"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From DaveL.:

The currently accepted models of most
of the forces use virtual particles...

Yes, they do. And they are essential under the premise that space is
functionally void or 'nothing'. 'Virtual particles' "work" to a high
degree of accuracy and predictibility as mathematical constructs. But
their usefulness ends when trying to explain gravity under the
VSP(void-space paradigm).

QED (quantum electrodynamics) is one
of the fields where theory and
experiment agree to a higher level of
accuracy than most others. Yet it relies
on virtual particles. How?

In QED, the mainstream is being forced, however grudgingly, to
acknowledge that space is something more than 'pure void', as evidenced
in the Casimir effect.

How does the model you advocate
explain the Casimir effect?

First of all, the traditional explanation is that an "attraction"
becomes more and more pronounced at smaller and smaller submillimeter
levels.
"The model i advocate" states that a PRESSURE (not an
"attraction") becomes more and more pronounced the closer you get to
nuclear sizes. And this pressure is the hydrostatic pressure of space
itself, VENTING INTO the seat of the 'strong force' in every atomic
nucleus.

As for gravity, what is this thing that's
flowing?

The fluid field of space itself, whose wavelengths (or 'granularity')
lie below the Planck length. Its standing-wave _energy density_ is
enormous, obeying the dictum that the shorter the wavelength the higher
the energy. Because it resides below our sensory resolution, we interpet
is as "void" or 'nothing'. Yet our 'consensus reality' on 'this side' of
the Planck length constitutes the very LOWEST energy (and longest
wavelength) state of the medium. The energy-dense spatial medium is the
Primary Reality that expanded forth from the BigBang, with the material
universe and its dinky thermodynamic laws tagging along for the ride.
The same spatial medium is what is flowing back into a
gravitating mass, which we interpret as "attraction". But it is a
pressure-driven flow. It is the *collective* flow into the atomic
nucleii of matter, specifically, into the seat of the 'strong force' in
matter's constituent protons.
So gravity, which operates across astronomical distances
and mediates Newtonian and Keplerian laws, actually has its genesis in
the strong nuclear force. Herein lies the unification of gravity and the
strong force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows. And it also
demonstrates gravity's instantaneous-ness irrespective of distance, just
as Newton originally observed (jb, take a hikeg).

You're babbling Bill ... you're a Babbling Bill.


Is it (the spatial medium) subject to
turbulance?

Yes indeed. Massive events such as a SN going off or a binary BH merger
would trigger tsunamis of _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ (mis-named
'gravity waves'). Jb, take a long hike.

There is NO longitudinal component to Gravitational Waves.


Extremely long-period waves from
the BB itself *might* even be what's driving the 'sheets and voids'
structuring of the supercluster field.

Is the gravitational attraction an object
experiences related to its shape, in the
same way cars and aeroplanes are?

No. The flow exerts its force at the level of the atomic lattice; it
flows entirely _through_ an object, not `around` it. Thus a rod will
weigh exactly the same whether it's standing vertical or lying
horizontal. The absence of any 'streamlining' effect demonstrates the
flow's interaction at the atomic level.
This is not to be confused with 'weathervaning', as
with a hanging pendulum.

In the flowing-space model of gravity, we're beginning to see
gravitation and the BB process as a reciprocal, balanced dipole, sharing
a common 'gound state' in the pre-BB condition. It's kinda interesting
that the big accelerator labs are trying to "bulldoze" their way back to
the BB and even prior. oc