[Fwd: Top Secret Earth Station Message-Five Star-*****]

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Hell, Night. You started this thread as a fun venue, and it has been
that. But talikn' to friend OG is like talkin' to a friggin' brick wall,
evoking the same utter and total exasperation and disgustipation as last
summer. When the fun factor ends, that's the time to can it. oc

nightbat

Yes, I understand it can be trying to get such a profound
discourse across in general layman's terms but continue for you are
doing well. I found that similar theoretical over concentration
preoccupation barrier with our fun Darla and their somewhat limited
ability to understand human terms but got through never the less to help
have them save Sil. Sometimes when you least expect that you're making
headway a light goes off in a posters head and they get it. What you're
trying to get across is no small task, for many have tried but few have
been able to grasp the whole potential picture.

We are having fun even if they don't immediately grasp what we
theoretically do, but that's the name of the game. They are asking for
clarification in the deepest waters of theoretical thinking, try being a
little patient, and maybe, just maybe, a few more will see a glimpse of
the bigger quantum potential space flow picture.


the nightbat

Bill Sheppard wrote:
Hell, Night. You started this thread as a fun venue, and it has been
that. But talikn' to friend OG is like talkin' to a friggin' brick
wall,
evoking the same utter and total exasperation and disgustipation as
last
summer. When the fun factor ends, that's the time to can it. oc


Hell, Bill, it is known that the Einstein GR equations are closely
connected to the equations of hydrodynamics. So what seems more
natural than that space actually flows?

Double-A

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:07:08 -0800
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

Hell, Night. You started this thread as a fun venue, and it has been
that. But talikn' to friend OG is like talkin' to a friggin' brick
wall, evoking the same utter and total exasperation and disgustipation
as last summer. When the fun factor ends, that's the time to can it.
oc

Well here's my take on this thread, and may well be wrong, but it seems
to me that the discussion has simply got bogged down in minutia that has
overshadowed any initial problem or discussion.

Rather like someone presenting the expanding balloon analogy for the
expansion of the universe then everyone gets caught up in debates about
the elastic properties of the balloons rubber yet no one takes the
analogy literally, or at least shouldn't anyway.

Maybe define the problem first so that everyone at least can agree on
the problem. For me the problem is quite simple, how is the universe
expanding if space is a nothing and void?, maybe we go from there and
those that believe space to be a nothing or void can explain how this is
possible and what are the causes of the expansion.

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From OG:

...are you saying that the amplitude DID
decrease without explanation with a
similarly unexplained energy loss. I
thought that FScG was supposed to BE
the explanation!

"FScG", i.e., 'Flowing space causes gravity' is not involved here.

What IS involved is:

an omnidirectionally-expanding, thinning, depressurizing, and *cooling*
medium..

and the fact that propagation speed is faster in a denser, higher
pressure, 'hotter' medium.

Radiation propagating from a denser, higher pressure, hotter medium into
thinner, lower pressure, cooler medium is going to do what? Gain
amplitude, or lose amplitude?


It'll gain amplitude of course.

I could also ask what you think will happen to the wavelength of the radiation.






----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

Bill Sheppard wrote:


As to your question about wavelength, both WL and frequency remain
unchanged across a density/'Temp' gradient (remember the hypobaric
'sound on Mars' analogy).

Before you leave. . .
since speed = wavelength times frequency; how on earth can you have
the speed changing whilst both WL and frequency remain unchanged?

Please Bill, do let us know






----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

In closing and in epilogue to this thread, I have to say this to OG:
Thank you for one very signifigant contribution to Wolter's model,
namely the temperature aspect. Although it was tacitly there in my old
refrigeration analogy, it had not been brought to the fore before, and
shown that the sub-Planck 'Temp' and energy-density are one and the
same. He knew that the density/pessure fixes the value of c, but you've
shown it's the resultant 'Temp' of density/pressure fixes the value.

As to your question about wavelength, both WL and frequency remain
unchanged across a density/'Temp' gradient (remember the hypobaric
'sound on Mars' analogy).

Closing further participation in thread.

oc

P.S.
OK the last statement was before the coffee kicked ing.
Honest. Frequency remains unchanged across the gradient, per the
hypobaric analogy. Wavelength stretches with the cosmological
expansion, which of course is the mechanism of the amplitude drop *at a
given redshift* seen in the 1aSN.

Zinni can have his final guffaw now..

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
In closing and in epilogue to this thread, I have to say this to OG:
Thank you for one very signifigant contribution to Wolter's model,
namely the temperature aspect. Although it was tacitly there in my old
refrigeration analogy, it had not been brought to the fore before,

Let's investigate what else might be tacitly there in your old
"refrigeration analogy" ...

Is there something that corresponds to a "Super-Duper-Cosmic-Milk-Carton"???
Or maybe a "Super-Duper-Cosmic-Butter-Dish"??? Better get ride of that
"Super-Duper-Cosmic-Three-Week-Old-Leftovers"!!!

Your "Model" could be ripe with heretofore unknown "Super-Duper-Cosmic"
predictions.


and
shown that the sub-Planck 'Temp' and energy-density are one and the
same. He knew that the density/pessure fixes the value of c, but you've
shown it's the resultant 'Temp' of density/pressure fixes the value.

As to your question about wavelength, both WL and frequency remain
unchanged across a density/'Temp' gradient (remember the hypobaric
'sound on Mars' analogy).

Closing further participation in thread.

oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
P.S.
OK the last statement was before the coffee kicked
ing.
Honest. Frequency remains unchanged across the gradient, per the
hypobaric analogy. Wavelength stretches with the cosmological
expansion, which of course is the mechanism of the amplitude drop *at
a
given redshift* seen in the 1aSN.

OK, so wavelength stretches along with cosmological expansion. Is that
right? and the frequency stays the same. Yes?

This wavelength stretching, it's directly due to the cosmological
expansion? i.e, directly related to the amount the universe has expanded
since. Yes?

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
P.S.
OK the last statement was before the coffee kicked
ing.
Honest. Frequency remains unchanged across the gradient, per the
hypobaric analogy. Wavelength stretches with the cosmological
expansion, which of course is the mechanism of the amplitude drop
*at
a
given redshift* seen in the 1aSN.

OK, so wavelength stretches along with cosmological expansion. Is that
right? and the frequency stays the same. Yes?

I just want to clarify this.
The frequency is unchanged
and the wavelength increases
what happens to the product of wavelength and frequency ?

It decreases . Right. Yeah

Time for another coffee Bill