Believe Only What You See?

Dont you know that the sun goes around the earth?

"dummie" wrote in message
om...
"jabriol" wrote in message
...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.

Okay I give up.

What's irrational in thinking a planet could orbit a star?

From: davers_disfellowshipped:

What does gravity look like?

(Raises hand meekly) a pressure-driven, accelerating flow? Heh heh. oc

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

What does gravity look like?

(Raises hand meekly) a pressure-driven, accelerating flow? Heh heh. oc

Bzzzzt! Oh, I'm sorry Bill. Please collect your parting gift on the way out.

;-)

From JohnZ:

Bzzzzt! Oh, I'm sorry.... Please collect
your parting gift on the way out.
;-)

Thanks, John.
A little while back you referanced a spatial-flow 'metric'
by two dudes I had never heard of before. Now I've lost the referance
and can't find it in Google or Yahoo. It was a 'flow' that replaced the
'curvature' in GR, but wasn't "really" a flow. Do you recall the names?
Thx. oc

"Scott Schwartz" wrote in message ...
Dont you know that the sun goes around the earth?

Thats the question I implied to Jabriol.

"dummie" wrote in message
om...
"jabriol" wrote in message
...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.

Okay I give up.

What's irrational in thinking a planet could orbit a star?

Fact is we don't see 99% of the universe. Nothing in the micro realm.
Even the hand is faster than the eye. In the macro realm we see only
(5%) and most of that is not there anymore. Than we have vitual
images.Well that's another story. Bert

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

Bzzzzt! Oh, I'm sorry.... Please collect
your parting gift on the way out.
;-)

Thanks, John.
A little while back you referanced a spatial-flow 'metric'
by two dudes I had never heard of before. Now I've lost the referance
and can't find it in Google or Yahoo. It was a 'flow' that replaced the
'curvature' in GR, but wasn't "really" a flow. Do you recall the names?
Thx. oc

Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates/gauge/metric (search on all of these)

Paul Painlevé
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his.../Painleve.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Painlev%E9

Allvar Gullstrand
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureat...trand-bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allvar_Gullstrand


A quote to titillate ...

"Acoustic black holes: horizons, ergospheres and Hawking radiation
This rather simple physical system exhibits a remarkable connection between
classical Newtonian physics and the differential geometry of curved (3 +
1)-dimensional Lorentzian spacetimes, and is the basis underlying a deep and
fruitful analogy between the black holes of Einstein gravity and supersonic
fluid flows. Many results and definitions can be carried over directly from
one system to another. For example, it will be shown how to define the
ergosphere, trapped regions, acoustic apparent horizon, and acoustic event
horizon for a supersonic fluid flow, and the close relationship between the
acoustic metric for the fluid flow surrounding a point sink and the
Painlevé-Gullstrand form of the Schwarzschild metric for a black hole will
be exhibited. This analysis can be used either to provide a concrete
non-relativistic analogy for black-hole physics, or to provide a framework
for attacking acoustics problems with the full power of Lorentzian
differential geometry."
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/15/6/024

From JohnZ:

Painlev=E9-Gullstrand
coordinates/gauge/metric (search on all
of these)

Thank you, John. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
I was referring back to the question posted by Mr.
Davers_disfellowshipped, who asked,

"What does gravity look like?"

Well, by its abundance of visible effects, ya gotta admit
that gravity *looks like* an accelerating, pressure-driven flow, do you
not? Even if you don't believe it literally *is* what it appears to be,
it certainly looks like an omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' flow into
a gravitating mass, as Painlev=E9-Gullstrand recognized in their 'flow'
metric. They saw it as directly interchangable with GR's 'curvature',
and obeying the same equations.
I'm just dumb enough to believe gravity really `is`
exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. Occams Razor and all that.
The void-space mantra assures us, "there is no medium.
There is no need for a medium." Yet there is 'Something' dubbed
"spacetime" that exploded forth from the Big Bang. Whatever this
Something is, it's certainly mobile and flowing, as evinced by the
expansion of the universe. Its propensity to flow is patently obvious.
What's to preclude its one-way flow into matter, as the literal
mechanism of gravity?
Well, people balk at the idea, raising the objection of
"Where does the stuff go once injested?" Yet curiousy, they have no
problem with spacetime's eruption from the Big Bang while not knowing
what constitutes the pre-BB state. Two imponderables, one readily
accepted, and the other not. But I'm blissfully content to accept the
obvious on both counts, and accept that the "place" where the stuff goes
and the pre-BB state are one and the same, merging at a sub-quantum
level. While seemingly defying space and time, quantum nonlocality with
its 'instantaneity' has already been proven in the lab as a valid
mechanism. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

"What does gravity look like?"

Well, by its abundance of visible effects, ya gotta admit
that gravity *looks like* an accelerating, pressure-driven flow, do you
not? Even if you don't believe it literally *is* what it appears to be,
it certainly looks like an omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' flow into
a gravitating mass,

Ah, of course. How could I forget the "Super-Duper Cosmic Pressure-Cooker."
(I "gotta admit" no such thing.)


as Painlevé-Gullstrand recognized in their 'flow'
metric. They saw it as directly interchangable with GR's 'curvature',
and obeying the same equations.

And here I thought that you might actually be interested in attempting to
read up on this a little (silly me) but it seems clear that you made no such
attempt.
(You really should read up on these two for entertainment value, if nothing
else. They were both rather colourful characters)


I'm just dumb enough to believe gravity really `is`
exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. Occams Razor and all that.

What do you suppose Occam would have to say about the following ...

"So non-plurality/ nonlocality of singularities joins the list of 'givens'
in the expanded model, along with hyperfluidity, Ultimate Origins, and the
SCO,"
- Bill Sheppard -


The void-space mantra assures us, "there is no medium.
There is no need for a medium." Yet there is 'Something' dubbed
"spacetime" that exploded forth from the Big Bang. Whatever this
Something is, it's certainly mobile and flowing, as evinced by the
expansion of the universe. Its propensity to flow is patently obvious.
What's to preclude its one-way flow into matter, as the literal
mechanism of gravity?
Well, people balk at the idea, raising the objection of
"Where does the stuff go once injested?" Yet curiousy, they have no
problem with spacetime's eruption from the Big Bang while not knowing
what constitutes the pre-BB state. Two imponderables, one readily
accepted, and the other not. But I'm blissfully content to accept the
obvious on both counts, and accept that the "place" where the stuff goes
and the pre-BB state are one and the same, merging at a sub-quantum
level. While seemingly defying space and time, quantum nonlocality with
its 'instantaneity' has already been proven in the lab as a valid
mechanism. oc

Hi oc As you know my theory on gravity goes more along with quantum
gravity and the force is attraction created by the graviton. Your
theory(Wolton) is a push theory. Staying just with attraction over
distance(two objects not touching) magnetisim uses virtual photons.
Physicists do some fudging here by not telling us how the virtual photon
can effect the two objects so they get the message to come together.
Hmmmm My theory explains this. What makes a virtual particle?
What feature does it have that is different than its real twin? Does
every particle have a virtual twin? My idea about the graviton is its
a virtual particle,and that is why it will never be detected in our life
time. A clue that gave me the thought that the graviton is a virtual
particle is it can't be detected,and it only attracts. No other particle
can have that said about it. Bert