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

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
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


I don't think that they're pretending.

They are really stupid and only post here to heckle!

HJ

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

"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.


Back to the lames Painsnuh - a sure indication you cannot answer the questions.

--
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 om,
oldcoot wrote:

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


Lagrangians. Yawn - I keep posting it, you keep ignoring it.

--
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:


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

Double-A


AA, stop pretending you can think.

--
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).

"oldcoot" wrote in message
ps.com...
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

And what gives Phineas *and* Art Deco away as
just as much a novice at science as i am, is that
they so easily fall into the "analogy" trap. The
fact that space "curves" as explained by Einstein
and the theory of relativity is no more an analogy
than the space "flowing" into a black hole, or into
*any* mass for that matter.

Light *cannot* be accelerated. The velocity of a
given ray of light cannot be changed. This means
not only the speed cannot be changed, but also
that the light beam *cannot* be bent. If the light
beam is bent, then it undergoes an acceleration,
and this just *cannot happen*!

So how does science explain why the light from a
star can be "bent", studied and measured during a
solar eclipse? They have no idea. All they say is
the same thing Zinni would say, "The light does
not really bend and undergo an acceleration. The
space near the Sun is *curved*, and the straight
ray of light from the "nearby" star isn't really bent,
it just follows the curving of space near the Sun."

Space bends, it curves, and that's why the straight
beam of light from the star *appears* to bend and
curve. No analogy here. Space really and truly
curves just as Einstein predicted.

And this is what leaves me mystified! That very
smart, very well-trained men and women called
scientists can explain this to you with a straight
face, and then *still* maintain that space is nothing,
nothing but a void, a mere container for everything
else, matter and energy.

No analogy to the geometry of relativity. It's very,
very *real*. Space really does curve and bend. So,
i mean seriously, truly and really...

Precisely WTF is curving and bending?

Has to be the SPED, *has* to be.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Earth and Selene... Selene and Earth...
They are Sister Planets for what it's worth,
And when the I.A.U. issues this forth,
Oh, MAGIC! and MUSIC! it shall unearth!

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

On 2007-05-16 16:16:13 +0100, "Painius" said:

And what gives Phineas *and* Art Deco away as
just as much a novice at science as i am, is that
they so easily fall into the "analogy" trap. The
fact that space "curves" as explained by Einstein
and the theory of relativity is no more an analogy
than the space "flowing" into a black hole, or into
*any* mass for that matter.


But the difference between me and thee is I have given you the detailed
picture behind it with a derivation - The Lagrangian from the metric.
You do know what the Lagrangian is right



Light *cannot* be accelerated. The velocity of a
given ray of light cannot be changed. This means
not only the speed cannot be changed, but also
that the light beam *cannot* be bent. If the light
beam is bent, then it undergoes an acceleration,
and this just *cannot happen*!

Nonsense. You fail to utterly understand the issue. Light can change
speed - CERENKOV radiation. What CANNOT happen is c_local medium
c_vacuum


So how does science explain why the light from a
star can be "bent", studied and measured during a
solar eclipse? They have no idea. All they say is
the same thing Zinni would say, "The light does
not really bend and undergo an acceleration. The
space near the Sun is *curved*, and the straight
ray of light from the "nearby" star isn't really bent,
it just follows the curving of space near the Sun."

Yep - the Lagrangian


Space bends, it curves, and that's why the straight
beam of light from the star *appears* to bend and
curve. No analogy here. Space really and truly
curves just as Einstein predicted.

Local conditions change near a mass from the metric


And this is what leaves me mystified! That very
smart, very well-trained men and women called
scientists can explain this to you with a straight
face, and then *still* maintain that space is nothing,
nothing but a void, a mere container for everything
else, matter and energy.

No analogy to the geometry of relativity. It's very,
very *real*. Space really does curve and bend. So,
i mean seriously, truly and really...

Precisely WTF is curving and bending?

Has to be the SPED, *has* to be.


Thats the weakest argument you've come up wih yet. And you've had some
WEAK arguments.

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

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

On May 16, 8:16 am, "Painius" wrote:

Precisely WTF is curving and bending?

Has to be the SPED, *has* to be.


Well, as was stated too many times to count, *precisely* what is
"curving/bending" is this: The *acceleration-rate* of any flow of the
SPED is what "bends". If there's no acceleration component
(irrespective of actual velocity of a flow), there is no "curvature",
no gravity. "Curvature" is GR's "accelerometer reading" of flowing
space.

This exchange occured in another thread:

What energy source circulates the fluid throughout the entire universe?

This question I've answered to the best of my ability. It's a huge engine,
whatever it may be.

The question can be asked, "What energy source, what 'engine' powered
the Big Bang?" And under the CBB model, "What energy source, what
'Engine' drives the *continuously running* BB?"

Moreover, what energy source powers the _process_ that is the hydrogen
atom and its proton nucleus (and by extension, *all* atoms and their
nuclei)?

Clearly, a fluidic medium whose perceived "void-ness" places its
'granularity' below the Planck threshold, is under a state of
pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus.
And in the process of *venting down* to the lowest pressure state,
generates the symphony of ordered eddies, whorls and vortices that
comprize atomic structure and the subnuclear realm. And herein lies
unification of gravity and the SNF in the Unified Field of Spatial
Flows.

A 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (or SCO) powering not only the 'Engine'
of the CBB but all the fundamental forces is clearly evident. The
"supra" in supra-cosmic indicates its source to be 'beyond the cosmos'
and unknowable.. which the CBB model readily accedes. It's taken
simply as a given.

Of course this'll raise an uproar (upshriek?)
with the usual contingent. And they'll scream bloody murder about the
'singularity' issue. But what the hell. Let 'em put forth a better
explanation for the cause of gravity than *accelerating flows of the
spatial medium, driven by pressure gradients therein*. If there's a
better explanation, by all means fill in the
blank_______________ .

On 2007-05-16 18:05:16 +0100, oldcoot said:

On May 16, 8:16 am, "Painius" wrote:

Precisely WTF is curving and bending?

Has to be the SPED, *has* to be.


Well, as was stated too many times to count, *precisely* what is
"curving/bending" is this: The *acceleration-rate* of any flow of the
SPED is what "bends". If there's no acceleration component
(irrespective of actual velocity of a flow), there is no "curvature",
no gravity. "Curvature" is GR's "accelerometer reading" of flowing
space.



And the metric - which outlines the INFLUENCE that mass has on the
surrounding spacetime, delineates the LAGRANGIAN which gives you the
equations of motion for a FREE particle....

You are determined to ignore this fact....



This exchange occured in another thread:

What energy source circulates the fluid throughout the entire universe?

This question I've answered to the best of my ability. It's a huge engine,
whatever it may be.

The question can be asked, "What energy source, what 'engine' powered
the Big Bang?" And under the CBB model, "What energy source, what
'Engine' drives the *continuously running* BB?"


BB != GR


Moreover, what energy source powers the _process_ that is the hydrogen
atom and its proton nucleus (and by extension, *all* atoms and their
nuclei)?


Process? You are deluded.


Clearly, a fluidic medium whose perceived "void-ness" places its
'granularity' below the Planck threshold, is under a state of
pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus.
And in the process of *venting down* to the lowest pressure state,
generates the symphony of ordered eddies, whorls and vortices that
comprize atomic structure and the subnuclear realm. And herein lies
unification of gravity and the SNF in the Unified Field of Spatial
Flows.


Then define 'c' in terms of P,D,T - it should be simple enough


Explain asymptotic freedom and colour confinement then


A 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (or SCO) powering not only the 'Engine'
of the CBB but all the fundamental forces is clearly evident. The
"supra" in supra-cosmic indicates its source to be 'beyond the cosmos'
and unknowable.. which the CBB model readily accedes. It's taken
simply as a given.

By "clearly evident" you seem to mean "lacking any evidence and refuted
by physical phenomena"


Of course this'll raise an uproar (upshriek?)
with the usual contingent. And they'll scream bloody murder about the
'singularity' issue. But what the hell. Let 'em put forth a better
explanation for the cause of gravity than *accelerating flows of the
spatial medium, driven by pressure gradients therein*. If there's a
better explanation, by all means fill in the
blank_______________ .

I already have

LAGRANGIAN

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

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

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message

I already have...
....been "fixed" by Art's vet.


That's nice, DuckiePuss.

HJ

On May 16, 8:16 am, "Painius" wrote:


Precisely WTF is curving and bending?

It has to be the SPED, *has* to be.

Well, as was stated too many times to count, *precisely* what is
"curving/bending" is this: The *acceleration-rate* of any flow is
what's 'bending'. If there's no acceleration component (irrespective
of the actual velocity of the flow), there is no "curvature", no
gravity. "Curvature" is GR's accelerometer reading.

In another thread this exchange took place:

What energy source circulates the fluid throughout the entire universe?

This question i've answered to the best of my
ability. It's a huge engine, whatever it may be.

The question can be asked "What energy source, what 'engine' powered
the Big Bang?" And under the CBB model, "What energy source, what
'Engine' drives the *continuously running* BB?"

Moreover, what energy source powers the _process_ that is the hydrogen
atom and its proton nucleus (and by extension *all* atoms and their
nuclei)?

Clearly, a fluidic spatial medium whose perceived "void-ness"
indicates its 'granularity' to reside below the Planck threshold, is
under a state of pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus.. and in the process of *venting down* to the lowest
pressure state, generates the symphony of ordered eddies, whorls and
vortices that comprize all atomic structure and the subnuclear realm.
And herein lies unification of gravity and the strong nuclear force in
the Unified Field of Spatial Flows.

This 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (or SCO), in addition to driving all
nuclear processes, powers the 'Engine' of the CBB as well. The "supra"
in 'supra-cosmic' identifies its source as from 'beyond the cosmos'
and unknowable.. which the CBB model readily accedes and acknowledges.
This is simply taken as a given.g All of existance, all that is, is
reducible to One Flow driven by One force, the SCO.
Of course this'll raise an uproar (upshriek) with
the usual contingent. And they'll scream bloody murder about the
singularity issue. But what the hell. Let 'em put forth a better
explanation for the cause of gravity than the hyperpressurized SPED
and *accelerating flows* driven by pressure gradients therein. Again,
if there's a better explanation, by all means fill in the
blank______________________ .