A dark future for cosmology

On Dec 14, 8:11 pm, "greysky" wrote:

My
theory on Gravitation which explains what it actually is was rejected for
publication in the 1980's because "It couldn't possibly be so simple a High
School student can understand it."

Just curious, but in a nutshell what was your thesis on the cause of
gravity?
oc

On Dec 18, 8:56 am, Cyber Trekker wrote:
s.desear wrote:
Greysky All of the universe's mysteries have to have an easy simple
answer.Einstein and Bohr,told us that. Bert+Sandra

I, as others, disagree with Greysky's theory as to the nature of gravity,
with all due respect to him and his effort in putting forward an
alternative theory to the manifold mainstream theories. Rather than
explaining what gravity actually is, as is his claim, it is just another
theory amongst many theories and the 'actually is' part of his claim is
rather presumptive and misleading. His assertion as to humanity's
ignorance, however, is quite true, being right on the mark and epitomising
the sad state of affairs of human learning or the knowledge possessed or
not by humanity in its interpretation of nature and life.

Also, I would like to add for your benefit, irrespective of the
pronouncements of such as Einstein and Bohr, as you made reference to,
simplicity is really a relative term. The beauty of simplicity, then, is in
its statement. For the simplest answer is not always the correct answer.
Nonetheless, when a correct interpretation of nature is arrived at and
presented in simple terms, then the claim of simplicity in the presentation
of the answer is valid. And the reason simplicity is a relative term is
because it is dependent on the knowledge and comprehension (understanding),
which together are intimately tied to perception, of the person considering
it - to one it may appear simple, yet to another it may appear complicated.


Our NASA has a spendy new and greatly improved supercomputer that can
help prove damn near anything, and in relatively short order. (is it
doing anything?)
- Brad Guth -

Brad The fact that accelerating motion is relative to the force of
gravity is the key. Elevator fits so well and can curve light.
Coasting along is relative to free fall. The earth coming up to the
apple explains why all objects fall to the Earth at the same speed.
Knowing all this,and yet gravity is still the great secret of the
universe. Go figure Sunbeam& Bert

You must understand “ the mind of God � before you can grasp gravity.

Gravity is ( subjectively ) predictable,
primordial, “ momentum � in a curved spacetime.
( Actually, it's montionless world-lines in a hypervolume )

Quantum mechanics is ( subjectively ) semi-random momentum
in a ( subjectively ) flat ( Euclidean, Minkowskian ) spacetime.

Amazingly, Chinese ancients ( Taoists ) got it right,
there is no genuine free will.
Intrinsically, objectively, the cosmos is montionless.

If you ignore my ****-poor American diet ( Merry Christmas ! ),
Taoist monks have nothing on me. Praise the Jade Emperor !

I meant “ motionless � not “ montionless �, pardon me.

On Dec 25, 8:57Â*pm, Jeffâ˜*Relf wrote:

You must understand “ the mind of God � before you can grasp gravity.

Hmm.. It don't take the 'mind of God' to see gravity for exactly what
it *demonstrates itself* to be: a pressure-driven, accelerating flow
_of the spatial medium_ into mass, with mass synonymous with flow
sink. Nor does it take any deific smarts to see the *literal*
mechanism of gravity-acceleration equivalence. oc

Does your “ spatial medium � notion explain the engine of life,
Old Coot ?

Q. What drives the engine of life ?
A. It's the cosmos forever approching equalibrium,
but never getting there.

Nothing spews more than a “ black hole �;
more likely than not, the entire Milky Way is its spew.
Like the CMB, the Milky Way dates back at least 13.7 giga years.

Even neutron stars spew more than stars like our sun.
Our tiny sun spews 5 mega tons per second, mostly photons.
As the cosmos cools, life evolves with it.

On Dec 26, 5:12Â*am, Jeffâ˜*Relf wrote:

Does your “ spatial medium � notion explain the engine of life,
Old Coot ?

Q. What drives the engine of life ?

Said 'Engine' is illustrated here - http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

The Flowing-Space model of gravity BTW, was a spinoff or 'sidebar' of
this overarching model.
It's interesting that if the FS model is bunkum,
that increasing numbers of people worldwide, independantly and without
collaboration, are deducing essentiallly the *same* model of gravity.
Google up any or all of the following:

Jerry Shifman, gravity

Henry Warren, gravity

Lew Paxton, gravity

Henry Lindner, gravity

Tom Martin, gravity

James S. Huenefeld, gravity

F. Stefanko, gravity

One thing these people all have in common: they have
rejected the 'no medium', space-as-void indoctrination. They all see
gravity as the omnidirectional, 'reverse starburst' flow of the
spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. It's a
no-brainer like "Doh! the earth really is round and revolves around
the sun."
To observe the process of gravitation is to
*literally* observe the reverse of the BigBang process.. the
continuous BB.

(Note: response follows second dashed line.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Dec 26, 5:12 am, Jeff?Relf wrote:

Does your " spatial medium " notion explain the engine of life,
Old Coot ?

Q. What drives the engine of life ?

Said 'Engine' is illustrated here -
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

The Flowing-Space model of gravity BTW, was a spinoff or 'sidebar' of
this overarching model.
It's interesting that if the FS model is bunkum,
that increasing numbers of people worldwide, independantly and without
collaboration, are deducing essentiallly the *same* model of gravity.
Google up any or all of the following:

Jerry Shifman, gravity

Henry Warren, gravity

Lew Paxton, gravity

Henry Lindner, gravity

Tom Martin, gravity

James S. Huenefeld, gravity

F. Stefanko, gravity

One thing these people all have in common: they have
rejected the 'no medium', space-as-void indoctrination. They all see
gravity as the omnidirectional, 'reverse starburst' flow of the
spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. It's a
no-brainer like "Doh! the earth really is round and revolves around
the sun."
To observe the process of gravitation is to
*literally* observe the reverse of the BigBang process.. the
continuous BB.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, Jeff was probably just reminding us of the endearing
and enduring Newtonian idea that "God Causes Gravity,"
oc. It's those li'l angelic gravitons that reach up from the
ground and then pull everything down. Of course, ya see,
they're not so angelic if one's parachute happens to fail!

g

Now, *my* questions are similar...

Q's.: What drives the engine of _s e n t i e n t_ life?

Sentience must begin at some point between conception
and birth, or maybe after we're born. When, exactly, does
this happen, do you think?

And sentience must end at some time after death. How
long does it last after, say, one's head is chopped off?

And lastly, if we can discover how we get "disconnected"
from this engine when we die, could we also find a way
to stay connected? indefinitely?

happy new-year days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank you very much!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org/
http://home.secretsgolden.com

On Dec 26, 6:30*am, "Painius" wrote:

Now, *my* questions are similar...

Q's.: *What drives the engine of *_s e n t i e n t_ *life?

Sentience must begin at some point between conception
and birth, or maybe after we're born. *When, exactly, does
this happen, do you think?

Well, has sentience, or life itself, ever been known to arise from non-
life? The Greeks had that thing about the ineffable 'pneuma' being the
source or "breath" of life. 'Pneuma' was synonymous with 'spirit'. But
we now know the pneuma's just plain ol' air, which although
*necessary* for life, is not the base field from which life arises.

Today we've come upon the latter-day 'Pneuma', the "stuff" of space
itself, the Sub-Planck Energy Domain, of which matter is the low-
grade, superfluous by-product (the 'dustbunny'). Yet the scientific
mainstream rejects and denies the existance of this universe-filling
Plenum of space in favor of the 'Void'. So the question is this:

Do life and sentience arise from matter alone, as the Void-Space
Paradigm would dictate? OR.. do life, consciousness, and ultimately
sentience, arise from the Base Field of space itself?

And moreover, are humans endowed with some "organ (or organs) of
articulation" by which to perceive this Base Field? Down through time
and in all cultures, have there been a few individuals genetically
gifted in this perception? Bereft of any science acumen, did they
render what they saw in terms of religious myth, metaphor and symbol?
But today, with the full lexicon of science available and no need for
archaic symbolism, should not those gifted ones be able to explain
*literally* what they've seen (once unshackled from the void-space
indoctrination)?