What If

What if photons lose their motion? What if an electron loses its spin?
What if quarks lose their vibration? What if the macro universe lost all
its motion of expansion? Lot of "what ifs" However these conditions
are found everywhere in the universe. Not space between the stars,but
inside a blackhole. Bert

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Hey John,
On the issue of polarization of GWs, can you think of
any reason why a sound wave should be anything other than longitudinal?

What do sound waves have to do with GWs???


Again, the 'no medium' premise dictates against an
analogy with sound, mandating a 'metric' forbidding longitudinal
propagation.

Why???

Once the reality of the medium is accepted, it dont't
take no steenkin' math or convoluted 'metric' to deduce the nature of
GWs as _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ exactly analogous to sound, but
propagating at c, and a GW antenna as a specialized acoustic microphone
to detect those _longitudinal_ waves. Since they are expected to overlap
the human auditory range, they would be "hearable" directly, without
downconversion as in radio. oc

Listen, listen very carefully. Do you hear that??? Didn't think so. Nether
do I.

From John:

What do sound waves have to do with
GWs???

The commonality of longitudinal propagation.

Oldcoot
sez:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Again, the 'no medium' premise dictates against an analogy with sound,
mandating a 'metric' forbidding longitudinal propagation.

John sez:

Why???

In the absence of a *literal* elastic support medium amenable to
*literal* compression-rarefaction, there would be no mechanism to
support longitudinal propagation. Neither, as you have pointed out,
would there be anything to support transverse waves. Thus a mathematical
metric has to be devised to describe propagation under the 'no medium'
dictate. And it ends up kinda dumb looking at best.
Polarization of GWs was a sidebar to the central
tenets of relativity, and does not impact the correctness of those
central tenets (like the constancy of c in all referance frames and the
"curvature" describing gravity).

Listen, listen very carefully. Do you hear
that??? Didn't think so. Nether
do I.

Narf. (Spits tobacco wad and puts ear horn into ear) "Eh what say,
sonny?"

oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

In the absence of a *literal* elastic support medium amenable to
*literal* compression-rarefaction, there would be no mechanism to
support longitudinal propagation. Neither, as you have pointed out,
would there be anything to support transverse waves. Thus a mathematical
metric has to be devised to describe propagation under the 'no medium'
dictate. And it ends up kinda dumb looking at best.

Shouldn't you get together with the other "different people have intuited
exactly the same sucking-space model independantly," sharpen your pencils
and come up with a metric that doesn't look so dumb???

That's flowing space, John. "Sucking" seems to be your exclusive
bailiwik. Ha ha, gotcha.

Tell ya what. We've beat the subject to death. You're indelibly wedded
to your paradigm and apparently happy with it, which is fine. Wolter had
total charity toward void-spacers, recognizing their frame of referance
and its accoutrements as valid to them, in his admonition to "always see
thru the other fellow's eyes, see his frame of referance."
So enjoy your paradigm. Peace, farewell, live long and
prosper.

Exiting thread. oc

Bye jerk.
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
That's flowing space, John. "Sucking" seems to be your exclusive
bailiwik. Ha ha, gotcha.

Tell ya what. We've beat the subject to death. You're indelibly wedded
to your paradigm and apparently happy with it, which is fine. Wolter had
total charity toward void-spacers, recognizing their frame of referance
and its accoutrements as valid to them, in his admonition to "always see
thru the other fellow's eyes, see his frame of referance."
So enjoy your paradigm. Peace, farewell, live long and
prosper.

Exiting thread. oc

Hi BV I'm laughing you make it sound like "what if" can be catchy. BV
if you were in a spaceship being pulled into a blackhole you would
accelerate faster and faster(gravity getting stronger and stronger) time
would slow down for you,but using relativity you would not notice this.
However I take exception to realivity and have astronauts dead when the
spaceship reaches a speed of 94% of "c" That is part of
my inertia theory Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi BV I'm laughing you make it sound like "what if" can be catchy. BV
if you were in a spaceship being pulled into a blackhole you would
accelerate faster and faster(gravity getting stronger and stronger) time
would slow down for you,but using relativity you would not notice this.
However I take exception to realivity and have astronauts dead when the
spaceship reaches a speed of 94% of "c" That is part of
my inertia theory Bert

I have not read your Inertia Theory so I can't address that, but if I were
going close to C, time would dialate for me, but not for observers outside
my frame. That's all I was saying. I for one am still on the SR bandwagon. I
am not equipped to argue against it...yet. LOL.

Now how about my what if? If time slows under an immense gravity field,
maybe near the singularity, time ceases totally. Maybe you never do get
ripped apart, as time just stops. Ooh...not so iffy eh?

BV.

Hi BV Not iffy at all gravity controls time. Even on Earth time goes
slower at the poles than at the horizon.(hard to measure,but true).
I don't want you to think my theories go against SR or GR,.but I now
live at a time when we have the Cern accelerator,and that is something
Einstien never had. Fact is when he was formulating his theories the
universe was the size of the Milky Way,and no Hubble red shift. It is
what the Cern accelerator is showing us that proves my inertia theory.
Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi BV Not iffy at all gravity controls time. Even on Earth time goes
slower at the poles than at the horizon.(hard to measure,but true).
I don't want you to think my theories go against SR or GR,.but I now
live at a time when we have the Cern accelerator,and that is something
Einstien never had. Fact is when he was formulating his theories the
universe was the size of the Milky Way,and no Hubble red shift. It is
what the Cern accelerator is showing us that proves my inertia theory.


So what is your intertia theory? Care to share? My offer still stands for
providing you with web space to publish your ideas.

BV.