Henry Lindner
[My previous] paper.. described how [Relativity and Quantum Theory] followed directly from Bishop Berkeley’s idealistic, subjectivistic.. program of limiting the scope of natural philosophy to the mere modeling of the observer’s sensations and measurements, in the observer’s frame. He accomplished this only by denying that any physical Cosmos or causes existed. Albert Einstein imposed Berkeley’s metaphysics and epistemology on physics with his Special Theory of Relativity and his photonic model of light. For the last 100 years, physics has been locked into this subjectivistic paradigm. In order to understand what kind of paradigm change is needed today, let us look back at the last great revolution in physics...
Once we admit the existence of an EM space and of electrons as persistent EM wave structures in that space, then we can create a plausible physical explanation of the slowing of atomic clocks. (Other timekeeping devices, e.g. pendulum and spring-driven clocks, have different mechanisms and behave differently in gravity and in uniform translational motion). If space is physical, then we must assume that it is the velocity of atomic clocks relative to space (RTS) that causes them to slow. The electrons of the clocks, the electrons whose frequencies determine the time-keeping, are themselves bound to nuclei. Because they are bound to the nuclei, they do not “gain” waves (increase in frequency) like free electrons do when forced into higher velocity RTS. Neither do nuclear-bound electrons emit waves when decelerated as free electrons do. Bound electrons, being composed of circulating or oscillating EM waves, are physically analogous to the “bouncing light clock” found in introductions to Relativity... When a bound electron is forced into motion RTS, its waves must propagate through the greater spatial distance described by the Pythagorean theorem, causing a 2o Doppler red shift of their frequency and of the waves they absorb and emit. Atomic clocks actually measure the 'space wind' to which they are subjected—they are space speedometers
Can [a] flowing space theory reproduce the other successful predictions of GR? Indeed it can, and with greater simplicity. In the early 1920’s, Alvar Gullstrand and Paul Painlevé demonstrated that the Schwarzschild metric could be represented by a flat space flowing radially inward towards matter at the Newtonian escape velocity. Herbert Ives and Robert Kirkwood published more detailed treatments of this model between 1939 and 1954. Ives demonstrated that if an object in a gravitational field were affected as if it had the Newtonian escape velocity for that height—if its frequency were redshifted, if it were shortened in the vertical direction, and if its effective mass were increased—then the successful predictions of GR were produced with greater simplicity, including gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift, and the advance of Mercury’s perihelion