accelerating universe conundrum, help me find my logic flaw please

On Jun 17, 12:52*pm, "Painius"
wrote:question_!

If someone comes along with a "push" theory of any
kind, particulate or energetic, science will not even try
to begin to accept it unless the proposal is neatly and
tightly wrapped with hypercompelling evidence found
by strictly applying the scientific method.

Eggzackly. That's precisely why the VS'ers need to look at super and-
hypernovae, quasars etc., and show the hypercompelling evidence
explaining the _mechanism_ by which their geometry, 'metrics', '4-D
fields', "curvature of space-time", 'exchange particles'/"gravitons"
literally POWER these phenomena.
By contrast, the "push" force of the
hyperpressurized spatial medium very deftly and unequivocally
_demonstrates itself_ in the behavior of gravity, most notably in the
aforementioned phenomena. How much more 'scientific' does the evidence
need to be?

...and we
continue to bang our (fortunately very hard) heads up
against walls of steel.

And yet, the banging can be fun, educational, even
occasionally insightful. *Or so i keep reminding myself.

Hyup! The Fun part is what it's all about, as i've said so many times.
Whenever it ceases being Fun is when i quit doing it (as has happened
a time or two when the NG got excessively overrun by freaks and
mutts).

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 17, 12:52 pm, "Painius"
wrote:question_!

If someone comes along with a "push" theory of any
kind, particulate or energetic, science will not even try
to begin to accept it unless the proposal is neatly and
tightly wrapped with hypercompelling evidence found
by strictly applying the scientific method.

Eggzackly. That's precisely why the VS'ers need to look at super and-
hypernovae, quasars etc., and show the hypercompelling evidence
explaining the _mechanism_ by which their geometry, 'metrics', '4-D
fields', "curvature of space-time", 'exchange particles'/"gravitons"
literally POWER these phenomena.
By contrast, the "push" force of the
hyperpressurized spatial medium very deftly and unequivocally
_demonstrates itself_ in the behavior of gravity, most notably in the
aforementioned phenomena. How much more 'scientific' does the evidence
need to be?

As i said above, much-much more scientific--the
proposal will have to be neatly and tightly wrapped
in a package of hypercompelling evidence...

found by strictly applying the scientific method!

I'm workin' on it. Of course the problem is similar
to the "Ben Franklin syndrome". That's what i call
the fact that ol' Ben got the polarity wrong when he
first described electricity. And even though his
mistake was eventually rectified, there were *still*
engineers and scientists who traced circuit current
on schematic diagrams using the old and incorrect
"positive-to-negative" direction back when i began
my tech career.

Why is this similar to the Push-Pull Gravity Debate?
Simply because for all intents and purposes, those
old engineers were still able to get the job done
even though they traced current flow from positive
to negative! So i'm still studying Newton, because
just like electrical polarity was wrong from the
beginning, so was GMF. And there might be a way
to reverse it just like someone did to the Ben F.
syndrome.

...and we
continue to bang our (fortunately very hard) heads up
against walls of steel.

And yet, the banging can be fun, educational, even
occasionally insightful. Or so i keep reminding myself.

Hyup! The Fun part is what it's all about, as i've said so many times.
Whenever it ceases being Fun is when i quit doing it (as has happened
a time or two when the NG got excessively overrun by freaks and
mutts).

Happens to the best of newsgroups sometimes.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jun 18, 12:08 am, "Painius" wrote,
replying to oc :

By contrast, the "push" force of the
hyperpressurized spatial medium very deftly and unequivocally
_demonstrates itself_ in the behavior of gravity, most notably in the
aforementioned phenomena. How much more 'scientific' does the evidence
need to be?

As i said above, much-much more scientific--the
proposal will have to be neatly and tightly wrapped
in a package of hypercompelling evidence...

found by strictly applying the scientific method!

Heh. What's amusing though, is the number of people worldwide (e.g.,
Shifman, Warren, Lindner, Martin, Huenefeld, Stefanko et al) who,
independantly and without collaboration, have simply looked at the
prima facie evidence and seen gravity for exactly what it demonstrates
itself to be : the accelerating flow of the spatial medium into mass
with mass synonymous with flow sink. It's an absolute no-brainer like
"Doh. The Earth really is round and revolves around the sun."

I'm workin' on it. *Of course the problem is similar
to the "Ben Franklin syndrome". *That's what i call
the fact that ol' Ben got the polarity wrong when he
first described electricity. *And even though his
mistake was eventually rectified, there were *still*
engineers and scientists who traced circuit current
on schematic diagrams using the old and incorrect
"positive-to-negative" direction back when i began
my tech career.

Why is this similar to the Push-Pull Gravity Debate?
Simply because for all intents and purposes, those
old engineers were still able to get the job done
even though they traced current flow from positive
to negative! *

Yep, the void-space thing "worked" OK because of the math. GR was able
to describe space mathematically _as if_ it were a void, and describe
gravity as "bending" of the void. And it "got the job done" until....
inexplicable "anomalies" began creeping into the program, like why the
most distant SN1a standard candles were appearing dimmer than they
'should be', and why the Pioneer spacecraft are not where they 'should
be' against the background stars. The former was handily kludged by
inventing "dark energy" out of whole cloth to explain the perceived
"ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe (which the SN1a dimming
was interpreted to mean). And a good-sounding kludge has yet to be
found for the Pioneer anomaly. The VSP will never recognize the
obvious and self-evident cause of these "anomalies" : density(or PDT)
gradients in the spatial medium, and the fact that space is exactly
what it demonstrates itself to be : a universe-filling, fluidic Plenum
that's compressible/expansible and amenable to these gradients.
SR and GR are presently 'flat' inasmuch as, like
the flat Earth, they "work" satisfactorially until a gradient begins
entering the picture. Recognizing these gradients will upgrade SR/GR
just as relativity itself was an upgrade to Newton.

So i'm still studying Newton, because
just like electrical polarity was wrong from the
beginning, so was GMF. *And there might be a way
to reverse it just like someone did to the Ben F.
syndrome.

Ain't gonna happen no time soon.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...

. . . found for the Pioneer anomaly. The VSP will never recognize the
obvious and self-evident cause of these "anomalies" : density(or PDT)
gradients in the spatial medium, and the fact that space is exactly
what it demonstrates itself to be : a universe-filling, . . .

"universe-filling"???

g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

Painius puzzled :

"universe-filling"???
g

There is no place in the universe where the SPED "isn't". That's why it
is a Plenum and not a "void". 'Plenum' and 'void' are diametric
opposites.

On Jun 18, 12:08*am, "Painius" wrote:

So i'm still studying Newton, because
just like electrical polarity was wrong from the
beginning, so was GMF. *And there might be a way
to reverse it just like someone did to the Ben F.
syndrome.

What *is* interesting is how FS-gravity comes full circle back to
Newton on the 'speed of gravity' issue. Just as Newton originally
observed, it's functionally instantaneous. That is, the *speed of
gravitational charge* has no aberration. If it did, it would intersect
the planets' orbits at a slight angle, causing the orbits to spiral
outward over time. But it doesn't. Stability of planetary orbits over
billions of years proves Newton right on the 'speed of gravity' issue
(Carlip and Fomalont-Kopeikin fudgery notwithstanding).
`Speed of gravitational charge` is not to be confused
with *velocity of space flow* which is variant anywhere from zero to
c.