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

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Hmm.. it appears the duck is still victoriously chortling er, quacking
about having "spnaked" the bearer of heresies over the aberration of
gravity. IIRC, he recited a discourse by Carlip in which the absence of
aberration is caused by "gravitomagnetism" and the quadrapole nature of
gravitational wave radiation.

You never read it coward.

The discourse is trying to tie the "speed
of gravity" to the propagation speed of gravitational waves. The author
clearly does not grasp the distinction between gravity and gravitational
waves.

No - you obviously do not understand the paper

Although related, they are distinctly different critters. Any
discourse trying to tie the 'speed of gravity' to the speed of GWs is a
spectacular fudgery, as stated previously.

Go into SPR and call Carlip a fudger then, or are you too much of a coward?

"Spnaked" indeed.

We at last agree.



--

"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

The duck seems unduly fixated on the aberration of gravity issue fer
some obscure reason. Since it's agreed that *there is no aberration*,
wherein is the problem?

The problem as it were, is in the need to reconcile Einstein's oriiginal
assertion that gravity propagates at c with the observed fact that it's
instantaneous (indicated by absence of aberration). So some really wild
gymnastics and ad hockery is applied to try to bridge the abyss.. rather
than admitting the obvious- Einstein was simply wrong on this one. The
'speed of gravity' is functionally instantaneous just as Newton
originally observed, plain and simple.

The duck's obsession with Carlip's stuff is a tempest in a teapot over
nothing. Same goes for Fomalont-Kopeikin's stuff.

oc

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

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:


The duck's obsession with Carlip's stuff is a tempest in a teapot over
nothing. Same goes for Fomalont-Kopeikin's stuff.


You're a liar and a coward.

--

"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 article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:


The duck's obsession with Carlip's stuff is a tempest in a teapot over
nothing. Same goes for Fomalont-Kopeikin's stuff.


You're a liar and a coward.

Yup.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

The duck's obsession with Carlip's stuff is a tempest in a teapot over
nothing. Same goes for Fomalont-Kopeikin's stuff.

You're a liar and a coward.

Yup.

You clueless mother-effers can't handle the trvth?
Oh that's right! You wouldn't know trvth if it
slapped you in the face. (That's the fat part just
about three feet below your neck.)

Now let's hear some more tindergarten material
from the peanut-fart gallery.

What a couple of loser-kooks you are!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
DArth Deco... "The FIELD is strong in this one!"

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

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

You clueless mother-effers can't handle the trvth?
Oh that's right! You wouldn't know trvth if it
slapped you in the face. (That's the fat part just
about three feet below your neck.)

BWAHAHA What a surprise. Painsnuh lames when his physics knowledge is proved
sorely lacking.

I thought you said you weren't a scientist. You weren't joking


Now let's hear some more tindergarten material
from the peanut-fart gallery.

What a couple of loser-kooks you are!

You keep on word-salading. Perhaps Bill can channel some more imaginary physics
for you!



--

"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:

Ahh, the ol' "never give up, never surrender"
way of the kook! Perhaps DArth can channel
some more lies and deception for you!


And perhaps Bill can conjure up some word salad you can call an "explanation"

--

"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

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Yeah, Paine. The EFF (entrained flow field) is the oft-referred-to
"reverse starburst" inflow pattern, also known as a gravitational field
or 'gravity well'.

This entrainment field is also the reason for the Michaelson-Morley null
result, which noted the conspicuous absence of any laterally-flowing
'wind', much less any "slamming into" effect of a 'wind'. MMX was never
designed to detect a vertical flow. (Even if the interferometer *had*
been designed with a vertical arm, the arm woulda undergone
foreshortening due to Lorentzian contraction, again cancelling out the
expected fringing.)

The MMX null result was consistent with an EFF, and would be expected.

Also, stellar aberration (the perceived displacement of stars directly
abeam of line of motion) is consistent with an EFF, and would be
expected.

These two points are precisely why i "kennelized" db 'way back when he
declared that MMX and stellar aberration "prove" nonexistance of the
spatial medium, implying "case closed". So indeed, "case closed" on the
ol' DimBulb.

(-:
oc


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

I'm not having much problem if any with stellar
aberration or the MM experiment. You covered
these well, and your explanations make sense.

But i'm still having a problem with the same thing
Odysseus challenged... remember, Bill, when you
read "disappear", don't assume that Odysseus is
talking about the roach-motel issue, which i think
we've covered about as well as it can be covered.
Here I think Odysseus is addressing the very same
issue i raised, the slam-on-the-brakes issue...

Odysseus wrote...

Worse, the 'flow-velocity equals escape-velocity' notion implies that a
whole lot of the fluid disappears on the way in, even in interplanetary
space. But of course the inverse-square law is mere mathematical
juggling to him; by refusing to think about such "minutiae" as
dimensions and coordinates he can blithely wave the contradictions away.

And he's also bringing in a related issue, that of the
"inverse-square-law" mathematical notion reasoned
out by Isaac Newton long ago.

Newton, like everyone else, thought that the force of
gravity emanated from matter in some yet unknown
way. Building on the amazing work of Tycho and of
Kepler, his dilemma was to provide reasonable evidence
for the extension of the force of gravity from Earth to
the heavens. The key to this extension demanded that
he be able to show how the effect of gravity is diluted
with distance.

It was known at the time, that the force of gravity
causes earthbound objects (such as falling apples g)
to accelerate towards the Earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s²
near the surface of the Earth. And it was also known
that planet Selene, the Moon, accelerated towards the
Earth at a rate of 0.00272 m/s². If the same force
which causes the acceleration of the apple to the Earth
also causes the acceleration of the Moon towards the
Earth, then there must be a plausible explanation for
why the acceleration of the Moon is so much smaller
than the acceleration of the apple.

What is it about the force of gravity which causes the
more distant Moon to accelerate at a rate of acceleration
which is approximately 1/3600 the acceleration of the
apple?

Newton knew that the force of gravity must somehow
be "diluted" by distance; but how? What mathematical
reality is intrinsic to the force of gravity which causes it
to be inversely dependent upon the distance between
the objects?

The riddle is solved by a comparison between the
distance from the apple to the center of the Earth with
the distance from the Moon to the center of the Earth.

The Moon in its orbit about the Earth is approximately
60 times further from the Earth's center than the apple
is. The mathematical relationship becomes clear. The
force of gravity between the Earth and any object is
inversely proportional to the square of the distance
which separates that object from the Earth's center.

The Moon, being 60 times further away than the apple,
experiences a force of gravity which is 1/(60)² times
that of the apple. So it became obvious to Newton that
the force of gravity follows an "inverse square law".

So now, let's return briefly to Table One...

Sun's Escape Velocity at Planets' Orbits

Neptune 4.8 mi/s
Uranus 6.0 mi/s
Saturn 8.5 mi/s
Jupiter 11.5 mi/s
Mars 21.2 mi/s
Earth 26.2 mi/s
Venus 30.8 mi/s
Mercury 42.1 mi/s
Sun's Surface 383.7 mi/s

Table One

Notice the label, please. Are these not the
mathematically computed escape velocities as
figured in conjunction with, and based in part
on, the inverse square law?

If so, then does it not follow that when we say
that the accelerating velocities of the flow of
spatial energy coming into the Solar System
correspond to these escape velocities at these
planetary-orbital points, are we not also saying
that the flow of space toward and into the Sun
not only adheres to the inverse-square law, but
does indeed produce it?

It is an intrinsic quality of Einstein's spatial
field to accelerate into matter at an increasing
rate of acceleration which produces the "effect"
known as Newton's inverse square law.

Now, Odysseus and Bill, as to the apparent
"disappearing" effect of the spatial field as it
is approached by and as it does approach a
large body of matter on its way into the Sun,
the "slam-on-the-brakes" issue, i'm still trying
to envision the answer. Give me time; i will
get it.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
TIME... sometimes, that's all it takes!

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

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Painius wrote,

...i'm still having a problem with the same thing Odysseus
challenged... remember,.. when you read "disappear", don't assume that
Odysseus is talking about the roach-motel issue...

Near as i can read his point, he's talking about the flow "disappearing"
in cross section, "compressing" in other words. Take the airflow going
down a carburetor throat; it "disappears", "compresses" in cross section
while elongating, stretching axially. Or take a funnel; the flow going
down a funnel "disappears" in cross section, yet at every cross section,
the same number of "grains per second" are passing thru every cross
section.. while the flow elongates and accelerates axially.

Of course, but it does so *by a specific amount*, and I believe I've
demonstrated upthread that your scenario is inconsistent. In comparing
planets of various sizes and densities Painius is seeing a related
problem.

If you multiply the rate of flow at the mouth of a funnel, or a
constriction in a pipe, by its cross-section, and do the same at the
narrowest point, you should get an identical figure -- assuming the
volume flux is constant. Between the widest point and the neck, the
velocity of the fluid must increase to match the decrease in
cross-sectional area. In the case of a spherical field, the
inverse-square law follows from this geometrical principle.

If you didn't follow the previous calculation, let's look a 'unit' of
flowing space as it heads toward the isolated Earth from the altitude of
the Moon's orbit. The escape velocity at r = 3.84E8 m is

v_esc = sqrt(2GM/r)

= sqrt(2 * 6.67E-11 * 5.97E24 / 3.84E8) m/s

= 1440 m/s.

So our test subject starts out at 1.44 kilometres per second, but must
accelerate as it moves inward, as it's 'constricted' by the decreasing
cross-section. By the time it nears the surface the radius is down to
6.4E6 m / 3.84E8 m = 1/60 of the starting figure, reducing the area to
1/3600 of the initial sphe accordingly, we'd expect it to move 3600
times as fast as it was when we began following it. That would be nearly
5200 km/s -- but the escape velocity here is only 11.2 km/s, five
hundred times slower! Again, I believe this is what Painius was getting
at when he referred to "slamming on the brakes" -- at the very least
it's a case of "too light on the gas-pedal".

--
Odysseus

Hi Ody

Always refreshing to hear from you. The mathematical points you
present are well taken, and understood.

But just for a moment, let's take a look at the issue from an entirely
different perspective than the purely mathematical one. The nexus of
the discussion here is the Causal Mechanism if Gravity, right? And
you've not yet commented on whether or not you agree relativity is
purely *descriptions of effects* devoid of _explanations of
causation_. So maybe you could comment on that forthwith.

Let's address the issue of Causation from the perspective of _observed
effects_. With "math mode off" for a moment, we observe:

1. A high, fixed value of c.

2. The fact that there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of
EM radiation.

3. The fact that the behavior of gravity appears to be that of a
pressure-driven, accelerating flow into mass, with mass synonymous
with flow sink.

4. The fact that whatever _causes_ gravity has the power to crush
massive stars down to the BH state.

5. The 'identical-ness' of all the elements everywhere in the
universe, even when out of lightspeed communication on opposite sides
of the universe.

6. The fact that the above points demonstrate a universal,
hyperpressurized, fluidic 'plemum' rather than a 'void'.

So what is the literal Causal Mechanism of the observed effects? And
it's not geometry-as-cause, 'curvature of space-time' (because again,
these are descriptions of effects), nor is gravity a pseudo force
arising out of those descriptions of effects. If it is, it's an
awfully herculean pseudo force capable of crushing stars down to a
BH.

So (with math mode off momentarily), if gravity is not exactly what it
appears to be behaves as, then what is it?

I mean, i'm open to hear it.

Respectfully,

oc