An Attractive Proposition (was - Space Elevator is itpossible?)

Painius writ, thus:

I am not stating cold, hard facts at this
point. I am setting forth some ideas that
obviously require falsification.

Uh, i'm pretty darn dense and need some enlightenment on this "requiring
falsification" thing. How do you "falsify" something that is
demonstrably and patently self-evident, like the Earth revolving around
the sun? And to what purpose?

How (and to what purpose) do you "falsify" these Points f'rintance:

1.) How do you falsify that the high, fixed propagation speed of light
irrespective of the velocity of the emitter _demonstrates_ a *carrier
medium* of a particular energy density which fixes its
'permeability/permittivity' value which fixes the value of c?

2.) How do you falsify the fact that there being NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION _demonstrates_ a *carrier medium* of
even greater energy density than the most energetic EM wave it carries?

3.) How do you falsify that gravity, by its appearance and behavior,
_demonstrates_ per Occam's Razor a pressure-driven, accelerating flow
into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain)?

4.) The ability to crush a massive star down to a black hole, often
triggering a supernova or occasional hypernova, and the ability to
easily power the far more energetic and *sustained* process of a quasar
_demonstrates_ a spatial medium under hydrodyamic pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus. How do you falsify this?

5.) In light of the above, the fact that we perceive space as "void"
_demonstrates_ that its wavelength-state or 'granularity' resides below
the Planck length, below our sensory and EM resolution. The great bulk
of 'What Is', in terms of energy density, resides on the 'other side' of
the Planck line. How do you falsify this?

6.) Relativistic effects. Mass increase, foreshortening of rods, and
time dilation _demonstrate_ a spatial medium whose "viscosity" increases
with onset of relativistic speeds. How do you falsify it?
Admittedly, i'm at a loss to 'get' the reasoning behind needing to
"falsify" that which _demonstrates itself_ by a bounty of
incontrovertable evidence.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius writ, thus:

I am not stating cold, hard facts at this
point. I am setting forth some ideas that
obviously require falsification.

Uh, i'm pretty darn dense and need some enlightenment on this "requiring
falsification" thing. How do you "falsify" something that is
demonstrably and patently self-evident, like the Earth revolving around
the sun? And to what purpose?

This has come up before, brought up by the Zinni
mushini IIRC...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

A hypothesis, etc. is not believed to be "scientific"
unless it is "falsifiable". It's important to remember
two things...

1) An idea that is "falsifiable" is not necessarily
"false", and

2) An idea that is "demonstrably and patently
self-evident" is not necessarily "falsifiable"
(but *can* be "axiomatic").

And no matter *how much* any given person might
consider any given idea to be "demonstrably and
patently self-evident", if it's not "falsifiable", that is,
if it's not something that can be tested with both
observations and experiments, then it cannot ever
be "scientific".

"Testability" is also used as a term of science, but it
is considered more specific than "falsifiability", in
that it relies only on experiment. IOW, an idea that
is falsifiable by experimentation alone is said to be
"testable".

The VSP and the PGP are prime examples of ideas
that the mainstream seems to deem "acceptable",
and yet they are not "falsifiable". This makes them
"axioms". While they are not "scientific", they can
be accepted and even used as foundations for other
ideas and theories that actually *are* falsifiable IF
AND ONLY IF most scientists are willing to accept
the axiomatic and foundational status of the axiom
under proposal.

How (and to what purpose) do you "falsify" these Points f'rintance:

1.) How do you falsify that the high, fixed propagation speed of light
irrespective of the velocity of the emitter _demonstrates_ a *carrier
medium* of a particular energy density which fixes its
'permeability/permittivity' value which fixes the value of c?

This one ain't gonna be so easy, because the speed
of light in a vacuum is presently accepted by science
as a "constant of Nature". Axioms and constants are
generally the hardest things to try to falsify, because
it generally means that people in the past have tried
and tried but were unable to come up with falsifiability.
So if they can convince enough of the "right people"
that the idea is still sound, then the idea has a chance
of becoming axiomatic.

2.) How do you falsify the fact that there being NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION _demonstrates_ a *carrier medium* of
even greater energy density than the most energetic EM wave it carries?

Another toughy, because the only way to "prove" it's
true is to keep trying to saturate the medium, and of
course, it's only true if you keep trying and can never
saturate it. And of course this doesn't really prove a
thing, does it? Trying to falsify a "negative" (NO limit,
NO maximum, NO this or that) is only effective if the
idea actually isn't true. If it's true, then falsifiability is
virtually impossible.

3.) How do you falsify that gravity, by its appearance and behavior,
_demonstrates_ per Occam's Razor a pressure-driven, accelerating flow
into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain)?

There are quite probably many roads to falsifiability
on this one. The first test that pops to mind is the
development of ways to actually sense the medium
itself. The proposed lambda range may one day be
accessible to testing. Since it's a different kind of
energy from EM energy, this can be studied, and
perhaps more of this energy will be discovered and
at frequencies that are not required for gravitation.

The "pressure-driven" part will remain speculative
at least until other parts can be shown to be true.
And even then, the SCO will always remain outside
the true realm of science for the same reason that
quantum cosmology is and will remain outside that
true realm of science. There might come a time,
though, far in the future, when the SCO becomes
axiomatic to and for science.

4.) The ability to crush a massive star down to a black hole, often
triggering a supernova or occasional hypernova, and the ability to
easily power the far more energetic and *sustained* process of a quasar
_demonstrates_ a spatial medium under hydrodyamic pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus. How do you falsify this?

Personally, i don't see how *anybody* can question
this one. It's as plain as the nose on your face that
math and geometry cannot possibly account for such
things. There has to be some "force" behind that
kind of energy, that kind of power. And scientists
are only recently coming to this realization, as can
be seen by their relatively new term, "gravitational
energy", as used for example when discussing the
stupendous power of quasars.

5.) In light of the above, the fact that we perceive space as "void"
_demonstrates_ that its wavelength-state or 'granularity' resides below
the Planck length, below our sensory and EM resolution. The great bulk
of 'What Is', in terms of energy density, resides on the 'other side' of
the Planck line. How do you falsify this?

No way in heck, at present. Until science advances
beyond the quantum limitations regarding the Planck
length, this item alone is enough to squelch the whole
idea of the CBB model and any of its sidebars, and of
course, this includes flowing space. Better to forget
about proposing this sort of thing entirely. As long as
physicists consider the Planck length to be the shortest
length that has any meaning, you will be butting your
head up against a brick wall.

6.) Relativistic effects. Mass increase, foreshortening of rods, and
time dilation _demonstrate_ a spatial medium whose "viscosity" increases
with onset of relativistic speeds. How do you falsify it?

As far as astrophysics is concerned, this one follows
the falsifiability of (3) above. Any observation or
experiment that can be devised for (3) would also be
falsifiability for (6).

Admittedly, i'm at a loss to 'get' the reasoning behind needing to
"falsify" that which _demonstrates itself_ by a bounty of
incontrovertable evidence.

It's science. It means the difference between going
ahead and accepting an idea "blindly", and treating
the idea with enough respect to actually find ways to
see if its really true or not. You can work out and
practice and throw, hit or kick the ball all you want,
but if you're not willing to go out and compete, then
you will never know how good you really are. You
can tell people how pretty a car is, even that you've
kicked the tires a few times. But you have to let
them test-drive the car or they'd be foolish to buy it.

"Caveat Emptor", baby!

GR has passed many falsifiabilities, some more or
less "questionable", and yet all scientifically sound
in the eyes of most physicists. The same is so for
quantum mechanics. Of course, this has to make
one wonder how two such close approximations of
reality can be "worlds apart". This one item ought
to be one of the highest priorities of physics... to
get both the theories of quantum mechanics and of
relativity to "kiss and make up"!

And this says to me that the Flowing-Space
paradigm is bound to be an essential ingredient in
this process, simply because it offers what i feel is
a feasible avenue to, at the very least, a slightly
"stubbed" big TOE! g

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Cheers to a new year and another chance
for us to get it right." Oprah

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

Painius observed,

Until science advances beyond the..
limitations regarding the Planck length,
this is enough to squelch the whole idea
of the CBB model and any of its
sidebars, and of course, this includes
flowing space. Better to forget about
proposing this sort of thing entirely. As
long as physicists consider the Planck
length to be the shortest length that has
any meaning, you will be butting your
head up against a brick wall.

Well, there's always the alternative-- space is a 'void-nothing' which
sprang from a 'one-shot' BB, the loaf of dough-less raisin bread is
undergoing "ever-accelerating expansion" unto open-ended entropic heat
death, and gravity is angels, imps and Sky Pixies all the way down. :-)
Personally, i'll go with that which _demonstrates itself_ unambiguously
and unequivocally.

Painius wrote, re. the "unbridgable" chasm 'twixt QM and relativity:

Of course, this has to make one wonder
how two such close approximations of
reality can be "worlds apart". This one
item ought to be one of the highest
priorities of physics... to get both the
theories of quantum mechanics and of
relativity to "kiss and make up"!

Of course there's the oft-repeated demo of gravity-SNF unification seen
in the humble Casimir effect. To reiterate (again),
When the two super-smooth, uncharged plates are
brought into extreme proximity, they appear to be "attracted" toward
each other. So what's going on? Simply this-- the spaceflow into the
constituent protons of both plates constitutes the strong nuclear force.
The closer you approach nuclear domain, the more the SNF predominates.
The Casimir effect is demonstrating the *interface zone* between gravity
and the SNF. It is one and the same Flow. The 'Casimir zone' between the
two plates is simultaneously the attenuated SNF and the amped-up
gravitational force between the two plates, the collective inflow
literally *pushing* them together.
To draw on the "river" analogy again, you have a
smooth, tranquil river flowing along, but the channel is gradually
narrowing, forcing the river to accelerate. As the channel keeps
narrowing, the flow keeps accelerating, eventually breaking into rapids
before plunging over a waterfall.
In our analogy, the "rapids" are the "quantum
fluctuations" of quantum electrodynamics (QED). And the "waterfall" is
the flow's final acceleration as it plunges through the protons' "event
horizon" into the subnuclear domain.

But as long as there is deemed to be "no medium" and
space is deemed a 'void', there can be nothing to flow, nothing to
accelerate. The fundamental forces will remain disparate and
disconnected. Relativity and QM will remain forever unreconciled, and
unification of gravity, long the 'holy grail' of physics, will forever
amount to chasing the rainbow.

Such is the fruits of the VSP.

Prof. Painius lectured thus,

A hypothesis, etc. is not believed to be
"scientific" unless it is "falsifiable".

And no matter *how much* any given
person might consider any given idea to
be "demonstrably and patently
self-evident", if it's not "falsifiable", that
is, if it's not something that can be tested with both observations
and experiments,
then it cannot ever be "scientific".

This is all well and good, and indeed necessary in the arena of the
mundane or "applied"sciences.
But to arbitrarily and capriciously apply these same
mandates to the arena of cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics
is to *fatally hamstring* these fields. It stifles and stultifies
logical thought and deductive reasoning, "intuitive extrapolation" (or
IE) as Gordon Wolter called it.
He was adamant that if science (in the aforementioned
arena) is ever to advance out of the quagmire it's currently in, it
_MUST_ some day recognize IE as a valid tool of scientific enquiry,
taking up where empirical (testable/ falsifiable) evidence leaves off.
It was purely by IE that he deduced his entire CBB cosmology, beginning
from its founding observation "There is no perceptible upper limit to
amplitude of energy transmissible by EM radiation."

Another brooding genius once got "fixated" on another
aspect of EM radiation (light) and applied IE, imagining what it would
be like to ride alongside a light beam. With no
empirical/testable/falsifiable evidence, it "extrapolated" to the
special theory of relativity.

Prof. Painius wrote,

"Testability" is also used as a term of
science, but it is considered more
specific than "falsifiability", in that it
relies only on experiment. IOW, an idea
that is falsifiable by experimentation
alone is said to be "testable".

All well and good as sed before, and quite valid in the "applied
sciences". But to apply the same requirements across the board to
cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics, which by their very
nature are not "falsifiable/testable" in the same manner as applied
sciences, is to put it mildly, a big steamy pile of horse poo.
Imagine if immediate empirical
"falsification/testability" were required of SR at its inception. Hrmph.
:-)

That said and howsumever, if one were to look
objectively at the Casimir effect under the rubric of the FSP, it would
stand as a quite valid, inclusive "test" of gravity-SNF unification AND
conciliation of QM/relativity.
Same with the oft-cited "standing arm-wave" test. It is
also a great "all-in-one" demo of the common mechanism underlying
inertia, conservation of momentum, and gravity-acceleration equivalence.
The resistance *of space itself* to acceleration/deceleration is by dint
of the *very same* property of space that plants your feet to the ground
when space is accelerating (ie., gravity).

Addendum

Oc writ,

The 'Casimir zone' between the two
plates is simultaneously the attenuated
SNF and the amped-up gravitational
force between the two plates, the
collective inflow literally *pushing* them
together.

A slight rewording might be in order, to read thus--

The 'Casimir zone' between the two plates is simultaneously the
attenuated SNF and the amped-up gravitational force, the *zone of lower
pressure* generated by the collective inflow into both plates. The
higher pressure from 'behind' the plates is literally *pushing* them
together.

oc Casimir plates have to have a very tiny SPACE separating them. It
gives the theory that the top of these plates is getting more wave
energy then the inner surface. You know oc I have my own theory on this
and its much simpler it goes like this Molecules have a cohesion force
End of story It is short and that makes it good. TreBert