Flowing Space 101 plus -- On the Right Wavelength?

Hi oc Einstien still has us by our balls with GR since curved light
rays, "demark curved space" He than had to give GR great math.,and
that squeezed them harder. His gravity force math was the killer. When a
theory can make predictions that come into reality later on you know its
closer to the truth. What it all comes down to is this question' what
other way to explain action over distance?' Bert P)S I use
spin,or my concave convex space

From Bert:

Einstien still has us by our family jewels
with GR since curved light rays, "demark curved space"...

...which translated means, "curved light rays demark the
acceleration-rate of inflowing space."

He than had to give GR great math.,and
that squeezed them harder.

OUCH!

When a theory can make predictions that come into reality later on you
know its
closer to the truth.

The 'curvature' math has proven its predictive value over and over,
there's no question about that. But 'curvature' is an abstraction, a
'schematic' description of something literal. Perfect though the
'schematic' and its math may be, it is still not the reality.. just as a
radio's schematic is not the radio.
oc

On Mon, 9 May 2005 07:34:29 -0700
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

From Ray V.:

I don't understand this flowing of space,
what I have in my mind is basically a
real curvature of the spacetime fabric, I
would see that spacetime fabric as
locally static. Sorry but I can't see the
need for a flowing space....

Well, if the fabric is locally static, how is this 'curvature' in it
achieved? By an extra-dimensional metric of some kind, sorta like a
Flatlander in 2-D Land trying to visualize 3-dimensionality?
Or, envoking Occam's Razor for a moment, could gravity
be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as- i.e., an
accelerating, pressure-driven flow into mass, with mass acting as a
'flow sink'? If the latter is the case, 'curvature' is a brilliantly
conceived abstraction describing the acceleration-rate of the inflow.
oc

What I see is a sort of displacement of spacetime causing the curvature
by a large mass. Taking the Earth Moon system as was mentioned earlier
in another post, I see this as a simple case of two bodies following a
path( in this case a curved path due to the curvature they impart on the
surrounding spacetime), no need for gravity as a force, no need for a
graviton. I still can't see any need for space to be flowing. Sorry I'm
still sure I'm missing something.

On the Nova program I think it was regarding string theory there were as
an example two chaps throwing a graviton to each other, every time the
other caught the graviton they would move a little closer together. That
to me seems odd, why not just have the curvature they both impart on the
surrounding spacetime being the reason they get closer together, no
force involved and no graviton needed.

Hi oc Yet it is curved motion that can relate to gravity. 2001 had its
spaceship turning in time with the "William Tell" music Then we have
angular motion of objects so they don't fall into the Sun. My thinking
likes curves and stuff spinning round and round. Bert

Hi Ray Throwing the graviton back and forth was meant to show
repulsion. We read about medicine ball pushing people apart when they
throw it back and forth. It works best if they were standing on ice.
Attraction is lots more tricky than repulsion. Bert

On Mon, 9 May 2005 18:59:10 -0400
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Hi Ray Throwing the graviton back and forth was meant to show
repulsion. We read about medicine ball pushing people apart when they
throw it back and forth. It works best if they were standing on ice.
Attraction is lots more tricky than repulsion. Bert

Oops, just saw the relevant clip again and it was actually a photon they
were using to simulate a electromagnetic attraction and the two chaps
do move towards each other at each throw of the photon, still if you are
a void spacer you still need the gravitons to fly back and forth to give
the gravitational attraction.

Heres the clip, second hour chapter 4

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi nightbat I told you "Black Comet" is the best name for a star space
ship. There is night to space but no bats. I think your ego is showing.
Bert

nightbat

No Bert, the best space ship is the one already net reported
named after me by the net Darla Star Race and brave Sil, called " The
Nightbat." Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, don't be jealous Bert, maybe someday they
will " What If " name one after you too. My reported honorary super fast
Starship is already making Galactic history and so far out it hurts,
why, because daring Princess Sil is out there keeping watchful eye on
our net Princess Darla's back. Don't be afraid of my profound " Black
Comet " for you liked the thought of mind picture imaginatively going
through its inverse horizon tail as cosmic twin sperm breaking the
normal gravity momentum barrier. The one hypothetically who makes it
first to the super dense egg singularity center, bingo, birth of a new
galaxy. Ha, ha, ha, ha, if you can only keep up with me maybe the new
galaxy can even bare another genius humble ego twins.

ponder on,
the nightbat

From Ray V.:

I still can't see any need for space to be
flowing. Sorry I'm still sure I'm missing
something.

Well, do you agree with the expanding model of the universe? (Assuming
you do. If not, disregard the remainder of this.)

In order for the universe to expand, the spatial medium must flow. No
flow, no expansion. No brainer. Clearly, the flowing of space is
absolutely elemental and fundamental to Creation itself.

Equally fundamental to Creation is gravity, agreed? Apply a bit of
Occam's Razor, and wherever the spatial medium flows `from` in the
BigBang is the self-same "place" the stuff flows `to` in gravitation.

Clearly, the mechanism of quantum nonlocality is not understood. But its
reality is proven in the lab, which makes it a given. The dipole nature
of the BB and gravitation, and their common nonlocal 'ground state' is
patently obvious, though we may not understand the underlying mechanism.

The enigma of the "void" and the real nature of space is truly the
'pneuma' of our age. Just as the air's power lies in its ability to flow
and its propensity for expansion/compression and density gradients, the
same is true of the spatial medium in the Unified Field of Spatial
Flows. oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Ray V.:

I still can't see any need for space to be
flowing. Sorry I'm still sure I'm missing
something.

Well, do you agree with the expanding model of the universe?
(Assuming
you do. If not, disregard the remainder of this.)

In order for the universe to expand, the spatial medium must flow. No
flow, no expansion. No brainer. Clearly, the flowing of space is
absolutely elemental and fundamental to Creation itself.

Equally fundamental to Creation is gravity, agreed? Apply a bit of
Occam's Razor, and wherever the spatial medium flows `from` in the
BigBang is the self-same "place" the stuff flows `to` in gravitation.


Clearly, the mechanism of quantum nonlocality is not understood. But
its
reality is proven in the lab, which makes it a given. The dipole
nature
of the BB and gravitation, and their common nonlocal 'ground state'
is
patently obvious, though we may not understand the underlying
mechanism.

The enigma of the "void" and the real nature of space is truly the
'pneuma' of our age. Just as the air's power lies in its ability to
flow
and its propensity for expansion/compression and density gradients,
the
same is true of the spatial medium in the Unified Field of Spatial
Flows. oc


Hi Bill,

Do you see space as still flowing from outside? If so, how or where
does it flow in?

Is the pressure of space increasing or decreasing. With all those
outflows, one would wonder if it is decreasing.

Doesn't this concept of "frame dragging" remind you of a flowing space
whirlpool?

Double-A

From Double-A:

Do you see space as still flowing from
outside? If so, how or where does it flow
in?

Well again, per the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words", the
CBB (continuous BB) model addresses it thusly:
http://community.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang

Notice that the 'Engine' or Primal Particle (PP) is continuously
replenishing the spatial medium and maintaining pressurization of the
externalized 'donut'.

Is the pressure of space increasing or
decreasing?

See above.

With all those outflows, one would
wonder if it is decreasing.

It's a closed loop, with inflow and output rates in homeostasis.
Note the little 'marble' embedded in the donut that
represents the sphere of our visible cosmos, the 'known universe' now
decoupled from the 'Bang' point. From anywhere inside the marble, the
perception is that the Bang must've occured "everywhere at once".

Doesn't this concept of "frame dragging"
remind you of a flowing space whirlpool?

Most profoundly,Yes. Except it is space dragging matter instead of
vice-versa.. as illustrated by the great twin vortices feeding into the
PP 'Engine'.

Note that the CBB universe is a Process, not an 'object'. It is a
Process of the flowing spatial medium, with matter tagging along for the
ride. Likewise an atom is a process, not an 'object'.
It was Gordon Wolter's absolute belief that the
(neutral, or ground state) hydrogen atom is a microscale analog(ue) of
the macro universe, with its proton the Primal Particle and its electron
shell the universal 'body'.. and that the dual-hemisphered toroid is the
most primal form in nature from which all else 'fractalizes' and
evolves.

The 'Roach Motel' issue, the question of where space 'vents to' in
gravitation, was Wolter's greatest vexation and problem with his model.
In his last few months, he got ahold of the works of Bohm and Pribram,
delved into quantum nonlocality, and resolved the issue to his own
satisfaction.. seeing a nonlocal transfer of flow from the core of every
atomic nucleus back to rejoin the main flow in the Primal Particle.
Painius has vociferously objected to this idea. But i see is as less
objectionable than the BB coming from "nothing" and by implication, the
flow which causes gravity going back to "nothing". There's gotta be an
'Engine' powering and sustaining the Process.. like the central
compressor in the freon cycle analogy (Zinni's favoriteg).
Naturally the next question arises- what powers the
Process, i.e., what drives the flows into the PP
'Engine', and into the proton? This is analogous to asking "what powers
the refrigerator?" Well, electricity obviously.
The "electrical potential" powering all the spatial
flows in nature, from the micro-to macrocosmic, is what Wolter called
the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (to which Painius assigned the acronym
SCO). This is the hyperpressurized state of the spatial medium, a
pressure so inconceivably high that it can crush massive stars down to
BHs. And a sub-Planck energy density ('Temperature') so high that it
sets the propagation speed of light at 300,000,000 m/s.
We are pressure dwellers in an ocean of air, and have no
sensory awareness of its 14.7 psi of pressure, just as a fish at the
bottom of the Marianas Trench has no sense of the water pressure. And
likewise we are all Pressure Dwellers in the 'ocean' of space, having no
sensory awareness of its enormous pressure.

It is the SCO that is verily First Cause of all that
is. Without the SCO, there would be no spatial flows anywhere, no
gravity, no nuclear forces, and no basis for a Unified Field.
Painius has recanted on the SCO, saying it's not needed.
But with all respect, if you ain't got a SCO, you ain't got nothin' no
how, no way, no where. Creation could not exist without it.

But what is the source of the SCO, the omnipresent overpressure from
above? The CBB model offers no answer. It's one of same set of questions
like "what lies at the ends of eternity and infinity?", and "what is the
mechanism of nonlocality?" These are some of the 'flat earth' issues of
the expanded moldel and the New Paradigm. oc