Is there a need to "fix" GR? (Was... )

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

You have reached your goal, your target
of archiving the idea...

Yeah, that was the motivation. And to have fun with it while so doing.
The fun part is largely gone now, and there remains just the unbridled
disgustipation at the VS stupidity which holds cosmology in its grip
like the iron maiden.

...and hopefully you don't mind if i pursue
the idea a little bit farther with other
minds, regardless of their preconceived
bent.

Nobody "owns" the idea any more than they can own the fact that the
Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

Thank you, sincerely, for all your recent
postings that have helped to clarify my
understandings and my visual images of
the accelerated flow of space into
matter.

But don't forget those oft-mentioned others who've come to see the
*same* core mechansm of gravity on their own and published on the web.
Those others being -

Jerry Shifman ('Gravity')

Henry C. Warren ('The Big Bang, gravity')
Henry Lindner ('Flowing Space, gravity')

Lew Paxton ('Gravity')

Tom Martin (a 'mainstream' scientist no less who wrote 'General
Relativity and Spatial Flows')

James Huenefeld ('Fluid Space Theory')

F. Stefanko ('Gravity due to Space Flow')

At the time of your posting, i hadn't yet read Martin's
paper, only his abstract. I just found and read it for
the first time, here...

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0006/0006029.pdf

NOTE: That's a .pdf file requiring you to have the free
Adobe Acrobat reader, which you can get here...

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

I intend to read it again, and again. The first things i
come out of it with are...

1) His usage of the term "physical substratum", which
must not be mistaken for the absolute need for any
"particulate" nature to space. Like most scientists,
Martin includes "energy" to be a part of "physical
reality".

2) Martin's pretty cagey. He steers clear of the "push
vs. pull" controversy by saying throughout the paper
that space is either flowing "into or out of" matter.
And he does not commit to explaining how, if space
flows "out of" matter, how does it cause gravitation?

3) He talks of a "stagnation point" in the spatial flow, a
point which lies between two objects such as Earth
and Moon. Martin feels that Nature might not be able
to hide the flow of space from us so well, and if some
satellite experiments could be performed at this point,
physical evidence of the spatial flow might be found!

Tom Martin is a fascinating person! Here's some more by
him...

http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ma.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://www.gravityresearch.org/

And here's some interesting stuff, also from a credentialed
colleague, Dr. Harold McMaster...

http://www.maltby.org/mcmastergravity/genmodel.htm

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "I don't know what you could say about a day
in which you have seen four beautiful sunsets."
John Glenn

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