In article
,
"Painius" wrote:
I realize that you're just another coffeeboi,
Puddleduck, but i'll be glad to tolerate you,
since even coffeebois have a perfect right to
be here.
I am so honoured.
And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it
turtles all the way down?
I don't know the answer to this, other than
to say that, no, i don't think it's turtles all the
way down, Puddleduck.
We [tinw] *do* know how earthly things flow,
such as the ocean flowing in reference to the
sea bottom, the adjacent coastlines and even
to other parts of the ocean. As for space, the
main attractive reference would be whatever
it is that may act as a container and medium
to which flowing space can be referenced.
So all you are doing is adding another layer of complexity, with no
grounds in physical reality, just to pretend you are a scientist.
This would be akin to asking, "What was in
existence before the Big Bang?" or "What is
space expanding *into*?" and these are, for
now, questions without adequate and
meaningful answers.
Most of your questions are reasonably meaningless.
On a more practical level, we may be able to
say that space flows in reference to mass, or
perhaps more accurately, space flows with
reference to gravity wells. Double-A brought
out the analogy to Earthly electricity, with the
emf or "voltage" in the Ohm's law formula...
E = IR
...similar to the engine that "runs" flowing
space, an engine called the "supra-cosmic
overpressure" or "SCO". Flowing space itself
then is roughly identified with the electrical
current in the formula, or "I" (intensity of
current). This may imply that there is an R
somewhere in all this, and observations may
strongly suggest that gravity wells provide
the R (resistance) to flowing space.
Utter crap.
Actually, i agree. It is a more sound idea
that space flows very quickly out among
the stars, and even faster out between the
galaxies and clusters. The gravity wells of
galaxies slow the flow of space, as do the
gravity wells of stars, planets and even of
atoms!
And your observational evidence is?
Really? Funny how Hipparcos proves thats BS.
What exactly are you saying that Hipparcos is
disproving, Puddleduck? Keep in mind that this
experiment is very limited in its scope.
Everything you are saying about the nature of space local to the sun.
So it is more consistent to think that flowing space
must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and
planets.
So many words, so little science. Step away from the bong, saucerheads.
You will get no argument from me that the
concept of flowing space is no more truly a
scientific concept than is quantum gravity or GR.
None of that is science either in terms of
explaining the cause of gravity. The only reason
QG and GR are *recognized" as being science is
because they are the brainchilds of scientists.
Um no, because they have been verified (Perihelion of Mercury, Hulse &
Taylor....)
You, Puddleduck, would be wise to keep in mind
that the concept of flowing space is to be
considered as quite possibly the brainchild of old
Albert Einstein himself...
So what? Fallacy of authority? Many people try to make proclamations
about Einstein and vegetarianism but he wasn't a nutritionist.
". . . one should not desist from pursuing to
the end the path of the relativistic field theory."
A little earlier in _Relativity: The Special and the
General Theory_ Einstein wrote...
"By this is meant a theory which describes
exhaustively physical reality, including four-
dimensional space, by a field."
Since, at the time, Einstein had discarded the
idea of a static, non-moving "ether", one can
only conclude that he was talking about space
as being a field that is non-static and moving,
a flowing field...
Like Jane, putting words in a dead mans mouth.
flowing space
(!)
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from
http://www.teranews.com