!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

From Painius:

Inflowing space is dissipated in the core
of each atom, and there is no need to
postulate an esoteric return to a
grounded state, to a primal stinkularity...

This is essentially what Lindner et al. have done with the 'roach motel'
issue- put it on a back burner so to speak.

But Wolter was incredibly troubled by this issue. It was the singular
issue that caused him any vexation with his CBB model. He recognized the
SCO as imperative (based on BH collapse, neutron star formation, and
ignition of fusion in ordinary stars).

Matter's constituent nucleii are intaking a prodigious amount of flow
continuously, so the protons should be gaining mass, getting 'fatter'.
But they're not. The stuff has to be going "somewhere". This was the
crux of Herr W's woes, and it was during his final months. I found a
pair of books on the work of Bohm and Pribram and gave them to him.
Immediately he pounced on quantum nonlocality, coining 'non-plurality'
as the natural extension of it, and voila- he had found a base for
hypothesizing "where the stuff goes". Quantum nonlocality, already
proven in the lab, is indeed "magical" in its de facto instananeity. And
non-plurality is likewise a 'State of Singularity', or Law of One.
The Bohm-Pribram model pictures the manifest universe
as a great hologram or 'Holomovement' as Bohm put it, projected from
this nonlocal, non-plural 'Place'. Wolter saw that "place" as
simultaneously "where the stuff goes" and "where the BB comes from".

In a collapsed black hole and in the cores of protons, the flow vents
*directly* into that 'place'. But everything on 'this side' of a BH
collapse and proton cores, i.e., the visible universe, is a great
Hologram/ Holomovenent floating in the spatial medium.
So based on the Bohm-Pribram model and his own
intuition, W connected the cores of protons nonlocally to the core of
his Primal Particle, the continuously-running 'Engine' powering and
sustaining the universe.

He did not venture into the mechanism of nonlocality/ non-plurality, but
accepted it simply as a 'given', just as he accepted hyperfluidity and
gravity-inertia equivalence. He dealt in overviews of concepts, not the
'details and particulars'.

I think with OG's prodding and your sub-Planck 'graviton' concept, we
might have an inroad into understanding hyperfluidity and how it
underlies and fixes our laws of inertia and momentum.
oc

Hey Paine-

You said you're irked by the 'pixie particles' that hafta be invoked to
'splain the shortcomings of the VSP. Just curious, are you irked by the
Sky Pixies or by my referance to them?
g
oc

Hey Paine-

You said you're irked by the 'pixie particles' that hafta be invoked to
'splain the shortcomings of the VSP. Just curious, are you irked by the
Sky Pixies or by my referance to them?
g
oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
To Painius:

it just occured we've hit upon the very mechanism OG's been hollering
for- why momentum is imparted by an accererating flow and not by a
non-accelerating flow.
There is a 'stretching' of the granularity in a gravity field. This is
the 'tension' Lindner and Shifman refer to.
To an object falling in a 'gravity field', there is greater stretch at
its leading edge (bottom) than at its training edge (top). A
pressure-gradient exists top-to-bottom that DOES NOT exist is a
non-accelerating flow. This pressure gradient is what imparts momentum/
acceleration to the object.
OG, you there..?

HI Bill. I'm here.
OK I'll give it a whirl. You put the bits together into a single posting and
I'll give it a fair hearing. I think I missed the bit about granularity, so
I'd appreciate an explanation of that in particular.

When the object is restrained from falling (i.e., it's sitting on the
ground), the same pressure gradient dictates its 'weight'.

This is the 'minutiae' of the mechanism that Wolter simply treated as a
'given'. He didn't venture into the mechanism itself, or see a need to.
His interest was in 'hyperfluidity' itself, that frictionless property
of the medium that fixes our laws of inertia and momentum. oc


Did Wolter leave any writings?

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
To Painius:

it just occured we've hit upon the very mechanism OG's been hollering
for- why momentum is imparted by an accererating flow and not by a
non-accelerating flow.
There is a 'stretching' of the granularity in a gravity field. This is
the 'tension' Lindner and Shifman refer to.
To an object falling in a 'gravity field', there is greater stretch at
its leading edge (bottom) than at its training edge (top). A
pressure-gradient exists top-to-bottom that DOES NOT exist is a
non-accelerating flow. This pressure gradient is what imparts momentum/
acceleration to the object.
OG, you there..?

HI Bill. I'm here.
OK I'll give it a whirl. You put the bits together into a single posting and
I'll give it a fair hearing. I think I missed the bit about granularity, so
I'd appreciate an explanation of that in particular.

When the object is restrained from falling (i.e., it's sitting on the
ground), the same pressure gradient dictates its 'weight'.

This is the 'minutiae' of the mechanism that Wolter simply treated as a
'given'. He didn't venture into the mechanism itself, or see a need to.
His interest was in 'hyperfluidity' itself, that frictionless property
of the medium that fixes our laws of inertia and momentum. oc


Did Wolter leave any writings?

"Painius" wrote in message
...

The standard model is one of the hardest things for me
to comprehend. I find it ludicrous to turn back time and watch
everything implode into a singularity.
snipped
*IF* the universe is truly expanding (which i personally believe
it may not be), and *IF* one reverses time to mentally observe
the contraction of the universe, it is fairly easy to see why we
must contract it into a point of max density, min volume, into
a "singularity." However, this is an idea/concept which i find grossly
unattractive, its existence unconscionable in the
natural world (universe).

I can see what you mean, but the observational evidence is overwhelmingly in
favour of the hot compact isotropic origin theory.

Secondly, space, if it is indeed flowing into a mass, would not
be made up of matter, as in the old aether theory, but made up
of energy, an energy that has not yet been detected.

As far as I'm aware nobody proposed that the old aether was 'matter' as
such.

One place i saw this description was from Einstein...
In classical field theory it was believed that you could not
have a field unless a mass were present. So when he was
describing how he had derived the void-space solution to
the "problem of space," Einstein wrote, "One thus felt
compelled . . . to assume everywhere the existence of a
form of matter, which was called 'aether'."

I suppose it comes down to the different meaning of the word 'matter'.

snipped stuff about entrainment and requirement that the Earth can
'entrain' inflowing space

Lindner's theory demands that it does - and I believe that Bill's idea of
a
pressure driven flow would also have the forward motion of the earth
setting
up a pressure-wave ahead of the Earth's motion that would be the cause of
the entrainment. Presumably there will be a pressure-hollow behind the
earth
where space falls in faster - so long as it reaches the surface at
11.2km/s
the null MM result will be acceptable.

So the conclusion must be that a working FS model cannot
include entrainment as you describe it, yes? This brings to
mind an image that i'm sure you are familiar with... the image
of Earth's magnetic field. On the Sun-side the field is a bit
mashed, and on the opposite side it extends out like the tail
of a comet. This field is unfettered by Earth's motion around
the Sun as well as the complex motion of Earth and Sun
around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Why would we
expect flowing space, postulated to be a dense field of
radiation with sub-Planck wavelength(s), to behave any
differently?

Indeed.
The magnetic fields are bunched up on the 'sun-side' of the earth and
attenuated behind, just like if we have a FS model the aether is bunched up
ahead of the earth and attenuated behind.
The important thing is that when we measure the magnetic field strength, the
bunching-up 'here' and attenuation 'there', gives different values at
different places around the planet. This is exactly what we DON'T get with
gravitation.

We come up with a surprisingly fast velocity for Earth's
orbit around the Sun. You have probably considered also
the almost alarmingly fast velocity of stars around the
center of the galaxy. And even comet tails themselves,
matter and radiation, seem unaffected or little-affected by
anything but the solar wind. This is why i believe that any
entrainment, if it *does* exist, must be of large enough
scale to be ignored on the scales which we presently can
measure.

I don't see how entrainment can exist without producing effects on satellite
orbits. If the phenomenon called gravitational acceleration is caused by
the acceleration of space, then all acceleration (or deceleration) of space
has to cause gravitational acceleration.

snipped discussion of null MM experiment

Just as there is no difference expected in the speed of
light being emitted from the Sun, fore and aft, arising from
its motion around the center of the galaxy? Still does not
present evidence that would refute the FS model.

FS models are essentially non-relativistic in that there is always a local
unique frame of motion which is co-moving with the space locally. The speed
of light is always 'c' within this frame. I can't see how the light from
the Sun can have the same speed in all directions UNLESS we either have
entrainment OR we reject the notion of an absolute frame.

And entrainment of flowing space, if it is a reality, could only
be as detectable as the flowing space itself. There could be
no straightforward adding and subtracting of accelerations.

There HAS to be straightforward adding and subtraction of accelerations -
that's the sole reason for proposing entrainment - to remove the relative
motion of the Earth (or the Solar System) from the MM experiment.

Why there HAS to be adding and subtracting of accelerations
is unclear, Owen.

There has to be addition and subtraction of accelerations because of the
nature of the relationship between acceleration, velocity and displacement.

Are you saying that, since entrainment has
been shown NOT to be the case, then there can be no working
FS model?

I believe so - The null MM result demands entrainment.

Agreed, however the interaction that explains gravity as a
result of the interaction of inflowing space and matter does
not necessarily have to be large enough to be detected by
our possibly still primitive instruments.

But if the interaction was tiny, we would only have a tiny amount of
gravity - remember this isn't some interaction over and above gravity,
this
is, according to Lindner, the very cause of gravity itself.

So the interaction must be large enough to cause the amount
of gravity in question, and yet somehow still undetectable. At
any rate, it strongly appears that the interaction cannot be
described as "entrainment."


Perhaps mass performs like an antenna? No, perhaps not.
Since our physics has gone so far as to find equivalence
between mass and energy, then perhaps what we have is
a case of each atom of mass (energy equivalent) attracting
the energy of space? Energy attracting energy? As more
atoms amass together to form a larger and larger mass,
this attraction force also grows larger. As the energy of
space flows into each atom, it provides the atom with the
force it requires to remain an atom, a mass. How would
the strong and weak nuclear forces be maintained
otherwise?

To me, it seems that the nuclear forces would quickly be
sapped by their work of overcoming electromagnetic forces
of repulsion in the nucleus if they were not constantly
replenished by... SOMETHING, don't you agree?

Of course not. A force does not 'get sapped' in the way you describe.

Snipped


Simply that if gravity is proportional to escape velocity then the escape
velocity of the moon is 1/5 that of the Earth, but the Moon's gravity is
only 1/6 the Earth's. If gravity is due to the SPEED of inflowing space
then
the Moon's should be roughly 20% stronger than it is actualy is.

So we are agreed then? that in a workable FS model, the
force of gravity caused by the flowing energy of space must
be directly proportional to the acceleration of the medium?

Can you think of any other issues with the FS models,
either in a general sense or specific flaws?

Naturally the main feature of FS models is that they are
non-relativistic;
based as they are on the idea of absolute motion through a defining
medium.

Am i saying something similar if i say that Einstein's relativity
seems incompatible with FS, based as the theory is on the
idea of there being no *need* for a defining medium?

The KEY premise of a medium/aether theory is that there is a frame of
reference that really, really exists where the speed of light is 'c'. Since
this is the frame of reference which is stationary with respect to the
aether wherever you are, there is ONLY ONE frame of reference where the
speed of light is 'c'. Every other frame will measure have a different
measurement for 'c'.

Einstein's relativity is quite clearly different in that the premise is that
all frames of reference will measure the speed of light to be 'c'. No matter
how these frames of reference are moving with regard to each other, they
will each measure the speed of light to be the same.

It is therefore not the case that Einstein doesn't *need* a medium - it is
that it *rejects* a medium. Once you have a medium, there is a preferred
frame of reference and once you have that there is no relativity.

Point is... a working FS model needs relativity far more than
relativity needs it; however, if such a model can explain the
idea of gravity, especially quantum gravity, better than the
existing mainstream theories, then perhaps it is more
relativistic (as well as quantumistic) than it seems to be.

Again - "Once you have a medium, there is a preferred frame of reference and
once you have that there is no relativity. "

The success of the SR and GR in experiment and theory makes
non-relativistic
theories much harder to sustain, as they have the same problems as
Lorentz
had with his own F-L contraction theory - there is the continuing need to
add features to 'explain away' the successful results of relativistic
experiments.

So it would appear that any remotely plausible FS model
would need to BE relativistic to rather than to try to supplant
relativity. Einstein explained that if we picture a 3-dimensional
curvature of space as in a mass lying on and indenting a rubbery
sheet of "material," this helps us to see both the gravitational
attraction of another smaller mass as well as the smaller mass's
orbital motion around the larger mass.

I think there is too much wrapped up with the rubber sheet model to unpick
it here, merely to point out that the emphasis should not be on the
deformation of the *surface* as a 2d plane, rather the observer should see
how the 1d *line* is deformed into a geodesic. Of course in GR, the
deformation is in space-time, which makes adds to the conceptual burden.

Now when we project
this image out to include an infinite number of rubbery sheets
contacting the large mass at all possible points on its surface,
then maybe we can begin to sense the relativistic aspects of
a viable FS model. I don't think we can have one without the
other. And it may well be that neither model precludes nor
contradicts the theoretical predictions of the other.

Can you think of even one prediction of either model that is
made questionable by the other?

You've lost me here.

"Painius" wrote in message
...

The standard model is one of the hardest things for me
to comprehend. I find it ludicrous to turn back time and watch
everything implode into a singularity.
snipped
*IF* the universe is truly expanding (which i personally believe
it may not be), and *IF* one reverses time to mentally observe
the contraction of the universe, it is fairly easy to see why we
must contract it into a point of max density, min volume, into
a "singularity." However, this is an idea/concept which i find grossly
unattractive, its existence unconscionable in the
natural world (universe).

I can see what you mean, but the observational evidence is overwhelmingly in
favour of the hot compact isotropic origin theory.

Secondly, space, if it is indeed flowing into a mass, would not
be made up of matter, as in the old aether theory, but made up
of energy, an energy that has not yet been detected.

As far as I'm aware nobody proposed that the old aether was 'matter' as
such.

One place i saw this description was from Einstein...
In classical field theory it was believed that you could not
have a field unless a mass were present. So when he was
describing how he had derived the void-space solution to
the "problem of space," Einstein wrote, "One thus felt
compelled . . . to assume everywhere the existence of a
form of matter, which was called 'aether'."

I suppose it comes down to the different meaning of the word 'matter'.

snipped stuff about entrainment and requirement that the Earth can
'entrain' inflowing space

Lindner's theory demands that it does - and I believe that Bill's idea of
a
pressure driven flow would also have the forward motion of the earth
setting
up a pressure-wave ahead of the Earth's motion that would be the cause of
the entrainment. Presumably there will be a pressure-hollow behind the
earth
where space falls in faster - so long as it reaches the surface at
11.2km/s
the null MM result will be acceptable.

So the conclusion must be that a working FS model cannot
include entrainment as you describe it, yes? This brings to
mind an image that i'm sure you are familiar with... the image
of Earth's magnetic field. On the Sun-side the field is a bit
mashed, and on the opposite side it extends out like the tail
of a comet. This field is unfettered by Earth's motion around
the Sun as well as the complex motion of Earth and Sun
around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Why would we
expect flowing space, postulated to be a dense field of
radiation with sub-Planck wavelength(s), to behave any
differently?

Indeed.
The magnetic fields are bunched up on the 'sun-side' of the earth and
attenuated behind, just like if we have a FS model the aether is bunched up
ahead of the earth and attenuated behind.
The important thing is that when we measure the magnetic field strength, the
bunching-up 'here' and attenuation 'there', gives different values at
different places around the planet. This is exactly what we DON'T get with
gravitation.

We come up with a surprisingly fast velocity for Earth's
orbit around the Sun. You have probably considered also
the almost alarmingly fast velocity of stars around the
center of the galaxy. And even comet tails themselves,
matter and radiation, seem unaffected or little-affected by
anything but the solar wind. This is why i believe that any
entrainment, if it *does* exist, must be of large enough
scale to be ignored on the scales which we presently can
measure.

I don't see how entrainment can exist without producing effects on satellite
orbits. If the phenomenon called gravitational acceleration is caused by
the acceleration of space, then all acceleration (or deceleration) of space
has to cause gravitational acceleration.

snipped discussion of null MM experiment

Just as there is no difference expected in the speed of
light being emitted from the Sun, fore and aft, arising from
its motion around the center of the galaxy? Still does not
present evidence that would refute the FS model.

FS models are essentially non-relativistic in that there is always a local
unique frame of motion which is co-moving with the space locally. The speed
of light is always 'c' within this frame. I can't see how the light from
the Sun can have the same speed in all directions UNLESS we either have
entrainment OR we reject the notion of an absolute frame.

And entrainment of flowing space, if it is a reality, could only
be as detectable as the flowing space itself. There could be
no straightforward adding and subtracting of accelerations.

There HAS to be straightforward adding and subtraction of accelerations -
that's the sole reason for proposing entrainment - to remove the relative
motion of the Earth (or the Solar System) from the MM experiment.

Why there HAS to be adding and subtracting of accelerations
is unclear, Owen.

There has to be addition and subtraction of accelerations because of the
nature of the relationship between acceleration, velocity and displacement.

Are you saying that, since entrainment has
been shown NOT to be the case, then there can be no working
FS model?

I believe so - The null MM result demands entrainment.

Agreed, however the interaction that explains gravity as a
result of the interaction of inflowing space and matter does
not necessarily have to be large enough to be detected by
our possibly still primitive instruments.

But if the interaction was tiny, we would only have a tiny amount of
gravity - remember this isn't some interaction over and above gravity,
this
is, according to Lindner, the very cause of gravity itself.

So the interaction must be large enough to cause the amount
of gravity in question, and yet somehow still undetectable. At
any rate, it strongly appears that the interaction cannot be
described as "entrainment."


Perhaps mass performs like an antenna? No, perhaps not.
Since our physics has gone so far as to find equivalence
between mass and energy, then perhaps what we have is
a case of each atom of mass (energy equivalent) attracting
the energy of space? Energy attracting energy? As more
atoms amass together to form a larger and larger mass,
this attraction force also grows larger. As the energy of
space flows into each atom, it provides the atom with the
force it requires to remain an atom, a mass. How would
the strong and weak nuclear forces be maintained
otherwise?

To me, it seems that the nuclear forces would quickly be
sapped by their work of overcoming electromagnetic forces
of repulsion in the nucleus if they were not constantly
replenished by... SOMETHING, don't you agree?

Of course not. A force does not 'get sapped' in the way you describe.

Snipped


Simply that if gravity is proportional to escape velocity then the escape
velocity of the moon is 1/5 that of the Earth, but the Moon's gravity is
only 1/6 the Earth's. If gravity is due to the SPEED of inflowing space
then
the Moon's should be roughly 20% stronger than it is actualy is.

So we are agreed then? that in a workable FS model, the
force of gravity caused by the flowing energy of space must
be directly proportional to the acceleration of the medium?

Can you think of any other issues with the FS models,
either in a general sense or specific flaws?

Naturally the main feature of FS models is that they are
non-relativistic;
based as they are on the idea of absolute motion through a defining
medium.

Am i saying something similar if i say that Einstein's relativity
seems incompatible with FS, based as the theory is on the
idea of there being no *need* for a defining medium?

The KEY premise of a medium/aether theory is that there is a frame of
reference that really, really exists where the speed of light is 'c'. Since
this is the frame of reference which is stationary with respect to the
aether wherever you are, there is ONLY ONE frame of reference where the
speed of light is 'c'. Every other frame will measure have a different
measurement for 'c'.

Einstein's relativity is quite clearly different in that the premise is that
all frames of reference will measure the speed of light to be 'c'. No matter
how these frames of reference are moving with regard to each other, they
will each measure the speed of light to be the same.

It is therefore not the case that Einstein doesn't *need* a medium - it is
that it *rejects* a medium. Once you have a medium, there is a preferred
frame of reference and once you have that there is no relativity.

Point is... a working FS model needs relativity far more than
relativity needs it; however, if such a model can explain the
idea of gravity, especially quantum gravity, better than the
existing mainstream theories, then perhaps it is more
relativistic (as well as quantumistic) than it seems to be.

Again - "Once you have a medium, there is a preferred frame of reference and
once you have that there is no relativity. "

The success of the SR and GR in experiment and theory makes
non-relativistic
theories much harder to sustain, as they have the same problems as
Lorentz
had with his own F-L contraction theory - there is the continuing need to
add features to 'explain away' the successful results of relativistic
experiments.

So it would appear that any remotely plausible FS model
would need to BE relativistic to rather than to try to supplant
relativity. Einstein explained that if we picture a 3-dimensional
curvature of space as in a mass lying on and indenting a rubbery
sheet of "material," this helps us to see both the gravitational
attraction of another smaller mass as well as the smaller mass's
orbital motion around the larger mass.

I think there is too much wrapped up with the rubber sheet model to unpick
it here, merely to point out that the emphasis should not be on the
deformation of the *surface* as a 2d plane, rather the observer should see
how the 1d *line* is deformed into a geodesic. Of course in GR, the
deformation is in space-time, which makes adds to the conceptual burden.

Now when we project
this image out to include an infinite number of rubbery sheets
contacting the large mass at all possible points on its surface,
then maybe we can begin to sense the relativistic aspects of
a viable FS model. I don't think we can have one without the
other. And it may well be that neither model precludes nor
contradicts the theoretical predictions of the other.

Can you think of even one prediction of either model that is
made questionable by the other?

You've lost me here.

From OG:

OK I'll give it a whirl. You put the bits
together into a single posting and I'll give it a fair hearing. I
think I missed the bit
about granularity, so I'd appreciate an
explanation of that in particular.

Did Wolter leave any writings?

No, W left no writing, only verbal dictation of his model, which i have
attempted to re-convey to the best of my understanding of it. The only
'writing' of it extant is what's gone out via the internet in this one
NG over the last several years. His FS model is a sidebar or offshoot of
his larger cosmology, called the CBB (continuous BB) model. In this NG,
(thanks to Bert, then known as Herb), i ran onto Lindner's group, who
had independantly deduced *exactly* the same basic FS model as Wolter's
(ie, the accelerating 'reverse starburst' inflow). However the models of
Lindner et al embrace nowhere near the breadth and scope of Wolter's
CBB.

OK. 'Granularity' of the sub-Planck medium and the 'stretching' thereof
in an accelerating flow, and how it imparts momentum to matter via an
axial pressure-gradient or 'tension' thru said matter.

Previously i said there are four 'Mainline Issues' that one *must* grasp
about the sub-Planck domain before the FSM can have any real meaning.
You have to absolutely 'get' the full import of these points, and bounce
it back so i can tell you have really 'got' it on all four.
So far Painius has 'sorta' got it but only peripherally.

The 4 points again, are-

1. The propagation speed of EM (and supposedly GW) radiation is fixed at
c, which witnesses to a carrier medium of a particular density/
pressure/ elasticity. If there is no medium, why isn't c widely variant
or even infinite? ("Permitivity of space" doesn't answer anything. What
is "space"?)

2. Why is c as high as it is? A propagation speed this high demands a
carrier medium of **enormously high** density/ pressure. ("Permittivity/
permeability of space" doesn't answer anything. What is "space"?)

3. Again, and this is the *pivotal* point, there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION (or GW radiation supposedly).
This demands a carrier medium of even greater energy-density (sub-Planck
'granularity') than the most energetic EM/GW wave it supports. If there
is no sub-Planck medium, how is this accomplished?

4. By all appearance of its behaviour, gravity is a pressure-driven,
accelerating flow into mass. It has the ability to crush massive stars
down to singularities. This demands a medium of incomprehensibly high
density/ hydrostatic pressure. If there is no medium, how is
gravitation, and gravitation of such magnitude, accomplished? One
thing's for sure- it isn't accomplished by 'metrics' and equations,
which are _descriptions_ of the process.

Now if you can bounce these 4 points back with the clear indication
you've absolutely 'got' the full import of them, then we can go on into
the minutiae of gravity-acceleration equivalence and hyperfluidity.

Without absolutely 'getting' the 4 ponts, we'll just be argufying and
quibbling over nothing. oc

From OG:

OK I'll give it a whirl. You put the bits
together into a single posting and I'll give it a fair hearing. I
think I missed the bit
about granularity, so I'd appreciate an
explanation of that in particular.

Did Wolter leave any writings?

No, W left no writing, only verbal dictation of his model, which i have
attempted to re-convey to the best of my understanding of it. The only
'writing' of it extant is what's gone out via the internet in this one
NG over the last several years. His FS model is a sidebar or offshoot of
his larger cosmology, called the CBB (continuous BB) model. In this NG,
(thanks to Bert, then known as Herb), i ran onto Lindner's group, who
had independantly deduced *exactly* the same basic FS model as Wolter's
(ie, the accelerating 'reverse starburst' inflow). However the models of
Lindner et al embrace nowhere near the breadth and scope of Wolter's
CBB.

OK. 'Granularity' of the sub-Planck medium and the 'stretching' thereof
in an accelerating flow, and how it imparts momentum to matter via an
axial pressure-gradient or 'tension' thru said matter.

Previously i said there are four 'Mainline Issues' that one *must* grasp
about the sub-Planck domain before the FSM can have any real meaning.
You have to absolutely 'get' the full import of these points, and bounce
it back so i can tell you have really 'got' it on all four.
So far Painius has 'sorta' got it but only peripherally.

The 4 points again, are-

1. The propagation speed of EM (and supposedly GW) radiation is fixed at
c, which witnesses to a carrier medium of a particular density/
pressure/ elasticity. If there is no medium, why isn't c widely variant
or even infinite? ("Permitivity of space" doesn't answer anything. What
is "space"?)

2. Why is c as high as it is? A propagation speed this high demands a
carrier medium of **enormously high** density/ pressure. ("Permittivity/
permeability of space" doesn't answer anything. What is "space"?)

3. Again, and this is the *pivotal* point, there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION (or GW radiation supposedly).
This demands a carrier medium of even greater energy-density (sub-Planck
'granularity') than the most energetic EM/GW wave it supports. If there
is no sub-Planck medium, how is this accomplished?

4. By all appearance of its behaviour, gravity is a pressure-driven,
accelerating flow into mass. It has the ability to crush massive stars
down to singularities. This demands a medium of incomprehensibly high
density/ hydrostatic pressure. If there is no medium, how is
gravitation, and gravitation of such magnitude, accomplished? One
thing's for sure- it isn't accomplished by 'metrics' and equations,
which are _descriptions_ of the process.

Now if you can bounce these 4 points back with the clear indication
you've absolutely 'got' the full import of them, then we can go on into
the minutiae of gravity-acceleration equivalence and hyperfluidity.

Without absolutely 'getting' the 4 ponts, we'll just be argufying and
quibbling over nothing. oc

You put the bits together into a single posting and I'll give it a fair
hearing. I think I missed the bit about granularity, so I'd appreciate an
explanation of that in particular.