On Oct 16, 12:41*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:12*pm, Double-A wrote: oldcoot wrote:

...the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.

This doesn't sound like void space to me. *Also its talking about
photons interacting with the space-time atoms doesn't sound like void
space.

When Uncle Albert kicked out the "aether", he had to substitute
something for it. The mathematical abstraction "space-time" became its
surrogate. That way, space could still be an abstract 'something'
while abiding by the mandate that there is "no medium". So when
somebody talks about "space-time atoms", this same edict is adhered
to. It forbits existance of a literal spatial medium, either the
archaic "aether" or the SPED.


Einstein's only objection to the classical aether was that it couldn't
be used as a rest frame against which to mesure absolute motion. (The
quote is out there if only I had time to find it.) By theorizing
space-time atoms, it would seem to me they would have some local
existence, if they interact with photons, and contain defferent
amounts of energt depending on location. I don't see how he can do
this without by doing so establishing an absolute rest frame. If
space has atoms, then the objects in space would have velocities
relative to any particlular space-time atom. The author holds to
relativity, but if he is establishing an abolute reference frame by
defining these atoms, then relativity will go out the window!


...the CBB model subsumes but *does not negate* the singular
BigBang (or singular Big Bounce) idea. Hell, there's even a (singular)
Big Bloom idea floating around the web. *

I really like the way it theorizes a big crunch and bang while
avoiding a singularity.

Actually it postulates a 'squashed out', spinning disc similar to the
'ring singularity' of the Kerr BH model.


So I guess "spin is in"! (I couldn't resist.)

Double-A