Flowing space...

From Painius, replying to DD:

Since you already know that nothing you have posted thus far satisfies
this necessity, then you have to know that you must come up with
something *new* in order to be successful in refuting... gravity being
caused by spatial energy that _moves toward and enters matter_.

..as i call it, (the) "Causal Theory of Relativity"

Indeed. A de facto '3rd canon' of relativity must _explain the literal,
causal mechanism_ of what SR and GR cryptically *describe*. It must
replace the mythical "void" of space with that which space _demonstrates
itself_ to be by its bounty of evidence.

This is where i'm at a loss as to why the continuing effort to dialog
with the DD joker. When *shown* that abundance of evidence over and
over, the Pavlovian response is:

1) Has no observational evidence

Kee-ripes, yer talkin' to the braindead. Flatline. Zippo. And then DD
goes on insisting the Le Sage theory is the same as FS, despite the
difference being clearly delineated over and over. Same with old db and
his insistance that MMX and stellar aberration "prove" non-existance of
the spatial medium.

No dialog's possible with 'em unless and until they *see* and 'get'
what's patently obvious and self-evident: '

1.) The high, fixed value of c demonstrates a carrier medium of a
particular pressure/density/'Temp' value which _causes_ the
permeability/permittivity values to be what they are.
2.) The fact that there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM
radiation demonstrates a carrier medium of even greater energy density
than the most energetic wave it carries.
3.) The ability to crush massive stars down to a BH demonstrates a
medium of stupendously high pressurization, a pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus.
4. The behavior of gravity demonstrates a pressure-driven, accelerating
flow into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink.

In light of the above,

5.) The fact that we perceive space as 'void' demonstrates its
sub-Planckian wavelength state or 'granularity', below our sensory and
EM resolution.

The evidence speaks for itself, unequivocally and incontrovertably. I
certainly have no corner on it, nor do Lindner, Shifman, Warren, Paxton,
or Wolter.. all of whom saw and recognized the same evidence
independantly and without collaboration.

The DD / db crowd obviously does not *see* or 'get' any of this, and
that's why no dialog's possible. But kudos for your effort. :-)
oc