What If

I think there's a general relativity relation between space and spinning
matter called the Lense-Thirring effect. A rotating neutron star would
"drag" space near its surface in the direction of the rotation, relative to
more distant points.

Jerry Abbott


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Sally wrote,

I'm struck by the fact that many
predictions of the Flowing Space model
match those of the Void model. What
sort of reasonable experiment, or even
thought experiment, would settle this
issue? Something that would return real
results?

How about standing on a bathroom scale? Is the readout you're getting
the result of "geometry" "attracting" you downward? Or, is it a direct
analog readout of matter's *resistance* to the flow of something? The
latticed blades of Dutch windmill 'catch' the force of the wind while
yet permeable to the wind. In like manner, could it be that the atomic
lattice of matter is 'catching' the force of the flowing spatial medium
while yet permeable to it? The denser the atomic lattice, the more
resistance it imposes, and the more the object 'weighs'. Or if this is
too tongue-in-cheek, there is the experiment suggested by Wolter: a
vertical superconducting rod. If the spatial-flow model is correct, it
should be possible to modulate the gravitic flow with superconducting
electric flow. The rod should literally change weight, becoming heavier
or lighter depending on direction of the juice.

I'm wondering if there is a possibility that Void/Flow models are, in
some sense,
equivalent?

They can be _treated_ as equivalent, yes, and space can be regarded _as
if_ it were a void until density gradients begin appearing. It's just
like the flat Earth. It's flatness 'works' acceptably well until the
Earth's curvature begins entering the picture. Similarly, void-space
'works' acceptably out to cosmological distances where the spatial
density begins really climbing. To continue applying the void space
regime into those regions is where the wierdness starts, and you get
interpretations like "ever-accelarating expansion" and the like.

Regarding gravitation, Painius and Odysseus seem to tentatively 'get
it'. Kevin is the only person I've yet connected with who *Gets It*. Or
at least from his feedback it appears that he does.
oc

I think there's a general relativity relation between space and spinning
matter called the Lense-Thirring effect. A rotating neutron star would
"drag" space near its surface in the direction of the rotation, relative to
more distant points.

Jerry Abbott


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Sally wrote,

I'm struck by the fact that many
predictions of the Flowing Space model
match those of the Void model. What
sort of reasonable experiment, or even
thought experiment, would settle this
issue? Something that would return real
results?

How about standing on a bathroom scale? Is the readout you're getting
the result of "geometry" "attracting" you downward? Or, is it a direct
analog readout of matter's *resistance* to the flow of something? The
latticed blades of Dutch windmill 'catch' the force of the wind while
yet permeable to the wind. In like manner, could it be that the atomic
lattice of matter is 'catching' the force of the flowing spatial medium
while yet permeable to it? The denser the atomic lattice, the more
resistance it imposes, and the more the object 'weighs'. Or if this is
too tongue-in-cheek, there is the experiment suggested by Wolter: a
vertical superconducting rod. If the spatial-flow model is correct, it
should be possible to modulate the gravitic flow with superconducting
electric flow. The rod should literally change weight, becoming heavier
or lighter depending on direction of the juice.

I'm wondering if there is a possibility that Void/Flow models are, in
some sense,
equivalent?

They can be _treated_ as equivalent, yes, and space can be regarded _as
if_ it were a void until density gradients begin appearing. It's just
like the flat Earth. It's flatness 'works' acceptably well until the
Earth's curvature begins entering the picture. Similarly, void-space
'works' acceptably out to cosmological distances where the spatial
density begins really climbing. To continue applying the void space
regime into those regions is where the wierdness starts, and you get
interpretations like "ever-accelarating expansion" and the like.

Regarding gravitation, Painius and Odysseus seem to tentatively 'get
it'. Kevin is the only person I've yet connected with who *Gets It*. Or
at least from his feedback it appears that he does.
oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Hey OGster

Thought you were outa here. Guess not.

I only said probably, and I'd rather talk to kevin in this instance.

In the post previous to yours, it talked about equations
being representations of the reality and not the reality itself, like
the schematic of a radio not being the radio. Same with the equations of
GR. They represent 'schematically' the mechanism of gravitation, but
they are not that mechanism.
Wolter had the greatest admiration for Einstein, because
even tho working under the void-space premise, he was able to correctly
represent 'schematically' the mechanism of gravity, and that is
testament to the man's sheer genius.

Did Wolter think gravity only originated in protons? or is that someone
else's mistake
(genuine question)

That which GR represents 'schematically' is now seen
revealed as the mechanism itself, the accelerating 'reverse starburst'
flow of the spatial medium. That is the natural expansion of GR- from
the 'blueprint to the building' so to speak. oc

Sorry oc, but "is now seen revealed" is, how shall we say, umm, subject to
debate.

I'll come back to this if you'll bear with me.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Hey OGster

Thought you were outa here. Guess not.

I only said probably, and I'd rather talk to kevin in this instance.

In the post previous to yours, it talked about equations
being representations of the reality and not the reality itself, like
the schematic of a radio not being the radio. Same with the equations of
GR. They represent 'schematically' the mechanism of gravitation, but
they are not that mechanism.
Wolter had the greatest admiration for Einstein, because
even tho working under the void-space premise, he was able to correctly
represent 'schematically' the mechanism of gravity, and that is
testament to the man's sheer genius.

Did Wolter think gravity only originated in protons? or is that someone
else's mistake
(genuine question)

That which GR represents 'schematically' is now seen
revealed as the mechanism itself, the accelerating 'reverse starburst'
flow of the spatial medium. That is the natural expansion of GR- from
the 'blueprint to the building' so to speak. oc

Sorry oc, but "is now seen revealed" is, how shall we say, umm, subject to
debate.

I'll come back to this if you'll bear with me.

"OG" wrote in message
...

I only said probably, and I'd rather talk to kevin in this instance.

My mistake - I actually said "likely to be my last posting"

anyway,
Kevin - I'd like to hear from you.

"OG" wrote in message
...

I only said probably, and I'd rather talk to kevin in this instance.

My mistake - I actually said "likely to be my last posting"

anyway,
Kevin - I'd like to hear from you.

OG,
Now that you're (predictably) back from your little sulk,
I just wanted to toss this by you-
Lest you thought I was berating the "curvature" imagery
of GR, nothing could be farher from the truth. Wolter saw the
'curvature' as sheer brilliance on the part of Einstein. In the sense of
it being a 'schematic' of the accelerating reverse-starburst flow, the
"curve" represents the acceleration-rate of the flow. oc

OG,
Now that you're (predictably) back from your little sulk,
I just wanted to toss this by you-
Lest you thought I was berating the "curvature" imagery
of GR, nothing could be farher from the truth. Wolter saw the
'curvature' as sheer brilliance on the part of Einstein. In the sense of
it being a 'schematic' of the accelerating reverse-starburst flow, the
"curve" represents the acceleration-rate of the flow. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG,
Now that you're (predictably) back from your little sulk,
I just wanted to toss this by you-
Lest you thought I was berating the "curvature" imagery
of GR, nothing could be farher from the truth.

No, but kevin was, and I was responding to him.

As I said - I'll respond to other matters later.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG,
Now that you're (predictably) back from your little sulk,
I just wanted to toss this by you-
Lest you thought I was berating the "curvature" imagery
of GR, nothing could be farher from the truth.

No, but kevin was, and I was responding to him.

As I said - I'll respond to other matters later.