|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... OG writes, Granted, you won't get the small scale gravitational waves that "are induced by co-orbiting masses, oscillating masses, accelerating or exploding masses" you mentioned before, because these all take place within the Event Horizon. And to complicate things even further, there's predicted to be a phenomenon called 'ringdown'- immediately following a binary BH merger, the merged mass, Jello-like, is still undergoing convulsive oscillation, which induces the event horizon to convulse in and out in sympathy, thus emitting 'gravity wave' radiation outside the EH. Try a Google on 'Black hole ringdown' and 'Binary black hole merger'. 'Ringdown' is still not the propagation of gravity. Please explain why you reject the clumsily labelled 'frozen field' model. Because it's stupid. I think that sums up your arguments BTW, Scott, in another post, expertly and deftly answered the question "How does gravity defeat the EH?" under the 'curvature' model. Then there is the FS modelg, which streamlines everything and eliminates all the confusion. oc Actually you are right. This is a very pointless discussion. Just to prolong it for a little longer though, I have one more observation. Imagine a hollowed out spherical planet containing a vacuum. According to Newtonian and GR physics, at every point within the sphere there is no gravitational gradient, and therefore no graviataional acceleration. According to flowing space theory there is a flow from the vacuum towards the shell, thus at any point (apart from the very centre) there is an acceleration away from the centre. This represents a very real difference between N&GR and FS. Do you still claim that N&GR and FS are 'the same, only FS is the real thing'? |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
OG writes,
According to Newtonian and GR physics, at every point within the sphere there is no gravitational gradient, and therefore no graviataional acceleration. According to flowing space theory there is a flow from the vacuum towards the shell,... Nope. All the flow would be coming in omnidirectionally from outside the sphere. There would be zero gradient inside the sphere, just as in your N and GR example. Do you still claim that N&GR and FS are 'the same...? In this respect, yes oc |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
John writes,
Even if, under this purely fantastical unbridled speculation, I accept the fact that protons and the like suck space, I don't see how you get to the strong force. You're going to have to introduce additional suckage. There is no 'suckage', only pressure-driven flow. In the model of a spinning BH, you do not accept that it is gravitically bipolar, and that the inflow is via _the poles_ . So you would never accept the proton as a microscale analog of a (spinning) BH, likewise intaking thru its poles. You don't like bathtub drain vortices either, so you would never accept the inflows as vortices, with their _direction of spin_ assigning the 'N' and 'S' sign to the flows, or that this spin component of the strong force is the cause of magnetism. You would never accede to the seat of the strong force being the root of both magnetism and gravity in the 'Unified Field of Spatial Flows', or that the Four Forces are 1.)The strong nuclear 2.)magnetism 3.)gravity 4.electric flow And what about the weak and electromagnetic forces. You don't want to include them in unification? Electroweak, because it operates entirely in the subnuclear domain, does not *directly* participate in spatial flows 'out here' in spacetime. That's why Wolter did not include EW in his 'Four', even though we do get radioacive decay ejecta from "down in the hole", sorta like Drano shooting junk up the spout.g Electric flow in a conductor is not to be confused with *electron flow* in free space (as in a vacuum tube). In an electrical conductor, when a pressure gradient (voltage) is applied across the lattice, a flow occurs electron to electron, transferreing in a 'bucket brigade' manner down the line, with the electrons themselves remaining essentially in place. Meanwhile, the _polar alignment_ of the atoms stands 90 degrees to the direction of flow, which of course is the basis of electromagnetism. Are we to sweep them under the carpet like the "Roach Motel" abode of sucked space and the "Super-Duper Cosmic Toaster"??? You object to the 'roach motel' issue, the SCO and other imponderables of the expanded model, yet you readily accept other imponderables like "What came before the BB?" and "What lies outside our horizon of visibility?" Do you also have a problem with quantum nonlocality? Einstein objected to it strongly, as "spooky action at a distance". But it has since been proven in the lab. Wolter's unification theory has been given numerous times here, in much greater depth and detail than this little sketch. It came to him unsought and unsolicited, as a 'spin-off' of his FS model. The FS model itself was one of numerous sidebars of his overarching theory, called the Contiunous Big Bang (or CBB) model, which subsumes but does not negate the 'singular BB'. The CBB model has been expounded here numerous times also. No sense posting it again, as it is just so much baloney to you. You're a cool dude, and nothing personal, but the Good Book says something or other about "Not casting your pearls before the swine, lest they turn an rend you." This would be a good time to end the discussion if youse guys would be so obliged. Have a good day, enjoy your void-space paradigm. Live Long and Prosper. oc |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... OG writes, According to Newtonian and GR physics, at every point within the sphere there is no gravitational gradient, and therefore no graviataional acceleration. According to flowing space theory there is a flow from the vacuum towards the shell,... Nope. All the flow would be coming in omnidirectionally from outside the sphere. There would be zero gradient inside the sphere, just as in your N and GR example. You're making this up as you go along aren't you? If flow is from a vacuum towards matter then what's stopping it from flowing in the example I proposed. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... John writes, Even if, under this purely fantastical unbridled speculation, I accept the fact that protons and the like suck space, I don't see how you get to the strong force. You're going to have to introduce additional suckage. There is no 'suckage', only pressure-driven flow. In the model of a spinning BH, you do not accept that it is gravitically bipolar, and that the inflow is via _the poles_ . So you would never accept the proton as a microscale analog of a (spinning) BH, Well, that's not supported by experimental evidence, the high magnetic moment and electon scattering experiments both suggest the proton has internal structure. DaveL |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... John writes, Even if, under this purely fantastical unbridled speculation, I accept the fact that protons and the like suck space, I don't see how you get to the strong force. You're going to have to introduce additional suckage. There is no 'suckage', only pressure-driven flow. In the model of a spinning BH, you do not accept that it is gravitically bipolar, and that the inflow is via _the poles_ . So you would never accept the proton as a microscale analog of a (spinning) BH, likewise intaking thru its poles. You don't like bathtub drain vortices either, so you would never accept the inflows as vortices, with their _direction of spin_ assigning the 'N' and 'S' sign to the flows, or that this spin component of the strong force is the cause of magnetism. You would never accede to the seat of the strong force being the root of both magnetism and gravity in the 'Unified Field of Spatial Flows', or that the Four Forces are 1.)The strong nuclear 2.)magnetism 3.)gravity 4.electric flow The four fundamental forces are strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...funfor.html#c1 And what about the weak and electromagnetic forces. You don't want to include them in unification? Electroweak, because it operates entirely in the subnuclear domain, does not *directly* participate in spatial flows 'out here' in spacetime. "Electroweak Unification" "The theory suggests that at very high temperatures where the equilibrium kT energies are in excess of 100 GeV, these particles are essentially identical and the weak and electromagnetic interactions were manifestations of a single force." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../unify.html#c1 That's why Wolter did not include EW in his 'Four', even though we do get radioacive decay ejecta from "down in the hole", sorta like Drano shooting junk up the spout.g Electric flow in a conductor is not to be confused with *electron flow* in free space (as in a vacuum tube). In an electrical conductor, when a pressure gradient (voltage) is applied across the lattice, a flow occurs electron to electron, transferreing in a 'bucket brigade' manner down the line, with the electrons themselves remaining essentially in place. Meanwhile, the _polar alignment_ of the atoms stands 90 degrees to the direction of flow, which of course is the basis of electromagnetism. Are we to sweep them under the carpet like the "Roach Motel" abode of sucked space and the "Super-Duper Cosmic Toaster"??? You object to the 'roach motel' issue, the SCO and other imponderables of the expanded model, yet you readily accept other imponderables like "What came before the BB?" I don't ever recall accepting this question as a well posed question. and "What lies outside our horizon of visibility?" Do you also have a problem with quantum nonlocality? Einstein objected to it strongly, as "spooky action at a distance". But it has since been proven in the lab. Wolter's unification theory has been given numerous times here, in much greater depth and detail than this little sketch. It came to him unsought and unsolicited, as a 'spin-off' of his FS model. The FS model itself was one of numerous sidebars of his overarching theory, called the Contiunous Big Bang (or CBB) model, which subsumes but does not negate the 'singular BB'. The CBB model has been expounded here numerous times also. No sense posting it again, as it is just so much baloney to you. I don't accept FS (and certainly not as interpreted by Wolter, Lindner et.al.) as the literal mechanism of gravity because it creates more "imponderables" than it purports to resolve. I think Occam would have something to say about this. You're a cool dude, and nothing personal, but the Good Book says something or other about "Not casting your pearls before the swine, lest they turn an rend you." This would be a good time to end the discussion if youse guys would be so obliged. OK, lets let the thread die. Have a good day, enjoy your void-space paradigm. Live Long and Prosper. oc |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Hi oc Nice to hear the four forces are all modifications of the force
of gravity. How many times have I posted that idea? Wolter's theory has space flow as an inward push,and uses the intrinsic energy of space to move everything inward. I use the intrinsic energy of space plus the force of gravity to create the big bang. I go with GR in the macro world,and quantum gravity emerging with the super string theory for the micro realm. I think in the opposite direction then Wolter,and use the intrinsic force of space to push outward in the macro realm and this is the force we can measure universe inflation with. In the beginning nature used one force. That is why G=EMC^2 is a good equation,and my creation theory is very short and easy to understand. Thinking about the first second before the big bang,at the moment of the big bang,and 300,000 years after the big bang in my theory all fit. Best to always keep in mind gravity controls the flow of time Bert |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
John,
I thought we had formally closed the thread. Guess not. Let's try it jus' one more time. In your argument, you still fail to ask or address the most fundamental question of all. You speak of the 'curvature' and the Painlev=E9-Gullstrand 'flow' metric, recognizing them to be parallel descriptions of the same thing. But you competely gloss over and evade the question *What* is curving? *What* is flowing? All you're giving us is a pair of 'metrics', mathematical constructs, describing something, much like a schematic describes a radio in cryptic symbology. In string theory, there is a vast ocean of vibrating strings; in QM there is "quantum foam". But the questions remain, Energetically vibrating strings of what? A froth of what? To believe all these phenomena, 'curvatures' and 'flows' are somehow happening in a 'void' is superstition and belief in magic. It's not one whit removed a medieval religionist invoking imps and angels. Some day when you can intelligently address these questions of *What*, come back and start anew. Meanwhile there's Darla, poor thing. She indicates she lacks any of the appropiate curves for a lady. No doubt she would be interested in acquiring some of those magical 'curvatures' and 'curvatures added onto curvatures'. Darla, you there? By all means check with Mr. Zinni on this. BTW John, when you quoted my statement about the "curving-uncurving undulation of the spacetime metric, propagating at c", you conveniently lifted it out of context. In context, I was speaking from _your_ frame of referance, 'talking your lingo'. You apparently have some learning to do about context, as well as analogies and metaphors. So let us now formally, with decorum and civility, close the thread, OK? Thank ya. Thankya vera much. oc |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
John It is nice you have Darla and I on equal footing.I know we will
dance together someday. Great minds like ours make it possible for the universe to see itself. We were not put here to argue. We were put here to comprehend. Darla has come to our planet in peace. Why can't we be more hospitable? Bert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Making Black Holes Go 'Round on the Computer (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 31st 04 10:38 PM |
Jets Spout Far Closer to Black Hole Than Thought, Scientists Say(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 6 | January 7th 04 11:49 PM |
The universe is expending. | sooncf | SETI | 24 | November 5th 03 03:24 PM |
VLT Observes Infrared Flares from Black Hole at Galactic Centre (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 29th 03 09:05 PM |
Link between Black Holes and Galaxies Discovered in Our Own Backyard(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 17th 03 07:36 PM |