3 ms·

> I like to think of gravity as displacement of the "ether ". You are only behind physics community by ~140 years [1]. We know for sure that there is no "ether

• int_19h 3y ago
  From MM experiment, we know for sure that there's no ether with the properties that were ascribed to it. However, you can easily come up with a theory of ether that completely matches those observations - it's just not as useful as a model because the concept itself becomes kinda redundant at that point. However, this is just as much an issue of terminology. Here's Einstein on the subject: "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavor to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity ... according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable."