What if (on Cosmic Chance)

"HVAC" wrote in message
...

"jughead" wrote in message
...
Narf. No reasonable person could believe there is NOT sentient life
elsewhere in the universe. To believe Earth is the one and only
harborage of life would be ludicrous.


Oh? You've got proof of other intelligent life besides ours?

Anywhere?

Someone has to be the 1st. Don't you agree?


But you ARE capable of intelligent and engaging dialog. Just need to
ditch the demeaning and embarrassing "alien" crappola. oc


What is truly extraordinary about this guy, 'Darla', is his ability
to get the gullible and weak-minded to believe his ****.

AA and Bert come to mind.


~
Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing


You really haven't been around long enough to call me extraordinary,
schmuck.
Nor long enough to realize that both Bert and Double-A are just as skeptical
as you.
They're just a heck of a lot more fearless, curious and inquiring, unlike
yourself, who runs from us at every turn.

Boo!

lmfjao!

--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

You're right about that last {"you ain't no alien"} part, I'm a person... And no more ducking.

Well glory be(!). Talk about getting Hannibal over the Alps. Now that
that hurdle has been surmounted, how about a real earthling handle
like 'Mack' just tentatively for the time being? OK, Mack?

Anyhow, back to what you had to say about the nature of space and the
cause of gravity, and how it compares to the Flowing Space model (FSM)
of gravity..

...the nature of space has been made pretty clear in
recent times. It's comprised of a gravitational field, which is stronger near matter.

FSM sez: A gravitational field (or gravity well) is the effect of the
*acceleration component* of the spatial medium flowing into the
gravitator, whose mass is synonymous with flow sink (or pressure
drain). *Any* mass, ranging from the proton to a black hole is a flow
sink. The greater the mass, the higher the inflow-rate, the
acceleration rate, and the 'strength of gravity'.

... it {the spatial medium} is a foam of sorts, but not of full-fledged particles; it's a foam of quarks and sub-quarks vibrating between energy and sub-matter and energy and sub-antimatter. The frequency is so high, and they spin so fast that the q-aq sub-particles rarely annihilate each other.

FSM: The spatial medium (Painius' SPED) is composed of an energy field
whose frequency domain lies *above* the EM spectrum. Its wavelength
state or 'granularity' resides below the Planck length. Its energy
density obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher the
energy.

The gravitational field strength increases and acts as a force upon those billions and billions of sub-particles, those quarks..{as} they constantly stream into
matter.

FSM: As the *acceleration rate* of space flowing into matter
increases, the gravitational field or 'strength of gravity' increases.
(When the inflow-rate reaches the speed of light, the gravitator is
called a black hole.)

And since they are not full-fledged particles, they don't have the problems with heat and such that particles would bear, so space is partly energy and partly sub-particulate, and you pretty much know the rest.

FSM: Your term "sub-particulate" squares with Wolter's terms
"granularity" and "particulate nature" of the spatial medium. But your
usage of "quark", "matter/antimater" etc. places the stuff on 'this
side' of the Planck length whereas Wolter's spatial medium (Painius'
SPED) resides on the 'other side' of the Planck length. Its
"particulate-ness"/'granularity' is below sensory and EM resolution,
making it appear "void" to our sense-based logic, keeping us oblivious
to the extreme supra-nuclear levels of energy packed into every cc of
space, everywhere in the universe.

You referred to the *spin* of the particulates. Last year in
discussions with Painius, the term "granulon" was coined. Each
'granulon' is a spinning, *bipolar* entity exactly as the CBB model
describes every rotating system in nature.. from spiral galaxies and
BHs to solar systems, planet-moon systems, planets, unfolding embryos
(viewed side-on), right down to the hydrogen atom and its proton as
depicted here-
http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/ocindexpage4.html
By extrapolation then, each sub-Planckian 'granulon' would be a micro-
microcopy of the H atom.

And damndest thing, now get this. Bernoulli the younger, in
formulating his model of the "aether", described it as a plenum of
particulates that are 'spinning whirlpools'. The only feature missing
was their bipolar or dipole nature. Scroll down to near the middle of
this article where it discusses Bernoulli and his "aether"-
http://www.scientificblogging.com/re...nd_dark_energy

The whole article is quite revelatory and worth the read. It
spotlights the urgency to revisit the *very real* spatial medium and
rename it with a term more descriptive and definitive, like the Sub-
Planck(ian) Energy Domain, or SPED.

I hear there are some very pretty girls out there who like to let their slip
show a bit to catch the eye.
Ah hahh? Ah hahh?

Now you got the right idea. (:

"jughead" wrote in message
...
You're right about that last {"you ain't no alien"} part, I'm a person...
And no more ducking.

Well glory be(!). Talk about getting Hannibal over the Alps. Now that
that hurdle has been surmounted, how about a real earthling handle
like 'Mack' just tentatively for the time being? OK, Mack?

Sure, "Mack's" just fine.
I looked it up; it means "friend" or "pal".
It works.

Anyhow, back to what you had to say about the nature of space and the
cause of gravity, and how it compares to the Flowing Space model (FSM)
of gravity..

...the nature of space has been made pretty clear in
recent times. It's comprised of a gravitational field, which is stronger
near matter.

FSM sez: A gravitational field (or gravity well) is the effect of the
*acceleration component* of the spatial medium flowing into the
gravitator, whose mass is synonymous with flow sink (or pressure
drain). *Any* mass, ranging from the proton to a black hole is a flow
sink. The greater the mass, the higher the inflow-rate, the
acceleration rate, and the 'strength of gravity'.

... it {the spatial medium} is a foam of sorts, but not of full-fledged
particles; it's a foam of quarks and sub-quarks vibrating between
energy and sub-matter and energy and sub-antimatter. The
frequency is so high, and they spin so fast that the q-aq sub-particles
rarely annihilate each other.

FSM: The spatial medium (Painius' SPED) is composed of an energy field
whose frequency domain lies *above* the EM spectrum. Its wavelength
state or 'granularity' resides below the Planck length. Its energy
density obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher the
energy.

The gravitational field strength increases and acts as a force upon
those billions and billions of sub-particles, those quarks..{as} they
constantly stream into
matter.

FSM: As the *acceleration rate* of space flowing into matter
increases, the gravitational field or 'strength of gravity' increases.
(When the inflow-rate reaches the speed of light, the gravitator is
called a black hole.)

And since they are not full-fledged particles, they don't have the
problems with heat and such that particles would bear, so space is
partly energy and partly sub-particulate, and you
pretty much know the rest.

FSM: Your term "sub-particulate" squares with Wolter's terms
"granularity" and "particulate nature" of the spatial medium. But your
usage of "quark", "matter/antimater" etc. places the stuff on 'this
side' of the Planck length whereas Wolter's spatial medium (Painius'
SPED) resides on the 'other side' of the Planck length. Its
"particulate-ness"/'granularity' is below sensory and EM resolution,
making it appear "void" to our sense-based logic, keeping us oblivious
to the extreme supra-nuclear levels of energy packed into every cc of
space, everywhere in the universe.

"This side" - "That side" - that's just geography.
The importance is the steadfast presence of an unmoving energy field, and
the fluidity of its sub-matter-antimatter energy-particulate components.

You referred to the *spin* of the particulates. Last year in
discussions with Painius, the term "granulon" was coined. Each
'granulon' is a spinning, *bipolar* entity exactly as the CBB model
describes every rotating system in nature.. from spiral galaxies and
BHs to solar systems, planet-moon systems, planets, unfolding embryos
(viewed side-on), right down to the hydrogen atom and its proton as
depicted here-
http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/ocindexpage4.html
By extrapolation then, each sub-Planckian 'granulon' would be a micro-
microcopy of the H atom.

And damndest thing, now get this. Bernoulli the younger, in
formulating his model of the "aether", described it as a plenum of
particulates that are 'spinning whirlpools'. The only feature missing
was their bipolar or dipole nature. Scroll down to near the middle of
this article where it discusses Bernoulli and his "aether"-
http://www.scientificblogging.com/re...nd_dark_energy

Fascinating.
Dark matter, dark energy, and now "dark fluid".
Cosmology is a "happening" thing these days.
When people can wrap themselves around the sheer power of a universe that's
infinite in time and space, then things will really change for them, change
for the better.
Right now, people look at the universe and think WOW! somebody said the
universe is more than 90 billion light years diameter.
NINETY BILLION LIGHT YEARS. (one light year = about six trillion miles)
And what is Earth? about 8,000 miles?
What am I? about two feet give or take?
Your science today - all it does is make people feel small, like tiny
pockmarks.

And people are not tiny pockmarks.
Earth isn't just a little dust speck in an unimaginably humongous universe.
We are life!
We are sentience!
And if we do it right, we're benevolence. (I've considered the alternative.)
It doesn't get any better or bigger than that.

People already have more power than they're willing or able to deal with.
So they turn there backs on it.
Who can blame them?
And that's why it can be so hard to wrap your legs around an infinite
universe.

In this universe there is a lot of power, a LOT.
There's power in stars, in galaxies, there's power in radium.
Now, the REAL power is in what CONTROLS all that other power.
There are four things in this infinite universe that can control all that
power, and they are life, sentience, benevolence and gravity.

We are life, and that's a plus.
We are sentient, and that's another plus.
Benevolence? we still have things to learn about that, and about gravity,
too.
We're almost there.
We just have to stop being distracted by tangents.
Figure out what the "main thing" is, and keep it the main thing, and you'll
never feel so small again.

Listen to me, talking as if I know something.
I'm going to climb down off my soapbox now.
There are dishes to wash and toilets to clean.

The whole article is quite revelatory and worth the read. It
spotlights the urgency to revisit the *very real* spatial medium and
rename it with a term more descriptive and definitive, like the Sub-
Planck(ian) Energy Domain, or SPED.

I hear there are some very pretty girls out there who like to let their
slip
show a bit to catch the eye.
Ah hahh? Ah hahh?

Now you got the right idea. (:


And coffee to brew!
Treat yourself right.
Or, just treat yourself.
Every once in awhile, sometimes, treat yourself - give yourself a treat!
Even if you think you don't deserve it, because you probably DO deserve it.

Think about something you like, look forward to it, and go for it.
Then, later, do it again.
Someday, you'll thank me for that.

--
M a c k

"This side" - "That side" - that's just geography.

Well, the demarkation line called the Planck length is a bit more than
"just geography". It's unceremoniously declared the shortest length
that "has any meaning". But when the evidence for the spatial medium
is looked at, the great bulk of 'What Is', in terms of energy density,
lies on the 'other side' of the Planck length. Everything on 'this
side' (EM radiation, matter, thermodynamics) presents the very
*lowest* energy (and longest wavelength) state of the spatial medium.

The importance is the steadfast presence of an unmoving energy field, and
the fluidity of its sub-matter-antimatter energy-particulate components.

You're still not 'getting' it. There is nothing unmoving or static.
The "energy field", aka the spatial medium, aka the SPED, _and_ the
sub-Planckian particulate/granular structure composing it, IS that
which moves and flows. Space itself is the dynamic, highly mobile
'Dark Fluid' referred to in that article in the previous post. By
analogy, the water going down your bathtub drain AND the molecular
structure composing it, is what moves and flows. Nothing is static or
stationary.

Take this article. It describes the 'River Model' of gravity (it's
actually an update of the old Painleve-Gulstrand flowing-space model
from the 1920s, now updated to include black holes). Notice how the
authors are very meticulous to specify it's only an analogy, nothing
is 'really' moving or flowing. The allgorically flow is referanced
against a "fixed background". http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
But it's high time to cut through the bull**** and recognize it's the
'fixed background' itself that's moving/flowing/accelerating into the
gravitator.

Fascinating.
Dark matter, dark energy, and now "dark fluid".

Well, the enigmatic 'dark matter' which was concocted to explain the
*excessive* lensing of distant galaxies and the non-Keplerian (frisbee-
like) rotation of galaxies, is nothing other than the spatial medium
itself.

Cosmology is a "happening" thing these days.

Nothing of any real import is gonna 'happen' as long as the reality of
the spatial medium is institutionally denied by the mainstream. oc

Yeah, and I'm beginning to think you're one of 'em, putz.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...


You have TOO MANY DELUSIONS!

Saul Levy


--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

"jughead" wrote in message
...

"This side" - "That side" - that's just geography.

Well, the demarkation line called the Planck length is a bit more than
"just geography". It's unceremoniously declared the shortest length
that "has any meaning". But when the evidence for the spatial medium
is looked at, the great bulk of 'What Is', in terms of energy density,
lies on the 'other side' of the Planck length. Everything on 'this
side' (EM radiation, matter, thermodynamics) presents the very
*lowest* energy (and longest wavelength) state of the spatial medium.


Still just geography.
What if they had said the shortest length that has any meaning is the
diameter of an electron?
or the radius of a quark? the length of Aunt Sophie's little toe?
The point is, WHO CARES what they think?
Reality is all that matters.
And there is nothing special or magic about the Planck length.

The importance is the steadfast presence of an unmoving energy field, and
the fluidity of its sub-matter-antimatter energy-particulate components.

You're still not 'getting' it. There is nothing unmoving or static.
The "energy field", aka the spatial medium, aka the SPED, _and_ the
sub-Planckian particulate/granular structure composing it, IS that
which moves and flows. Space itself is the dynamic, highly mobile
'Dark Fluid' referred to in that article in the previous post. By
analogy, the water going down your bathtub drain AND the molecular
structure composing it, is what moves and flows. Nothing is static or
stationary.

We're arguing about very little here.
Energy fields don't move by themselves.
They can BE moved, like when you pick up a magnet and carry it over to the
refrigerator to hang up you son's latest piece of art.
My favorite coffee mug has Van Gogh's "Starry Night" all over it.
Such ENERGY that painting has! (or seems to have)
You eat pasta or a candy bar, and you can "feel the flow" of energy through
your body.
Energy and matter can move, unless Zeno was right.
But an energy field, which can BE moved like by the motion of a star through
the galaxy or a planet around a star, is not a moving thing in and of
itself.
It's just like Einstein said, it is not something that can be tracked
through time. (or space, for that matter)
In your analogy above, the gravitational field would be the bathtub.

Take this article. It describes the 'River Model' of gravity (it's
actually an update of the old Painleve-Gulstrand flowing-space model
from the 1920s, now updated to include black holes). Notice how the
authors are very meticulous to specify it's only an analogy, nothing
is 'really' moving or flowing. The allgorically flow is referanced
against a "fixed background". http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
But it's high time to cut through the bull**** and recognize it's the
'fixed background' itself that's moving/flowing/accelerating into the
gravitator.


They're so afraid of losing everything by asserting an ether.
Sooner or later they're going to have to face facts.
The evidence continues to be gathered as we speak.
The CERN will probably confirm the evidence.
Then all of these schmucks who have been derating and deflating people who
asserted an ether here on Usenet for years and years will have their words
for dinner.

Personally, I don't care for the word "ether".
It puts me to sleep.
I'm not crazy about "dark fluid" or dark anything, either.
Sounds too much like something out of a Batman movie.
The all-time WORST possible word, though, is "space".
That word denotes emptiness.

I think we should call it "spaishgh", with a real, old-Hebrew guttural,
throaty sound at the end.
Vhat do I know.

Fascinating.
Dark matter, dark energy, and now "dark fluid".

Well, the enigmatic 'dark matter' which was concocted to explain the
*excessive* lensing of distant galaxies and the non-Keplerian (frisbee-
like) rotation of galaxies, is nothing other than the spatial medium
itself.


On that we agree.

Cosmology is a "happening" thing these days.

Nothing of any real import is gonna 'happen' as long as the reality of
the spatial medium is institutionally denied by the mainstream. oc

And that will change soon.
And you watch, all the smart people are going to say, "Of course, we knew
that all along. You just misunderstood us before."
God love 'em.

--
M a c k

Dog squeeze.
That's a good one, putz.
You're so full of ****, you have to take your pants off to sneeze.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
news
KNOWLEDGE? Amazing how you've SHOWN NO REAL KNOWLEDGE, only REPEATING
WHAT YOU'VE READ ELSEWHERE! CLAIMING ALL KINDS OF **** with NO
EVIDENCE!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

What a STUPID FRAUD you are!

ALL PSYCHO-BABBLE with NO SUBSTANCE!

**** A DUCK, DARLA! Only the LOONIES could believe **** like you
squeeze out! You are NOTHING BUT DOG SQUEEZE! lmfjao!

Saul Levy


--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

You are what you eat, putz.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
Of course it WAS a fish. I wanted BEEF!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:18:13 -0500, "Yubiwan"
wrote:

Saul, what you probably ate was dolphin, the fish, NOT dolphin the mammal.
There is a huge difference, though I'll admit the naming is sometimes
confusing.

http://www.govisitcostarica.com/images/photos/full-dolphin-fish-costa-rica.jpg

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
. ..
Point: PORPOISES TASTE GOOD, Yubi****? lmfjao!

I ate part of a DOLPHIN ONCE! I prefer BEEF or CHICKEN!

Saul Levy


--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

Your sig, "JERK-OFF LOSER", do you hold the magnifying glass in your left
hand and the tweezers in your right hand for that?

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
I SPELL IT MY WAY, JERK-OFF LOSER!


On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:57:47 -0500, "Semmalon"
wrote:

You misspelled "aleun", putz. lmfjao!

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, you FAKE, ALEEUN,

--
S e m m a
Be well and come... be welcome!

****
We're arguing about very little here.
Energy fields don't move by themselves.
They {fields} can BE moved, like when you pick up a magnet and carry it over to the
refrigerator...
.
So what eggzackly is a "field", anyhow? In the context under
discussion, what specifically defines a "gravitational field"?

...an energy {gravitational}field, which can BE moved like by the motion of a star through
the galaxy or a planet around a star, is not a moving thing in and of
itself.

It isn't?? The MOVING, accelerating, "reverse starburst" flow _of the
spatial medium, the "stuff of space" itself_ is what constitutes a
gravitational "field". As the gravitator moves through space, the
'reverse starburst' flow field is entrained and travels with it. It is
an _entrained flow field_ or EFF, synonymous with gravitational field
or gravity well. Take this graphic of a black hole's EFF.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/trajrbig_gif.html
A object embedded in the EFF (gravitational field) is accelerated and
takes on momentum from the *acceleration component* of the inflow.

In your analogy {of the bathtub drain}, the gravitational field would be the bathtub.

No, the gravitational field would be the flowing water itself as it
accelerates down the drain. The "hole" can represent any mass ranging
from a proton to a BH. The water in the "bathtub" would represent the
universal Plenum of space itself.

You're probably familiar with Einstein's famous 'space elevator'
thought experiment which demonstrated gravity-acceleration equivalence
and the fact that gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical.
But it doesn't explain WHY they are identical.

Under the Flowing-Space model (FSM), any accelerating flow imparts
momentum to an object embedded in the flow. Conversely, when you
accelerate an object in space, the resistance you feel (inertia) is
literally the resistance *of space itself* to the acceleration. The
self-same property of space itself, its 'hyperfluidity', underlies and
fixes the laws of inertia and conservation of momentum, and gravity-
acceleration equivalence.

There's the oft-cited (here) "standing arm-wave" test of gravity-
acceleration equivalence. Stand, with one arm outstretched to your
side. Now abruptly jerk the arm forward and then back. And repeat.
Feel the inertia? That is literally the resistance *of space itself*
to acceleration and deceleration. Feel the force pressing your feet
firmly to the floor? That is literally the resistance to the
*accelerating flow of space* as it passes downward through your bod,
giving you your 'weight'.

The cryptic "curvature of space" is the measure of the *rate of
acceleration* of any space flow. With no acceleration component, there
is no "curvature", no gravity, no momentum imparted to an object
embedded in the flow _irrespective of the actual velocity of the
flow_. Conversely, a non-accelerating object in motion will continue
on frictionlessly through space (Newton's first law; conservation of
momentum).

Personally, I don't care for the word "ether".
It puts me to sleep.

Yep, the archaic term "aether/ether" needs to be struck from the
lexicon due to the historic stigma it carries.

I'm not crazy about "dark fluid" or dark anything, either.
Sounds too much like something out of a Batman movie.
The all-time WORST possible word, though, is "space".
That word denotes emptiness.

Agreed. What's needed is an up-to-date term that adequately defines
and describes the spatial medium. Painius' Sub-Planck(ian) Energy
Domain or SPED is the most relevant that i've heard yet.

Well, the enigmatic 'dark matter' which was concocted to explain the
*excessive* lensing of distant galaxies and the non-Keplerian (frisbee-
like) rotation of galaxies, is nothing other than the spatial medium
itself.

On that we agree.

Yowsir.
oc