Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Now let's hear Zinni's esteemed rebuttal. oc

Sorry Bill, no time to play right now. (and besides, your beginning to bore
the hell out of me)

Oh ... what the heck.
Just for old times sake why don't you tell us what your juicer represents on
a Cosmic scale???

Question for OG..

Just out of curiosity, under the 'curvature of space' description of
gravity, why does weight diminish as you go below the planet's surface?
It seems like there'd have to be some pretty fancy and complex
'curvatures' to describe weight diminishment as you approach center.
And *at* center you find the densest compaction of stuff
which "should" logically induce the greatest 'curvature' and greatest
weight. But it doesn't. Weight becomes zero at center.

Do you not begin to see that the 'curvature' is an abstract (albeit
brilliantly deduced) description of effects and not a literal
_explanation of causation_?

In your post you stated, "Observe how the infalling space gets captured
by the rock above....". Actually the word "infalling" should be
'inflowing'. What "falls" is matter that gets swept along by the *flow*
of space. So long as the object is in freefall, it is simply 'going with
the flow' and is 'weight'-less. When it is obstructed from falling, as
when it sits on the ground, it exhibits resistance to the flow, and
hence has 'weight'. A rough analogy is the latticed blades of a Dutch
windmill which catch the force of the wind while yet permeable to the
wind; similarly the atomic lattice of matter 'catches' the force of the
spatial flow while yet permeable to it. The densest elements exhibit the
greatest resistance and thus are the 'heaviest'. oc

(Bill Sheppard) wrote in message ...
From OG:

Stand on a bathroom scales & measure
your weight.

Stand on same scales in a cave &
measure your weight again.

Observe how the infalling space gets
captured by the rock above your head
and reduces the weight shown on the
scale.

You're absolutely right OG. Very perceptual of you. The instant the
inflow goes below surface (or datum line), there is now gravitating mass
*behind* (i.e., above) the flow.
Just for purpose of illustration (this was done in
discussions with Painius prior to your and Zinni's appearance on the
NG), take a column of spatial flow 12" in diameter. It's flowing
vertically into the surface, accelerating to 11.2 km/sec, (Earth's
escape velocity) at the instant it hits surface datum. As soon as it
goes below datum, there is gravitating mass behind and _to the sides_ of
the column, causing it to begin decelertaing and to diverge laterally.
And as you correctly observe, your 'weight' is going to be less below
surface than at surface, and for the reason you stated.
As the column descends deeper and deeper, the more mass
lies behind and to the sides, the more the column diverges and
decelerates, showing less and less directional preferance. Finally at
Eartth center, all directional preferance is lost; 'weight' is zero
while hydrostatic pressure is maximum from all the 'weight' pressing in
from above.
The flow itself is into the seat of the strong force in
the nuclei of all the Earth's constituent atoms. Herein lies the
unification of gravity and the strong force in Wolter's 'Unified Field
of Spatial Flows'. oc

Bill,
I'm looking for a calculation. You snipped that part of my message.

I'm also concerned that you've changed the scenario - I'm not talking
about descending into the earth, I'm talking about standing either in
the open or standing at the same altitude but in a cave.

Think about measuring your weight on a scales inside and outside NORAD
at Cheyenne Mountain. You claim that the weight would be less inside.
Please could we have a calculation of how this would work.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Question for OG..

Just out of curiosity, under the 'curvature of space' description of
gravity, why does weight diminish as you go below the planet's surface?
It seems like there'd have to be some pretty fancy and complex
'curvatures' to describe weight diminishment as you approach center.

Why?

And *at* center you find the densest compaction of stuff
which "should" logically induce the greatest 'curvature' and greatest
weight.

Nope

But it doesn't. Weight becomes zero at center.

Do you not begin to see that the 'curvature' is an abstract (albeit
brilliantly deduced) description of effects and not a literal
_explanation of causation_?


Agreed. You however, claim to have a literal explanation of causation but
one that is resistant to mathematical or physical analysis. Bit of a shame
really !

In your post you stated, "Observe how the infalling space gets captured
by the rock above....". Actually the word "infalling" should be
'inflowing'. What "falls" is matter that gets swept along by the *flow*
of space. So long as the object is in freefall, it is simply 'going with
the flow' and is 'weight'-less. When it is obstructed from falling, as
when it sits on the ground, it exhibits resistance to the flow, and
hence has 'weight'. A rough analogy is the latticed blades of a Dutch
windmill which catch the force of the wind while yet permeable to the
wind; similarly the atomic lattice of matter 'catches' the force of the
spatial flow while yet permeable to it. The densest elements exhibit the
greatest resistance and thus are the 'heaviest'. oc

JohnZ I thought cartoon caractors only had 3 fingers. The hand is so
very difficult to draw. I think we could get by with three fingers,but
it does look nicer with four. Bert Michael Anleglo did the hand best.

From OG

Think about measuring your weight on a
scales inside and outside NORAD at
Cheyenne Mountain. You claim that the
weight would be less inside. Please
could we have a calculation of how this
would work.

Not sure what you mean by "calculation", but try a 'thought experiment';
think of yourself off in deep space and parked on an asteroid. The
asteroid happens to have the same mass as the mass above your cave on
Cheyenne Mtn. How much do you weigh on the asteroid? A fraction of a
gram maybe? Subtract that amount from your Earth weight outside the
cave; it should equal your (slightly diminished) weight inside the cave.

You won't begin to see signifgant weight diminishment until you're well
below surface datum and there's large amounts of mass above.

You however, claim to have a literal
explanation of causation but one that is
resistant to mathematical or physical
analysis. Bit of a shame really.

"I" claim to have nothing, just referances to those who do. Apparently
you never read the treatises by Lindner, Warren, Shifner et al which
were posted several times previously, and are replete with math. And
seriously, i dunno what can be more empirical than the bathroom scale
analysis of matter's resistance to the flow. Pretty straight forward and
pragmatic stuff.. unless of course there is 'no medium'. oc

From JohnZ:

...your beginning to bore the hell out of
me)

Well then use yer cotton-pickin' killfile, brainiac. You do have one
don't you???

Oh ... what the heck.
Just for old times sake why don't you tell us what your juicer
represents on a
Cosmic scale???

How about yer Cuisinart??? Now use that killfile so you won't be bored
no more. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From OG

Think about measuring your weight on a
scales inside and outside NORAD at
Cheyenne Mountain. You claim that the
weight would be less inside. Please
could we have a calculation of how this
would work.

Not sure what you mean by "calculation",

You know - calculation of weight loss, that kind of thing. Something that
can be measured.
Scientifc stuff.

but try a 'thought experiment';
think of yourself off in deep space and parked on an asteroid. The
asteroid happens to have the same mass as the mass above your cave on
Cheyenne Mtn.
Would that be the whole mass above the cave, or just the mass above the
cross section of my body? Once again, you are not being rigorous. It's your
physical explanation, tell me what it predicts.

How much do you weigh on the asteroid? A fraction of a
gram maybe? Subtract that amount from your Earth weight outside the
cave; it should equal your (slightly diminished) weight inside the cave.

And does this happen?

You won't begin to see signifgant weight diminishment until you're well
below surface datum and there's large amounts of mass above.

You however, claim to have a literal
explanation of causation but one that is
resistant to mathematical or physical
analysis. Bit of a shame really.

"I" claim to have nothing, just referances to those who do. Apparently
you never read the treatises by Lindner, Warren, Shifner et al which
were posted several times previously, and are replete with math.

Wrong, I did read Lindner's, but you were unable to assist with explaining
its shortcomings. Your 'interpretation' of the work doesn't match the
original in many respects.

And
seriously, i dunno what can be more empirical than the bathroom scale
analysis of matter's resistance to the flow. Pretty straight forward and
pragmatic stuff.. unless of course there is 'no medium'. oc

You are failing to give a convincing reason for adopting their model. I
don't really mind that I'm not changing your mind; but do I wonder why IF
you keep insisting its 'true' you aren't at all interested in providing
testable proof.

My dad used to know someone who would find little splinters of stone and
insist they were 'stone age arrow heads'; it was a totally delusional, but
he was a gentle man and it did no harm.

OG and oc Lets go with QM gravity. Each particle being a gravity force.
Lets go down a shaft 5 miles. That means 5 miles of particle force
pulling upward. It also means 4 thousands miles of particles pulling
downward(to the center of the Earth. At the exact Earth's center


gravity is pull in all directions(up down east and west) force of
gravity cancelled out. Only the objects inertia is now a positive
force.(to itself


) OG walking though a valley of the Cheyenne Mountains the mountain's
mass would pull you from each side,but they cancell each other out,and
also the force would be so tiny. Don't like my typing (hope my
thoughts are OK

OG, i've no doubt your Dad's a fine chap, but did he ever tell you your
preoccupation with minutiae, details and particulars is preventing you
from simply kicking back and seeing the overview, the big picture? Sorta
like focusing in on the just the rivets and girders of the Eiffel Tower
without ever backing off and seeing the Tower.
Tried the same analogy with Zinni and the Statue of
Liberty, with null result.g oc