"The River Model" of Flowing Space Is Being Taught at the University of Colorado!

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message

Ah - so plagarism is perfectly acceptable then?

Seems to work for you, Gay Duckie!

HJ

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
oups.com...
On Apr 21, 7:37 am, Double-A wrote:

"The river model of black holes
Andrew J. S. Hamilton? and Jason P. Lisle
JILA and Dept. Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences,
Box 440, U. Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, USA

This paper presents an under-appreciated way to conceptualize
stationary black holes, which we
call the river model.

. . .
Notice one primary tenet of the model:

"This novel point of view leads to a different notion of what is meant
by the flat background space through which the river flows and
twists."

They don't seem to 'get' the concept that the "flat background space"
IS, literally, what flows and twists. . . .

oc

Yes, it's a step in the right general direction, but it's
still VSP embedded.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Thirty five million miles,
This is Mars at its nearest,
And when my heart goes there
'Tis nearest and dearest.

Someday it shall act as
Our stair to the stars,
So get with the program,
And LET'S GO TO MARS!

http://www.marssociety.org/portal

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Notice one primary tenet of the model:

"This novel point of view leads to a different notion of what is meant
by the flat background space through which the river flows and
twists."

They don't seem to 'get' the concept that the "flat background space"
IS, literally, what flows and twists. . . .

oc

Yes, it's a step in the right general direction, but it's
still VSP embedded.


Its a model that is only used in ONE specific case. Sheesh.

--
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 ,
"Painius" wrote:

Yes, it's a step in the right general direction, but it's
still VSP embedded.

Its a model that is only used in ONE specific case. Sheesh.

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",
Phineas?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Thirty five million miles,
This is Mars at its nearest,
And when my heart goes there
'Tis nearest and dearest.

Someday it shall act as
Our stair to the stars,
So get with the program,
And LET'S GO TO MARS!

http://www.marssociety.org/portal

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

On May 3, 7:15 pm, "Painius" wrote,
reposting the DD conjoinment:

Its a model that is only used in ONE specific case. Sheesh.

What the braindead idiot doesn't 'get' is that it's an update of the
old Painleve-Gullstrand metric which applied to *all* gravity wells.
Now it's been modernized to include BHs.

And Painius said:

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",..?

And DDuck's totally predictable pesponse:

"Why, 'nothing' of course! It's just an analogy. Sheesh."

Ribald Quack-ery, while running away from reciting any intimation of
the literal *causal mechanism* of gravity. Hrrumph, and for shame!

oc

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",
Phineas?


Its an ANALOGY where in this particular case the math works. Nothing is flowing
at all.

--
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 3, 7:15 pm, "Painius" wrote,
reposting the DD conjoinment:

Its a model that is only used in ONE specific case. Sheesh.

What the braindead idiot doesn't 'get' is that it's an update of the
old Painleve-Gullstrand metric which applied to *all* gravity wells.
Now it's been modernized to include BHs.


Only to BH's.


And Painius said:

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",..?

And DDuck's totally predictable pesponse:

"Why, 'nothing' of course! It's just an analogy. Sheesh."

Ribald Quack-ery, while running away from reciting any intimation of
the literal *causal mechanism* of gravity. Hrrumph, and for shame!


Yet you won't answer me direct, as you know you are all out of answers.

--
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 ,
"Painius" wrote:

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",
Phineas?

Its an ANALOGY where in this particular case the math works. Nothing is
flowing
at all.

"Nothing is flowing at all."

Your name suits you, Puddleduck...

You're a "Quack".

Like the mountebanks of old, you dispense
colored corn liquor in the place of medicinal
truth.

Science will embrace you as an astrophysicist.
Grow old knowing you're just another quack.

Or...

Wise up.

The choice is yours.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Photons!...
B U R S T S of energy!
Particles AND waves they be!
Pummeling eyes so we may See!
Promises of Dreams so Free!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

On May 9, 11:17 pm, "Painius" wrote,
replying to the duckwad:

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",
Phineas?

Its an ANALOGY where in this particular case the math works. Nothing is
flowing
at all.

"Nothing is flowing at all."

Your name suits you, Puddleduck...

You're a "Quack".

Like the mountebanks of old, you dispense
colored corn liquor in the place of medicinal
truth.

Science will embrace you as an astrophysicist.
Grow old knowing you're just another quack.

DD first began to disqualify itself from rational discourse with the
compulsive, spasmodic "BWAHA___________" outbursts. Then it
consistently demonstated a chronic comprehensional dysfunction,
whether real or feigned.
This was most evident in the inability (refusal?) to grasp the clear-
cut distinction between *descriptions of effects* and _explanations of
cause_.

Then, despite at least three painstaking efforts to explain the
difference between Le Sage theory and FS, and providing links to other
sources explaining it, DD continues whinnying "it's a Le Sage theory."
At that juncture it was obvious that any further effort at dialog was
useless, so DD went unceremoniously into the plonker.

And AFAIK, it's still running away from the challenge to explain the
_causal mechanism_ of how "geometry" causes gravity.

oc

On May 10, 5:28 am, oldcoot wrote:
On May 9, 11:17 pm, "Painius" wrote,
replying to the duckwad:





In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

So you're saying that if space flows into a
black hole, this does not necessarily mean
that space flows into ALL gravity wells?

Okay, let's say we all accept this dubiously
illogical premise...

What exactly and precisely is "flowing",
Phineas?

Its an ANALOGY where in this particular case the math works. Nothing is
flowing
at all.

"Nothing is flowing at all."

Your name suits you, Puddleduck...

You're a "Quack".

Like the mountebanks of old, you dispense
colored corn liquor in the place of medicinal
truth.

Science will embrace you as an astrophysicist.
Grow old knowing you're just another quack.

DD first began to disqualify itself from rational discourse with the
compulsive, spasmodic "BWAHA___________" outbursts. Then it
consistently demonstated a chronic comprehensional dysfunction,
whether real or feigned.
This was most evident in the inability (refusal?) to grasp the clear-
cut distinction between *descriptions of effects* and _explanations of
cause_.

Then, despite at least three painstaking efforts to explain the
difference between Le Sage theory and FS, and providing links to other
sources explaining it, DD continues whinnying "it's a Le Sage theory."
At that juncture it was obvious that any further effort at dialog was
useless, so DD went unceremoniously into the plonker.

And AFAIK, it's still running away from the challenge to explain the
_causal mechanism_ of how "geometry" causes gravity.

oc


I don't even try explaining it to them, because I know they will just
continue willfully pretending they don't understand.

Double-A