An Attractive Proposition

Painius sed,

Because spatial energy (or spatial
medium) is at the top of the spectrum,
its tiny wavelengths mean that spatial
energy is more particle-like
than wave-like.

Well, it's 'beyond` the top of the EM spectrum for sure. In terms of its
energy density, it obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher
the energy state. And (one of the 'six Cardinal Points'), since we
perceive it as 'void', this indicates its wavelength-state or
'granularity' resides below our sensory and EM resolution, below the
Planck length, thus designating it as your sub-Planckian energy domain
or SPED.

And as we discussed several times at length under 'Bringing
the CBB model full circle', the SPED's particulate/ granular nature
manifests itself as a universe-filling 'sea' or Plenum of these
sub-Planckian, BIPOLAR entities dubbed 'granulons'. Their essential
bipolar nature answers exactly WHY "there is no perceptible upper limit
to amplitude of EM radiation" (as well as explaining polarization of
light).

So the particulate ideas are very close to physical reality, but "no
cigar" as they
say.

Why no ceegar?? Sub-Planckian, bipolar 'granulons' is the only
explanation i know of for the CBB model's founding maxim (full version),
"There is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of energy
transmissible by EM radiation, demonstrating a *carrier medium* of even
greater energy density than the most energetic EM wave it carries".
Another of the 'six CPs'.

'Member how Bernoulli the younger posited the "aether" as being a sea of
miniscule corpuscular "whirlpools" responsible for propagation of light.
Bernoulli's "whirlpools" lacked only the feature of bipolarity. The CBB
model of the H atom (depicted on pg.4 of the li'l webbie site) shows the
bipolar nature of the H atom. The CBB 'granulon' would be a
sub-Planckian micro-copy of this. Indeed the 'granulon' IS Bernoulli's
corpuscle with two mirror-imaging 'whirlpools'.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius sed,

Because spatial energy (or spatial
medium) is at the top of the spectrum,
its tiny wavelengths mean that spatial
energy is more particle-like
than wave-like.

Well, it's 'beyond` the top of the EM spectrum for sure. In terms of its
energy density, it obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher
the energy state. And (one of the 'six Cardinal Points'), since we
perceive it as 'void', this indicates its wavelength-state or
'granularity' resides below our sensory and EM resolution, below the
Planck length, thus designating it as your sub-Planckian energy domain
or SPED.

And as we discussed several times at length under 'Bringing
the CBB model full circle', the SPED's particulate/ granular nature
manifests itself as a universe-filling 'sea' or Plenum of these
sub-Planckian, BIPOLAR entities dubbed 'granulons'. Their essential
bipolar nature answers exactly WHY "there is no perceptible upper limit
to amplitude of EM radiation" (as well as explaining polarization of
light).

So the particulate ideas are very close to
physical reality, but "no cigar" as they say.

Why no ceegar?? Sub-Planckian, bipolar 'granulons' is the only
explanation i know of for the CBB model's founding maxim (full version),
"There is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of energy
transmissible by EM radiation, demonstrating a *carrier medium* of even
greater energy density than the most energetic EM wave it carries".
Another of the 'six CPs'.

'Member how Bernoulli the younger posited the "aether" as being a sea of
miniscule corpuscular "whirlpools" responsible for propagation of light.
Bernoulli's "whirlpools" lacked only the feature of bipolarity. The CBB
model of the H atom (depicted on pg.4 of the li'l webbie site) shows the
bipolar nature of the H atom. The CBB 'granulon' would be a
sub-Planckian micro-copy of this. Indeed the 'granulon' IS Bernoulli's
corpuscle with two mirror-imaging 'whirlpools'.

The "no ceegar" message, and i'm pretty certain that
Timo, et al., will "get" is that the energy of space that
i'm talking with him about is NOT anything at all like
the material, particulate ether of old. It can behave
more particle-like because of the higher energy levels
and shorter wavelengths. But the bottom line is that
spatial/gravitational energy is very UNLIKE any form
of ether ever seriously proposed to physics.

happy holidays and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "Learning never exhausts the mind."
Leonardo da Vinci

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Painius wrote,

But the bottom line is that
spatial/gravitational energy is very
UNLIKE any form of ether ever seriously
proposed to physics.

Yer sure right about that. But in the granular/particulate sense, i'd
hafta say Bernoulli's corpuscular whirlpool most closely approximates
the CBB 'granulon' but lacking the bipolar feature.

In the UNLIKE sense, the "ether/aether" of old lacked any
concept of "sub-Planckian-ism" and its attendant extreme energy-density,
of the SCO (the 'key in the lock' feature), of the FLOWS driven by
pressure/density gradients, of 'hyperfluidity' underlying and fixing
Newton's laws of inertia and momentum and Einstein's (then yet future)
discovery of gravity-acceleration equivalence. It had no concept of the
intrinsic nonlocal/ holographic nature of the SPED.
The very term "ether/aether" connotes that which is
spiritous, ephemeral and insubstantial. It carried no concept of
matter's being the very *least substantial* in terms of energy density,
which makes matter in fact the ephemeral 'dustbunny' (with one
exception. There was that one aetherist about a century ago who
correctly viewed matter as "holes in the aether", thus recognizing the
embeddedness principle, a primary tenet of the yet-future CBB model).
The "ether/aether" of old had no concept of the
stupendous POWER conveyed by the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (SCO) that
drives the engines of the quasars and the "little" one-shot 'pops' of
supernovae and hypernovae.

Hey Paine,
In your teté-a-teté with 'Timo', why dontcha throw at him
the 'River Model of Black Holes' which was discussed at graet length
here several times over the last year? It's an upgrade of the old
Painlevé-Gullstrand flowing-space metric, now updated to include black
holes.

Like P-G before them,The authors of the 'River Model'
are fastidious to clarify that it is only a 'heuristic' or allegorical
model and not meant as literal. Their 'River' accelerating into the BH
is depicted as flowing relative to a fixed background space. But as we
hollered, "Cut the bull**** and recognize that the **fixed background
space itself** is what's flowing/ accelerating into the BH. With that
proviso firmly in place, then the 'River Model' is valid for all
gravitation, powered by the the hydrodynamic pressure of the SCO, the
'key in the lock' to unification of all the fundamental forces.

Timo, a friend has suggested that i show you something
of which you may already be aware. It's an interesting
submittal about space flowing like a river into a black
hole. Called the "River Model of Black Holes", it's an
upgrade of the Painlevé-Gullstrand flowing-space metric,
now updated to include black holes.

Like Painlevé-Gullstrand before them, the authors of the
River Model are quick to qualify that it's only a heuristic
or allegorical model and not meant to be taken literally.

In the river model, space itself flows like a river through
a flat background, while objects move through the river
according to the rules of special relativity. In a spherical
black hole, the river of space flows into the black hole at
the Newtonian escape velocity, hitting the speed of light
at the event horizon. Inside the horizon, the river flows
inward faster than light, carrying everything with it.

As you have mentioned it being wise, the authors are
very careful with this model. Maybe by being too careful,
the authors are losing out on the discovery of the century?...

....the unification of the fundamental forces?

When will physicists realize that space actually *does*
flow into matter? Only when this is studied and added to
the present body of knowledge will physics finally grasp
its "holy grail".

http://tinyurl.com/bh-rivermodel

happy holidays and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "Learning never exhausts the mind."
Leonardo da Vinci

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net