The following two-part article, first published in 1955, presents a starting summary of BSRA Carl F. Krafft‘s arguments on behalf of the existence of a dynamic ether, a theory he expanded on at length in his many books and papers on etheric physics. Is Krafft’s work a simple curiosity, not worthy of consideration, or is it simply prescient? We’ll let you decide.
Round Robin (Vol. 11, 3/6; Sept./Oct. 1955)
In a recent issue of the Round Robin there was a report of a Mark Probert seance which dealt with the existence of an ether. Although the reasoning was not very clear to me, still the conclusions seemed to be correct. The existence of an ether is not a question that can be answered by a simple “yes” or “no”, and when I stated in my book on “The Ether and its Vortices” that there can hardly be any question as to the existence of an ether, I meant a dynamic or turbulent ether and not the quiescent stationary ether of the 19th century.
The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 did not disprove the existence of any and every ether, but only of a quiescent ether that is stationary relative to the solar system, and which would produce an ether drift of sufficient magnitude to show up in the experiment. The correct explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment seems to have been given by George Stokes, who considered the ether as being carried along by the earth‘s gravitational field; but Stokes theory was rejected by the physics profession on the ground that it was contradicted by astronomical aberration. It seems, however, that astronomical aberration does not necessarily disprove Stokes’ theory, because even if the ether adjacent to the earth is carried along by the earth’s gravitational field, there would still be astronomical aberration further out in space.
Since the gravitational field of the earth is tied up with that of the sun, it would be more correct to speak of the combined gravitation: field of the earth and the sun, and such a combined field would still be stationary relative to the earth, in complete agreement with the M.M. experiment.
There still remains to be considered, however, the rotation of the earth on its axis. Since the earth’s axis is approximately perpendicular to the plane of its orbit about the sun, it necessarily follows that since the earth’s gravitational field remains tied up with that of the sun, the ether around the earth cannot partake of the rotation of the earth on its axis, but should produce an ether drift of about one-third of a mile per second at the equator, and less elsewhere. That such an ether drift actually exists was proved by the Michelson-Gale experiment in 1925, further details of which will be found in my book.
The finite velocity of light proves that the ether must have mass and inertia, but how is that possible with an ether which is not granular or corpuscular? In my book I advanced the proposition that inertia is really a property of motion rather than a property of matter, because motion without inertia would be a contradiction in terms. Inertia merely means continuity of motion, and without continuity there could not be any motion. Continuity must be either toward and from infinity or around in a circle or other closed path, and wherever it is in a closed path it will appear as localized inertia, which is just another name for mass. With mass thus accounted for, it is not difficult to account for matter, because matter is nothing but a highly concentrated form of localized mass. Less concentrated forms of localized mass are electric and magnetic fields, but this does not include the gravitational field, which is something very different.
Similar considerations are also applicable to the ether. Any ether which actually exists must have mass and inertia, because an ether without mass and inertia is inconceivable. If, however, we are correct in our interpretation of mass and inertia as properties of motion, then it necessarily follows that the only kind of ether which can conceivably exist is a dynamic or turbulent ether. The perfectly quiescient and stagnant ether of the 19th century was therefore a theoretical impossibility.
The concept of motion forms an adequate basis for everything in nature, provided we are not too inquisitive as to what it is that moves. We do not need to let this difficulty embarrass us, however, because physicists in dealing with wave mechanics have been confronted with the same difficulty, but have not been seriously deterred thereby. It seems to be the general opinion among 20th century physicists that the concept of motion is complete in itself, even in the apparent absence of anything that moves. On the other hand the 19th century physicists would have pronounced such a view untenable.
It seems that the solution of this problem is to be found in a compromise between the 19th and 20th century viewpoints. Motion with out anything that moves is indeed inconceivable, but if We assume that the world has always existed and never had any beginning, then there never was a time when we would have been confronted with any such difficulty. The world at any instant is adequately accounted for by considering it as the result of the world at the instant immediately preceding. Since continuity is a necessary property of motion, the existence of an ether in motion at the present instant necessarily presupposes the existence of a similar ether in motion at the instant immediately preceding, and wherever there is an ether in motion there must also be mass by virtue of that motion.
Round Robin (Vol. 11, 4/6; Nov./Dec. 1955)
In my previous article on “The Existence of an Ether”, the subject was treated from an astronomical standpoint, and it will now be considered from the ‘standpoint of the Sagnac experiment which is just as important as the Michelson-Morley experiment, although not as well-known as the latter.
The Sagnac experiment was first performed in 1915 in France in an effort to disprove Einstein’s theory of relativity, and with minor variations has been repeated several times since then, but always with the same positive results. It consisted of splitting a beam of monochromatic light into two component beams which were sent in opposite directions around the periphery of a turntable by means of mirrors until they met again at the opposite end of the table so as to produce interference fringes which were recorded on a photographic plate. When the table with all the apparatus on it was slowly rotated the interference fringes were shifted by an amount equal to what the shift would be if the light waves traveled in a medium that was stationary relative to the earth. As long as the table remained stationary, the light waves in the two component beams would traverse the same distance, namely half the circumference of the table. As soon as the table was rotated, however, the light waves of one beam would have to traverse a greater distance than those of the other beam because the photographic plate on which the interference fringes were recorded would then be moving toward the light waves of one beam and away from those of the other beam.
Since the time of travel in each beam must remain the some, any difference in the lengths of the two paths would have to result in a displacement of the interference fringes in the one direction or the other.
The same positive result was obtained regardless of whether the source of light was carried by the turntable or was on a stationary support adjacent to the turntable, which rules out any attempted explanation based on the movement of the source of light. The only possible explanation for the shifting of the interference fringes when the table is rotated is that the light waves of the two component beams travel in a medium, namely an “ether”, which is stationary relative to the earth, or more specifically relative to the earth’s gravitational field, and which does not partake to any measurable extent of the rotation of the turntable.
The Sagnac experiment is therefore in complete agreement with George Stokes’ interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment because the gravitational field of the turntable is negligible in comparison with the gravitational field of the earth.
See also:
“The Ether and its Vortices” by Carl F. Krafft
Outside the stagnant channels of “mainstream” science, leading research is now showing the vortex to be a vital key in understanding the subatomic level of nature. This comprehensive book is Krafft’s masterwork covering: The Hydromechanical Ether, Subatomic Vortices, The New Vortex Atoms, Radioactivity and Atomic Fission, the Nuclear Theory Disproved, and more.
Related articles:
Please check on you tube:
Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment (English version)
Martin Grusenic’s replication indicates fringe movement during rotation of the device in the VERTICAL direction, and not in the HORIZONTAL as the original Michelson-Morley experiment.
quote> dynamic or turbulent ether and not the quiescent stationary ether of the 19th century
Hasn’t modern science already accepted the fact of a moving ether in our immediate space environment, which is made up of the Solar Wind which extends to all of this solar system’s planets ?