Einstein was a wise old elf

From Painius:
The gravitational energy is what fuels the atomic nucleus, and keeps
it fueled. This would explain the source of the nuclear
forces...

To which the Pudz, in truest void-droid fashion, recited:

The gravitational force is FAR weaker
than the others.

Under the 'no medium' regime, there can be only separate, disparate
forces. Trying to unify the 'Wild Card', gravity, will forever amount to
chasing the rainbow. You can take perfectly good math and conjure up
'eleven dimensions' (or whatever number is currently in vogue) in a
convoluted attempt to relate gravity to the strong nuclear force. It
amounts to a modern "epicycles" caper, trying to use perfectly good math
to validate a false premise (Painius take note.:-)).

But replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized SPED, and the
unification of gravity happens unsought and unsolicited.. like a
friendly dog that trotted in thru the back door and sat down smiling.
(This unification, BTW, was one of the sidebars or 'spinoffs' of the CBB
model.)

As stated numerous times previously, one needs look no further than the
Casimir effect to see unification of gravity demonstrated, and
demonstrated dramatically. The two super-smooth, uncharged plates appear
mysteriously "attracted" to each other, but what's really going on? The
closer you approach the atomic level, the more pronounced becomes the
_accelerating flow of space_ into every atomic nucleus. The Casimir
effect is the _interface zone_ between gravity and the strong force.
It's at once the attenuated SF *and* the amped-up gravitational force
between the two plates, literally _pushing_ them together. It is the
SAME FLOW. It's analogous to a flowing river as it accelerates toward a
waterfall. The "quantum fluctuations" so popular with the QED guys are
analogous to rapids in the river.
Now Duckie at this point, will respond "math please."
You don't need no steenkin' math to understand it, dude.

Duckie will also holler, invoking the 'roach motel' issue: "Where does
the stuff go when it's ingested to the core of the nucleus?" To which
the rejoinder is "Where does the BB 'come from'?

If the flowing-space model's no good because it doesn't specify where
the stuff 'goes to', then the BB model's no good because it doesn't
specify where it 'comes from'.

Clearly, all indications point to a common, nonlocal 'ground state' with
gravitation and the BB process forming a natural dipole. To view the
process of gravitation is to view, literally, the inverse of the BB.
oc

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

From Painius:
The gravitational energy is what fuels the atomic nucleus, and keeps
it fueled. This would explain the source of the nuclear
forces...

To which the Pudz, in truest void-droid fashion, recited:

The gravitational force is FAR weaker
than the others.

Under the 'no medium' regime, there can be only separate, disparate
forces. Trying to unify the 'Wild Card', gravity, will forever amount to
chasing the rainbow. You can take perfectly good math and conjure up
'eleven dimensions' (or whatever number is currently in vogue) in a
convoluted attempt to relate gravity to the strong nuclear force. It
amounts to a modern "epicycles" caper, trying to use perfectly good math
to validate a false premise (Painius take note.:-)).

Whenever you feel threatened by modern science, out come the epicycles.
Well considering epicycles were a futz to take on board observations
within a faith based framework, it isn't surprising that you, based on
faith alone, cosey up to the idea.



But replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized SPED, and the
unification of gravity happens unsought and unsolicited.. like a
friendly dog that trotted in thru the back door and sat down smiling.
(This unification, BTW, was one of the sidebars or 'spinoffs' of the CBB
model.)


No it doesnt - it adds singularities to every mass. It doesn't explain
the process of flow once it reaches a mass, which if it doesn't
"disappear" and reappear elsewhere will quickly grow static.



As stated numerous times previously, one needs look no further than the
Casimir effect to see unification of gravity demonstrated, and
demonstrated dramatically. The two super-smooth, uncharged plates appear
mysteriously "attracted" to each other, but what's really going on? The
closer you approach the atomic level, the more pronounced becomes the
_accelerating flow of space_ into every atomic nucleus. The Casimir
effect is the _interface zone_ between gravity and the strong force.
It's at once the attenuated SF *and* the amped-up gravitational force
between the two plates, literally _pushing_ them together. It is the
SAME FLOW. It's analogous to a flowing river as it accelerates toward a
waterfall. The "quantum fluctuations" so popular with the QED guys are
analogous to rapids in the river.

Analogies are only useful to a point. Plus oops - there's those damn
singularities again. Why should the gravitational force get stronger?

Now Duckie at this point, will respond "math please."
You don't need no steenkin' math to understand it, dude.

Yes you do - to model, produce reproducible results and explore further.
Your inability to produce any working math speaks volumes.


Duckie will also holler, invoking the 'roach motel' issue: "Where does
the stuff go when it's ingested to the core of the nucleus?" To which
the rejoinder is "Where does the BB 'come from'?

The BB model incurs one singularity, which is needed in any non
steady-state model to explain the first event of creation. Your model
has a plethora of them.....


If the flowing-space model's no good because it doesn't specify where
the stuff 'goes to', then the BB model's no good because it doesn't
specify where it 'comes from'.

See above - nice try but bzzzt failed.




Clearly, all indications point to a common, nonlocal 'ground state' with
gravitation and the BB process forming a natural dipole. To view the
process of gravitation is to view, literally, the inverse of the BB.
oc

Word salad.


--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Painius I have posted many times that in the very beginning nature
used just one force,and that was gravity,and after the BB the other
three forces came out of gravity. A Nobel was given for combining two
so far. In the end they will all be unified into one,and gravity always
wins in the end. This thought is not new to me. I came up with my
equation in 1946. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I have posted many times that in the very beginning nature
used just one force,and that was gravity,and after the BB the other
three forces came out of gravity. A Nobel was given for combining two
so far. In the end they will all be unified into one,and gravity always
wins in the end. This thought is not new to me. I came up with my
equation in 1946. Bert

Yes, i agree, Bert. But i think that someday we'll
find that gravity is not a true force. Here is how i
think it happened (and continues to happen)...

Space, an energy that flows, develops minuscule
and curious little flaws in its flow. These little
"flaws" are unconscionably tiny areas of condensed
spatial energy. Perhaps a quark (or whatever makes
up a quark) is born.

Spatial energy continues to be drawn into these
tiny protoparticles, and this action of space draws
these quarks together. We're talking about a very
weak tendency here, a tendency that eventually,
after lots of quarks become a proton and an
electron, begins to be strong enough to be sensed
as "gravity" on the quantum scale.

So now these condensed forms of spatial energy,
"quarks", have themselves condensed to form the
familiar hydrogen atom. And there are charges
built up within each major particle, each proton
and electron, that would blow the larger of them
apart. So, naturally, some small force is required
to hold the large proton particle together... and
the "weak nuclear force" is born.

And all there is... is hydrogen. Circumstances
come about that combine hydrogen into helium.
Hydrogen gas condenses into a star that fuses
and burns the hydrogen. This results in helium.
To keep two protons together, since there is a
very strong tendency for them to repel each
other, a stronger force is needed... and the
"strong nuclear force" is born.

Stars blow up and produce the more complex
elements and sooner or later, lo and behold...
particles find a way, some way, to condense, to
get together and to be ALIVE !

....and here we are.

We ponder the fundamental forces and we
wonder why gravity doesn't "come around" to
unify with these forces. It's because gravity is
not a force. Gravity is the source of the forces.

It all begins with gravity.

And if gravitational energy can do all this, it's
no wonder why Einstein would take his field
equations regarding flowing space to his grave.

....or at the very least, he hid them very well.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
SMILE... extend your love all over the cosmos!

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

From Painius, replying to Bert:

We ponder the fundamental forces and
we wonder why gravity doesn't "come
around" to unify with these forces. It's
because gravity is not a force. Gravity is
the source of the forces.

Or as Wolter put it, there is only one Flow, driven by one Force in the
Unified Field of Spatial Flows. All that exists, all the fundamental
forces, are reducible to this. And it's interesting that he did not use
one iota of math in formulating his entire cosmology.

..it's no wonder why Einstein would take
his field equations regarding flowing
space to his grave.
...or at the very least, he hid them very
well.

Indeed.
oc

Painius wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I have posted many times that in the very beginning nature
used just one force,and that was gravity,and after the BB the other
three forces came out of gravity. A Nobel was given for combining two
so far. In the end they will all be unified into one,and gravity always
wins in the end. This thought is not new to me. I came up with my
equation in 1946. Bert

Yes, i agree, Bert. But i think that someday we'll
find that gravity is not a true force. Here is how i
think it happened (and continues to happen)...

Space, an energy that flows, develops minuscule
and curious little flaws in its flow. These little
"flaws" are unconscionably tiny areas of condensed
spatial energy. Perhaps a quark (or whatever makes
up a quark) is born.

Spatial energy continues to be drawn into these
tiny protoparticles, and this action of space draws
these quarks together. We're talking about a very
weak tendency here, a tendency that eventually,
after lots of quarks become a proton and an
electron, begins to be strong enough to be sensed
as "gravity" on the quantum scale.

So now these condensed forms of spatial energy,
"quarks", have themselves condensed to form the
familiar hydrogen atom. And there are charges
built up within each major particle, each proton
and electron, that would blow the larger of them
apart. So, naturally, some small force is required
to hold the large proton particle together... and
the "weak nuclear force" is born.

And all there is... is hydrogen. Circumstances
come about that combine hydrogen into helium.
Hydrogen gas condenses into a star that fuses
and burns the hydrogen. This results in helium.
To keep two protons together, since there is a
very strong tendency for them to repel each
other, a stronger force is needed... and the
"strong nuclear force" is born.

Stars blow up and produce the more complex
elements and sooner or later, lo and behold...
particles find a way, some way, to condense, to
get together and to be ALIVE !

...and here we are.

We ponder the fundamental forces and we
wonder why gravity doesn't "come around" to
unify with these forces. It's because gravity is
not a force. Gravity is the source of the forces.

It all begins with gravity.

And if gravitational energy can do all this, it's
no wonder why Einstein would take his field
equations regarding flowing space to his grave.

...or at the very least, he hid them very well.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
SMILE... extend your love all over the cosmos!

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


This is not much different than the standard mainstream theory, except
that they don't call the original primordial force "gravity". But
gravity would be the first force to split off.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...gy/forces.html

Double-A

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Yes, i agree, Bert. But i think that someday we'll
find that gravity is not a true force. Here is how i
think it happened (and continues to happen)...

GR already says that,

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Or as Wolter put it, there is only one Flow, driven by one Force in the
Unified Field of Spatial Flows. All that exists, all the fundamental
forces, are reducible to this. And it's interesting that he did not use
one iota of math in formulating his entire cosmology.

Which instantly discredits it in my eyes as it now can no longer be used
for predictive properties. Its all faith.

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

oc & Painius 4 forces and the strongest is "the strong force" so how
strong is it as compared with gravity? its 10^39 times stronger. Here is
its rub it does not reach out further than the size of an atoms nuclei.
Its 100% sub micro.,and we know the weak force is responsible for
certain kinds of decay,and this force is very weak. Wish I knew why
forces vary so much in strengths(oh ya) To me its like figuring out why
particles should have so many different masses? (Go figure why an
electron has the mass and charge it possess??) Well guys reality is no
one knows,but I do venture my thoughts into unknown areas as you
know(stuff not in Google) Back to gravity as it must act as a
retarding force on the expansion of the universe. If it could stop
expansion it would have as written "critical density" and that is most
likely not the case. The opposite is shown to us. Thicky stuff is this
When the universe was young and dense and that means its gravity
strength was great this did not seem to slow its expansion(why is that?)
Going with Guth's inflation even makes it more interesting.
I have given out my theory of universe expansion. Best to keep in mind
with 95% of the universe matter(gravity) missing its still expanding at
an accelerating rate,and that is why my concave convex theory can give a
realistic answer to this mystery. I love mysteries Bert

"Double-A" wrote in message...
oups.com...
Painius wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Painius I have posted many times that in the very beginning nature
used just one force,and that was gravity,and after the BB the other
three forces came out of gravity. A Nobel was given for combining two
so far. In the end they will all be unified into one,and gravity always
wins in the end. This thought is not new to me. I came up with my
equation in 1946. Bert

Yes, i agree, Bert. But i think that someday we'll
find that gravity is not a true force. Here is how i
think it happened (and continues to happen)...

Space, an energy that flows, develops minuscule
and curious little flaws in its flow. These little
"flaws" are unconscionably tiny areas of condensed
spatial energy. Perhaps a quark (or whatever makes
up a quark) is born.

Spatial energy continues to be drawn into these
tiny protoparticles, and this action of space draws
these quarks together. We're talking about a very
weak tendency here, a tendency that eventually,
after lots of quarks become a proton and an
electron, begins to be strong enough to be sensed
as "gravity" on the quantum scale.

So now these condensed forms of spatial energy,
"quarks", have themselves condensed to form the
familiar hydrogen atom. And there are charges
built up within each major particle, each proton
and electron, that would blow the larger of them
apart. So, naturally, some small force is required
to hold the large proton particle together... and
the "weak nuclear force" is born.

And all there is... is hydrogen. Circumstances
come about that combine hydrogen into helium.
Hydrogen gas condenses into a star that fuses
and burns the hydrogen. This results in helium.
To keep two protons together, since there is a
very strong tendency for them to repel each
other, a stronger force is needed... and the
"strong nuclear force" is born.

Stars blow up and produce the more complex
elements and sooner or later, lo and behold...
particles find a way, some way, to condense, to
get together and to be ALIVE !

...and here we are.

We ponder the fundamental forces and we
wonder why gravity doesn't "come around" to
unify with these forces. It's because gravity is
not a force. Gravity is the source of the forces.

It all begins with gravity.

And if gravitational energy can do all this, it's
no wonder why Einstein would take his field
equations regarding flowing space to his grave.

...or at the very least, he hid them very well.

This is not much different than the standard mainstream theory, except
that they don't call the original primordial force "gravity". But
gravity would be the first force to split off.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...gy/forces.html

Double-A

They are merely classifications based upon differently
manifested properties, AA. As i believe Bert has said,
"It's gravity all the way down."

If labeled correctly, they would be...

* Planck gravity, pushing quarks together,
* quantum gravity, keeping quarks together,
* weak nuclear gravity, helping quantum gravity in
the larger particles,
* electromagnetic gravity, multiple applications to
include keeping atoms (electrons and protons)
together,
* strong nuclear gravity, to keep complex nuclei
together,
* large-scale gravity, to keep everything else right
on up to superclusters of galaxies bonded together.

And it's all from the flow of the gravitational energy
field that comprises space!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
SMILE... and light up the Universe!

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