What if (on Cosmic Chance)

Happy New Year, you old coot, and to all!
Try to set resolutions you can actually DO this time! G

"jughead" wrote in message
...
****
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"?


What eggsackly is a "field"?
And what specifically defines a "gravitational field"?

Eggzelent qvestions, ish tov!

Okay, you already know the basics of a "field".
Focus on a baseball or a football "field".
It's stationary; it doesn't move.
Put aside the motions of the Earth and the Sun, the galaxy and the clusters
of galaxies, and the field does not move.
Look at the field the same way everybody looks at it.
It's THERE, yes it IS, and it doesn't move.
All the energetic action takes place WITHIN THE FIELD.

Now, notice that the end zone isn't attracting the football players, though
to someone standing on the "surface", in this case the "goal line", it might
appear as if the end zone is pulling the players to it.

And that's a field, a very real, stationary place within which lots of
energetic things happen.
That's the "general" idea of a field.

Now, for the special case of a "gravitational field".

A gravitational field must be defined as a "field" where the main energetic
action that goes on within the field is action that causes the effect known
as "gravity".
There is one gravitational field in the universe, and it is infinitely
large.
Just as the universe is infinite in time and space, so the gravitational
energy field is infinite in time and space.

There are lots of energetic things that go on within the grav. field, such
as the making of stars, the traversing of starlight and galaxylight across
light-eons of distance.
But the MAIN thing that goes on within the grav. field is the
"plenum-filling" vibrations of the sub-particle foam.
This vibrating sub-mass of matter and antimatter is in motion toward any
part of the universe that is less energy-dense than the part it is in.
When this sub-mass reaches the least dense areas, areas that are mostly made
of matter, then it plunges into those areas and causes the effect known as
gravity.

The billions and billions of sub-particles are like billions and billions of
great offenses moving steadily toward their "goal".
That's the "special-case" idea of 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.


This is pretty much correct.
The "stuff of space", better yet, since I hate the word "space", the "stuff
of the universe", the sub-particle foam, generates AND constitutes the grav.
field.

As a "gravitator" moves, it does take its portion of the grav. field with
it, just like when you carry that magnet to the fridge.
There is a subtle interaction just as the magnet's field subtly interacts
with the Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's.
The magnet's field "sees" Earth's field as unmoving.
Earth's magnetic field "sees" the Sun's field as unmoving.

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.

They're identical simply because gravitational energy and inertial energy
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).

All of that sounds correct.

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


So, you didn't like my "spaishgh", with a real, old-Hebrew guttural, throaty
sound at the end, did you?
Well, there's still "universe" and "medium", as in "intergalactic medium".
The universe within a galaxy could be called the "inTRAgalactic medium", and
so on.
Trouble seems to start mostly within the Solar system.
Interplanetary "medium", no matter how hard one tries, will probably never
replace interplanetary "space".
Just like the term "positron" for "anti-electron", or "black hole" for
something that's anything BUT a hole, the term "space" is most likely here
to stay.
It IS the "domain" of a lot of "energy", lots of sub-nuclear energy, EM
energy and grav. energy.
Some is "sub-Planck(ian)" and some isn't.
It would probably be just a bit myopic to name the medium for just one facet
of one type of energy and not take into account any of the other
constituents.
Your older "VED" (I think that was for "vacuum-energy-density"?), and make
it stand for "Vacuum Energy Domain", would be more "all-encompassing".
But even "VED" will probably not be able to replace the deeply entrenched
"space".

--
M a c k

On 1/1/2010 10:47 AM, Semmalon wrote:
Happy New Year, you old coot, and to all!
Try to set resolutions you can actually DO this time!G

Mine is to not communicate with aleeuns.

****
There is one gravitational field in the universe, and it is infinitely
large.
Just as the universe is infinite in time and space, so the gravitational
energy field is infinite in time and space.

Umm.. gravity occurs only in an *accelerating* spatial flow. Non-
accelerating flows cannot impart momentum to matter, hence do not
constitute gravitation... but they CAN, and do, bend (or lens) light.
This was discussed at great length and repeatedly here with Painius,
in regard to 'dark matter', which was invented by the mainstream to
explain the excessive lensing of far-distant galaxies. A light ray,
being massless, is deflected when traversing a flow _whether the flow
is accelerating or not_. Large scale, non-accelerating flows of the
intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is observed. It is
not "gravitational" lensing but simple *flow lensing*. The enigmatic
'dark matter' is nothing other than the spatial medium itself in a
state of flow, lensing light passing through it.

Non-accelerating flows are also involved in the non-Keplerian (more
unitary) rotation of spiral galaxies. Their "unitary" rotation is due
to *co-entrainment* of the spatial medium and matter rotating
together. No mysterious 'dark matter' needed.

When this sub-mass reaches the least dense areas, areas that are mostly made
of matter, then it plunges into those areas and causes the effect known as
gravity.

By golly you got it dude. Gravity is due to the acceleration component
of the "plunging into" the pressure drain called matter. Matter is the
"venturi" to the pressurized flow.

{Space} IS the "domain" of a lot of "energy", lots of sub-nuclear energy, EM
energy and grav. energy.
Some is "sub-Planck(ian)" and some isn't.
It would probably be just a bit myopic to name the medium for just one facet
of one type of energy and not take into account any of the other
constituents.

Try a 'thought experiment'. 'Way out in deep space there's a
hypothetical spot where there is absolutely NO matter, no EM
radiation, no space flow whatsoever. It's a 'perfect vacuum' at a
thermal temperature of absolute zero. But the sub-Planckian domain of
space is at the HIGHEST pressure and density (the sub-Planckian "Temp"
discussed on pg. 2 of that link to Painius' website).

Your older "VED" (I think that was for "vacuum-energy-density"?), and make
it stand for "Vacuum Energy Domain", would be more "all-encompassing".
But even "VED" will probably not be able to replace the deeply entrenched
"space".

But it's still incumbent to recognize the sub-Planckian domain as the
substratum and carrier of *all* EM radiation up through high gamma,
all nuclear and subnuclear constituents of matter, and all
thermodynamics which constitute our reality on 'this side' of the
Planck threshold. All that lies on 'this side', in terms of its energy
density, is but an ephemeral and transient sprinkling, the proverbial
'dustbunny' upon the eternal Primary reality, the universe-filling
Plenum of space. Sorry.. still using the term "space" out of
convention. (:

A small addendum to previous post; Oc sed:

A light ray,
being massless, is deflected when traversing a flow _whether the flow
is accelerating or not_. Large scale, non-accelerating flows of the
intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is observed. It is
not "gravitational" lensing but simple *flow lensing*. The enigmatic
'dark matter' is nothing other than the spatial medium itself in a
state of flow, lensing light passing through it.

Flow lensing is also involved in the "twice Newtonian" deflection of
light traversing a gravity well. That is to say, light from a star
grazing the Sun's surface is observed to bend approx.2X what it
"should" under the Newtonian model of gravity. Under the Flowing Space
model, light is deflected not only by the gravitational component, ie,
the accelerating component of the flow, but also by the sum of both
the accelerating and non-accelerating components. The total flow
velocity itself is what bends the light the 'twice Newtonian' amount.
This is just a small scale version of
the flow-lensing of galaxies cited above, misnamed "gravitational"
lensing.