|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How Do Gravitons Actually Work? (was - Black Hole Eats . . .)(Sucks, too! npi)
On Apr 11, 12:18 am, "Painius" wrote:
And this is where folks get sidetracked on the idea of "flowing space". They take the analogies just a bit too literally. The sink analogy, the river flowing analogy, the wind through the windmill sail analogy, these are all flows of matter, and therefore there is definite "motion" involved. The flow of spatial energy is more like the "flow" of an electromagnetic signal from an antenna to your radio or TV. Presumably the intent of your last sentance was to say this : "The flow of spatial energy is more like the 'flow' of an electromagnetic signal from a transmitting antenna to your radio or TV's antenna." AAAARRRRRRGGGGGhhhhh. Groannnn. Dude!! 'Member the discussions about the difference between *propagation* and Flow? A wave propagates (like a wave across a pond) while its carrier medium, the water, remains in place. But a river *flows*. Likewise, the carrier medium of EM radiation, the "water", the sub-Planckian "stuff" of space itself, can literally (not figuratively) *flow*. And it's the *accelerating* flow of the stuff of space that imparts momentum to matter, causing the effect we call gravity. Without the _acceleration_ component, there is no 'curvature of space', no gravity, no momentum imparted *irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*. This superfluidic (or 'hyperfluidic') property of of space underlies and fixes the laws of inertia, conservation of momentum, and gravity-acceleration equivalence. I.e., when you accelerate an object in space, the inertia you feel is literally the resistance *of space itself* to the applied acceleration.. which is the causal mechanism behind the gravity-acceleration equivalence Uncle Albert so eloquently *described* in his famous "space elevator" scenario. Yet when released from acceleration, the object will continue on frictionlessly forever (per Newton's first law). And as mentioned so many times recently, flowing space relates directly and intimately to the issue of "dark matter" and the perceived excess of gravitational lensing of distant galaxies. Light, being massless, is deflected (lensed) in traversing *any* flow whether the flow is accelerating or not. Thus, large scale non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is observed. It is simple *flow lensing*, not "gravitational" lensing. No mythical "dark matter" is required to explain it. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gravity might be a 4-D field.
If it walks like a 4-D field, and it quacks like a 4-D field,
and it hangs out with other 4-D fields.. it might be a 4-D field. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gravity might be a 4-D field.
You missed one possibility, Jeff. It could just be Jeff Relf! lmao!
Saul Levy On 15 Apr 2008 18:53:03 GMT, wrote: If it walks like a 4-D field, and it quacks like a 4-D field, and it hangs out with other 4-D fields.. it might be a 4-D field. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How Do Gravitons Actually Work? (was - Black Hole Eats . . .) (Sucks, too! npi)
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... On Apr 11, 12:18 am, "Painius" wrote: And this is where folks get sidetracked on the idea of "flowing space". They take the analogies just a bit too literally. The sink analogy, the river flowing analogy, the wind through the windmill sail analogy, these are all flows of matter, and therefore there is definite "motion" involved. The flow of spatial energy is more like the "flow" of an electromagnetic signal from an antenna to your radio or TV. Presumably the intent of your last sentance was to say this : "The flow of spatial energy is more like the 'flow' of an electromagnetic signal from a transmitting antenna to your radio or TV's antenna." AAAARRRRRRGGGGGhhhhh. Groannnn. Dude!! 'Member the discussions about the difference between *propagation* and Flow? A wave propagates (like a wave across a pond) while its carrier medium, the water, remains in place. Oh, calm down, you ol' coot! You and i and many others know the difference between "flow" and "propagation". That's why it's called an "analogy". But i think it's easier to understand the flow of space analogous to the flow of THE CARRIER WAVE. See the diff? The signal modulating the carrier is propagated. But the carrier itself either remains in place, as in the "transverse" motion of water, or it moves like air molecules move with sound, a "longitudinal" type wave. And it's still believed that the carrier of an electronic sig. is modulated in transverse fashion, i know. Maybe so, maybe not. All i know is that you often speak of gravity waves and how their motion is longitudinal. So it seems to me that a jump from an electronic or sound signal to the flow of space is... less of a leap ....than the jump from a flowing material river to flowing space. It's my way of saying, "Little bites!" at a time. I think the river flowing analogy is totally confusing to those who tether themselves to the Void-Space Paradigm. So, if i'm reading you correctly, you don't think that the "big guy" was correct when he ascribed "no motion to it"? ("it" being the ether) But a river *flows*. Likewise, the carrier medium of EM radiation, the "water", the sub-Planckian "stuff" of space itself, can literally (not figuratively) *flow*. And it's the *accelerating* flow of the stuff of space that imparts momentum to matter, causing the effect we call gravity. Without the _acceleration_ component, there is no 'curvature of space', no gravity, no momentum imparted *irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*. This superfluidic (or 'hyperfluidic') property of of space underlies and fixes the laws of inertia, conservation of momentum, and gravity-acceleration equivalence. I.e., when you accelerate an object in space, the inertia you feel is literally the resistance *of space itself* to the applied acceleration.. which is the causal mechanism behind the gravity-acceleration equivalence Uncle Albert so eloquently *described* in his famous "space elevator" scenario. Yet when released from acceleration, the object will continue on frictionlessly forever (per Newton's first law). And as mentioned so many times recently, flowing space relates directly and intimately to the issue of "dark matter" and the perceived excess of gravitational lensing of distant galaxies. Light, being massless, is deflected (lensed) in traversing *any* flow whether the flow is accelerating or not. Thus, large scale non-accelerating flows of the intergalactic medium are gonna lens light just as is observed. It is simple *flow lensing*, not "gravitational" lensing. No mythical "dark matter" is required to explain it. I understand, and so far agree with, your words on the myth of dark matter and its need to support the incorrect VSP. And i see the distinction you make above as one between a lensing effect of space itself (flow lensing) and a lensing effect of large bodies of matter (gravitational lensing). But since "flow" and "gravitational" are related terms in the CBB model, we might want to rethink calling it "flow lensing". Maybe a general term such as "spatial lensing" emits more clarity? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How Do Gravitons Actually Work? (was - Black Hole Eats . . .)(Sucks, too! npi)
On Apr 24, 8:59 am, "Painius" wrote:
..You and i and many others know the difference between "flow" and "propagation". That's why it's called an "analogy". But i think it's easier to understand the flow of space analogous to the flow of THE CARRIER WAVE. See the diff? No, amigo. You da one who ain't seeing the diff. The carrier wave (e.g., radio, light) propagates through its carrier medium (the 'stuff' of space) which in practcal terms *could* be absolutely stationary. The signal modulating the carrier is propagated. But the carrier itself.. remains in place... Nein, nyet. :-) The modulating signal is propagated *with* its carrier wave while the carrier medium remains in place. And it's still believed that the carrier of an electronic sig. is modulated in transverse fashion, i know. Maybe so, maybe not. All i know is that you often speak of gravity waves and how their motion is longitudinal... Absolutely. Zinni's sqwawks notwithstanding. :-) So it seems to me that a jump from an electronic or sound signal to the flow of space is... less of a leap ...than the jump from a flowing material river to flowing space. Nope, don't see that at all, no way. A propagating wave does not equate to the flow of a river or the *very literal* flow of the very literal 'stuff' of space... which as mentioned many times, causes gravity when and *only* when that flow of space is accelerating. It's my way of saying, "Little bites!" at a time. I think the river flowing analogy is totally confusing to those who tether themselves to the Void-Space Paradigm. Of course it's confusing to them since their space-as-void mandate prohibits a literal flow of a literal medium. The only way they can relate to the 'River Model' is by way of analogy.. seeing the figurative "flow" against a fixed background metric instead of seeing : _The literal flow of the background metric itself_. So, if i'm reading you correctly, you don't think that the "big guy" was correct when he ascribed "no motion to it"? ("it" being the ether) He was reiterating the then-in-vogue Lorentzian 'rigid lattice' concept, which was finally dumped and rightly so. But the baby was dumped with the bathwater. :-) I understand, and so far agree with.. the myth of dark matter and the need for it in support of the incorrect VSP. And i see the distinction you make.. as one between a lensing effect of space itself (flow lensing) and a lensing effect of large bodies of matter (gravitational lensing). But since "flow" and "gravitational" are related terms in the CBB model, we might want to rethink calling it "flow lensing". Maybe a general term such as "spatial lensing" emits more.. No. The distinction between simple flow lensing and "gravitational" lensing is absolutely pivotal to the 'dark matter' issue. The term "spatial lensing" is generalized and would fail to make this distinction. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How Do Gravitons Actually Work? (was - Black Hole Eats . . .) (...
Painius Right you are River flowing is "motion" of water molecules.
Water has weight. Weight is created by "gravity" Motion(speed of) + weight = force Again I see no great analogy for gravity. I do see the dog chasing its own tail. True gravitons are a hypothetical particle,so are gluons,and the electron cloud. That is why we needed that Texas collider. Bert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Black Hole Eats Earth | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 4 | April 5th 08 01:17 AM |
Black Hole Eats Earth | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | March 30th 08 11:34 AM |
Black Hole Eats Planet | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 5th 07 04:59 PM |