Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Painius, replying to Bert:

2) The micro realm *comprises* the
macro realm, so when our minds can
combine the two, the amount of "space
as field" in ratio to condensed areas
which manifest as "matter" gives..
Wolter's "dust bunny" description even
more impact. Compared with the
uncondensed gravitational energy of
space,

Just to clarify, matter (i.e., its atomic structure) does not represent
a condensed (or 'more concentrated') form of space. Rather, matter is
the LEAST concentrated, *least* energy-dense form of space, hence the
'dustbunny' moniker. What we perceive as 'matter' is the spatial flow
DE-concentrating, DE-pressurizing in its accelerating flow into every
atomic nucleus.

So ... 'matter' is "the flow of space into matter"???


Matter is the 'venturi effect' of the hyperpressurized
SPED _venting_ to that lowest-pressure 'ground state'.

The Quack-ers oughta have fun with that. Har. (-:
oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Bert:
"What if" space flow that gives gravity its push force(pressure) moves
at c² (186,242 X 186,242)?

OK Bert, just to clarify (again)- ahem- The *rate of flow* into any
particular mass is not the same thing as the 'speed of gravity'.

The 'speed of gravity' (or speed of gravitational charge), just as
Newton originally observed, is instantaneous irrespective of distance
and irrespective of the size of the mass(es) involved.

Its not instantaneous and yet so very fast that it can never be
detected.

Well, it's instananeous for all practical purposes, i.e., functionally
instantaneous. If this were not so, there would be what's called
"aberration of gravity", which would cause the planets' orbits to spiral
outward over time.

"Aberration argument
It is often held, e.g. by Tom Van Flandern, that the speed of gravity
must be at least 20 billion times that of light. This argument draws an
analogy to the aberration of light, which causes the Sun to appear in a
position slightly displaced from its actual position. Introducing a
speed of light time delay into Newtonian gravitation would result in
unstable planetary orbits.
But in general relativity, gravitomagnetism effects cancel out the
effects of aberration. The weak stationary field limit of general
relativity reproduces Newtonian gravity with instantanous action at a
distance, despite the fact that the full theory gives a speed of
gravity of c.
No current observations are inconsistent with general relativity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_o...ation_argument


Since they do not, and remain stable over billions of
years, this proves Newton was correct- that the 'speed of gravity' is
functionally instantaneous. (In light of this fact, i dunno why the
Wesident waddler keeps harping er, quack-ing er, yip-yapping on the
aberration issue.)

Its not an infinite speed,and maybe
Einstein could live with it.

Believe it or not, Einstein believed the 'speed of gravity' to be c.

Can you live with it oc?

No, nein, nyet. The speed of *gravitational waves* is c.

All the Duck's protestations and histrionics notwithstanding, there's a
clear-cut distinction between gravity and gravitational waves. The
latter DO propagate outward from their source (say a supernova exploding
or a binary BH merger). But the *speed of gravity itself* is always
functionally instantaneous.

Well the graviton has spin 2,and ..

'Gravitons' are needed only under the Void-Space regime.

Now, going back to the *rate of flow* into any given mass, it's equal to
the escape velocity for that mass. F'rinstance, the Earth's escape
velocity is 11.2 km/s (or about 7 mps).. which equals the inflow rate at
Earth's surface. Same with any planet, moon or sun. But with a black
hole, the inflow velocity and escape velocity both equal c, the speed of
light.

oc

oc A BH with the mass density of a billion stars has pushed all photons
to its core faster than the speed of light. Even particles will enter
the event horizon at over 99.999999999999999999 of 'c' That fits well
with my electron structure theory that comes out of my "Spin is in
theory" etc Best to keep in mind oc inside a BH does not have to obey
the physical laws of the universe. Bert

Double-A wrote:

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids:

No. There is no aether.

That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile,
rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as
MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate.
But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*,
entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar
aberration).

The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be
"no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone
"space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They
don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air.
But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently
normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not
one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel
religion.

Hrrumph. (-:

oc


It shows the powerful hold that brainwashing has over people, doesn't
it? People are induced to defend all doctrines, even the irrational
ones. Modern science doesn't threaten anyone with burning in Hell or
at the stake for questioning, but public ridicule as a crank, and
shunning by the science establishment are still in play. Criticize an
established theory, and you may never work in science again!

Double-A

This, of course, is a load of unmitigated horse****. And just because
you don't understand them doesn't imply that cosmology and general
relativity are "irrational". But then again, this is just the usual
saucerhead dicta, so it is to be expected from your lot.

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids:


No. There is no aether.

That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile,
rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as
MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate.
But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*,
entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar
aberration).

The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be
"no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone
"space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They
don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air.
But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently
normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not
one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel
religion.

Hrrumph. (-:

oc



It shows the powerful hold that brainwashing has over people, doesn't
it? People are induced to defend all doctrines, even the irrational
ones. Modern science doesn't threaten anyone with burning in Hell or
at the stake for questioning, but public ridicule as a crank, and
shunning by the science establishment are still in play. Criticize an
established theory, and you may never work in science again!

Double-A


nightbat

But that doesn't hold for when you're profoundly right like the
Earth Science Team Officers. We are actually the ones point pushing
science now forward from their relative and quantum field stalemate.


Yes, mainstream science has two great theories, each on implying the
other one is wrong! How about that? Haha! Yet they still show great
reluctance to consider any new ideas that might help them find a way to
slip through the horns of their dilemma!


The
advanced Space Flow Theory original classic non aether based but the
dimension domain of space understanding itself. Stalemates are like bad
fish, everyone can't wait for the new formulations to arrive and the old
static to be replaced. Remember I was the one who criticized Hawking
about zero outlet no real world possibility of BH. Also Remember
presently mainstream science advances with each old guard scientist's
burial.


Yes, it wasn't until all the old nineteenth century classical physics
educated professors died out that Einstein's ideas were fully accepted
in academia. It is a good thing that physics professors don't live as
long as Methuselah, or there would be some still teaching Aristotle's
version!


Here in alt.astronomy credit is given where credit is due.

ponder on,
the nightbat


Yes, and even aliens are given credit!

Double-A

And the horse**** continues.

Db, coming off his latest drunk long enough to "weigh in", recited from
Wiki:

....gravitomagnetism effects cancel out
the effects of aberration. The weak
stationary field limit of general relativity
reproduces Newtonian gravity with
instantanous action at a distance,
despite the fact that the full theory gives
a speed of gravity of c.
No current observations are inconsistent
with general relativity."

So? There's a built-in kludge to make GR agree with Newton on the 'speed
of gravity' issue. Big deal. And there is *another* kludge to make it
agree with the then-prevalent (circa 1915) belief in a rigid-lattice
'ether'. That's the prediction of gravitational waves to be of
transverse polarization, as through a solid. After the 'ether' was
abandoned, the transverse-polarization model was grandfathered in
unchanged and remains so to this day.
But when the spatial medium is recognized *not* as
rigid but as a compressible/expansible Fluid amenable to density
gradients, gravitational waves are seen to be of _longitudinal_
polarization. They're compression-rarefaction waves exactly analogous to
sound waves in air.. and correctly defined as _spatial acoustic pressure
waves_, propagating at c.
When LIGO and LISA detect their first GWs, it'll be
interesting to see the actual polarization.

Peripheral issues like the 'speed of gravity' and polarization of GWs
did not escape kludgery and fudgery. But the *core issues* of GR, the
'curvature' equations describing gravity, have been proven correct over
and over (precession of Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing,
etc. etc.).

BTW, i wonder if db still believes gravity and gravitational waves are
one and the same thing. Despite many promptings to clarify, he remains
silent on the subject.

oc

nightbat wrote

John Zinni wrote:
Double-A wrote:

John Zinni wrote:

Painius wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Aspiring astrophysicists ought to know where
they're headed, on which road they will travel.
A few, a very few really great ones, even much
greater than A. Guth (if that's possible) will
officially question the anomalous paradigms.

More than that, the truly great ones will go
searching for reality and truth. They will study
among other things, Einstein and App. 5. And
maybe they'll remember their ko0ky friends
here in alt.astronomy, and how wonderful the
idea of a dynamic, moving, flowing energetic
space zooming into mass and causing gravity
can truly be!

Awesome times ahead for you, Phineas.

I don't subscribe to flowing space at all. My own field of study is
already contentious.

It's fairly obvious that you don't agree with Einstein
about space as a flowing field of energy, Phineas.

Fields don't flow.


What about the flow of the flux in a magnetic field?


"flux, magnetic, in physics, term used to describe the total amount of
magnetic field in a given region. The term flux was chosen because the
power of a magnet seems to "flow" out of the magnet at one pole and
return at the other pole in a circulating pattern, as suggested by the
patterns formed by iron filings sprinkled on a paper placed over a
magnet or a conductor carrying an electric current. These patterns are
called lines of induction. Although there is no actual physical flow,
the lines of induction suggest the correct mathematical description of
magnetism in terms of a field of force."
http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetic-flux



Double-A



nightbat

Thank you for that group clarifying report Officer Zinni, very
applicable and logical indeed.

carry on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

John Zinni wrote:
Double-A wrote:

John Zinni wrote:

Painius wrote:

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Aspiring astrophysicists ought to know where
they're headed, on which road they will travel.
A few, a very few really great ones, even much
greater than A. Guth (if that's possible) will
officially question the anomalous paradigms.

More than that, the truly great ones will go
searching for reality and truth. They will study
among other things, Einstein and App. 5. And
maybe they'll remember their ko0ky friends
here in alt.astronomy, and how wonderful the
idea of a dynamic, moving, flowing energetic
space zooming into mass and causing gravity
can truly be!

Awesome times ahead for you, Phineas.

I don't subscribe to flowing space at all. My own field of study is
already contentious.

It's fairly obvious that you don't agree with Einstein
about space as a flowing field of energy, Phineas.

Fields don't flow.


What about the flow of the flux in a magnetic field?


"flux, magnetic, in physics, term used to describe the total amount of
magnetic field in a given region. The term flux was chosen because the
power of a magnet seems to "flow" out of the magnet at one pole and
return at the other pole in a circulating pattern, as suggested by the
patterns formed by iron filings sprinkled on a paper placed over a
magnet or a conductor carrying an electric current. These patterns are
called lines of induction. Although there is no actual physical flow,
the lines of induction suggest the correct mathematical description of
magnetism in terms of a field of force."
http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetic-flux



Double-A



nightbat

Thank you for that group clarifying report Officer Zinni, very
applicable and logical indeed.

carry on,
the nightbat

Translation from frootese: "I didn't understand a single word of that."

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sheppard wrote:
From AA:
Criticize an established theory, and you
may never work in science again!

Interestingly, there is one maverik 'mainstreamer' who has managed to
'dodge the bullet' (so far at least). That's Dr. Joao Magueijo of
Imperial College, London. His VSL (varing speed of light) model provides
an alternative to inflation theory. Just let lightspeed drop
precipitously across the 'inflation' spike, and presto-- the *need* for
inflation disappears as if by magic.. and with it all the niggling
little problems with inflation.
Only problem, in order to have his lightspeed drop,
Magueijo has to violate the Lorentz invariance, one of the foremost
taboos in physics, which he freely admits. His original co-author, Andy
Albrecht (one of the founders of inflation) dutifully back-pedaled and
faded back to "approved" academia. But Magueijo soldiers on, apprently
owing his academic survival to a combination of huge brass cajones,
massive ego, and charisma.
But he is a Void-Spacer and doesn't recognize there is
a mechanism for his proposed lightspeed drop that *does not* violate
Lorentz (or any other constant for that matter). That is the
cosmological density gradient (or PDT gradient) of the spatial medium
across the 'inflation' spike.
oc


I found an interesting treatise by Homer G. Ellis of the Department of
Mathematics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, published in the
Journal of Mathematical Physics, "Ether Flow Through a Drainhole: A
Particle Model in General Relativity", which states in mathematical
terms essentially the same things you have been saying.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/Re...DrPaMoGeRe.pdf

"In atempting to understand gravity, I have found it useful to accept
as a working hypothesis the existence of a more or less substantial
"ether," pervading all of space-time. The ether that I imagine is more
than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves;
it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions
manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sinks
or souces of this flowing ether. In the case of the space-time
manifold M under discussion here the velocity I associate with the
ether flow is the vector field u. The geodesic property of u just now
established I interpret as saying that every observer or test particle
drifting with the ether, following its flow, is absolutely
unaccelerated. In this sense my hypothetical ether provides a
universal system of inertial observers, just as did the
nineteenth-century luminiferous ether, and as must every ether worthy
of its name.

It was in pursuing the consequences of this hypothesis that I became
convinced of the need to replace the Scharzchilde singularity with a
drainhole."

- Homer G. Ellis, University of Colorado

This shows that academics, not only laymen, have found this theory to
be of interest.
(And published in a journal no less!)

Double-A

You do know that this will make Art Deco put on his "Puddledrip" duck suit,
don't you?

HJ

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From AA:
Criticize an established theory, and you
may never work in science again!

Interestingly, there is one maverik 'mainstreamer' who has managed to
'dodge the bullet' (so far at least). That's Dr. Joao Magueijo of
Imperial College, London. His VSL (varing speed of light) model provides
an alternative to inflation theory. Just let lightspeed drop
precipitously across the 'inflation' spike, and presto-- the *need* for
inflation disappears as if by magic.. and with it all the niggling
little problems with inflation.
Only problem, in order to have his lightspeed drop,
Magueijo has to violate the Lorentz invariance, one of the foremost
taboos in physics, which he freely admits. His original co-author, Andy
Albrecht (one of the founders of inflation) dutifully back-pedaled and
faded back to "approved" academia. But Magueijo soldiers on, apprently
owing his academic survival to a combination of huge brass cajones,
massive ego, and charisma.
But he is a Void-Spacer and doesn't recognize there is
a mechanism for his proposed lightspeed drop that *does not* violate
Lorentz (or any other constant for that matter). That is the
cosmological density gradient (or PDT gradient) of the spatial medium
across the 'inflation' spike.
oc


I found an interesting treatise by Homer G. Ellis of the Department of
Mathematics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, published in the
Journal of Mathematical Physics, "Ether Flow Through a Drainhole: A
Particle Model in General Relativity", which states in mathematical
terms essentially the same things you have been saying.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/Re...DrPaMoGeRe.pdf

"In atempting to understand gravity, I have found it useful to accept
as a working hypothesis the existence of a more or less substantial
"ether," pervading all of space-time. The ether that I imagine is more
than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves;
it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions
manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sinks
or souces of this flowing ether. In the case of the space-time
manifold M under discussion here the velocity I associate with the
ether flow is the vector field u. The geodesic property of u just now
established I interpret as saying that every observer or test particle
drifting with the ether, following its flow, is absolutely
unaccelerated. In this sense my hypothetical ether provides a
universal system of inertial observers, just as did the
nineteenth-century luminiferous ether, and as must every ether worthy
of its name.

It was in pursuing the consequences of this hypothesis that I became
convinced of the need to replace the Scharzchilde singularity with a
drainhole."

- Homer G. Ellis, University of Colorado

This shows that academics, not only laymen, have found this theory to
be of interest.
(And published in a journal no less!)

Double-A