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
  #1  
Old January 14th 09, 05:38 AM 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, 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  
Old January 14th 09, 01:05 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 -

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  
Old January 17th 09, 11:36 AM 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, 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  
Old January 17th 09, 12:02 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...
...
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  
Old January 17th 09, 06:35 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 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  
Old January 17th 09, 06:53 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,

...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  
Old January 26th 09, 06:16 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,

...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  
Old January 26th 09, 07:31 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old January 26th 09, 07:32 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,

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  
Old January 26th 09, 09:25 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius Painius is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,144
Default 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

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 12:57 PM.


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.