|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
P.S.
'Rote recitation' is a polite term for parroting. oc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |