!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Why did you say that the density of free
space was greater in the past? You said
that the higher density in the past
explained the SN1a observations..

In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate
occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The
so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial,
precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem.
It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in
denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into
less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a
sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it
propagates into thinner and thinner air.

...but now you're saying that the density
wasn't higher in the past.

Duh. Where'd i say that ?
Maybe in your bit that said
"a hypermassive, continuously exploding Singularity perpetually replenishes
the 'stuff' of space and maintains its pressure"

Or is this "perpetual feature" something that only started later on.

You claim to have a theory, it seems to me that you are making it up as you
go along.

For example -
"The so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an
initial, precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem"

You don't explain WHY this is necessary - you don't explain why it is
important that there was an initial density drop. If there was a density
drop it means that cycle didn't work at the beginning and suddenly started
working later on! Some 'universal' theory this proves to be.

also-
"It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in denser space,"
It only "stands to reason" that you have to introduce this to explain the
phenomenon.

Would you like me to come up with a feasible explanation for this on the
basis of a FS model ? - I probably could without too much difficulty -
after all, I feel like I've actually given more explanation for phenomena
than you have in this thread.

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Don't forget that just because I can
describe the model, it doesn't mean that
I believe it.


Aw, shucks.


Why did you say that the density of free
space was greater in the past? You said
that the higher density in the past
explained the SN1a observations..


In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate
occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The
so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial,
precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem.
It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in
denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into
less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a
sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it
propagates into thinner and thinner air.

It gains amplitude. Does that cause a problem?

If it's any help the energy of the wave is unchanged.

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Don't forget that just because I can
describe the model, it doesn't mean that
I believe it.


Aw, shucks.


Why did you say that the density of free
space was greater in the past? You said
that the higher density in the past
explained the SN1a observations..


In any explosion, the most precipitous density-drop and expansion rate
occurs in the first instant, then levels off gradually to flatilne. The
so-called 'inflation' spike is necessary in the *absence* of an initial,
precipitous density-drop to try to resolve the horizon problem.
It stands to reason the most distant SN1a are lying in
denser space, and their light has dimmed during propagation into
less-dense space. You don't like the sound analogy, but try sending a
sound beam straight up, and see if it gains or loses amplitude as it
propagates into thinner and thinner air.

It gains amplitude. Does that cause a problem?

If it's any help the energy of the wave is unchanged.

Owen wrote...

Bill wrote...

1. The propagation speed of EM (and supposedly GW) radiation
is fixed at c, which witnesses to a carrier medium of a particular
density/pressure/ elasticity. If there is no medium, why isn't c
widely variant or even infinite? ("Permitivity of space" doesn't
answer anything. What is "space"?)

But if the speed of the carrier wave is dependent on the pressure
of space wouldn't this mean that the speed of light changes as it
approaches the Earth. This would be a good experiment? Now
we're getting somewhere.

Good call, Owen! I wonder if there have been any such
experiments performed by NASA and our astronauts and
perhaps by other agencies? I doubt it, because if these
measurements of c out in space had been the same as
those here on Earth, then there would be confirmation of
it somewhere, and i haven't found anything on it so far.
And if c had measured differently out in space, then it
would be equivalent to "the shot heard 'round the world"!

Also, i wonder how much c would change for a given
change of pressure? We know that the force of gravity
changes as the square of the distance, so presumably
the change of pressure would be proportional, but it is
possible that even a huge change of pressure would only
slightly affect the value of c. Can this be predicted, and
if true, do we have sensitive enough instruments to detect
a small change in c in the areas of space frequented by
us (still near very large, high-gravity objects)?

Indelibly yours,
Paine

Owen wrote...

Bill wrote...

1. The propagation speed of EM (and supposedly GW) radiation
is fixed at c, which witnesses to a carrier medium of a particular
density/pressure/ elasticity. If there is no medium, why isn't c
widely variant or even infinite? ("Permitivity of space" doesn't
answer anything. What is "space"?)

But if the speed of the carrier wave is dependent on the pressure
of space wouldn't this mean that the speed of light changes as it
approaches the Earth. This would be a good experiment? Now
we're getting somewhere.

Good call, Owen! I wonder if there have been any such
experiments performed by NASA and our astronauts and
perhaps by other agencies? I doubt it, because if these
measurements of c out in space had been the same as
those here on Earth, then there would be confirmation of
it somewhere, and i haven't found anything on it so far.
And if c had measured differently out in space, then it
would be equivalent to "the shot heard 'round the world"!

Also, i wonder how much c would change for a given
change of pressure? We know that the force of gravity
changes as the square of the distance, so presumably
the change of pressure would be proportional, but it is
possible that even a huge change of pressure would only
slightly affect the value of c. Can this be predicted, and
if true, do we have sensitive enough instruments to detect
a small change in c in the areas of space frequented by
us (still near very large, high-gravity objects)?

Indelibly yours,
Paine

John wrote...

Bill wrote...

OK Zinni, it's GR, not 'SR'. You're sure good on typos. oc

Getting the actual theory being referred to wrong is more than a typo.

I would have to agree with you on this, John. As sort of a
footnote, since you have evidently read the book in question,
maybe you could help me out on something?...

On June 9, 1952, less than three years before he died at the
age of 76, Einstein wrote in his note to the 15th edition,
"Physical objects are not _in space_, but these objects are
_spatially extended_. In this way the concept 'empty space'
loses its meaning."

How do you interpret his words in terms of whether he thought
space itself was "nothing" or made of "something"?

--
happy days and
starry starry nights

Indelibly yours,
Paine

John wrote...

Bill wrote...

OK Zinni, it's GR, not 'SR'. You're sure good on typos. oc

Getting the actual theory being referred to wrong is more than a typo.

I would have to agree with you on this, John. As sort of a
footnote, since you have evidently read the book in question,
maybe you could help me out on something?...

On June 9, 1952, less than three years before he died at the
age of 76, Einstein wrote in his note to the 15th edition,
"Physical objects are not _in space_, but these objects are
_spatially extended_. In this way the concept 'empty space'
loses its meaning."

How do you interpret his words in terms of whether he thought
space itself was "nothing" or made of "something"?

--
happy days and
starry starry nights

Indelibly yours,
Paine

"Painius" wrote in message
...
John wrote...

Bill wrote...

OK Zinni, it's GR, not 'SR'. You're sure good on typos. oc

Getting the actual theory being referred to wrong is more than a typo.

I would have to agree with you on this, John. As sort of a
footnote, since you have evidently read the book in question,
maybe you could help me out on something?...

On June 9, 1952, less than three years before he died at the
age of 76, Einstein wrote in his note to the 15th edition,
"Physical objects are not _in space_, but these objects are
_spatially extended_. In this way the concept 'empty space'
loses its meaning."

How do you interpret his words in terms of whether he thought
space itself was "nothing" or made of "something"?

His "Note to the Fifteenth Edition" is essentially an introduction of
"Appendix Five." Rather than trying to glean deep significance from a
one-liner from the note, I would suggest that you read (the 24 pages of)
"Appendix Five" (and ask questions about that if you wish).

I interpret his words to mean exactly what he explains them to mean in
"Appendix Five."

"Painius" wrote in message
...
John wrote...

Bill wrote...

OK Zinni, it's GR, not 'SR'. You're sure good on typos. oc

Getting the actual theory being referred to wrong is more than a typo.

I would have to agree with you on this, John. As sort of a
footnote, since you have evidently read the book in question,
maybe you could help me out on something?...

On June 9, 1952, less than three years before he died at the
age of 76, Einstein wrote in his note to the 15th edition,
"Physical objects are not _in space_, but these objects are
_spatially extended_. In this way the concept 'empty space'
loses its meaning."

How do you interpret his words in terms of whether he thought
space itself was "nothing" or made of "something"?

His "Note to the Fifteenth Edition" is essentially an introduction of
"Appendix Five." Rather than trying to glean deep significance from a
one-liner from the note, I would suggest that you read (the 24 pages of)
"Appendix Five" (and ask questions about that if you wish).

I interpret his words to mean exactly what he explains them to mean in
"Appendix Five."

Hi Painius The heart of my "Spin is in theory" is the electrons spin at
'c' and emits photons at the speed of its spin. This is reality from the
beginning of spacetime,and our present space time. The spin speed of
the electron is a constant. The speed of the photon has to be a
constant. Bert