|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
From OG:
The old coot asks how QM and GR can be accommodated in the same model; however he believes that the FSM is the only model that provides an integration of both and can't be persuaded that it is a flawed model in itself. Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects. ..entrainment gives some particular problems of its own, like why we don't see the postions of stars move as their light passes through the zone of 'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the Moon - there should be refraction as the light slows down and speeds up again through this zone. The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919 solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet translate laterally? You're being a little silly really. ..(at one point he thought that the effect of the charge on an electron would be less than that of a proton 'because the electron has less mass'); so any attempt to discuss basics comes to naught. Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba. But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face, but it has no relevance to causation. So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is yours___________ . oc |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects. You don't have a model Bill. What you have is a little wishful thinking and a few descriptions of your kitchen appliances. You claim that ... "Under the flowing-space model, the acceleration rate *is* GR's 'curvature'. And the math is already in place and extrapolates directly to FS without modification or addition," - BS - .... and yet continually reject the predictions of the mathematical model of GR. Without a mathematical model all you're left with is an interpretation of a model that does not exist. You have nothing. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects. You don't have a model Bill. What you have is a little wishful thinking and a few descriptions of your kitchen appliances. You claim that ... "Under the flowing-space model, the acceleration rate *is* GR's 'curvature'. And the math is already in place and extrapolates directly to FS without modification or addition," - BS - .... and yet continually reject the predictions of the mathematical model of GR. Without a mathematical model all you're left with is an interpretation of a model that does not exist. You have nothing. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: The old coot asks how QM and GR can be accommodated in the same model; however he believes that the FSM is the only model that provides an integration of both and can't be persuaded that it is a flawed model in itself. Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects. No it isn't. The role I've taken on is to counter the argument that FSM provides an adequate description. You yourself have failed to provide a coherent explanation for how FSM causes matter to accelerate. When you asked Lindner to explain he came up with some garbage about space wrapping itself around leptons to form hadrons. That didn't explain how FSM caused matter to accelerate either. ..entrainment gives some particular problems of its own, like why we don't see the postions of stars move as their light passes through the zone of 'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the Moon - there should be refraction as the light slows down and speeds up again through this zone. The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919 solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet translate laterally? You're being a little silly really. You don't understand entrainment do you? ..(at one point he thought that the effect of the charge on an electron would be less than that of a proton 'because the electron has less mass'); so any attempt to discuss basics comes to naught. Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba. But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face, but it has no relevance to causation. ditto. Assertion is not proof. Your model can't explain why things start to accelerate in the vicinity of planets. You seem to forget that until I explained your own model you thought it was the 'speed' of FS that caused matter to accelerate, not the 'acceleration' of FS itself. Is this another 'detail'. Ha! So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is yours___________ . oc As explained, I'm simply offering a corrective to the failed FSM model you keep putting forward. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG: The old coot asks how QM and GR can be accommodated in the same model; however he believes that the FSM is the only model that provides an integration of both and can't be persuaded that it is a flawed model in itself. Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects. No it isn't. The role I've taken on is to counter the argument that FSM provides an adequate description. You yourself have failed to provide a coherent explanation for how FSM causes matter to accelerate. When you asked Lindner to explain he came up with some garbage about space wrapping itself around leptons to form hadrons. That didn't explain how FSM caused matter to accelerate either. ..entrainment gives some particular problems of its own, like why we don't see the postions of stars move as their light passes through the zone of 'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the Moon - there should be refraction as the light slows down and speeds up again through this zone. The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919 solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet translate laterally? You're being a little silly really. You don't understand entrainment do you? ..(at one point he thought that the effect of the charge on an electron would be less than that of a proton 'because the electron has less mass'); so any attempt to discuss basics comes to naught. Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba. But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face, but it has no relevance to causation. ditto. Assertion is not proof. Your model can't explain why things start to accelerate in the vicinity of planets. You seem to forget that until I explained your own model you thought it was the 'speed' of FS that caused matter to accelerate, not the 'acceleration' of FS itself. Is this another 'detail'. Ha! So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is yours___________ . oc As explained, I'm simply offering a corrective to the failed FSM model you keep putting forward. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
From Jb:
... and yet continually reject the predictions of the mathematical model of GR. The specific "prediction", as you well know, is that sidebar tagged onto the main body of GR dealing with polarizarion of 'gravitational waves'. It does not intrude on the main body of GR itself. Do you actually believe gravity and GWs are the same thing??? Are you really as stupid as you come across as, or do you have to work at it??? You have nothing. Speak for yourself. Hurrumph. oc |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
From Jb:
... and yet continually reject the predictions of the mathematical model of GR. The specific "prediction", as you well know, is that sidebar tagged onto the main body of GR dealing with polarizarion of 'gravitational waves'. It does not intrude on the main body of GR itself. Do you actually believe gravity and GWs are the same thing??? Are you really as stupid as you come across as, or do you have to work at it??? You have nothing. Speak for yourself. Hurrumph. oc |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Well OGster, you're a tough bird. And i certainly don't expect to change
your view one iota. Unlike Mr. Jb, you present cogent, valid arguments. And i respect you for your stance. But just for the record, if you recall, the question of gravity-inertia equivalence was addressed on that property of the medium which Wolter called 'hyperfluidity'. It concerns the fact that an object in static space resists acceleration, but once accelerated resists deceleration. Conversely, momentum is imparted to a fixed object in accelerating space. Yet no momentum is imparted in non-accelerating, flowing space. This is a summation of how hyperfluidity underlies and fixes the laws of inertia and momentum. Wolter regarded hyperfluidity as second cousin to quantum nonlocality, and like nonlocality, is simply 'what is', a given. To a person such as yourself, full innerworking of the 'givens' is paramount. To someone else, the 'big picture' is paramount, and the givens simply take their rightful place within the Whole. To each his own. For whatever it's worth, this site addresses in some depth the "why does acceleration impart momentum?" question (page four). Unfortunately the archaic term 'ether' is used. AAk. - www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm Best regards |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Well OGster, you're a tough bird. And i certainly don't expect to change
your view one iota. Unlike Mr. Jb, you present cogent, valid arguments. And i respect you for your stance. But just for the record, if you recall, the question of gravity-inertia equivalence was addressed on that property of the medium which Wolter called 'hyperfluidity'. It concerns the fact that an object in static space resists acceleration, but once accelerated resists deceleration. Conversely, momentum is imparted to a fixed object in accelerating space. Yet no momentum is imparted in non-accelerating, flowing space. This is a summation of how hyperfluidity underlies and fixes the laws of inertia and momentum. Wolter regarded hyperfluidity as second cousin to quantum nonlocality, and like nonlocality, is simply 'what is', a given. To a person such as yourself, full innerworking of the 'givens' is paramount. To someone else, the 'big picture' is paramount, and the givens simply take their rightful place within the Whole. To each his own. For whatever it's worth, this site addresses in some depth the "why does acceleration impart momentum?" question (page four). Unfortunately the archaic term 'ether' is used. AAk. - www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm Best regards |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... Well OGster, you're a tough bird. And i certainly don't expect to change your view one iota. Unlike Mr. Jb, you present cogent, valid arguments. And i respect you for your stance. But just for the record, if you recall, the question of gravity-inertia equivalence was addressed on that property of the medium which Wolter called 'hyperfluidity'. It concerns the fact that an object in static space resists acceleration, but once accelerated resists deceleration. Conversely, momentum is imparted to a fixed object in accelerating space. Yet no momentum is imparted in non-accelerating, flowing space. This is a summation of how hyperfluidity underlies and fixes the laws of inertia and momentum. Wolter regarded hyperfluidity as second cousin to quantum nonlocality, and like nonlocality, is simply 'what is', a given. This comes under the 'describing, not explaining' heading you reject for non FSM theories. To a person such as yourself, full innerworking of the 'givens' is paramount. To someone else, the 'big picture' is paramount, and the givens simply take their rightful place within the Whole. To each his own. So you accept that you are 'describing, not explaining' . Good - we are getting somewhere. For whatever it's worth, this site addresses in some depth the "why does acceleration impart momentum?" question (page four). Unfortunately the archaic term 'ether' is used. AAk. - www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm Best regards Do you mean the bit that starts "If the electron is a vortex, very likely other subatomic entities which compose matter are also vortices or combinations of vortices (with the exception of neutrinos if one considers them to be components of matter). " If you start with a premise such as that; and think that "[it is] very likely that" forms part of a formal proof, then you are being deluded. Once again the argument FAILS to explain why the force is dependent on the 'acceleration' of the flow of space rather than the 'velocity' I quote "the ether flowing into each vortex and into large concentrations of vortices (such as our planet) would be an accelerating force". Since all forces are accelerating it would be surprising if any other conclusion was possible, but clearly it implies that the acceleration is a result of the _amount_ of flow. However, the model depends on the gravitational acceleration being due to the 'acceleration' of space in the vicinity of the mass. Can you tell the difference? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Information to Can Leave A Black Hole | flamestar | Science | 2 | December 12th 03 11:12 PM |
information can leave a black hole | James Briggs | Science | 0 | December 6th 03 01:15 AM |
Chandra 'Hears' A Black Hole | Ron Baalke | Misc | 30 | October 4th 03 06:22 PM |
Black hole mass-sigma correlation | Hans Aberg | Research | 44 | October 1st 03 11:39 PM |
Universe Born in Black Hole Explosion? | Klaatu | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | September 21st 03 12:12 AM |