A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An Attractive Proposition -



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 26th 09, 09:46 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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  
Old January 26th 09, 09:53 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 27th 09, 03:40 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot[_2_] oldcoot[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 608
Default 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  
Old January 27th 09, 06:04 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 27th 09, 11:18 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default 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  
Old January 27th 09, 11:29 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot[_2_] oldcoot[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 608
Default 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  
Old January 28th 09, 02:08 AM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 28th 09, 12:17 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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  
Old January 28th 09, 01:36 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default 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  
Old January 28th 09, 02:50 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot[_2_] oldcoot[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 608
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.