Strange

Indeed. Even Einstein did this. But this isn’t what the OP is talking about. Phlogiston is nearly always taught in history of science courses because it is a classic example of how science works (and one the very few examples of theories that have been shown to be completely wrong). I am slightly disappointed. I have asked several people to explain why they are so fascinated by the concept of the aether and they always just change the subject.

If you want to describe space (with however many dimensions) as "the aether" then you are no longer talking about the same thing as the OP. You are free to call N-dimensional space, or strings, or dark energy, or the residue left in your coffee cup, "aether" if you want to. But it doesn't answer the OPs question. The OP has confirmed that he was referring to the luminiferous aether; i.e. the medium that light waves are waves in. That is not space (even in string theory). If it is anything, it is the electromagnetic field. I don't quite understand this obsession with the word "aether"; perhaps you could explain why this word holds so much fascination for some people but the word "phlogiston", for example, doesn't. What does labelling space "aether" change? How does it help with anything?

As I understand it, in string theory it is the electromagnetic field which is the "medium" for light (whether described classical waves, photons or strings). So that is what could best be described as the "aether" (if you must hang on to that label for some reason).

I kind of thought he might, but I have never heard Hitachi's name in connection with this. So I have learned something new. Yay! I'm not sure how anyone can object to Young's experiment. We can see interference between waves in general, and light in particular, in all sorts of contexts from the colour of butterfly wings to waves on the beach.

What a great idea. Perhaps it needs a popular movement like this to change things. Then the politicians can catch up later (unless they get persuaded to make it a crime not to have weapons!)

What is the "Hitachi and Young" experiment? I don't suppose anyone cares what you think. Well it is wrong, if that is what you mean. But it can be a useful approximation for some cases. we use complex numbers in electrical and electronic engineering, in signal processing and in audio and optics. These are all real things, so your objection seems pretty hollow. Science is not about "making sense"; does your hypothesis make mathematical predictions that match observations? Does it do this better than the existing theory? If not, then no one is interested. No, don't worry. There are plenty of other crackpots on science forums.

I think the Young People have moved on to anarcho-syndicalism. But it is probably just a phase. The services of this site are made available without charge so that seems a rather irrational objection.

Nice.

So we can just ignore it then. This is a science forum, not. a random guesses forum.

I’ll take that rambling incoherent post as a “no” shall I?

Because of the curvature of space-time. So it clearly isn't time dilation, but the curvature that is important. How is that relevant? You can, I assume, demonstrate this mathematically? You can show that your model produces the same results as observed?

Can you? How? The fact you don’t think understand why it isn’t is part of the problem Not. Moving relative to something else does not cause mass to accrete around you.

That is not exactly an insight. We know the cause is different. The point is that the effects are indistinguishable. Is it? Please produce some data to support this. (Opinions are not science.) It is usually expressed as "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve" (John Archibald Wheeler). So, no it is not circular. Your opinion is that this confused and not very useful interpretation is better. As it is a matter of opinion, it can be refuted thus: no it isn't.

I didn't say you did. I said you claimed that refraction is called scattering, which you did: So please provide a source that supports this. It should be easy as "many people call it scattering".

I have. I can't find anyone who says refraction is called scattering. So perhaps you can provide a link to some of these "many people". That's not the point. You say you have done what you could, but you have not yet provided a reference where refraction is called scattering. Come on, according to you there are lots of them. Where are they? And the only bit that says "refraction is called scattering" is the bit your DIDN'T copy. So it is still looking a lot like you are the only person who calls refraction scattering. Which is surprising, because your argument is quite convincing! It just appears to be wrong. But you can easily prove me wrong by providing the evidence to support your claim.

For example, automobiles depend on rubber farming that doesn't make the automotive industry a subset of agriculture.

So GT = 2 * dx / v ; in other words twice the time taken to travel dx at velocity v. (Assuming v is small enough that relativistic effects can be ignored.) What is the point of that?

Best would be to write like a grown up and not an immature poseur.

What evidence do you have for this? Or, should I say: What evidence do you have for this?

Then the evidence would have to be that the speed of light depended on the direction And/or speed of the source or observer. OK? I have copied your posting style as you seem to think it is a better way of explaining things.However, I haven't read the rest of your post because it is totally illegible.

That isn’t telling them apart. Imagine you are in a room with no windows or access to the outside. How do you tell if you are on the surface of the Earth or accelerating through space at 1g? This is a subjective opinion. Unless you can show that mathematically it gives better results, your opinion is worthless.

Does it? Can you see length? You do if you are claiming they are different. So far, there is no way of telling them apart. So, either existing experiments prove your idea wrong, or you need to come up with an alternative experiment that shows you are right.

In that case you should be able to propose an experiment that shows they are different.

Yes, if the surface area is finite. However, this analogy only considers the surface; that is the only thing relevant to the analogy. Once you start thinking about the diameter or tangents, it means that you are no longer discussing the analogy. A bit like someone describing the "rubber sheet" analogy for GR and then being asked what colour the sheet is. You can do that even if you only consider the surface. You can measure the (local) curvature and then assume that is the same everywhere. This is analogous to the fact that curvature in GR is intrinsic curvature; it does not require spacetime to be in a higher dimensional space. (Another reason you shouldn't;t think about the inside or the outside of the sphere in the analogy.)

Which is odd, because that isn't really what I said. But if you mean, more generally, that we don't know why space-time exists, why mass and energy affect it then that is true. However, if that is what you think then we don't know why electrons and atoms exist, why like charges attract, why heat moves from hotter things to cooler, why prime numbers exist, why the sky is blue, or why anything at all. "Why" is not a question that science answers. Try philosophy or religion.