In a Spirit of Harmony (was - Age of Universe...)

From Painius, replying to the duck's assertion that flowing-space is off
topic and "speculative" with no basis in reality:

I disagree, so hopefully we can agree to
disagree on this point.

The sciences of theoretical physics, astronomy, and
astrophyics/cosmology have enshrined "space-as-void" as their bedrock
doctrine. One can draw a clever analogy to it: suppose the science of
marine biology had "there is no ocean" as its most basic axiom..
studying all that's in the ocean while institutionally denying existance
of the ocean.

Flowing space is indeed speculative,
however there is plenty of reason to
believe that it is real.

Speculation? By its abundance of effects, the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_ to be real, most notably in the accelerating-flow
mechanism of gravity. There's no speculation, conjecture, "faith",
"theory" or whatever, to it.

..seems to be... there is no *causal*
explanation for gravity in science other
than that which Einstein proposed in
Appendix V.

The Appendix very subliminally and cryptically *hints at* a causal
mechanism. It does not propose one (much less provide one). Bear in mind
that Einstein was still wedded to space-as-void; yet his subtle hint of
"space as field" provided a tiny crack in the decades-old logjam.

Contrary to the duck's opinon, nothing could be more ON TOPIC to
astronomy/astrophysics than the nature of space (per the marine
biology-ocean analogy).

As stated numerous times, a simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm is
all that's necessary: replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized,
sub-Planck-wavelength, fluidic Plenum of space. Either it IS what it is,
or it's angels, imps and sky pixies all the way down. (-:

oc

Header address is a spam trap. E-mail: oldcoot7074 at sbcglobal.net
Change 'at' to @

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

From Painius, replying to the duck's assertion that flowing-space is off
topic and "speculative" with no basis in reality:

I disagree, so hopefully we can agree to
disagree on this point.

The sciences of theoretical physics, astronomy, and
astrophyics/cosmology have enshrined "space-as-void" as their bedrock
doctrine. One can draw a clever analogy to it: suppose the science of
marine biology had "there is no ocean" as its most basic axiom..
studying all that's in the ocean while institutionally denying existance
of the ocean.

That is because it explains all known phenomena to a remarkable degree of
accuracy.


Flowing space is indeed speculative,
however there is plenty of reason to
believe that it is real.

Then why can't you post a SINGLE one


Speculation? By its abundance of effects, the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_ to be real, most notably in the accelerating-flow
mechanism of gravity. There's no speculation, conjecture, "faith",
"theory" or whatever, to it.

It is, because you repost the litany above without a single shred of proof.

Take a thick enough hollow sphere. The interior of the sphere will be shielded
from space by the the continual inrush of flowing space to the surface from
outside (easily shown from flux diagrams).

That leaves the interior as a shielded space. If space does indeed rush into
the centres of mass of particles, then for the space shielded in the centre of
the sphere the only way out is via any loose atoms within the sphere or the
interior surface. This results in the loss of space to the shielded interior
with no way for it to be replenished.

As you claim the pressure-density-temperature of space dictates 'c', we have a
situation where 'c' will tend to infinity in the rapidly emptying interior. As
a body at any temperature above absolute zero emits radiation, we find that the
interior will show an internal energy density tending to infinity - yet another
singularity which will destroy the sphere.

We also note that since Painius now claims that the continual inrush of space
replenishes matter, the lack of new space to the interior means that on top of
the infinite energy density problem, we note the sphere decays from the inside
out, which will decay as radiation.

Hence ANY hollow sphere should show a significant deviation from black body, in
fact showing more radiation then a black body - so now thermodynamics is
affected!


..seems to be... there is no *causal*
explanation for gravity in science other
than that which Einstein proposed in
Appendix V.

The Appendix very subliminally and cryptically *hints at* a causal
mechanism. It does not propose one (much less provide one). Bear in mind
that Einstein was still wedded to space-as-void; yet his subtle hint of
"space as field" provided a tiny crack in the decades-old logjam.

Like his unease at the cosmological constant, Einstein often proposed ideas and
felt issues with them.


Contrary to the duck's opinon, nothing could be more ON TOPIC to
astronomy/astrophysics than the nature of space (per the marine
biology-ocean analogy).

Its not on topic as it has no basis in reality - take it to
alt-sci.physics.new-theories or whatever.


As stated numerous times, a simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm is
all that's necessary: replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized,
sub-Planck-wavelength, fluidic Plenum of space. Either it IS what it is,
or it's angels, imps and sky pixies all the way down. (-:

Absolute word salad. What is the size of the constituent particles of the
fluid, and how does this relate to Heisenberg?






--

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish." Painius

oc Thinking of oceans(water) I can see it having a Casimir effect,as
two metal plates would be pushed together. Space waves and ocean waves
could be relative in this respect Bert

oc After I pressed the send key this thought jumped in. Two large navy
ships are made sure there is a large space between them so that the
Casimir effect does not come into play. Best to keep in mind they
use a "captain's chair" Bert

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From Painius, replying to the duck's assertion that flowing-space is off
topic and "speculative" with no basis in reality:

I disagree, so hopefully we can agree to
disagree on this point.

The sciences of theoretical physics, astronomy, and
astrophyics/cosmology have enshrined "space-as-void" as their bedrock
doctrine. One can draw a clever analogy to it: suppose the science of
marine biology had "there is no ocean" as its most basic axiom..
studying all that's in the ocean while institutionally denying existance
of the ocean.

That's a good one, however the ocean is readily
discernible to our senses. It does show itself to
be real by, as you say, "its abundance of effects",
but we also know it's real because we can sense
a difference when we see it and touch it.

Not so with space and the spatial field.

Flowing space is indeed speculative,
however there is plenty of reason to
believe that it is real.

Speculation? By its abundance of effects, the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_ to be real, most notably in the accelerating-flow
mechanism of gravity. There's no speculation, conjecture, "faith",
"theory" or whatever, to it.

Yes, it's speculative because we still cannot
sense it as anything other than a void, a box,
a container of objects and energies. So for a
scientist asking for *something* that can be
observed, sensed and measured, it would be
a huge leap of faith to believe in space as a
flowing field.

This should come home to you when you think
about how Einstein introduced this idea over
50 years ago, and even though it was the great
Einstein describing "spatial extension" and
"space as field", science still refuses to "take the
leap" and embrace further thought on his last
relativistic field theory.

Flowing space will not receive the attention it
deserves until somebody uncovers a way to
sense it... a way that cannot be attributed to
anything else.

..seems to be... there is no *causal*
explanation for gravity in science other
than that which Einstein proposed in
Appendix V.

The Appendix very subliminally and cryptically *hints at* a causal
mechanism. It does not propose one (much less provide one). Bear in mind
that Einstein was still wedded to space-as-void; yet his subtle hint of
"space as field" provided a tiny crack in the decades-old logjam.

Exactly! The old boy was being quite elfish in
App. V, which is probably why he hasn't as yet
been taken seriously about it.

Einstein by this time was no longer wedded to
space-as-void. He divorced the notion and went
with space-as-field (well, everything-including-
space-time-as-field) in App. V.

Science was and still is wedded to the VSP, &&&
wedded to the idea that Einstein was still wedded
to the VSP. So scientists cannot bring themselves
to believe that Einstein was being serious in his
15th edition.

But he was serious... he knew.

Everything is made of a basic, bedrock primal
energy field, primal and primary. All things stem
from it! It is the essence.

Contrary to the duck's opinon, nothing could be more ON TOPIC to
astronomy/astrophysics than the nature of space (per the marine
biology-ocean analogy).

As if his opinion could possibly carry any more
weight than anybody else's. This is a public forum,
a forum about astronomy. Why wouldn't space and
what it is or isn't be on-topic?

As stated numerous times, a simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm is
all that's necessary: replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized,
sub-Planck-wavelength, fluidic Plenum of space. Either it IS what it is,
or it's angels, imps and sky pixies all the way down. (-:

oc

Angels are nice. I like angels. They're pretty
good sports. When it comes to physical reality?...

I like to feel the water splashing in my face, to
see the breakers as they rush toward the shore.
I like to watch kids and puppies playing in the
shallows, and great ships on the flat horizon.

We will bring flowing space home.

In a separate response, i would like again to
discuss what i feel is a major flaw in this sidebar
to the CBB theory. Hopefully, in a spirit of
harmony, we can discover an answer as to why
and how flowing space must perform a seemingly
odd and inexplicable feat.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
ASTRO WARS!... May the FIELD be with you.

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news

. . . What is the size of the constituent particles of the
fluid,

Oh they must be friggin' hewwwwmongus! g

Good question, actually, Phineas. As we are
postulating an energy that has wavelengths that
could be shorter even than the Planck length, we
must also attest to the great amount of energy
this implies, as well as to the extremely marked
corpuscular nature of "the fluid".

Since "bigger than a breadbox" will probably not
do it for you, then consider that "space-as-field"
comes off as a void nothingness to our senses.
Scientists look for the "graviton" and cannot find
it yet. Perhaps when they do find it, you will have
your answer to this question.

My guess is that it's a very dense material of very
tiny but energy-packed(!) photon-like quanta, and
their negative, deleterious and pernicious side
effects on budding astrophysicists are nothing
short of extraordinary! g

and how does this relate to Heisenberg?

....on him too!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
ASTRO WARS!... May the FIELD be with you.

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From Painius, replying to the duck's assertion that flowing-space is off
topic and "speculative" with no basis in reality:

I disagree, so hopefully we can agree to
disagree on this point.

The sciences of theoretical physics, astronomy, and
astrophyics/cosmology have enshrined "space-as-void" as their bedrock
doctrine. One can draw a clever analogy to it: suppose the science of
marine biology had "there is no ocean" as its most basic axiom..
studying all that's in the ocean while institutionally denying existance
of the ocean.

That's a good one, however the ocean is readily
discernible to our senses. It does show itself to
be real by, as you say, "its abundance of effects",
but we also know it's real because we can sense
a difference when we see it and touch it.

And affects matter in discernible ways


Not so with space and the spatial field.

Flowing space is indeed speculative,
however there is plenty of reason to
believe that it is real.

Speculation? By its abundance of effects, the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_ to be real, most notably in the accelerating-flow
mechanism of gravity. There's no speculation, conjecture, "faith",
"theory" or whatever, to it.

Yes, it's speculative because we still cannot
sense it as anything other than a void, a box,
a container of objects and energies. So for a
scientist asking for *something* that can be
observed, sensed and measured, it would be
a huge leap of faith to believe in space as a
flowing field.


At last, you realise its all fairy stories!


This should come home to you when you think
about how Einstein introduced this idea over
50 years ago, and even though it was the great
Einstein describing "spatial extension" and
"space as field", science still refuses to "take the
leap" and embrace further thought on his last
relativistic field theory.

Flowing space will not receive the attention it
deserves until somebody uncovers a way to
sense it... a way that cannot be attributed to
anything else.

Yep - welcome to SCIENCE!


..seems to be... there is no *causal*
explanation for gravity in science other
than that which Einstein proposed in
Appendix V.

The Appendix very subliminally and cryptically *hints at* a causal
mechanism. It does not propose one (much less provide one). Bear in mind
that Einstein was still wedded to space-as-void; yet his subtle hint of
"space as field" provided a tiny crack in the decades-old logjam.

Exactly! The old boy was being quite elfish in
App. V, which is probably why he hasn't as yet
been taken seriously about it.


Its two pages you maroon!


Einstein by this time was no longer wedded to
space-as-void. He divorced the notion and went
with space-as-field (well, everything-including-
space-time-as-field) in App. V.

Science was and still is wedded to the VSP, &&&
wedded to the idea that Einstein was still wedded
to the VSP. So scientists cannot bring themselves
to believe that Einstein was being serious in his
15th edition.

But he was serious... he knew.

Everything is made of a basic, bedrock primal
energy field, primal and primary. All things stem
from it! It is the essence.

Contrary to the duck's opinon, nothing could be more ON TOPIC to
astronomy/astrophysics than the nature of space (per the marine
biology-ocean analogy).

As if his opinion could possibly carry any more
weight than anybody else's. This is a public forum,
a forum about astronomy. Why wouldn't space and
what it is or isn't be on-topic?

When its full of ****poor imaginary science with no basis in reality peddled by
known OFO believers...


As stated numerous times, a simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm is
all that's necessary: replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized,
sub-Planck-wavelength, fluidic Plenum of space. Either it IS what it is,
or it's angels, imps and sky pixies all the way down. (-:

oc

Angels are nice. I like angels. They're pretty
good sports. When it comes to physical reality?...

I like to feel the water splashing in my face, to
see the breakers as they rush toward the shore.
I like to watch kids and puppies playing in the
shallows, and great ships on the flat horizon.

We will bring flowing space home.

In a separate response, i would like again to
discuss what i feel is a major flaw in this sidebar
to the CBB theory. Hopefully, in a spirit of
harmony, we can discover an answer as to why
and how flowing space must perform a seemingly
odd and inexplicable feat.


Easy

It doesn't exist.



--

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish." Painius

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news

. . . What is the size of the constituent particles of the
fluid,

Oh they must be friggin' hewwwwmongus! g

Good question, actually, Phineas. As we are
postulating an energy that has wavelengths that
could be shorter even than the Planck length, we
must also attest to the great amount of energy
this implies, as well as to the extremely marked
corpuscular nature of "the fluid".


So what exists between the particles?


Since "bigger than a breadbox" will probably not
do it for you, then consider that "space-as-field"
comes off as a void nothingness to our senses.
Scientists look for the "graviton" and cannot find
it yet. Perhaps when they do find it, you will have
your answer to this question.


Nothing in common


My guess is that it's a very dense material of very
tiny but energy-packed(!) photon-like quanta, and
their negative, deleterious and pernicious side
effects on budding astrophysicists are nothing
short of extraordinary! g


Oh how sad. You're running low of babble.



--

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish." Painius

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in
message
news

. . . What is the size of the constituent particles of the
fluid,

Oh they must be friggin' hewwwwmongus! g

Good question, actually, Phineas. As we are
postulating an energy that has wavelengths that
could be shorter even than the Planck length, we
must also attest to the great amount of energy
this implies, as well as to the extremely marked
corpuscular nature of "the fluid".

So what exists between the particles?

Here my guess would be a membrane of sorts. The
thought of "quantum foam" comes to mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

....however, i totally disagree with the standard idea
of quantum foam, as it is based solidly on the quick-
sand of the uncertainty principle.

I *do* like the name "space-time foam", though,
which is another less common name for quantum
foam.

Maybe we can "steal" it? g I wonder if Guth
would approve?

Uhm, that's Alan, not Brad... in case you weren't
sure who, uh, whom, uh, who i meant.

uh, whom?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
ASTRO WARS!... May the FIELD be with you.

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From Painius, replying to the duck's assertion that flowing-space is
off
topic and "speculative" with no basis in reality:

I disagree, so hopefully we can agree to
disagree on this point.

The sciences of theoretical physics, astronomy, and
astrophyics/cosmology have enshrined "space-as-void" as their bedrock
doctrine. One can draw a clever analogy to it: suppose the science of
marine biology had "there is no ocean" as its most basic axiom..
studying all that's in the ocean while institutionally denying
existance
of the ocean.

That's a good one, however the ocean is readily
discernible to our senses. It does show itself to
be real by, as you say, "its abundance of effects",
but we also know it's real because we can sense
a difference when we see it and touch it.

And affects matter in discernible ways

Tut tut, Phineas... "abundance of effects",
gravity being one of them, and gravity is
something that affects matter in discernible
ways. Gravity is also something, the cause
of which has eluded quantum mechanics for
a long time. They can't even get that teeny
tiny quantum car motor to turn over.

char. M. Twain
And yet hyar we have an idea which almost
perfectly explains gravity using waay more
than fancy geometra. It ain't turtles, it ain't
math, and it *sure as hell* ain't curved
nut 'n honey...
/char. M. Twain

It's spatial energy all the way down!

Speculation? By its abundance of effects, the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_ to be real, most notably in the accelerating-flow
mechanism of gravity. There's no speculation, conjecture, "faith",
"theory" or whatever, to it.

Yes, it's speculative because we still cannot
sense it as anything other than a void, a box,
a container of objects and energies. So for a
scientist asking for *something* that can be
observed, sensed and measured, it would be
a huge leap of faith to believe in space as a
flowing field.

At last, you realise its all fairy stories!

I realize that subs were once sf, airplanes were
once sf, the galaxy in Andromeda was once the
nebula in Andromeda. I realize the need for
skeptics who belittle ideas, too. So unlike you,
and how you say you feel about my opinion, i
value your thoughts and feelings on this matter.

While we cannot yet come up with all the math
to validate flowing space, can you come up with
even one formula or equation that invalidates it?

This should come home to you when you think
about how Einstein introduced this idea over
50 years ago, and even though it was the great
Einstein describing "spatial extension" and
"space as field", science still refuses to "take the
leap" and embrace further thought on his last
relativistic field theory.

Flowing space will not receive the attention it
deserves until somebody uncovers a way to
sense it... a way that cannot be attributed to
anything else.

Yep - welcome to SCIENCE!

..seems to be... there is no *causal*
explanation for gravity in science other
than that which Einstein proposed in
Appendix V.

The Appendix very subliminally and cryptically *hints at* a causal
mechanism. It does not propose one (much less provide one). Bear in
mind
that Einstein was still wedded to space-as-void; yet his subtle hint of
"space as field" provided a tiny crack in the decades-old logjam.

Exactly! The old boy was being quite elfish in
App. V, which is probably why he hasn't as yet
been taken seriously about it.

Its two pages . . . !

Odd... you must have the V V V L E (the very very
very large edition) because my App. V begins on
page 135 and ends on page 157. **OR**

Some conspiracy glance leftglance right has
removed twenty or so dangerous pages from your
copy of the text of Einsteins Last Theory. Better
watch yer back, Jack!

Einstein by this time was no longer wedded to
space-as-void. He divorced the notion and went
with space-as-field

Here i meant to say that Einstein had divorced the
notion of space-as-void and had _started courting_
space-as-field. He does not appear to have tied the
knot by the time he wrote App. V (but who knows,
they may have eloped!)

(well, everything-including-
space-time-as-field) in App. V.

Science was and still is wedded to the VSP, &&&
wedded to the idea that Einstein was still wedded
to the VSP. So scientists cannot bring themselves
to believe that Einstein was being serious in his
15th edition.

But he was serious... he knew.

Everything is made of a basic, bedrock primal
energy field, primal and primary. All things stem
from it! It is the essence.

Contrary to the duck's opinon, nothing could be more ON TOPIC to
astronomy/astrophysics than the nature of space (per the marine
biology-ocean analogy).

As if his opinion could possibly carry any more
weight than anybody else's. This is a public forum,
a forum about astronomy. Why wouldn't space and
what it is or isn't be on-topic?

When its full of ****poor imaginary science with no basis in reality
peddled by
known OFO believers...

In your opinion, which carries as much weight
as anybody else's. In my opinion, there is much
science to the idea, but thus far some of this has
been misinterpreted.

Thinking that gravity is a pull-force type field that
is created and emanated by matter is like thinking
the Sun goes around the Earth. Sure, that's how
it appears--the Sun appears to go around the Earth--
but it doesn't go around the Earth, now does it!

And gravity is a push-force type field that flows
and PLUNGES into the Earth keeping your feet on
the ground despite your best efforts to soar into
the wild blue yonder!

As stated numerous times, a simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm
is
all that's necessary: replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized,
sub-Planck-wavelength, fluidic Plenum of space. Either it IS what it
is,
or it's angels, imps and sky pixies all the way down. (-:

oc

Angels are nice. I like angels. They're pretty
good sports. When it comes to physical reality?...

I like to feel the water splashing in my face, to
see the breakers as they rush toward the shore.
I like to watch kids and puppies playing in the
shallows, and great ships on the flat horizon.

We will bring flowing space home.

In a separate response, i would like again to
discuss what i feel is a major flaw in this sidebar
to the CBB theory. Hopefully, in a spirit of
harmony, we can discover an answer as to why
and how flowing space must perform a seemingly
odd and inexplicable feat.

Easy

It doesn't exist.

Yet.

I remember a time when UseNet didn't exist.
What on Earth did we do back then? I can't
for the life of me rimember! g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
ASTRO WARS!... May the FIELD be with you.

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net