|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
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. And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it turtles all the way down? 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 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. 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. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
In article
, "Painius" wrote: 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! Utter, utter rubbish. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
nightbat wrote
John Zinni wrote: 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! Officer Zinni 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. Zinni nightbat 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 of what's known versus what is novel and beyond their mental grasp. carry on, the nightbat -- The best things in life are here and now! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
oc Push for gravity seems to fit better than pull(sometimes),and even
the Earth coming up to the apple answers a hard question,but both get shot down because they create lots of questions they are unable to answer. Wolter was not the first to kick this idea around. Attraction over distance even the great mind of Newton would not touch. Now Brian Greene uses virtual particles to give the message for objects to attract or repel. That begs the question is QM gravitons virtual particles? Is this the reason they can't be detected? Is Scheck and Schwarz with their theory on gravity in the Planck realm the true source of gravity? I think so bert |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
From Bert:
...electric current has always been related to the flow of water.. Current tell us that... Water goes through pipes,and electrons go through wire. No conducting wire no flow of electrons Good point Bert. But you gotta parse the observation carefully, to clarify the distinction between *electric flow* in a wire and _electron flow_ in free space, as in a vacuum tube. In a wire, the individual electrons move very, very slowly, while the *speed of charge* thru the wire moves at the speed of light (minus the 'velocity factor' making it about .77c depending on the material. That's why a radio transmitter's antenna is cut to the velocity factor). Whereas in a vacuum tube, individual electrons *are* liberated to flow and accelerate freely thru space. Though superficially similar, Electric flow with its associated speed of charge, and electron flow are distinctly different critters. * * * oc |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
In article ,
nightbat wrote: 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 of what's known versus what is novel and beyond their mental grasp. You've never had a profound original thought. You just like to pretend you're silly little sci fi club has any relevance to astronomy. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
nightbat wrote
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , nightbat wrote: 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 of what's known versus what is novel and beyond their mental grasp. Puddleduck You've never had a profound original thought. You just like to pretend you're silly little sci fi club has any relevance to astronomy. nightbat Profound Science Team Officers please escort this self admitted quack duck out to the vacuum low IQ mental stowfile for he is so far off deep theoretical field reality base he wouldn't understand real alt.astronomy versus if Hollywood Captain Kirk smacked him on his feathered behind. Puddles should be able to keep clueless Saul, sidewalk guy, and the coffee boys very happy with his flapping silly quacks. Oh the humanity! when will the confounded mentally challenged coffee boy wonders understand the profound enlightened net World famous Science Team Officers and nightbat super advanced iterations without having a quacked up befuddled mental crisis of lack of intellectual neuron sensory grasping ability. at ease quacky duck, the nightbat |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
Hey Night, there was an Elmer Fudd cartoon that i clearly remember from
childhood, where he dumped a bucket of ice on Daffy Duck, saying, "here's quacked ice for a qwacked quacker." oc |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
nightbat wrote
Bill Sheppard wrote: Hey Night, there was an Elmer Fudd cartoon that i clearly remember from childhood, where he dumped a bucket of ice on Daffy Duck, saying, "here's quacked ice for a qwacked quacker." oc nightbat Yes Officer oc, the VSP diehards quack on while the World Sun hurdles and spin on their SF axis and they look for imaginary no evidence strings. Without the dynamic Planck quantum dense micro energy background space medium there could be no condensed energy mass Planet anti quacks coming from the peanut clueless gallery. Talk about biting the hand that feeds them, oh the humanity! Like the flat Earth the void space cartoon characters are alive and well. Happy New Year physical bean counters, the nightbat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHY | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 28th 05 07:07 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 |