|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
From Painius:
How does space know to decelerate to any given speed as it enters the gravity well of any given mass? Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth. The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi. It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's surface. It _speeds up_ to that velocity. So how does flowing space "know" to slow down to a certain speed for any given amount of mass? It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian "curvature" of space. ..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this figure is greater for, say, the planet Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say, the planet Mars. Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a smaller one. And how slow is it going as it enters an atom? It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic flow' as Lindner calls it). Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/ flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts. The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire, the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/ flow rate into any given sink (mass). Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do* propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc. (surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you throw a rock in. oc |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
To Ya All (Florida talk) If the speed of gravity is instantaneous that
tells you its already there. It relates to being inside a space ship going at light speed. You would cover all the universe at once. For gravity to cover the universe and its actions felt at once it would have to be a grid connecting(going through) all there is in the universe. I have posted this thinking in some of my past posts. I compare the grid like a spider web. When a fly hits the web the spider instantly feels the vibrations,and goes directly to that area of the web. Hope oc you can use some of this for your inward flow of space energy to particles,and waves Bert |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
From Painius:
The speed of gravitational charge, hmm..., or do you mean "change"? Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave. Using the Sun and Earth, we know it takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for light from the Sun to reach us. If we divide this by Vg, we get a figure of... ******2.5 x 10^-18 second ...as the time it would take for the Sun's change in gravitational information to reach the Earth. 'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to get here. Now here's where it gets interesting... suppose there is an object out there about one light year away. We can't see it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and does not emit/reflect light. How long would it take for a change in its position to be gravitationally noted by our Sun? Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of gravity's influence across distance. I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry... The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light years away. How long does it take the influence from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by Van Flandern... ******4.75 nanoseconds! Again, instantaneity/'speed' of gravity is not the same as gravitational waves. We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas. oc |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
"Bill Sheppard" wrote...
in message ... From Painius: How does space know to decelerate to any given speed as it enters the gravity well of any given mass? Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth. Yes, Bill, i *am* getting it... i'm getting that there are some seemingly profound inconsistencies in all this. To wit: The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi. 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. 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. 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. So it is more consistent to think that flowing space must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and planets. It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's surface. It _speeds up_ to that velocity. So how does flowing space "know" to slow down to a certain speed for any given amount of mass? It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian "curvature" of space. Now, i realize that this seems inconsistent to you. That because the escape velocity decreases above the Earth's surface, this must mean that the speed of flowing space is lower above the Earth. Also, since physical objects fall at an accelerating rate, it would seem that the flow of space is causing this. I'm still thinking about these inconsistencies. ..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this figure is greater for, say, the planet Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say, the planet Mars. Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a smaller one. And how slow is it going as it enters an atom? It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic flow' as Lindner calls it). 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? Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/ flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts. The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire, the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/ flow rate into any given sink (mass). Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do* propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc. (surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you throw a rock in. oc Another thing i'm thinking here is that if space ultimately flows into an atom to use the atom as a point of return to the source via nonlocality, then it seems to me that space would be going into the atom at its slowest possible speed so as to be right on target for the nonlocality switch. 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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
... From Painius: The speed of gravitational charge, hmm..., or do you mean "change"? Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave. No, no, no, Bill. A gravitational WAVE may propagate at c, but the gravitational CHARGE propagates at speeds in excess of c x 2 x 10^10 (which does BTW mean that my figures are off by several magnitudes since i used c x 2 x 10^20)... http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...of_gravity.asp "Using the same equation with binary pulsar PSR1534+12 and the parameters in Table I, we can place the most stringent limit yet from the observed uncertainty in (orbital period): Vg = or 2 x 10^10 x c." Using the Sun and Earth, we know it takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for light from the Sun to reach us. If we divide this by Vg, we get a figure of... 2.5 x 10^-18 second ...as the time it would take for the Sun's change in gravitational information to reach the Earth. Allowing for my big blunder in math, the new figure is... 2.5 x 10^-8 second, or 25 nanoseconds ....as the time it takes for the Sun's change in positional information to reach the Earth. 'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to get here. No argument, but again the waves are not the same as the charge. The speed of the waves may very well be c, but the speed of the charge is "at least" 20 billion times c. Now here's where it gets interesting... suppose there is an object out there about one light year away. We can't see it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and does not emit/reflect light. How long would it take for a change in its position to be gravitationally noted by our Sun? Using round figures, this comes out to be... Again, to allow for my astronomical error this actually comes out to be... 9.5 quadrillion meters / 6 quintillion meters per second, or 1.6 milliseconds! And isn't it another tickle to realize that any such influence on our Sun by the nearest stars of the Centauri group would only take about four times as long to reach us! I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry... The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light years away. How long does it take the influence from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by Van Flandern... 47.5 seconds! It may very well be this delay that explains why the galaxy arms revolve around the center of the galaxy the way they do! Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of gravity's influence across distance. Sorry, Bill, but this statement above seems contradictory to what you say below... We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas. oc If GWs are not gravity, then why are you using them to propagate the gravitational changes? The gravitational changes are propagated at speeds much greater than c. If this were not true, then... "The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed." (Van F.) 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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
Bill Sheppard wrote: From Painius: The speed of gravitational charge, hmm..., or do you mean "change"? Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave. Using the Sun and Earth, we know it takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for light from the Sun to reach us. If we divide this by Vg, we get a figure of... 2.5 x 10^-18 second ...as the time it would take for the Sun's change in gravitational information to reach the Earth. 'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to get here. Now here's where it gets interesting... suppose there is an object out there about one light year away. We can't see it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and does not emit/reflect light. How long would it take for a change in its position to be gravitationally noted by our Sun? Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of gravity's influence across distance. I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry... The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light years away. How long does it take the influence from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by Van Flandern... 4.75 nanoseconds! Again, instantaneity/'speed' of gravity is not the same as gravitational waves. We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas. oc You know Bill, thinking about gravity as a flow, it has interesting parallels to electricity: the velocity of the flow being the current, and the acceleration being the potential or voltage. As I pointed out once before, ones relation to the velocity of the flow could explain the time dilation in gravitational fields. If this were true, it could be that at the center of Earth, where there would be little flow, there would be little time dilation. This could be a testable difference from standard curved void space GR theory. However, even if it were proved to be true, they would find a way to explain it with their standard theory. It's just like they found a way to explain the Sagnac effect with relativity, after it was first presented as a disproof of relativity. And take black holes: GR objects, all perfectly predicted by GR, right? Never mind that the black hole-like objects they are detecting today, emitting vast amounts of energy and shooting streams of matter into space are nothing like the invisible black holes they were predicting back in the 70's with GR. And never mind that Einstein himself did not predict their existence. Yet they are totally GR objects, right? Double-A |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
From AA:
...thinking about gravity as a flow, it has interesting parallels to electricity: the velocity of the flow being the current, and the acceleration being the potential or voltage. Well, one can certainly draw parallels with electric flow. But voltage would be equivalent to the pressure gradient causing the flow (in fact voltage is referred to as 'pressure', potential, or electromotive force, the 'E' in the Ohm's law formulae). Flow rate, as you say, would correspond to amps, or 'intensity', the 'I' in Ohm's law. What you say about acceleration is interesting, because in a CRT or an Xray tube, a high voltage ('pressure gradient') accelerates an electron beam, causing it to strike the target (anode) at high energy. In fact the beam is accelerating exponentially as it hits the anode. oc |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
Painius wrote: "Bill Sheppard" wrote... in message ... From Painius: How does space know to decelerate to any given speed as it enters the gravity well of any given mass? Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth. Yes, Bill, i *am* getting it... i'm getting that there are some seemingly profound inconsistencies in all this. To wit: The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi. 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. 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. 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. So it is more consistent to think that flowing space must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and planets. It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's surface. It _speeds up_ to that velocity. So how does flowing space "know" to slow down to a certain speed for any given amount of mass? It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian "curvature" of space. Now, i realize that this seems inconsistent to you. That because the escape velocity decreases above the Earth's surface, this must mean that the speed of flowing space is lower above the Earth. Also, since physical objects fall at an accelerating rate, it would seem that the flow of space is causing this. I'm still thinking about these inconsistencies. ..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this figure is greater for, say, the planet Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say, the planet Mars. Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a smaller one. And how slow is it going as it enters an atom? It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic flow' as Lindner calls it). 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? Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/ flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts. The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire, the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/ flow rate into any given sink (mass). Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do* propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc. (surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you throw a rock in. oc Another thing i'm thinking here is that if space ultimately flows into an atom to use the atom as a point of return to the source via nonlocality, then it seems to me that space would be going into the atom at its slowest possible speed so as to be right on target for the nonlocality switch. happy days and... starry starry nights! The problem with making crap up out of thin air is that it is usually inconsistent with crap someone else makes up out of thin air. -- The best things in life are here and now! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
oc Electric current has always been related to the flow of water..
Current tell us that. Feynman when visiting Hoover dam had this to say For every drop of water an electron will flow. Water goes through pipes,and electrons go through wire. No conducting wire no flow of electrons Bert |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
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. 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. 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 |
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 |