(Pertinent History & Comprehensive Version of Gravity Theory)

by Lew Price



(Historia Pertinente & Versao Compreensiva da Teoria de Gravidade)

(Portuguese Translation by Marcelo Moreira Jr.)

Copyright (C) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
by Lew Paxton Price and Herbert Martin Gibson
Facts do not cease because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley

Back - Main Menu

Back to Lorentz Factor Derivation

Back to The Expanding Universe, Quasars, and the K Effect

Back to Photons and Red Shift

Back to What is Gravity

Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7

Subject Index - Appendix

From the 17th century to the present, two views of the nature of light have been offered: (1) light travels as a wave through a medium which pervades all of space, and (2) light is the result of particulate packages moving through a vacuum. Proponents of each of these opposing views have not yet been able to establish their theories firmly enough to completely eclipse the arguments of the other side.

Unfortunately, subjectivity in physics has long outweighed objectivity and prevented truth from being known whenever truth tends to upset the status quo. Today, there is a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED) which champions the particulate theory of light and seems to be generally accepted. However, QED creates enough questions to be easily set aside at a future date when the facts about wave theory and their suppression become known to the public. Fortunately, the internet is a means of providing information which the editors of most science magazines and journals prefer to ignore.

The Early Years

In 1768, Christian Huygens published a treatise on light which laid the foundation for what would eventually be called the undulatory wave theory. Although Huygens' work was well founded and explained, Isaac Newton made no attempt to address the questions raised by Huygens, choosing to ignore him entirely. As is usually the case, the theory proposed by the man with the big reputation eclipsed the other and Huygens' superior theory was discarded by the majority.

A century later, Thomas Young revived Huygens' theory, accepting the idea of an elastic ether pervading all of space. Between 1814 and 1826, Augustin Jean Fresnel, working along the same lines, established the undulatory wave theory of light. At this time, ether was supposed to be a stationary medium through which the planets moved, and matter was what it appeared to be, something made of "solid" particles.

Fresnel and Dominique-Francois Jean Arago, building upon the work of Thomas Young, made experiments involving polarized light that have not been refuted even in this age in which light is generally considered to be a corpuscular phenomenon.

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) established the theory that light is akin to electricity, indicating that periodic changes in an electrical field might cause a periodicity in space or an electric wave. The same logic can be used to show that a periodic magnetic field may cause magnetic waves. So, Maxwell's theory ultimately showed that electric and magnetic fields move together to produce waves.

In 1845, Michael Faraday discovered that polarized light passing through a magnetic field rotated slightly. It was known that magnetism could be produced by electricity and vice-versa. So Faraday's work was added to the evidence indicating that light and electricity are entangled. Heinrich R. Hertz produced electromagnetic waves of much longer wavelengths than light, and showed that they conform to the same rules, thus adding to the work of Maxwell and Faraday. Electrons, the producers of light, were discovered, and Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928) developed and expounded upon electron theory which assumed that electrons were to be found in all atoms.


Page 1

Main Menu

Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7

Subject Index - Appendix

In 1887, Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward William Morley published the results of an experiment which was the successor to a similar experiment which Michelson had performed in 1881. The purpose of the two experiments was to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether. It was supposed that light would travel at different velocities, according to the direction of movement of the earth's surface relative to the ether. A light beam, split to go in two directions at ninety degrees to one another, converged after taking paths of equal distance. When the beams converged they interfered with one another. By rotating the apparatus, a maximum interference was found which showed the difference in the velocities between the two parts of the split beam, and thus showed the presence of ether.

The difference between the light velocities was used to calculate an ether velocity relative to the earth's surface. However, the relative ether velocity that they found was much lower than anticipated. Through the years that followed, similar experiments were performed with much greater accuracy. The last was in 1932 (see Volume 7, Issue 38 of Infinite Energy Magazine, Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments - A Fresh Look by James DeMeo). In the most detailed experiments, a seasonally consistent low relative velocity was found. But rather than acknowledging the results of the experiments and moving on with the information provided, the lower relative ether velocity was considered a flaw in the experiment. The proponents of corpuscular theory later asserted that these experiments had found no relative ether velocity whatsoever, and the myth they started became dogma. Today, we know that the lower ether velocity was in accord with a particular quality of the ether which was not known at that time (see Why).

In 1905, Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity. There are several versions of why Einstein proposed relativity. Each faction has its own version tailored to its own agenda. Einstein's theory became used as an alternative to ether and the proponents of corpuscular theory grasped it as an anchor for their side. Einstein was a figure who looked like everyone's conception of the humble scientific genius, and relativity quickly became popular with both the scientific community and the public.

An experiment was performed in 1914 by Sagnac in which a light beam was split into two parts. One part moved along a path which was square in shape. The other part moved along the same path but in the opposite direction. The apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened. Furthermore, there was no strangeness in the magnitude of relative ether velocity. All was as it should have been. Other similar experiments followed which also proved the existence of the ether. There were no discrepancies between theory and results as had been the case with the Michelson-Morley type of experiment.

Unfortunately, relativity by this time was considered to be correct and many reputations (and egos) could be damaged by the disclosure of the existence of an ether. So the Sagnac experiment was suppressed as were all similar subsequent experiments. Einstein ignored Sagnac and his work.

Today, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic flights, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly. For more details, see two articles in Volume 7, Issue 39, of Infinite Energy Magazine, one by A. G. Kelly, and the other by the Correas.

In 1900, Max Planck discovered his constant. At first glance, this appears to be an argument in favor of a corpuscular theory for light. In a sense, it is. However, when examined in the proper light and understood for what it is, it does not favor quantum electrodynamics (QED) as a theory for particulate photons, but rather favors a wave theory in which the passage of one wave is what delivers a "quantum".


Page 1 - Page 2

Main Menu

Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7

Subject Index - Appendix

By 1925, it was apparent that electrons have "spin". Spin was first considered a major discrepancy in electron theory. It has since been called "angular momentum" and "spin angular momentum". However, in fact, the product of true angular momentum and anything else which one chooses to insert, will result in a quality that remains as if it were angular momentum. So we have a term today which is not really angular momentum, but which contains something which acts like angular momentum.

During the span between 1887 and 1925, the idea that there could be no ether became so deeply entrenched that the discovery of spin was considered something which one could overlook by somehow patching up the currently accepted theory. But, in reality, the problem introduced by spin was another clue to the existence of ether.

Electron spin is an innate quality. It is as if the electron were spinning like a gyroscope at all times. This spin is apparently the same for all electrons and does not cease, decrease, nor increase regardless of the traumatic experiences of electrons. This innate nature implies an energy source for electron spin. Although an energy source was proposed to explain it, the explanation of that source is long, tedious, complicated, and without any real proof. In a sense, it might have some validity as a consequence of the true principle behind electron spin, rather than a cause of it.

The presence of what is presented as spin indicates that the electron is a particle with an independent source of energy and, therefore, does not comform in the usual sense to two very basic laws of physics: Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy. The controversy introduced by the discovery of spin continued for some time with various bandaids added to a supposed explanation. Then it seems to have been swept under the rug as an embarrassment to physics.

As an alternative to spin as currently presented, I propose that the electron energy source is due to the electron being a vortex rather than a particle. A vortex, such as a whirlwind, tornado, waterspout, hurricane, or whirlpool, has its own energy source in the form of a relative vacuum at its center and the pressure within the medium of which it is composed. The key is the medium of which it is composed. Could it be composed of the ether in a dynamic form?

Einstein's work, from before 1905 when his special theory was published, and up till the time of his death, involved tensor analysis of the substance of space to define light as a wave form, which means that he was attempting to use some medium in space as opposed to space as a vacuum. Several people have discovered the shortcomings of special relativity, including Einstein himself. Einstein developed his general theory of relativity largely to overcome the shortcomings of special relativity.


Within the last few years, Einstein's theory of gravity has been conclusively disproved to anyone who is willing to take a good look at the facts. This theory came from general relativity, and the comments of some physicists indicate that relativity is to be discarded entirely. According to Einstein's theory of gravity, space is supposed to be curved. This has not proved to be true. In fact, space is not curved but "flat". Apparently, there is no space-time composed of some strange and exotic geometry. This fact, combined with others which have come to light in earlier times has shaken the faith in any form of relativity except relativity to the medium through which light travels. This has left two extreme factions. One is attempting to throw out relativity entirely. The other has kept the faith in relativity and is looking for more patches. Of course, there is the majority who are waiting for more observations - which is probably the best course of action.

Within the last two years, more and more evidence is accumulating in favor of an expansion of the universe which is accelerating. This acceleration could best be explained by a big bang in which a compressed ether came into being and expanded into a void of nothingness. Such an explosion would cause a universe to continually accelerate in its expansion. This is an argument which indicates the dynamic ether is compressible and expandable.


Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3

Main Menu

Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7

Subject Index - Appendix


So far, several arguments in favor of a dynamic ether have been cited. Briefly reviewed, they are:
(1) the work of Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Arago, Maxwell, and Faraday;
(2) the experiments of Michelson, Morley, and others with similar methods;
(3) the experiments of Sagnac and others with similar methods;
(4) Planck's constant as the effect of the passage of one wave of light;
(5) the energy of electron spin being due to the electron being a vortex;
(6) parts of Einstein's relativity being disproved; and
(7) the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe.

New Proof - Gravity

There is another proof for those patient enough to listen and astute enough to follow the logic presented. This proof is the nature of gravity. When one understands what produces the acceleration we call gravity, the understanding is proof of the existence of dynamic ether. This is because the dynamic ether causes gravity.

If the electron is a vortex, very likely other subatomic entities which compose matter are also vortices or combinations of vortices (with the exception of neutrinos if one considers them to be components of matter). If matter is composed of vortices, the ether flowing into each vortex and into large concentrations of vortices (such as our planet) would be an accelerating force, moving objects toward the vortex or the vortices. In the case of many vortices together, the inflow of ether would be extreme.

Properties of Dynamic Ether

Dynamic ether is a perfect, non-particulate fluid. For this reason, it is without friction, completely frictionless. In Book Four of the series called Behind Light's Illusion, this is explained as part of the reason for lightwaves behaving as they do. This is also the reason why an object in space continues to move according to the original dictates of its inertia. Neutrinos, actually types of half-waves of electromagnetic energy, could not exist except for the fact that this fluid is frictionless.

Assuming that electrons are simple vortices and that all matter is made of some grouping or configuration of vortices, dynamic ether must have the property of inertia. A vortex is formed because of inertia and cannot form without it. Also, inertia would be the reason for gradual acceleration of the expansion of the universe. According to my research on electromagnetics (see Book Three of Behind Light's Illusion), inertia is the key to pulsed direct current being similar to alternating current. Inertia is also the reason that matter, explained as a group of vortices, remains in motion unless acted upon by a contrary force. Truthfully, inertia is a passive quality. Anything should continue to behave as it is currently behaving unless something changes it.

Omnipresence must be a property of dynamic ether if everything in the known universe is composed of it.

Compressibility is one of the properties of dynamic ether if our universe is expanding. Before it started to expand, it must have been more compressed. Actually, the best example of compression comes from knowing how magnets work (see Book One and Book Three of Behind Light's Illusion). It is ether compression that causes high-intensity magnets to explode. Compressibility is the reason why the Michelson-Morley type of experiment always yields a much smaller value for ether velocity relative to earth's surface (see Why).

Dynamic ether is energy-conscious. It reacts to any change in a manner that requires the least possible expenditure of energy. This is quite apparent in all aspects of its dynamic behavior and is illustrated in many ways all through the series, Behind Light's Illusion.

As a consequence of the foregoing properties, dynamic ether has variable density. According to the stresses administered to it, its Mass per volume can vary drastically from one place to another.

Dynamic ether is constantly in motion. Its velocity cannot be detected by normal means. Its acceleration can be detected easily by the acceleration of matter within it. All energy is the consequence of motion within it. All energy is transmitted by means of motion within it.


Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4

Main Menu

Page 6 - Page 7

Subject Index - Appendix

Gravity as a Funnel

The inflow of ether into matter leaves one with the question "Where does it go?" This can be answered and has been answered as an educated guess. At this time, there is no way to prove where it goes. Please accept the fact that it goes somewhere (see Book Three and Book Five of Behind Light's Illusion) and that, for now, we must focus upon other matters.

If we consider gravity to be a movement of ether into a piece of matter such as a planet, we can easily see that the ether comes from a large expanse of "space" into an increasingly smaller volume. This is similar to what we see when something is placed into a kitchen funnel. The top of the funnel is larger than the bottom of the funnel. Any liquid moving through the funnel will move through at velocities which vary between the top and bottom of the funnel. The lowest velocity will be at the top and the highest velocity will be at the bottom of the funnel. In between the top and bottom, the liquid is accelerating.

In the gravity funnel of earth, the bottom of the funnel is at the earth's surface and the top is at an infinite distance in space. If we were to hypothesize some spheres about earth with their centers coinciding with the center of the earth, each of the spherical surfaces would be a cross-section of the earth's gravity funnel. The spheres would be smallest at the earth's surface and larger as the distance from the earth's surface increases. Because the same amount of ether must move through each spherical area, the velocity of the ether moving into the largest (most distant) sphere would be less than the velocity of the ether moving into the smaller spheres. The smaller the sphere, the greater the velocity of the ether moving into it. This can be easily seen in a river where the water flowing through the wider and deeper parts is moving slowly, and the water flowing through the narrower and shallower parts creates rapids. As water moves from a wide and deep part toward a narrow and shallow part, the water accelerates.

When all matter is made of vortices of dynamic ether, all matter is carried with the flow of the dynamic ether unless it is stopped by some force (such as magnetism, charge, etc.). So anything within the accelerating ether of a gravity funnel will accelerate along with the ether provided there is no force to prevent it from doing so. But this does not mean that it will move at the same velocity as the ether.

Each time non-moving matter exists relative to moving ether, the inflow into each vortex of the matter arranges itself for the flow of ether around it. The arrangement will not change unless it is acted upon by a force. So any bit of matter dropped within a gravity well will accelerate only at the rate that the ether is accelerating. Think of an example where a rock is dropped from the top of a cliff into a canyon. Before the rock is dropped, the ether is moving past it at a high velocity. After the rock is dropped, it will move at the same rate as the ether acceleration from the point where the rock is dropped to the point where it hits the floor of the canyon. But the velocity of the ether relative to the rock will not change from the time the rock is dropped until the time it hits the canyon floor.


There is a decided difference between the behavior of water flowing in a river and that of dynamic ether in a gravity funnel. Water is essentially incompressible. This is why it is used to test metal tanks which will be used to hold gas under pressure. Because water is not compressible, it cannot explode if the tank is weak. Dynamic ether, on the other hand, is compressible and does explode when a high-intensity magnet fails structurally. In a gravity funnel, it compresses as it approaches the matter creating the funnel. This affects the math of gravity and may be one of the reasons that this understanding of gravity was not realized earlier (see Why).


Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5

Main Menu

Page 7

Subject Index - Appendix

Mass vs mass

What we call "mass" is actually ether "Mass" with a large "M" because ether Mass is the reality behind everything. However, mass is the amount of Mass moving into matter within a certain period of time. So m equals M/t where t is time.
The mass/energy equivalency ( E = mc 2 ) derived from this fact is exactly the same one derived by Albert Einstein, but the derivation is very different and easily understood by the visual part of the human mind.

The Mass Equivalency Law (MEL)

The amount of Mass moving through each spherical cross-section of a gravity funnel must be the same as the amount of Mass moving through every other spherical cross-section of a gravity funnel. This fact is called the Mass Equivalency Law for a gravity funnel. This law must be so because there is no way for ether to move in or out of the funnel from the sides. In fact, a gravity funnel has no sides.

The Inverse Square Law (ISL)

Gravity conforms to something called the "inverse square law", which states that the acceleration known as gravity is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance from the center of the mass which creates it.
Mathematically, using earth as an example for a gravity funnel,
this is ga/ge = re2/re2 where ga is the value for gravity at point "a" above the earth's surface, ge is the value of gravity at the earth's surface, re is the radius of the earth, and ra is the distance from the center of the earth and point "a".
If we let ~ represent "proportional to", we can express this concept as g ~ 1/r 2.

The ISL is merely a law based upon observation. It is not the cause of gravity. Instead, it is an effect of gravity.

Escape Velocity and Instantaneous Ether Velocity

The escape velocity for a rocket leaving the earth is based upon the equivalency of the potential energy of an object falling from an infinite distance and its kinetic energy upon impact. Ether falling from an infinite distance would have the same velocity upon reaching the earth's surface. So the escape velocity of a rocket leaving the earth is found with the same equation used to establish the instantaneous velocity of the inflowing ether.
This equation may be written as v = (2rg) 1/2 or g = v 2/2r where v is instantaneous ether velocity (see Derivation of Escape Velocity Equation).

Ether Instantaneous Velocity

This velocity is called "instantaneous" because ether in a gravity funnel technically has no velocity. Instead, it has acceleration at any given distance from the center of the mass creating the funnel, and "jerk" (increasing acceleration) as it moves toward this center of mass. Using the equation for the instantaneous ether velocity, we can substitute the algebraic equivalents of gravity into the ISL equation. From this, we can discover that the instantaneous velocity, "v", is proportional to one divided by the square root of r, or v ~ 1/r 1/2 where ~ means "proportional to". The exponent for r can be changed as r is placed atop the fraction and we then have v ~ r -1/2.

Mathematically, we can see that v ~ r -1/2, but logically why should this be so? Each spherical cross-section of a gravity funnel is a level of inflowing ether kinetic energy, "KE".
The equation is KE = Mv 2/2. As each level is normally designated by the radius of the sphere, M that passes through each is the same, and the greater the radius, the less is the KE. If we use the earth as an example, we may use "e" as a subscript for our equations. For a spherical funnel cross-section above the earth, we may use "a" as a subscript.
Then KEe = Mve2/2 and KEa = Mva2/2.
In the form of a ratio: KEe/KEa = ra/ra.
Simplifying: (Mve2/2)/(Mva2/2) = ve2/va2 = ra/ra.
Taking the square root of each of the sides:
ve/va = (ra/re) -1/2.
So: v ~ 1/r 1/2 or r -1/2.
The key to the logic is the fact that each radius denotes a kinetic energy level.


Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6

Main Menu

Subject Index - Appendix

Radial Ether Density

If v is proportional to 1/r 1/2, and it is caused by the vacuum of the mass creating the funnel, then the vacuum must tend to reduce the ether radial density, Dr, porportionally to the square root of r.
This may be expressed as: Dr ~ r 1/2.

Tangential Ether Density

The area, A, of each funnel cross-section is proportional to r squared. This may be expressed as: A ~ r 2. This creates a tendency for the ether to compress in the two tangential dimensions as it is drawn toward the center of the gravity funnel, which causes the tangential ether density, Dt, to tend to be proportional to 1/r 2 or r -2.
So: Dt ~ r -2.

Overall Ether Density

The overall ether density, D, is the product of the radial and tangential densities.
So: D = Dr Dt which is proportional to r 1/2 r -2 which equals r -3/2 (adding the exponents).
So: D ~ r -3/2.

MASS Equivalency

The Mass of ether moving through each funnel cross-section must be the product of the ether overall density, the funnel cross-sectional area, and the instantaneous ether velocity at that cross-section.
D ~ r -3/2, A ~ r 2, v ~ r -1/2, and DAv ~ r -3/2 r 2 r -1/2 which is equal to r 0 or one. This shows that the Mass equivalency law has been satisfied. The same amount of ether, in fact, passes through each cross-section of a gravity funnel. This is the reality which creates the inverse square law for gravity.

Another Form of Proof

The odds of the preceding being coincidental are minutely small. The inverse square law, the Mass equivalency law, and all of the proportional reasoning all climax in a result that is a whole concept for gravity as an inflow of accelerating ether. Thus, it appears that this is another proof of the existence of dynamic ether. And dynamic ether is the cause of gravity.


The immediately preceding exercise has shown that a dynamic medium in space is more likely to exist than not. Such a medium would transmit light as a wave form and accelerate downward to cause gravity. Taken with the other facts presented, the case in favor of the existence of dynamic ether is overwhelming.

When accepted as fact, this concept of a dynamic ether opens a door into a magnificent world in which the major questions and the supposed paradoxes of contemporary physics are actually obvious facets of a fundamental truth. For those who would care to spend the time and effort to visit such a world, there are some small but comprehensive books providing a different understanding of mass, subatomic "particles", electricity, magnetism, electromagnetic radiation, time, relativity, quantum chromodynamics, and more. In these books, dynamic ether is called "nether" to distinguish it from the original ether which was supposed to be stationary.

The stream of time sweeps away errors,
and leaves truth for the inheritance of humanity.
Georg Brandes




Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7

Main Menu - Appendix

Sections - Subjects


Another Form of Proof
Early Years
Escape Velocity and Instantaneous Nether Velocity
Gravity as a Funnel
Ether Instantaneous Velocity
Inverse Square Law
Mass Equivalency
Mass Equivalency Law
Mass vs mass
New Proof - Gravity
Overall Ether Density
Properties of Dynamic Ether
Radial Ether Density
Tangential Ether Density

Back - Subjects


expansion of universe
quantum electrodynamics
spin (electron spin)
tensor analysis

Back - Sections