something and nothing

Bert wrote,

"We see the universe with all those pin points of lights. The reality of
the universe is what is between all those lights. Man's problem is if he
can't see it, there is nothing there, and nature sees to it that our
brains can't see, feel, smell etc. 93% of the universe."

Bert, you really nailed it. I would only surmise that it's over 99%,
leaving only our 'dustbunny' material universe perceptible to our senses
and instrumentation.

"Man can only develop his thinking to have an awareness to comprehend
what his senses can't do for him." Bert

That's where intuitive extrapolation (IE) comes in.
And yet the mainstream is slowly but surely coming
around, however tentatively and tenuously, to recognizing the
non-material "Something" permeating all of space. But because of the
deeply-entrenched paranoia of anything resembling an 'aether', it must
resort to even *more* occultish-sounding terms like 'quintessence',
dark matter, dark energy, etc.
If, instead of taking this back-door, circuitous
route, the maintream were to employ a little IE and Occams Razor, it
could see *direct evidence* of the "Something's" existance: gravity.
Just let gravity be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as: the
flow of the 'Something', the accelerating, monopolar flow toward every
center of mass, like a 'reverse starburst'. And let 'weight' be simply
matter's resistance to this flow. A bathroom scale gives a direct
readout of it. And it's capable of crushing massive stars into a BH.

Ya done good, Bert.

oc
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0

Bert,

I can't imagine you stifling your true thoughts g

Sally
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi oc You are right it is 99%,but I'm staying close to the book as I
can,and stifle my true thoughts as much as iI can Bert

Bill Sheppard wrote:

If, instead of taking this back-door, circuitous
route, the maintream were to employ a little IE and Occams Razor, it
could see *direct evidence* of the "Something's" existance: gravity.
Just let gravity be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as: the
flow of the 'Something', the accelerating, monopolar flow toward every
center of mass, like a 'reverse starburst'. And let 'weight' be simply
matter's resistance to this flow. A bathroom scale gives a direct
readout of it. And it's capable of crushing massive stars into a BH.

What advantage does your 'flow' analogy have over the 'field' model
that has served so well to describe gravity?

How can you say that weight is resistance to gravity, when it
increases with the strength of the gravitational force? This sounds
like a contradiction in terms.

--Odysseus

Odysseus asked,

What advantage does your 'flow' analogy have over the 'field' model
that has
served so well to describe gravity?

I don't know if you read any of Henry Lindner's material which was
posted earlier, but the spatial-flow model is not an 'analogy', but a
literal, 3-dimensional representation. The 'field' model, while
adequately *describing* the flow, does so allegorically and abstractly
in a 2-dimensional representation (i.e., the 'ball on a rubber sheet'
and 'curvature of space'. BTW, the spatial-flow model is not 'mine' in
any sense. Lindner's model is identical to Wolter's which was develpoed
some two decades earlier.

How can you say that weight is
resistance to gravity, when it increases
with the strength of the gravitational
force? This sounds like a contradiction in terms.

'Weight' is not resistance to gravity, but resistance to the flow of the
spatial medium (or VED). A crude analogy would be the latticed blades of
a Dutch windmill which 'catch' the force of the wind while yet permeable
to the wind. The atomic structure of matter likewise 'catches' the force
of the spatial flow while yet permeable to it. Thus the denser the mass,
the more it 'weighs'. In freefall, an object is moving with the spatial
flow and so is 'weight'-less (under the spatial-flow model, that is).

oc

P.S. to Odysseus, who wrote,
What advantage does the 'flow' analogy
have over the 'field' model.... ?

The flow model, in its fullest development may enable the direct
unification of gravity in the UFT, long the 'holy grail' of
astrophysics.

The field model treats space as functionally void, and therefore must
model gravity as an "attraction", using various mathematical constructs
and 2-dimensional allegories. As such, all attempts at unification have
proven futile.
oc

Hi oc In your past posts as you describe Wolton's theory of gravity it
seems to be a push (pressure of space) than an attraction force. Much
like Moby told me he can feel the pressure of water,and it helped shape
his body. About 4 years ago I posted that I drilled about a hundred
small hole in the bottom of a 50 gallon fish tank. Had the fish held to
the bottom by the water going through the holes. When I sprinkled
fish food they had enough energy to come to the top to get it,but always
in time settled back on the tanks floor. I was told I was cruel,and
had to give this habitat up. I named one of the fish Newton. Moby
eat Newton when he was able to get out of his tank and go into my wife's
expensive fish tank. He now only looks at the fish,and fantasize
Bert

Wow! you got a present from the Ether Bunny.

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Odysseus asked,



What advantage does your 'flow' analogy have over the 'field' model


that has


served so well to describe gravity?



I don't know if you read any of Henry Lindner's material which was
posted earlier, but the spatial-flow model is not an 'analogy', but a
literal, 3-dimensional representation. The 'field' model, while
adequately *describing* the flow, does so allegorically and abstractly
in a 2-dimensional representation (i.e., the 'ball on a rubber sheet'
and 'curvature of space'. BTW, the spatial-flow model is not 'mine' in
any sense. Lindner's model is identical to Wolter's which was develpoed
some two decades earlier.



How can you say that weight is
resistance to gravity, when it increases
with the strength of the gravitational
force? This sounds like a contradiction in terms.



'Weight' is not resistance to gravity, but resistance to the flow of the
spatial medium (or VED). A crude analogy would be the latticed blades of
a Dutch windmill which 'catch' the force of the wind while yet permeable
to the wind. The atomic structure of matter likewise 'catches' the force
of the spatial flow while yet permeable to it. Thus the denser the mass,
the more it 'weighs'. In freefall, an object is moving with the spatial
flow and so is 'weight'-less (under the spatial-flow model, that is).

oc

Hi Sally If I gave out all my thoughts on the universe and did not
stifle them as best I can I would be put in a padded room. I have
trouble being a manic and my thoughts go by so fast that anything I can
put brakes on(like gravity does) is good. I might go down in the record
books with the most speeding tickets. I feel the faster I think and move
the slower the flow of time might be. Bert

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

. . .
Just let gravity be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as: the
flow of the 'Something', the accelerating, monopolar flow toward every
center of mass, like a 'reverse starburst'. And let 'weight' be simply
matter's resistance to this flow. A bathroom scale gives a direct
readout of it. And it's capable of crushing massive stars into a BH. . . .

oc

And yet, *is* this flow *always* toward every "center of mass?"

In another thread, we talk about how there is "attraction" on an
object which is within a huge mass, and that some of this pull comes
from the direction of the surface of the huge mass.

So does this flow always go toward the center of mass? or can
there also be a flow toward the surface of a mass? It seems that
Odysseus' counter question is still unanswered because the field
theory appears to better explain this phenomenon? Or was Wolter
able to explain it?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Be wary! Life'll *whoosh* past ya...
Tempus fugit ad astra...

Indelibly yours,
Painius
http://www.painellsworth.net/
oxo

Panius asked,

And yet, *is* this flow *always* toward
every "center of mass?"

I had this very same discussion with Lindner by email a couple of years
ago. The flow can best be described as "center-ward" at the Earth's
surface, and vertical to the surface.
In both Lindner's and Wolter's model, the flow has its
genesis in the strong force of matter's constituent protons, which
Lindner calls "hadronic flow". Its vertical 'directionality' is most
acute at the planet's surface, and becomes less and less directional the
deeper you go. At the very center, the flow has lost all directional
preferance. At center, 'weight' is zero while the hydrodynamic pressure
is maximum, because of all the center-ward 'weight' bearing in from all
directions.

oc