An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo

Painius wrote, reposting one of the VS'ers:

Can you provide a way we can disprove your claim?

I wish i could... The more ways we can
find to falsify this idea the better.

(Raises hand meekly) Uh, what is the purpose in trying to "falsify" that
which _demonstrates itself_ unequivocally, like trying to falsify that
the Earth revolves around the sun f'rinstance?

It (the SPED) can *act* like a "material
ether" in some ways without actually
being one.

Sure, when you accelerate an object, space exhibits a "viscous-ness", a
resistance to the acceleration, called inertia. Conversely, when the
same object is in an *accelerating* spaceflow, exactly the same
"viscous-ness" accelerates the object. This is the heart of
gravity-acceleration equivalence, as discussed so many times.
Then in relativistic speed regimes, space begins
exhibiting a "viscosity" even in the absence of acceleration.

Gravitationally accelerated charges do not radiate.

To be honest, i don't remember writing
that gravitationally accelerated charges
do radiate. So i'm not sure that i
understand the significance of the
statement.

I have no idea why he's fixated on it either. But it does highlight a
signifigant point : that which distinguishes a gravitational field from
a magnetic field (as mentioned in an earlier post). A gravitational
field a.k.a. an accelerating spaceflow possesses no spin component. A
magnetic field is a spaceflow *with* a spin component, of 'N' or 'S'
sign depending on direction of spin. The spin component of a spaceflow
IS magnetism. 'Member how we discussed this at length sevaral y'ars ago?
A charged particle accelerated by gravity naturally does
not radiate anything. A charged particle accelerated in a magnetic field
radiates a wave packet (a photon) by interaction with the *spin
component* of the spaceflow.
But this means nothing to the VS'er you're replying to
because in his worldview there is "no medium" to flow, nothing to
possess acceleration or spin. His paradigm has *no explanation* for what
distinguishes gravity from magnetism. See why i slushpile 'em out of
hand once they barge in with their DMP s**t?

You say you once "believed" as i do, and now you no longer believe as
i do
because you "*looked*".

HUH?! You mean he once believed in the flowing,
accelerating spatial medium and now doesn't?? What a crock. The guy is
an inveterate, dyed in the wool VS'er and always will be.

Take just one of those six Cardinal Points, the first
one, which sez-

1.) The high, fixed propagation speed of light independant of the
velocity of the emitter demonstrates a *carrier medium* of a particular
energy density that fixes the 'permeability/permittivity' value of the
medium, which fixes the value of c.

Hell, the medium _demonstrates itself_ just in this one Point alone. To
institutionally deny the existance of the medium in the face of
indisputable evidence demonstrates a deep-seated, deep rooted
psychological disconnect afflicting otherwise-normal, intelligent
people. Such paradigm-entrenchment characterized geocentrism, but at
least it had the excuse that the Earth really *did* appear to be the
center of the universe.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote, reposting one of the VS'ers:

Can you provide a way we can disprove
your claim?

I wish i could... The more ways we can
find to falsify this idea the better.

(Raises hand meekly) Uh, what is the purpose in trying to "falsify" that
which _demonstrates itself_ unequivocally, like trying to falsify that
the Earth revolves around the sun f'rinstance?

Believe me, oc, if you had lived back in the times
of Copernicus and Galileo, you wouldn't have to ask
this question. When an obvious truth is not seen as
truth by scientists, then it takes quite a bit more than
just typing words on a screen to convince them. It
takes "falsification", a process of devising tests and of
using the "so called" obvious truth to make predictions.
With each test it passes, with each prediction that turns
out true and valid, the truth becomes more and more
obvious to more and more people.

The trick is in finding ways to test the idea that would
falsify the idea if the idea were not true. Of course, if
the idea *is* true, then it would not be falsified by the
test.

It (the SPED) can *act* like a "material
ether" in some ways without actually
being one.

Sure, when you accelerate an object, space exhibits a "viscous-ness", a
resistance to the acceleration, called inertia. Conversely, when the
same object is in an *accelerating* spaceflow, exactly the same
"viscous-ness" accelerates the object. This is the heart of
gravity-acceleration equivalence, as discussed so many times.
Then in relativistic speed regimes, space begins
exhibiting a "viscosity" even in the absence of acceleration.

Gravitationally accelerated charges do
not radiate.

To be honest, i don't remember writing
that gravitationally accelerated charges
do radiate. So i'm not sure that i
understand the significance of the
statement.

I have no idea why he's fixated on it either. But it does highlight a
signifigant point : that which distinguishes a gravitational field from
a magnetic field (as mentioned in an earlier post). A gravitational
field a.k.a. an accelerating spaceflow possesses no spin component. A
magnetic field is a spaceflow *with* a spin component, of 'N' or 'S'
sign depending on direction of spin. The spin component of a spaceflow
IS magnetism. 'Member how we discussed this at length sevaral y'ars ago?
A charged particle accelerated by gravity naturally does
not radiate anything. A charged particle accelerated in a magnetic field
radiates a wave packet (a photon) by interaction with the *spin
component* of the spaceflow.
But this means nothing to the VS'er you're replying to
because in his worldview there is "no medium" to flow, nothing to
possess acceleration or spin. His paradigm has *no explanation* for what
distinguishes gravity from magnetism. See why i slushpile 'em out of
hand once they barge in with their DMP s**t?

You say you once "believed" as i do, and
now you no longer believe as i do because
you "*looked*".

HUH?! You mean he once believed in the flowing,
accelerating spatial medium and now doesn't?? What a crock. The guy is
an inveterate, dyed in the wool VS'er and always will be.

He was being more general, in that he's saying
that he once thought in a direction that was very
different from GR, but now he has thoroughly
"looked" at GR and has decided that relativity is
the closest approximation to reality. Ergo, there
is no force, so there is no push nor pull. There is
only geometry, curvature and space pixies.

Take just one of those six Cardinal Points, the first
one, which sez-

1.) The high, fixed propagation speed of light independant of the
velocity of the emitter demonstrates a *carrier medium* of a particular
energy density that fixes the 'permeability/permittivity' value of the
medium, which fixes the value of c.

Hell, the medium _demonstrates itself_ just in this one Point alone. To
institutionally deny the existance of the medium in the face of
indisputable evidence demonstrates a deep-seated, deep rooted
psychological disconnect afflicting otherwise-normal, intelligent
people. Such paradigm-entrenchment characterized geocentrism, but at
least it had the excuse that the Earth really *did* appear to be the
center of the universe.

Oops, my friend... space really *does* appear to
be a nothingness void, too! And Earth *still* does
"appear" to be the center of the Universe, as well.

happy holidays and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try
to keep it all the year." Charles Dickens

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

Painius wrote,

Oops, my friend... space really *does*
appear to be a nothingness void, too!

HUH??!! (Lower jaw drops to floor:-)) Against the backdrop of those six
Cardinal Points, the spatial medium reveals, nay, _demonstrates itself_,
as the Primary reality of existance. The SHQ (super/hypernova, quasar)
cause-of-gravity test is the linchpin. Without the discovery of SHQs,
the various whiffle-poof theories of gravity may have gone on
indefinitely.

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

Oops, my friend... space really *does*
appear to be a nothingness void, too!

HUH??!! (Lower jaw drops to floor:-)) Against the backdrop of those six
Cardinal Points, the spatial medium reveals, nay, _demonstrates itself_,
as the Primary reality of existance. The SHQ (super/hypernova, quasar)
cause-of-gravity test is the linchpin. Without the discovery of SHQs,
the various whiffle-poof theories of gravity may have gone on
indefinitely.

Na na na... you've said it yourself many times...

"In terms of energy-density, Matter also
represents the very *lowest* energy (and
longest wavelength) state of the spatial
medium, appearing on 'this side' of the
Planck length. While the greatest bulk of
'What Is', in terms of energy density (PDT
value) resides on the 'other side' of the
Planck line. The sub-Planckian 'granularity'
or wavelength-state lies below our sensory
and EM resolution, making it appear 'void'
to our sense-based logic."

That's all i meant.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "A New Year's resolution is something that
goes in one year and out the other."
Author Unknown

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