Loop Gravity and the Bouncing Universe

Painius wrote:

As a practical thing, the Sagnac effect
appears to be very useful.

Yeah it's used routinely in GPS and inertial nav systems in aircraft
and spacecraft.

But the article didn't seem to
say whether or not Sagnac's effort to detect "the effect of
the relative motion of the ether" was considered a success
by his peers. Apparently, judging by an ensuing droppage
of any "ether", Sagnac's theoretical goal was not believed
to have been reached?

There is also no description of Michelson's conclusions he
drew from his and Gale's experiment. Did he and Gale
think that the ring interferometer was as ineffective as the
interferometer he used in his experiment with Morley?
(I.e., ineffective as to showing the existence of an ether?)

Here's an excellent treatise on the Sagnac effect. It effectively
disproves the ballistic theory of light and effectively *proves*
existance of the "ether" as well as the validity of SR.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

The last two paragraphs are in summation. Note in the next-to-last
paragraph this statement : "Michelson wrote that 'this result may be
considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or
equally as evidence of a stationary ether."

A caveat enters with the term "stationary ether". Certainly the medium
is stationary in the *lateral* sense, as had already been proven by
MMX in 1887. No lateral flow at Earth's surface. But the vertically-
flowing EFF (entrained flow field) of Earth's gravity well would still
be fully present. So Michelson's statement above could be updated to
read thusly : "This result may be considered as an additional evidence
in favor of (special) relativity - or equally as evidence of a
vertically-flowing, Earth-entrained ether."

While the Sagnac effect is used routinely today to great avail, it has
a sorta "black sheep" status because of its 'dirty little secret' - it
proves the existance of the spatial medium.

“ absolute motion � has only one frame of referene, e.g. a bus.
“ relative motion � has exactly two frames of reference,
e.g. 1. a bus going South ― relative to 2. a bus going North.

On Oct 19, 8:38*am, oldcoot wrote:
Here's an excellent treatise on the Sagnac effect. It effectively
disproves the ballistic theory of light and effectively *proves*
existance of the "ether" as well as the validity of SR.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

I don't think an experiment can "prove" a theory, it can only falsify
or be consistent with the theory. The web page you cited doesn't talk
about proving things, it talks about providing evidence in support of
thing. Also, I wonder what do you make of the part where it says

"Of course, if the light traveling around the loop passes through
moving media with indices of refraction differing significantly from
unity, then the Fizeau effect must also be taken into account, and in
this case the results, while again perfectly consistent with special
relativity, are quite problematic for any non-relativistic ether-based
interpretation."

Doesn't this imply that the only viable "ether" is a relativistic one,
of the kind Einstein discussed in the 1921 lecture?

On Oct 19, 8:14*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Double A Your post has me begging this question * What is absolute
motion? * TreBert


Absolute motion would be motion with reference to an absolute rest
frame, such as a stationary aether. The cosmic microwave bachground
radiation provides a rest frame that is the closest thing known to an
absolute rest frame. The thing is though, I suspect that the CMBR
restframe in the vicinity of distant redshifted galaxies may be moving
with regard to the CMBR restframe near us. So it would not be a
universal absolute restframe. But then, how do we know for sure?

Double-A

On Oct 19, 11:11*am, wrote:
On Oct 19, 8:38*am, oldcoot wrote:

Here's an excellent treatise on the Sagnac effect. It effectively
disproves the ballistic theory of light and effectively *proves*
existance of the "ether" as well as the validity of SR.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

I don't think an experiment can "prove" a theory, it can only falsify
or be consistent with the theory. The web page you cited doesn't talk
about proving things, it talks about providing evidence in support of
thing. *Also, I wonder what do you make of the part where it says

"Of course, if the light traveling around the loop passes through
moving media with indices of refraction differing significantly from
unity, then the Fizeau effect must also be taken into account, and in
this case the results, while again perfectly consistent with special
relativity, are quite problematic for any non-relativistic ether-based
interpretation."

Doesn't this imply that the only viable "ether" is a relativistic one,
of the kind Einstein discussed in the 1921 lecture?

Universe is closed expanding hypersphere.

Mitch Reamsch

On Oct 19, 12:11 pm, wrote:

I don't think an experiment can "prove" a theory, it can only falsify
or be consistent with the theory.

OK. So let the operative term be "be consistent with" rather than the
absolute connotation of "prove".

The web page you cited doesn't talk
about proving things, it talks about providing evidence in support of
a thing.

Fine. It provides supportive evidence for the "ether" and SR and
against the ballistic theory of light.

Also, I wonder what do you make of the part where it says

"Of course, if the light traveling around the loop passes through
moving media with indices of refraction differing significantly from
unity, then the Fizeau effect must also be taken into account, and in
this case the results, while again perfectly consistent with special
relativity, are quite problematic for any non-relativistic ether-based
interpretation."

Doesn't this imply that the only viable "ether" is a relativistic one,
of the kind Einstein discussed in the 1921 lecture?

Yes, except for the one condition he imposed on the "ether" in his
final statement of that lecture : "The idea of motion may not be
applied to it." That condition forbade the medium to ever have the
propensity to *flow*.
Now take a look at this somewhat obscure paper, with
particular referance to the last seven paragraphs of the text -
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V08N3GRF.PDF

It shows that as of 1930, Einstein had by no means "abandoned" the
aether but had divested it of that proscription against motion..
thereby tacitly acknowledging its propensity to *flow* as a very
literal and dynamic Fluid (not just as a fixed mathematical
abstraction, i.e., "space-time"). And to boot, it also shows the
*embeddeness* principle was understood early on, depicting matter as a
second-order phenomenon, as "holes in the aether".
But in the interim, in the mid-1920s, the 'no
medium', space-as-void bandwagon had taken hold with an unshakable
vengeance, and the rest, as they say, is history. For reasons known
only to himself, Einstein let this happen and went along with it to
the end of his days.

On Oct 19, 12:49*pm, Double-A wrote:
On Oct 19, 8:14*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Double A Your post has me begging this question * What is absolute
motion? * TreBert

Absolute motion would be motion with reference to an absolute rest
frame, such as a stationary aether. *The cosmic microwave background
radiation provides a rest frame that is the closest thing known to an
absolute rest frame. *The thing is though, I suspect that the CMBR
restframe in the vicinity of distant redshifted galaxies may be moving
with regard to the CMBR restframe near us.

In addition, the CMBR rest frame, co-moving (co-flowing) with the
intergalactic spatial medium itself, when moving crosswise to our line
of sight, will deflect (lens) light from cosmologically distant
objects. This effect, misnamed "gravitational" lensing, is simple
*flow lensing*. No 'dark matter' needed to explain it.

"Double-A" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 19, 8:14 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Double A Your post has me begging this question What is absolute
motion? TreBert

Absolute motion would be motion with reference to an absolute rest
frame, such as a stationary aether. The cosmic microwave bachground
radiation provides a rest frame that is the closest thing known to an
absolute rest frame. The thing is though, I suspect that the CMBR
restframe in the vicinity of distant redshifted galaxies may be moving
with regard to the CMBR restframe near us. So it would not be a
universal absolute restframe. But then, how do we know for sure?

Double-A

And i would deduce that NOW, in the PRESENT time,
the CMBR in the vicinity of those distant galaxies is
about the same as it is in our area of space. If we
were somehow able to measure it, though, we might
perceive it as you describe it. That would be because
the CMBR back during the time we are looking, back
when those faraway galaxies emitted the radiation
that we see today, was probably moving at a different
speed than it does now.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "The belief that there is only one truth, and
that oneself is in possession of it, is the root
of all evil in the world."
Max Born, quantum physicist, and
Olivia Newton John's grandfather!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 19, 12:11 pm, wrote:

I don't think an experiment can "prove" a theory, it can only falsify
or be consistent with the theory.

OK. So let the operative term be "be consistent with" rather than the
absolute connotation of "prove".

The web page you cited doesn't talk
about proving things, it talks about providing evidence in support of
a thing.

Fine. It provides supportive evidence for the "ether" and SR and
against the ballistic theory of light.

Also, I wonder what do you make of the part where it says

"Of course, if the light traveling around the loop passes through
moving media with indices of refraction differing significantly from
unity, then the Fizeau effect must also be taken into account, and in
this case the results, while again perfectly consistent with special
relativity, are quite problematic for any non-relativistic ether-based
interpretation."

Doesn't this imply that the only viable "ether" is a relativistic one,
of the kind Einstein discussed in the 1921 lecture?

Yes, except for the one condition he imposed on the "ether" in his
final statement of that lecture : "The idea of motion may not be
applied to it." That condition forbade the medium to ever have the
propensity to *flow*.
Now take a look at this somewhat obscure paper, with
particular referance to the last seven paragraphs of the text -
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V08N3GRF.PDF

It shows that as of 1930, Einstein had by no means "abandoned" the
aether but had divested it of that proscription against motion..
thereby tacitly acknowledging its propensity to *flow* as a very
literal and dynamic Fluid (not just as a fixed mathematical
abstraction, i.e., "space-time"). And to boot, it also shows the
*embeddeness* principle was understood early on, depicting matter as a
second-order phenomenon, as "holes in the aether".
But in the interim, in the mid-1920s, the 'no
medium', space-as-void bandwagon had taken hold with an unshakable
vengeance, and the rest, as they say, is history. For reasons known
only to himself, Einstein let this happen and went along with it to
the end of his days.

I offer a different perspective...

There are two main types of prevailing "Truths" in science,
and they are 1) axioms, and 2) theories.

There's a huge difference between these two. Axioms are
the accepted foundations, while theories build on the axioms.
"You have to start somewhere," a scientist might say. So an
axiom is a "blindly" accepted Truth based upon an ancestor's
"best guess" and upon the fact that the axiom has gone on
unchallenged.

One powerful axiom is the "Pull-Gravity Paradigm". (Don't
get me started! g) No one can prove it, and nobody
challenges it (except Le Sage and a few others). And to this
very day, the PGP continues to be the "bedrock" of any theory
of gravity, from relativity right down to quantum gravity ideas.
Matter attracts matter... PERIOD.

Oh well, back to the subject... the aether. Aristotle gave it to
us, well, "officially". I would think that people who gave it any
thought back then, c. 350 BC, probably had the aether handed
down to them by ancestors for an undetermined amount of
time. But Aristotle made it official. And the aether officially
lasted as an axiom, a paradigm, for well over 2,000 years!

Then came Michelson--and Morley. Some people think that
Einstein didn't know of the MM experiment, but i think that's
naive. Einstein probably not only knew about it, he found a
way to use it to get relativity looked at. MM had raised a few
eyebrows. After MM, the aether slowly lost its "axiom" status
and began to be lowered into the realm of "theory". And a
theory can be "falsified". So some scientists began to try to
do just that, to falsify the aether theory. Others, like Sagnac,
experimented to see if the old axiom, now turned theory,
could be defended. Both jobs were tough. Nobody ever
actually falsified the aether, but nobody was able to prove in
any scientific manner that it existed either.

So when Einstein happened by with relativity theory, the
aether was a fairly controversial subject already. And ol'
Albert saw it as a way to get his relativistic "foot in the door".
While not actually coming out against the aether, he merely
said that an aether wasn't necessary for his relativity to work.
That got him, and his "anti-Newtonian" ideas looked at.

Now, i don't think ol' Albert actually realized the "oomph" he
developed, and very quickly. It was a "stellar" rise to fame
and notoriety. All he wanted to do was get his relativity
noticed, and he wound up changing the face of physics to the
extremis! As you say, oc, physicists were so profoundly
influenced by Einstein and his "we don' need no stinkin'
aether" that they dug a six-foot hole, tossed in the aether
(baby and bathwater) and never turned back.

Now, just to casually mention any notion of space being
comprised of anything gets you looked at and pounced upon
as if you were trying to introduce another stupid, idiotic,
damn Push-Gravity proposal. Ain't-a-gonna-happen.

But don't be too hard on Einstein. I don't think he ever did
really abandon the idea of an aether. And the only thing he
probably regretted more than the "We don't need it!" fiasco
was the "Oh ****, look what happened to all those innocent
Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki!" debacle. I would not
have wanted to be in his sad, guilt-ridden shoes.

So, anyway, rather than to think that "Einstein let this
happen and went along with it to the end of his days," i
really think that he had no idea that his words about the
aether would be any more influential upon physics than he
did when he introduced E = mc^2, and it led to nuclear
weapons. And i also believe that he spent the rest of his
life trying to find the cause of gravity, and that he believed
that a dynamic and energetic aether was a big part of that
cause. He either never could prove it, or he *could* prove
it and chose not to.

That's my story, and i'm stickin' to it! g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "The belief that there is only one truth, and
that oneself is in possession of it, is the root
of all evil in the world."
Max Born, quantum physicist, and
Olivia Newton John's grandfather!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

On Oct 19, 4:55 pm, "Painius" wrote:

There are two main types of prevailing "Truths" in science,
and they are 1) axioms, and 2) theories.

There's a huge difference between these two. Axioms are
the accepted foundations, while theories build on the axioms.
"You have to start somewhere," a scientist might say. So an
axiom is a "blindly" accepted Truth based upon an ancestor's
"best guess" and upon the fact that the axiom has gone on
unchallenged.

One powerful axiom is the "Pull-Gravity Paradigm". (Don't
get me started! g) No one can prove it, and nobody
challenges it (except Le Sage and a few others). And to this
very day, the PGP continues to be the "bedrock" of any theory
of gravity, from relativity right down to quantum gravity ideas.
Matter attracts matter... PERIOD.

Well, just to nit-pick a bit, the VS'ers do have another variation of
the theme. That's the notion that gravity is not a 'real' force at all
- that it's a fictitious force resulting from something-or-other
"following a null geodesic through 4-D space-time" or some such. But
this pseudoism still faces the 'litmus test' : how does it literally
POWER the most awesome gravitational phenomena in nature, like super/
hypernovae and quasars? That's a pretty herculean 'fictitious
force'. :-)

Oh well, back to the subject... the aether. Aristotle gave it to
us, well, "officially". I would think that people who gave it any
thought back then, c. 350 BC, probably had the aether handed
down to them by ancestors for an undetermined amount of
time. But Aristotle made it official. And the aether officially
lasted as an axiom, a paradigm, for well over 2,000 years!

It wasn't just "the aether", but many variations and 'flavors' of it
over the centuries, some fluidic and corpuscular and some not, some
rigid and grid-like. But the very term 'aether/ether' connoted that
which is spiritous, diaphanous and ephemeral, in contrast to matter's
being substantial. Finally It was Poincare` who began to see the the
bass-ackwardness of this, recognizing matter to be the insubstantial
member, embedded like "holes" in the Primary medium. Then fast-forward
nearly a century to Wolter's analogy of atomic structure being like
vacuoles or 'bubbles' embedded in the ocean. So it becomes imperative
to junk the old term with all the stigma and bass-ackwardness of
meaning it carries. Indeed strike "aether/ether" from the lexicon of
science(!). Find a term properly descriptive and definitive of the
spatial medium, like your Sub-Planck(ian) energy domain or SPED.