A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old April 15th 04, 03:07 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yo Night
Yeah, the "fish contemplating the 'Ocean' " metaphor has
benn oft used by people other than Wolter, f'rinstance Jerry Shifner.
Unfortunately he uses the archaic term 'ether', ignoring the fact that
the historical 'aether' was deemed by the old theorists to be static and
immobile, incapable of flow. See- www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm

In private correspondance with Shifner and Lindner i have urged them to
abandon that 'E' word but they insist on using it, thus shooting
themselves in the foot and putting to sleep their credibility. oc

  #72  
Old April 15th 04, 05:10 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Yo Night
Yeah, the "fish contemplating the 'Ocean' " metaphor has
benn oft used by people other than Wolter, f'rinstance Jerry Shifner.
Unfortunately he uses the archaic term 'ether', ignoring the fact that
the historical 'aether' was deemed by the old theorists to be static and
immobile, incapable of flow. See- www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm


From the above reference ...

"The challenge for the scientific community is to pursue this line of
reasoning and attempt to construct a mathematical depiction of this model. "

Considering that this guy thinks that the scientific community is to stupid
to have considered this possibility, is he likely to believe it if he is
told that his ideas are crap???

And, why doesn't he hit the books himself and try to come up with a
solution???


In private correspondance with Shifner and Lindner i have urged them to
abandon that 'E' word but they insist on using it, thus shooting
themselves in the foot and putting to sleep their credibility. oc


  #73  
Old April 15th 04, 05:35 PM
nightbat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Yo Night
Yeah, the "fish contemplating the 'Ocean' " metaphor has
benn oft used by people other than Wolter, f'rinstance Jerry Shifner.
Unfortunately he uses the archaic term 'ether', ignoring the fact that
the historical 'aether' was deemed by the old theorists to be static and
immobile, incapable of flow. See- www.river.org/~jerry/telling.htm

In private correspondance with Shifner and Lindner i have urged them to
abandon that 'E' word but they insist on using it, thus shooting
themselves in the foot and putting to sleep their credibility. oc


nightbat

Hmmmm, how unfortunate that mainstreamer's should get caught up
in an old classical term long discarded or made expedient. Yet the lure
is apparently to claim it was always there but in the quantum. Still the
old understanding of macro spatial material flow and null result is well
embedded, so yes, difficult to over come. What is important is the
matter macro propensity of the particle flow to stable particles,
nucleus, and electron shells under normal gravity and pure nucleus under
heavy gravity. The dual reality of the micro and macro states further
complicates energies true ultimate nature of actual base natural flow
towards the quantum base ground state. This is where I differ with
Wolter's single cosmic engine, and postulate that the weak force of
gravity is actually a natural orientation effect towards renormalization
attempt of base field. The lumping or coarseness occurs as attempt by
matter to quickly reequalize and resultantly cause a back up effect or
time delineation to fine ground base field disbursement. The bathroom
drain analogy is fine for perceiving this natural attempt of small or
large particles to quickly drain and attempt to field equalize but
forced to clump up (attract), line up (neutralize), or separate (repel),
according to their individual energy states. Therefore the greater the
mass content of a body the greater the energy potential and hence the
greater the curvature pull towards localized base field flow from the
norm. The flow is towards the finer or lower metric base field itself in
general, but with the greater force effect generated by the higher
energy concentrated state of point mass concentrations. The Wolter
single donut theorized engine is " flow dependent " like my entire base
field pointing flow because of its present disturbed state of non
uniform equilibrium and indicative of causation of gravity.
Observationally, the flow is towards the quantum, or effected by local
mass body point contact world lines and occasionally some quantum
particles reemerge after volatile top sub state collisions temporarily.
There is an actual time delineation for disbursement to lower and lower
energy states apart from the over all energy content of original
dispersing particles and hence that is why condensed volume state plays
such an important roll in particle formation and its decay life, half
life, etc. Multiple state realities requiring multiple overlapping
university family group and singular particle state departmental
analysis and treatment.


the nightbat

  #74  
Old April 15th 04, 08:40 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From John Boy:

From the above reference ...

"The challenge for the scientific
community is to pursue this line of
reasoning and attempt to construct a
mathematical depiction of this model. "


He doesn't seem to sense as Wolter did that the math is already fully in
place in the 'curvature' equations of GR and that no further math is
needed. That, BTW, is a sweeping tribute to Uncle Albert's genius and
vision while laboring under the void-space paradigm.

Considering that this guy thinks that the
scientific community is to stupid to have
considered this possibility, is he likely to
believe it if he is told that his ideas are
crap???

And, why doesn't he hit the books
himself and try to come up with a
solution???


Why don't you take an honest stab at an original explanation of why c is
constant if there is 'no medium'? Painius says he respects you for your
mainstream stance. I would have some respect for your stance if, instead
of simply reciting rote data, you'd make an honest effort to explain
*why* you believe what you do. Still waiting, but not with bated
breath.g oc

  #76  
Old April 16th 04, 12:08 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

From Painius:

...the WNF (weak nuclear force),
additively with the WNF's of other atoms, "reaches out" and appears to
us as...

gravity.


In the spirit of friendly picayunishness, just what is the mechanism by
which the WF 'reaches out'?


g If i knew the answer to that, it'd be my "ticket to Stockholm!"
(as Jonathan Silverlight says).

I tend to shy away from "particle-transfer" ideas, and go moreso
with "radiation- or energy-transfer."

That's what i like most about Wolter's ideas... the energy transfer
may be sub-Planck level energy that we have not yet been able to
detect.

And for that matter (since nothing can
propagate faster than light), how does gravity 'get out' of a BH's event
horizon, apparently with total ease and with zero attenuation?


Obviously, this is evidence that "gravity" does *not* get out...
it *goes in*.

Does not gravity, by all its observed effects and
behavior, appear to be a center-ward, accelerating, pressure-driven flow
of 'Something'? And what's the objection to surmising that it just
*might* be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as? oc


Yes, and no objection. Gravity is space attracted to matter.
I'm certain of it. (Famous Last Words?) g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth


  #77  
Old April 16th 04, 12:15 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

Whenever i think this small, i remember back when long ago i read
about how there is sooo much space between a nucleus and its
accompanying electrons. And sooo much space between atoms,
and how "ghostly" reality seems to be. And i try and try, but i can't
even *imagine* what this "space" is they're talking about. When i
was a kid i just thought it was "air." But *that* can't be.

So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the heck is *that*?)

g see what you get for boggling my meager mind?


Even Einstein found the idea of "action at a distance" to be
"spooky". Even more counterintuitive (to my at-least-as-meagre mind,
at least) is the notion of space being quantized into 'bits of
nothing' of finite size.

--
Odysseus


Sounds as if you tend to think of space as being made of
something rather than being nothing. What do *you* think
space is?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth


  #78  
Old April 16th 04, 01:39 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Zinni" wrote in message .. .
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
To Ody:
Yeah, as you mentioned we've batted this stuff around
before about spins, orbitals etc. But such minutiae are incidental to
the weighty questions at hand like What is space? and What is gravity?
oc


I've never had much use for "Big Picture" men.

You can have the most aesthetically pleasing theory in the world, but if in
your theory, minutiae such as 1+1=2 do not hold, you're screwed.


Not an attack, John, just an observation...

There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2.
And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold."

And we are all "Big Picture" people, aren't we John? After all,
one molecule of H2O would go unnoticed by us, while an ocean
is hard to miss.

As much as i respect your ideas, your posts do sometimes
indicate that you have a difficult time seeing the forest for the
trees. And this post of yours tells me why...

You have no use for forests,
You only like the trees,
One tree on fire is not so bad,
Blazing forests? tragedies.

--
happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Painius


  #79  
Old April 16th 04, 04:06 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Painius to John Boy:

As much as i respect your ideas, your
posts do sometimes indicate that you
have a difficult time seeing the forest for
the trees. And this post of yours tells me
why...


I would res[ect his ideas too, if he HAD any ideas. So far all he's been
able to present is rote recitation and some semi-good natured
snottiness. oc

  #80  
Old April 16th 04, 04:08 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

P.S.
'Rote recitation' is a polite term for parroting. oc

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big Bang busted? Bob Wallum Astronomy Misc 8 March 16th 04 02:44 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week Ron Baalke Science 0 October 10th 03 04:14 PM
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth Ron Baalke Space Station 1 July 30th 03 12:01 AM
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth Ron Baalke Science 0 July 29th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.