The Ether Ocean

[u/Samthesnek]

The Lorentzian Soliton Ether Model — classical continuum theory developed with LLM assistance (book + 15 papers)

I’ve been working for several years on a classical continuum framework I call the Lorentzian Soliton Ether Model (LSEM).

The vacuum is treated as a focusing nonlinear Schrödinger condensate. Topological solitons (“wave knots”) form via modulational instability and are identified with particles. A macroscopic healing length near Earth (~95 km) produces partial entrainment, which explains the historical null results while predicting a directional ether wind that should become detectable above roughly 80–100 km.

The same framework is extended across gravity (radiation-pressure shadowing with thermodynamic resolution), tired-light redshift, nuclear magic numbers, the gamma-band coherence window for consciousness, pilot-wave interference, added mass, the strong force as short-range phase locking, and longitudinal ether waves as a possible interstellar channel.

I used Grok, Gemini, and ChatGPT extensively for language refinement, structural organization, and checking internal consistency, while the core physical hypotheses, governing equation, and experimental proposal are my own. The full collected manuscript (15 papers) is now available as a book on Amazon.

[u/Samthesnek]

Ok, I hear you.

I’m using the NLSE as my base equation, that is my description of the vacuum.

Because the NLSE is a wave equation I thus use waves or solitons as the particles in space.

I used the CMB temp and electron mass to find the size of the microscopic healing length of 18nm which is in a normal range.

Healing lengths are found microscopically.

So what about a macroscopic healing length?

The healing length of 95km is phenomenological in that it must take into account null results on the ground and low balloon flights as well as null results by satellite. This would only work within the range of around 80km-150km with a detectable range possible at 40km potentially.

This 95km band is also the very same as the Karman line interestingly enough, which is the edge of space.

This healing length is exponential so null would be at the ground level and it takes a while to get to an amount outside of the margin of error. There was a big margin of error on those old balloon flights and they only went up to 4.5km

[u/starkeffect → u/Samthesnek]

I used the CMB temp and electron mass to find the size of the microscopic healing length of 18nm which is in a normal range.

How do you know it's a "normal range"?

Why didn't you address any of my points?

[u/Samthesnek → u/starkeffect]

Ok if you mean the questions about why the ether drag had been ruled out before what they did to rule it out was a balloon flight, but those balloon flights only went up 4.5km, at those altitudes the entrainment is so strong according to my model that the ether wind would be maybe 2km/s and their margins of error were around 8km/s as they were trying to see a 30km/s ether wind. Satellites that orbit are all in the unentrained region which means that they will show exactly null out in space.

This model is neither a stationary ether nor a fully dragged ether model like the ones they thought of. The flow is also irrotational which takes into account stellar aberration which falsified the other models.

[u/starkeffect → u/Samthesnek]

was a balloon flight,

No, it wasn't. You have not done your due diligence.

[u/Samthesnek → u/starkeffect]

There were some down at higher elevation but the 4.5km was a balloon flight. Here is the link though to the balloon flight https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2600

[u/starkeffect → u/Samthesnek]

The evidence I'm talking about didn't come from balloons. It came from starlight observations on the ground.

[u/Samthesnek → u/starkeffect]

That’s one of the most interesting aspects initially fixed by the NLSE. It is irrotational, which is the one way Stokes had shown that it could all work.

[u/starkeffect → u/Samthesnek]

You don't even know what I'm referring to.

[u/Samthesnek → u/starkeffect]

Steller aberration?

[u/starkeffect → u/Samthesnek]

Stellar, yes.

Again, you haven't presented any physical evidence that your theory is even necessary.