Reactive Substrate Theory Review: Special Relativity and the Michelson–Morley Experiment

Reactive Substrate Theory Core Equation

(∂2tS − c2∇2S + βS3) = σ(x, t) · FR(C[Ψ])

Explanation: This equation models the continuous elastic substrate S. The left-hand side represents substrate dynamics (time evolution, wave propagation, and nonlinear self-interaction), while the right-hand side represents matter solitons σ(x,t) and informational coupling FR(C[Ψ]).

RST Review: Special Relativity and the Michelson–Morley Experiment

The video “Special Relativity 1: Michelson–Morley Experiment” explains how the famous interferometer test sought to detect an ether wind but found none. From the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) perspective, this null result is not a paradox but a confirmation: the substrate is a non‑material, elastic medium that supports light without drag.

Why Ether Wind Was Never Detected

  • No drag: The substrate transmits shear waves without resisting matter, so motion through it produces no measurable “wind.”
  • Elastic Lorentz symmetry: Contraction and dilation are elastic conservation laws of the substrate, ensuring isotropy of c.
  • Unified medium: Both matter and light are excitations of the same substrate; relative motion is encoded in tension/phase transformations, not fluid flow past objects.

RST Interpretation of Light and Matter

Aspect Classical Ether View RST Perspective
Light Wave in a particulate ether, subject to wind Transverse shear wave in substrate; speed c set by tension
Matter Separate particles moving through ether Solitons (σ): stable knots of substrate tension
Relativity Requires ad hoc transformations to explain null results Emerges naturally from substrate elasticity; invariance is a physical property of S

Experiment Outcome in RST

The Michelson–Morley null result is expected in RST: the substrate is non‑dragging, so ether wind signatures cannot appear. Instead, relativity emerges as the elastic law of the medium, unifying matter, light, and motion.

👉 In short: RST reframes the Michelson–Morley experiment as proof that space is not empty but a continuous elastic Substrate Field (S). Null results confirm its non‑dragging nature and show that relativity is the natural consequence of substrate elasticity.

Popular posts from this blog

Conceptual Summary #2: (∂t2​S−c2∇2S+βS3)=σ(x,t)⋅FR​(C[Ψ])

Image
The tests designed to find the Aether—principally the Michelson-Morley experiment (M-M)—would be largely ineffective at detecting the fundamental S field (Substrate) in the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) framework, though their null results are highly compatible with RST's structure. The reason lies in the distinct conceptual definition and behavior of the two media. The Test: Michelson-Morley and the Aether. The M-M experiment was designed to detect the "aether wind," a predicted change in the speed of light caused by the Earth's motion relative to a stationary, rigid medium—the classical Luminiferous Aether. Classical Aether: A static, absolute reference frame; an elastic, passive, material-like medium that fills space and serves as a carrier for light waves. Predicted Result: Light traveling parallel to Earth's motion through the Aether should be slightly slower than light traveling perpendicular to it. Actual Result (Null Result): No significant differenc...
Read more

The Non-Attraction Model of Gravity: From Attraction to Displacement: RST's Theory of Gravitational Push..

Image
Brief on the Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) RST posits that all of reality—matter, energy, space, and time—emerges from a single, continuous, non-material field called the Substrate (S). Matter: Defined as a σ Soliton, a stable, localized "knot of tension" in the S-field, replacing the concept of a point particle. Energy: Defined as dynamic, propagating tension (waves) in the S-field. Unification: RST views E=mc2 as the conservation of Substrate tension: mass is stored tension; energy is tension in motion. Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) fundamentally redefines gravity as a Substrate tension gradient, which is the mechanism underlying the "buoyant" view of gravity. This explanation also clarifies why the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment failed to find the classical Aether, supporting the RST concept of a dynamic Substrate. In essence, gravity is "buoyant" in RST because matter (high tension) sinks into a less-strained S-Field (lower tension...
Read more

Beyond the Flaws: Why RST Succeeds Where Push Gravity and EM-Aether Failed to Unify the Void

Image
RST vs. Extended Electromagnetic Theories (Pre-Relativity) These theories attempted to unify all forces by making gravity a secondary or residual effect of electromagnetism, treating space as an electromagnetic Aether. Why Extended EM Theories Failed Gravity's Independence: The most critical failure is that gravity does not behave like a polarizable electromagnetic force. Gravity affects all matter equally (the equivalence principle), regardless of its charge or composition, which a secondary electromagnetic effect would not do. No Gravitational Shielding: Electromagnetic fields can be shielded (Faraday cage), but gravity cannot.1 This fundamentally contradicts the idea that gravity is an electrical or magnetic residual force. Conflict with GR: They could not accurately predict or explain phenomena later verified by General Relativity (GR), such as the exact amount of light bending around the Sun or the precession of Mercury's orbit. RST vs. Le Sage's The...
Read more