How Do Gravitons Actually Work? (was - Black Hole Eats . . .)(Sucks, too! npi)

On Apr 11, 12:18 am, "Painius" wrote:

And this is where folks get sidetracked on the idea
of "flowing space". They take the analogies just a
bit too literally. The sink analogy, the river flowing
analogy, the wind through the windmill sail analogy,
these are all flows of matter, and therefore there is
definite "motion" involved.

The flow of spatial energy is more like the "flow" of
an electromagnetic signal from an antenna to your
radio or TV.

Presumably the intent of your last sentance was to say this : "The
flow of spatial energy is more like the 'flow' of an electromagnetic
signal from a transmitting antenna to your radio or TV's antenna."

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGhhhhh. Groannnn. Dude!! 'Member the discussions about
the difference between *propagation* and Flow? A wave propagates (like
a wave across a pond) while its carrier medium, the water, remains in
place.
But a river *flows*. Likewise, the carrier medium of
EM radiation, the "water", the sub-Planckian "stuff" of space itself,
can literally (not figuratively) *flow*. And it's the *accelerating*
flow of the stuff of space that imparts momentum to matter, causing
the effect we call gravity. Without the _acceleration_ component,
there is no 'curvature of space', no gravity, no momentum imparted
*irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*.
This superfluidic (or 'hyperfluidic') property of of
space underlies and fixes the laws of inertia, conservation of
momentum, and gravity-acceleration equivalence. I.e., when you
accelerate an object in space, the inertia you feel is literally the
resistance *of space itself* to the applied acceleration.. which is
the causal mechanism behind the gravity-acceleration equivalence Uncle
Albert so eloquently *described* in his famous "space elevator"
scenario. Yet when released from acceleration, the object will
continue on frictionlessly forever (per Newton's first law).

And as mentioned so many times recently, flowing space relates
directly and intimately to the issue of "dark matter" and the
perceived excess of gravitational lensing of distant galaxies. Light,
being massless, is deflected (lensed) in traversing *any* flow whether
the flow is accelerating or not. Thus, large scale non-accelerating
flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is
observed. It is simple *flow lensing*, not "gravitational" lensing. No
mythical "dark matter" is required to explain it.

If it walks like a 4-D field, and it quacks like a 4-D field,
and it hangs out with other 4-D fields.. it might be a 4-D field.

You missed one possibility, Jeff. It could just be Jeff Relf! lmao!

Saul Levy


On 15 Apr 2008 18:53:03 GMT, wrote:

If it walks like a 4-D field, and it quacks like a 4-D field,
and it hangs out with other 4-D fields.. it might be a 4-D field.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Apr 11, 12:18 am, "Painius" wrote:

And this is where folks get sidetracked on the idea
of "flowing space". They take the analogies just a
bit too literally. The sink analogy, the river flowing
analogy, the wind through the windmill sail analogy,
these are all flows of matter, and therefore there is
definite "motion" involved.

The flow of spatial energy is more like the "flow" of
an electromagnetic signal from an antenna to your
radio or TV.

Presumably the intent of your last sentance was to say this : "The
flow of spatial energy is more like the 'flow' of an electromagnetic
signal from a transmitting antenna to your radio or TV's antenna."

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGhhhhh. Groannnn. Dude!! 'Member the discussions about
the difference between *propagation* and Flow? A wave propagates (like
a wave across a pond) while its carrier medium, the water, remains in
place.

Oh, calm down, you ol' coot! You and i and many others
know the difference between "flow" and "propagation".
That's why it's called an "analogy". But i think it's easier
to understand the flow of space analogous to the flow of
THE CARRIER WAVE. See the diff?

The signal modulating the carrier is propagated. But the
carrier itself either remains in place, as in the "transverse"
motion of water, or it moves like air molecules move with
sound, a "longitudinal" type wave.

And it's still believed that the carrier of an electronic sig.
is modulated in transverse fashion, i know. Maybe so,
maybe not. All i know is that you often speak of gravity
waves and how their motion is longitudinal. So it seems
to me that a jump from an electronic or sound signal to
the flow of space is...

less of a leap

....than the jump from a flowing material river to flowing
space.

It's my way of saying, "Little bites!" at a time. I think
the river flowing analogy is totally confusing to those who
tether themselves to the Void-Space Paradigm.

So, if i'm reading you correctly, you don't think that the
"big guy" was correct when he ascribed "no motion to it"?
("it" being the ether)

But a river *flows*. Likewise, the carrier medium of
EM radiation, the "water", the sub-Planckian "stuff" of space itself,
can literally (not figuratively) *flow*. And it's the *accelerating*
flow of the stuff of space that imparts momentum to matter, causing
the effect we call gravity. Without the _acceleration_ component,
there is no 'curvature of space', no gravity, no momentum imparted
*irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*.
This superfluidic (or 'hyperfluidic') property of of
space underlies and fixes the laws of inertia, conservation of
momentum, and gravity-acceleration equivalence. I.e., when you
accelerate an object in space, the inertia you feel is literally the
resistance *of space itself* to the applied acceleration.. which is
the causal mechanism behind the gravity-acceleration equivalence Uncle
Albert so eloquently *described* in his famous "space elevator"
scenario. Yet when released from acceleration, the object will
continue on frictionlessly forever (per Newton's first law).

And as mentioned so many times recently, flowing space relates
directly and intimately to the issue of "dark matter" and the
perceived excess of gravitational lensing of distant galaxies. Light,
being massless, is deflected (lensed) in traversing *any* flow whether
the flow is accelerating or not. Thus, large scale non-accelerating
flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is
observed. It is simple *flow lensing*, not "gravitational" lensing. No
mythical "dark matter" is required to explain it.

I understand, and so far agree with, your words on the
myth of dark matter and its need to support the incorrect
VSP. And i see the distinction you make above as one
between a lensing effect of space itself (flow lensing) and
a lensing effect of large bodies of matter (gravitational
lensing). But since "flow" and "gravitational" are related
terms in the CBB model, we might want to rethink calling
it "flow lensing". Maybe a general term such as "spatial
lensing" emits more clarity?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

On Apr 24, 8:59 am, "Painius" wrote:

..You and i and many others
know the difference between "flow" and "propagation".
That's why it's called an "analogy". But i think it's easier
to understand the flow of space analogous to the flow of
THE CARRIER WAVE. See the diff?

No, amigo. You da one who ain't seeing the diff. The carrier wave
(e.g., radio, light) propagates through its carrier medium (the
'stuff' of space) which in practcal terms *could* be absolutely
stationary.

The signal modulating the carrier is propagated. But the
carrier itself.. remains in place...

Nein, nyet. :-) The modulating signal is propagated *with* its carrier
wave while the carrier medium remains in place.

And it's still believed that the carrier of an electronic sig.
is modulated in transverse fashion, i know. Maybe so,
maybe not. All i know is that you often speak of gravity
waves and how their motion is longitudinal...

Absolutely. Zinni's sqwawks notwithstanding. :-)

So it seems
to me that a jump from an electronic or sound signal to
the flow of space is...

less of a leap

...than the jump from a flowing material river to flowing
space.

Nope, don't see that at all, no way. A propagating wave does not
equate to the flow of a river or the *very literal* flow of the very
literal 'stuff' of space... which as mentioned many times, causes
gravity when and *only* when that flow of space is accelerating.

It's my way of saying, "Little bites!" at a time. I think
the river flowing analogy is totally confusing to those who
tether themselves to the Void-Space Paradigm.

Of course it's confusing to them since their space-as-void mandate
prohibits a literal flow of a literal medium. The only way they can
relate to the 'River Model' is by way of analogy.. seeing the
figurative "flow" against a fixed background metric instead of
seeing :

_The literal flow of the background metric itself_.

So, if i'm reading you correctly, you don't think that the
"big guy" was correct when he ascribed "no motion to it"?
("it" being the ether)

He was reiterating the then-in-vogue Lorentzian 'rigid lattice'
concept, which was finally dumped and rightly so. But the baby was
dumped with the bathwater. :-)

I understand, and so far agree with.. the
myth of dark matter and the need for it in support of the incorrect
VSP. And i see the distinction you make.. as one
between a lensing effect of space itself (flow lensing) and
a lensing effect of large bodies of matter (gravitational
lensing). But since "flow" and "gravitational" are related
terms in the CBB model, we might want to rethink calling
it "flow lensing". Maybe a general term such as "spatial
lensing" emits more..

No. The distinction between simple flow lensing and "gravitational"
lensing is absolutely pivotal to the 'dark matter' issue. The term
"spatial lensing" is generalized and would fail to make this
distinction.

Painius Right you are River flowing is "motion" of water molecules.
Water has weight. Weight is created by "gravity" Motion(speed of) +
weight = force Again I see no great analogy for gravity. I do see the
dog chasing its own tail. True gravitons are a hypothetical particle,so
are gluons,and the electron cloud. That is why we needed that Texas
collider. Bert