On Sep 24, 10:46 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message

...

dlzc wrote:
The Universe can very much be modelled as a
fluid, it does not mean there is an underlying
fluid... other than the matter we see and
measure.

I say it's a big clue to something that might
actually be underneath. If it walks like a duck
..., etc.

Diffraction shows that matter fills all of space to some extent.
This obviates "something else" and "underneath".

At a macro level, yes, matter fills all of space. But it doesn't fill
it at the same density in all parts of space (i.e. voids vs.
clusters), nor at the micro level. The only thing that fills *all* of
space equally is space. An analogy would be to say salt fills all of
the oceans. Salt doesn't really fill all of the oceans, water does. It
rides around all over the oceans in the water, goes to most places
that the water does. Matter could just be the salt riding around in
the ocean of the Universe. If this sounds like 3-D M-brane World of
Superstring/M-Theory, or the Space-Time loop blocks in Loop Quantum
Gravity, or a variation of the Aether, then so be it.

As for whether light diffraction shows that only matter fills all of
space. That would be like scanning the ocean with sonar and saying the
only things that fill the oceans are the micro- and macro-organisms of
the ocean and nothing else. The sonar won't detect the medium on which
it is traveling, the water itself.

Such a motion could result from our "stationary"
position actually moving away from "The Great
Attractor". If all matter were generally moving
towards a single point, at a more-or-less constant
velocity, *we could not observe it*. No relaive
motion.

Even the (in)famous Bullet Cluster is being sucked
down this Cosmic Drain Pipe.

Think about what you are saying. We little primates on our
planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one supercluster sees
the whole rest of the Universe moving towards a Great Attractor,
but we obviously aren't moving, or moving towards the Attractor
at least.

How stupid can we be?

Either case, whether the objects in the Dark Flow are moving relative
to us, or we're moving relative to these objects, there is another
implication that must be acknowledged. One of the criterion used to
disprove the Aether theory is that we have not dected a preferred
direction of movement for objects in the Universe. Doesn't this "Dark
Flow" demonstrate a preferred direction of flow? Isn't this actually
the long sot after proof for Aether? Not the solid Aether of old, but
a liquid Aether?

Yousuf Khan