!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

From OG:

The old coot asks how QM and GR can
be accommodated in the same model;
however he believes that the FSM is the
only model that provides an integration
of both and can't be persuaded that it is
a flawed model in itself.

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

..entrainment gives some particular
problems of its own, like why we don't
see the postions of stars move as their
light passes through the zone of
'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the
Moon - there should be refraction as the
light slows down and speeds up again
through this zone.

The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919
solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass
objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do
you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for
a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet
translate laterally? You're being a little silly really.

..(at one point he thought that the effect
of the charge on an electron would be
less than that of a proton 'because the
electron has less mass'); so any attempt
to discuss basics comes to naught.

Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba.
But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and
particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals
in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of
effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face,
but it has no relevance to causation.

So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is
yours___________ . oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

You don't have a model Bill. What you have is a little wishful thinking and
a few descriptions of your kitchen appliances. You claim that ...

"Under the flowing-space model, the acceleration rate *is* GR's
'curvature'. And the math is already in place and extrapolates directly
to FS without modification or addition,"
- BS -

.... and yet continually reject the predictions of the mathematical model of
GR. Without a mathematical model all you're left with is an interpretation
of
a model that does not exist.

You have nothing.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

You don't have a model Bill. What you have is a little wishful thinking and
a few descriptions of your kitchen appliances. You claim that ...

"Under the flowing-space model, the acceleration rate *is* GR's
'curvature'. And the math is already in place and extrapolates directly
to FS without modification or addition,"
- BS -

.... and yet continually reject the predictions of the mathematical model of
GR. Without a mathematical model all you're left with is an interpretation
of
a model that does not exist.

You have nothing.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

The old coot asks how QM and GR can
be accommodated in the same model;
however he believes that the FSM is the
only model that provides an integration
of both and can't be persuaded that it is
a flawed model in itself.

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

No it isn't. The role I've taken on is to counter the argument that FSM
provides an adequate description. You yourself have failed to provide a
coherent explanation for how FSM causes matter to accelerate. When you asked
Lindner to explain he came up with some garbage about space wrapping itself
around leptons to form hadrons. That didn't explain how FSM caused matter to
accelerate either.

..entrainment gives some particular
problems of its own, like why we don't
see the postions of stars move as their
light passes through the zone of
'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the
Moon - there should be refraction as the
light slows down and speeds up again
through this zone.

The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919
solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass
objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do
you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for
a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet
translate laterally? You're being a little silly really.

You don't understand entrainment do you?

..(at one point he thought that the effect
of the charge on an electron would be
less than that of a proton 'because the
electron has less mass'); so any attempt
to discuss basics comes to naught.

Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba.
But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and
particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals
in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of
effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face,
but it has no relevance to causation.

ditto. Assertion is not proof. Your model can't explain why things start to
accelerate in the vicinity of planets. You seem to forget that until I
explained your own model you thought it was the 'speed' of FS that caused
matter to accelerate, not the 'acceleration' of FS itself. Is this another
'detail'. Ha!

So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is
yours___________ . oc

As explained, I'm simply offering a corrective to the failed FSM model you
keep putting forward.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

The old coot asks how QM and GR can
be accommodated in the same model;
however he believes that the FSM is the
only model that provides an integration
of both and can't be persuaded that it is
a flawed model in itself.

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

No it isn't. The role I've taken on is to counter the argument that FSM
provides an adequate description. You yourself have failed to provide a
coherent explanation for how FSM causes matter to accelerate. When you asked
Lindner to explain he came up with some garbage about space wrapping itself
around leptons to form hadrons. That didn't explain how FSM caused matter to
accelerate either.

..entrainment gives some particular
problems of its own, like why we don't
see the postions of stars move as their
light passes through the zone of
'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the
Moon - there should be refraction as the
light slows down and speeds up again
through this zone.

The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919
solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass
objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do
you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for
a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet
translate laterally? You're being a little silly really.

You don't understand entrainment do you?

..(at one point he thought that the effect
of the charge on an electron would be
less than that of a proton 'because the
electron has less mass'); so any attempt
to discuss basics comes to naught.

Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba.
But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and
particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals
in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of
effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face,
but it has no relevance to causation.

ditto. Assertion is not proof. Your model can't explain why things start to
accelerate in the vicinity of planets. You seem to forget that until I
explained your own model you thought it was the 'speed' of FS that caused
matter to accelerate, not the 'acceleration' of FS itself. Is this another
'detail'. Ha!

So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is
yours___________ . oc

As explained, I'm simply offering a corrective to the failed FSM model you
keep putting forward.

From Jb:

... and yet continually reject the
predictions of the mathematical model of GR.

The specific "prediction", as you well know, is that sidebar tagged onto
the main body of GR dealing with polarizarion of 'gravitational waves'.
It does not intrude on the main body of GR itself.
Do you actually believe gravity and GWs are the same
thing??? Are you really as stupid as you come across as, or do you have
to work at it???
You have nothing.

Speak for yourself. Hurrumph.
oc

From Jb:

... and yet continually reject the
predictions of the mathematical model of GR.

The specific "prediction", as you well know, is that sidebar tagged onto
the main body of GR dealing with polarizarion of 'gravitational waves'.
It does not intrude on the main body of GR itself.
Do you actually believe gravity and GWs are the same
thing??? Are you really as stupid as you come across as, or do you have
to work at it???
You have nothing.

Speak for yourself. Hurrumph.
oc

Well OGster, you're a tough bird. And i certainly don't expect to change
your view one iota. Unlike Mr. Jb, you present cogent, valid arguments.
And i respect you for your stance.

But just for the record, if you recall, the question of gravity-inertia
equivalence was addressed on that property of the medium which Wolter
called 'hyperfluidity'. It concerns the fact that an object in static
space resists acceleration, but once accelerated resists deceleration.
Conversely, momentum is imparted to a fixed object in accelerating
space. Yet no momentum is imparted in non-accelerating, flowing space.
This is a summation of how hyperfluidity underlies and fixes the laws of
inertia and momentum. Wolter regarded hyperfluidity as second cousin to
quantum nonlocality, and like nonlocality, is simply 'what is', a given.
To a person such as yourself, full innerworking of the
'givens' is paramount. To someone else, the 'big picture' is paramount,
and the givens simply take their rightful place within the Whole. To
each his own.

For whatever it's worth, this site addresses in some depth the "why does
acceleration impart momentum?" question (page four). Unfortunately the
archaic term 'ether' is used. AAk. -
www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm

Best regards

Well OGster, you're a tough bird. And i certainly don't expect to change
your view one iota. Unlike Mr. Jb, you present cogent, valid arguments.
And i respect you for your stance.

But just for the record, if you recall, the question of gravity-inertia
equivalence was addressed on that property of the medium which Wolter
called 'hyperfluidity'. It concerns the fact that an object in static
space resists acceleration, but once accelerated resists deceleration.
Conversely, momentum is imparted to a fixed object in accelerating
space. Yet no momentum is imparted in non-accelerating, flowing space.
This is a summation of how hyperfluidity underlies and fixes the laws of
inertia and momentum. Wolter regarded hyperfluidity as second cousin to
quantum nonlocality, and like nonlocality, is simply 'what is', a given.
To a person such as yourself, full innerworking of the
'givens' is paramount. To someone else, the 'big picture' is paramount,
and the givens simply take their rightful place within the Whole. To
each his own.

For whatever it's worth, this site addresses in some depth the "why does
acceleration impart momentum?" question (page four). Unfortunately the
archaic term 'ether' is used. AAk. -
www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm

Best regards

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Well OGster, you're a tough bird. And i certainly don't expect to change
your view one iota. Unlike Mr. Jb, you present cogent, valid arguments.
And i respect you for your stance.

But just for the record, if you recall, the question of gravity-inertia
equivalence was addressed on that property of the medium which Wolter
called 'hyperfluidity'. It concerns the fact that an object in static
space resists acceleration, but once accelerated resists deceleration.
Conversely, momentum is imparted to a fixed object in accelerating
space. Yet no momentum is imparted in non-accelerating, flowing space.
This is a summation of how hyperfluidity underlies and fixes the laws of
inertia and momentum. Wolter regarded hyperfluidity as second cousin to
quantum nonlocality, and like nonlocality, is simply 'what is', a given.

This comes under the 'describing, not explaining' heading you reject for non
FSM theories.

To a person such as yourself, full innerworking of the
'givens' is paramount. To someone else, the 'big picture' is paramount,
and the givens simply take their rightful place within the Whole. To
each his own.

So you accept that you are 'describing, not explaining' . Good - we are
getting somewhere.


For whatever it's worth, this site addresses in some depth the "why does
acceleration impart momentum?" question (page four). Unfortunately the
archaic term 'ether' is used. AAk. -
www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm

Best regards

Do you mean the bit that starts
"If the electron is a vortex, very likely other subatomic entities which
compose matter are also vortices or combinations of vortices (with the
exception of neutrinos if one considers them to be components of matter). "

If you start with a premise such as that; and think that "[it is] very
likely that" forms part of a formal proof, then you are being deluded.

Once again the argument FAILS to explain why the force is dependent on the
'acceleration' of the flow of space rather than the 'velocity'

I quote
"the ether flowing into each vortex and into large concentrations of
vortices (such as our planet) would be an accelerating force".

Since all forces are accelerating it would be surprising if any other
conclusion was possible, but clearly it implies that the acceleration is a
result of the _amount_ of flow. However, the model depends on the
gravitational acceleration being due to the 'acceleration' of space in the
vicinity of the mass. Can you tell the difference?