Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

From Painius:
How does space know to decelerate to
any given speed as it enters the gravity
well of any given mass?

Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of
Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth.

The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think
river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi.

It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
surface.

It _speeds up_ to that velocity.

So how does flowing space "know" to slow down to a certain speed for
any given amount of mass?

It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium,
the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is
determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are
synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian
"curvature" of space.

..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this
figure is greater for, say, the planet
Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
the planet Mars.

Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a
smaller one.

And how slow is it going as it enters an
atom?

It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow
transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic
flow' as Lindner calls it).

Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/
flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts.
The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to
acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire,
the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of
charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally
instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is
instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/
flow rate into any given sink (mass).

Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite
subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do*
propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like
supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc.
(surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd
care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not
referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And
gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is
gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you
throw a rock in.
oc

To Ya All (Florida talk) If the speed of gravity is instantaneous that
tells you its already there. It relates to being inside a space ship
going at light speed. You would cover all the universe at once. For
gravity to cover the universe and its actions felt at once it would have
to be a grid connecting(going through) all there is in the universe. I
have posted this thinking in some of my past posts. I compare the grid
like a spider web. When a fly hits the web the spider instantly feels
the vibrations,and goes directly to that area of the web. Hope oc you
can use some of this for your inward flow of space energy to
particles,and waves Bert

From Painius:
The speed of gravitational charge,
hmm..., or
do you mean "change"?

Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational
status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave.

Using the Sun and Earth, we know it
takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for
light from the Sun to reach us. If we
divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...
******2.5 x 10^-18 second
...as the time it would take for the Sun's
change in gravitational information to
reach the Earth.

'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive
enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information
in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to
get here.

Now here's where it gets interesting...
suppose there is an object out there
about one light year away. We can't see
it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and
does not emit/reflect light. How long
would it take for a change in its position
to be gravitationally noted by our Sun?

Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as
gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of
gravity's influence across distance.

I wanna do one more just for the hell of
it, sorry...
The center of our galaxy is roughly
30,000 light years away. How long does
it take the influence from this
tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
Solar System? At the speed of gravity
set forth by Van Flandern...
******4.75 nanoseconds!

Again, instantaneity/'speed' of gravity is not the same as gravitational
waves.

We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves
before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold
confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational
events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial
acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are
predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's
hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db
recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model
had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But
when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the
wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas.
oc

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

How does space know to decelerate to
any given speed as it enters the gravity
well of any given mass?

Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of
Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth.

Yes, Bill, i *am* getting it... i'm getting that there
are some seemingly profound inconsistencies in all
this. To wit:

The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think
river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi.

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.

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.

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.

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

It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
surface.

It _speeds up_ to that velocity.

So how does flowing space "know" to
slow down to a certain speed for
any given amount of mass?

It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium,
the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is
determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are
synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian
"curvature" of space.

Now, i realize that this seems inconsistent to you.
That because the escape velocity decreases above
the Earth's surface, this must mean that the speed
of flowing space is lower above the Earth. Also,
since physical objects fall at an accelerating rate,
it would seem that the flow of space is causing this.

I'm still thinking about these inconsistencies.

..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this
figure is greater for, say, the planet
Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
the planet Mars.

Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a
smaller one.

And how slow is it going as it enters an
atom?

It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow
transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic
flow' as Lindner calls it).

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?

Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/
flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts.
The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to
acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire,
the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of
charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally
instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is
instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/
flow rate into any given sink (mass).

Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite
subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do*
propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like
supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc.
(surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd
care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not
referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And
gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is
gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you
throw a rock in.
oc

Another thing i'm thinking here is that if space
ultimately flows into an atom to use the atom as
a point of return to the source via nonlocality,
then it seems to me that space would be going
into the atom at its slowest possible speed so as
to be right on target for the nonlocality switch.

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

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

The speed of gravitational charge,
hmm..., or
do you mean "change"?

Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational
status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave.

No, no, no, Bill. A gravitational WAVE may
propagate at c, but the gravitational CHARGE
propagates at speeds in excess of c x 2 x 10^10
(which does BTW mean that my figures are off by
several magnitudes since i used c x 2 x 10^20)...

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...of_gravity.asp

"Using the same equation with binary pulsar
PSR1534+12 and the parameters in Table I,
we can place the most stringent limit yet from
the observed uncertainty in (orbital period):
Vg = or 2 x 10^10 x c."

Using the Sun and Earth, we know it
takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for
light from the Sun to reach us. If we
divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...
2.5 x 10^-18 second
...as the time it would take for the Sun's
change in gravitational information to
reach the Earth.

Allowing for my big blunder in math, the new
figure is...

2.5 x 10^-8 second, or
25 nanoseconds

....as the time it takes for the Sun's change in
positional information to reach the Earth.

'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive
enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information
in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to
get here.

No argument, but again the waves are not the
same as the charge. The speed of the waves
may very well be c, but the speed of the charge
is "at least" 20 billion times c.

Now here's where it gets interesting...
suppose there is an object out there
about one light year away. We can't see
it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and
does not emit/reflect light. How long
would it take for a change in its position
to be gravitationally noted by our Sun?

Using round figures, this comes out to be...

Again, to allow for my astronomical error this
actually comes out to be...

9.5 quadrillion meters / 6 quintillion meters per second, or

1.6 milliseconds!

And isn't it another tickle to realize that any such
influence on our Sun by the nearest stars of the
Centauri group would only take about four times
as long to reach us!

I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry...

The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light
years away. How long does it take the influence
from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by
Van Flandern...

47.5 seconds!

It may very well be this delay that explains why
the galaxy arms revolve around the center of the
galaxy the way they do!

Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as
gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of
gravity's influence across distance.

Sorry, Bill, but this statement above seems
contradictory to what you say below...

We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves
before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold
confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational
events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial
acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are
predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's
hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db
recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model
had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But
when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the
wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas.
oc

If GWs are not gravity, then why are you using
them to propagate the gravitational changes? The
gravitational changes are propagated at speeds
much greater than c. If this were not true, then...

"The effect on computed orbits is usually
disastrous because conservation of angular
momentum is destroyed." (Van F.)

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

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Painius:
The speed of gravitational charge,
hmm..., or
do you mean "change"?

Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational
status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave.

Using the Sun and Earth, we know it
takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for
light from the Sun to reach us. If we
divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...
2.5 x 10^-18 second
...as the time it would take for the Sun's
change in gravitational information to
reach the Earth.

'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive
enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information
in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to
get here.

Now here's where it gets interesting...
suppose there is an object out there
about one light year away. We can't see
it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and
does not emit/reflect light. How long
would it take for a change in its position
to be gravitationally noted by our Sun?

Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as
gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of
gravity's influence across distance.

I wanna do one more just for the hell of
it, sorry...
The center of our galaxy is roughly
30,000 light years away. How long does
it take the influence from this
tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
Solar System? At the speed of gravity
set forth by Van Flandern...
4.75 nanoseconds!

Again, instantaneity/'speed' of gravity is not the same as gravitational
waves.

We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves
before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold
confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational
events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial
acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are
predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's
hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db
recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model
had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But
when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the
wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas.
oc


You know Bill, thinking about gravity as a flow, it has interesting
parallels to electricity: the velocity of the flow being the current,
and the acceleration being the potential or voltage.

As I pointed out once before, ones relation to the velocity of the flow
could explain the time dilation in gravitational fields. If this were
true, it could be that at the center of Earth, where there would be
little flow, there would be little time dilation. This could be a
testable difference from standard curved void space GR theory.

However, even if it were proved to be true, they would find a way to
explain it with their standard theory. It's just like they found a way
to explain the Sagnac effect with relativity, after it was first
presented as a disproof of relativity. And take black holes: GR
objects, all perfectly predicted by GR, right? Never mind that the
black hole-like objects they are detecting today, emitting vast amounts
of energy and shooting streams of matter into space are nothing like
the invisible black holes they were predicting back in the 70's with
GR. And never mind that Einstein himself did not predict their
existence. Yet they are totally GR objects, right?

Double-A

From AA:
...thinking about gravity as a flow, it has interesting parallels to
electricity: the velocity of the flow being the current, and the
acceleration being the potential
or voltage.

Well, one can certainly draw parallels with electric flow. But voltage
would be equivalent to the pressure gradient causing the flow (in fact
voltage is referred to as 'pressure', potential, or electromotive force,
the 'E' in the Ohm's law formulae). Flow rate, as you say, would
correspond to amps, or 'intensity', the 'I' in Ohm's law.

What you say about acceleration is interesting, because in a CRT or an
Xray tube, a high voltage ('pressure gradient') accelerates an electron
beam, causing it to strike the target (anode) at high energy. In fact
the beam is accelerating exponentially as it hits the anode.

oc

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

How does space know to decelerate to
any given speed as it enters the gravity
well of any given mass?

Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of
Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth.

Yes, Bill, i *am* getting it... i'm getting that there
are some seemingly profound inconsistencies in all
this. To wit:

The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think
river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi.

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.

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.

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.

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

It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
surface.

It _speeds up_ to that velocity.

So how does flowing space "know" to
slow down to a certain speed for
any given amount of mass?

It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium,
the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is
determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are
synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian
"curvature" of space.

Now, i realize that this seems inconsistent to you.
That because the escape velocity decreases above
the Earth's surface, this must mean that the speed
of flowing space is lower above the Earth. Also,
since physical objects fall at an accelerating rate,
it would seem that the flow of space is causing this.

I'm still thinking about these inconsistencies.

..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this
figure is greater for, say, the planet
Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
the planet Mars.

Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a
smaller one.

And how slow is it going as it enters an
atom?

It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow
transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic
flow' as Lindner calls it).

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?

Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/
flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts.
The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to
acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire,
the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of
charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally
instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is
instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/
flow rate into any given sink (mass).

Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite
subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do*
propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like
supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc.
(surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd
care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not
referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And
gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is
gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you
throw a rock in.
oc

Another thing i'm thinking here is that if space
ultimately flows into an atom to use the atom as
a point of return to the source via nonlocality,
then it seems to me that space would be going
into the atom at its slowest possible speed so as
to be right on target for the nonlocality switch.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

The problem with making crap up out of thin air is that it is usually
inconsistent with crap someone else makes up out of thin air.


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

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

oc Electric current has always been related to the flow of water..
Current tell us that. Feynman when visiting Hoover dam had this to say
For every drop of water an electron will flow. Water goes through
pipes,and electrons go through wire. No conducting wire no flow of
electrons Bert

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. 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.

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