Flowing space...

In article . com,
Double-A wrote:

On May 8, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

Double-A wrote:
Its a push theory, regardless how you try and model it otherwise...
Just
because you've desperately tried to make up new physical sounding
words...

You only say that because you still have not been able to get your
mind around the revolutionary concepts of the Wolterian theory.

Point me to the peer-reviewed articles Wolter published.


Socrates never published an article of any kind, and yet he is still
studied in all our major universities. And it's not that things
weren't being published in his day.


Is this really the best you can muster AA, a comparison to a time pre-peer
reviewed journals?



Back to your studies, grasshopper.

There is no theory, AA, because it has no mathematical framework, is
physically
inconsistent and produces results that are at odds with observed behaviour.


You have been shown compatible math that has been developed, and the
theory is compatible with the math of GR.


No it isnt, because it has no math. Point me to one equation.... Your
predictions include EM as pressure waves - which means polarised light cannot
exist - for example of one of the many flawed predictions from this "model"



So perhaps you and your breathtaking knowledge of physics would like to
attack
the 21 questions.....


Those questions were disingenuos. The poster was not truly seeking
answers. Whatever answers had been given, he would have rejected
them.



I wrote several of those issues, and I have been waiting for answers...
Polarisation, hollow sphere's - where does this fluid go to, and how come no
one bats an eye at 10^72 singularities

Yet again you spout nonsense. They were pointers to where push theories (as is
FSN, no matter how you deny it) fall over.


We both know what you will do of course. Same as when we asked you about
the
bigotry of your fellow space cadets...

Run off like the coward you are.

--
Sacred keeper


Now you try to change the subject, and who is "we"?


Then answer the 21 questions. Start with the hollow sphere issues.


Oh and try not to do any anonymous revenge noms whilst we're waiting.

(we = alt.astronomy, at least those who know what real science is)

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message

Start with the hollow sphere issues.

OK, we'll start with your head!

HJ

On May 8, 4:51 pm, Double-A wrote:
On May 8, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article .com,

Double-A wrote:
Its a push theory, regardless how you try and model it otherwise... Just
because you've desperately tried to make up new physical sounding words...

You only say that because you still have not been able to get your
mind around the revolutionary concepts of the Wolterian theory.

Point me to the peer-reviewed articles Wolter published.

Socrates never published an article of any kind, and yet he is still
studied in all our major universities. And it's not that things
weren't being published in his day.

Back to your studies, grasshopper.

There is no theory, AA, because it has no mathematical framework, is physically
inconsistent and produces results that are at odds with observed behaviour.

You have been shown compatible math that has been developed, and the
theory is compatible with the math of GR.

So perhaps you and your breathtaking knowledge of physics would like to attack
the 21 questions.....

Those questions were disingenuos. The poster was not truly seeking
answers. Whatever answers had been given, he would have rejected
them.

Now you see why the duckwad conjoinment was 'kennelized' back when it
kept harping on the Le Sage thing. And apparently it hasn't responded
to *any* of those multiple-choice questionaires concerning the
cardinal points by which the spatial medium _demonstrates itself_,
replete with the "fill in the blank" provision for total fairness.
Heavens, you'd thing DD would grab the opportunity to recite just
*how* geometry is the cause of gravity. But no, instead of defending
geometry-as-cause, DD runs away and hides behind a smokesceen of
incoherent yip-yappery.

What duckwad et al either can't or won't 'get' is that geometry is a
*description* of the preexistant. It is not the _cause_ of the
preexisting thing it's describing.

Just as with the Le Sage issue, DD displays comprehensional
dysfunction that's either ingrained or deliberate. It either can't or
won't 'get' the clear and resounding distinction between *descriptions
of effects* and _explanations of cause_ (for that matter, the whole
freakin' Void-Space Paradigm suffers from that same disconnect).

The analogy was given of the accelerometer aboard the space shuttle.
The accelerometer reading is a *description*. It does not cause the
shuttle to fly. Likewise the "curvature of space" is a descriptive
readout of something.. the readout of the acceleration-rate of flowing
space.

DD claims no mathematical framework supports the FS model. The core
math of GR *describes* what the FS model _explains_. This is made
clear in the writings of Lindner, Warren, Paxton and Martin (links
given numerous times previously). But they, like Wolter, are not "peer
reviewed". Well Doh, of course not.

One other point - Nowhere does the FS model claim that EM radiation is
"pressure waves". It does identify *gravitational waves* as
compression-rarefaction waves, analogous to sound waves in air.. and
labels them 'spatial acoustic pressure waves'.
oc

On May 8, 6:39 pm, oldcoot wrote:
On May 8, 4:51 pm, Double-A wrote:





On May 8, 4:24 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article .com,

Double-A wrote:
Its a push theory, regardless how you try and model it otherwise... Just
because you've desperately tried to make up new physical sounding words...

You only say that because you still have not been able to get your
mind around the revolutionary concepts of the Wolterian theory.

Point me to the peer-reviewed articles Wolter published.

Socrates never published an article of any kind, and yet he is still
studied in all our major universities. And it's not that things
weren't being published in his day.

Back to your studies, grasshopper.

There is no theory, AA, because it has no mathematical framework, is physically
inconsistent and produces results that are at odds with observed behaviour.

You have been shown compatible math that has been developed, and the
theory is compatible with the math of GR.

So perhaps you and your breathtaking knowledge of physics would like to attack
the 21 questions.....

Those questions were disingenuos. The poster was not truly seeking
answers. Whatever answers had been given, he would have rejected
them.

Now you see why the duckwad conjoinment was 'kennelized' back when it
kept harping on the Le Sage thing. And apparently it hasn't responded
to *any* of those multiple-choice questionaires concerning the
cardinal points by which the spatial medium _demonstrates itself_,
replete with the "fill in the blank" provision for total fairness.
Heavens, you'd thing DD would grab the opportunity to recite just
*how* geometry is the cause of gravity. But no, instead of defending
geometry-as-cause, DD runs away and hides behind a smokesceen of
incoherent yip-yappery.

What duckwad et al either can't or won't 'get' is that geometry is a
*description* of the preexistant. It is not the _cause_ of the
preexisting thing it's describing.

Just as with the Le Sage issue, DD displays comprehensional
dysfunction that's either ingrained or deliberate. It either can't or
won't 'get' the clear and resounding distinction between *descriptions
of effects* and _explanations of cause_ (for that matter, the whole
freakin' Void-Space Paradigm suffers from that same disconnect).

The analogy was given of the accelerometer aboard the space shuttle.
The accelerometer reading is a *description*. It does not cause the
shuttle to fly. Likewise the "curvature of space" is a descriptive
readout of something.. the readout of the acceleration-rate of flowing
space.


It is amazing how Puddleduck, who so prides himself in his knowledge
of advanced math, can't get this basic concept through his head.

Double-A


DD claims no mathematical framework supports the FS model. The core
math of GR *describes* what the FS model _explains_. This is made
clear in the writings of Lindner, Warren, Paxton and Martin (links
given numerous times previously). But they, like Wolter, are not "peer
reviewed". Well Doh, of course not.

One other point - Nowhere does the FS model claim that EM radiation is
"pressure waves". It does identify *gravitational waves* as
compression-rarefaction waves, analogous to sound waves in air.. and
labels them 'spatial acoustic pressure waves'.
oc

On May 9, 1:21 am, Double-A wrote:

It is amazing how Puddleduck, who so prides himself in his knowledge
of advanced math, can't get this basic concept through his head.

Yeah, the DD conjoinment's diversionary strategy is to take refuge in
its all-important exactitude of DMP (details, minutiae and
particulars), while cowering from the 'Big Picture' issue of the CAUSE
OF GRAVITY.

DD demonstrates the quintessential mindset of the Void-Space Paradigm
itself, and could be the posterchild(thing?) of the VSP. The
quintessential void-droid. :-)

For example, DD may be able to recite the full lexicon of particle
physics with great exactitude. Yet it has no concept of what those
particles ARE. The 'Big Picture' perspective TELLS you what they are,
and what matter is.

oc

In article .com,
oldcoot wrote:

Now you see why the duckwad conjoinment was 'kennelized' back when it
kept harping on the Le Sage thing. And apparently it hasn't responded
to *any* of those multiple-choice questionaires concerning the
cardinal points by which the spatial medium _demonstrates itself_,
replete with the "fill in the blank" provision for total fairness.
Heavens, you'd thing DD would grab the opportunity to recite just
*how* geometry is the cause of gravity. But no, instead of defending
geometry-as-cause, DD runs away and hides behind a smokesceen of
incoherent yip-yappery.


I've answered them - you really do not truly understand how fundamental the
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian equations are aren't you

What duckwad et al either can't or won't 'get' is that geometry is a
*description* of the preexistant. It is not the _cause_ of the
preexisting thing it's describing.

Just as with the Le Sage issue, DD displays comprehensional
dysfunction that's either ingrained or deliberate. It either can't or
won't 'get' the clear and resounding distinction between *descriptions
of effects* and _explanations of cause_ (for that matter, the whole
freakin' Void-Space Paradigm suffers from that same disconnect).

There are no effects that fluid space shows


The analogy was given of the accelerometer aboard the space shuttle.
The accelerometer reading is a *description*. It does not cause the
shuttle to fly. Likewise the "curvature of space" is a descriptive
readout of something.. the readout of the acceleration-rate of flowing
space.

And mass is the cause


DD claims no mathematical framework supports the FS model. The core
math of GR *describes* what the FS model _explains_. This is made
clear in the writings of Lindner, Warren, Paxton and Martin (links
given numerous times previously). But they, like Wolter, are not "peer
reviewed". Well Doh, of course not.

Yep they have not been peer-reviewed - so publish them. Note, none of those
were physicists.


One other point - Nowhere does the FS model claim that EM radiation is
"pressure waves".

Tell Painius that

It does identify *gravitational waves* as
compression-rarefaction waves, analogous to sound waves in air.. and
labels them 'spatial acoustic pressure waves'.
oc

And in which case again you'd have no polarisation.....



--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

In article .com,
Double-A wrote:

The analogy was given of the accelerometer aboard the space shuttle.
The accelerometer reading is a *description*. It does not cause the
shuttle to fly. Likewise the "curvature of space" is a descriptive
readout of something.. the readout of the acceleration-rate of flowing
space.


It is amazing how Puddleduck, who so prides himself in his knowledge
of advanced math, can't get this basic concept through his head.

Double-A


Thats never been the issue, idiot.

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

In article .com,
Double-A wrote:

DD claims no mathematical framework supports the FS model. The core
math of GR *describes* what the FS model _explains_. This is made
clear in the writings of Lindner, Warren, Paxton and Martin (links
given numerous times previously). But they, like Wolter, are not "peer
reviewed". Well Doh, of course not.


So silent on this though AA ??

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

In article .com,
oldcoot wrote:

On May 9, 1:21 am, Double-A wrote:

It is amazing how Puddleduck, who so prides himself in his knowledge
of advanced math, can't get this basic concept through his head.

Yeah, the DD conjoinment's diversionary strategy is to take refuge in
its all-important exactitude of DMP (details, minutiae and
particulars), while cowering from the 'Big Picture' issue of the CAUSE
OF GRAVITY.

You can make up as grand a BIG PICTURE as you like, but the details and
minutiae do NOT SUPPORT your position in the slightest.

You can whine and moan how much you'd like reality to match your imaginary
science, but that isn't how the world works...


DD demonstrates the quintessential mindset of the Void-Space Paradigm
itself, and could be the posterchild(thing?) of the VSP. The
quintessential void-droid. :-)


Ah, thank you.

For example, DD may be able to recite the full lexicon of particle
physics with great exactitude. Yet it has no concept of what those
particles ARE. The 'Big Picture' perspective TELLS you what they are,
and what matter is.


No it doesn't, because it yet again does not match reality.


--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
Double-A wrote:

The analogy was given of the accelerometer aboard the space shuttle.
The accelerometer reading is a *description*. It does not cause the
shuttle to fly. Likewise the "curvature of space" is a descriptive
readout of something.. the readout of the acceleration-rate of flowing
space.


It is amazing how Puddleduck, who so prides himself in his knowledge
of advanced math, can't get this basic concept through his head.

Double-A


Thats never been the issue, idiot.


YOU HIT "PAYDIRT" HERE, DOUBLE-A!!!!!!!!

HJ