|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news In article , "Painius" wrote: Okay, in science the word "accelerate" actually can be positive or negative. And of course, a "negative acceleration" would be a "deceleration". I'm taking you to mean that the flow of space is a positive acceleration as it approaches a gravity well. Space "speeds up" as it enters the mass of a planet or a star. I realize that you're just another coffeeboi, Puddleduck, but i'll be glad to tolerate you, since even coffeebois have a perfect right to be here. And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it turtles all the way down? I don't know the answer to this, other than to say that, no, i don't think it's turtles all the way down, Puddleduck. We [tinw] *do* know how earthly things flow, such as the ocean flowing in reference to the sea bottom, the adjacent coastlines and even to other parts of the ocean. As for space, the main attractive reference would be whatever it is that may act as a container and medium to which flowing space can be referenced. This would be akin to asking, "What was in existence before the Big Bang?" or "What is space expanding *into*?" and these are, for now, questions without adequate and meaningful answers. On a more practical level, we may be able to say that space flows in reference to mass, or perhaps more accurately, space flows with reference to gravity wells. Double-A brought out the analogy to Earthly electricity, with the emf or "voltage" in the Ohm's law formula... E = IR ....similar to the engine that "runs" flowing space, an engine called the "supra-cosmic overpressure" or "SCO". Flowing space itself then is roughly identified with the electrical current in the formula, or "I" (intensity of current). This may imply that there is an R somewhere in all this, and observations may strongly suggest that gravity wells provide the R (resistance) to flowing space. This would imply that space is flowing more slowly out among the stars, and perhaps even more slowly, kind of like molasses out between the galaxies and galaxy clusters. Here is an inconsistency as i see it. Utter rubbish Actually, i agree. It is a more sound idea that space flows very quickly out among the stars, and even faster out between the galaxies and clusters. The gravity wells of galaxies slow the flow of space, as do the gravity wells of stars, planets and even of atoms! Astronomy's observations indicate that space does expand, and it may expand at speeds that far exceed the speed of light without going against the special theory of relativity. Recent observations appear to indicate that the expansion of space is accelerating. All this tends to make me think that space outside our Solar System, and especially outside our Milky Way Galaxy, is flowing and expanding at extremely high speeds. Really? Funny how Hipparcos proves thats BS. What exactly are you saying that Hipparcos is disproving, Puddleduck? Keep in mind that this experiment is very limited in its scope. So it is more consistent to think that flowing space must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and planets. So many words, so little science. Step away from the bong, saucerheads. You will get no argument from me that the concept of flowing space is no more truly a scientific concept than is quantum gravity or GR. None of that is science either in terms of explaining the cause of gravity. The only reason QG and GR are *recognized" as being science is because they are the brainchilds of scientists. You, Puddleduck, would be wise to keep in mind that the concept of flowing space is to be considered as quite possibly the brainchild of old Albert Einstein himself... ". . . one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory." A little earlier in _Relativity: The Special and the General Theory_ Einstein wrote... "By this is meant a theory which describes exhaustively physical reality, including four- dimensional space, by a field." Since, at the time, Einstein had discarded the idea of a static, non-moving "ether", one can only conclude that he was talking about space as being a field that is non-static and moving, a flowing field... flowing space (!) happy days and... starry starry nights! -- The best things in life are here and now! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHY | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 28th 05 07:07 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:48 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:09 PM |
Einstein | Tom Kirke | Astronomy Misc | 10 | June 1st 05 10:13 PM |
Einstein | Tom Kirke | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | June 1st 05 10:13 PM |