OG says 'Touché' (was "Where's...)

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG writes,

I would still claim that the cause of the
flow of space towards matter remains
speculative.

True, it remains speculative. But under the law of probabilities and
Occam's Razor: by its observed *effects*, it appears to be, and behaves
as, an accelerating, pressure-driven flow `into' a lower-pressure zone.
And that lower-pressure zone appears to reside in the seat of the strong
nuclear force. We may speculate on the precise mechanisms involved
there, including the 'Roach Motel' issue. But gravitation must
eventually be considered for what it literally is, instead of just
represented abstractly as 'geodesics' and 'metrics'. And that of course
entails overturning the Doctrine most sacrosanct: the "Void"-ness of
space. oc

I don't think I could express the weakness of your postition better than
this.

Thank you.

OG sezz..
I don't think I could express the
weakness of your postition better than
this.
Thank you.

No, thank YOU. Blessings and good tidings. oc

OG sezz..
I don't think I could express the
weakness of your postition better than
this.
Thank you.

No, thank YOU. Blessings and good tidings. oc

Kevin wrote,

As for 'flowing space' model being better
than 'geodesic' model I have never said
or claimed that. I think you slightly
misunderstand there as I dont see any
problem with the 'geodesic' model....

The 'problem' with the geodesic model is that, of and by itself, it does
not have the power to literally crush massive stars into BHs. It's a
brilliantly conceived representation of the mechanism that *does* crush
massive stars into BHs, and that is its value.
You may have a brilliantly conceived and priceless
schematic for a radio lying on the table, but try as you might, you're
not gonna get that piece of paper to literally pick up radio signals,
demodulate them, and reproduce them as voice and music.
BTW, thanks again for your support and 'thumbs up',
Kevin. oc

Kevin wrote,

As for 'flowing space' model being better
than 'geodesic' model I have never said
or claimed that. I think you slightly
misunderstand there as I dont see any
problem with the 'geodesic' model....

The 'problem' with the geodesic model is that, of and by itself, it does
not have the power to literally crush massive stars into BHs. It's a
brilliantly conceived representation of the mechanism that *does* crush
massive stars into BHs, and that is its value.
You may have a brilliantly conceived and priceless
schematic for a radio lying on the table, but try as you might, you're
not gonna get that piece of paper to literally pick up radio signals,
demodulate them, and reproduce them as voice and music.
BTW, thanks again for your support and 'thumbs up',
Kevin. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote,

As for 'flowing space' model being better
than 'geodesic' model I have never said
or claimed that. I think you slightly
misunderstand there as I dont see any
problem with the 'geodesic' model....

The 'problem' with the geodesic model is that, of and by itself, it does
not have the power to literally crush massive stars into BHs. It's a
brilliantly conceived representation of the mechanism that *does* crush
massive stars into BHs, and that is its value.

What is the geodesic model?

There are two parts to it. One, that mass causes spacetime to curve and
secondly that matter's path through spacetime is a geodesic.

The geometric nature of GR tells us that the curvature of spacetime can
become enough that even light has no geodesics that escape from the vicinity
of a massive body. This is a black hole

In such a case, it is possible to have matter moving along geodesics that
add to the mass of the body, and eventually the curvature becomes enough to
form a black hole.

Naturally, this is a simplified description.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote,

As for 'flowing space' model being better
than 'geodesic' model I have never said
or claimed that. I think you slightly
misunderstand there as I dont see any
problem with the 'geodesic' model....

The 'problem' with the geodesic model is that, of and by itself, it does
not have the power to literally crush massive stars into BHs. It's a
brilliantly conceived representation of the mechanism that *does* crush
massive stars into BHs, and that is its value.

What is the geodesic model?

There are two parts to it. One, that mass causes spacetime to curve and
secondly that matter's path through spacetime is a geodesic.

The geometric nature of GR tells us that the curvature of spacetime can
become enough that even light has no geodesics that escape from the vicinity
of a massive body. This is a black hole

In such a case, it is possible to have matter moving along geodesics that
add to the mass of the body, and eventually the curvature becomes enough to
form a black hole.

Naturally, this is a simplified description.