Flowing space...

From Painius, replying to DD:

Since you already know that nothing you have posted thus far satisfies
this necessity, then you have to know that you must come up with
something *new* in order to be successful in refuting... gravity being
caused by spatial energy that _moves toward and enters matter_.

..as i call it, (the) "Causal Theory of Relativity"

Indeed. A de facto '3rd canon' of relativity must _explain the literal,
causal mechanism_ of what SR and GR cryptically *describe*. It must
replace the mythical "void" of space with that which space _demonstrates
itself_ to be by its bounty of evidence.

This is where i'm at a loss as to why the continuing effort to dialog
with the DD joker. When *shown* that abundance of evidence over and
over, the Pavlovian response is:

1) Has no observational evidence

Kee-ripes, yer talkin' to the braindead. Flatline. Zippo. And then DD
goes on insisting the Le Sage theory is the same as FS, despite the
difference being clearly delineated over and over. Same with old db and
his insistance that MMX and stellar aberration "prove" non-existance of
the spatial medium.

No dialog's possible with 'em unless and until they *see* and 'get'
what's patently obvious and self-evident: '

1.) The high, fixed value of c demonstrates a carrier medium of a
particular pressure/density/'Temp' value which _causes_ the
permeability/permittivity values to be what they are.
2.) The fact that there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM
radiation demonstrates a carrier medium of even greater energy density
than the most energetic wave it carries.
3.) The ability to crush massive stars down to a BH demonstrates a
medium of stupendously high pressurization, a pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus.
4. The behavior of gravity demonstrates a pressure-driven, accelerating
flow into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink.

In light of the above,

5.) The fact that we perceive space as 'void' demonstrates its
sub-Planckian wavelength state or 'granularity', below our sensory and
EM resolution.

The evidence speaks for itself, unequivocally and incontrovertably. I
certainly have no corner on it, nor do Lindner, Shifman, Warren, Paxton,
or Wolter.. all of whom saw and recognized the same evidence
independantly and without collaboration.

The DD / db crowd obviously does not *see* or 'get' any of this, and
that's why no dialog's possible. But kudos for your effort. :-)
oc

In article ,
(oldcoot) wrote:

From Painius, replying to DD:

Since you already know that nothing you have posted thus far satisfies
this necessity, then you have to know that you must come up with
something *new* in order to be successful in refuting... gravity being
caused by spatial energy that _moves toward and enters matter_.

..as i call it, (the) "Causal Theory of Relativity"

Indeed. A de facto '3rd canon' of relativity must _explain the literal,
causal mechanism_ of what SR and GR cryptically *describe*. It must
replace the mythical "void" of space with that which space _demonstrates
itself_ to be by its bounty of evidence.


You obviously have no idea that GR does give a causal description of motion
through the Lagrangian.


This is where i'm at a loss as to why the continuing effort to dialog
with the DD joker. When *shown* that abundance of evidence over and
over, the Pavlovian response is:

1) Has no observational evidence

Kee-ripes, yer talkin' to the braindead. Flatline. Zippo. And then DD
goes on insisting the Le Sage theory is the same as FS, despite the
difference being clearly delineated over and over. Same with old db and
his insistance that MMX and stellar aberration "prove" non-existance of
the spatial medium.



Still obsessing about nonsense


No dialog's possible with 'em unless and until they *see* and 'get'
what's patently obvious and self-evident: '

1.) The high, fixed value of c demonstrates a carrier medium of a
particular pressure/density/'Temp' value which _causes_ the
permeability/permittivity values to be what they are.


No it doesn't - for example, you think EM is a pressure wave

2.) The fact that there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM
radiation demonstrates a carrier medium of even greater energy density
than the most energetic wave it carries.


There are energy limits. Plus, define the amplitude



3.) The ability to crush massive stars down to a BH demonstrates a
medium of stupendously high pressurization, a pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus.

Loss of hydrostatic equilibrium


4. The behavior of gravity demonstrates a pressure-driven, accelerating
flow into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink.

No it doesn't




In light of the above,

5.) The fact that we perceive space as 'void' demonstrates its
sub-Planckian wavelength state or 'granularity', below our sensory and
EM resolution.

The evidence speaks for itself, unequivocally and incontrovertably. I
certainly have no corner on it, nor do Lindner, Shifman, Warren, Paxton,
or Wolter.. all of whom saw and recognized the same evidence
independantly and without collaboration.

Lindner is an MD.



The DD / db crowd obviously does not *see* or 'get' any of this, and
that's why no dialog's possible. But kudos for your effort. :-)
oc

Thats because we have more of a grounding in real physics, and didn't rely on
being taught physics by imaginary idiots.




--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
From Painius, replying to DD:

Since you already know that nothing you
have posted thus far satisfies this necessity,
then you have to know that you must come
up with something *new* in order to be
successful in refuting... gravity being caused
by spatial energy that _moves toward and
enters matter_.

..as i call it, (the) "Causal Theory of Relativity"

Indeed. A de facto '3rd canon' of relativity must _explain the literal,
causal mechanism_ of what SR and GR cryptically *describe*. It must
replace the mythical "void" of space with that which space _demonstrates
itself_ to be by its bounty of evidence.

This is where i'm at a loss as to why the continuing effort to dialog
with the DD joker. When *shown* that abundance of evidence over and
over, the Pavlovian response is:

1) Has no observational evidence

Kee-ripes, yer talkin' to the braindead. Flatline. Zippo. And then DD
goes on insisting the Le Sage theory is the same as FS, despite the
difference being clearly delineated over and over. Same with old db and
his insistance that MMX and stellar aberration "prove" non-existance of
the spatial medium.

No dialog's possible with 'em unless and until they *see* and 'get'
what's patently obvious and self-evident: '

1.) The high, fixed value of c demonstrates a carrier medium of a
particular pressure/density/'Temp' value which _causes_ the
permeability/permittivity values to be what they are.
2.) The fact that there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM
radiation demonstrates a carrier medium of even greater energy density
than the most energetic wave it carries.
3.) The ability to crush massive stars down to a BH demonstrates a
medium of stupendously high pressurization, a pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus.
4. The behavior of gravity demonstrates a pressure-driven, accelerating
flow into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink.

In light of the above,

5.) The fact that we perceive space as 'void' demonstrates its
sub-Planckian wavelength state or 'granularity', below our sensory and
EM resolution.

The evidence speaks for itself, unequivocally and incontrovertably. I
certainly have no corner on it, nor do Lindner, Shifman, Warren, Paxton,
or Wolter.. all of whom saw and recognized the same evidence
independantly and without collaboration.

The DD / db crowd obviously does not *see* or 'get' any of this, and
that's why no dialog's possible. But kudos for your effort. :-)
oc

It's a dirty job . . .

g

But let's be fair, Bill. There was probably a time
when, on some level or other, you were a void-
spacer. It took a man like Gordon Wolter to open
your eyes. There was a time, not long ago, when
i was a void-spacer. It took you, Wolter and
Einstein, along with a lot of discussion here in
alt.astronomy with several others to open my
eyes.

I'm proof that you *can* effect change. And that
there is hope for others, hope for a breakthrough!
Hope that science will fill the void space twixt its
ears, fill it with the ultrahigh-grade energy of the
sub-Planck energy domain.

....and come to know the true cause of gravity.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
On a highway to the sky,
That's the trip for you and I,
Find the gods who make you cry
On the highway to the sky.

Many wonders catch your eye,
Puzzles tease and mystify,
Some you solve and some you sigh
On that highway to the sky.

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

On Apr 19, 2:01 am, "Painius" wrote:

It's a dirty job.
g

But let's be fair... There was probably a time
when, on some level or other, you were a void-
spacer.

I got out of the "educational" system before the void-space doctrine
took hold, having the blessed good fortune of escaping the
indoctrination. So i was pretty much neutral to the idea.

I'm proof that you *can* effect change. And that
there is hope for others, hope for a breakthrough!
Hope that science will fill the void space twixt its
ears, fill it with the ultrahigh-grade energy of the
sub-Planck energy domain.

...and come to know the true cause of gravity.

Well then you're a better man than me Gunga Din. Where i came from a
position of neutrality, you came around all the way from being a dyed-
in-the-wool void-spacer. And that's gotta be in the category of a
minor miracle. :-)

On another subject, you mentioned the high temperature of the solar
corona. This question was asked several times but not answered AFAIK:
Could the temperature buildup be simply due to the material's
inability to re-radiate the IR it absorbs? It'd be analogous to
holding a wad of steel wool, which has very low thermal mass, over a
gas flame and watching how it quickly heats to incandescence. I dunno.
Just askin'.
oc

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:


But let's be fair, Bill. There was probably a time
when, on some level or other, you were a void-
spacer. It took a man like Gordon Wolter to open
your eyes. There was a time, not long ago, when
i was a void-spacer. It took you, Wolter and
Einstein, along with a lot of discussion here in
alt.astronomy with several others to open my
eyes.

I'm proof that you *can* effect change. And that
there is hope for others, hope for a breakthrough!
Hope that science will fill the void space twixt its
ears, fill it with the ultrahigh-grade energy of the
sub-Planck energy domain.


Then you could try to learn proper physics, and realise this Wolter nonsense is
just that - thoroughly unscientific nonsense.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

In article .com,
oldcoot wrote:

On Apr 19, 2:01 am, "Painius" wrote:

It's a dirty job.
g

But let's be fair... There was probably a time
when, on some level or other, you were a void-
spacer.

I got out of the "educational" system before the void-space doctrine
took hold, having the blessed good fortune of escaping the
indoctrination. So i was pretty much neutral to the idea.


So you are uneducated - figures.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

"oldcoot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 19, 2:01 am, "Painius" wrote:

It's a dirty job.
g

But let's be fair... There was probably a time
when, on some level or other, you were a void-
spacer.

I got out of the "educational" system before the void-space doctrine
took hold, having the blessed good fortune of escaping the
indoctrination. So i was pretty much neutral to the idea.

I'm proof that you *can* effect change. And that
there is hope for others, hope for a breakthrough!
Hope that science will fill the void space twixt its
ears, fill it with the ultrahigh-grade energy of the
sub-Planck energy domain.

...and come to know the true cause of gravity.

Well then you're a better man than me Gunga Din. Where i came from a
position of neutrality, you came around all the way from being a dyed-
in-the-wool void-spacer. And that's gotta be in the category of a
minor miracle. :-)

Thank you, Bill!... but i *can't* be the only one.
I would hope to hear from others who have also
shunned the VSP and are not afraid to discuss it.

On another subject, you mentioned the high temperature of the solar
corona. This question was asked several times but not answered AFAIK:
Could the temperature buildup be simply due to the material's
inability to re-radiate the IR it absorbs? It'd be analogous to
holding a wad of steel wool, which has very low thermal mass, over a
gas flame and watching how it quickly heats to incandescence. I dunno.
Just askin'.
oc

That's as good an explanation as any, but i
haven't read anything in the lit. about it. My
first thought is how stable or unstable the
IR absorption rate might be. The coronal
temp varies IIRC between about one and
two million degrees, so whatever the source
is, it's instability may give it away.

Perhaps Double-A can shed light?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Oh! the Sky Majestic
SO seems to be ALIVE,
You be careful lest it
Rise to give you Aim and Drive!

Oh, the world's sad eyes,
They know life's not so tragic,
When people realize
That... THE SKY IS MAGIC!

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

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

On another subject, you mentioned the high temperature of the solar
corona. This question was asked several times but not answered AFAIK:
Could the temperature buildup be simply due to the material's
inability to re-radiate the IR it absorbs? It'd be analogous to
holding a wad of steel wool, which has very low thermal mass, over a
gas flame and watching how it quickly heats to incandescence. I dunno.
Just askin'.
oc

That's as good an explanation as any, but i
haven't read anything in the lit. about it. My
first thought is how stable or unstable the
IR absorption rate might be. The coronal
temp varies IIRC between about one and
two million degrees, so whatever the source
is, it's instability may give it away.


BWAHAHHAHAHA

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

On another subject, you mentioned the high temperature of the solar
corona. This question was asked several times but not answered AFAIK:
Could the temperature buildup be simply due to the material's
inability to re-radiate the IR it absorbs? It'd be analogous to
holding a wad of steel wool, which has very low thermal mass, over a
gas flame and watching how it quickly heats to incandescence. I dunno.
Just askin'.
oc

That's as good an explanation as any, but i
haven't read anything in the lit. about it. My
first thought is how stable or unstable the
IR absorption rate might be. The coronal
temp varies IIRC between about one and
two million degrees, so whatever the source
is, it's instability may give it away.


BWAHAHHAHAHA

Good thing they don't have positions that require knowledge of stellar
physics.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

On another subject, you mentioned the high temperature of the solar
corona. This question was asked several times but not answered AFAIK:
Could the temperature buildup be simply due to the material's
inability to re-radiate the IR it absorbs? It'd be analogous to
holding a wad of steel wool, which has very low thermal mass, over a
gas flame and watching how it quickly heats to incandescence. I dunno.
Just askin'.
oc

That's as good an explanation as any, but i
haven't read anything in the lit. about it. My
first thought is how stable or unstable the
IR absorption rate might be. The coronal
temp varies IIRC between about one and
two million degrees, so whatever the source
is, it's instability may give it away.


BWAHAHHAHAHA

Good thing they don't have positions that require knowledge of stellar
physics.


IR and Million K did me in.... Plus what the hell was going to stop such a
diffuse material radiating. I guess non-thermal doesn't exist in their world.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).