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

!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 18th 04, 04:44 AM
Double-A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Aunt Buffy" wrote in message news:5xnAc.1608$eX3.1217@newsfe5-win...
Is this a description of 2 universes, in identical locations per particle,
interacting at the lowest level?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvv
v



?????

Double-A
  #22  
Old June 18th 04, 08:53 AM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

While this may be at odds with the interpretation of
GR on the "speed of gravity", it is a fact. If it's not, and space is
a "void", then we're stuck with "fossil fields", 'virtual gravitons',
virtual photons, angels, imps, and Sky Pixies. oc


Bill,

The currently accepted models of most of the forces use virtual particles,
yet you continue to ridicule the idea without giving a better explanation.
As for gravity, what is this thing that's flowing? Is it subject to
turbulance? Is the gravitational attraction an object experiences related to
its shape, in the same way cars and aeroplanes are?
How does the model yo advocate explain the Casimir effect?
The simple fact is, qed is one of the fields where theory and experiment
agree to a higher level of accuracy than most others. Yet it relies on
virtual particles. How?


DaveL


  #23  
Old June 18th 04, 08:53 AM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

While this may be at odds with the interpretation of
GR on the "speed of gravity", it is a fact. If it's not, and space is
a "void", then we're stuck with "fossil fields", 'virtual gravitons',
virtual photons, angels, imps, and Sky Pixies. oc


Bill,

The currently accepted models of most of the forces use virtual particles,
yet you continue to ridicule the idea without giving a better explanation.
As for gravity, what is this thing that's flowing? Is it subject to
turbulance? Is the gravitational attraction an object experiences related to
its shape, in the same way cars and aeroplanes are?
How does the model yo advocate explain the Casimir effect?
The simple fact is, qed is one of the fields where theory and experiment
agree to a higher level of accuracy than most others. Yet it relies on
virtual particles. How?


DaveL


  #24  
Old June 18th 04, 01:31 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BS spewed the following BS
...
From jb, right on cue:

There is NO longitudinal component to
Gravitational Waves.


..An ad hoc ancillary tacked onto GR to keep it in conformity with the
'no medium' premise. Same with the 'speed of gravity' being c.


.... and you know this from your extensive and intimate knowledge of the
mathematical model of GR???

Please demonstrate for us were and how this "ancillary", "ad hoc" result is
tacked on to GR.


A fact, is it???


Yeah. And if it ain't, and space is a
"void", then we're stuck with "fossil fields", 'virtual gravitons',
virtual photons, angels, imps, and Sky Pixies. oc


  #25  
Old June 18th 04, 01:31 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BS spewed the following BS
...
From jb, right on cue:

There is NO longitudinal component to
Gravitational Waves.


..An ad hoc ancillary tacked onto GR to keep it in conformity with the
'no medium' premise. Same with the 'speed of gravity' being c.


.... and you know this from your extensive and intimate knowledge of the
mathematical model of GR???

Please demonstrate for us were and how this "ancillary", "ad hoc" result is
tacked on to GR.


A fact, is it???


Yeah. And if it ain't, and space is a
"void", then we're stuck with "fossil fields", 'virtual gravitons',
virtual photons, angels, imps, and Sky Pixies. oc


  #26  
Old June 18th 04, 03:24 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From DaveL.:

The currently accepted models of most
of the forces use virtual particles...


Yes, they do. And they are essential under the premise that space is
functionally void or 'nothing'. 'Virtual particles' "work" to a high
degree of accuracy and predictibility as mathematical constructs. But
their usefulness ends when trying to explain gravity under the
VSP(void-space paradigm).

QED (quantum electrodynamics) is one
of the fields where theory and
experiment agree to a higher level of
accuracy than most others. Yet it relies
on virtual particles. How?


In QED, the mainstream is being forced, however grudgingly, to
acknowledge that space is something more than 'pure void', as evidenced
in the Casimir effect.

How does the model you advocate
explain the Casimir effect?


First of all, the traditional explanation is that an "attraction"
becomes more and more pronounced at smaller and smaller submillimeter
levels.
"The model i advocate" states that a PRESSURE (not an
"attraction") becomes more and more pronounced the closer you get to
nuclear sizes. And this pressure is the hydrostatic pressure of space
itself, VENTING INTO the seat of the 'strong force' in every atomic
nucleus.

As for gravity, what is this thing that's
flowing?


The fluid field of space itself, whose wavelengths (or 'granularity')
lie below the Planck length. Its standing-wave _energy density_ is
enormous, obeying the dictum that the shorter the wavelength the higher
the energy. Because it resides below our sensory resolution, we interpet
is as "void" or 'nothing'. Yet our 'consensus reality' on 'this side' of
the Planck length constitutes the very LOWEST energy (and longest
wavelength) state of the medium. The energy-dense spatial medium is the
Primary Reality that expanded forth from the BigBang, with the material
universe and its dinky thermodynamic laws tagging along for the ride.
The same spatial medium is what is flowing back into a
gravitating mass, which we interpret as "attraction". But it is a
pressure-driven flow. It is the *collective* flow into the atomic
nucleii of matter, specifically, into the seat of the 'strong force' in
matter's constituent protons.
So gravity, which operates across astronomical distances
and mediates Newtonian and Keplerian laws, actually has its genesis in
the strong nuclear force. Herein lies the unification of gravity and the
strong force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows. And it also
demonstrates gravity's instantaneous-ness irrespective of distance, just
as Newton originally observed (jb, take a hikeg).

Is it (the spatial medium) subject to
turbulance?


Yes indeed. Massive events such as a SN going off or a binary BH merger
would trigger tsunamis of _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ (mis-named
'gravity waves'). Jb, take a long hike. Extremely long-period waves from
the BB itself *might* even be what's driving the 'sheets and voids'
structuring of the supercluster field.

Is the gravitational attraction an object
experiences related to its shape, in the
same way cars and aeroplanes are?


No. The flow exerts its force at the level of the atomic lattice; it
flows entirely _through_ an object, not `around` it. Thus a rod will
weigh exactly the same whether it's standing vertical or lying
horizontal. The absence of any 'streamlining' effect demonstrates the
flow's interaction at the atomic level.
This is not to be confused with 'weathervaning', as
with a hanging pendulum.

In the flowing-space model of gravity, we're beginning to see
gravitation and the BB process as a reciprocal, balanced dipole, sharing
a common 'gound state' in the pre-BB condition. It's kinda interesting
that the big accelerator labs are trying to "bulldoze" their way back to
the BB and even prior. oc

  #27  
Old June 18th 04, 03:24 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From DaveL.:

The currently accepted models of most
of the forces use virtual particles...


Yes, they do. And they are essential under the premise that space is
functionally void or 'nothing'. 'Virtual particles' "work" to a high
degree of accuracy and predictibility as mathematical constructs. But
their usefulness ends when trying to explain gravity under the
VSP(void-space paradigm).

QED (quantum electrodynamics) is one
of the fields where theory and
experiment agree to a higher level of
accuracy than most others. Yet it relies
on virtual particles. How?


In QED, the mainstream is being forced, however grudgingly, to
acknowledge that space is something more than 'pure void', as evidenced
in the Casimir effect.

How does the model you advocate
explain the Casimir effect?


First of all, the traditional explanation is that an "attraction"
becomes more and more pronounced at smaller and smaller submillimeter
levels.
"The model i advocate" states that a PRESSURE (not an
"attraction") becomes more and more pronounced the closer you get to
nuclear sizes. And this pressure is the hydrostatic pressure of space
itself, VENTING INTO the seat of the 'strong force' in every atomic
nucleus.

As for gravity, what is this thing that's
flowing?


The fluid field of space itself, whose wavelengths (or 'granularity')
lie below the Planck length. Its standing-wave _energy density_ is
enormous, obeying the dictum that the shorter the wavelength the higher
the energy. Because it resides below our sensory resolution, we interpet
is as "void" or 'nothing'. Yet our 'consensus reality' on 'this side' of
the Planck length constitutes the very LOWEST energy (and longest
wavelength) state of the medium. The energy-dense spatial medium is the
Primary Reality that expanded forth from the BigBang, with the material
universe and its dinky thermodynamic laws tagging along for the ride.
The same spatial medium is what is flowing back into a
gravitating mass, which we interpret as "attraction". But it is a
pressure-driven flow. It is the *collective* flow into the atomic
nucleii of matter, specifically, into the seat of the 'strong force' in
matter's constituent protons.
So gravity, which operates across astronomical distances
and mediates Newtonian and Keplerian laws, actually has its genesis in
the strong nuclear force. Herein lies the unification of gravity and the
strong force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows. And it also
demonstrates gravity's instantaneous-ness irrespective of distance, just
as Newton originally observed (jb, take a hikeg).

Is it (the spatial medium) subject to
turbulance?


Yes indeed. Massive events such as a SN going off or a binary BH merger
would trigger tsunamis of _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ (mis-named
'gravity waves'). Jb, take a long hike. Extremely long-period waves from
the BB itself *might* even be what's driving the 'sheets and voids'
structuring of the supercluster field.

Is the gravitational attraction an object
experiences related to its shape, in the
same way cars and aeroplanes are?


No. The flow exerts its force at the level of the atomic lattice; it
flows entirely _through_ an object, not `around` it. Thus a rod will
weigh exactly the same whether it's standing vertical or lying
horizontal. The absence of any 'streamlining' effect demonstrates the
flow's interaction at the atomic level.
This is not to be confused with 'weathervaning', as
with a hanging pendulum.

In the flowing-space model of gravity, we're beginning to see
gravitation and the BB process as a reciprocal, balanced dipole, sharing
a common 'gound state' in the pre-BB condition. It's kinda interesting
that the big accelerator labs are trying to "bulldoze" their way back to
the BB and even prior. oc

  #28  
Old June 18th 04, 04:03 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

The currently accepted models of most
of the forces use virtual particles...


Yes, they do. And they are essential under the premise that space is
functionally void or 'nothing'. 'Virtual particles' "work" to a high
degree of accuracy and predictibility as mathematical constructs. But
their usefulness ends when trying to explain gravity under the
VSP(void-space paradigm).

QED (quantum electrodynamics) is one
of the fields where theory and
experiment agree to a higher level of
accuracy than most others. Yet it relies
on virtual particles. How?


In QED, the mainstream is being forced, however grudgingly, to
acknowledge that space is something more than 'pure void', as evidenced
in the Casimir effect.

How does the model you advocate
explain the Casimir effect?


First of all, the traditional explanation is that an "attraction"
becomes more and more pronounced at smaller and smaller submillimeter
levels.
"The model i advocate" states that a PRESSURE (not an
"attraction") becomes more and more pronounced the closer you get to
nuclear sizes. And this pressure is the hydrostatic pressure of space
itself, VENTING INTO the seat of the 'strong force' in every atomic
nucleus.

As for gravity, what is this thing that's
flowing?


The fluid field of space itself, whose wavelengths (or 'granularity')
lie below the Planck length. Its standing-wave _energy density_ is
enormous, obeying the dictum that the shorter the wavelength the higher
the energy. Because it resides below our sensory resolution, we interpet
is as "void" or 'nothing'. Yet our 'consensus reality' on 'this side' of
the Planck length constitutes the very LOWEST energy (and longest
wavelength) state of the medium. The energy-dense spatial medium is the
Primary Reality that expanded forth from the BigBang, with the material
universe and its dinky thermodynamic laws tagging along for the ride.
The same spatial medium is what is flowing back into a
gravitating mass, which we interpret as "attraction". But it is a
pressure-driven flow. It is the *collective* flow into the atomic
nucleii of matter, specifically, into the seat of the 'strong force' in
matter's constituent protons.
So gravity, which operates across astronomical distances
and mediates Newtonian and Keplerian laws, actually has its genesis in
the strong nuclear force. Herein lies the unification of gravity and the
strong force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows. And it also
demonstrates gravity's instantaneous-ness irrespective of distance, just
as Newton originally observed (jb, take a hikeg).


You're babbling Bill ... you're a Babbling Bill.


Is it (the spatial medium) subject to
turbulance?


Yes indeed. Massive events such as a SN going off or a binary BH merger
would trigger tsunamis of _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ (mis-named
'gravity waves'). Jb, take a long hike.


There is NO longitudinal component to Gravitational Waves.


Extremely long-period waves from
the BB itself *might* even be what's driving the 'sheets and voids'
structuring of the supercluster field.

Is the gravitational attraction an object
experiences related to its shape, in the
same way cars and aeroplanes are?


No. The flow exerts its force at the level of the atomic lattice; it
flows entirely _through_ an object, not `around` it. Thus a rod will
weigh exactly the same whether it's standing vertical or lying
horizontal. The absence of any 'streamlining' effect demonstrates the
flow's interaction at the atomic level.
This is not to be confused with 'weathervaning', as
with a hanging pendulum.

In the flowing-space model of gravity, we're beginning to see
gravitation and the BB process as a reciprocal, balanced dipole, sharing
a common 'gound state' in the pre-BB condition. It's kinda interesting
that the big accelerator labs are trying to "bulldoze" their way back to
the BB and even prior. oc


  #29  
Old June 18th 04, 04:03 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

The currently accepted models of most
of the forces use virtual particles...


Yes, they do. And they are essential under the premise that space is
functionally void or 'nothing'. 'Virtual particles' "work" to a high
degree of accuracy and predictibility as mathematical constructs. But
their usefulness ends when trying to explain gravity under the
VSP(void-space paradigm).

QED (quantum electrodynamics) is one
of the fields where theory and
experiment agree to a higher level of
accuracy than most others. Yet it relies
on virtual particles. How?


In QED, the mainstream is being forced, however grudgingly, to
acknowledge that space is something more than 'pure void', as evidenced
in the Casimir effect.

How does the model you advocate
explain the Casimir effect?


First of all, the traditional explanation is that an "attraction"
becomes more and more pronounced at smaller and smaller submillimeter
levels.
"The model i advocate" states that a PRESSURE (not an
"attraction") becomes more and more pronounced the closer you get to
nuclear sizes. And this pressure is the hydrostatic pressure of space
itself, VENTING INTO the seat of the 'strong force' in every atomic
nucleus.

As for gravity, what is this thing that's
flowing?


The fluid field of space itself, whose wavelengths (or 'granularity')
lie below the Planck length. Its standing-wave _energy density_ is
enormous, obeying the dictum that the shorter the wavelength the higher
the energy. Because it resides below our sensory resolution, we interpet
is as "void" or 'nothing'. Yet our 'consensus reality' on 'this side' of
the Planck length constitutes the very LOWEST energy (and longest
wavelength) state of the medium. The energy-dense spatial medium is the
Primary Reality that expanded forth from the BigBang, with the material
universe and its dinky thermodynamic laws tagging along for the ride.
The same spatial medium is what is flowing back into a
gravitating mass, which we interpret as "attraction". But it is a
pressure-driven flow. It is the *collective* flow into the atomic
nucleii of matter, specifically, into the seat of the 'strong force' in
matter's constituent protons.
So gravity, which operates across astronomical distances
and mediates Newtonian and Keplerian laws, actually has its genesis in
the strong nuclear force. Herein lies the unification of gravity and the
strong force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows. And it also
demonstrates gravity's instantaneous-ness irrespective of distance, just
as Newton originally observed (jb, take a hikeg).


You're babbling Bill ... you're a Babbling Bill.


Is it (the spatial medium) subject to
turbulance?


Yes indeed. Massive events such as a SN going off or a binary BH merger
would trigger tsunamis of _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ (mis-named
'gravity waves'). Jb, take a long hike.


There is NO longitudinal component to Gravitational Waves.


Extremely long-period waves from
the BB itself *might* even be what's driving the 'sheets and voids'
structuring of the supercluster field.

Is the gravitational attraction an object
experiences related to its shape, in the
same way cars and aeroplanes are?


No. The flow exerts its force at the level of the atomic lattice; it
flows entirely _through_ an object, not `around` it. Thus a rod will
weigh exactly the same whether it's standing vertical or lying
horizontal. The absence of any 'streamlining' effect demonstrates the
flow's interaction at the atomic level.
This is not to be confused with 'weathervaning', as
with a hanging pendulum.

In the flowing-space model of gravity, we're beginning to see
gravitation and the BB process as a reciprocal, balanced dipole, sharing
a common 'gound state' in the pre-BB condition. It's kinda interesting
that the big accelerator labs are trying to "bulldoze" their way back to
the BB and even prior. oc


  #30  
Old June 18th 04, 04:18 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From jb:

Please demonstrate for us were and how this "ancillary", "ad hoc"

result is
tacked on to GR.


Simple. If your re-held belief is that space is "void", then
longitudinal pressure waves are impossible. So your math has to 'prove'
GWs are something other than longitudinal, just as Ptolemy's math
'proved' the Earth is the fixed center of the universe. Likewise math
can 'disprove' Newtonian gravity's instantaneous-ness. As mentoned
numerous times before, math can be used to "prove" virtually any
pre-held belief that's currently in vogue.

Seems you're pretty good at running your mouth and little more,
brainiac. So suppose you demonstrate for us, in your own words, and
without a hand-off to some website, why, if there is no carrier medium,
there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION (or
GW radation for that matter). And why is said radiation locked to the
fixed value, c? The floor is yours__________ .

 




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
Information to Can Leave A Black Hole flamestar Science 2 December 13th 03 12:12 AM
information can leave a black hole James Briggs Science 0 December 6th 03 02:15 AM
Chandra 'Hears' A Black Hole Ron Baalke Misc 30 October 4th 03 06:22 PM
Black hole mass-sigma correlation Hans Aberg Research 44 October 1st 03 11:39 PM
Universe Born in Black Hole Explosion? Klaatu Amateur Astronomy 12 September 21st 03 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 AM.


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.