Examples of flow lensing (Was... )

Painius wrote, reposting 'Timo':

And then there are
the other questions such as why does
this (spatial medium) drag matter along, why does it drag
electromagnetic wave (or photons, if you prefer) along, etc.

As discussed so many times, a light ray traversing *any* spaceflow is
deflected (or lensed) whether the flow is accelerating or not. Whereas
only an *accelerating* flow "drags" matter, imparting momentum to it,
causing it to "fall". That is the priimary reason for the 'proximately
'twice-normal' deflection of light crossing a gravity well. Light, being
massless, is deflected by the *total* flow, not just by the acceleration
component. This is a mini-example of *flow lensing*. Only the
acceleration component constitutes gravity and affects matter. No
acceleration= no "curvature of space"= no gravity= no momentum imparted
to matter *irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*. But light
is deflected (lensed) by the *total* flow.
Cosmological examples of flow lensing are seen in the
excessive lensing of distant galaxies, heretofore attributed to "dark
matter". But any large scale, non-accelerating flows (or flows of low
acceleration) of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as
is observed. It is simple flow lensing, not "gravitational" lensing. No
mythical "dark matter" needed.

..we are talking about imparting
momentum to each and every one of the
trillions of atoms in your body, and this
by virtue of the fact that the li'l energy
packets are on a vertically downward
vector, & hitting your body at a speed of
11.2 km/sec at the surface of the Earth
(same as the escape velocity). So they
pack a pretty good punch.

But only the acceleration component "packs the punch".

Yes, sinks! Matter acts as a flow sink to
the gravitational energy.

Not ta be picayunish, but just a bit more specifically, mass is the sink
(or pressure drain) to the SCO, the hyperpressure state of the spatial
medium venting itself down to its lowest pressure-state. The process of
gravitation is quite literally the 'BB-in-reverse' on a universal,
visible scale.
To view the starry sky is to view this Process.. each star
an incandescing 'vent point' of the SCO's venting down. The night sky is
witness to the awesome dynamism of space itself.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote, reposting 'Timo':

..we are talking about imparting
momentum to each and every one of the
trillions of atoms in your body, and this
by virtue of the fact that the li'l energy
packets are on a vertically downward
vector, & hitting your body at a speed of
11.2 km/sec at the surface of the Earth
(same as the escape velocity). So they
pack a pretty good punch.

But only the acceleration component "packs the punch".

Let's dick this around a bit, oc. EM photons do exert a
tiny but *measurable* amount of actual and real
pressure on matter. And these photons don't have to
be being accelerated when they exert this pressure.
They can be going at just a straight velocity of "c" when
they exert the light pressure, as was deduced by
Maxwell and Bertoli, and then proven experimentally by
Lebedev in the year 1900...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pressure

So how can we be sure that granulons don't exert a
certain amount of pressure on matter even when they
are not accelerating, or more specifically, how do we
know that some of the pressure and therefore the
imparted momentum isn't exerted in some amount by
both the acceleration and the velocities of granulons?

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

Painius wrote,

EM photons do exert a tiny but
*measurable* amount of actual and real
pressure on matter. And these photons
don't have to be being accelerated when
they exert this pressure.

Sure, *radiation pressure* against matter is real and does not involve
acceleration. Its miniscule force, computed as a photon's energy-to-mass
equivalence ("E=mc² in reverse") is analogous to wind against a sail,
a very, very tiny kinetic force acting against the sail's surface, not
*going through* the atomic lattice of the sail. This is a totally
different animal than gravitation which is the SPED (not EM photons)
accelerating through the atomic lattice itself.

So how can we be sure that granulons
don't exert a certain amount of pressure
on matter even when they are not
accelerating..?

*In sub-relativistic speed regimes*, no such pressure is detectable in
the absence of acceleration. Space remains a perfect superfluid
(Maxwell), or 'hyperfluid' (Wolter). Newton's laws of inertia and
conservation of momentum hold steadfast within the limits of
measurement.

...or more specifically, how do we know
that some of the pressure and therefore
the imparted momentum isn't exerted in
some amount by both the acceleration
and the velocities of granulons?

With the onset of relativistic speeds, space (the "granulon sea") does
begin exhibiting a "viscosity" in the absence of acceleration.
Relativistic effects are one of those six Cardinal Points by which the
SPED demonstrates its own existance.