Giant superclusters being pulled towards single patch of sky, beingcalled "Dark Flow"

Dear YKhan:

"YKhan" wrote in message
...
On Sep 24, 10:46 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...

dlzc wrote:
The Universe can very much be modelled as a
fluid, it does not mean there is an underlying
fluid... other than the matter we see and
measure.

I say it's a big clue to something that might
actually be underneath. If it walks like a duck
..., etc.

Diffraction shows that matter fills all of space
to some extent. This obviates "something
else" and "underneath".

At a macro level, yes, matter fills all of space.
But it doesn't fill it at the same density in all
parts of space (i.e. voids vs. clusters),

Yes, it does. And where it doesn't you end up with c_medium
instead.

nor at the micro level.

We have difficulty assigning lots of things at the quantum level.
I am not sure your objection *here* makes sense.

The only thing that fills *all* of space equally
is space. An analogy would be to say salt fills
all of the oceans. Salt doesn't really fill all of
the oceans, water does. It rides around all
over the oceans in the water, goes to most
places that the water does. Matter could just
be the salt riding around in the ocean of the
Universe.

Then show me a Universe with no matter. If not, then your
insistence on a separate "aether" is superstition.

....
As for whether light diffraction shows that only
matter fills all of space.

Matter / energy, but fine.

That would be like scanning the ocean with
sonar and saying the only things that fill the
oceans are the micro- and macro-organisms of
the ocean and nothing else. The sonar won't
detect the medium on which it is traveling, the
water itself.

Put air bubbles in it, and see how your sonar does. Your
arguments fail to prove your point.

Such a motion could result from our "stationary"
position actually moving away from "The Great
Attractor". If all matter were generally moving
towards a single point, at a more-or-less constant
velocity, *we could not observe it*. No relaive
motion.

Even the (in)famous Bullet Cluster is being sucked
down this Cosmic Drain Pipe.

Think about what you are saying. We little primates
on our planet in one solar system in one galaxy in
one supercluster sees the whole rest of the Universe
moving towards a Great Attractor, but we obviously
aren't moving, or moving towards the Attractor at
least.

How stupid can we be?

Either case, whether the objects in the Dark Flow
are moving relative to us, or we're moving relative
to these objects,

You *know* we are moving, this has already been established.

there is another implication that must be
acknowledged. One of the criterion used to
disprove the Aether theory is that we have
not dected a preferred direction of movement
for objects in the Universe.

That says *nothing* about an aether that survives experiments
perfromed so far. If local properties derive from the gestalt
(like mass, length, and time) ala. Ernst Mach, then an aether is
*still* not required.

Doesn't this "Dark Flow" demonstrate a
preferred direction of flow?

For one observer, no. It says the Universe is at rest, and our
fuzzy butts are going the other way. No support of "Dark Flow",
no support of aether, no "preferred direction".

Isn't this actually the long sot

...."sought"...

after proof for Aether? Not the solid Aether
of old, but a liquid Aether?

Nope.

Let's say that we used the GPS system, and summed the clock
cycles from a satellite moving towards Virgo, and then (in
another accumulator) movng away from Virgo, and we noted a
variance in aging rate (which I think we would find).

Does that prove an aether, or does it show that all matter /
energy everywhere establishes local properites?

David A. Smith