data from two spatially separated REG devices, approximately aligned with wave direction, should be able to reveal the travel time of waves that influence both devices. To test this possibility we obtained data from a Global Consciousness Project [5] REG located in Perth, Australia and from another in Manchester, U.K. as shown in Table 1 for fifteen days centered on each full moon for all days for which data was available, from 26 June 2012 to 30 June 2013. Of 195 potential days, complete data was available for 138…”
I emboldened the text