[Fwd: Top Secret Earth Station Message-Five Star-*****]

"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:09:17 -0000
"OG" wrote:

Maybe the two points started at different speeds?


Nope sorry,

In that case there is no increase in separation and nothing to
explain

Yes there is, the separation is observed and can be measured, the
motion
of the two points can be accounted for, except the separation, the
only
explanation on offer is that the void, the nothing, is expanding thus
increasing the distance between the two points. This explanation
smacks
of desperation. A void, a nothing expanding??, oh please.

I would still like to see an explanation of how this nothing is
expanding. Maybe the nothing is not expanding but that new nothing is
being created in the already existing nothing thus creating even more
nothing that goes on to create even more nothing and so on and so on
;-)


What ? ? ?
You see an increasing separation WITHOUT a relative motion?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:27:20 -0000
"OG" wrote:


"Ray Vingnutte" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:09:17 -0000
"OG" wrote:

Maybe the two points started at different speeds?


Nope sorry,

In that case there is no increase in separation and nothing to
explain

Yes there is, the separation is observed and can be measured, the
motion
of the two points can be accounted for, except the separation, the
only
explanation on offer is that the void, the nothing, is expanding
thus increasing the distance between the two points. This
explanation
smacks
of desperation. A void, a nothing expanding??, oh please.

I would still like to see an explanation of how this nothing is
expanding. Maybe the nothing is not expanding but that new nothing
is being created in the already existing nothing thus creating even
more nothing that goes on to create even more nothing and so on and
so on
;-)


What ? ? ?
You see an increasing separation WITHOUT a relative motion?

Yes of course, those distant galaxies are not really travelling at such
high speeds away from other galaxies, the increased separation is not
due to their relative motion away from each other. The current
explanation is that the nothing in between is expanding.

The only motion those distant galaxies have would be similar to our
galaxies motion, the effect of localised forces acting on them which as
I said in the other post local forces can be ignored.

4th paragraph
"In fact, assuming a perfect gas the
speed of sound depends on temperature
only, not on the pressure"

Fine, so temperature is part of the equation. But again you're missing
the whole point of the analogy- which is, diminishing propagation speed
correlates to diminishing density of the medium. You're perpetually
fixated on details, minutiae and particulars, unable or unwilling to see
in overview and whole concepts. This is why we have no basis for
dialog(ue).
But have a very merry Xmas. And easy on the punch.g

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:20:44 -0800
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

From Ray V:

Swap the two points for two distant
galaxies or clusters of galaxies with
localisd forces ignored. Again with these
two points existing in nothing how can
this movement be explained.

Well, the 'Something that is yet Nothing' corresponds to the missing
'dough' in the raisin bread analogy. To the Void-Spacers, there is no
dough, nay cannot be. To suggest that the dough is the Primary Reality
of existance with matter tagged on as a superfluous 'dustbunny' is
apostacy against the Faith. The Void-Space Paradigm(VSP) is a latter
day doctrine equivalent to the geocentrism of Ptolemy.. and its
adherants just as fiercely zealous as at the inquisition of Galileo.
The dough, the 'Something that is yet Nothing', by dint
of its expansion, exists in a state of _flow_ . Flowing space..
Flowing outward, expanding from the initial eruption of the BB,
carrying matter along for the ride. If it's expanding, it hasta flow.
Doh.
The 'dough', the spatial medium, is a perfect fluid
or
'hyperfluid' as evidenced by our Newtonian laws of inertia and
momentum(i.e., objects in motion translate frictionlessly thru the
medium, resisting acceleration. But once accelerated (or decelerated),
again translate frictionlessly at the new velocity.)
The flowing-space model of gravity posits matter as
a
spatial sink, or vent, with the medium flowing _into_ matter, into the
lowest-pressure zone at the core of every atomic nucleus (which also
happens to be the unification of gravity and the strong nuclear
force).
This implies that the spatial medium exists in a
state of extreme hyperpressurization that exceeds the degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus, as in a black hole collapse. And we
are Pressure Dwellers, having no sensory awareness of the extreme
hydrostatic pressure of the 'ocean' in which we dwell. And because
it's a perfect, frictionless fluid ('hyperfluid') we mis-interpret it
as a void.
Further evidence of its extreme hydrostatic pressure
and _sub-Planck energy density_ is the high value of light's
propagation speed.

Friend OG has stated that the FS model of gravity fails. But as far as
i can tell, it fails only to explain the 'roach motel' issue of "where
does the stuff go once ingested thru the atomic nucleus?" By the same
criterion, the BigBang model fails because it cannot explain "where
does the stuff come from?"
The FS model recognizes gravitation and the BB
process
as a balanced dipole, sharing a common 'ground state'. We here on
'this side' are privy to see only one side of the dipole. Whatever
strange nonlocal, non-plural realm exists on the 'other side', we are
not yet privy to. Yet by all evidence, logically it's one and the same
"place".
Of course all this is total baloney to the
Void-Space
mainstream. Yet they have no aversion to positing even stranger,
occultish-sounding stuff like 'curled up dimensions', dark
matter/energy, 'quintessence' etc. oc

Thanks, that is certainly something to ponder on over holidays, I don't
think any explanation is going to be offered by the others that doesn't
include vast amounts of nothing expanding, stretching, wheezing.....etc

Bill Sheppard wrote:

4th paragraph
"In fact, assuming a perfect gas the
speed of sound depends on temperature
only, not on the pressure"


Fine, so temperature is part of the equation. But again you're missing
the whole point of the analogy- which is, diminishing propagation speed
correlates to diminishing density of the medium. You're perpetually
fixated on details, minutiae and particulars, unable or unwilling to see
in overview and whole concepts. This is why we have no basis for
dialog(ue).
But have a very merry Xmas. And easy on the punch.g


The point is that speed is NOT dependent on the density.

Temperature is NOT density.

There is NO dependence on density. How on earth can you read 'depends on
temperature only, not on the pressure' and still assert that there is
a correlation with the decreasing density. Have a look at the table on
the same page - above 20,000 km, as the temperature of the atmosphere
increases, the speed of sound actually increases. I hope you're not
pretending that atmospheric density increases above 20Km!

This is not fixating on minutiae, this is simply trying to get a
description of how FScG is supposed to work.

I ask how light speed depends on density and you say "its just like
sound", but speed of sound does not depend on density. I'm stil trying
to find what you mean.

I'll leave it for now.

Enjoy your Holiday - feel free to come back to this thread when you're
ready.

Owen

OG wrote:
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Is the speed of light increasing as space
gets less dense, or is it slowing down?

Does the speed of sound in air increase or decrease with
diminishing
density/pressure? Pretty much a no brainer.

The speed of sound is independent of pressure at constant
temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

So are you saying there is NO dependence between the speed of light
and
the density of space?


That is only an approximation. The speed of sound does decrease with
lower pressure. See:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00826.htm

Double-A

From Double A:

That is only an approximation. The
speed of sound does decrease with
lower pressure. See:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/p
hy00/phy00826.ht

Thanks AA. That nicely expresses the essence of the analogy without
over-complication with endless fixation on details, minutiae and
particulars. oc

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

OG wrote:
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Is the speed of light increasing as space
gets less dense, or is it slowing down?

Does the speed of sound in air increase or decrease with
diminishing
density/pressure? Pretty much a no brainer.

The speed of sound is independent of pressure at constant
temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

So are you saying there is NO dependence between the speed of light
and
the density of space?


That is only an approximation. The speed of sound does decrease with
lower pressure. See:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00826.htm

Double-A

A trap for the unwary - The speed depends of the ratio of pressure and
density. At a constant temperature (isothermal) for an ideal gas (non
dispersive), the ratio of pressure and density is constant. The only way
to change the ratio is to change the temperature (or the gas). Since
ANY change of temperature causes a speed change and a change of
temperature IS NECESSARY for a speed change, but changing pressure or
density only changes the speed if there is ALSO a temperature change;
then it is reasonable to say that the speed of sound is independent of
density.

Merry Christmas.

This is not fixating on minutiae, this is
simply trying to get a description of how
FScG is supposed to work.

You'll never begin to 'get it' until you've learned to think and
visualize in overview and whole concepts. This is not a criticism, but
simply an observation that some folk are hardwired to think only in
reductivist details-and-particulars terms, and 'big picture' thinking is
alien and antithetical to them.

Enjoy your Holiday - feel free to come
back to this thread when you're
ready.

Likewise.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From Double A:

That is only an approximation. The
speed of sound does decrease with
lower pressure. See:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/p
hy00/phy00826.ht

Thanks AA. That nicely expresses the essence of the analogy without
over-complication with endless fixation on details, minutiae and
particulars. oc

Hi Bill,
Does this mean that the speed of light is therefore proportional to the
square root of the density of space? Is there a numerical relationship
there? So that we can say that at half the age of the universe, when it
was eight times denser than it is now, the speed of light was 2.83 times
what it is nowadays. Is that right?