"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote,
So let's see if i've finally gotten it...
In a manner similar to the way the two
Pioneer spacecraft are exhibiting
anomalies that are not predicted by
relativity and *are* predicted by the
Flowing Space model, the effect of deep
space "lensing" is larger than relativity
predicts?
No, you ain't got it at all. The Pioneer anomaly is *not* related to the
lensing effect (except perhaps in the most peripheral and incidental
sense).
I never said that they were related, oc, i only said
that they are similar in that neither the larger lensing
effect nor the pioneer anomaly is predicted by GR.
When the predicted deep space lensing was finally discovered (1979?), it
was found to be in excess of what GR predicted. Ergo, the ad hoc
invention of "dark matter".
What was NOT understood is that gravity is the effect
OF _and only of_ the acceleration component of flowing space, and
affects only matter. Whereas light, being massless, is deflected
(lensed) by any flow whether the flow is accelerating or not. Further, a
high velocity flow devoid of acceleration will lens light to a high
degree, but will not affect matter.
Thus, any large scale, high velocity,
non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light
just as is observed. It don't take no steenkin' math to figure that out,
just plain old horse sense.
I know you don't support the need for
math, but physicists will only be
interested in how the greater lensing
effects are supported by formulas.
Well, that's the Primacy of Math doctrine again. All the Math in the
world ain't gonna convince 'em of anything, not as long as they are
under the VSP. Not unless and until they FIRST fully recognize the
reality of the spatial medium and the causal mechanism of gravity will
they understand flow lensing vs. "gravitational" lensing. THEN a set of
Math useful for describing the effect might be devised.
If you want to "prove" that the so-called
"gravitational lensing" is actually "flow
lensing", and thereby there is no need to
invoke "dark matter", then the formulaic
difference between relativity and the FSP will have to be established.
Sorry, but that's bass-ackwards. Recognizing the reality, the 'Big
Picture' comes first. That's Primacy of the B.P. :-) The Formulaic
Difference describing the B.P. comes afterward. Horse/cart 'stead of
cart-horse.
And for that matter, there is a need for
relativity math enhancement where the
Pioneers are concerned, as well.
Well that's a different critter from flow lensing. It is the increased
Sun-ward "compactifation" of space outside the Sun's gravity well
compared to the stretching/thinning of space inside the gravity well,
which results in the Pioneers lagging behind where they 'should be'. And
indeed the Math describing this necessary upgrade to GR has yet to be
developed. Again, recognizing the reality comes first. The Math
describing it comes afterward.
Not always. Fork primacy of math and fork primacy
of the big picture. Primacy of the truth about physical
reality is what matters. Applying mathematics does
not necessarily make it "primal". It is, however, an
important and crucial part of the scientific method. If
an application of math can be devised for "flow" type
lensing, AND for the pioneer and fly-by anomalies,
then the reality of flowing spatial/gravitational energy
could follow.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "Not only is the universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Sir Arthur Eddington
P.P.S.:
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com