|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Information to Can Leave A Black Hole | flamestar | Science | 2 | December 12th 03 11:12 PM |
information can leave a black hole | James Briggs | Science | 0 | December 6th 03 01:15 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 |