An Attractive Proposition -

Painius wrote, reposting one of the VS'ers:

**Note that you still have no mechanism or how
the magnitude of flow is established...

No-brainer. The size of the mass establishes the size of the sink; the
larger the sink, the higher the flow rate.. up to the mass of a BH whose
inflow rate exceeds the speed of light, establishing the BH's event
horizon.

Actually, no, they can't be normal. The exact trajectories will
be quite complex due to local mass variations.

This would be true with bodies like the moon with large subsurface
mascons (irregular mass concentrations).

Yet these items travel many orders of magnitude slower than the
speed of gravity as predicted by General
Relativity. Thus you cannot claim that your construct obeys the
mathematics of GR.

The *speed of gravitational charge* (bet that's a new one on 'im) is not
the same thing as velocity of spaceflow. The 'speed of gravity' is
instantaneous irrespective of distance. Were it no so, aberration of
planetary orbits would cause them to spiral outward over time. The
stability of planets' orbits over billions of years attests to gravity's
instantaneity just as Newton originally observed.
Incidently, Uncle Albert's belief that gravity itself
propagates at c is just plain wrong. Carlip's "gravitomagnetic" theory
attempting to exonerate him is just plain ol' fudgery.

Now place another H atom into this universe, at a macro-scale
distance. Experimental physics tell us that these two atoms
will then experience forces proportional to their (equal) masses in
the direction of the other atom (remember that forces
are vector quantities), and their motions will be
affected accordingly. Yet this flow model can't explain
these forces. How is a net force generated?

Take *any* two masses, even two H atoms separated by any distance. Each
is a flow sink, generating a zone of lower pressure between the two.
Higher pressure from 'behind' literally *pushes* the two sinks toward
each other. How does he suppose interstellar gas and dust accretes into
protostellar clouds and then into suns?

On Dec 26, 2:36*pm, (oldcoot) wrote:
Painius wrote, reposting one of the VS'ers:

**Note that you still have no * * * * * * * * * mechanism or how

the magnitude of * * flow is established...

No-brainer. The size of the mass establishes the size of the sink; the
larger the sink, the higher the flow rate.. up to the mass of a BH whose
inflow rate exceeds the speed of light, establishing the BH's event
horizon.

Actually, no, they can't be normal. The * exact trajectories will

be quite complex due to local mass variations.

This would be true with bodies like the moon with large subsurface
mascons (irregular mass concentrations).

Yet these items travel many orders of * magnitude slower than the

speed of * * * gravity as predicted by General * * * * * * Relativity. Thus you cannot claim that * your construct obeys the

mathematics * of GR.

The *speed of gravitational charge* (bet that's a new one on 'im) is not
the same thing as velocity of spaceflow. The 'speed of gravity' is
instantaneous irrespective of distance. Were it no so, aberration of
planetary orbits would cause them to spiral outward over time. The
stability of planets' orbits over billions of years attests to gravity's
instantaneity just as Newton originally observed.
* * * * * * * Incidently, Uncle Albert's belief that gravity itself
propagates at c is just plain wrong. Carlip's "gravitomagnetic" theory
attempting to exonerate him is just plain ol' fudgery.

Now place another H atom into this * * * universe, at a macro-scale

distance. * * Experimental physics tell us that these * two atoms
will then experience forces * proportional to their (equal) masses in the direction of the other atom * * * * * * * (remember that forces

are vector * * * * * quantities), and their motions will be * * affected accordingly. Yet this flow * * * * model can't explain

these forces. How * is a net force generated?

Take *any* two masses, even two H atoms separated by any distance. Each
is a flow sink, generating a zone of lower pressure between the two.
Higher pressure from 'behind' literally *pushes* the two sinks toward
each other. How does he suppose interstellar gas and dust accretes into
protostellar clouds and then into suns?


You think that gravity is instantaneous? I like better the idea that
all gravitational interactions are local, whether you attribute those
inteactions to space that's warped, or space that's flowing, not any
kind of direct interaction beteen two distant masses. The only
scenarios I've seen that would test intantaneous gravity would be
situations such as if the Sun were to suddenly disappear. We know
that these kinds of things never happen in nature, and that in itseff
should give us something to ponder. Lack of aberration has other
explanations.

Merry Christmas, oc! Thought I saw the Christmas star last night, but
then decided it was only Jupiter.

Double-A

AA wrote,

You think that gravity is instantaneous?

Hyuup. Its 'speed of charge' is indeed instantaneous.

Lack of aberration has other
explanations.

Or so sayeth Carlip, Fomalont-Kopeikin et al. But they are also
card-carrying, dyed in the wool VS'ers. In their world, there can be no
medium to flow, hence no concept of 'speed of charge'.

Merry Christmas! Thought I saw the
Christmas star last night, but then
decided it was only Jupiter.

Back atcha. Yeah, the ol' Jovian orb shone brightly here too.

WebTV doesn't allow quoting. At least the oldfart tries to quote.
BEERTbrain doesn't even do that making it impossible to figure out
what he's referring to.

Saul Levy


On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:05:23 -0700, "K. Carson"
wrote:

In article , oldcoot
wrote:

Painius wrote, reposting one of the VS'ers:

Please learn how to quote posts correctly, your broken quoting is quite
hard for others to read.

oc Mass never changes,but the mass on the moon is 6 times less
weight(gravity) than the same mass on the Earth On moon the same mass
accelerates 6 times slower. TreBert ps Here you again see
acceleration matching gravitation,because they are equivalent

oc it is reality that the electron can not get to c but its charge
can(tricky stuff) What gives you the idea gravity has a charge
connected to it? Why does this charge not go like a good charge
should?(at c) Why instantaneously? Using faster than light I frown
upon Instantaneously I relate to infinity,and that to me is to far out
TreBert

Cactus Saul Those that read my posts have great wit,and understand where
I am coming from. My thinking is well over your witless head and that is
why you keep posting you can not understand me. go figure Proof of
this is your use of name calling Using hurtful terms. Swear words etc.
TreBert

Bert asks,

What gives you the idea gravity has a
charge connected to it? Why does this
charge not go like a good charge
should?(at c) Why instantaneously?

Bert, this has been discussed at length many times over the y'ars. The
word "charge" has several connotations. One is the one you're thinking
of, like a potential or "static" charge. Another is the verb form, like
to "charge" a battery.
But the 'charge' we're talkin' about here is in a
different context, the "flow of charge". By analogy, a water-filled hose
is full of charge. A copper wire is full of charge, the charge of
unmoving electrons.
A water pump will cause the charge in the hose to
flow. A battery, generator, or solar cell is a charge pump that will
move the charge in the wire, causing an electric flow.
When you switch the waterpump on, the flow is
functionally, for all practical purposes, instantaneous. The
instantaneity occurs everywhere along the flow path. When you throw the
light switch on, the flow of electric charge through the wires is
`functionally` instantaneous, and the light comes on "instantly".
Of course the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies
are. There `is` a tiny time lag in the water hose analogy due to the
speed of sound in water, and a tiny time lag in the light switch
analogy. But the point of the analogy is to illustrate instantaneity of
charge everywhere along the flow path.
So how does 'speed of charge' apply to gravity? In
the spaceflow of a gravity well, say the Sun's, instantaneity of charge
is present everywhere along the flow path from the outermost fringes of
the Sun's gravity well all the way down to the Sun's surface. The flow
path is unbroken, continuous and contiguous at Mercury's orbit, at
Venus', at Earth's, at Mars', at Jupiter's, all the way out to Pluto's
and beyond.

The *one flow* intersects ALL THE PLANETS' ORBITS with
*absolute instantaneity*.

If it did not, IF the speed of gravitational charge,
the 'speed of gravity', were anyting less than infinite, it would
introduce "aberration" of the orbits, tilting them backward slightly,
and they would spiral outward over time.
The stability of planetary orbits over billions of
years is dynamic testimony that the 'speed of gravity' aka speed of
gravitational charge, is indeed 'functionally' instantaneous just as
Newton originally observed.
--------------
The instantaneity is not just in the time domain but
the spatial domain as well, everywhere along the flow path. In the
bathtub analogy (again), the flow going down the drainhole is "in
instantaneity", in both the time and spatial domains, with the flow at
the outermost edges of the tub.

oc open the water tap and there is a time laps before flow starts. It
only seems instantaneous because he time laps is so very short. Light
even has a time laps. Nothing starts instantaneously. Nothing moves
faster than light. Charge is a bad word to use Water pump moves water
because water will even flow up hill because pump puts more pressure on
its end. Flowing speed of water going through a pipe is easy to
measure. My fast pictures prove time laps. Best to know nothing is set
in motion instantaneously. Not even photons kicking free electrons of a
metal. If this has been posted many times it is good. It has to in time
get our thinking going with reality. No fudging Go with a proven
experiment.and it proves time laps of motion. No lab experiment to prove
faster than light SR fits TreBert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
oc open the water tap and there is a time laps before flow starts. It
only seems instantaneous because he time laps is so very short. Light
even has a time laps. Nothing starts instantaneously. Nothing moves
faster than light. Charge is a bad word to use Water pump moves water
because water will even flow up hill because pump puts more pressure on
its end. Flowing speed of water going through a pipe is easy to
measure. My fast pictures prove time laps. Best to know nothing is set
in motion instantaneously. Not even photons kicking free electrons of a
metal. If this has been posted many times it is good. It has to in time
get our thinking going with reality. No fudging Go with a proven
experiment.and it proves time laps of motion. No lab experiment to prove
faster than light SR fits TreBert



Bert, nothing about the gravitic charge is "faster
than light". Go buy a hose, bring it home, hook it
up to your spigot. Turn on the water. A new hose
is, of course, empty of water, so it's going to take
a few seconds for the water to exit the spigot and
get to the other end of the new hose. Now, turn
the water off. Then turn it on again. This time
the hose already has water in it. So the water
"appears" to flow instantly.

The flowing space idea does not have masses
generating gravity. Masses act only as flow sinks
to the flowing space. Since matter does not really
generate gravity, then any possible change in the
gravity of a mass would be felt instantly by all the
other masses within its gravity well. Since matter
does not generate gravity, there is no need to see
anything emitted from a mass traveling at any
speed. There is no violation of lightspeed in this.
The gravitic charge appears instant because the
flow of space is a little like the water in the hose.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "To cherish what remains of the Earth, and
to foster its renewal, is our only legitimate
hope of survival." Wendell Berry

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