Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2004

Well Owen, you are certainly no wuss when it comes to defending your
worldview.<g>
You responded to the 'challenge' point by point and put some real energy
and thought into it. For that you have my utmost respect. Wolter's first
admonition was to always "see, understand, and respect the other
fellow's frame of referance", particularly the Void-Spacers'.

You are clearly secure and confident in your paradigm, yet you have
given thoughtful consideration to another view, which is exceptional
indeed. From your perspective you find the other view wanting, and
that's understandable since I find yours wanting.

So why not do this- shelve the FSM for the time being, just put it on
the back burner. There may come a time (and there may not) when you'll
look out across the firmament, and feel the force of gravity, and
wonder.. is all this really the doings of a 'void' and just the
operation of 'metrics', vectors, and equations on paper? Or, is this
void really the Primary Reality- a dynamic, hyperpressurized, flowing
plenum of sub-Planck energy density?        
Best regards and thank you for your dialogue.
                   Bill

I hope ya'll don't mind if i sneak in and dabble with your
fascinating thread.  I finally found some time to read these
articles and respond.

You guys are over my head a bit on this.  I detect only two
FoRs that we have used to measure or otherwise determine
the speed of EM... the planet Earth and the predictions of
relativity theory.

1) To my knowledge (and i have researched this extensively),
nobody has tried to measure c out in deep space.  So all we
have are the measurements that we have made from the Earth.

2) We also have Einstein's theory to explain why c can be no
higher than it is.  Strange things happen to matter at those high,
relativistic speeds.

As for 1) above, i wonder if there is any way to use the ships
we have sent beyond the Solar System to measure c way out
there and send the data back to us?  I know that Pioneer 10
is believed to be kaput, yet how about P-11 and the Voyagers?
Are they capable of taking this measurement and sending it
back to us?  And i'm at a loss as to why this experiment was
not included in their repertoires!  Was it an assumption on the
part of astronomers that c would be the same so why bother
measuring it?

As for 2), this *does* seem to be a definite block, unless as
ya'll seem to say, the "measuring stick" changes in deep space.
But then, not having ever been in deep space, we can only try
to deduce what happens.

I go with Bill on this one... it just seems more correct to have
a propagation medium, *not* the aether of old, but a dynamic
flowing space on several levels, i.e., several wavelengths.  And
one of those wavelengths carries the light from the stars to us.

We really don't know that c is not variant out in space, do we?
Not infinite, though, except from the FoR of the EM wave itself.

Now *that's* what Einstein thought, too!... at least when he
was younger and more set in his ways. <g>  As he grew older,
he seems to have begun to question this view.

TOO LATE !!!  His many followers latched on to this view
of space as void and not needing a medium, and there's no
turning back.  A person will have to PROVE...

  *beyond any shadow of doubt*

...that space is a dynamic, flowing medium.

I'm workin' on it. <g>

Any good theory, FS or other, would have to align itself with
relativity on this one.  We usually read about relativity and think,
"These strange things happen to matter because of the fast,
relativistic velocities involved."  Maybe we should turn this back
around and think, "There is a limit to c because of the strange
things that happen to matter as it approaches c."

Owen, you seem to be getting your mind around the idea of
"space as something" without actually releasing the thought of
"space as nothing."  But if it's really nothing, then how *do*
you explain things like nonlocality, as well as the value of c?

The general trend of the vibrations with which we are familiar
is for their velocities to increase in proportion to the density
of the propagation medium.  So here, Bill is saying that if we
are to accept the "space as something" idea, then the
something of space would be expected to be extremely
dense for propagation speeds to be so high.

For my part, this overcomes the "a medium is not necessary"
idea.  A medium is most certainly necessary to explain things
like quantum nonlocality, and i agree with Bill that this medium
must be very dense to propagate EM radiation at such a fast
speed.

Bill is not saying and has never said that the limit is absent.
This is probably one reason why he appears to be fed up
with you.  You fail to grasp that the very important modifier,
"perceptible," is used here.  He has often stated that there
actually *is* an upper limit that Wolter believed is
represented by the initial energy radiated by the Big Bang.

So your first line above makes sense... If there is a medium,
then one would expect there to be a limit to the amplitude of
EM radiation.  However, your second line makes it appear
that you are not participating in this to the depth required.

You once questioned my grasp of physics.  No problem,
as i question my grasp of physics all the time.  But your
second line above leads me to question your grasp of
what you have read here.  It leads me to believe that you
are far too settled with early Einsteinian physics.  Please
remember that the failure of relativity to explain things on
a quantum level, most prominently its failure to lead us to
an understanding of gravity on a quantum level, should
tell you the same thing it told Einstein in his last days...

Relativity ain't the whole story.  So void space, while it
may *seem* to account for everything, obviously does
not!

Oh my.  Since when do vectors propagate anything?  I agree
that if you can say that vectors propagate light, then they don't
need any more of a medium than our imagination.

What about sound?  Sound waves must have a medium such
as air in order to "move."  How about water waves?  These
are a little better than sound because they are not longitudinal
waves but transverse waves just like EM radiation.  But where
would water waves be without air and water?  These waves
don't just disrupt the water, but also the air above it.  So they
make it appear that transverse waves not only require a
medium, but actually TWO media in order to be propagated.

Perhaps this can be made clearer by thinking about the intensity
of a wave...

Not so much the difference between a very intense wave like a
tidal wave or tsunami as opposed to the smaller waves that
perpetually crash against our shorelines.  Moreso, the intensity
variance of a single wave.  The wave makes the medium(media)
rise and fall, and i'm calling the amount that the wave has risen
or fallen at a given point in time the "intensity" of the wave at
that point in time AND SPACE.

Owen, you and Bill can probably skip the next 3 paragraphs,
as they are meant for those readers who want or need more
specifics.  Let's say we're talking about a 9 ft water wave.  If
you are familiar with the way water waves are described, then
you know that this is a "peak-to-peak" value.  From the deepest
part of the water wave up to its highest crest-level measures a
_total_, peak-to-peak amplitude of 9 feet.

If we were to mentally stop this wave at any given moment in
time, we would see that there are many points on this wave
where we could measure its intensity.  At one point on the
wave down near the "zero" point of the bottom, the intensity
might be, say, "2 feet."  If our inner eyes travel farther up the
wave, then we would come to a point where the intensity is,
say, "5 feet."  Even farther up we would come to a point that
the intensity measures "8 feet," and so on.

So by "intensity," i am talking about the amount that the
medium (or media) is being displaced with reference to its
zero point at the lowest peak of the wave.

Now envision a box made of any substance you wish as long
as the material is capable of propagating EM waves.  Inside
this box there is nothing.  Nothing... no air, no water, nothing.

Classical physics as you know says this is impossible.  If you
remove everything from this box, air and everything, then you
have a "vacuum."  And classical physics promoted that this
vacuum was "something," not "nothing," and called it an "aether."
But there are huge problems with this static, material aether of
classical physics, so Albert Einstein replaced it with his Theory
of Relativity and the idea that space is empty, a "void".

With relativity, there is *no need* for the aether of classical
physics to explain things, so the aether was discarded in favor
of "void space."  Nothing.  So now, when you take all the air
and everything out of the box, and you have a vacuum, there
is "nothing" in the box.

Owen, you say that an EM wave can be easily propagated
through this box of nothing.  I ask you, "How?"  Please do
explain how the EM radiation that is leaving, say, Alpha
Centauri and gets to our Earth is propagated from there to
here.  If there is "nothing" between Earth and the stars, then
how do the EM waves of radiation vary the **intensity** of
nothing?

There are AM and FM as modulating techniques we know
about.  Perhaps space is WM? (similar to FM but instead is
a "wavelength modulation") (never mind... i'm just trying to be
cute here <g>)

I don't agree with Wolter on this point.  There is no need for
this pressure.  Matter (a specialized form of energy) attracts
the dense energy field(s) of space and uses this energy to
sustain its properties.  The energy of space is dissipated in
the nucleus of every atom it encounters.  We sense this
energy of space on our level as gravity, and on the quantum
level as the nuclear forces, strong and weak.

Resorting to dramatic language is neither an error on the part of
a non-scientist, nor is it to be construed as some kind of subliminal
confession.  You're being a little cute here, Owen.

'Sokay... i enjoy cuteness.

More cuteness?  Bill has been writing friggin' *volumes* about
Wolter's descriptions of the actual physical mechanism of what
is involved, Owen.  You been in prison or jus' freeze-dried? <g>

We *assume* that it is constant for relativistic reasons.
Keep in mind that relativity has already been shown not
to answer all questions and, to my knowledge, nobody
has ever actually measured the speed of light from
anywhere else but here on Earth.

Not.  The SPED is no more entrained than Earth's magnetic
field is entrained.  I realize that Bill and i differ on this point.

Over my head it seems... you must be asking for a set of
equations that derive c based upon the Flowing Space model?
Is there such a set of equations that derive c from the Theory
of Relativity?  If so, then these equations can be utilized to
derive the value of c as it is known today...

  http://www.why-is-the-sky-blue.tv/speed-of-light.htm

...but i thought that this is its *measured* value, not a derived
value.

Haven't given much thought to Bill's claim that the density would
actually *rise* as one ascends above Earth's surface.  As he said,
this seems counterintuitive.  But rise or fall, you could probably
use the same simple formula for figuring the force of gravity at
different altitudes.

My feeling is that the density increases as space approaches
a mass.  This increase slows as space encounters the molecules
of any gaseous envelope surrounding a planet, and then the
density may actually begin to decrease when space enters the
hard surface which is more densely packed with atoms.  Since
atoms dissipate the energy of space, then it may follow that
space itself gets less and less dense as it approaches the center
of the mass.

Let's talk about this acceleration first.  Do we all agree that
gravity is not an accelerating force?  Good.  Uhm, what?  You
*don't* agree?  What about the talks we had about sky diving
on the Moon?  Didn't we grasp that there would be NO feeling
of acceleration such as one feels in a car after mashing the gas
pedal?  Gravity gives the "appearance" of acceleration, but does
not actually accelerate?.  But then, it *must* accelerate.

So f=ma, which is one way of saying that the acceleration is
proportional to the ratio of the force to the mass.  So if the force
is huge, the acceleration is huge.  And if the mass is tiny, then the
acceleration is huge... hmm.

So now that you can see that i don't have a clue when it comes
to the "acceleration due to gravity," you may fully accept my
explanation about the interaction between FS and matter which
"causes" acceleration.  In a way similar to magnetic attraction,
matter and space attract each other.  The short, minuscule
(thanks Odysseus) wavelengths of space mostly travel *thru*
the atoms of matter, with only a small part of the energy being
absorbed by any given atom.  Since this is a constant inflow of
energy, each atom's nuclear forces and the energy needed for
electrons to remain in orbit are constantly replenished by the
energy from space, what we can call the "Sub-Planck Energy
Dynamic" (or ...Domain" as you wish).

Answer me this, Owen... how else can the atomic forces be
maintained?  Or can you possibly believe that the strong force,
the weak force, and the force keeping electrons in their orbits
are perpetual forces?

Keep in mind that if the nucleus were the size of a golfball, and
the electron the size of a pea, then the orbital radius would be
roughly two miles!  Hmm, an electro-force between the nucleus
and an orbiting electron acting over this tremendous distance
and never wearing out, never dissipating.  And electro-strong
forces keeping protons "glued" together against the tremendous
"like charges REPEL" law.  These forces just keep on rollin',
rollin', rollin' down the river, forever doing their job with no help
from anywhere.

Not likely.

I have explained the "roach motel" issue in a very different
fashion.  The SPED does not reach a ground state in the
nuclei of atoms and then magically return to a primal proton
to be recycled.  The SPED is dissipated in the nucleus of
each atom by replenishing the nuclear and orbital forces,
thereby enabling the atom to remain an atom.

Owen, as usual, your thoughts and comments welcome.

happy days and...
  starry starry nights!

Absolutely, Owen, i'm spellbound by it.  You've addressed some
crucial issues, and i would like to respond when time permits.

Bill does seem fairly set on his friend Wolter's FSM.  And i don't
fully understand some of his responses to your questions.  I have a
*huge* problem with his solution to the "roach motel" question.

I look forward to studying your part in this thread and responding.

happy days and
  starry starry nights

I think you are on the right track OG.
Something's can't be fully explained and those with their pet theories will defend them to the grave.

I still believe that stars will collapse, if too massive at the end of their life cycle to produce supernova and Black holes -
singularity and all.

Light speed is a constant.
This can't be to hard to grasp.

The real reasons for this may be discovered, or not.  Until then your ideas and theories are interesting to hear, but lets try to
not beat each other over the head with them please.

My view is that the speed of light, gravity and time are all part of the aspect of the original singularity that we now exist
within.  Another way of looking at this is the fact information is flowing around us all the time, events are happening.

Inside a BH no event is exchanged with another.  That's why it has an Event horizon.
These are fairly general views and are modified on a daily basis.  :)

Regards
Robert