Why Reactive Substrate Theory Rejects “Ether Wind” Detection (Response to Khan Academy)

Why RST Rejects “Ether Wind” Detection (Response to Khan Academy)

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) rejects the notion of detecting an “ether wind” because the medium is not a drag-inducing fluid. RST models space as a continuous, elastic Substrate Field (S) that supports shear waves (light) while preserving local isotropy of c for all inertial observers.

Core reasons: no wind in a non-dragging substrate

  • No drag: The substrate transmits waves without resisting matter, so motion through S does not produce a measurable headwind.
  • Elastic Lorentz symmetry: Length contraction and time dilation emerge from substrate elasticity, making c isotropic in local tests.
  • Global vs local: A cosmological baseline tension may exist, but it does not manifest as first-order anisotropy in laboratory light-speed measurements.
  • Unified medium: Both light and matter are substrate excitations; relative motion is encoded in phase/tension, not fluid flow past objects.

Implications for classic “ether wind” experiments

Test Idea Expectation (Draggy Ether) RST Outcome
Michelson–Morley interferometer Directional fringe shift (ether wind) Null: isotropy preserved by substrate elasticity
Directional Doppler/clock anisotropy Speed-dependent light propagation differences Null: time/length adjustments absorb anisotropy
Sagnac/rotation tests Evidence of ether flow Non-null from rotation/kinematics, not a wind of S

RST’s constructive alternative

Light’s speed arises from substrate tension and effective elasticity, making c a material property of S rather than a mere postulate. Relativistic invariance is an emergent elastic law, and “ether wind” detection attempts fail because they assume a particulate or viscous medium that RST explicitly rejects.

👉 In short: RST agrees that local experiments find no ether wind—by design. The substrate is non-dragging, elastic, and unifies matter and light as field excitations, so “wind” signatures are not expected and null results are a confirmation of the substrate’s true nature.

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