!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

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

This comes under the 'describing, not
explaining' heading you reject for non
FSM theories.

At the "seams and rivets" level of describing a statue, yes. F'instance
if one's only interest in the Eiffel Tower (or Statue of Liberty) is in
its metallurgy and joinery techniques, with no interest in the larger
import and signifigance of the structure itself, then its seams and
rivets will be the focus of interest.

Oh don't be daft. You complained that GR didn't provide an explanation for
graviatational attraction and now you say that FSM desn't have to! Is an
explanation important or not?

nightbat wrote

OG wrote:

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

The old coot asks how QM and GR can
be accommodated in the same model;
however he believes that the FSM is the
only model that provides an integration
of both and can't be persuaded that it is
a flawed model in itself.

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

No it isn't. The role I've taken on is to counter the argument that FSM
provides an adequate description. You yourself have failed to provide a
coherent explanation for how FSM causes matter to accelerate. When you asked
Lindner to explain he came up with some garbage about space wrapping itself
around leptons to form hadrons. That didn't explain how FSM caused matter to
accelerate either.

..entrainment gives some particular
problems of its own, like why we don't
see the postions of stars move as their
light passes through the zone of
'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the
Moon - there should be refraction as the
light slows down and speeds up again
through this zone.

The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919
solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass
objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do
you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for
a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet
translate laterally? You're being a little silly really.

You don't understand entrainment do you?

..(at one point he thought that the effect
of the charge on an electron would be
less than that of a proton 'because the
electron has less mass'); so any attempt
to discuss basics comes to naught.

Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba.
But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and
particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals
in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of
effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face,
but it has no relevance to causation.

ditto. Assertion is not proof. Your model can't explain why things start to
accelerate in the vicinity of planets. You seem to forget that until I
explained your own model you thought it was the 'speed' of FS that caused
matter to accelerate, not the 'acceleration' of FS itself. Is this another
'detail'. Ha!

So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is
yours___________ . oc

As explained, I'm simply offering a corrective to the failed FSM model you
keep putting forward.

nightbat

A little background on concept of physics entrainment (dragging)
per relativistic transformations.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...%2Fng%2Fff.htm

nightbat wrote

OG wrote:

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

The old coot asks how QM and GR can
be accommodated in the same model;
however he believes that the FSM is the
only model that provides an integration
of both and can't be persuaded that it is
a flawed model in itself.

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

No it isn't. The role I've taken on is to counter the argument that FSM
provides an adequate description. You yourself have failed to provide a
coherent explanation for how FSM causes matter to accelerate. When you asked
Lindner to explain he came up with some garbage about space wrapping itself
around leptons to form hadrons. That didn't explain how FSM caused matter to
accelerate either.

..entrainment gives some particular
problems of its own, like why we don't
see the postions of stars move as their
light passes through the zone of
'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the
Moon - there should be refraction as the
light slows down and speeds up again
through this zone.

The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919
solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass
objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do
you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for
a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet
translate laterally? You're being a little silly really.

You don't understand entrainment do you?

..(at one point he thought that the effect
of the charge on an electron would be
less than that of a proton 'because the
electron has less mass'); so any attempt
to discuss basics comes to naught.

Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba.
But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and
particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals
in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of
effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face,
but it has no relevance to causation.

ditto. Assertion is not proof. Your model can't explain why things start to
accelerate in the vicinity of planets. You seem to forget that until I
explained your own model you thought it was the 'speed' of FS that caused
matter to accelerate, not the 'acceleration' of FS itself. Is this another
'detail'. Ha!

So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is
yours___________ . oc

As explained, I'm simply offering a corrective to the failed FSM model you
keep putting forward.

nightbat

A little background on concept of physics entrainment (dragging)
per relativistic transformations.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...%2Fng%2Fff.htm

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

A little background on concept of physics entrainment (dragging)
per relativistic transformations.


See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...entrainment&pa
ge=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%2 6requestId%3D5aa148883a629
a12%26clickedItemRank%3D8%26userQuery%3Dphysics%2B entrainment%26clickedItemU
RN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.n-t.org%252Ftpe%252Fng%252Fff.htm%26invocationTy
pe%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResults%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remo ve_url=http%3A%2F%2F
www.n-t.org%2Ftpe%2Fng%2Fff.htm


To be honest I've not read much of it (life's too short), but I do worry
when the site claims

"there is nothing in space but moving matter"
and
"the metrics of space should be Euclidian. "

Which bits should I have read?

"nightbat" wrote in message
...
nightbat wrote

A little background on concept of physics entrainment (dragging)
per relativistic transformations.


See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...entrainment&pa
ge=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%2 6requestId%3D5aa148883a629
a12%26clickedItemRank%3D8%26userQuery%3Dphysics%2B entrainment%26clickedItemU
RN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.n-t.org%252Ftpe%252Fng%252Fff.htm%26invocationTy
pe%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResults%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remo ve_url=http%3A%2F%2F
www.n-t.org%2Ftpe%2Fng%2Fff.htm


To be honest I've not read much of it (life's too short), but I do worry
when the site claims

"there is nothing in space but moving matter"
and
"the metrics of space should be Euclidian. "

Which bits should I have read?

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

To Jb:
Try growing some brain cells. You seem to be stuck in
'droid mode. Or better yet, go play in traffic, little boy. oc

BS, stomping your little feet on the ground won't resolve the
inconsistencies in your ramblings.

Okay, now that the science part is over, let's start with some
fun flaming! Can't you guys do any better than this?

This **** gets us nowhere. Yes there are some inconsistencies
in the flowing space models just as there are inexplicable aspects
of the big bang models.

Instead of using verbal baseball bats to hide the answers, why
not try using brain cells to find them?

John, i'm not fully convinced either way regarding whether
space is a dense medium of thus far indetectable energy or
space is void and *contains* a dense matrix of thus far
indetectable energy. I think the dense energy is a point that
is worth focusing upon for the moment.

Would such a dense, extremely tiny wavelength energy help
to explain Bell's Theorem? Could this energy be what Bohm
meant when he referred to the "quantum potential?" Could
this be the explanation for nonlocality, for "spooky action at a
distance?"

Could this energy be supplying each and every atom of mass
with a constant and consistent source supply of energy for the
strong and weak nuclear forces? and if so, would this not be
the answer to the strongest argument against the flowing space
model, i.e., the "roach motel" issue?

Isn't this indetectable, energy-dense medium a more acceptable
explanation than mainstream science's romance with wormholes
and multiverses?

I *still* say ya'll should read a little Copernicus. This may
humble you enough to realize that you don't discover new lands
until you've risked sailing the ocean.

--
You pick yourself up,
And you dust off the mess,
You go bat-outta-hell,
And you hope for the best!

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

To Jb:
Try growing some brain cells. You seem to be stuck in
'droid mode. Or better yet, go play in traffic, little boy. oc

BS, stomping your little feet on the ground won't resolve the
inconsistencies in your ramblings.

Okay, now that the science part is over, let's start with some
fun flaming! Can't you guys do any better than this?

This **** gets us nowhere. Yes there are some inconsistencies
in the flowing space models just as there are inexplicable aspects
of the big bang models.

Instead of using verbal baseball bats to hide the answers, why
not try using brain cells to find them?

John, i'm not fully convinced either way regarding whether
space is a dense medium of thus far indetectable energy or
space is void and *contains* a dense matrix of thus far
indetectable energy. I think the dense energy is a point that
is worth focusing upon for the moment.

Would such a dense, extremely tiny wavelength energy help
to explain Bell's Theorem? Could this energy be what Bohm
meant when he referred to the "quantum potential?" Could
this be the explanation for nonlocality, for "spooky action at a
distance?"

Could this energy be supplying each and every atom of mass
with a constant and consistent source supply of energy for the
strong and weak nuclear forces? and if so, would this not be
the answer to the strongest argument against the flowing space
model, i.e., the "roach motel" issue?

Isn't this indetectable, energy-dense medium a more acceptable
explanation than mainstream science's romance with wormholes
and multiverses?

I *still* say ya'll should read a little Copernicus. This may
humble you enough to realize that you don't discover new lands
until you've risked sailing the ocean.

--
You pick yourself up,
And you dust off the mess,
You go bat-outta-hell,
And you hope for the best!

Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

From Painius:

...i'm not fully convinced either way
regarding whether space is a dense
medium of thus far indetectable energy
or space is void and *contains* a dense
matrix of thus far indetectable energy.

Well, if the void "contains" the sub Planck energy field, it would not
be a void. It would be a plenum.

I think the dense energy is a point that is worth focusing upon for
the moment.
Would such a dense, extremely tiny
wavelength energy help to explain Bell's
Theorem?

Seems like it would have *everything* to do with Bell's Theorem and
Bohm's 'Implicate Order'.

Could this energy be supplying each and every atom of mass with a
constant and
consistent source supply of energy for
the strong and weak nuclear forces?

Hint, by analogy- what drives sonoluminescing bubbles in an ultrasound
field?
Moreover, what drives the spin of the electron in free space??? A free
electron sans a nucleus will spin indefinitely, which seemingly defies
the law of conservation of energy.. like a 'rolling smoke ring' that
simply never quits rolling. oc

From Painius:

...i'm not fully convinced either way
regarding whether space is a dense
medium of thus far indetectable energy
or space is void and *contains* a dense
matrix of thus far indetectable energy.

Well, if the void "contains" the sub Planck energy field, it would not
be a void. It would be a plenum.

I think the dense energy is a point that is worth focusing upon for
the moment.
Would such a dense, extremely tiny
wavelength energy help to explain Bell's
Theorem?

Seems like it would have *everything* to do with Bell's Theorem and
Bohm's 'Implicate Order'.

Could this energy be supplying each and every atom of mass with a
constant and
consistent source supply of energy for
the strong and weak nuclear forces?

Hint, by analogy- what drives sonoluminescing bubbles in an ultrasound
field?
Moreover, what drives the spin of the electron in free space??? A free
electron sans a nucleus will spin indefinitely, which seemingly defies
the law of conservation of energy.. like a 'rolling smoke ring' that
simply never quits rolling. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Moreover, what drives the spin of the electron in free space??? A free
electron sans a nucleus will spin indefinitely, which seemingly defies
the law of conservation of energy.. like a 'rolling smoke ring' that
simply never quits rolling. oc

Hi Bill,
You know that thing you do sometimes where you show your ignorance of basic
principles of physics?

You've just done it again.