|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... Painius wrote, So let's see if i've finally gotten it... In a manner similar to the way the two Pioneer spacecraft are exhibiting anomalies that are not predicted by relativity and *are* predicted by the Flowing Space model, the effect of deep space "lensing" is larger than relativity predicts? No, you ain't got it at all. The Pioneer anomaly is *not* related to the lensing effect (except perhaps in the most peripheral and incidental sense). I never said that they were related, oc, i only said that they are similar in that neither the larger lensing effect nor the pioneer anomaly is predicted by GR. When the predicted deep space lensing was finally discovered (1979?), it was found to be in excess of what GR predicted. Ergo, the ad hoc invention of "dark matter". What was NOT understood is that gravity is the effect OF _and only of_ the acceleration component of flowing space, and affects only matter. Whereas light, being massless, is deflected (lensed) by any flow whether the flow is accelerating or not. Further, a high velocity flow devoid of acceleration will lens light to a high degree, but will not affect matter. Thus, any large scale, high velocity, non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is observed. It don't take no steenkin' math to figure that out, just plain old horse sense. I know you don't support the need for math, but physicists will only be interested in how the greater lensing effects are supported by formulas. Well, that's the Primacy of Math doctrine again. All the Math in the world ain't gonna convince 'em of anything, not as long as they are under the VSP. Not unless and until they FIRST fully recognize the reality of the spatial medium and the causal mechanism of gravity will they understand flow lensing vs. "gravitational" lensing. THEN a set of Math useful for describing the effect might be devised. If you want to "prove" that the so-called "gravitational lensing" is actually "flow lensing", and thereby there is no need to invoke "dark matter", then the formulaic difference between relativity and the FSP will have to be established. Sorry, but that's bass-ackwards. Recognizing the reality, the 'Big Picture' comes first. That's Primacy of the B.P. :-) The Formulaic Difference describing the B.P. comes afterward. Horse/cart 'stead of cart-horse. And for that matter, there is a need for relativity math enhancement where the Pioneers are concerned, as well. Well that's a different critter from flow lensing. It is the increased Sun-ward "compactifation" of space outside the Sun's gravity well compared to the stretching/thinning of space inside the gravity well, which results in the Pioneers lagging behind where they 'should be'. And indeed the Math describing this necessary upgrade to GR has yet to be developed. Again, recognizing the reality comes first. The Math describing it comes afterward. Not always. Fork primacy of math and fork primacy of the big picture. Primacy of the truth about physical reality is what matters. Applying mathematics does not necessarily make it "primal". It is, however, an important and crucial part of the scientific method. If an application of math can be devised for "flow" type lensing, AND for the pioneer and fly-by anomalies, then the reality of flowing spatial/gravitational energy could follow. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." Sir Arthur Eddington P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible?
On Jan 26, 12:46*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message... ... Painius wrote, So let's see if i've finally gotten it... In a manner similar to the way the two Pioneer spacecraft are exhibiting anomalies that are not predicted by relativity and *are* predicted by the Flowing Space model, the effect of deep space "lensing" is larger than relativity predicts? No, you ain't got it at all. The Pioneer anomaly is *not* related to the lensing effect (except perhaps in the most peripheral and incidental sense). I never said that they were related, oc, i only said that they are similar in that neither the larger lensing effect nor the pioneer anomaly is predicted by GR. When the predicted deep space lensing was finally discovered (1979?), it was found to be in excess of what GR predicted. Ergo, the ad hoc invention of "dark matter". * * * * * * * * What was NOT understood is that gravity is the effect OF _and only of_ the acceleration component of flowing space, and affects only matter. Whereas light, being massless, is deflected (lensed) by any flow whether the flow is accelerating or not. Further, a high velocity flow devoid of acceleration will lens light to a high degree, but will not affect matter. * * * * * * * * * *Thus, any large scale, high velocity, non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is observed. It don't take no steenkin' math to figure that out, just plain old horse sense. I know you don't support the need for math, but physicists will only be interested in how the greater lensing effects are supported by formulas. Well, that's the Primacy of Math doctrine again. All the Math in the world ain't gonna convince 'em of anything, not as long as they are under the VSP. Not unless and until they FIRST fully recognize the reality of the spatial medium and the causal mechanism of gravity will they understand flow lensing vs. "gravitational" lensing. THEN a set of Math useful for describing the effect might be devised. If you want to "prove" that the so-called "gravitational lensing" is actually "flow lensing", and thereby there is no need to invoke "dark matter", then the formulaic difference between relativity and the FSP will have to be established.. Sorry, but that's bass-ackwards. Recognizing the reality, the 'Big Picture' comes first. That's Primacy of the B.P. :-) The Formulaic Difference describing the B.P. comes afterward. Horse/cart 'stead of cart-horse. And for that matter, there is a need for relativity math enhancement where the Pioneers are concerned, as well. Well that's a different critter from flow lensing. It is the increased Sun-ward "compactifation" of space outside the Sun's gravity well compared to the stretching/thinning of space inside the gravity well, which results in the Pioneers lagging behind where they 'should be'. And indeed the Math describing this necessary upgrade to GR has yet to be developed. Again, recognizing the reality comes first. The Math describing it comes afterward. Not always. *Fork primacy of math and fork primacy of the big picture. *Primacy of the truth about physical reality is what matters. *Applying mathematics does not necessarily make it "primal". *It is, however, an important and crucial part of the scientific method. *If an application of math can be devised for "flow" type lensing, AND for the pioneer and fly-by anomalies, then the reality of flowing spatial/gravitational energy could follow. happy days and... * *starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: *"Not only is the universe stranger than we * * * * * *imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sir Arthur Eddington P.P.S.: *http://astronomy.painellsworth.net * * * * * * * * * *http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com "Space Elevator is it possible?" What's the matter? is 490 GPa diamond fiber and subsequent composites too easily obtainable? ~ BG |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Painius wrote,
Primacy of the truth about physical reality is what matters. Applying mathematics does not necessarily make (math) "primal". It is, however, an important and crucial part of the scientific method. As has ben sed many times, many ways, there's nothing wrong with Math as long as it accurately depicts/describes the reality, as it does in the pragmatic 'applied sciences'. But when perfectly good math is used to depict/describe a *false premise* (eg., geocentrism, the VSP), the "scientific method" runs wildly off the rails, as it has in cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. When Uncle Albert kicked out the spatial medium, a mathematical abstraction, "space-time", supplanted the reality; 'The Math' became the surrogate and euphamism FOR the reality. The Math became preeminent, Primal, the "real thing". Thus was the Primacy of Math born, heralded and celebrated as revolutionary because it supplanted the old superstition. The detested "aether" was dead. Hallamalujah. And "The Math" worked just fine, as attested to by GR's many successes, describing space as 'void' and devoid of *density gradients*. But when such gradients begin appearing, "The Math" begins failing. If an application of math can be devised for "flow" type lensing, AND for the pioneer and fly-by anomalies, then the reality of flowing spatial/gravitational energy could follow. But here's the rub - the sitting, entrenched paradigm forbids existance of the spatial medium and therefore forbids any flows to exist. No amount of Math and its Primacy which you are advocating are gonna change the sitting paradigm. The paradigm has to change FIRST. That's preeminant above all else and Primal. The spatial medium and its propensity to FLOW has to first be recognized. Its propensity for compression/ expansion and therefore *density gradients* and *volumetric gradients* has to be recognized. All this is prerequisite and Primal. All this is what SHOULD have happened when Uncle Albert rightly kicked out the old rigid, immobile "aether" of Lorentz. But the baby was thrown out with the bathwater and the Primacy of Math took its place. And the rest, as they say, is history. Welcome to the VSP, our modern geocentrism. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible? - An Attractive Proposition -
On Jan 27, 6:40*am, (oldcoot) wrote:
Painius wrote, Primacy of the truth about physical reality is what matters. Applying mathematics does not necessarily make (math) "primal". It is, however, an important and crucial part of the scientific method. As has ben sed many times, many ways, there's nothing wrong with Math as long as it accurately depicts/describes the reality, as it does in the pragmatic 'applied sciences'. * * * * * * * * * *But when perfectly good math is used to depict/describe a *false premise* (eg., geocentrism, the VSP), the "scientific method" runs wildly off the rails, as it has in cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. * * * * * * * * *When Uncle Albert kicked out the spatial medium, a mathematical abstraction, "space-time", supplanted the reality; 'The Math' became the surrogate and euphamism FOR the reality. The Math became preeminent, Primal, the "real thing". Thus was the Primacy of Math born, heralded and celebrated as revolutionary because it supplanted the old superstition. The detested "aether" was dead. Hallamalujah. * * * * * * * * * *And "The Math" worked just fine, as attested to by GR's many successes, describing space as 'void' and devoid of *density gradients*. But when such gradients begin appearing, "The Math" begins failing. * * * If an application of math can be devised for "flow" type lensing, AND for the pioneer and fly-by anomalies, then the reality of flowing spatial/gravitational energy could follow. But here's the rub - the sitting, entrenched paradigm forbids existance of the spatial medium and therefore forbids any flows to exist. No amount of Math and its Primacy which you are advocating are gonna change the sitting paradigm. The paradigm has to change FIRST. That's preeminant above all else and Primal. The spatial medium and its propensity to FLOW has to first be recognized. Its propensity for compression/ expansion and therefore *density gradients* and *volumetric gradients* has to be recognized. All this is prerequisite and Primal. All this is what SHOULD have happened when Uncle Albert rightly kicked out the old rigid, immobile "aether" of Lorentz. But the baby was thrown out with the bathwater and the Primacy of Math took its place. And the rest, as they say, is history. Welcome to the VSP, our modern geocentrism. * * Interesting how this group of spooks and moles has been assigned to divert the topic of "Space Elevator is it possible?" Is the black diamond fiber GPa of 490 giving your CNT rusemasters a run for the money? ~ BG |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible? - An Attractive Proposition -
There will be NO space elevator anytime soon, BradBoi! lmfjao!
So why spend so much time on it? Only INSANE LOONS like you would bother with it. Saul Levy On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:04:33 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote: Interesting how this group of spooks and moles has been assigned to divert the topic of "Space Elevator is it possible?" Is the black diamond fiber GPa of 490 giving your CNT rusemasters a run for the money? ~ BG |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible? - An AttractiveProposition -
Interesting how this group of spooks and
moles has been assigned to divert the topic of "Space Elevator is it possible?" ~BG It's all the fault of them skulduggerous Zionist Nazi Moon Landing Believers. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible? - An Attractive Proposition -
On Jan 27, 2:29*pm, (oldcoot) wrote:
Interesting how this group of spooks and moles has been assigned to divert the topic of "Space Elevator is it possible?" ~BG It's all the fault of them skulduggerous Zionist Nazi Moon Landing Believers. * I wouldn't doubt it for a minute. When is BHO going to replace each and every one of them, with his own version of moon landing believers? ~ BG |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... Painius wrote, Primacy of the truth about physical reality is what matters. Applying mathematics does not necessarily make (math) "primal". It is, however, an important and crucial part of the scientific method. As has ben sed many times, many ways, there's nothing wrong with Math as long as it accurately depicts/describes the reality, as it does in the pragmatic 'applied sciences'. But when perfectly good math is used to depict/describe a *false premise* (eg., geocentrism, the VSP), the "scientific method" runs wildly off the rails, as it has in cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. When Uncle Albert kicked out the spatial medium, a mathematical abstraction, "space-time", supplanted the reality; 'The Math' became the surrogate and euphamism FOR the reality. The Math became preeminent, Primal, the "real thing". Thus was the Primacy of Math born, heralded and celebrated as revolutionary because it supplanted the old superstition. The detested "aether" was dead. Hallamalujah. And "The Math" worked just fine, as attested to by GR's many successes, describing space as 'void' and devoid of *density gradients*. But when such gradients begin appearing, "The Math" begins failing. If an application of math can be devised for "flow" type lensing, AND for the pioneer and fly-by anomalies, then the reality of flowing spatial/gravitational energy could follow. But here's the rub - the sitting, entrenched paradigm forbids existance of the spatial medium and therefore forbids any flows to exist. No amount of Math and its Primacy which you are advocating are gonna change the sitting paradigm. The paradigm has to change FIRST. That's preeminant above all else and Primal. The spatial medium and its propensity to FLOW has to first be recognized. Its propensity for compression/ expansion and therefore *density gradients* and *volumetric gradients* has to be recognized. All this is prerequisite and Primal. All this is what SHOULD have happened when Uncle Albert rightly kicked out the old rigid, immobile "aether" of Lorentz. But the baby was thrown out with the bathwater and the Primacy of Math took its place. And the rest, as they say, is history. Welcome to the VSP, our modern geocentrism. Which is exactly why Wolter's ideas have an edge. Don't you see? The VSP does not really have to be completely "broken". It can be "circumvented" by the fact that space, while it is not comprised of minute particles, *is* made of a type of "energy". The main problem here is getting others to digest that the energy is not "in space", the energy actually "is space". And it's also difficult for people to digest "push gravity". Too many of them draw "Le Sage" like a pistol. The trick is to be patient, be understanding, and be good to people while they digest the "unusual" dinner we're serving up. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "The current best fit model which has an accelerating expansion gives a maximum distance we can see of 47 billion light years." Ned Wright P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Painius since Casmir plates are pressed to gether by wave energy an easy
theory could say space energy is composed of waves. I will do a What if on this. TreBert |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Painius wrote,
And it's also difficult for people to digest "push gravity". Too many of them draw "Le Sage" like a pistol. The trick is to be patient, be understanding, and be good to people... Heh.. that was Wolter's philosophy precisely. "Always see and respect the other fellow's frame of referance." He preached and practiced total charity toward the VS'ers and their need for "messenger particles" etc. Even calling them "math heads" was not meant pejoratively but in the same sense as "computer nerds" is used today. But i've grown too damn jaded and curmudgeonly for such patience and charity, and when they can't / won't address the SHQ 'Litmus Test', just say the hell with 'em. Hrmph. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An Attractive Proposition - | oldcoot[_2_] | Misc | 0 | January 13th 09 11:14 PM |
An Attractive Proposition | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | December 31st 08 01:49 PM |
An Attractive Proposition - | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 2 | December 29th 08 09:12 PM |
An Attractive Proposition | oldcoot[_2_] | Misc | 2 | December 29th 08 04:25 AM |
An Attractive Proposition - | oldcoot[_2_] | Misc | 0 | December 29th 08 12:25 AM |