!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

I thought concentrated mass caused the
pressure/density to reduce - you know
like it does near the Sun and the Earth.
Please explain the difference.

I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it
several times already.

No I think you have written what you think happens, but not explained WHY it
works this way.

Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse
of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and
inflow. Inflow into gravitating masses is the reverse of outflow from
the BB event. H.C.Warren says the same thing in his thesis, where he
writes, "If gravitational processes are seen as the converse of Big Bang
processes, then in combination nature reveals a dipole character."

I love this - in semantic terms this says
If assertion THEN converse

Brilliant - can I do my own?
If this theory is right then the rightness of this theory is self
evident

Ah, it's not as good as Warren's. ;-(

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

Let's try this again. . .
I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it
several times already.
Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse
of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and
inflow.

So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good,

This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its
density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it
CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure
remained high in the space between stars.

Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly matched by the increase of density
due to the expansion of the universe - yup, that matches the quote "the
expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation,"

Is that better?

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

Let's try this again. . .
I thought this point had been made crystal clear, having delineated it
several times already.
Again, the expansion of space from the BB is the inverse
of gravitation, constituting a dipole relationship between outflow and
inflow.

So the expansion of the universe ADDS density to space. Good,

This is good because this means that the space between stars has had its
density continuously restored since the BB - is this why Wolter called it
CBB? This answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure
remained high in the space between stars.

Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly matched by the increase of density
due to the expansion of the universe - yup, that matches the quote "the
expansion of space from the BB is the inverse of gravitation,"

Is that better?

From OG:

So the expansion of the universe ADDS
density to space. Good,
This is good because this means that the space between stars has had
its density
continuously restored since the BB - is
this why Wolter called it CBB? This
answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure
remained high in the space between stars.

Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the*
first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point...
dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon.

Yes, that's what the CBB model is all about. A continuously-running
'Engine', a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually
replenishes the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure. tt's the
centerpiece of Wolter's model, which he called the Primal Particle (or
PP). It lies out beyond the sphere of our visible cosmos (the 'known
universe'), which has decoupled from the BB point. From our perspective
here 'inside' our decoupled sphere, our perception is that there was a
'singular BB' and that it happened "everywhere at once" within our
sphere. Yet from the 'outside' frame, we see a larger, overarching
Process at work, like in the freon cycle with its central compressor.

The moment Wolter recognized the spatial medium as a super energy-dense
standing wave field, the next question begged what manner of 'Engine'
and 'master oscillator' could there be, capable of driving and
sustaining so energetic a field? String theory imputes some sort of
vibratory underpinning to space, but remains mute on the 'Engine'
driving it.
Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly
matched by the increase of density due
to the expansion of the universe - yup,
that matches the quote "the expansion of space from the BB is the
inverse of
gravitation,"

Is that better?

Excellent beyond words, Owen.

If you believe in the standard BB model (not to mention the CBB), you
literally have half the question of gravitation solved. Only one simple
modification to the equation is needed: replace the "void" with the
spatial medium.

The spatial medium is not the regid-lattice, immobile 'ether' of
Lorentz, Einstein and the old theorists, but is the dynamic,
fully-flowing, expansible-compressible, sub-Planck fluid of space. The
old theorists had no concept of its enormous energy density or its
hydrostatic pressure. The very term 'ether' bespoke that which is
spiritous, tenuous and insubstantial compared to matter.
Einstein was right to finally throw out the old
'ether'. But in so doing, he threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Instead of letting the old ether evolve naturally to reveal the real
medium, the "void" was enshrined. And the rest, as they say, is history.
In terms of energy density, it is matter that is
ephemeral and tenuous, hence the oft-used 'dustbunny' moniker.

I've gotta mark down today as the day another person actually 'got' the
CBB idea along with the dipole nature of the BB process and gravitation.
Sincerest Congradulations.
Bill

From OG:

So the expansion of the universe ADDS
density to space. Good,
This is good because this means that the space between stars has had
its density
continuously restored since the BB - is
this why Wolter called it CBB? This
answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure
remained high in the space between stars.

Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the*
first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point...
dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon.

Yes, that's what the CBB model is all about. A continuously-running
'Engine', a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually
replenishes the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure. tt's the
centerpiece of Wolter's model, which he called the Primal Particle (or
PP). It lies out beyond the sphere of our visible cosmos (the 'known
universe'), which has decoupled from the BB point. From our perspective
here 'inside' our decoupled sphere, our perception is that there was a
'singular BB' and that it happened "everywhere at once" within our
sphere. Yet from the 'outside' frame, we see a larger, overarching
Process at work, like in the freon cycle with its central compressor.

The moment Wolter recognized the spatial medium as a super energy-dense
standing wave field, the next question begged what manner of 'Engine'
and 'master oscillator' could there be, capable of driving and
sustaining so energetic a field? String theory imputes some sort of
vibratory underpinning to space, but remains mute on the 'Engine'
driving it.
Yes, the inflow due to gravity is exactly
matched by the increase of density due
to the expansion of the universe - yup,
that matches the quote "the expansion of space from the BB is the
inverse of
gravitation,"

Is that better?

Excellent beyond words, Owen.

If you believe in the standard BB model (not to mention the CBB), you
literally have half the question of gravitation solved. Only one simple
modification to the equation is needed: replace the "void" with the
spatial medium.

The spatial medium is not the regid-lattice, immobile 'ether' of
Lorentz, Einstein and the old theorists, but is the dynamic,
fully-flowing, expansible-compressible, sub-Planck fluid of space. The
old theorists had no concept of its enormous energy density or its
hydrostatic pressure. The very term 'ether' bespoke that which is
spiritous, tenuous and insubstantial compared to matter.
Einstein was right to finally throw out the old
'ether'. But in so doing, he threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Instead of letting the old ether evolve naturally to reveal the real
medium, the "void" was enshrined. And the rest, as they say, is history.
In terms of energy density, it is matter that is
ephemeral and tenuous, hence the oft-used 'dustbunny' moniker.

I've gotta mark down today as the day another person actually 'got' the
CBB idea along with the dipole nature of the BB process and gravitation.
Sincerest Congradulations.
Bill

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

So the expansion of the universe ADDS
density to space. Good,
This is good because this means that the space between stars has had
its density
continuously restored since the BB - is
this why Wolter called it CBB? This
answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure
remained high in the space between stars.

Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the*
first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point...
dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon.


Don't forget that just because I can describe the model, it doesn't mean
that I believe it.

I'll read the rest of your stuff. - no doubt there'll be more questions, but
here's one for now.

Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You
said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations,
but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Not
ANOTHER typo?

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG:

So the expansion of the universe ADDS
density to space. Good,
This is good because this means that the space between stars has had
its density
continuously restored since the BB - is
this why Wolter called it CBB? This
answers the question that got lost earlier about why the pressure
remained high in the space between stars.

Owen, I just about wep' a tear at what you just said. You are *the*
first person in my experience who has ever *got it* on that point...
dunno what to say, it's a milestone, a watershed. Hell, maybe a Rubicon.


Don't forget that just because I can describe the model, it doesn't mean
that I believe it.

I'll read the rest of your stuff. - no doubt there'll be more questions, but
here's one for now.

Why did you say that the density of free space was greater in the past? You
said that the higher density in the past explained the SN1a observations,
but now you're saying that the density wasn't higher in the past. Not
ANOTHER typo?

Don't forget that just because I can
describe the model, it doesn't mean that
I believe it.

Aw, shucks.

Why did you say that the density of free
space was greater in the past? You said
that the higher density in the past
explained the SN1a observations..

In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate
occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The
so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial,
precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem.
It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in
denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into
less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a
sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it
propagates into thinner and thinner air.

...but now you're saying that the density
wasn't higher in the past.

Duh. Where'd i say that ?

No doubt there'll be more questions.

No way, Jose. No more questions until *you* address each one of those 4
'Mainline Issues' you keep evading. You may do it in a new thread, as I
am exiting this thread as of now. See you there. Toodle-oo
oc

Don't forget that just because I can
describe the model, it doesn't mean that
I believe it.

Aw, shucks.

Why did you say that the density of free
space was greater in the past? You said
that the higher density in the past
explained the SN1a observations..

In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate
occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The
so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial,
precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem.
It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in
denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into
less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a
sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it
propagates into thinner and thinner air.

...but now you're saying that the density
wasn't higher in the past.

Duh. Where'd i say that ?

No doubt there'll be more questions.

No way, Jose. No more questions until *you* address each one of those 4
'Mainline Issues' you keep evading. You may do it in a new thread, as I
am exiting this thread as of now. See you there. Toodle-oo
oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Why did you say that the density of free
space was greater in the past? You said
that the higher density in the past
explained the SN1a observations..

In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate
occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The
so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial,
precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem.
It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in
denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into
less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a
sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it
propagates into thinner and thinner air.

...but now you're saying that the density
wasn't higher in the past.

Duh. Where'd i say that ?
Maybe in your bit that said
"a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually replenishes
the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure"

Or is this "perpetual feature" something that only started later on.

You claim to have a theory, it seems to me that you are making it up as you
go along.

For example -
"The so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an
initial, precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem"

You don't explain WHY this is necessary - you don't explain why it is
important that there was an initial density drop. If there was a density
drop it means that cycle didn't work at the beginning and suddenly started
working later on! Some 'universal' theory this proves to be.

also-
"It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in denser space,"
It only "stands to reason" that you have to introduce this to explain the
phenomenon.

Would you like me to come up with a feasible explanation for this on the
basis of a FS model ? - I probably could without too much difficulty -
after all, I feel like I've actually given more explanation for phenomena
than you have in this thread.