Is there a need to "fix" GR? (Was... )

Painius wrote,

Maybe physicists should "break" GR in
ways they know how to "fix" just to see if it might help them fix the
other broken
areas? Don't physics professors do this
all the time for their students?

The more adept one gets at fixing things
one knows how to fix, the better one may get at fixing things one does
_not_ know
how to fix?

There's all this talk about GR being "broken" and needing "fixing". But
i keep yammering (to no avail apparently), why does it need "fixing"?
What is "wrong" with GR's core tenets that are proven correct over and
over? Nothing is wrong or "broken" about GR. It 'works' just fine...
locally.

Does Newton need "fixing" just because relativity *builds upon* Newton
and stands on his shoulders? Newton's laws are used routinely within
their local scope. Relativity simply takes up where Newton leaves off.

Likewise, the Upgrade of GR takes up where the local, 'flat' version of
GR leaves off.

But the Upgrade requires violating the ultimate Taboo : replace the
"void" of space with the universe-filling Plenum of space. It requires
recognizig the spatial medium's self-evident properties of fluidity,
mobility, compressibility/ expandibility, and... *density gradients*.
The density-gradients thing is the nexus of GR's
Upgrade.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote,

Maybe physicists should "break" GR in
ways they know how to "fix" just to see if
it might help them fix the other broken
areas? Don't physics professors do this
all the time for their students?

The more adept one gets at fixing things
one knows how to fix, the better one may
get at fixing things one does _not_ know
how to fix?

There's all this talk about GR being "broken" and needing "fixing". But
i keep yammering (to no avail apparently), why does it need "fixing"?

It may be just a perceptual "fixing", but you have to face
the fact that relativity is "force-free", as David Smith does
remind us, and that the FSP requires that gravitation be a
true "force". Also, relativity gives gravitation a velocity of
"c". And yet the FSP provides an instantaneous ripple of
gravitational effect so that planetary orbits do not stray.

What is "wrong" with GR's core tenets that are proven correct over and
over? Nothing is wrong or "broken" about GR. It 'works' just fine...
locally.

Okay, here you slap the face of relativity apparently not
knowing that you do so. Relativity supposedly "fixes" the
Newtonian "local" problems, and then it gives rise to the
"fact" that "general" relativity is *just that* -- General!

To me, this means that the general theory of relativity is
meant to apply across the board--"generally"--whether
the application is "local" or not. So your addition of the
term "locally", implying "not non-locally" does fly right in
the face of GR.

Can't you see the contradiction? If "GR's core tenets that
are proven correct over and over" are to be believed and
followed, if "nothing is wrong or 'broken' about GR", then
how come it doesn't work just fine, nonlocally?

A "general" theory is supposed to handle everything, both
locally and nonlocally. If it cannot do this, then it is no
longer "general". It then becomes "special". So you are
basically saying that the CBB model along with the FSP is,
sort of, "more general" than GR.

That is to say that GR is more general than SR and those
classical Newtonian ideas, and GR is more special (less
general) than the gravitational tenets of the flowing space
model.

Does Newton need "fixing" just because relativity *builds upon* Newton
and stands on his shoulders? Newton's laws are used routinely within
their local scope. Relativity simply takes up where Newton leaves off.

Likewise, the Upgrade of GR takes up where the local, 'flat' version of
GR leaves off.

And how can you not see this as "fixing" GR? I mean,
that's what "refining" a theory is all about. Newton's
ideas work well up to a point, and at that point, they
are "fixed" or "refined" by GR. Like i said, maybe it's
just a perceptual difference, but to me, making rubber
stronger so that people get fewer flat tires "fixes" a
major problem. It's a "refinement" to be sure, but to
me, it's a definite "fix" for a definite problem.

But the Upgrade requires violating the ultimate Taboo : replace the
"void" of space with the universe-filling Plenum of space. It requires
recognizig the spatial medium's self-evident properties of fluidity,
mobility, compressibility/ expandibility, and... *density gradients*.
The density-gradients thing is the nexus of GR's
Upgrade.

And that's one of two Major Fixes/Refinements that
are needed, the other being the complete and total
abolishment of the even more deeply entrenched...

P u l l - G r a v i t y P a r a d i g m

Both unproved axioms must be discarded before the
great physicists of our time can pull themselves out
of the muck and mire!

There is *no such thing* as "action at a distance".
Gravitation only appears to be such an action. It is
not. Newton didn't believe it, but he was unable to
show why. Einstein didn't believe it, and he tried a
little harder and brought physics closer to the truth,
but he still was unable to show why there is no true
"action at a distance". Wolter's idea of a flowing,
non-EM energy accelerating into matter to cause
gravitation shows why there is no such thing. No
such thing as "action at a distance".

A dynamic spatial/gravitational energy flows within
the gravitational field that you call an "entrained
flow field" (EFF). Unlike electric and magnetic field
energies, gravitational energy *accelerates* within
the EFF. It's a magnificent "force" that "comprises
space" and "pushes down" on all of us!

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "In real life, I assure you, there is no such
thing as algebra." Fran Lebowitz

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

In article ,
Painius wrote:

A "general" theory is supposed to handle everything, both
locally and nonlocally. If it cannot do this, then it is no
longer "general". It then becomes "special". So you are
basically saying that the CBB model along with the FSP is,
sort of, "more general" than GR.

The word "relativity" is a reflection of the consequences of the speed
of light being measured to be the same value in all frames of
reference. Special Relativity defines these consequences for motion
alone. GR is "general" in the sense that the gravitational field
equations include SR, as well as Newtonian gravitation.

"K. Carson" wrote...
in message ...
In article ,
Painius wrote:

A "general" theory is supposed to handle everything, both
locally and nonlocally. If it cannot do this, then it is no
longer "general". It then becomes "special". So you are
basically saying that the CBB model along with the FSP is,
sort of, "more general" than GR.

The word "relativity" is a reflection of the consequences of the speed
of light being measured to be the same value in all frames of
reference. Special Relativity defines these consequences for motion
alone. GR is "general" in the sense that the gravitational field
equations include SR, as well as Newtonian gravitation.

Carson! Been a bit ill for a few days, but i'm feeling
better now.

Einstein went a bit further than that with GR. His
field equations were meant to include SR, Newton's
gravitation, and gravitational effects that were not
included in Newtonian gravitation. That's what *he*
felt made his GR "beautiful" and "general". The fact
that it predicted the already known anomaly in the
orbit of planet Mercury was truly awesome to him,
much like oc feels about the Flowing Space model
predicting the pioneer and fly-by effects.

He also, at first a bit timidly, predicted the bending
of light in a gravitational field to be twice as much
as Newtonian gravitation predicted. And later, the
famous expeditions to S. America and Africa were
able to confirm this. There was some controversy,
especially in the Brazilian results, which were said
to be closer to Newton's prediction. But when more
observations were made, this turned out to be a
rather huge feather in relativity's "cap".

So Einstein felt that GR was about as "general" as
general can get, at least with the technology of his
times. And we can remember, too, that the math
of Friedman, and later the conclusions of Hubble,
led Einstein to add a little bit of refinement to his
own ideas about GR, as noted in Appendix IV of his
_Relativity_.

To me, this shows that the strength of a theory lies
moreso in its ability to predict an anomaly to an
existing theory that has not yet been measured,
but *can* be measured. To predict a "known"
anomaly is okay, but expected. To predict that an
anomaly exists that has not yet been confirmed,
and somebody can figure out some way to confirm
it, now *THAT'S* what can make or break a theory.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "In real life, I assure you, there is no such
thing as algebra." Fran Lebowitz

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
From Painius, reposting oc:

What is "wrong" with GR's core tenets
that are proven correct over and over?
Nothing is wrong or "broken" about GR.
It 'works' just fine... locally.

Okay, here you slap the face of relativity
apparently not knowing that you do so.
Relativity supposedly "fixes" the
Newtonian "local" problems, and then it
gives rise to the "fact" that "general"
relativity is *just that* -- General!

It's all in your perception.

I agree completely...

Preserving the dignity and integrity of GR
is better served by NOT calling it "broken" or "needing fixing" but
rather, acknowledging that an extension/expansion or Upgrade is needed,
dontcha think? So let's call the Upgrade GR2. Might that not be more
fitting and proper?

So your addition of the term "locally",
implying "not non-locally" does fly right in
the face of GR.

Can't you see the contradiction? If "GR's
core tenets that are proven correct over
and over" are to be believed and
followed, if "nothing is wrong or 'broken'
about GR", then how come it doesn't
work just fine, nonlocally?

The term "local" in this context is more expansive than Newton's usage
of "local". GR remains local or 'flat' in the absence of any
*density/volumetric gradients* in the spatial medium. Within the
boundaries of the solar system, GR 'works' very well, while GR2 takes up
where those gradients begin to enter the picture. 'Waay out beyond
Pluto's orbit where gravity perturbations from the sundry planets drops
below the noise floor, a subtle but distinct gradient becomes apparent
in the Sun's gravity well. *Any* flowing-space model (not just Wolter's)
predicts this gradient : a stretching/ thinning of space in the Sun-ward
direction as space accelerates toward the gravitator (the 'venturi
effect'). Conversely, there's the compactifying of space in the Sun-ward
direction the farther out you go.. exactly as discovered in the Pioneer
anomaly. GR2 will explain the perceived "anomaly".
But these gradients in the gravity wells of stars are
'tiny' compared to the great *cosmological density gradient* discussed
so many, many times over the years (as depicted by the graph on pg.2 of
the li'l webbie site).

Interestingly, Wolter had cut directly to the chase
and leapfrogged lightyears beyond Einstein without even realizing it,
with his 'expansion/extension' of SR. Let's call this mega-Upgrade SR2.
Just as SR holds c constant in all inertial frames, SR2 holds it
constant in all *density frames*as well. Thus Wolter's "c-dilation", the
drop in lightspeed across the cosmological density gradient, is _as
perceived from SR2's 'outside' referance frame_... while here 'inside',
c is a constant 186,282 mps *locally* in all density frames. The Lorentz
invariance is never violated nor is any other constant for that matter.
Wolter did not connect with the fact that Einstein had
described "c-dilation" also, but on a far smaller scale. That's where
Uncle Albert made his seminal statement in intoducing GR, "According to
the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of two fundamental
assumptions in the Special theory of relativity, cannot claim unlimited
validity...". This was indeed descibing 'dilation' of lightspeed in
traversing a graviy well, as happens when light passes through thinner
space.

So, if we take GR2 on outward, 'rolling the tape
backward' to where the comological density gradient begins its
exponential climb back toward the BB, looking at it _from the 'outside'
referance frame_ again, we see the speed of light climbing, the clock
rate climbing, and the volume of space diminishing with increasing
density. And lo and behold, damn if we don't meet Wolter's SR2 and his
'c-dilation' coming "from the top down", and there's a perfect melding
of SR2 and GR2 ; they are one and the same.
But this is all gobbledegook to the 'no medium'
acolytes to whom space is a universally-isotropic "Nothing" all the way
back to the BB and in gravity wells. Hrmph.

A very descriptive explanation, oc. Forgive me for giving
a little, friendly grin (g) at your "Hrmph" at the end.
You have reached your goal, your target of archiving the
idea, and hopefully you don't mind if i pursue the idea a
little bit farther with other minds, regardless of their
preconceived bent. And if i have to acknowledge that GR
needs fixin', then i cannot sugarcoat that fact with sweet
phrases that reduce the power and strength of the need.
GR's "dignity and integrity" are solidly fixed in physics,
as are Newton's, Kepler's, old Galilei and many others,
to include Le Sage and Fatio.

It's not GR's dignity and integrity that should be attacked,
and you and i both know it. What needs to be attacked
are the evident complacencies of theoretical physics, and
cosmology, even mathematics and quantum mechanics.
There is no question in my mind that these disciplines are
stuck fast in a deep and slowly solidifying muck and mire.
Your and Wolter's ideas might actually move a few minds.
And those might move a few more. There is no way of
telling where this all might lead, and i'd just like to see
where it might go.

Thank you, sincerely, for all your recent postings that
have helped to clarify my understandings and my visual
images of the accelerated flow of space into matter.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "I don't know what you could say about a day
in which you have seen four beautiful sunsets."
John Glenn

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Painius wrote,

You have reached your goal, your target
of archiving the idea...

Yeah, that was the motivation. And to have fun with it while so doing.
The fun part is largely gone now, and there remains just the unbridled
disgustipation at the VS stupidity which holds cosmology in its grip
like the iron maiden.

...and hopefully you don't mind if i pursue the idea a little bit
farther with other
minds, regardless of their preconceived
bent.

Nobody "owns" the idea any more than they can own the fact that the
Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

Thank you, sincerely, for all your recent
postings that have helped to clarify my
understandings and my visual images of
the accelerated flow of space into
matter.

But don't forget those oft-mentioned others who've come to see the
*same* core mechansm of gravity on their own and published on the web.
Those others being -

Jerry Shifman ('Gravity')

Henry C. Warren ('The Big Bang, gravity')
Henry Lindner ('Flowing Space, gravity')

Lew Paxton ('Gravity')

Tom Martin (a 'mainstream' scientist no less who wrote 'General
Relativity and Spatial Flows')

James Huenefeld ('Fluid Space Theory')

F. Stefanko ('Gravity due to Space Flow')

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote,

You have reached your goal, your target
of archiving the idea...

Yeah, that was the motivation. And to have fun with it while so doing.
The fun part is largely gone now, and there remains just the unbridled
disgustipation at the VS stupidity which holds cosmology in its grip
like the iron maiden.

...and hopefully you don't mind if i pursue
the idea a little bit farther with other
minds, regardless of their preconceived
bent.

Nobody "owns" the idea any more than they can own the fact that the
Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

Thank you, sincerely, for all your recent
postings that have helped to clarify my
understandings and my visual images of
the accelerated flow of space into
matter.

But don't forget those oft-mentioned others who've come to see the
*same* core mechansm of gravity on their own and published on the web.
Those others being -

Jerry Shifman ('Gravity')

Henry C. Warren ('The Big Bang, gravity')
Henry Lindner ('Flowing Space, gravity')

Lew Paxton ('Gravity')

Tom Martin (a 'mainstream' scientist no less who wrote 'General
Relativity and Spatial Flows')

James Huenefeld ('Fluid Space Theory')

F. Stefanko ('Gravity due to Space Flow')

At the time of your posting, i hadn't yet read Martin's
paper, only his abstract. I just found and read it for
the first time, here...

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0006/0006029.pdf

NOTE: That's a .pdf file requiring you to have the free
Adobe Acrobat reader, which you can get here...

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

I intend to read it again, and again. The first things i
come out of it with are...

1) His usage of the term "physical substratum", which
must not be mistaken for the absolute need for any
"particulate" nature to space. Like most scientists,
Martin includes "energy" to be a part of "physical
reality".

2) Martin's pretty cagey. He steers clear of the "push
vs. pull" controversy by saying throughout the paper
that space is either flowing "into or out of" matter.
And he does not commit to explaining how, if space
flows "out of" matter, how does it cause gravitation?

3) He talks of a "stagnation point" in the spatial flow, a
point which lies between two objects such as Earth
and Moon. Martin feels that Nature might not be able
to hide the flow of space from us so well, and if some
satellite experiments could be performed at this point,
physical evidence of the spatial flow might be found!

Tom Martin is a fascinating person! Here's some more by
him...

http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ma.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://www.gravityresearch.org/

And here's some interesting stuff, also from a credentialed
colleague, Dr. Harold McMaster...

http://www.maltby.org/mcmastergravity/genmodel.htm

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "I don't know what you could say about a day
in which you have seen four beautiful sunsets."
John Glenn

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net