Flowing Space 201 -- The CBB: LONG May She Wave

What's waving? That's been one of our questions all along,
hasn't it? If light is a wave, then what exactly is waving or
"being waved" as light travels through space? Nothing? or
something?

Unfortunately, i still have found no satisfactory answer for
this question!

Oh sure, science has an answer... photons come in tiny
little "bundles" or "packets" of energy, and these little things
called "quanta" (or "quantum" in the singular) will sometimes
behave like waves and sometimes behave like particles of
matter. And when they go through space, they behave like
particles rather than waves. So there is no need for there to
be anything to "be waved". So science says that the answer
to the question, "What is being waved?" is "Nothing". Nope,
electromagnetic energy travels through space in the same
way electrons and protons travel through space. So there is
no need for anything to be waving. "Nothing."

Why is this unsatisfactory? Truth is... it's NOT unsatisfactory.
Not on the surface, anyway. But the deeper one digs, the
more unsatisfactory this answer may become. And i have
dug deep enough to make this "nothing" answer *extremely*
unsatisfactory to me. Such things as "quantum nonlocality*,
and the fact that Albert Einstein himself suspected that space
is made of some type of energy field, suggest to me that
science may be way off base when they answer "nothing".

And now we have Gordon Wolter, may he rest in peace,
along with the still existing although very oldish and cootish
Bill Sheppard who have the audacity to say that space IS
waving. There is something there for light and other forms
of electromagnetic energy to "wave". Space, just as Albert
Einstein predicted, is made of a dynamic, moving energy
field. And the ol' coot says this energy field is NOT
electromagnetic in nature, and is made up of wavelengths
which are so small that we have no technology yet capable
of sensing or measuring them. He believes these wavelengths
to be shorter than the Planck length of 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.
This length is only 10^-20 or 0.00000000000000000001
times the diameter of a proton!

So we call this energy field the "sub-Planck energy domain".
Now, while this all sounds very intriguing, fascinating, and
wildly joyous to me, unfortunately it is still unsatisfying...

This *still* leaves the question fundamentally unanswered!...
WHAT IS WAVING?

Yes, of COURSE i understand that the sub-Planck energy
domain (or SPED for short) is being waved by light and
other forms of EM. But if the SPED is some kind of energy
which has wavelength, however small that wavelength may
be, then this implies that the SPED itself must be waving
something. So what is the SPED waving?

The SPED, with its ultra-tiny wavelength vibrations is now
believed to act as a carrier wave for the lower frequency,
longer wavelength EM energies like light, x rays, and so
forth. However, if the SPED is a vibration which carries or
is "waved" by light waves and such, what exactly carries
the SPED? What precisely does the SPED wave?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
All we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Painius wrote:
What's waving? That's been one of our questions all along,
hasn't it? If light is a wave, then what exactly is waving or
"being waved" as light travels through space? Nothing? or
something?

Unfortunately, i still have found no satisfactory answer for
this question!

What is the sound of one photon, waving ?

... Sorry. I couldn't resist.


Oh sure, science has an answer... photons come in tiny
little "bundles" or "packets" of energy, and these little things
called "quanta" (or "quantum" in the singular) will sometimes
behave like waves and sometimes behave like particles of
matter. And when they go through space, they behave like
particles rather than waves. So there is no need for there to
be anything to "be waved". So science says that the answer
to the question, "What is being waved?" is "Nothing". Nope,
electromagnetic energy travels through space in the same
way electrons and protons travel through space. So there is
no need for anything to be waving. "Nothing."

Why is this unsatisfactory? Truth is... it's NOT unsatisfactory.
Not on the surface, anyway. But the deeper one digs, the
more unsatisfactory this answer may become. And i have
dug deep enough to make this "nothing" answer *extremely*
unsatisfactory to me. Such things as "quantum nonlocality*,
and the fact that Albert Einstein himself suspected that space
is made of some type of energy field, suggest to me that
science may be way off base when they answer "nothing".

And now we have Gordon Wolter, may he rest in peace,
along with the still existing although very oldish and cootish
Bill Sheppard who have the audacity to say that space IS
waving. There is something there for light and other forms
of electromagnetic energy to "wave". Space, just as Albert
Einstein predicted, is made of a dynamic, moving energy
field. And the ol' coot says this energy field is NOT
electromagnetic in nature, and is made up of wavelengths
which are so small that we have no technology yet capable
of sensing or measuring them. He believes these wavelengths
to be shorter than the Planck length of 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.
This length is only 10^-20 or 0.00000000000000000001
times the diameter of a proton!

So we call this energy field the "sub-Planck energy domain".
Now, while this all sounds very intriguing, fascinating, and
wildly joyous to me, unfortunately it is still unsatisfying...

This *still* leaves the question fundamentally unanswered!...
WHAT IS WAVING?

Said it before. ... Will say it again. ...

Duality ?

a.k.a ... perceptual paradox

Since physics abhors the 'subjective' ...

It's caught 'stunned' and paralyzed in the glare of the BB, helpless
and w/o a clue.

" Oh, the humanity of it"

Where is Darla when we really need her ?

RL

Yes, of COURSE i understand that the sub-Planck energy
domain (or SPED for short) is being waved by light and
other forms of EM. But if the SPED is some kind of energy
which has wavelength, however small that wavelength may
be, then this implies that the SPED itself must be waving
something. So what is the SPED waving?

The SPED, with its ultra-tiny wavelength vibrations is now
believed to act as a carrier wave for the lower frequency,
longer wavelength EM energies like light, x rays, and so
forth. However, if the SPED is a vibration which carries or
is "waved" by light waves and such, what exactly carries
the SPED? What precisely does the SPED wave?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
All we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Painius wrote:
What's waving? That's been one of our questions all along,
hasn't it? If light is a wave, then what exactly is waving or
"being waved" as light travels through space? Nothing? or
something?

Unfortunately, i still have found no satisfactory answer for
this question!

Oh sure, science has an answer... photons come in tiny
little "bundles" or "packets" of energy, and these little things
called "quanta" (or "quantum" in the singular) will sometimes
behave like waves and sometimes behave like particles of
matter. And when they go through space, they behave like
particles rather than waves. So there is no need for there to
be anything to "be waved". So science says that the answer
to the question, "What is being waved?" is "Nothing". Nope,
electromagnetic energy travels through space in the same
way electrons and protons travel through space. So there is
no need for anything to be waving. "Nothing."

Why is this unsatisfactory? Truth is... it's NOT unsatisfactory.
Not on the surface, anyway. But the deeper one digs, the
more unsatisfactory this answer may become. And i have
dug deep enough to make this "nothing" answer *extremely*
unsatisfactory to me. Such things as "quantum nonlocality*,
and the fact that Albert Einstein himself suspected that space
is made of some type of energy field, suggest to me that
science may be way off base when they answer "nothing".

And now we have Gordon Wolter, may he rest in peace,
along with the still existing although very oldish and cootish
Bill Sheppard who have the audacity to say that space IS
waving. There is something there for light and other forms
of electromagnetic energy to "wave". Space, just as Albert
Einstein predicted, is made of a dynamic, moving energy
field. And the ol' coot says this energy field is NOT
electromagnetic in nature, and is made up of wavelengths
which are so small that we have no technology yet capable
of sensing or measuring them. He believes these wavelengths
to be shorter than the Planck length of 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.
This length is only 10^-20 or 0.00000000000000000001
times the diameter of a proton!

So we call this energy field the "sub-Planck energy domain".
Now, while this all sounds very intriguing, fascinating, and
wildly joyous to me, unfortunately it is still unsatisfying...

This *still* leaves the question fundamentally unanswered!...
WHAT IS WAVING?

Yes, of COURSE i understand that the sub-Planck energy
domain (or SPED for short) is being waved by light and
other forms of EM. But if the SPED is some kind of energy
which has wavelength, however small that wavelength may
be, then this implies that the SPED itself must be waving
something. So what is the SPED waving?

The SPED, with its ultra-tiny wavelength vibrations is now
believed to act as a carrier wave for the lower frequency,
longer wavelength EM energies like light, x rays, and so
forth. However, if the SPED is a vibration which carries or
is "waved" by light waves and such, what exactly carries
the SPED? What precisely does the SPED wave?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
All we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


I have heard you talk at length about this sub-Planck energy domain
(SPED). But isn't the idea of a Planck length such that it is
considered the smallest measure of length that has any meaning? And
something crossing the Planck length travelling at the speed of light
does so in the Planck time, which is considered the smallest unit of
time that has any meaning.

To have a wave action, you must have both length and time. You cannot
describe a wave when you have no units of length or time that apply.
The notion of a Planck length and time supposes that there is no length
or time definable at a scale smaller than these Planck values. So how
could you have any such waves carrying energy at that scale?

It seems to me that the only way you could that is to throw out the
Planck limiting notions.

Double-A

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

Painius wrote:
. . .
field. And the ol' coot says this energy field is NOT
electromagnetic in nature, and is made up of wavelengths
which are so small that we have no technology yet capable
of sensing or measuring them. He believes these wavelengths
to be shorter than the Planck length of 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.
This length is only 10^-20 or 0.00000000000000000001
times the diameter of a proton!

So we call this energy field the "sub-Planck energy domain". . . .

I have heard you talk at length about this sub-Planck energy domain
(SPED). But isn't the idea of a Planck length such that it is
considered the smallest measure of length that has any meaning? And
something crossing the Planck length travelling at the speed of light
does so in the Planck time, which is considered the smallest unit of
time that has any meaning.

And which is 10^-43 second, an almost inconceivably
short period of time!...

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second

To have a wave action, you must have both length and time. You cannot
describe a wave when you have no units of length or time that apply.
The notion of a Planck length and time supposes that there is no length
or time definable at a scale smaller than these Planck values. So how
could you have any such waves carrying energy at that scale?

It seems to me that the only way you could that is to throw out the
Planck limiting notions.

Double-A

Yes, Double-A --

"The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about
gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects
dominate. This is the 'quantum of length', the smallest
measurement of length with any meaning."

Ref.:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm

Key words above might be ". . . and quantum effects dominate."

This indicates that the Planck length is the smallest measurement
of length with any meaning... within the context of relativity theory.

In fact, this is why scientists, when discussing the Big Bang, will
sometimes say, ". . . the universe came into existence when it
already had an age of 10^-43 seconds." There is no meaning,
no defining, no comprehending anything before that time.

When quantum effects begin to dominate, we simply don't know
enough about these effects to give any length less than a Planck
length, or any time less than the Planck time, any defined state.

Should we allow this to stop us from asserting that space is a
field with wavelengths shorter than the Planck length? Should we
instead be considering that space is not "sub-Planck" but perhaps
"super-Planck" in wavelength? IOW, maybe the wavelengths
which are those of dynamic, flowing space are just a wee bit
*above* the Planck length?

This is certainly a good subject for discussion! I wonder why
Gordon Wolter chose to fix the wavelengths of the spacial
medium to shorter than the Planck length?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
All we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

From Double-A:

It seems to me that the only way you
could that is to throw out the Planck
limiting notions.

Exactly. Just as we've thrown out the "Earth is flat" absolutism.

Further, we can disavow the notion that the upper limit of the EM
spectrum defines the end of the frequency contimuum.

In the recent analogy with ultrasound, we know that a larger, much more
energetic sonic spectrum lies above our normal hearing range. And we
know that beyond the ultrasonic range, matter is packed with ascending
states of energy density: thermal, chemical, and nuclear.
By the behavior of the SPED, it's obvious it is likewise
jam packed with energy states above the EM range and of shorter
wavelengths than the Planck limit.

BTW, Painius' off-the-cuff expansion on the famous expression E-mc^2 was
incredibly insightful. Where this little ditty emphasizes the sheer
enormity of the energy density of matter, "E=mc^3" expresses the
enormous energy density of space, the SPED itself. And in a rare flicker
of insight, the oldcoot realized that "E=mc^4" would express the energy
density of the pre-BigBang state, the heart of the Primal Particle
'Engine' itself.

Wolter would be elated with this stuff.
oc

From Painius:

I wonder why Gordon Wolter chose to fix the wavelengths of the spacial
medium
to shorter than the Planck length?

It was because the perceived "void", the smooth, unrippled "nothingness"
paradoxically exhibits the properties of hyperpressurization, a fixed
value of c, and the ability to carry unlimited amplitudes of EM energy.
Yet we cannot "see" it; it resides below our sensorial and EM
resolution. Therefore its wavelengths _must_ be below the Planck limit,
the so-called "smallest length that has any meaning".
Concomitantly, its energy states must rise per the maxim
that the shorter the wave the higher the energy. And that's totally
consistent with all observed effects of the SPED (like the high
propagation speed of light, no perceptible EM amplitude limit, and the
behavior of gravity which indicates a hyperpressurized state).
oc

From Painius:

...if the sub-Planck energy domain (or
SPED for short) is some kind of energy
field which has wavelength, however
small that wavelength may be, then this
implies that the SPED itself must be
waving something. So what is the SPED
waving? .... if the SPED is a vibration
which carries or is "waved" by light
waves and such, what exactly carries the SPED? What precisely does the
SPED
wave?

Whoa there for a moment, hoss. Here you ARE gettin' into philosophy and
'way ahead of the issue at hand. This falls under the same umbrella as
those questions like "what is the mechanism of nonlocality?", "what lies
at the 'ends' of eternity and infinity?" and "what is the source of the
SCO?"

But just to speculate and 'philosophize' for a moment, extrapolating
from all that is currently observable, just as the EM spectrum and
Periodic Table are a 'dustbunny' of the SPED, the SPED is a 'dustbunny'
of a domain of even higher energy-densities / shorter wavelengths.
Further, what kind of wave-propagation speeds might
one expect to find in these higher-energy domains? Compared to our
meager "c", it seems like they would have to be many, many orders of
magnitude higher. And this *might* be a clue to the mechanism of quantum
nonlocality. 'Philosophy' mode off. :-)
oc

Hi Painius When a butter fly flaps its wings in China we should feel
the waves it makes. Who can say where the wiggling wave ends. With that
thought we have to say it goes to infinity,but weakens with the math of
the inverse square law. Seems Painius everything in the universe
wiggles with the possible exception of the graviton. Beert

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

. . .
BTW, Painius' off-the-cuff expansion on the famous expression E-mc^2 was
incredibly insightful. Where this little ditty emphasizes the sheer
enormity of the energy density of matter, "E=mc^3" expresses the
enormous energy density of space, the SPED itself. And in a rare flicker
of insight, the oldcoot realized that "E=mc^4" would express the energy
density of the pre-BigBang state, the heart of the Primal Particle
'Engine' itself.

Wolter would be elated with this stuff.
oc

Thank you, Bill... i did that moreso just to show the effect
upon the amount of energy if the "c" factor would change in
any way. Fact is, cubing c, that is, using c³ in Einstein's
relativity equation is not mathematically valid.

I'm not all that good at math, but i do like to dick around
with it, sometimes. So for the benefit of all gentle readers
who might feel the same way, let's play with it a bit...

Maybe it would help if we dug a little into the equation itself...

E = mc²

Each letter is the initial of a word representing the concept it
stands for. E is the initial letter of "energy" and m of "mass".
As for c, the speed of light in a vacuum, we know that it is
the initial letter of "celeritas", the Latin word meaning "speed".

This is not all, however. For any equation to have meaning
in physical reality, there must be an understanding as to the
*units* being used. It is meaningless to speak of a mass of
2.3, for instance. It is necesary to say 2.3 grams or 2.3
pounds or 2.3 tons. Just a mass of "2.3" alone is worthless.

Now, one can choose whatever units are convenient, of
course. As a matter of convention, one system used in the
science of physics is to start with "grams" for mass,
"centimeters" for distance, and "seconds" for time. Then
we can build up, as far as possible, other units out of
appropriate combinations of these three fundamental ones.

The m in Einstein's equation is expressed in grams,
abbreviated gm. The c represents a speed, which is a
distance traveled in a certain amount of time. Using the
fundamental units, this means the number of centimeters
traveled in a certain number of seconds. The units of c are
therefore centimeters per second, or cm/sec.

(Notice that the "per" is represented by a fraction line. The
reason for this is that to get a speed represented in lowest
terms, that is, the number of centimeters traveled in *one*
second, we must divide the number of centimeters traveled
by the number of seconds of traveling. If we travel 24
centimeters in 8 seconds, our speed is 24 centimeters ÷ 8
seconds, or 3 cm/sec.)

One of the elegant things about the equation is that c occurs
as its square. If we multiply c by c, we get c². However,
it is insufficient to multiply the numerical value of c by itself.
we must also multiply the *unit* of c by itself.

An example of this is like in measurements of land area. If
we have a tract of land that's 60 feet by 60 feet, the area is
not just 60 X 60 = 3600 feet. It is 60 feet X 60 feet, or
3600 *square* feet.

So when dealing with c² we must multiply cm/sec by cm/sec
and end with the units cm²/sec² (which can be read as
"centimeters squared per seconds squared").

Next, what unit do we use for E? Einstein's equation itself
will tell us, if we remember to treat units as we treat any
other algebraic symbols. Since E = mc², that means the unit
of E can be obtained by multiplying the unit of m by the unit
of c². Since the unit of m is gm and that of c² is cm²/sec²,
the unit of E is gm X cm²/sec². Now in algebra we represent
a X b as ab, so we can run the multiplication sign out of the
unit of E and make it simply gm cm²/sec² (which we read as
"gram centimeter squared per second squared").

This works out really well, because long before Einstein
derived his equation it had been decided that the unit of
energy on the gram-centimeter-second basis had to be
gm cm²/sec². Let's see why this should be...

First, we remember that the unit of speed is cm/sec. But
what happens when an object changes speed? Suppose
that at a given instant, an object is traveling at 1 cm/sec,
while a second later it is traveling at 2 cm/sec, and another
second later it's traveling at 3 cm/sec. It is, in other words,
"accelerating" (also from the Latin word "celeritas").

In the above case, the acceleration is 1 centimeter per
second every second, since each successive second it is
going 1 centimeter per second faster. We might say that
the acceleration is 1 cm/sec per second. Since we are
letting the word "per" be represented by a fraction mark,
this may be shown as 1 cm/sec/sec.

As we've already seen, we can treat the units by the same
manipulations used for algebraic symbols. An expression
like a/b/b is equivalent to a/b ÷ b, which is in turn equivalent
to a/b X 1/b, which is in turn equivalent to a/b². By the same
reasoning, 1 cm/sec/sec is equivalent to 1 cm/sec² and it is
cm/sec² that is therefore the unit of acceleration.

And now... "May the force be with us!" g

A "force" is defined, in Newtonian physics, as something that
will bring about an acceleration. By Newton's First Law of
Motion any object in motion, left to itself, will travel at
constant speed in a constant direction forever. A speed in a
particular direction is referred to as a "velocity", so we might
more simply say that an object in motion, left to itself, will
travel at constant velocity forever. This velocity may well be
zero, so that Newton's First Law also says that an object at
rest, left to itself, will remain at rest forever.

As soon as a force, which may be gravitational,
electromagnetic, mechanical, or anything, is applied to the
object, its velocity is changed. This means that its speed of
travel or its direction of travel (or both) is changed.

The quantity of force applied to an object is measured by the
amount of acceleration induced, and also by the mass of the
object, since the force applied to a massive object produces
less acceleration than the same force applied to a light object.
(We can check this for ourselves by kicking a beach ball with
all our might and watching it accelerate from rest to a good
speed in a very short time. Next we kick a cannon ball with
all our might and OUCH!!! We observe--while hopping
around in agony--what an unimpressive acceleration we have
imparted to the cannon ball.)

To express this observed fact, we can use the expression,
"Force equals mass times acceleration" or, to abbreviate,
f = ma. Since the unit of mass is gm and the unit of
acceleration is cm/sec², the unit of force is the product of the
two or gm cm/sec².

Physicists grow tired of muttering "gram centimeter per
second squared" every other minute, so they invented a single
syllable to represent that phrase. The syllable is "dyne", from
the Greek *dynamics* meaning "power".

So the expressions are the same, 1 dyne = 1 gm cm/sec².
Dyne is just a breathsaver and can be defined as follows: A
dyne is that amount of force which will impose upon a mass
of one gram an acceleration of one centimeter per second
squared.

Sokay... next, there arises the problem of "work". Work as
defined by science is not what we do to bring home the bacon.
To the astrophysicist, "work" is simply the motion of a body
against a resting force. To lift an object against the force of
gravity is work. To pull a bar of iron away against the pull of
a magnet is work. To drive a nail into the wood against the
resistance of friction is work, and so on.

The amount of work depends on the size of the resisting force
and the distance moved against it. This can be expressed by
saying, "Work equals force times distance," or by abbreviation,
w = fd.

The unit of distance is cm and the unit of force is dyne. So the
unit of work is dyne cm. Again, scientists invented an easy
one-syllable word to express "dyne centimeters", and the new
word is the vulgar sounding "erg" (did somebody burp?), from
the Greek *ergon*, meaning "work".

An erg is defined as the unit of work, and 1 erg is the amount
of work performed by moving an object one cm against the
resisting force of one dyne.

Lest we forget that this is all based on the gram-centimeter-
second system, bring to mind the fact that a dyne is equivalent
to a gm cm/sec². This means that the unit of work is cm times
gm cm/sec² (distance times force), and this works out to
gm cm²/sec². In other words, 1 erg is the work done by
imposing upon a mass of 1 gm an acceleration of 1 cm/sec²
over a distance of 1 cm.

It was discovered well over a century ago that work and
energy are equivalent, so that the units for one will serve as the
units for the other. So the erg is also the unit of energy on the
gram-centimeter-second basis.

Now shall we get back to Einstein's equation? There the units
of E worked out to gm cm²/sec², and that is equivalent to ergs.
Those are the units we expect for energy, and it's no coincidence.
If the equation had worked out to give any other units for energy,
Einstein would have sharpened his pencil and started over again,
knowing he had made a mistake.

If we de-elegance the equation E = mc² by getting rid of the c²,
we get...

E = mcc

....and if we do this to the equation E = mc³, we then get...

E = mccc

....so cubing c just makes the = (equal) sign go away. We are
obligated to do the same thing to both sides of the equation,
aren't we? If we multiply one side by c, then we must do the
exact same thing to the other side to be able to keep the equal
sign as valid. Sorry, but this makes the equation E = mc³ not
valid and, more importantly, not an expression of physical
reality.

And yet, while we must continue to stick with Einstein's most
elegant and valid expression E = mc², it may be a little easier
to see what a tremendous difference it makes if the speed of
light actually *can* be increased by one or two orders of
magnitude.

As you say, Bill, this expresses the enormous energy density
of space, so we would have to replace the m with an s to try
and begin to find true validity to the equation. So we have...

E = sc³

Now all we need is a math/astrophysics wizard to tell us
what would be the best units to use for the space/SPED
factor which would keep the equal sign valid.

Perhaps the first thing to look at would be the acceleration.
We know that if speed increases we have an acceleration.
And the unit for this is cm/sec². So what if the acceleration
increases? If in the first instant our speed is 1 cm/sec, then
a second later it is 2 cm/sec, then another second later our
speed is 4 cm/sec, after one more second we're going 7
cm/sec. In the first second we accelerated 1 cm/sec. Then
in the next second we accelerated 2 cm/sec. And in the
third second we acclerated 3 more cm/sec. Would it be
correct to say that the acceleration is accelerating at a rate
of 1 cm/sec³?

Lately we may have read about the accelerated acceleration
of the Universe. Perhaps we need a simpler name for the
term "accelerating acceleration"?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

PS -- credit for most of this post goes to the guy in the
pome...

--
Asimov! where have you gone?
Your written word goes on and on,
All things become so clear to see
In Asimov's Astronomy!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Holy mackeral there, Paine. That's an incredibly detailed synopsis, an
epitome of details, mimutiae and particulars that would do even OG
proud. :-) Musta been good coffee. g
But let's look at it from the 'big picture'
perspective in a way that any Joe Schmoe unschooled in math can relate
to. The "equations" are simply expressions. Expressions emphasizing
enormity of energy density. Period. No need for the fine intricacies and
arcana.
The universally known "E=mc^2" is simply an expression
of the energy density of matter. "E=mc^3" emphasizes the energy density
of the SPED. "E=mc^4" emphasizes the energy density of the pre-BB state.
They may not be "technically correct" to the math purist, but they ARE
correct in communicating the 'big picture' meaning to the average Joe.
Wolter, BTW, never considered 'E=mc^2' so much an
"equation" but simply an expression of enormity.

Lately we may have read about the
accelerated acceleration of the Universe. Perhaps we need a simpler
name for the term "accelerating acceleration"?

Well, for the umpteenth time, :-), the perceived "accelerating
expansion" of the universe is predicated on the void-space premise. To
wit, since there is "no medium", c is invariant all the way back to the
instant of the BigBang.
But when the reality of the SPED is recognized, there
is a _cosmological density gradient_ (a drop in the PDT and value of c)
that enters the picture _as seen from the 'outside' referance frame_.
This c-drop _as seen from the external frame_ is what Wolter called
'c-dilation'. But from here 'inside', we see its artifact as excessive
dimming of the most ancient light (just as seen in the recent HST 1a
supernova data) which has been (mis)interpreted as "ever-accelerating
expansion" of the cosmos. This becomes a grand illusion when the
cosmological density gradient is recognized. The expansion curve is
swung away from "ever-accelerating expansion" toward DEcelerating
expansion and a closed universe. This is consistent with the CBB model.
oc