A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old December 20th 06, 10:57 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius[_2_] Painius[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Okay, in science the word "accelerate" actually can
be positive or negative. And of course, a "negative
acceleration" would be a "deceleration". I'm taking
you to mean that the flow of space is a positive
acceleration as it approaches a gravity well. Space
"speeds up" as it enters the mass of a planet or a
star.


I realize that you're just another coffeeboi,
Puddleduck, but i'll be glad to tolerate you,
since even coffeebois have a perfect right to
be here.

And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it
turtles all the way down?


I don't know the answer to this, other than
to say that, no, i don't think it's turtles all the
way down, Puddleduck.

We [tinw] *do* know how earthly things flow,
such as the ocean flowing in reference to the
sea bottom, the adjacent coastlines and even
to other parts of the ocean. As for space, the
main attractive reference would be whatever
it is that may act as a container and medium
to which flowing space can be referenced.

This would be akin to asking, "What was in
existence before the Big Bang?" or "What is
space expanding *into*?" and these are, for
now, questions without adequate and
meaningful answers.

On a more practical level, we may be able to
say that space flows in reference to mass, or
perhaps more accurately, space flows with
reference to gravity wells. Double-A brought
out the analogy to Earthly electricity, with the
emf or "voltage" in the Ohm's law formula...

E = IR

....similar to the engine that "runs" flowing
space, an engine called the "supra-cosmic
overpressure" or "SCO". Flowing space itself
then is roughly identified with the electrical
current in the formula, or "I" (intensity of
current). This may imply that there is an R
somewhere in all this, and observations may
strongly suggest that gravity wells provide
the R (resistance) to flowing space.

This would imply that space is flowing more slowly
out among the stars, and perhaps even more slowly,
kind of like molasses out between the galaxies and
galaxy clusters. Here is an inconsistency as i see it.


Utter rubbish


Actually, i agree. It is a more sound idea
that space flows very quickly out among
the stars, and even faster out between the
galaxies and clusters. The gravity wells of
galaxies slow the flow of space, as do the
gravity wells of stars, planets and even of
atoms!

Astronomy's observations indicate that space does
expand, and it may expand at speeds that far exceed
the speed of light without going against the special
theory of relativity. Recent observations appear to
indicate that the expansion of space is accelerating.
All this tends to make me think that space outside
our Solar System, and especially outside our Milky
Way Galaxy, is flowing and expanding at extremely
high speeds.


Really? Funny how Hipparcos proves thats BS.


What exactly are you saying that Hipparcos is
disproving, Puddleduck? Keep in mind that this
experiment is very limited in its scope.

So it is more consistent to think that flowing space
must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and
planets.


So many words, so little science. Step away from the bong, saucerheads.


You will get no argument from me that the
concept of flowing space is no more truly a
scientific concept than is quantum gravity or GR.
None of that is science either in terms of
explaining the cause of gravity. The only reason
QG and GR are *recognized" as being science is
because they are the brainchilds of scientists.

You, Puddleduck, would be wise to keep in mind
that the concept of flowing space is to be
considered as quite possibly the brainchild of old
Albert Einstein himself...

". . . one should not desist from pursuing to
the end the path of the relativistic field theory."

A little earlier in _Relativity: The Special and the
General Theory_ Einstein wrote...

"By this is meant a theory which describes
exhaustively physical reality, including four-
dimensional space, by a field."

Since, at the time, Einstein had discarded the
idea of a static, non-moving "ether", one can
only conclude that he was talking about space
as being a field that is non-static and moving,
a flowing field...

flowing space

(!)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are here and now!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


  #112  
Old December 20th 06, 12:34 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius[_2_] Painius[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

"Bill Sheppard" wrote...
in message ...
From Painius re. 'hadronic flow':

Here is a major inconsistency in Wolter's
argument. Space speeds up a lot going
into the Sun. Space speeds up less
going into Jupiter, even less going into
Earth, and even less going into Mars. So
the less mass involved, it would seem
the less space speeds up. So why isn't it
going its SLOWEST speed into an atom,
the smallest mass of all?


Well, Wolter had no 'argument' per se.


I see what you mean, Bill, but i was using "argument"
in more of a "theory" context, i.e., an argument for
the CBB model which opposes the void-space paradigm.

He pictured the proton as a
microscale black hole analog replete with its own 'event horizon'. It
would be my conjecture then, that the flow hits the speed of light as it
enters the nucleus, just as it does when it enters a BH. Wolter pictured
the subnuclear domain as not part the external universe since it does
not *directly* participate in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows 'out
here'. That's why he excluded the Weak force, seeing it as more of a
'subset' of the Strong force.

Regarding the disparite inflow velocities you cite at the surface of
planets, suns etc., you gotta think of these bodies as aggregate
collections of protons. The bigger the aggregate, the bigger the
collective 'sink' it forms, and the greater the inflow velocity. When
the aggregate is sufficiently massive to form a BH, the inflow velocity
then equals the inflow velocity of its constituent protons, which is the
speed of light.
Wolter didn't go into this much detail, but i'm
extrapolating here from his basic model of the proton as a microscale BH
analog.


It's still very hard for me to see how the flow
would accelerate to c into a proton, accelerate
so much, much less into Mercury, then more
again into Mars, Earth, Jupiter and ultimately
into a BH, specially one at the center of a
galaxy.

Recent observations appear to indicate
that the expansion of space is
accelerating. All this tends to make me
think that space outside our Solar
System, and especially outside our Milky
Way Galaxy, is flowing and expanding at
extremely high speeds.


What recent observations? Presumably you're referrin' to the 1a
supernova dimming, which is observed at extreme cosmological distances,
not in our immediale galactic environs. If such expansion were occuring
'locally' (ie, out to a radius of a few billion LY or so), we oughta be
seeing excessive dimming and reddening locally, which is not the case.
oc


We must remember that even very great speeds
are perceived as being very slow, even not there
at all, when the distances are great. We might
have a handle on radial velocities, but at great
distances the lateral, side-to-side or transverse
velocity (aka "proper motion") is as yet impossible
to detect and measure at galactic distances.

So this is not really a good way to determine the
speed(s) of expanding, flowing space, or whether
these speeds are fast or slow.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are here and now!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


  #113  
Old December 20th 06, 01:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius[_2_] Painius[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From NB:

The trouble in trying to get profound
original thought to final understanding of
the clueless is that they are normally too
busy comparing copied notes and search
engine findings...


Yeah, they shoulda starred in the Wizard of Oz as one of those
'challenged' characters, with the lament "If I Only Had a Brain." :-) oc


My favorite from that one is "Over the Rainbow"
on which Judy Garland did an exquisite job! I
sometimes picture Shirley Temple singing this
song. She turned down the role of "Dorothy"
before it was offered to Garland. And this gave
Judy a "foot-in-the-door" into Hollywood.

Betcha Temple et al. regretted that one!

So how 'bout this, Bill...

Black Holes are not the only ones that have a
Schwarzschild surface (event horizon). ALL
gravity wells have such a surface, and they are
not as well-defined as that of a BH.

So here comes flowing space toward the Solar
System. As it approaches the SS of our Sun,
the resistance slows flowing space to a speed
determined mostly by the mass of the Sun. At
this point, space then begins once again to
accelerate toward the Sun, reaching maximum
speed at the surface of the Sun.

If a planet like Jupiter gets in the way of this
essentially Solar spaceflow, the SS of the planet
serves as a resistance to the flow, and space
must slow way down at the planet's SS so that
it may accelerate into the planet. How much it
slows down, and how fast it enters the surface of
the planet is governed mainly by the mass of the
planet.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are here and now!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


  #114  
Old December 20th 06, 03:12 PM posted to alt.astronomy
nightbat[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,217
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:
"Bill Sheppard" wrote...
in message ...

From Painius re. 'hadronic flow':

Here is a major inconsistency in Wolter's
argument. Space speeds up a lot going
into the Sun. Space speeds up less
going into Jupiter, even less going into
Earth, and even less going into Mars. So
the less mass involved, it would seem
the less space speeds up. So why isn't it
going its SLOWEST speed into an atom,
the smallest mass of all?


Well, Wolter had no 'argument' per se.



I see what you mean, Bill, but i was using "argument"
in more of a "theory" context, i.e., an argument for
the CBB model which opposes the void-space paradigm.


He pictured the proton as a
microscale black hole analog replete with its own 'event horizon'. It
would be my conjecture then, that the flow hits the speed of light as it
enters the nucleus, just as it does when it enters a BH. Wolter pictured
the subnuclear domain as not part the external universe since it does
not *directly* participate in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows 'out
here'. That's why he excluded the Weak force, seeing it as more of a
'subset' of the Strong force.

Regarding the disparite inflow velocities you cite at the surface of
planets, suns etc., you gotta think of these bodies as aggregate
collections of protons. The bigger the aggregate, the bigger the
collective 'sink' it forms, and the greater the inflow velocity. When
the aggregate is sufficiently massive to form a BH, the inflow velocity
then equals the inflow velocity of its constituent protons, which is the
speed of light.
Wolter didn't go into this much detail, but i'm
extrapolating here from his basic model of the proton as a microscale BH
analog.



It's still very hard for me to see how the flow
would accelerate to c into a proton, accelerate
so much, much less into Mercury, then more
again into Mars, Earth, Jupiter and ultimately
into a BH, specially one at the center of a
galaxy.


Recent observations appear to indicate
that the expansion of space is
accelerating. All this tends to make me
think that space outside our Solar
System, and especially outside our Milky
Way Galaxy, is flowing and expanding at
extremely high speeds.


What recent observations? Presumably you're referrin' to the 1a
supernova dimming, which is observed at extreme cosmological distances,
not in our immediale galactic environs. If such expansion were occuring
'locally' (ie, out to a radius of a few billion LY or so), we oughta be
seeing excessive dimming and reddening locally, which is not the case.
oc



We must remember that even very great speeds
are perceived as being very slow, even not there
at all, when the distances are great. We might
have a handle on radial velocities, but at great
distances the lateral, side-to-side or transverse
velocity (aka "proper motion") is as yet impossible
to detect and measure at galactic distances.

So this is not really a good way to determine the
speed(s) of expanding, flowing space, or whether
these speeds are fast or slow.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!


nightbat

Hello Officer Painius it is always good to see your posts and
devotion to science theoretical inquiry. The coffee boys being what they
are silly disruptive clueless ones including the occasional new ones
that invade from time to time should never deter you from your excellent
deep pondering. The important concept that Officer oc presents via
Wolter's model is the space flow premise via unique outer Universe
engine model to which at least it tries to help provide a causation for
gravity and Universe internal dynamics. Wolter was perceptive in
deducing a need for first cause motive action model to hopefully explain
ongoing field effects of which at his time including to date as you well
know were and are severely lacking. Not until the nightbat and my long
ago spotting of Officers oc's for Wolters net presentation has any other
concept even come close to disclosing a more viable theoretical
premise. The applied Wolter field formulation logic is brilliant for
attempt to close gravitation loop problem and unification.

The trouble however for deep field hopeful unification theorists and
mathematicians is we have one observed physical Universe and the
perimeters for acceptable model per observable co-Peer verification and
confirmation are therefore quite restricting without going into hyper
inter-dimensional, multiverse, outerverse (Wolter's), parallelverse,
multi branes, multiple strings, imagined theoretical non evidence based
extensions.

The attempted field unification task is by no means minute or expedient
for no comparable acceptable frame model has ever existed in out space
time. Even without ultimate first cause actual identification a
practical relative applicable model to at least dynamic effects
explanation is needed without reserve. In other words a theoretical to
real world applicable working premise for gravity causation is needed
for field gravitational loop closure and fundamental field dynamics base
understanding. Man made applied coordinates are viable without true
field internal first cause understanding yet resultant practical full
knowledge internal field theory and extensions are naturally therefore
subjugated and unity lacking.

The nightbat discovery of field unification was as Dr. Einstein
perceived beyond normal human grasp for no comparable model ever
existed. No previous math's or examineable mathematical equations or
proofs therefore could unity assist or applied extensions permit and
enlightenly disclose what has never existed for examination. The
verifiable proof however was in discovered field latent memory, lending
to every physical energy/mass particle knowing its present relative
position to where it should field original position place be or versus
to original field pure uniform momentum.


ponder on,
the nightbat
  #115  
Old December 20th 06, 04:09 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Utter, utter rubbish.


And you're certain of this because . . . (?)


Because gravity propagates at c.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #116  
Old December 20th 06, 04:13 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

I realize that you're just another coffeeboi,
Puddleduck, but i'll be glad to tolerate you,
since even coffeebois have a perfect right to
be here.


I am so honoured.

And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it
turtles all the way down?


I don't know the answer to this, other than
to say that, no, i don't think it's turtles all the
way down, Puddleduck.

We [tinw] *do* know how earthly things flow,
such as the ocean flowing in reference to the
sea bottom, the adjacent coastlines and even
to other parts of the ocean. As for space, the
main attractive reference would be whatever
it is that may act as a container and medium
to which flowing space can be referenced.


So all you are doing is adding another layer of complexity, with no
grounds in physical reality, just to pretend you are a scientist.

This would be akin to asking, "What was in
existence before the Big Bang?" or "What is
space expanding *into*?" and these are, for
now, questions without adequate and
meaningful answers.


Most of your questions are reasonably meaningless.


On a more practical level, we may be able to
say that space flows in reference to mass, or
perhaps more accurately, space flows with
reference to gravity wells. Double-A brought
out the analogy to Earthly electricity, with the
emf or "voltage" in the Ohm's law formula...

E = IR

...similar to the engine that "runs" flowing
space, an engine called the "supra-cosmic
overpressure" or "SCO". Flowing space itself
then is roughly identified with the electrical
current in the formula, or "I" (intensity of
current). This may imply that there is an R
somewhere in all this, and observations may
strongly suggest that gravity wells provide
the R (resistance) to flowing space.


Utter crap.



Actually, i agree. It is a more sound idea
that space flows very quickly out among
the stars, and even faster out between the
galaxies and clusters. The gravity wells of
galaxies slow the flow of space, as do the
gravity wells of stars, planets and even of
atoms!


And your observational evidence is?



Really? Funny how Hipparcos proves thats BS.


What exactly are you saying that Hipparcos is
disproving, Puddleduck? Keep in mind that this
experiment is very limited in its scope.


Everything you are saying about the nature of space local to the sun.


So it is more consistent to think that flowing space
must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and
planets.


So many words, so little science. Step away from the bong, saucerheads.


You will get no argument from me that the
concept of flowing space is no more truly a
scientific concept than is quantum gravity or GR.
None of that is science either in terms of
explaining the cause of gravity. The only reason
QG and GR are *recognized" as being science is
because they are the brainchilds of scientists.


Um no, because they have been verified (Perihelion of Mercury, Hulse &
Taylor....)

You, Puddleduck, would be wise to keep in mind
that the concept of flowing space is to be
considered as quite possibly the brainchild of old
Albert Einstein himself...


So what? Fallacy of authority? Many people try to make proclamations
about Einstein and vegetarianism but he wasn't a nutritionist.


". . . one should not desist from pursuing to
the end the path of the relativistic field theory."

A little earlier in _Relativity: The Special and the
General Theory_ Einstein wrote...

"By this is meant a theory which describes
exhaustively physical reality, including four-
dimensional space, by a field."

Since, at the time, Einstein had discarded the
idea of a static, non-moving "ether", one can
only conclude that he was talking about space
as being a field that is non-static and moving,
a flowing field...


Like Jane, putting words in a dead mans mouth.


flowing space

(!)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!


--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #117  
Old December 20th 06, 04:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Black Holes are not the only ones that have a
Schwarzschild surface (event horizon). ALL
gravity wells have such a surface, and they are
not as well-defined as that of a BH.

So here comes flowing space toward the Solar
System. As it approaches the SS of our Sun,
the resistance slows flowing space to a speed
determined mostly by the mass of the Sun. At
this point, space then begins once again to
accelerate toward the Sun, reaching maximum
speed at the surface of the Sun.

If a planet like Jupiter gets in the way of this
essentially Solar spaceflow, the SS of the planet
serves as a resistance to the flow, and space
must slow way down at the planet's SS so that
it may accelerate into the planet. How much it
slows down, and how fast it enters the surface of
the planet is governed mainly by the mass of the
planet.


Utter nonsense.

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #118  
Old December 20th 06, 04:16 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

In article ,
nightbat wrote:


Hello Officer Painius it is always good to see your posts and
devotion to science theoretical inquiry. The coffee boys being what they
are silly disruptive clueless ones including the occasional new ones
that invade from time to time should never deter you from your excellent
deep pondering.


Shame it is no congruence with reality huh!

The important concept that Officer oc presents via
Wolter's model is the space flow premise via unique outer Universe
engine model to which at least it tries to help provide a causation for
gravity and Universe internal dynamics. Wolter was perceptive in
deducing a need for first cause motive action model to hopefully explain
ongoing field effects of which at his time including to date as you well
know were and are severely lacking.


Utter nonsense


Not until the nightbat and my long
ago spotting of Officers oc's for Wolters net presentation has any other
concept even come close to disclosing a more viable theoretical
premise. The applied Wolter field formulation logic is brilliant for
attempt to close gravitation loop problem and unification.


You lot couldn't unify two decks of cards.

The trouble however for deep field hopeful unification theorists and
mathematicians is we have one observed physical Universe and the
perimeters for acceptable model per observable co-Peer verification and
confirmation are therefore quite restricting without going into hyper
inter-dimensional, multiverse, outerverse (Wolter's), parallelverse,
multi branes, multiple strings, imagined theoretical non evidence based
extensions.


Yep, shame that science calls you nutters.




The nightbat discovery of field unification was as Dr. Einstein
perceived beyond normal human grasp for no comparable model ever
existed.


BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH

No previous math's or examineable mathematical equations or
proofs therefore could unity assist or applied extensions permit and
enlightenly disclose what has never existed for examination. The
verifiable proof however was in discovered field latent memory, lending
to every physical energy/mass particle knowing its present relative
position to where it should field original position place be or versus
to original field pure uniform momentum.



Oh god this is good. This is like surrealist comedy. Nightbat shreds up
a science book and randomly arranges words to try and look profound.
Whats your day job Frootbat? Or is living in your mums basement a 24/7
thing?

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #119  
Old December 20th 06, 04:55 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius[_2_] Painius[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Default Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

And you're certain of this because . . . (?)


Because gravity propagates at c.


And you're certain of this because . . . (?)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are here and now!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


  #120  
Old December 20th 06, 04:56 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)

In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Because gravity propagates at c.


And you're certain of this because . . . (?)


Sigh. How much physics do you saucerheads lack?

Ok - why isn't it?

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHY ACE Astronomy Misc 0 November 28th 05 08:07 PM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:48 PM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:09 PM
Einstein Tom Kirke Astronomy Misc 10 June 1st 05 10:13 PM
Einstein Tom Kirke Amateur Astronomy 11 June 1st 05 10:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.