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

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

P.S. to Ody -

This link of Paxton's addresses the mathematical points you've
presented. But to qualify his terminology, i hafta wince since he
still utilizes the archaic term 'ether'. But he modifies it to
"Nether" signifying it as a dynamic fluid
and terms it "Mass" (capitalized) vis-a-vis mass.

Scroll down to II.D (Inverse square law)

http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/grav.htm

oc

P.S. to Ody, Painius et al -

Just to reiterate, this is a re-posting of Paxton's treatment of the
inverse square law. Being a math hotshot, he demonstrates
mathematically what i've been saying over and over (but apparently
hasn't registered with anybody yet): The ISL is the product _OF AND
ONLY OF_ the *acceleration component* of the flow, not the specific
velocity of the flow.

Visualizing the flow inbound from deep space, the *acceleration rate*
of the flow (aka the "curvature of space") is what's rising
exponentially, _NOT_ the velocity of the flow itself at Earth's
surface.

There is no conflict with the *velocity of inflow* at Earth's surface
being equivalent to escape velocity.

Notice that Paxton echoes the statement (paraphrasing) that insofar as
the ISL relates to gravity, gravity
does not "obey" the ISL but creates it.


II.D. The Inverse Square Law (ISL)

This is a known law for gravity which states that the acceleration
that we call gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance
from the center of the mass that creates that acceleration. In other
words, if we are at an altitude which is twice as far from the center
of the earth as the earth's surface, the acceleration due to gravity
with be one-fourth as great as it is on the earth's surface. So if the
gravity at the earth's surface is 32 feet per second squared and the
radius of the earth is 4,000 miles, the gravity at an altitude of
4,000 miles (which is 8,000 miles from the earth's center) will be
approximately 8 feet per second squared.

In mathematical language, the ISL is ga/ge = re2/ra2 where ga is the
gravity at a higher location, ge is the gravity at a lower location,
ra is the radius at the same higher location, and re is the radius at
the same lower location.

On page 14 of Book Two of the series Behind Light's Illusion
is the equation g = v2/2r, where "g" is gravity.
We may use this eqation because it is derived for nether purposes, is
derived correctly, and is the same one known for escape velocity.
Therefore, we may substitute va2/2ra for ga in the ISL equation and
ve2/2re for ge, and simplify.
The result, va/ve = re1/2/ra1/2, shows that v is indeed proportional
to r-1/2. Therefore, the fact that each level of incoming nether is an
energy level is, very likely, the reason for the ISL.

The inverse square law, like all laws of science, is not a reason
explaining why something works. It is merely a statement of the
consequences of something working. ANY VALID GRAVITY THEORY MUST SHOW
THAT THE GRAVITY IT THEORIZES ACTUALLY CREATES THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
The line of reasoning shown above provides a gravity that perfectly
creates the inverse square law. (Emphasis added)

************************
And as stated previously in the 'Dark Matter' thread, gravity is not
constrained to "obey" that which it creates in the first place. Thus
in deep intergalactic space, where hydrodynamic pressure of space is
highest, greatly amped-up acceleration-rates ("curvatures of space")
would explain the enhanced gravitational lensing of galaxies and non-
Keplerian (frisbee-esque) rotation of galaxies *without* need for ad
hoc fixes like
"dark matter" which are necessary under the void-space regime.

oc

In article .com,
"oldcoot" wrote:

The inverse square law, like all laws of science, is not a reason
explaining why something works. It is merely a statement of the
consequences of something working. ANY VALID GRAVITY THEORY MUST SHOW
THAT THE GRAVITY IT THEORIZES ACTUALLY CREATES THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
The line of reasoning shown above provides a gravity that perfectly
creates the inverse square law. (Emphasis added)


You are so desperate to rescue this failed theory you utterly run away from
answering its shortcoming loon.

--

"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 .com,
"oldcoot" wrote:

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.


Right until the point where it disagree's with your insane theory, in which
case you'll close your ears and go LALALALAL

--

"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 .com,
"oldcoot" wrote:

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.



3. Wrong


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'.


6. wrong

Show evidence for your assertions

--

"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