|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Painius wrote, replying to one of his respondants,
Gravitational lensing, as proposed originally by GR, and was found later to be real (the lensing effect itself), was the very first cause of cosmology's proposal that there must be a mysterious "dark matter" that promotes the lensing effect. Actually the observed lensing was found to be *in excess* of what was predicted. More lensing was present than observable mass could account for, thus "dark matter" was invented to explain the excess lensing. Of course, dark matter has been blamed for other stuff since then, and in fact seems to be drawn like a gun almost everytime something is "otherwise inexplicable", such as the spiral galaxy rotation curve. Spatial energy is, in effect, the mysterious dark matter... Indeed. Co-entrainment of matter and space rotating together is the PRIMARY factor in the non-Keplerian rotation curves of galaxies. Space itself *is* the enigmatic "dark matter". Y'know Paine, it's your prerrogative to spin your wheels endlessly with these jokers. But it would be far more productive to just draw the line in the sand and _demand_ that before dialog can continue, that they address cogently the SHQ 'Litmus Test' of any viable theory of gravitation. Demand to know how their worldview explains the mechanism that powers super/ hypernovae and quasars. Thus far, the only explanation that "steps up to the plate" with an answer is a universe-filling, fluidic Plenum under a state of pressurization that exceeds degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus. If there is a better answer to the SHQ 'Litmus Test', by all means let's hear it. The floor is open____________ . |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Addendum
Oc writ thusly, ...it would be far more productive to just draw the line in the sand and _demand_ that before dialog can continue, that they address cogently the SHQ 'Litmus Test' of any viable theory of gravitation. Demand to know how their worldview explains the mechanism that powers super/ hypernovae and quasars. Yeah, it's time to take off the kid gloves and bust these suckers' chops. They oh-so-fastidiously avoid the pivotal 'Litmus Test' and oh-so-condescendingly lecture us unwashed rabble on how only "their kind", the anointed Initiates into "Higher Math", can ever hope to grasp the mysteries of the cosmos. In their recent dialogs with Painius, their typical responses are utterly childish, insipid and predictable. Case in point: regarding #2 of the 'Cardinal Points', the "No perceptible upper amplitude limit" thing. Condensed response (paraphrasing): "the point is negated by E and B fields". Well DOH. Then why in the hell is there no perceptible limit to amplitude of E and B fields?? The fact of there being no perceptible limit was the *singular point* upon which Gordon Wolter "fixated" and from which his entire cosmology nucleated along with its numerous, cross-congruent 'sidebars'. And he did it without need for one iota of Math. So do as you will, Paine. But were i you, i would *sure as hell* hold these high-and-mighty "Math-Firster" prima donnas' feet to the fire and MAKE them address the 'Litmus Test' before indulging their sillyness any further. Hrr-UMPH. :-) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... Painius wrote, replying to one of his respondants, Gravitational lensing, as proposed originally by GR, and was found later to be real (the lensing effect itself), was the very first cause of cosmology's proposal that there must be a mysterious "dark matter" that promotes the lensing effect. Actually the observed lensing was found to be *in excess* of what was predicted. More lensing was present than observable mass could account for, thus "dark matter" was invented to explain the excess lensing. If it was found to be in excess of what was predicted by Newton's formulas, then it could be explained in much the same way as the starlight bent by the Sun. BUT, if the observed lensing was in excess of what was predicted by Einstein's equations (and these are probably the ones they used), then i can see why they felt that dark matter had to be invented. So how does the flowing space model account for this lensing that's in excess beyond Einstein's prediction? happy new days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory." John Kenneth Galbraith P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... Addendum Oc writ thusly, ...it would be far more productive to just draw the line in the sand and _demand_ that before dialog can continue, that they address cogently the SHQ 'Litmus Test' of any viable theory of gravitation. Demand to know how their worldview explains the mechanism that powers super/ hypernovae and quasars. Yeah, it's time to take off the kid gloves and bust these suckers' chops. They oh-so-fastidiously avoid the pivotal 'Litmus Test' and oh-so-condescendingly lecture us unwashed rabble on how only "their kind", the anointed Initiates into "Higher Math", can ever hope to grasp the mysteries of the cosmos. In their recent dialogs with Painius, their typical responses are utterly childish, insipid and predictable. Case in point: regarding #2 of the 'Cardinal Points', the "No perceptible upper amplitude limit" thing. Condensed response (paraphrasing): "the point is negated by E and B fields". Well DOH. Then why in the hell is there no perceptible limit to amplitude of E and B fields?? The fact of there being no perceptible limit was the *singular point* upon which Gordon Wolter "fixated" and from which his entire cosmology nucleated along with its numerous, cross-congruent 'sidebars'. And he did it without need for one iota of Math. So do as you will, Paine. But were i you, i would *sure as hell* hold these high-and-mighty "Math-Firster" prima donnas' feet to the fire and MAKE them address the 'Litmus Test' before indulging their sillyness any further. Hrr-UMPH. :-) Well, as you know, i'm not in complete agreement where math is concerned. You're always talking about speedometers and schematics and such, and you make very good points in favor of the "big picture" and using intuitive extrapolation where mathematics appears to weaken or fail. But the fact remains that a radio or TV is very difficult to work on or fix without a schematic diagram. And without a speedometer, it's impossible pretty much to know how fast your going under many circumstances. You really need to fly a small plane in bad weather on instruments only, oc. It'll give you a whole new view/ perspective on what you need to do when you cannot possibly see the "big picture" with any clarity. You go to instruments, you go to organized thought, you go to math. Math is one helpful method that could very well lead to clarification of physical reality. I won't deny this, and i honestly don't understand why you appear to sweep math under the rug like that. It's an important and serious tool, and it should not be belittled or taken lightly under any circumstances. But that's just me. I know it's weird, but i happen to like mathematics very much, and i truly wish i was better at it. happy new days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory." John Kenneth Galbraith P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Painius admonished:
Math is one helpful method that could very well lead to clarification of physical reality. I won't deny this, and i honestly don't understand why you appear to sweep math under the rug like that. It's an important and serious tool, and it should not be belittled or taken lightly under any circumstances. Well, i guess we're fated to never communicate at all on this issue, Paine. As sed so many times, to the degree that math accurately describes the 'big picture', as it does in the applied sciences and your example of Instrument Flight Rules, the The Math is indeed invaluable. I has _never_ belittled nor gainsayed math per se. As sed so many times, It is _only_ in the specific arena of cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics that i do vehemently and with great curmudgeonliness decry the ***Primacy of Math*** doctrine and sweep it under the rug where it belongs. That's the application of perfectly good math to describe false premises like geocentrism and the VSP. The PoM doctrine was born when Uncle Albert kicked out the "aether" and substituted the mathematical abstraction "space-time" for it. This seeming "revolution" in physics has borne its insidious fruit and is exactly and precisely the reason cosmology is stalled on the siding where it now languishes. Perfectly good Math is given preeminance, Primacy, to describe the false premise that there is "no medium" and that space is universally isotropic and devoid of ****density gradients****. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
Painius wrote,
...if the observed lensing was in excess of what was predicted by Einstein's equations (and these are probably the ones they used), then i can see why they felt that "dark matter" had to be invented. So how does the flowing space model account for this lensing that's in excess beyond Einstein's prediction? Well, for the umpteenth time, any large-scale, non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium (or flows containing a low acceleration component) are gonna deflect (lens) light juat as is observed. Einstein had no concept of flowing space since the Lorentzian concept then in vogue described an immobile, rigid "aether" which forbade space to flow. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... Painius wrote, ...if the observed lensing was in excess of what was predicted by Einstein's equations (and these are probably the ones they used), then i can see why they felt that "dark matter" had to be invented. So how does the flowing space model account for this lensing that's in excess beyond Einstein's prediction? Well, for the umpteenth time, any large-scale, non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium (or flows containing a low acceleration component) are gonna deflect (lens) light juat as is observed. Einstein had no concept of flowing space since the Lorentzian concept then in vogue described an immobile, rigid "aether" which forbade space to flow. 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? If this is the case, then this is where some math is needed. Sorry, but anything that goes beyond Einstein's equations MUST be supported by new formulas. In this case the need is to be able to predict the exact amount of the deep space lensing effect under the FSP. And for that matter, there is a need for relativity math enhancement where the Pioneers are concerned, as well. 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. 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. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible? An Attractive Proposition -
On Jan 26, 9:16*am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message... ... Painius wrote, ...if the observed lensing was in excess of what was predicted by Einstein's equations (and these are probably the ones they used), then i can see why they felt that "dark matter" had to be invented. So how does the flowing space model account for this lensing that's in excess beyond Einstein's prediction? Well, for the umpteenth time, any large-scale, non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium (or flows containing a low acceleration component) are gonna deflect (lens) light juat as is observed. * * * * * * * *Einstein had no concept of flowing space since the Lorentzian concept then in vogue described an immobile, rigid "aether" which forbade space to flow. 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? If this is the case, then this is where some math is needed. Sorry, but anything that goes beyond Einstein's equations MUST be supported by new formulas. *In this case the need is to be able to predict the exact amount of the deep space lensing effect under the FSP. *And for that matter, there is a need for relativity math enhancement where the Pioneers are concerned, as well. 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. *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. 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 I see you and your friends are still applying every excuse and dirty tactic in order to keep the original topic diverted. "Space Elevator is it possible?" I suppose it is somehow technically impossible for you and your republican Zionist Nazi Rothschild friends to merely create a new topic of "An Attractive Proposition", whereas instead you folks have to go through extra efforts in order to keep renaming and utilizing this one. This is like another false flag tactic, of using Muslims to fight our Russian partners in the mutually perpetrated cold war that you and others of your kind fully supported. Similar to hiding out in a community daycare so as to go unnoticed. ~ BG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
An Attractive Proposition -
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). 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Space Elevator is it possible? An Attractive Proposition -
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
... I see you and your friends are still applying every excuse and dirty tactic in order to keep the original topic diverted. "Space Elevator is it possible?" I suppose it is somehow technically impossible for you and your republican Zionist Nazi Rothschild friends to merely create a new topic of "An Attractive Proposition", whereas instead you folks have to go through extra efforts in order to keep renaming and utilizing this one. This is like another false flag tactic, of using Muslims to fight our Russian partners in the mutually perpetrated cold war that you and others of your kind fully supported. Similar to hiding out in a community daycare so as to go unnoticed. ~ BG Going UP? g BTW, Brad, what makes you think we're not discussing the possibility of "space elevators", under the aspect of such a possibility being "an attractive proposition"? Everything seems to come back around "full circle", isn't this correct? Perhaps while discussing my attractive proposition, we'll discover that some kind of space elevator is actually possible? Oh! and who made you a netghod? Is censorship now in your li'l bag o' trix? "He who tries to censor me Shall find upon his leg a flea, Bleeding, biting, bloody mess, And spilt all o'er that comely dress!" I wrote that long ago during one of my very first bloody "censorship wars" here on UseNet. Don't try to shut me up, Brad. You don' wanna go dere, amico... trust me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger (Apologies to all Gentle Goddesses who are offended by my obviously macho and chauvinistic BS, above.) I L O V E T H E F I R S T A M E N D M E N T ! 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 |
|
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 |