An Attractive Proposition -

Where does it go after it "flows" in?

Where does the Big Bang "come from"?

Folks don't bat an eye at the evidence for the BB. Yet they squawk at
the 'Roach Motel' issue of "where does the stuff go in the process of
gravitation?"
If the R.M. issue disqualifies the flowing-space model of
gravity, then it also disqualifies the BB, and for the same reason. The
BB model does not address where the stuff 'comes from'.

How does it drive massive bodies
without acceleration..?

How 'bout if the flow itself is accelerating, and that _only_ if it is
accelerating will it accelerate (drive) massive bodies? And how 'bout
that _only_ an accelerating flow constitutes gravity, period?
And how 'bout the proposition that when you accelerate an
object IN space, the resistance you feel (inertia) is *literally* the
resistance of space itself to the acceleration..? And how 'bout seeing
the self-same property of space as the CAUSE of gravity-acceleration
equivalence which Uncle Albert so eloquently *described* in his famous
'space elevator' scenario?
And how 'bout this superfluidic (or 'hyperfluidic')
property of space as underlying and fixing Newton's laws of inertia and
conservation of momentum AND Einstein's gravity-acceleration
equivalence?
And 'bout conservation of momentum again- an object in
motion *minus acceleration* will travel frictionlessly in space**.
Conversely, a non-accelerating spaceflow will impart no momentum to an
object *irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow*.
-----------
**In sub-relativistic speed regimes, that is. With the onset of
relativistic speeds, space begins exhibiting increasing "viscosity" even
in the absence of acceleration.

Try learning something new.

Indeed. *

Dear oldcoot:

On Dec 22, 9:59*am, (oldcoot) wrote:
Where does it go after it "flows" in?

Where does the Big Bang "come from"?

No, where does this space go to? Big Bang only had "one miracle",
this requires a continuous creation / destruction somewhere.

* * * * * * * *If the R.M. issue disqualifies the
flowing-space model of gravity, then it also
disqualifies the BB, and for the same reason.

Does not follow.

The BB model does not address where the
stuff 'comes from'. *

It is "simply" extrapolation from current data. It doesn't have to.
From what works here... "There Be Dragons". Since we can't go back to
check, then we are left with checking where we can... like here /
now. Now this "flowing space" crap, how can we disprove it, since it
is here and now?

How does it drive massive bodies
without acceleration..?

How 'bout if the flow itself is accelerating, and
that _only_ if it is accelerating will it accelerate
(drive) massive bodies?

Why don't gravitationally accelerated charge radiate? Nice how you
duck the hard ones, then write paragraphs trying to cover your
tracks. And trick novices into fronting your personal beliefs.

David A. Smith