Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

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.

And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it
turtles all the way down?


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


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.


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.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

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

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

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!

Utter, utter rubbish.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

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

nightbat wrote

John Zinni wrote:

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!


Officer Zinni
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.
Zinni

nightbat

The trouble in trying to get profound original thought to final
understanding of the clueless is that they are normally too busy
comparing copied notes and search engine findings of what's known versus
what is novel and beyond their mental grasp.

carry on,
the nightbat

--
The best things in life are here and now!

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

oc Push for gravity seems to fit better than pull(sometimes),and even
the Earth coming up to the apple answers a hard question,but both get
shot down because they create lots of questions they are unable to
answer. Wolter was not the first to kick this idea around. Attraction
over distance even the great mind of Newton would not touch. Now Brian
Greene uses virtual particles to give the message for objects to attract
or repel. That begs the question is QM gravitons virtual particles? Is
this the reason they can't be detected? Is Scheck and Schwarz with their
theory on gravity in the Planck realm the true source of gravity? I
think so bert

From NB:
The trouble in trying to get profound
original thought to final understanding of
the clueless is that they are normally too
busy comparing copied notes and search engine findings...

Yeah, they shoulda starred in the Wizard of Oz as one of those
'challenged' characters, with the lament "If I Only Had a Brain." :-) oc

From Bert:
...electric current has always been
related to the flow of water.. Current tell
us that... Water goes through pipes,and
electrons go through wire. No conducting wire no flow of electrons

Good point Bert. But you gotta parse the observation carefully, to
clarify the distinction between *electric flow* in a wire and _electron
flow_ in free space, as in a vacuum tube. In a wire, the individual
electrons move very, very slowly, while the *speed of charge* thru the
wire moves at the speed of light (minus the 'velocity factor' making it
about .77c depending on the material. That's why a radio transmitter's
antenna is cut to the velocity factor).
Whereas in a vacuum tube, individual electrons *are*
liberated to flow and accelerate freely thru space.

Though superficially similar, Electric flow with its associated speed of
charge, and electron flow are distinctly different critters. * * *
oc

In article ,
nightbat wrote:

The trouble in trying to get profound original thought to final
understanding of the clueless is that they are normally too busy
comparing copied notes and search engine findings of what's known versus
what is novel and beyond their mental grasp.

You've never had a profound original thought. You just like to pretend
you're silly little sci fi club has any relevance to astronomy.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

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

nightbat wrote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article ,


nightbat wrote:

The trouble in trying to get profound original thought to final
understanding of the clueless is that they are normally too busy
comparing copied notes and search engine findings of what's known versus
what is novel and beyond their mental grasp.


Puddleduck

You've never had a profound original thought. You just like to pretend
you're silly little sci fi club has any relevance to astronomy.


nightbat

Profound Science Team Officers please escort this self admitted
quack duck out to the vacuum low IQ mental stowfile for he is so far off
deep theoretical field reality base he wouldn't understand real
alt.astronomy versus if Hollywood Captain Kirk smacked him on his
feathered behind. Puddles should be able to keep clueless Saul, sidewalk
guy, and the coffee boys very happy with his flapping silly quacks. Oh
the humanity! when will the confounded mentally challenged coffee boy
wonders understand the profound enlightened net World famous Science
Team Officers and nightbat super advanced iterations without having a
quacked up befuddled mental crisis of lack of intellectual neuron
sensory grasping ability.

at ease quacky duck,
the nightbat

Hey Night, there was an Elmer Fudd cartoon that i clearly remember from
childhood, where he dumped a bucket of ice on Daffy Duck, saying,
"here's quacked ice for a qwacked quacker." oc

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Hey Night, there was an Elmer Fudd cartoon that i clearly remember from
childhood, where he dumped a bucket of ice on Daffy Duck, saying,
"here's quacked ice for a qwacked quacker." oc


nightbat

Yes Officer oc, the VSP diehards quack on while the World Sun
hurdles and spin on their SF axis and they look for imaginary no
evidence strings. Without the dynamic Planck quantum dense micro energy
background space medium there could be no condensed energy mass Planet
anti quacks coming from the peanut clueless gallery. Talk about biting
the hand that feeds them, oh the humanity! Like the flat Earth the void
space cartoon characters are alive and well.

Happy New Year physical bean counters,
the nightbat