"The RiverModel" of Flowing Space Is Being Taught at the Unive...

(Apologies if this duplicates. The first attempt to send it on the DSL
rig apparently failed.)

From Painius, replying to Mr.Duck:

Have you attempted to falsify the Flowing Space Theology yet?

Apply the same question to the Big Bang theology er, model. For all the
evidence supporting a superhot Genesis Event, i.e., the Big Bang, it
does no explain where the BB came from. Therefore the model is false.
(Note facetiousness and sarcasm.)

Yes, so far the only major criticism on my part is the SCO, the
Supra-Cosmic Overpressure. This is the pressure that ultimately causes
the SPED to flow. It's "supra-cosmic", which means that it is
somewhere "outside" the cosmos.
To me, this is as much as saying the same thing Newton believed, and
probably the same thing Einstein believed. It's the same thing science
believes with its "LET THERE BE LIGHT" Big Bang theory...

******God causes gravity.

I think we can do better.

The CBB model "does better" in pushing back the curtain of seeing to a
whole new horizon. It addresses the pre-BB state and where the BB 'comes
from'. And it freely acknowledges *its own* curtain of seeing, just as
the 'Singular BB' model does. It freely accedes thar it cannot define
the origin or source of the SCO any more than it can answer the question
of Ultimate Origin or what lies at the "ends" of eternity and infinity.

The CBB model did not happen as a search for the cause of gravity. That
came later, as a spinoff or 'sidebar'. It was a solution to what Wolter
considered the most overriding question in all of physics: Why is there
NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION?

The CBB model with its centerpiece 'Engine' was fully formed and in
place before the "cause of gravity" issue was considered of any
signifigance. It then became apparent that what we perceive locally as
gravity is the "reverse starburst" inflow of the spatial medium into
mass, driven by the SCO. And upon that note, gravity/SNF unification
came unsought and unsolicited as a "sidebar to the sidebar". This was
all deduced from the fully-formed CBB model, "from the top down" so to
speak.

Meanwhile, some other people (listed here many times) held the cause of
gravity as their *specific* issue. Independantly, they all deduced
essentially the *same* mechanism that Wolter did, but working "from the
bottom up". They all saw a pressure-driven, accelerating flow into mass
with mass synonymous with flow sink. This also yielded gravity/SNF
unification (e.g., per Lindner's "hadronic flow"). Yet these people have
no concept of the CBB model and still operate under the 'Singular BB'
idea. And they generally subscribe to the "ever-accelerating expansion"
idea. But one commonality they all recognize is the *pressurized state*
of the medium being sufficient to drive the flow into the atomic
nucleus.

Now back to the 'mega-supernova' that was recently in the news (which
nobody here appeared to have any interest in). What was the *literal
mechanism* powering the stellar collapse that rebounded as that
grandaddy of all supernovas?

And as an aside, what mechanism powered the far-more-energetic collapses
that had to have fused the heaviest elements? Ordinary supernovae show
traces of cobalt and nickel (the next elements beyond iron) in their
spectra, suggesting they were fused by shock pressure of the SN going
off. But what mega-events fused the heaviest elements? And i DON'T mean
geometry/'curvature'/Lagrangians/Hamiltonians/Sky Pixies. If gravity is
not exactly what it appears to be and behaves as (per Occam's Razor),
then what in blue blazes is it? Somebody fill in the
blank_______________ . oc



Header address is a spam trap. E-mail: oldcoot7074 at sbcglobal.net
Change 'at' to @

In article ,
(oldcoot) wrote:

(Apologies if this duplicates. The first attempt to send it on the DSL
rig apparently failed.)

From Painius, replying to Mr.Duck:

Have you attempted to falsify the Flowing Space Theology yet?

Apply the same question to the Big Bang theology er, model. For all the
evidence supporting a superhot Genesis Event, i.e., the Big Bang, it
does no explain where the BB came from. Therefore the model is false.
(Note facetiousness and sarcasm.)


BB != GR

--
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.

In article ,
(oldcoot) wrote:

The CBB model "does better" in pushing back the curtain of seeing to a
whole new horizon. It addresses the pre-BB state and where the BB 'comes
from'. And it freely acknowledges *its own* curtain of seeing, just as
the 'Singular BB' model does. It freely accedes thar it cannot define
the origin or source of the SCO any more than it can answer the question
of Ultimate Origin or what lies at the "ends" of eternity and infinity.


No it doesn't - it merely exposes a bunch of hooey from people with no
knowledge of science.

--
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.

In article ,
(oldcoot) wrote:

And as an aside, what mechanism powered the far-more-energetic collapses
that had to have fused the heaviest elements? Ordinary supernovae show
traces of cobalt and nickel (the next elements beyond iron) in their
spectra, suggesting they were fused by shock pressure of the SN going
off. But what mega-events fused the heaviest elements? And i DON'T mean
geometry/'curvature'/Lagrangians/Hamiltonians/Sky Pixies. If gravity is
not exactly what it appears to be and behaves as (per Occam's Razor),
then what in blue blazes is it? Somebody fill in the
blank_______________ . oc


Already did.

--
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

BB != GR

BR-549, Gay Duck.

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message

No it doesn't

You're Gay!

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message

Already did.....
.....pooped my pants.


Eeeewwwww! Gay Duck.