The nature of Gravity?

It's also something I conceived partly as a consequence of listening
to Josh "push-pull" Dawe - and I again remind you of my instruction
above.

We commonly consider gravity as being a property of matter, that there
is some sort of attractive force inherent in matter that is not
present in "empty space". How would the equations change if we
conceived of gravity as being some attractive force between space
itself?

"Well", you say, "that is absurd! Why are we attracted to the Earth,
then, and not outer space?"

The first thing to note is that there is space all around us, so we
would not be pulled in any particular direction.

Again you say, "that is absurd! We are *clearly* attracted to the
centre of the Earth!"

So let us assume that massive objects act somewhat like a "lens" for
space-gravity, and let us assume that this lens has a focal point.
What would we expect to see? A strong force at a close focal point?
Existing equations underestimating the strength of gravity at mid-
range, and overestimating it at long-range?

Bear in mind the big problems at the moment. Unifying a theory of
gravity. Explaining the apparent expansion of the universe. Explaining
why space probes haven't travelled as far out as expected.

Put that into your equations, Gentlemen, and then pay the nurse on the
way out.

No .. we commonly regard it as a property of spacetime. But matter has a
gravitational mass that (for reasons we don't fully understand) results in
the 'force' of gravity.

It certainly has the ability to affect other matter (directly or indirectly)

You mean like in general relativity .. where gravity is curvature of 'empty'
space ,and that curvature of space affects matter as it moves in it

You've pretty much described GR.

Matter displaces the aether and the aether is not at rest when
displaced. The aether pushes back. This is the aether pressure the
aether exerts towards the matter. The aether is displaced based on
mass per volume. The more massive an object is per volume, the less
aether it contains, the more aether it displaces. The aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

Inertia Best name to answer this in one word. Gravity is created by
acceleration. Faster and faster greater inertia,and inertia and
gravity are the same force.An accelerating inflating universe creates
gravity. TreBert

You really should not encourage him...

No. "We" do not consider gravitation to be a force.

How would we explain that accelerated charges produce radiation...
unless that acceleration was provided by the "force" of gravity?

We are not attracted to the Earth. The Earth is deflecting us from
following a force-free orbit around this center of mass. It would be
very elliptical.

Sounds like you want to study "Le Sage gravitation"...

> gravity at mid-range, and overestimating it
> at long-range?

No.

Unifying it with the quantum realm, which you do not address.

The explanation is already well understood, and was a feature GR form
the beginning. The cosmological constant was added to get a desired
rate of expansion.

I guess you are referring to Pioneer? Casinni had no such
mechanically induced sunward acceleration, and we were looking for it.

Take the sucker out of your mouth little boy.

David A. Smith

General Relativity is a theory of gravitation in which the attraction between
masses is due to their effect on the geometry of spacetime. Small objects in
freefall (i.e. under the influence of gravity only) follow geodesic paths in
spacetime, and large masses affect the geometry such that those geodesic paths
converge. The result is that a dropped rock falls to earth because the local
geometry makes its geodesic path do that (it does not fall when held, because
your hand exerts a force on it that makes it deviate from its natural geodesic
path).

Note that it is essential that time be included in the geometry of spacetime.

A non-mathematical introduction to GR:

Geroch, _General_Relativity_from_A_to_B_.

Tom Roberts

Well, it's more involved than that.
The force of gravitation is empirically related to the product of the
masses that experience the force, and so it clearly has something to
do with the masses.
It also has to do with the distribution of the masses. That is, if you
have two irregular chunks of matter, you can do a sum by
mathematically breaking up the irregular chunks into small, regular
pieces and adding up the interactions of the small, regular pieces in
a pairwise fashion, and this consistently and reliably gives the
correct answer for the force between the irregular chunks. So we know
that the force has to do with the amount of mass and exactly where
that mass sits. All this has been thoroughly tested in experiment --
thoroughly.

But what you are alluding to is not so different from GR, where the
statement is that how a piece of matter HERE behaves depends on the
distortion of space HERE due to another bit of mass (or energy) over
THERE. The statement is in fact quite a bit more precise than that --
to the point where quantitative predictions can be generated from the
precise statement, and those predictions turn out to be correct where
Newtonian physics turn out to be wrong. And this, after all, is how
theories are tested.

What does "unifying a theory of gravity" mean to you, other than
you've perceived that something like that is a problem.

This is already explained. Why do you think it is lacking an
explanation.

Does your guess make a *better* prediction about how far the space
probes should be expected to have traveled?

Geometry is a mathematical construct and not nature.

The geometry of space changes because aether is displaced by matter.

The river model of black holes
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

"....In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a
flat background, while objects move through the river according to the
rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of
space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity,
hitting the speed of light at the horizon. Inside the horizon, the
river flows inward faster than light, carrying everything with it...."

Note that equation (2) gives the inflow speed of the river at distance
r from a spherically symmetrical mass M as,

Sqrt[2 G M / r] where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant.

The above model is compatible with GR (and with Newton's Law of
gravity in regions where the speed is non-relativistic).

In contrast, the following tries to improve on GR and Newton's Law.

Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047

"....Gravitational anomalies such as the mine/borehole g anomaly, the
near-flatness of the spiral galaxy rotation-velocity curves, currently
interpreted as a `dark matter' effect, the absence of that effect in
ordinary elliptical galaxies, and the ongoing problems in accurately
determining Newton's gravitational constant G_N are explained by a
generalisation of the Newtonian theory of gravity to a fluid-flow
formalism with one new dimensionless constant. By analysing the
borehole data this constant is shown to be the fine structure constant
alpha = 1/137. The spiral galaxy `dark matter' effect and the globular
cluster `black hole' masses are then correctly predicted...."

Note that equation (6) gives the same inflow speed as equation (2) in
the first paper.

That is, both models predict the same inflow speed and gravitational
acceleration outside spherically symmetrical distributions of matter,
but the second model seems to make better predictions of gravitational
acceleration in spiral galaxies, mines/boreholes and some other
situations.

Sure. But, of course, all of our models of nature are mathematical. At least in
physics.

EVERYTHING you think you know about "nature" is actually knowledge about some
model of nature. Some of those models appear to be exceedingly good, but still,
the only thoughts about "nature" that your brain can process are models.

Hmmm. You keep making statements like this without providing any support for
them. That's not science, that is just making guesses and asserting that your
guesses are correct. The essence of science is TESTING one's guesses
experimentally; when you decide to do science you'll immediately learn that your
guesses are not consistent with experiments. Lots of people smarter than you
have already done this.

Tom Roberts

As long as you think mathematical models are nature you will continue
to believe in nonsense like QM.

Wave-particle duality is a wave and a particle. The wave behaves as a
wave does and propagates available paths and a particle travels as a
particle does and travels a single path.

No one said there weren't a lot smarter people than me attempting to
do this but no one prior to me figured out Aether Displacement.

Since you are math based and are unable to understand the difference
between mathematical constructs and nature you will never be able to
comprehend the nonsense which is QM. You think gravity is due to the
the geometry of space. It is ridiculous to think a mathematical
construct is the reason for gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

You missed Tom's point entirely. It isn't about who "understands" what
about nature. It's whether those understandings can be tested via
experiment. You keep trying to dodge having to do that, and keep
whining that physicists are never going to "get it" if they don't
"understand" that nature is this way or that way.

Saying gravity is due to the geometry of space is the same thing as
saying gravity is due to space being a triangle or square.

You are both missing my point entirely.

Saying gravity is due to the geometry of space is absurd.

Well no, not quite. :>)
Although it's quite fun that you think it's something as boneheaded as
that.

Of course, you cut before the point I was making. But what should I
expect from someone who doesn't know what a wave or what a particle
are.

You do understand waves propagate available paths and a particle
travels a single path in 'wave-particle duality' or did you also have
to redefined what a wave is and what a particle is in QM absurdity?

No .. acceleration is created by gravity. You can have gravitational force
between masses not accelerating

Whatever gives you the notion that I think anything at all like that???? OF
COURSE our models are not nature. But thinking about models of natural phenomena
is the closest our minds can ever get to nature.

Just because YOU do not understand it does not mean it is "nonsense". QM has
proven to be ESSENTIAL in modeling a very large portion of the world we inhabit.

> Wave-particle duality [...]

YOU write nonsense. But that is not QM, it is some silly and absurd concoction
of your own. You need to STUDY before attempting to write about things you
manifestly do not understand.

> no one prior to me has come up with Aether Displacement.

You merely indicate your ignorance of the literature. This was a common topic
ca. 1860-1900.

That is as close to science as "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and
gimbal in the wabe..."

I repeat: when you decide to do science you'll immediately learn that your
GUESSES are not consistent with experiments.

Yes. So why do YOU say such silly things? -- no modern theory of physics does
so, just you.

MODELING gravitation as the geometry of spaceTIME is something
else entirely....

Your head is so full of silly notions about modern physics that just about
everything you write is nonsense. Don't expect me to continue until you LEARN
something about the subject.

Tom Roberts

Not true, Tom. You start with what you see, feel, touch, taste and
hear; and THEN you measure things and try to relate the resulting
quantities to each other in an equation. Neither the equations nor the
quantities they model are anywhere near what our minds already knew by
direct sense-evidence of nature itself.

Yes, it is an essential component of your mathematical
model; even though you don't know what a quantum physically is.

Evidently you never heard of Heisenberg.

How about this, for pure science: "An electron is a brillig of
negative electric toves and electricity is a slithy of electrons
gimballing in a wire."

If your scientific MODELS were consistent with experiments, the US
Government would stop funding "pure research"!

Bullshit stinks even when called spaceTIME.

Good idea, Tom. Please shut up from now on....

dr g i l

Which are models constructed in your mind from the sensory inputs you
receive

Which is a model

Yes .. they are .. but the equations are more precise about the
relationships that exist in nature.

Redefined it from WHAT? What's your reference for what "wave" and
"particle" meant before QM?
Please don't make stuff up.

Link to a reference on Aether Displacement if it was so common.

And if you ever stop being a mathematician you will realize saying
gravity is due to the geometry of space is the same as saying gravity
is due to a triangle. It is meaningless. What you need to do, but are
incapable of, is understanding what causes the shape of space to
change based upon its connections with the matter in nature and that
cause is the aether is displaced by the matter.

Modeling anything as 'geometry' and thinking it actual reflects what
occurs physically in nature to cause gravity is more than silly, it is
absurd.

You can't learn if you cannot comprehend a difference between a
mathematical concept and nature.

Equations may model nature, but what occurs physically in nature has
nothing to do with equations or mathematical constructs.

Equations are not nature.

Mathematical constructs are not nature.

Geometry of space is a mathematical construct.

Therefore, geometry of space is not nature.

The aether displaced by matter in nature is the reason for the
geometry of space.

Take your mathematical equations to the next step or at least admit it
is not nature.

As far as I know, de Broglie was the first to define wave-particle
duality as any moving particle or object had an associated wave
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie).

This is exactly what is occurring in nature in a double slit
experiment. The 'particle' travels a single path and the associated
wave propagates available paths. When the associated wave exits the
slits it creates interference which alters the direction the
'particle' travels. Detecting the 'particle' causes decoherence of the
associated wave and there is no interference.

If you want to take de Broglie's definition to the next step in order
to understand what occurs physically in nature then a 'particle' has
an associated aether wave.

I am not, and have never been, a mathematician. I am a physicist; an
experimental high energy physicist specializing in computer simulations.

You REALLY need to learn how to read carefully and accurately. I have NEVER said
anything at all like that.

In GR, gravitation is MODELED as geometry. That is quite different from being
"due to" geometry.

[And it is not "geometry of space" that is involved.]

> Modeling anything as 'geometry' and thinking it actual [...]

That's the same error -- learn how to read what people write instead of reading
your own mistakes into other peoples' words. I have never said anything at all
about "thinking the model is actual". What I have said is: models are all that
we humans have. Due to the way our minds work, we will never have direct
knowledge of the world we inhabit; all we can do is model it more accurately
over wider domains, and test those models experimentally. This is called
science. You should learn about it and try it.

[Don't expect me to continue until you LEARN something.]

Tom Roberts

Did you notice the title to this thread? The title is not 'The
mathematical model of Gravity'. The title is 'The nature of Gravity'.

Nature, as in what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity to
exist.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether's displacement is at every place determined by
connections with the matter.

What else could Einstein have meant by the 'state of the [ether] is at
every place determined by connections with matter'?

And if your answer is you don't know, that doesn't make my answer
incorrect.

The aether is displaced by matter. The aether pushes back. The pushing
back is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter.

If there is no pushing back then there is no aether and as Einstein
says, according to GR, space without aether is unthinkable.

So, there is aether, it is displaced by matter, and it pushes back.

The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.

Either explain what you think Einstein means by the 'state of the
[ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter'
or go back to playing with your models.

I have a friend who is an experimental high energy cook. He microwaved
some eggs once, they went into orbit when the shells broke.

About 2 decades ago I knew from the literature re a microwave that
one should never try to cook anything inside its own shell. so I broke
open two eggs, poured them into a bowl without the shells and put that
into
a microwave to cook. BAM SPLATTER anyway.
Decided that Maybe the yokes have to be broken too, before
microwaving them. Never tried it out though.
Anyone willing to try?

glird

Did you put them in a small amount of water?

:>)
You just keep telling yourself that, so you don't have to do real
physics.

It's apparent that as far as you know, you don't know much at all.
If you want to learn what wave-particle duality means, then either
spend some time reading decent material other than wikipedia, or ask a
physicist.
Making stuff up as you go along is not the solution.

You mean real physics like this:

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

Where the 'particle' travels a single path and the wave propagates
available paths?

Are you saying Louis de Broglie did not practice real physics?

Are you saying Louis de Broglie did not derive the mathematics for a
'particle' traveling a single path and for the wave to propagate
available paths?

I am saying what de Broglie said:

Editor's note: "But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the frst lines
of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable
physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave-
functions."

de Broglie:

"I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and
particles."

"In my view, the wave is a physical one..."

Are you unable to understand the concept of a physical wave?

Just keep reading MPC. Eventually you'll learn something. Not yet, but
there's still hope.

de Broglie:

"A moving particle or object had an associated wave."

What part of 'physical wave' are you unable to understand?

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant,
forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which
may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

Are you not able to understand the 'particle' as a 'moving
singularity'?

It is obvious you are not interested in reading or learning, because
if you did, you might have learned something from:

"I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and
particles."

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant,

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."

As, I said, MPC, if you want to understand "wave-particle duality",
then it's useful to ask a physicist, rather than just reading
something and making up in your own head, "So THAT'S what wave-
particle duality must mean!"

So, you're saying de Broglie is not a physicist?

de Broglie:

"Any moving particle or object had an associated wave."

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant,

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the

Which of the above de Broglie quotes is incorrect?

Not at all. He just wasn't privy to all the experimental evidence that
has been accumulated after he wrote this.

Moreover, you'll note that "wave-particle duality" is nowhere
mentioned in what you're reading by de Broglie. I see that you saw the
words "wave" and "particle" and concluded that this must be what wave-
particle duality means, even though the term was invented after this.

de Broglie stated, any moving particle or object had an associated wave.

If there is an experiment where this definition of nature does not
explain what occurs physically in nature, I would be interested in
knowing what that experiment is.

As for double slit, quantum eraser, delayed choice, and any experiental
behaviors described as which-way or erasing which-way, all you have to
do in order to understand what is physically occurring in nature in such
an experiment is the 'particle' travels a single path and the associate
wave propgates available paths.

And this was not quite right.

Regardless, the statement doesn't have anything to do with particle-
wave duality.

There are lots.

Nope, that isn't ALL you have to do. You have to demonstrate with that
model that the particle lands where you think it's going to land. With
derivations and calculated predictions. THAT is all you have to do,
and you haven't done it.

Name one.

I did. Pay attention. Please use something better than Wiki to look
them up.

No need to use anything 'better' than Wiki to understand the absurdity
of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

Let's back up a second and look at:

Casimir Effect:

You choose to believe virtual particles exist out of nothing.

In AD, the pressure associated with the aether displaced by the metal
plates forces the plates together.

Vacuum polarization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization

"Rather, it contains short-lived "virtual" particle-antiparticle pairs
which are created out of the vacuum and then annihilate each other."

More 'virtual' nonsense from those unable to understand nature.

A more realistic understanding is simply 'particles' with opposite
momentums cancel each other out. The opposite momentums could possibly
be opposite directed/pointed waves or possibly objects with opposite
spins.

Stark effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

"The Stark effect is the shifting and splitting of spectral lines of
atoms and molecules due to the presence of an external static electric
field."

Just a simple case of the direction the atom or molecule travels being
altered by the aether vortex.

Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon:

'Life of a Muon: The g-2 Experiment'
http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/physics/index.html

"Muons are tiny magnets spinning on axis like tops."
"Muons are fed into a uniform doughnut-shaped magnetic field and
travel in a circle."

So, we have small aether vortexes being fed into a larger aether
vortex. Ho hum, this stuff is so easy to understand its getting
boring. Maybe I should start believing in the absurdity of the
Copenhagen interpretation of QM, at least that way I can act all
superior like the rest of the Copenhageners do.

It is simply absurd to use concepts like the future determining the
past and virtual particles to 'disprove' de Broglie's understanding of
wave-particle duality.

Virtual = magic.

Virtual = absurd.

Future determines the past = absurd.

If the Copenhagen interpretation of QM wants to be absurd that's fine,
but to think the concepts of the future determining the past and a
virtual anything can be used to 'disprove' de Broglie's understanding
of wave-particle duality as a particle travels a single path and waves
propagate available paths is beyond absurd.

It's not acting superior to ask you to do the same for AD that all
physicists must do for their theories. Expecting you to do no less
should be something you would embrace.

But it's plain that you'd rather waste time here foaming and
blathering. You know what you have to do, but you don't want to do it.
I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
You're not getting anywhere.

de Broglie did the derivations for a physical particle and a physical
wave but the Copenhagen absurdity 'disproved' it by making up nonsense
like the future determines the past, 'virtual particles' that pop into
existence from nothing, and the sum of all histories.

It is obvious the Copenhagen interpretation of QM never stopped and
reflected on the absurdity it had created.

In AD, as Einstein stated, space without aether is unthinkable and the
only property I have had to ascribe to the aether is that it not be at
rest when displaced, because if it were, then there would be no
aether. So, my ascribing the property of not being at rest when
displaced must exist in order for there to be aether.

Everything else follows from this must exist property of the aether.
Gravity. A particle traveling a single path and the associated wave
propagating available paths, and so on.

I am not getting anywhere with your belief in the absurd.

Really? Cite a few. References, please.

Then why do you persist trying, using the same old stuff? You know
what you have to do. Do it, or waste time -- your choice.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -

"Conclusion
Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics
interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical
extension. I think that when this interpretation is further
elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects,
it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of
waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives
statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."

In AD, Wave mechanics is elaborated, extended, and modified in theory
as a moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave.

Not a single quantitative prediction about measurable observables of
C-60 molecules or double slits in there. I asked you to cite a few
derivations. You haven't done it. You DO know what I'm asking for,
right?

Just continuing to waste time, then?

>
>

Don't remember; but i bet I didn't. Probably would work, though.

The future does not determine the past. 'Virtual' particles only pop
into existence in your mind. The sum over all histories is nothing but
absurdity. You DO realize you have no understanding of nature, right?

'Bohmian Mechanics'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

'The Two-Slit Experiment'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#2s

'Objections'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o

"Bohmian mechanics requires the addition to quantum theory of a
mysterious pilot wave."

That object no longer exists in AD.

Still no quantitative predictions of measurable observables? You DO

> You DO realize you have no understanding of nature, right?

Still believe the future determines the past, 'virtual' particles pop
into existence out of nothing, and priorities are due to the sum over
available histories? You DO know what I'm asking for, right?

The "next step" is to define the words the symbols in your equations
quantify, so you can UNDERSTAND what the equations say about the
nature of the real world.

glird

Some questions about the logic of your model:
1. If the aether is compressible, why does it have to remain at rest
after it is displaced?
2. Unless the aether has another property, i.e. weight,
why would its motion cause a change in the state of motion of anything
it hit?
3. If its motion causes gravitational force to exist in a
on a given object, say a 10 ft square metal place high in the sky, why
does the g-force continue to exist in smaller and smaller plates on
the way to the ground?
4. Are you suggesting that the atoms of such plates are so small that
their multiBILLION presence per cc per plate has no affect on the
motion of the weightless aether?

glird

The whole point of Aether Displacement is the aether is not at rest
when displaced. It pushes back. The pushing back is the pressure the
aether exerts towards the matter. The aether pressure associated with
the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

Aether is uncompressed matter and as such has mass. If an aether wave
exits the slits and creates interference it will alter the direction a
'particle' travels just like the bow wave a boat makes will knock the
boat in a different direction depending upon how it interacts with the
boat upon exiting the slits.

In AD, the interference creates by the aether waves exiting the slits
is physical.

It's motion does not cause gravitational force. The aether's
displacement causes gravitation force. See above.

Not sure what you are getting at in terms of smaller and smaller
plates?

Aether is not weightless. Aether has mass.

> glird

Let me try and clarify this. It is not so much the aether wave
'hitting' the particle. I use 'hitting' in the analogy of the boat and
its bow wave to represent the fact it is the water which causes the
boat to change direction, not the boat itself.

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case

When the aether wave exits the slits and creates interference, the
interference 'acts upon the particle', causing the particle to change
direction.

Haha! Of course it works!

It's quite unbelievable that people here should not know how to boil a
bloody egg in the microwave!

In case I am completely missing the point on this one, let me give it
another shot. If you are referring to the aether 'after' it has been
displaced by the Earth as the Earth continues on in its orbit, then
this aether is still being displaced by the Sun, and 'after' the Sun
continues on moving through the Milky Way, the aether is displaced by
the Milky Way.

I consider aether to be displaced similar to the following:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
potentials"

Now, if you are suggesting why can't the aether be in motion even
though it is no longer displaced by the Earth, I'm really not
interested in even trying to convey the idea of motion to the aether
and am just sticking with its state of displacement for now.

If I can get the idea of Aether Displacement across as the reason for
gravity and a moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave, I have
accomplished more than enough.

I also don't want to set an incorrect precedent.

It seems obvious to me the aether is displaced by matter and the
aether is not at rest when displaced. With this you get gravity.

With an aether displaced by matter you get a moving 'particle' has an
associated aether wave.

With AD as the most correct concept, to date, for gravity and observed
behaviors in a double slit experiment, AD is a unified theory.