Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Black Holes are not the only ones that have a
Schwarzschild surface (event horizon). ALL
gravity wells have such a surface, and they are
not as well-defined as that of a BH.

So here comes flowing space toward the Solar
System. As it approaches the SS of our Sun,
the resistance slows flowing space to a speed
determined mostly by the mass of the Sun. At
this point, space then begins once again to
accelerate toward the Sun, reaching maximum
speed at the surface of the Sun.

If a planet like Jupiter gets in the way of this
essentially Solar spaceflow, the SS of the planet
serves as a resistance to the flow, and space
must slow way down at the planet's SS so that
it may accelerate into the planet. How much it
slows down, and how fast it enters the surface of
the planet is governed mainly by the mass of the
planet.

Utter nonsense.

What's utter nonsense is to call something "utter
nonsense" without offer of explanation! Shall i
explain, Puddleduck?

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

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

So here comes flowing space toward the Solar
System. As it approaches the SS of our Sun,
the resistance slows flowing space to a speed
determined mostly by the mass of the Sun. At
this point, space then begins once again to
accelerate toward the Sun, reaching maximum
speed at the surface of the Sun.

If a planet like Jupiter gets in the way of this
essentially Solar spaceflow, the SS of the planet
serves as a resistance to the flow, and space
must slow way down at the planet's SS so that
it may accelerate into the planet. How much it
slows down, and how fast it enters the surface of
the planet is governed mainly by the mass of the
planet.

Utter nonsense.

What's utter nonsense is to call something "utter
nonsense" without offer of explanation! Shall i
explain, Puddleduck?

Don't bother - its so obviously stupid its not worth it.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...
nightbat wrote
Painius wrote:
"Bill Sheppard" wrote...
in message ...
From Painius re. 'hadronic flow':
Here is a major inconsistency in Wolter's
argument. Space speeds up a lot going
into the Sun. Space speeds up less
going into Jupiter, even less going into
Earth, and even less going into Mars. So
the less mass involved, it would seem
the less space speeds up. So why isn't it
going its SLOWEST speed into an atom,
the smallest mass of all?

Well, Wolter had no 'argument' per se.


I see what you mean, Bill, but i was using "argument"
in more of a "theory" context, i.e., an argument for
the CBB model which opposes the void-space paradigm.


He pictured the proton as a
microscale black hole analog replete with its own 'event horizon'. It
would be my conjecture then, that the flow hits the speed of light as it
enters the nucleus, just as it does when it enters a BH. Wolter pictured
the subnuclear domain as not part the external universe since it does
not *directly* participate in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows 'out
here'. That's why he excluded the Weak force, seeing it as more of a
'subset' of the Strong force.

Regarding the disparite inflow velocities you cite at the surface of
planets, suns etc., you gotta think of these bodies as aggregate
collections of protons. The bigger the aggregate, the bigger the
collective 'sink' it forms, and the greater the inflow velocity. When
the aggregate is sufficiently massive to form a BH, the inflow velocity
then equals the inflow velocity of its constituent protons, which is the
speed of light.
Wolter didn't go into this much detail, but i'm
extrapolating here from his basic model of the proton as a microscale BH
analog.


It's still very hard for me to see how the flow
would accelerate to c into a proton, accelerate
so much, much less into Mercury, then more
again into Mars, Earth, Jupiter and ultimately
into a BH, specially one at the center of a
galaxy.


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.

What recent observations? Presumably you're referrin' to the 1a
supernova dimming, which is observed at extreme cosmological distances,
not in our immediale galactic environs. If such expansion were occuring
'locally' (ie, out to a radius of a few billion LY or so), we oughta be
seeing excessive dimming and reddening locally, which is not the case.
oc


We must remember that even very great speeds
are perceived as being very slow, even not there
at all, when the distances are great. We might
have a handle on radial velocities, but at great
distances the lateral, side-to-side or transverse
velocity (aka "proper motion") is as yet impossible
to detect and measure at galactic distances.

So this is not really a good way to determine the
speed(s) of expanding, flowing space, or whether
these speeds are fast or slow.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!


nightbat

Hello Officer Painius it is always good to see your posts and
devotion to science theoretical inquiry. The coffee boys being what they
are silly disruptive clueless ones including the occasional new ones that
invade from time to time should never deter you from your excellent deep
pondering. The important concept that Officer oc presents via Wolter's
model is the space flow premise via unique outer Universe engine model to
which at least it tries to help provide a causation for gravity and
Universe internal dynamics. Wolter was perceptive in deducing a need for
first cause motive action model to hopefully explain ongoing field effects
of which at his time including to date as you well know were and are
severely lacking. Not until the nightbat and my long ago spotting of
Officers oc's for Wolters net presentation has any other concept even come
close to disclosing a more viable theoretical premise. The applied Wolter
field formulation logic is brilliant for attempt to close gravitation loop
problem and unification.

The trouble however for deep field hopeful unification theorists and
mathematicians is we have one observed physical Universe and the
perimeters for acceptable model per observable co-Peer verification and
confirmation are therefore quite restricting without going into hyper
inter-dimensional, multiverse, outerverse (Wolter's), parallelverse, multi
branes, multiple strings, imagined theoretical non evidence based
extensions.

The attempted field unification task is by no means minute or expedient
for no comparable acceptable frame model has ever existed in out space
time. Even without ultimate first cause actual identification a practical
relative applicable model to at least dynamic effects explanation is
needed without reserve. In other words a theoretical to real world
applicable working premise for gravity causation is needed for field
gravitational loop closure and fundamental field dynamics base
understanding. Man made applied coordinates are viable without true field
internal first cause understanding yet resultant practical full knowledge
internal field theory and extensions are naturally therefore subjugated
and unity lacking.

The nightbat discovery of field unification was as Dr. Einstein perceived
beyond normal human grasp for no comparable model ever existed. No
previous math's or examineable mathematical equations or proofs therefore
could unity assist or applied extensions permit and enlightenly disclose
what has never existed for examination. The verifiable proof however was
in discovered field latent memory, lending to every physical energy/mass
particle knowing its present relative position to where it should field
original position place be or versus to original field pure uniform
momentum.


ponder on,
the nightbat

Thank you, Nightbat. In all honesty, Wolter's CBB
model suffers some of the same challenges as all
other models, in that "first cause" questions remain
upina air.

Without going into great detail, minutae g etc.,
i wonder now and then what's the origin of the SCO?
Where does the primal particle originate? What's
outside the gargantuan toroid of flowing space? And
on and on like that.

I often lose momentum and field position on these
grande issues. g

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

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

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.

I am so honoured.

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.

So all you are doing is adding another layer of complexity, with no
grounds in physical reality, just to pretend you are a scientist.

Nope, not at all. I'm adding nothing to previous
layers of complexity. Just merely trying to shed
light on those layers. And no, i'm no scientist,
not by a long shot. Just merely a lover of the
sky and of the science of astronomy.

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.

Most of your questions are reasonably meaningless.

Listen li'l gooseling, you have two choices... you
can continue to quasipost like most of the other
useless coffeebois, or you can think creatively and
add something to the mix. I've been reading some
of your responses to other posters, and it does
appear that you can be downright civil at times. If
you wanna lose me, then keep on farting outcher
****ing fingers.

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.

Utter crap.

Like your single brain cell?

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!

And your observational evidence is?

Well for one thing, coffeebois like you who have
not a single clue.

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.

Everything you are saying about the nature of space local to the sun.

If this is as "exact" as you can be, then i guess it'll
have to do.

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.

Um no, because they have been verified (Perihelion of Mercury, Hulse &
Taylor....)

Are you certain that these verifications are the result
of science and not of politics, gooseling? Everytime i
read about these so-called verifications, i read "oh
well, the results aren't really within the window we
expected, but they're close enough." Sounds more to
me like one scientist suckin' on the johnny of another.

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...

So what? Fallacy of authority? Many people try to make proclamations
about Einstein and vegetarianism but he wasn't a nutritionist.

No fallacy here, not when i quote his writings, you
silly arse!

". . . 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...

Like Jane, putting words in a dead mans mouth.

So what's your illuminating interpretation of his
words, gooseling?

Again, just saying something stupid like "putting
words in a dead man's mouth" won't get you far.

You really need to expound. If you continue in
this vein, your integrity suffers profusely!

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

From Painius:
It is a more sound idea that space flows
very quickly out among
the stars, and even faster out between
the galaxies and clusters.

Nein, nyet, NO, caramba!:-) Man, you still ain't 'gettin' it'. Dude.
Again, as in the 'lake' and 'bathtub' analogies, the deep interstellar
and intergalactic zones are the 'backwaters'. That's where the flow rate
is least, the slowest. It's also where the SCO pressurization is
highest. Any 'drain' is where the flow rate picks up and pressure begins
dropping.

The gravity wells of galaxies slow the
flow of space, as do the gravity wells of
stars, planets...

No, again, gravity wells of galaxies, or *any* gravity well, is where
the flow accelerates. That's what a gravity well or 'gravitational
field' is - a zone of accelerating flow. _Accelerating flow_ is what
defines a gravity well or field (or "funnel" as Paxton calls it). .
Further, the pressure/density (or PDT value) drops with
the acceleration, because the flow is venting toward an ultimate _zone
of lowest pressure_.

..and even of atoms!

Yep, the core of the nucleus is the _zone of lowest pressure_ into which
the flow is ultimately venting. It's also where acceleration and flow
rate is highest. It's like a venturi all the way down.(-:

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.

(Emphasis mine)
Well, as stated numerous times previously, the spatial
medium _demonstrates itself_ profoundly and incontrovertably,
*particularly* in the behavior of gravity. I have no corner on it, nor
does Lindner, Shifman, Warren, Paxton, or Wolter. Once you throw out
the "no medium" indoctrination, gravity is obviously exactly what it
appears to be and behaves as - a pressure-driven, accelerating flow into
mass, with mass synonymous with flow sink. Either it IS what it is, or
it's equations and geometry. Yeah, equations on paper and geometry
perform the stunt of crushing massive stars down to the neutron star and
BH states.
Maybe the VS'ers can explain how equations and
geometry manage to do this, other than by reciting the vacuous liturgy,
"curving spaaace-time". oc

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Listen li'l gooseling, you have two choices... you
can continue to quasipost like most of the other
useless coffeebois, or you can think creatively and
add something to the mix. I've been reading some
of your responses to other posters, and it does
appear that you can be downright civil at times. If
you wanna lose me, then keep on farting outcher
****ing fingers.

You're a buffoon - you're not adding anything to the mix, you're a
saucerhead who thinks they can reveal a new theory from nothing.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Um no, because they have been verified (Perihelion of Mercury, Hulse &
Taylor....)

Are you certain that these verifications are the result
of science and not of politics, gooseling? Everytime i
read about these so-called verifications, i read "oh
well, the results aren't really within the window we
expected, but they're close enough." Sounds more to
me like one scientist suckin' on the johnny of another.

I've actually done for myself the calculations for Mercury. i can point
you to where you can do them for yourself, provided you can do calculus.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Again, just saying something stupid like "putting
words in a dead man's mouth" won't get you far.

You really need to expound. If you continue in
this vein, your integrity suffers profusely!

You really have no ability to question anyones integrity. If you cannot
understand what I meant above, take some basic comprehension classes.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Utter crap.

Like your single brain cell?

Oh I'm so stung. Better run, nightbat is about to squeeze out another
nugget - gather round and worship at the sphincter of knowledge.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

And your observational evidence is?

Well for one thing, coffeebois like you who have
not a single clue.

Lack of scientific credibility noted.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com