Flowing Space 101 plus -- On the Right Wavelength?

Hi Painius An apple can be rotten to its core(not me) Why are you
throwing up different sources that create light to me. We both know
photons of all wave lengths go at one set speed 186,242 mps. I stop a
ray of light an inch an a half after leaving its source(electron) How
much time did it take a photon to travel such a short distance? How did
I do it? Bert

From Painius:

I suppose we should view overturning
the VSP as a minor, secondary
objective... no big deal. And i'll tell you
why...

If we concentrate on the main goal of
understanding the field theory of space,
sooner or later we will hit on something
solid, something useful, something with
predictive value. And when this happens, when the chips begin to fall
into place,
the VSP will begin to naturally dissolve
into the void from whence it came.

Brilliant insight, Paine.
While taking down Wolter's dictations, i remarked, "you
realize you've solved the unification of gravity, don't you?" He was
nonplussed, and saw it as "no big deal" and simply a fortuitous spin-off
of his CBB model. It came unsought and unsolicited, like a friendly dog
that trotted in thru the back door and sat down grinning.

BTW, glad to hear OG has been catalytic again in sparking a catharsis
for you. He does drop a nugget or two once in a while, albeit
unwittingly.

..he drew the conclusion that "functional" is a sloppy and meaningless
term and
not very good science.
And he's essentially correct.

He IS correct in his world, in his referance frame where literal
exactitude of details and particulars is paramount and 'big picture'
issues have no meaning.

...it's NOT a sloppy and meaningless
term to you and me, but that's because
you and i know that we're using
"functional" in a meaningful manner.

...In our referance frame, where literal exactitude of D&Ps is of
secondary importance. Take the Lady who stands in NY Harbor. What she
stands for and represents is her *primary* signifigance, not her rivets
and seams.

Einstein merely showed that there was
NO NEED for an ether. His equations
would work beautifully,..... for all intents
and purposes, space may be treated as
a void.

In the absence of any density gradient.

Wolter was very clear on this; space can be treated mathematically _as
if_ it were a void and relativity 'works' very well. But at deep
cosmological distances where the _cosmological density gradient_ becomes
signifigant, 'local' relativity begins breaking down, requiring a
revision of deep-past redshift interpretations. It's like the 'local'
flat earth and then the curvature as seen from a larger frame.

And your quote from Uncle Albert:

"By this is meant a theory which describes exhaustively =A0 physical
reality, including four-dimensional space, by a =A0 field."

Note the operative word, "describes", which is what the equations of
relativity and QM do... vis-a-vis _explains causation_ .

The Unified Field of Spatial Flows and its requisite SCO explains
causation of the fundamental forces, and their unification.

...his cosmological constant, was IMO
his gravest error.

His original Steady State or lambda idea is fully validated by the CBB
model, but in a much grander way he never envisioned.
Had he lived long enough to see
quantum nonlocality realized, we might
already be communicating with the
intelligent life on the other side of the
galaxy using the new Digital
Entanglement Technology.

Oh, the DET he owes us! g

Hmm..

oc

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"OG" wrote in message...
...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message...
...

Ah right, so 'functionally instantaneous' just means 'not really
really
slow'

You turn on the flashlight. What do you care if it takes a
certain tiny amount of "real" time for the light to shine on
that spider you're looking for in the dark?

In terms of 'what is the speed of propagation?' there is no more
important
question. How difficult is that? If one of the critical tests is an
infinite propagation speed for gravity, it really helps if you know what
your words mean.

My recent contributions to this thread started when it was alleged that
water flow does not propagate at a specific speed through a hose, but
'instantaneously'.

Then it was modified to the flow propagates 'functionally
instantaneously';
now we have refined 'functionally instananeous' to being a sloppy
meaningless term that might mean something as slow as 1500m/s and the
worst
is that you don't even care.

Bill calls it 'fixation on details', I prefer to see it as 'attention to
detail'.

Unless you accept this, there really is no point on carrying on.

Okay fine!

Owen, I will be glad to accept this for two reasons...

1) I really do think you're sincere, and
2) You just opened up a can of worms, pal !

Here's a detail or two for ya...

You don't think the word "functional" has much of a place
in science. And yet, when A. Einstein made it clear that
any substance to space could be disregarded as it was not
necessary for his equations and relativity to work, the so-
called "void-space paradigm" was born.

Science had NO conclusive proof, no evidence, no reason
at all other than powerful Einstein indicating no need for any
substance to space. And yet scientists apparently decided
that the void--the idea that space was "nothing"--effectively
was, is and has always been...

functionally valid.

Where did you get this from?

What was clear post 1919 was that there was no way that there could be a
stationary or moving aether through which the earth moved, or against which
one could describe a relative motion. You are using Bill's words to describe
his view of what scientists thought at the time.

It is not fair to say that X or Y was either assumed or dismissed at that
time. The initial Dirac theories of the positron (as far as I understand
them) came from a consideration of a non-empty space. However, as a wide
scale theory it didn't really contribute much, so was replaced by theories
that were able to contribute to scientific understanding. Whether or not
space was 'void' or 'not-void' was largely irrelevant - there was certainly
a reduction in the number of properties (absolute position and absolute
motion) but no assumption that there were 'no' properties left (apart from
geometry of course).

Maybe it's "actually" valid? Could be. Well, certainly the
term "functionally" instantaneous *could* mean "actually"
instantaneous.

Hang on, you earlier used the term 'functionally instantaneous' to mean 'it
doesn't matter if it is measurably non-instantaneous'. Now you want it to go
the other way?

But as you so succinctly put it... it could
also mean something quite a bit different from "actually"
instantaneous as well. Since "functional" and "functionally"
are such sloppy and meaningless terms, it could mean
that space could be anything from an "actual" void to a
field of energy of sub-Planck wavelengths to a foam with
the consistency of the head on Bert's beer.

My point is that YOU are making 'functional' and 'functionally' into sloppy
meaningless terms. You simply don't get it do you?