Flowing/propagating space...

From 'HJ', reposting duckwad:

Who said psuedo force? You do know a force can be expressed in terms
of potentials and momentums?

Potentials and momentums of What? "Nothing"?

...you show a shamelfully abysmal understanding of stellar physics.

Still bleating about stellar physics. And with no grasp whatsoever of
the 'big picture' of what _powers_ stellar physics.. as if the nuclear
forces have their genesis within the nucleus rather than from the
hyperpressurized SPED _flowing into_ the nucleus and in fact *creating*
the nucleus.
oc

Header address is a spam trap. E-mail: oldcoot7074 at sbcglobal.net
Change 'at' to @

oc Gravity is either a push or a pull force. I have it both in my
concave attraction and convex repulsion. I use my spin is in theory to
give reality to this I have no big objection having the energy
intrinsic to space pushing all macro energies(EM) or matter inward. I
don't like using the flow of water to describe what is raking place. The
reason for that comes from my not like using pond waves to describe how
spaces waves work. Finding words to describe how gravity is created and
how it works is more than a little tricky. Not trying to find
fault oc with Wolter's idea. Just pointing out what you are up against.
Bert

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

From 'HJ', reposting duckwad:

Who said psuedo force? You do know a force can be expressed in terms
of potentials and momentums?

Potentials and momentums of What? "Nothing"?

The masses within the system under consideration - empty space devoid of
matter is Euclidean. Please keep up


...you show a shamelfully abysmal understanding of stellar physics.

Still bleating about stellar physics. And with no grasp whatsoever of
the 'big picture' of what _powers_ stellar physics.. as if the nuclear
forces have their genesis within the nucleus rather than from the
hyperpressurized SPED _flowing into_ the nucleus and in fact *creating*
the nucleus.
oc


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

Le Sagian ultramundane particle type theories are dead - get over it.
Answered my problems with potential shielding yet?

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

From 'HJ', reposting duckwad:

Still an abject coward Bill?

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

oc Gravity is either a push or a pull force. I have it both in my
concave attraction and convex repulsion. I use my spin is in theory to
give reality to this I have no big objection having the energy
intrinsic to space pushing all macro energies(EM) or matter inward. I
don't like using the flow of water to describe what is raking place. The
reason for that comes from my not like using pond waves to describe how
spaces waves work. Finding words to describe how gravity is created and
how it works is more than a little tricky. Not trying to find
fault oc with Wolter's idea. Just pointing out what you are up against.
Bert

You are aware G = EMC^2 doesn't add up right?

Right hand side has units of energy^2 = [L]^4 [M]^2 [T]^-4

Left hand side has units = [L]^3 [M]^-1 [T]^-2

The Left hand side needs a factor [L][M]^3 [T]^-2 ....


Thats why you're not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

Daffy Duck Wit I stretch my imagination. You have no imagination. Your
a duck dead in the water. Bert

On Apr 5, 4:06 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

The reason for that comes from my not like using pond waves to describe how
spaces waves work.

Bert, the pond wave analogy was simply used to illustrate the
difference between propagation and flow, nothing more.

Gravity is either a push or a pull force.

If you recomember, this was discussed once before. In one sense, it
can be considered a "pull" if you look at the elongation or stretching
of each atom along the axis of flow.. the most extreme example of
which would be the "spagettification" you'd experience falling into a
BH.
oc

In article ,
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Daffy Duck Wit I stretch my imagination. You have no imagination. Your
a duck dead in the water. Bert

Yawn.

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

In article .com,
"oldcoot" wrote:

On Apr 5, 4:06 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

The reason for that comes from my not like using pond waves to describe how
spaces waves work.

Bert, the pond wave analogy was simply used to illustrate the
difference between propagation and flow, nothing more.


Oh so when you use an analogy its ok?


Gravity is either a push or a pull force.

If you recomember, this was discussed once before. In one sense, it
can be considered a "pull" if you look at the elongation or stretching
of each atom along the axis of flow.. the most extreme example of
which would be the "spagettification" you'd experience falling into a
BH.

Still trying to expound the FS nonsense?

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On Apr 5, 4:06 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Finding words to describe how gravity is created and
how it works is more than a little tricky... Just pointing out what you are up against.

Bert, i think the biggest thing one can be "up against" is cracking
through the void-space mindset and indoctrination. It's like the often-
repeated analogy of that fish in the deep ocean who sees a gas bubble.
He sees the bubble as "being" and has no concept of the ocean in which
it's embedded. The ocean is "not being".
It's the same with the concept of matter and atomic
structure. An atom is seen as "being" while the much-more-energy-dense
'Ocean' in which it's embedded is "not being" or void. But in
actuality, in terms of its energy density, an atom is a mere vacuole
or 'bubble' embedded in the Ocean of space.
The Void-Space mindset has no grasp of this business
of *embeddedness* and energy density. Its concept of 'being' and 'not
being' is inverted. This sitting paradigm is what one is "up
against".

oc