"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Yeah, Paine. The EFF (entrained flow field) is the oft-referred-to
"reverse starburst" inflow pattern, also known as a gravitational field
or 'gravity well'.

This entrainment field is also the reason for the Michaelson-Morley null
result, which noted the conspicuous absence of any laterally-flowing
'wind', much less any "slamming into" effect of a 'wind'. MMX was never
designed to detect a vertical flow. (Even if the interferometer *had*
been designed with a vertical arm, the arm woulda undergone
foreshortening due to Lorentzian contraction, again cancelling out the
expected fringing.)

The MMX null result was consistent with an EFF, and would be expected.

Also, stellar aberration (the perceived displacement of stars directly
abeam of line of motion) is consistent with an EFF, and would be
expected.

These two points are precisely why i "kennelized" db 'way back when he
declared that MMX and stellar aberration "prove" nonexistance of the
spatial medium, implying "case closed". So indeed, "case closed" on the
ol' DimBulb.

(-:
oc


Header address is a spam trap. E-mail: oldcoot7074 at sbcglobal.net
Change 'at' to @

I'm not having much problem if any with stellar
aberration or the MM experiment. You covered
these well, and your explanations make sense.

But i'm still having a problem with the same thing
Odysseus challenged... remember, Bill, when you
read "disappear", don't assume that Odysseus is
talking about the roach-motel issue, which i think
we've covered about as well as it can be covered.
Here I think Odysseus is addressing the very same
issue i raised, the slam-on-the-brakes issue...

Odysseus wrote...

Worse, the 'flow-velocity equals escape-velocity' notion implies that a
whole lot of the fluid disappears on the way in, even in interplanetary
space. But of course the inverse-square law is mere mathematical
juggling to him; by refusing to think about such "minutiae" as
dimensions and coordinates he can blithely wave the contradictions away.

And he's also bringing in a related issue, that of the
"inverse-square-law" mathematical notion reasoned
out by Isaac Newton long ago.

Newton, like everyone else, thought that the force of
gravity emanated from matter in some yet unknown
way. Building on the amazing work of Tycho and of
Kepler, his dilemma was to provide reasonable evidence
for the extension of the force of gravity from Earth to
the heavens. The key to this extension demanded that
he be able to show how the effect of gravity is diluted
with distance.

It was known at the time, that the force of gravity
causes earthbound objects (such as falling apples g)
to accelerate towards the Earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s²
near the surface of the Earth. And it was also known
that planet Selene, the Moon, accelerated towards the
Earth at a rate of 0.00272 m/s². If the same force
which causes the acceleration of the apple to the Earth
also causes the acceleration of the Moon towards the
Earth, then there must be a plausible explanation for
why the acceleration of the Moon is so much smaller
than the acceleration of the apple.

What is it about the force of gravity which causes the
more distant Moon to accelerate at a rate of acceleration
which is approximately 1/3600 the acceleration of the
apple?

Newton knew that the force of gravity must somehow
be "diluted" by distance; but how? What mathematical
reality is intrinsic to the force of gravity which causes it
to be inversely dependent upon the distance between
the objects?

The riddle is solved by a comparison between the
distance from the apple to the center of the Earth with
the distance from the Moon to the center of the Earth.

The Moon in its orbit about the Earth is approximately
60 times further from the Earth's center than the apple
is. The mathematical relationship becomes clear. The
force of gravity between the Earth and any object is
inversely proportional to the square of the distance
which separates that object from the Earth's center.

The Moon, being 60 times further away than the apple,
experiences a force of gravity which is 1/(60)² times
that of the apple. So it became obvious to Newton that
the force of gravity follows an "inverse square law".

So now, let's return briefly to Table One...

Sun's Escape Velocity at Planets' Orbits

Neptune 4.8 mi/s
Uranus 6.0 mi/s
Saturn 8.5 mi/s
Jupiter 11.5 mi/s
Mars 21.2 mi/s
Earth 26.2 mi/s
Venus 30.8 mi/s
Mercury 42.1 mi/s
Sun's Surface 383.7 mi/s

Table One

Notice the label, please. Are these not the
mathematically computed escape velocities as
figured in conjunction with, and based in part
on, the inverse square law?

If so, then does it not follow that when we say
that the accelerating velocities of the flow of
spatial energy coming into the Solar System
correspond to these escape velocities at these
planetary-orbital points, are we not also saying
that the flow of space toward and into the Sun
not only adheres to the inverse-square law, but
does indeed produce it?

It is an intrinsic quality of Einstein's spatial
field to accelerate into matter at an increasing
rate of acceleration which produces the "effect"
known as Newton's inverse square law.

Now, Odysseus and Bill, as to the apparent
"disappearing" effect of the spatial field as it
is approached by and as it does approach a
large body of matter on its way into the Sun,
the "slam-on-the-brakes" issue, i'm still trying
to envision the answer. Give me time; i will
get it.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
TIME... sometimes, that's all it takes!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net