The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

[S D Rodrian]

The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even
theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything
being even one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]

Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
between the objects/items of the universe, neither
going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
they also being forced to give up the notion of
"time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]

This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!

In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Gravity As Thermodynamics:
The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their
own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be
sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,
unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart
enough to understand the universe but that they are
too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they
instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up
overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)
illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of
literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.

The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability
of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing
else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that
inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to
usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does
not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,
a private diversion... but certainly not science.

Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship
between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with
the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path
of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my
knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive
explanation of the universe in terms of the
inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly
how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the
inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural)
phenomenon it is in the universe.

Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.

There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the
mystified.

The first problem to be solved is the prohibition
against the creation/destruction of "energy," as
embodied in the question of what could have "been
there" before there was a universe of visible matter.
And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the
one which allows us to inquire into levels of
existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an
abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply
across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some
of them while not at others [including the statistical
research of probability & quantum theory].

But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to
"believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"
objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of
"matter" alone as the only "solid material" that
"exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps
telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"
existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)
that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always
insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the
only thing which really exists") is "momentary"
matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."
["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]
Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter
is an "illusion" created by interactions between the
electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear
forces."

WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.

THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different
than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"
sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your
own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are
in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and
the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other
"forms")... none of which has any relevance to the
question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too
ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"
(so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be
torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")
without this having any bearing whatsoever on the
question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,
the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are
made). And this holds true even if the forms are
imposed on you by the universe rather than your
imagination imposing them on the universe.

This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous
theorists from following the line of inquiry we are
taking here: Just as it was only after mankind finally
accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not
the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the
universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the
greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it
is only when we finally give up the human prejudice
that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are
the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with
whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or
that there are even such things), that it then becomes
possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.

This notion that there exist "immutable and
indivisible objects with whose destruction
existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human
superstition which should have been dropped once it
was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an
indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer
tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in
quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such
indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).

However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was
mulling why it might be that, given the existence of
gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of
"fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to
consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not
produce anything other than the "forms of matter"
always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the
universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby
"larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve
(or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum)
into "smaller/ faster" ones], perhaps modern physics
might have been spared the last hundred years'
nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd
(with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions"
science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected
discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are
receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate
depending on their distances) could have been
understood for what it really is --a clear reflection
on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower
forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is
necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between
themselves. [As well as hinting that there might
indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in
the universe... by which (against which) all eternally
shifting local effects might be measured.]

Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?

Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific
proposition that there is no fundamental difference
between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some
may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that
they are but merely two levels of the same single
process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders
of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately
there are only "relative differences" in "densities"
(or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental
shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that
from "non-existence" to "existence."

Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly
the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what
it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that
ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only
the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it
from one form/value/concentration to another
"equality."

Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the
primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense
of "a given energy value") can never have been an
all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead
always been an entirely relativistic "state") because
otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a
"leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it
has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a
clear violation of the laws of physics, but
consequently not even a proper subject for science.

The question of "a mathematical infinity" never
comes into what is essentially a choice offered by
the laws of physics (whether or not "something"
can come out of "nothing")... and not the sort of
mathematical game exemplified when, say, a new
guest shows up at, "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" and
the clerk claims that all rooms are full--forcing
the new guest to explain that if the hotel is
"full but infinite" the clerk can simply make the
guest in room 1 move into room 2, move the
original guest in room 2 into room 3, and the
guest in room 3 into room 4, and so on...
depriving no guest of a room but vacating room 1
into which any new guest can then move. i.e. The
supposed paradox (like all paradoxes) is
artificially created when the clerk erroneously
claims that "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" can ever be
"full." [There are no paradoxes in nature, only in
the mind.]

Acknowledging that "the process of existence itself"
is one of evolution (or, that "existence has always
existed," as it were) eliminates once & for all the
strictly human (mental) "paradox" that existence must
"originate" with/as some supernatural Big Bang
(special creation) miracle.

Let us posit instead a "given volume of space" ("the
void"), its "absolute" energy value (the absolute
density of "its whatever material") being irrelevant
because as long as that density is purely/solely
"relativistic" there can be no "lowest limit" to how
tenuous/sparse it can be and still "exist." And this
then is the "spatial volume" or, more properly, the
"scalar mass" [traditionally termed "the void"]. From
our perspective: about as close to infinitely immense
as such a thought is humanly possible; that is...
without ever permitting time to bring to an end the
process of continuing to imagine its immensity.

It quickly becomes clear how unusual (provided such a
"volume of space" has ANY "energy value" or "density"
at all), how unusual it would be if such an infinitely
vast spatial volume could maintain the same identical
"density" or "energy value" across the entirety of its
unlimited [not to mention: eternally increasing]
vastness... regardless how low that energy value or
density may be "in absolute terms" which do not apply,
remember, because an "absolute" condition of existence
demands some absolute lower limit dropping below which
"the thing" no longer exists. And, since we exist, it
behooves us to assume that the density/energy value of
the scalar mass always had to have been "relativistic"
and never "all-or-nothing" or "absolute." [Not to
mention the fact that to measure anything one must
measure it against "something else," and "existence"
is all that exists, or obviously "the only thing" that
exists.]

In an exclusively "relativistic" context then (one in
which the "density" of any given "volume of space" is
always merely "relatively" higher or lower than those
of "other" volumes of space, and NOT "absolutely"
EITHER existent OR nonexistent): there will always be
"enough" energy (if you will: "a difference" in
"pressures" or "temperatures") already present in
"even such primordial" a condition to literally "fuel"
everything which may "proportionally" evolve from it
--because it's in the nature of "energy" as we have
come to understand it (and no less in the cosmic
relativity of existence we are discussing here), it is
in the nature of "energy" to be (to also "hold")
purely a thermodynamic "potential" for "work."

More aptly: "for motion" ... replacing the term
"work" with "motion" since we are certainly not
going to speak here of "motion without matter."
[Energy being "what matter does." Remember:
"existence = energy"] Therefore... "if matter is
merely energy, matter is also merely motion" (so
that: "there has always been motion" is what we
really mean when we say that "existence has always
existed"). Again: All "the forms of matter" are
merely "larger/slower" forms becoming/evolving/
conserving themselves into "smaller/faster ones."
Or, from the diametrically opposite perspective
(not an entirely unreasonable one, so we'll be
discussing it later)... all the "forms of energy"
can be thought of as the (denser) faster/smaller
forms of energy conserving themselves into
larger/slower (more dispersed) ones.

As far as the requirements of "motion" go... the
direction of "flow" is irrelevant ("into" will "work"
just as well as "out of"). It's a mistake to belive
that what's thermodynamically required for "energy" to
"perform work" [the term "work" from classical
mechanics' "product of force/distance"], that what is
thermodynamically required for "energy" to "perform
work" is, say, "a boiler-full of heated water" when
the sole requirement (for the universe to "work") is
that a thermodynamic current "flows" (the sole
origin/source of "motion"). Therefore the singular
objection to existence is that it not be absolute (or,
"all-or-nothing") given that "absolute stillness" has
no way of "pushing off" itself, as it were.

In the primordial condition of existence, in which one
single elementary (homogeneous) principle constitutes
the sum total of "everything/the material" from which
all subsequent diversity arises (the evolution of more
complex forms from simpler ones, or even a single one)
existence can only "flow" [note the always inescapable
definition of "existence" as "motion"], existence can
only "flow" from this clearly singularly relativistic
state rather than from being arbitrarily forced by a
human superstition to "flow" from some impossible
(magical) "boiler" [or "Big Bang" furnace/mixture] of
many already complex primordial states (independent
settings) clearly violating creation/destruction laws
of energy in some impossible all-or-nothing universe.

With respect to this principle of evolution: If one
considers the present universe just in light of the
proposed "string" theories: one can hardly help
noticing that the present universe is in many, many
ways a very elegantly simple concept compared to
the notorious complexity of string theories from
which it is supposed to "originate" (from which it
"subsequently evolves"). Something which is clearly
a logical violation of the principle of evolution.

As difficult as it may be to "find" in the primordial
"void" a "volume of space" with a density lower than
that of the rest of existence, in the first place...
that much more difficult is it to even imagine where
and how one might possibly (necessarily) "create" a
volume with an even higher density, to begin with (or,
the infamous Big Bang "boiler" of inflationary
models). So the universe (everything that "follows"
from "the primordial state") is a lot more likely to
begin with the former (or "an evolution" from/of
simpler forms) rather than with the latter (some
"special creation" Big Bang already complex from its
start). And keep in mind that even if one such "Big
Bang boiler" could somehow be "produced" (at the
"onset of it all")... its destiny surely would be
dilution and dissipation, and certainly NOT the
concentration and amalgamation which obviously goes
into the organization of ever more & more complex
forms of matter.]

It is irrelevant whether "the void" comes upon a
bubble/area ("hollow") of lesser density (the
"egg" that incubates our universe of matter) or
such a "hollow" comes into being somewhere within
"the void" (my own preference because this makes
for a balanced/stable universe in which matter and
anti-matter regions balance out each other, making
it easier to understand why it is that one form
predominates in a given "side" of the universe
even as the other form may be the most common one
in the "opposite" side of the same universe.

We will always return to this same point of departure:
All that is required for the homogeneous "primordial
medium" to (perform) "work" [i.e. for "the void" to
produce an already perfect/complete machine] is for
"the void" (no matter how unimaginably tenuous and
sparse its "density") to come into contact with
another volume of space "region" or "hollow" (as we
shall term it here) having an even lower density.

And, for the purpose of illustrating more easily
the "gravitational" evolution of the visible
universe, we will "assume" in this text that "our"
lesser density "hollow" was more or less completely
and entirely (and perhaps even perfectly)
encompassed by the greater density "the void."
Though common sense rules this out (just as, given
their origin, its "discrete bits" could never have
been perfectly equidistant from each other). But we
will still speak of it this way so we may refer to
the universe as having a perfectly spherical shape
it can't in fact possibly have.

As the primordial medium of the "the void" encounters
our "hollow" of lesser density, its greater density
"collapses" our lesser density hollow (collapses into
it, that is), sending (crucially for the creation of
our universe of visible matter at its center), sending
a "shockwave" of higher density "material" into our
"hollow" from every point around it. [This "shockwave"
of inrushing material effectively represents pretty
much the sum total of all the "energy" our visible
universe is ever destined to have, by the way.] This
imploding pressure wave eventually "condensing" into
what we call matter somewhere along the way.

There still being people who think the earth is
"flat" (and many who believe it is the universe
that orbits the earth--and perhaps there are always
going to be such people): somewhere around here
advocates of inflationary models "may be tempted to
think" that the cosmic collapse of the void's
primordial material (energy) into our lower-
density "hollow" may well be describing a rationale
for their cherished Big Bang model... as "matter"
crashes against a pinpoint quantum center and then
erupts/echoes back out like 3-dimensional ripples
following the dropping of a pebble into a lake...
rescuing the ancient superstition that there can
be, after all, some fundamental particle from which
everything else is made... never mind the fact that
this idea leaves us forever unable to explain how a
necessarily mythological fundamental object like
"matter" could have possibly come into being (out
of non-being) in the first place--and "necessarily
mythological" because we can never describe a
particulate of matter in our universe we can with
any degree of certainly assure ourselves is forever
immutable and indivisible (even strings' own theory
places them neither altogether in our universe nor
altogether outside it). But as antidote to this Big
Bang superstition, keep in mind that all the forms
of matter will condense for a brief time and then
"just as quickly" dematerialize. [It's rather
likely that we are at the only point along the
shifting phases of matter-organization from
beginning to end of our universe where life is
possible.]

By definition, an indivisible body or object is hardly
likely to be made up of two or more bodies or
objects... as this would "by definition" make such a
body or object, at least theoretically, really already
very divisible indeed.

Then again, gravity itself would continue to remain
the inexplicable (seemingly magical) "force" we've
thought it until now--And the purpose of this very
text is to explain how gravity is not some magical
unfathomable "force" (of attraction or of anything
else) but really only the mistaken description of a
perfectly inevitable and natural effect which up to
now remained impossible to interpret perfectly.

What Is The Universe REALLY Doing?

The imploding universe is undertaking two crucial
motions at the same time: an absolute motion and a
relativistic one. We can actually "see" these two
motions in action if we but know from where (from
which perspective) to look:

Imagine the universe to be an earth-size globe. If
we then abstract "ourselves" from it, from now on
forever remaining unaffected by its shifting
sizes, we can "see" both the absolute and the
relativistic motions the universe is undertaking
by considering two men standing on opposite sides
of this imploding/shrinking globe universe.

The globe is shrinking in an absolute sense, so in an
absolute sense the two men are always moving towards
each other. [This absolute motion is very much
apparent to us all because it's the effect we have
come to know as gravity.] However, because they and
everything else in their globe universe is shrinking
everywhere at a constant rate... in the normal course
of events neither of the two men standing on opposite
sides of the globe universe will ever notice that they
are moving towards each other absolutely. Instead they
will forever marvel how/why they seem to "stick" to
the globe as if by magic and not "float" away into
space. [And if they happen to be scientists and
understand the Standard Model they might assume that
gravity must be mediated by gravitons & then they will
waste their lives trying to make up a Unified Field
Theory encompassing gravity and particle forces. But
you can see why the geometry of Einstein relativity
describes gravity better than the forces of Newton.]

The shrinking of everything at an universally
constant rate (so that everything appears to
remain relativistically frozen in place/size) is
itself the second motion: It is nearly impossible
to notice at very close proximities (least of all
by two such beings standing across a common lump
of matter)... but it can certainly be "seen" when
glancing across astronomical distances (and we
call this very visible effect the Hubble Constant,
which makes it appear as if the galaxies are
receding faster from each other the more distant
from each other they are). [Although one can
substitute "time" for "distance" and "witness" it
in practically every object that orbits another
body.]

To understand this purely relativistic effect (of
course in reality all the galaxies necessarily must
be "absolutely" getting closer and closer inside an
imploding universe)... one has only to consider the
nature of space (in other words, all ones has to do
is consider it) as the distance between bodies of
matter: Where does it come from? How can there be
any "spaces" at all in the single ("solid") body
which the universe of matter must be from the very
first instants of its "massing" in its cosmic
hollow?

Well, our universe is very large, and the same laws of
thermodynamics which inevitably create the "hollow"
into which the higher densities of "the voids" flows
now literally tear the "solid" universe into "bits."
And it is at the level of these bits that the body of
the universe continues to implode... so that from here
on out every one of these "bits" begins to implode
away from all the other bits about it forever FASTER
than the single body of the universe itself can
"stuff" those opening spaces: At first there is very
little "space" between the numberless bits, but given
enough time and whatever form the "bits" of the
imploding universe eventually take as they evolve &
revolve in ever more complex interactions (galaxies
in our epoch of the universe)... you can see how the
distances between them can grow to unimaginably
astronomical distances (into a "lot" of space indeed).

At first, the "absolute" (viewed from outside our
"cosmic hollow")... the "absolute" motion of this
thermodynamic "penetrating shockwave"
(flow/current) is undoubtedly always "moving" only
in the direction of our cosmic hollow's logical
center [a "center" which can probably only be
"pinpointed" by quantum theory, since obviously
anything introduced into the "hollow" to measure
the position of its "absolute center" would
necessarily shift it---thereby finally making it
clear that the world of the very big(gest, really)
behaves exactly like the world of the very
smal(lest) except perhaps in small minds]. But now
you understand how without a particle interaction
between them two objects can establish an "orbital"
relationship about a so-called "center of gravity."

To say "the world of the very small" is to say "the
world of the very near." In a universe undergoing
implosion the human perspective stares out both to a
much bigger/distant world and to a much smaller/nearer
one from somewhere in the middle: The more
distant/bigger world always appears to be growing
bigger and more distant relativistically; while the
smaller/nearer world always appears to be growing ever
smaller and nearer in an absolute sense (gravity).

This holds true across the full spectrum of possible
perspectives (the view from within the universe is
also always relativistic, while seen from outside it
the universe would appear to be absolutely "shrinking"
in isolation).

As the observer is also imploding, when he looks at
"the world he's leaving behind" it appears to him to
be big (and the farther away he looks at it the bigger
it appears to always be growing), while when he looks
at "the world into which he is moving" it appears to
him to be small (and the closer he looks into it the
smaller it appears).

Counterintuitively, it appears to us as if the
world of the very small is a chaotic one (forever
shifting its geometric centers), while in reality
it is the one behaving in an absolute way: The
world of the very big may appear to be stable as it
grows bigger and more distant... but in reality it
is growing neither bigger nor more distant at all.

Three very specific basic "motions" will describe the
nature of the universe from the instant "the void"
encounters (one of) these cosmic "hollows" of lesser
density which "nurse" entire universes of matter at
their core. But I do not include one of these three
Basic Motions of Matter (the "pressure shock" of the
general void's greater density "falling" into our
cosmic "hollow" as it is strictly a 3-dimensional
motion towards the "center of "our hollow" up until
such material fully saturates it). Essentially, all
the "falling" primordial material pressurizing itself
"solidly" in place. I leave out this "motion" because
I don't see it playing any further role in the
processes that keep our universe in its continuing
present equilibrium.

At its point (of "highest saturation") this singular
homogeneous "solid" mass (call it a "cloud" or call it
a "body" of energy) destined to become our universe of
visible matter, now finds it has no place to go from
here other than to be (literally forever) squeezed
into an always smaller & smaller volume of space (for
the very reason that, exactly like every other "thing"
that exists... it too is neither fundamentally solid
nor immutable and therefore can not refuse to be so
squeezed)... effectively causing it to "implode" in an
"absolute" sense: forever to grow "smaller & smaller"
as it is forced to occupy an ever diminishing volume
of space--the originally homogeneous "solid" mass now
very much literally tearing itself to bits--that is...
into "discrete bits" (each a self-contained system
forever "winding itself up" in a lifelong strategy
designed by the laws of physics to "conserve" its
eternally increasing angular momentum--which must from
now on always increase, as said before, as larger-but-
slower systems "conserve themselves" into smaller-but-
faster ones)... until they all eventually pay the
ultimate price of dissolution. (But that's far off in
the future at this point.)

Nonetheless: note the origin of "space" as merely the
"distance" between these primordial discrete bits: A
process (of space-creation) which has not stopped to
this day; and which at the topmost level of matter-
organization (that of stars and galaxies) is "easily"
observable by us as the Hubble Constant. But a process
which is forever on-going at ALL levels of matter-
organization.

"A" given level of matter-organization is one which
reflects a stage (or state) at which the "local
gatherings of interacting "bits" or "clusters of
them" (or "gravitational systems") nevertheless
begin to behave (or to be thought of) as if they
were one single object (giving the impression of
having no individual constituent parts within it).

We may begin to trace the history of these matter-
organization "levels" from a point where the entire
mass of the "visible universe" could be thought of
as one single homogeneous mass (or "cloud") which
has just completely saturated the "center" of the
cosmic hollow into which the primordial material of
the higher-density "the void" surrounding it has
fallen. (And it's not important for us here whether
the "saturation" fills the cosmic hollow completely
of merely a given area about its center.)

The crucial thing is that it is at this point that
this once "one" solid body begins to "tear itself
apart" (or, more to the point, to "bits"). More
specifically still: necessarily into fully discrete
"bits" (and "necessary" because it's the simplest way
that the resulting sum of all such "bits" [once one
solid body, and before that a "shockwave" of
primordial material falling from "the void"
surrounding our cosmic hollow]... can "squeeze" into
the eternally diminishing area available to it as it
continues its journey toward the center of our cosmic
hollow--And since there is literally nothing in its
way towards that "center" against which to crash (to
stop its journey) except itself (its own nonexistent
refusal to permit itself to be squeezed any
further)... that journey is one which can only end
in/with the utter dissolution of the falling body
("cloud" or "sum of discrete bits").

Crucially, all of those "fully discrete bits" are
tearing themselves away from all the other discrete
bits in the cosmic body (creating "space" between
themselves) as they "implode."

To begin with, once the entire mass (body, cloud) of
our universe consists only (or even mostly) of these
(same-sized or same-wherever) discrete bits, by
definition they will effectively collectively
constitute our universe's first ever "perfected" or
finished" level of matter-organization (the first
generation of matter-organization).

Because of the natural chaos which characterizes any
active thermodynamic system (since evolution never
stands still, in effect): eventually those
"individual" discrete bits will begin to "fall" into
local interactions (systems of "orbits" and/or
crashes) each made up of perhaps only a few discrete
bits (in ever continuing interactions) and perhaps
each of them made up of many and many handfuls of the
"original" first-generation discrete bits... which
will, no doubt chaotically at first (until they "fall"
into whatever "level of stability" is most "natural"
for their "whatever-numbered" interactions) will,
after "the chaos of transition" lifts, will then
create across most of the cosmos a "second generation"
of "gravitational systems" (or "particles") everywhere
of a "similar nature/size/structure or number"
(perhaps, but) all or most of them interacting in some
similarly (in some related) "stable" way.

And note that it is always from this (transitional)
"chaos" that everything in the universe is built
(by/from the interactions this "chaos" sets into
motion... producing "orbits" and/or "crashes"). [There
is no "chaos" in nature, there is only our inability
to understand its laws.] "Chaos" here is only our
convenient description of a nevertheless absolutely
determinate process in which there can never be any
effect without a cause--otherwise "chaos" would remain
eternal, forever precluding our very existence.]

Now: This "quest for stability" also tends to be
characterized by a "scarcity" of free-roaming
"component particles" (of the previous generation)
as these are everywhere quickly incorporated (as
the current generation's "preferred" building
blocks (of the forms of matter "now seeking" their
own "gravitational stability." SEE Standard Model).

Arbitrarily defined as they may be, it is nevertheless
"around" a given "perfected" or "finished" level (or
levels) of matter-organization that we define "similar
forms" interacting 3-dimensionally according to
Newton's laws of motion & universal gravitation. [We
tend to describe "systems" such as atoms, stars, and
galaxies as "objects."] For example: the five or more
of these "perfected" or "finished" levels of
matter-organization straddled by our own existence
(or... that of quarks & gluons, atoms & electrons,
stars & planets, and supermassive black holes & the
galaxies from which they seem to be evolving at the
present moment).

Regardless how brief or long their reign, once
these similar "systems" of interacting discrete
bits achieve their whatever measure of "stability"
as "gravitational systems" across the cosmos...
they de facto become the next "perfected" or
"finished" level of matter-organization.

At this point in this narrative we are at the "second
generation" level of matter-organization ---where it's
now the turn of this generation of "perfected" or
"finished" gravitational "systems" to build their own
local interactions... as either a few or a great many
of these second generation "systems" begin to combine
(no doubt chaotically at first, until they too find
their whatever "level of stability is most natural for
their interactions" and) combine into super-systems...
which, once they too manage to achieve cosmos-wide
stability, also de facto become the (third generation)
"perfected" or "finished" level of
matter-organization.

And so on, forever, and so on until the ceaseless
evolution of generation after generation self-
organization of the forms of matter into stable levels
reaches our own "finished" (stable) level(s) of
matter-organization (those of our atoms, stars, and
galaxies). Which is not to say that there might not be
just as stable "finished" levels of matter-
organization "higher" than ours, of course--And quite
entirely unsuspected by us as well.

For now, if only to understand the earliest condition
of our universe of matter, the important thing here is
a realization that fission/fusion "nuclear processes"
only take place at our topmost "finished" level(s) of
matter-organization (that of the Standard Model
"nuclear" particles). At more fundamental levels of
matter-organization (than that of our "particles") the
"decay of energy" does not produce what we would
recognize as "our" heat, light, or any of "our" other
familiar processes of atomic (radio)activity.

Note: Because it does not explain the inevitability
of its "strings" ... string theory only really has
one function: to supplant the Standard Model. And
since that is an unnecessary function by definition
string theory itself is unnecessary. (Gravity is
not a force, therefore there is no need for it to
be "unified" with the 3 forces.)

To continue: if this "hypothesis of eternity" seems to
suggest that the overall density of "the void" is
constantly being "thinned out" by its incorporation of
lower-density regions (like empty "hollows" in some
viscous goo) such as the "hollow" of lesser density
which produces our own universe of matter at its core
(meaning that the bigger "the void" gets, the lower
its overall absolute density value falls)... this is
because that is exactly what must be occurring.

Remember larger/slower "forms of matter" eternally
conserving themselves into smaller/faster ones...
Well, in this sense: motion in one direction by one
part of a body is balanced by another of its parts
moving in the opposite direction. [Newton's Third
Law.] Essentially this is the process of the
greater density "the void" erasing our lesser
density "hollow."

While matter itself is concentrating into "rock hard"
imploding discrete bits (ever tighter, harder, hotter,
and charged up)... "the void" is itself dissipating
into a general inertia as it "grows" (ever larger, and
more tenuous, stiller, colder). The two "different"
parts of the same "one body" (system) are pushing out
from/to exactly opposite directions at once--and we
can think of these two opposite "motions" as really in
the same direction (having the same
energy-conservation objective).

At the end of the process, matter is but motion. So
all the "matter" of the visible universe must
eventually "slow down" (unwind again) and dissolve.

Moreover, just as our hollow of lesser density is very
probably "nothing special" in nature, even our own
local "the void" is proportionally almost certainly
itself also but some likewise pinprick-size "object"
no doubt embedded in the fabric of an even "higher"
level "the void." Although likely this must remain as
hard for us to distinguish, local from general, as
it's hard for us now to distinguish "a" part of
eternity from the whole of it.

And yet, however this line of inquiry may remain
closed to us: the implication remains that vast
regions of "our" local "the void" may be\are very
probably everywhere pockmarked with similar "hollows
of lesser density" (each probably destined to give
rise at its core to a universe not unlike ours... as
they are one by one "collapsed" by the higher density
of "the void" encircling them).

A thought which, by the way, ought to bestow some
measure of respect upon even our humblest virtual
particle. And certainly illustrates the very
persistent "absolute relativity" of existence at any
level... as higher level "the void(s)" balance out
ever-thinner-and-thinner absolute densities with
ever-greater-and-greater absolute expanses--canceling
out everywhere all possible breaches of the law
against energy creation/destruction.

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

The crucial thing is that the absolute energy value
(density) of "the void" always remains an eternally
irrelevant (purely absolutely relativistic) number:
The strictly human question of where/how this
"primordial material" arose "to begin with" is
therefore made moot by its always relativistic nature.
Or: "If in order to exist Existence would have had to
have had a beginning--it could not exist. We exist,
therefore it behooves us to assume that there never
could have been a state of non-existence" (however one
may wish to define such terms as being & non-being).

What is important for us (strictly a concern for the
sentient beings of this one particular universe, that
is) is that the primordial medium ("energy") of "the
void" has come across the next relatively less dense
"hollow" and has given rise here (at the core of this
one particular lesser density "hollow") to the "next"
universe of visible matter... ours, namely.

I know of no requirement that "a" given universe "has
to be" of any specific (purely arbitrary) size: Here,
in this one "cosmic hollow" at whose core our visible
universe resides, it is only necessary that its volume
be "large enough" to produce the observed effects (the
requirements of other universes can be entirely
different, larger or smaller). So we might as well
forget about trying to impose any purely arbitrary
limits upon the "size" of our universe on that
account. And since now we know that there are no
"gravitational limitations," about the only thing we
may say for sure is that our visible universe is many
orders of magnitude larger than what we can "see" of
it (or, that the "size ratio" of our "hollow" to that
of its "universe of matter" was already hinted at by
Einstein's infamous [E=MC2] approximation).

In any case: Into a "large-enough" lower density
volume (our "relatively empty" cosmic hollow)
"falls" (in quite a "shockwave") a thermodynamic
"current" not all that different in essence from
that of a lightning bolt: More slowly at first and
then faster and faster (an acceleration destined
never to end) as it "falls" in a 3-dimensional
direction towards the center of our cosmic hollow
like some unimaginably rarefied molasses.

It is when we can speak of "matter" as "energy" (or
"motion") that we can finally define existence as "not
either/or" (matter/energy); since obviously anything
"flowing" can only be described in terms of "a" higher
or "a" lower flow, and never as "not flowing."

Even at this our level of matter-organization (so many
& many orders of magnitude removed from that of
"energy"), this in a very real sense "reduction" of
matter to "motion" (i.e. the acceptance of matter as
energy) is what makes it possible to think of "matter"
in almost exactly the same way that we've popularly
come to think of "electric energy" as a "current" or
"flow." Thus it is just as possible to speak of matter
as only a "thermodynamic" current/flow... whose
seemingly permanent "structures" (shaped by the
interactions of the EM/weak and strong "nuclear
forces") are, every last one them, from top to bottom,
really only temporary "eddies" within what is
essentially also only a thermodynamic "current" or
"flow" and, consequently, never can be fundamental,
indivisible (unqueezeable) objects and/or
singularities.

We mortals, understandably ever in love with just
about any ideal of permanence, will undoubtedly be
emotionally anguished to have to acknowledge that
every last bit of matter (yes, to the very last one)
in our universe is destined to "fade away" without the
least hope of there surviving even the most forlorn
memory of "our having been." But that's the way it is
(and, frankly, I think it rather poetic... this "so
very human" tragedy): The process I am explaining in
this text does describe the eventual "dissipation" of
all the universe's "matter" (if matter is but "motion"
it must eventually, as it were, "come to a stop").

If this continuing process (this eternal evolution)
of matter-organization can be described as "winding
up" (larger/slower forms forever "imploding" into
smaller/faster ones)... what else can its ultimate
consequence be--if not its winding down at last
(T.S. Eliot's "whimper").

And what would the end of a universe in which its
forms of matter had completely "wound up" to the full
extent of their "energy potential" (to do so) be like?

Well, we might consider the one factor which is
evidently "increasing" even as the other two are
"decreasing" in the process described above: The
"matter-making machine" (larger/slower forms of
matter evolving or "winding up" into smaller/faster
ones) "is" of course THE mechanism by which the
finite amount of energy (of the original shockwave)
which has "fallen" into our cosmic hollow conserves
its density (or "energy value") literally into the
forms of matter (and their whatever discrete bits).

So, conversely, this same process by which "the
universe of matter" travels toward the center of the
cosmic hollow (its "singular body" imploding like a
shrinking baseball in front of our eyes) can also be
described as one in which at every step of that
journey "a" volume of space is also growing (out of
it) from a smaller/denser energy/pressure into a
larger/sparser one (or, volume of space) as if the
imploding universe of matter were a pressure wave
after the passage of which the lower density of "our"
hollow of lesser density will be left with a pressure
--an energy value-- equal to the rest of "the void"
surrounding it... thereby also making our cosmic
hollow indistinguishable from/in it:

It will be as if our lower density "hollow" had
never existed at all: So in a very real sense there
is a (thermodynamic) "purpose" to (in) the reason
for all that "space" which is continuously being
"created" inside matter itself: to finally defeat
the instability created by there being such a
"lower density" hollow "out there" to being with:

It remains axiomatic that all motion takes (uses up)
energy. So it is inevitable that "the forms of matter"
should literally consume themselves right up (even
unto nothingness): It obviously takes energy for the
forms of matter to "wind up" into "being" in the first
place--and energy/motion is what matter is "made of."

Although it may appear that (in its journey towards
the center of the cosmic hollow) the higher density
"shockwave" that has fallen into our hollow of lesser
density (to become the universe of visible matter)...
though it may appear that the higher density
"shockwave" is racing against distances, the fact is
that in reality its "forms of matter" are really
racing against time (racing toward their own
dissolution) as they "implode" (or "wind themselves
up")... literally "shrinking" themselves "right out of
existence" with all the irony of the runner in the
so-called paradox who, although running a finite
length, nevertheless can never finish his run because
he keeps switching to running half as fast every time
he gets half way to the finish line: Our universe is
also "speeding up" even as it "shrinks" (so that, like
the runner above, it too finds himself eternally just
as far away from its "finish line" as it ever is).
Even though very few of us until now have ever even
suspected that "we" were either "shrinking" or
"speeding up."

But this is why only when observed from outside
itself (from outside the universe itself) does the
universe implode in a "brief" and "finite" length
of time right down to "nothingness" (as "timed" by
clocks which being outside the universe never vary
during the implosion from its "slower" beginning to
its "faster" ending).

Observed from inside the universe itself (that is:
"timed" by clocks which "in here" are forever
adjusting as "time" itself is changing, i.e.
"speeding up")... the implosion of the universe
(like the "run" of the "eternally running" runner)
is about as close as something can come to seeming
to be eternal without actually being so.

As our clocks here inside the universe "speed up" it
makes the universe appear to us to be "lasting longer"
("longer lasting"). So that, almost nearly as
perversely as is the case with the "eternal runner" of
the story above, although the universe may also always
be running faster & faster, it is also always growing
smaller and smaller... in a quite fiendishly
proportional agreement that forever cancels out what
would otherwise be an all too obvious ever increasing
requirement for more & more energy, for example, just
to feed its same unchanging appearance (speed). Absent
which "missing energy," the universe would very
unambiguously be seen to be "slowing down"
("imploding" more and more slowly with time --or,
since for years we've misinterpreted the universe as
"expanding," we would have interpreted that
misinterpreted "expansion" as slowing down with time).

Instead the universe (its misinterpreted expansion
only as of very recently now correctly interpreted as
"speeding up") will forever be perceived to always be
"speeding up" (from our more recently well-informed
perspective, as over astronomical distances, the
farther away we look the farther back in time we're
seeing)... The universe, in reality imploding faster
and faster with time (as measured also by the Hubble
Constant), will "forever" continue to do so... until
the moment of dissolution when matter runs out of
matter, and "its forms" can no longer "hold their
forms."

Note that this is not the same phenomenon of
relativistic time-dilation described by Einstein in
the "twins paradox" where (clocks inside the
universe not being synchronized) the faster any
given bit of matter (the twin riding his rocket)
"moves" the slower his clock (its inner motions)
"runs" and therefore the faster the clocks of the
"slower moving" universe (of the twin left behind)
will run. This being caused by the disruption which
velocity imparts to matter's "inner motions."

Until matter's moment of dissolution, as with the
"eternal" runner (above) who will seem to keep running
almost forever: the universe also will be able to
continue its own "run" seemingly long, long after the
"discernible" limits of its "fuel tank" (almost as if
by magic)... as our unsuspectingly accelerating clocks
continue to unsuspectingly lengthen the "same" stretch
of time they measure.

That is to say: from our perspective, here within it,
the universe's continuing "implosion" will "seem" to
defy definition itself, appearing "never" to reach
that theoretical "smallest-possible size" beyond which
anything must "vanish" completely out of
existence--because, trapped here inside it as we are,
we can not so easily detect either the quickening of
"absolute time" (kept only by clocks outside the
universe itself), or our own dwindling "size"
alongside the ceaseless lessening of everything about
us... the eternal speeding up of the clocks here
within it making it appear to us as if it is the time
that the universe has left that is lengthening, as we
"time" the brief instant left to the universe with our
unimaginably accelerated and eternally accelerating
clocks:

And so "forever" is really only relative to the
clock against which it is being timed, and not an
absolute term: Our "forever" is someone else's
brief instant in time, just as our own "brief
instant in time" can be someone else's "forever."
[And so no one need put himself in place of someone
outside the universe and, from that position, think
that all we amount to in here is but a brief few
seconds. Rather, it's far closer to our reality to
think that "clocks" outside our universe run so
slowly that they but measure a few brief seconds
during our billions of years.]

Our sole real triumph perhaps being that power of the
intellect to hurdle even the dissolution of all being
itself: here, taking in the entirely of the universe's
lifespan (and knowing how it is only when we set it
against the brief span of our own mortality that the
universe seems "almost eternal")... we can marvel at
last how even the span of the universe is something
not all that different from the so abrupt lifespan of
even the least "virtual particle" in it.

If nothing else: still one more vindication of the
proposition that existence does consistently work
by "one single simple principle" evolving all the
subsequent complexity... after which all such
boundlessly evolved complexities eventually must
decay back to the same "one single simple
principle" from which all came. That is to say:
This is yet one more hint that the laws of physics
work everywhere exactly as they do anywhere.

What is obvious is that to understand the structure of
their cosmos human beings have to divorce themselves
from their however cherished (so exclusively human)
prejudices. And that science really begins with the
quest to identify all such prejudices... because the
human perspective obviously is NOT the most universal
but one produced strictly by the requirements of/for
our existence (required solely for us to survive here
where we happen to live... within the bosom of the
"artificial nature" which is the human condition we've
conspired with the universe to construct for
ourselves). Something which is true for all scientific
considerations (human endeavors), as we continue to
"make" our entire planet into a larger and that much
more fatal a version of what we made of Easter Island.

What all this means is that, for example, the
"speed of light" is NOT "fast" (an absolute term,
from our perspective)... and is only/merely
"faster" (or "slower") in absolutely relativistic
terms: In relation to the size of a man, the speed
of light may indeed be quite "fast." But in
relation to the size of the universe, that same
speed is so monstrously slow as to almost escape
the very description of motion!

While considered from here inside it our "virtual
particle" universe may give all the appearance of
being something almost approaching the eternal (and
thereby making it so difficult for some of us to
"understand" how an "object" can shrink "forever"
unless they first understand that it is their "sense
of time" that is quickening with the ever quickening
universe about them--giving them the mistaken
"feeling" that the measured span of time that is in
reality forever growing shorter & shorter nevertheless
always remains exactly as "long" as it has ever been),
considered from without: the lifespan of our visible
universe may "pop" in/out of existence before even
perception itself may be able to take note of it (were
there "someone" outside the visible universe to "see"
it, of course--and capable of noticing it).

Yet it is only once we grasp such things as how truly
slow "our" speed of light is in "astronomical" terms,
that we might permit ourselves to imagine timing the
orbits even of electrons in terms of our hours, years,
and centuries. And then might we countenance the idea
of all those "material" structures about us (which
have all of our lives convinced us of their unchanging
solidity across untold ages) possibly really being as
"fluid" as is the "flow" of electrons coursing within
the "bolt of lightning."

Then might we grasp how, in the same way that a brief
sweep of sixteenth notes might seem, to some level of
consciousness outside the human, to outlast even the
lengthiest passage of "their" whatever centuries...
even those motions which seem to us to be "the fastest
possible" may to some other level of consciousness
outside the human also seem to outlast the lengthiest
passage of "their" whatever centuries: The quick wave
of one of our hands may "really" seem so "slow" to
them that to their quicker consciousness all of its
"motion" ceases to be motion at all... and turns into
the same "notion" of solidness a bar of iron suggests
to us. Then might we divine "the frozen monsters" that
are all living things in our human perception
(including us, yes)... and recognize at last exactly
how truly solid even our greatest notion of fluidity
really is & fluid even our most unyielding solidness.

In this thermodynamic analogy, then, there is no real
distinction between the thermodynamic current that is
a bolt of lightning and the thermodynamic current that
is our visible universe's "matter." [Matter is energy
and energy is motion, reducing matter to pure motion.]

Keep this in mind (in light of our human notions
and prejudices about the nature of time). By "our
human clocks" the bolt of lightning happens "very
quickly," while the universe seems to be almost
eternal. But this is strictly a "real" distinction
only in our own minds--stemming from our
historically mistaken idea that "fast" and "slow"
are absolute values. They are not. And in the
universe there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow"
or "big" or "small" (only "faster than..." or
"slower than..." or "bigger than..." or "smaller
than...").

Living as we are inside the universe, a given rock's
whatever odd shape may seem to us to be almost
immutable to change... even if in reality that rock's
shape (as well as the shape of every other "form" in
which matter happens to exist "at the moment" here
inside our universe) is merely describing the passing
(momentary) state in which "its flow of matter" finds
itself... the ongoing, never-ceasing change through
which it is passing, one shape/form to the next one
--something indeed very much analogous to a current's
eddies as the sum total of the universe of matter
"flows" (not 3-dimensionally, but) in the direction
of implosion.

This is the reason all 3-dimensional acceleration
results in an increase in mass... as matter is
"forced" to move "against" its own singularly natural
direction of motion: the direction of motion in which
it is already moving (or, "implosion").

Note that it's possible for an object to accelerate
while moving at a constant speed... since "speed"
refers only to the magnitude of the velocity, and
not to the direction in which it's moving. So that
an object can also accelerate solely by changing
its direction (even as it maintains a constant
speed).

So: Matter's "singularly natural direction of motion"
is "the direction of motion in which all matter in the
universe is already moving." And in which it has been
moving ever since the instant at which "our cosmic
hollow of lesser density" became fully saturated with
the higher density material that had fallen into it
from "the void" ... at which instant the "energy" of
that "shockwave" began to "conserve" itself (its
"energy") into/by its implosion ("larger but slower
forms forever evolving into smaller but faster ones").

"Mass" being a description of the "unwillingness"
of any discrete bit of matter to be "unnaturally"
moved in any 3-dimensional direction (against a
direction of motion in which it already finds
itself moving even absent all 3-dimensional motion
... since all the matter in the universe is already
and always will be "moving in the direction of
implosion"). Which is the explanation for inertia.

Also: all subsequently even greater (proportional to
its 3-dimensional velocity... since it's now
compounded: 3-dimensional + implosive motion)
"unwillingness" of any object/body moving
3-dimensionally to be moved "against" its "additional
to implosion" direction of motion being the
explanation for all additional force (proportional to
how fast the object/body is moving 3-dimensionally, of
course) required to "move" an object which is
"already" moving 3-dimensionally.

And note that Newton's laws of motion do not explain
the cause of inertia (now explained here) and only use
inertia as a point of departure--That is: Newton
confines his famous laws of motion to 3-dimensional
motion alone... since he could not have known that
everything in the universe is "already" (eternally)
moving in the direction of implosion (leaving inertia
an unexplained mystery).

The One Particle That Reveals It All.

At our topmost level of matter-organization (that of
atoms, stars, and galaxies) the photon is a rather
peculiar discrete bit ("unit of mass") whose most
salient characteristic is precisely that its "mass" is
so minuscule that it has even inspired a heated debate
over whether it actually has any mass at all. It has:

"Mass" as a measure of "the inertia of a given unit
of matter" means that there is no practical
distinction between a unit of matter and "an
equivalent" unit of mass--since the force needed to
accelerate an equivalent unit of either is one and
the same [historically "matter" really only being a
dim reflection of how "the structure of its mass"
is "packaged" in a greater/lesser volume].

Therein the above explanation for inertia (since by
definition: all motion NOT in "the direction of
implosion" is 3-dimensional): All 3-dimensional
motion is therefore "against" the direction in
which all matter is already moving--explaining the
"reluctance" of any unit of matter to be moved
3-dimensionally in direct proportion to its "mass."

No matter what the "mass" of the photon is finally
determined to be... its "acceleration" is prodigious.
Therefore its "mass," or "inertia," is correspondingly
prodigiously tiny--although never non-existent, or (to
put it in the conventional lingo)... or photons would
be absolutely immune to "supermassive gravitational
fields" (to which they are obviously not immune).

The structure (or "package") of the photon is very
obviously substantially oversized and, compared to the
other particles, relatively "unstable." That is: it is
"visible" out of all proportion to its mass, and its
"material" is closer to the edge of annihilation than
even that of the far more massive/stable electron's,
for example--though neither electrons nor photons have
the legacy of a long enough evolution--long enough to
have brought to them, as it has to other particles of
matter, enough mass in a "stable enough" structure
(neutrinos too are unstable, changing their "flavor").

The crucial thing at this point is that because of its
infinitesimal mass the photon is able to free itself
almost entirely from one of the two Basic Motions of
Matter.

Matter's "two basic motions" as the universe moves
in the direction of implosion... one being an
"absolute" motion (which we interpret as gravity),
the other a strictly "relativistic" motion (which
we interpret as the Hubble Constant).

Photons (and other likewise extremely low-mass
particles) do "move" exactly like every other form of
matter that exists here at our topmost level of
matter-organization in one way: They also "shrink"
(thereby seeming to remain the "same size as ever"
relative to the size of all the other objects in the
universe which are also "shrinking" at the same rate).
However, as the entirety of the universe "implodes"
towards the absolute center of its cosmic hollow of
lesser density: the photon seems to be able to escape
the "absolute motion" of all the matter in the
universe (which we interpret as "gravity")... even if
it is true that it does not escape all of that motion
and only just most of it. Self-evidently: the photon
does not fully obey the absolute law of gravity most
of the other forms of matter obey.

Because all matter is everywhere moving in the
direction of implosion but there are no fundamental
objects/bodies anywhere in the universe to
"implode" toward their own "singular" geometric
centers as if they were perfect singularities...
all the objects/bodies in the universe (with the
possible exception of the discrete bits of the
theoretical "first generation" of discrete bits
ever to evolve from the primordial cloud that
"saturated" our hollow of lesser density)... all
the objects/bodies (all the forms of matter) in the
universe are imploding NOT towards their own
geometrical centers but at/toward every and all the
smallest-possible coordinate(s) in/of their matter.

Again: the overall effect of "gravity" is that (at
every smallest-possible coordinate of the matter of
every object/body in the universe)... all matter is
forever (imploding) moving in the direction of the
center of every smallest-possible coordinate of/in
its matter.

The result is that what we see at our topmost level
of matter-organization is a relativistically
"frozen" solid geometry with no easily discernible
directionality in which the imploding Planet Earth,
for example, does not "implode" ONLY towards its
own "singular geometric center" but toward the
"geometric center" of every and all possible
coordinate(s) of its matter... forever giving us a
picture of the eternally always same-sized and
same-shaped unchanging sphere we've always known.

But make no mistake about this: the entire universe of
matter is absolutely imploding at the level of its
every smallest-possible coordinate(s). And, for
example, this means that the Earth is "falling" into
the Sun and that the Moon is "falling" into the Earth
in an absolute sense (exactly as described by
Galileo). Even though, relativistically, the Earth is
also moving away from the Sun, and the Moon is moving
away from the Earth (as described by the Hubble
Constant).

To better understand exactly what the photon is up to,
let's imagine what a photon (which is after all just
one more "form of matter" among those of our level of
matter-organization)... what a photon would "look
like" if instead of "shrinking" along with all the
other "shrinking" forms of matter, a photon were to
somehow manage to always retain its size even as the
rest of the universe in which it found itself
continued "shrinking" all around it (and, further,
let's imagine this theoretical photon of ours as a
perfectly spherical hollow ball):

From "our" perspective now (unsuspecting as "we" are
that it is the universe that is "shrinking") we would
undoubtedly interpret this "miraculous spherical
photon" as "growing in size" at a quite prodigious
speed (really exactly proportional to the speed at
which the universe is "shrinking")... so that, for
example, in just over eight minutes our spherical
photon would be as big around as is the earth's orbit
around the Sun; and in a mere 50,000 years or so more
it would be the same size as is our entire Milky Way
Galaxy (90,000-100,000 light years across). So that if
the universe really is [for the purposes of this
thought experiment] just under 14 billion light years
across, in slightly over 7 billion years our
theoretical spherical photon would hold within its
"hollow" the entire universe itself).

It is its mass that "drags" matter along (making it
"move in the direction of implosion").

Any "form of matter" that lacks sufficient mass is
able to (proportional to its mass--or, lack thereof),
is able to "resist" being dragged along into
engaging in the Second Basic Motion of Matter... the
one we interpret as the "pull" of gravity here inside
the universe, but from outside the universe would
interpret as the entire universe imploding like any
other conventional single body might implode (and it
is this absolute aspect of the photon's motion which
makes it look to us as if it's "moving" so oddly). It
is the fact that the photon does not move, or moves
very little, that permits it to "behave" both as
particle "package" (in isolation) and as wave (when it
interacts or is "measured").

As I said, the photon still participates in the First
Basic Motion of Matter (implosion at the level of
every discrete bit or unit of mass) because while the
Second Basic Motion of Matter "seems to an observer"
to take place only at "a" fully-constituted (or
"finished") level of matter-organization (its
well-defined "bodies" literally "appearing to be"
interacting among themselves... as with atoms, stars,
or galaxies)... the First Basic Motion of Matter is
taking place at the level of every "least possible"
discrete unit of mass [that is: at the level of the
theoretical "first generation" of such discrete bits
which were the first ever to "tear themselves" from
the "single solid homogeneous cloud" that had fully
saturated the center of the cosmic hollow into which
"fell" the shockwave of "higher density primordial
material" from "the void" surrounding it]. So please
note that, regardless how one might arbitrarily define
such a primordial "unit" ... we say that the universe
is "imploding at every possible coordinate of its
matter," rather than only at the level of any given
"particulate" (or "finished" level of matter-
organization). Therefore the photon, being as much one
of the forms of matter at our level of matter-
organization as atoms, stars, and galaxies... the
photon is also "shrinking" exactly as are all the
other forms of matter here.

But if the photon does not retain its size (appearing
to grow ever larger), and has as little mass as it
does (therefore not being a form of matter which
"moves" along with all the other forms of matter that
are moving in the Second Basic Motion of Matter) and
thereby appearing to us to always remain "where it is"
(appearing forever unmoved amid the flow of
"everything moving together"), what exactly determines
in which direction it will go (or "appear" to go)...?

Well: That "direction" in which a given photon "moves"
is determined only by its orientation to its "source"
at the moment of its "onset" (creation). And this is a
"direction" which can have a completely 3-dimensional
orientation with regard to its source because
(disengaging as it does from the Second Basic Motion
of Matter) the photon's direction of motion instantly
becomes 3-dimensional while that of its source forever
remains (as it has been) a motion "in the direction of
implosion" ... and these are two quite separate and
independent from each other directions of motion.

In this matter the spherical photon analogy above can
serve an important illustrative purpose: Even if,
unlike our theoretical spherical photon, the real
photon is not growing in size... its position at any
given point in time after its "creation" (i.e. after
its "separation" from its source) would always still
fall exactly where the surface of that growing
theoretical spherical photon would fall, given the
passage of equal amounts of time... in any direction
(which, as I said, is determined solely by the
orientation of the photon to its source). Therefore
there really is no practical limitation either to
which 3-dimensional direction a photon can take... or
to its travelling from any point in the universe to
any other point within it--or to points outside the
universe, for that matter... considering that a photon
can move across the universe to (be at) exactly any
point in the spherical surface of the theoretical
photon which is capable of swallowing the entire
universe in our thought experiment.

Think now of the geometrical center of our theoretical
spherical photon: If there were an "ether" at absolute
rest behind the imploding (and therefore "moving")
visible universe... and its "geometrical center" were
fixed on that "ether," then our ever growing spherical
photon would appear to us to "drift" (as the visible
universe imploded towards its absolute center, leaving
behind all things, photons included, without enough
mass to be dragged along)... so that if, say, the
geometrical center of our theoretical spherical photon
(where its source was at the instant of its creation)
were in the Milky Way Galaxy--our entire spherical
photon would seem to us to "take off" now, as it grew,
drifting away from the Milky Way Galaxy. And some
portions of our galaxy could then travel across two
opposing surfaces of this growing spherical photon.

But as there is no "ether" in the real world to which
such a theoretical spherical photon might "fix" its
geometric center... that geometric center must remain
forever fixed to more or less the place where the
photon's source was at the time the photon came into
existence--Meaning that if its source was somewhere
inside the Milky Way Galaxy, our galaxy would always
remain inside the growing soap bubble hollow... and no
portion of the Milky Way Galaxy would ever be able to
cross two of the spherical photon's opposing surfaces
--every point in the galaxy will cross one surface of
our "growing" sphere, but never more than one.

This is something we must grasp in order to understand
why it is that there is no "directionality" to "the
speed of light." Our "growing" theoretical spherical
photon is in a very real absolute sense "moving" along
exactly like (with) the rest of "the entire body" of
the universe as it implodes as a whole)... thereby
effectively frustrating any attempt we here inside the
universe might try to make to establish a
directionality for the "speed of light" since no
matter in which direction a photon may be travelling
it must always "fall" (be) exactly where, in that
whatever direction, the surface of our theoretical
growing (and "drifting") spherical photon would be.
For, remember: the geometric center of our theoretical
"expanding" spherical photon is "fixed" not to some
background ("ether" or whatever) but to "all the other
matter" of the visible universe that is absolutely
imploding towards center (fixed to its "point of
origin" or "source").

So the "explanation" by G. F. Fitzgerald that matter
"contracts in the direction of its motion" [to account
for the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment
which first established that there was no
directionality to "the speed of light"] is now forever
exposed as the misinterpretation it is--As well as is
the subsequent arbitrary limitation on anything being
able to travel faster than the speed of light "because
matter can only contract to zero, obviously, and not
beyond."

The Michelson-Morley experiment, an attempt to
determine the absolute motion of the Earth against an
"ether" which was supposed to fill all space and to be
at rest was really an attempt to discover in the
universe a state at absolute rest (by having it be the
result of subtracting all possible motion in every
direction).

What Michelson and Morley discovered in fact was the
universe's absolute motion in the direction of
implosion by discovering that the photon always
travels in every 3-dimensional direction at the same
speed:

It was an experiment doomed to failure by the fact
that it only encompassed 3-dimensional motion in a
universe where 3-dimensional motion is essentially
motion in an abberrant direction (the normal direction
of all matter in our universe being in the direction
of implosion). [If one considers that motion in the
direction of implosion is the same everywhere then you
realize that there is no objection to defining such a
"motion" as the one state in the universe at absolute
rest (since all 3-dimensional motion is motion with
reference to it).

Inspired by Fitzgerald's "uninformed explanation," and
knowing that the ratio of an electron's mass to its
charge can be determined from its deflection by a
magnetic field (as there is no reason to think that as
an electron's velocity increases its charge also will
increase), H. A. Lorentz suggested that the mass of a
particle should increase as the charge of a charged
particle is compressed into a smaller volume. And W.
Kauffman discovered that, exactly as predicted by the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, an electron's mass did
indeed increase as its velocity increased (an
agreement which improved measurements showed to be
just about perfect)... strengthening everyone's
confidence in the accuracy of Fitzgerald's gross
misinterpretation for why the speed of light lacked
directionality--and, by the way, lending confidence to
one Albert Einstein, for whom this could only mean
that "therefore" there could be no states at absolute
rest in the universe (a thought which eventually gave
birth to some of his relativity explanations). [Never
mind that the "absolute" constancy of the speed of
light, no less than its "absolute" lack of
directionality, should have told Einstein that there
"had" to be some state at absolute rest in "the
equation of the universe" against which such constancy
was being kept constant!

But there it is, of course: the speed itself at which
the universe of matter is imploding is absolute across
the entire universe (or, I should really say: "is of
an equal value where equal conditions (of "pressure")
exist")... since one can also state it as everything
other than that which is moving as "moving" with
respect to it (just as in the description where
someone in a passing train is able to imagine it's the
train station that's passing by instead).

What is this "pressure" in the absence of particle
interaction/mediation (gravitons)...? Well,
certainly NOT the "push" of one absolute body
(billiard ball?) against another physically. Or,
from the geometrically opposing viewpoint: The fact
that all the bodies/balls are (and have always
been) moving in the same direction is enough
--Obviously no individual body/ball moving in such
an avalanche of them could possibly suddenly come
up with the impetuous impatience to speed up (or
with any spontaneous sloth, for that matter).

Naturally, once the reason for inertia (given above)
is made clear, it's obvious that all 3-dimensional
acceleration of matter produces pressures ("g-forces"
as it were, or a very real "stress") against its own
inertia (its motion in the direction of implosion)...
these "g-forces stress" increasing with acceleration
make it clear just how massive a force would be
required to "move" even such a trivial "mass" as that
of a photon's across the entire universe in, say, a
fraction of a second--and the "stress" that photon
would consequently be under.

It is this proportional (to 3-dimensional velocity)
"stress" which interferes with the regular/normal
inner motions of matter (matter itself really being
reducible to "motion," which is itself merely another
definition of "energy")... causing the very real rise
in mass of ALL accelerated matter (not just of charged
particles, as Einstein himself showed)... as well as
the "slowing of time" for matter traveling at higher
3-dimensional speed, obviously. [Thereby providing the
real reason for the also very real "twin" paradox
(which like all paradoxes exists only in the human
mind, and never in nature)... while separating this
very real "relativity of time with respect to
3-dimensional velocity" from any notion that time
itself might have accelerated for the twin remaining
"at rest" behind in any "real" sense... outside a
misinterpretation by the "accelerated" twin, from
whose perspective (to whom) the clock in "the passing
train station" (the twin remaining behind) will appear
to be "moving faster") because the matter of which he
(the accelerated twin) himself is made is being
"slowed" by the stresses of its acceleration. But "the
universe's time" (or, the absolute speed at which the
universe is imploding) remains "the time" for the
"unmoving" twin left behind--as long as he keeps still
(and doesn't try to race across the entire universe
in, say, a fraction of a second... because, if he
could find the power to do so, it might be a fraction
of a second to him, but he may find the rest of the
universe aged 14 or more billion years).

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://ar.sdrodrian.com

Please don't ask me to edit this text into a more
cohesive or chronological/logical presentation! Thank
God I still have the mental energy to type it out at
all.
- 30 -

ANSWERS from GOOGLE posts by S D Rodrian ...

> maybe you could help Bill out with an answer to the
> question: What the heck causes gravity?

Sure: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY. There!

ALL the effects we ascribe to the "pull of gravity"
are really caused by/because of the fact that the
universe is (and has always been) imploding (yes,
since its origin ... in fact, THAT is its origin).

However, don't try to disprove this by tossing a coin
up "against the pull of gravity" because the "speed"
at which the coin travels "against the direction of
implosion" will be of no consequence whatsoever (you'd
have to throw the coin OUT of the universe to counter
its implosion)...

.. Instead of believing that ours is a
universe as described in the inflationary models
(a universe of immutable forms of matter forever
"expanding" from some primordial magic bean),
imagine that we live in a universe where all the
forms of matter are just that ("forms" composed
of other "forms of matter" which are themselves
composed of lesser/smaller "forms" of matter ad
infinitum) in a universe that is/has always been in
implosion...

Yes, use the metaphor of a black hole imploding. But:
How long does a black hole take to implode? Well,
viewed from outside it, almost no "time" at all. But
if the entire universe were imploding, we, of course,
would be inside that implosion. If such an implosion
lasted only our "seconds" or even "minutes" or "hours"
or even "days, months, years, et al" it would cause
our "matter" to burst! But, on the other hand, if such
an implosion "lasted" (for us here inside it, "timing"
the whole thing by our "hours, years, centuries," or
even "billions of years"), if such an implosion lasted
for as long as the entire lifetime of our universe...
then "our forms of matter" would have "enough time" to
bend/twist/evolve/adapt to whatever changes were
taking place--And it really wouldn't matter "how long"
our imploding universe took as "timed" by "somebody"
watching its implosion from outside it. The only
"time" that mattered to us... would be the one we
ourselves "timed" by whatever methods we devised.

There is no such thing as an absolute speed (time),
and "the laws of physics" which govern the movement
of "our speed" (time) depend entirely on what the
"mass about us" allows.

As the universe implodes, ever accelerating as it
does, our "sense" of time (of how "fast" the speed
of general motions about us) is also increasing
because "there is no absolute time (speed)" and
instead the "speed" (and therefore the "timing") of
everything (its timing by us) is "absolutely"
relative to "the mass" about it (about us).
Therefore: No matter how "fast" the universe
implodes to "someone" viewing its implosion from
outside it, to us, here inside it, the implosion of
the universe must necessarily seem to last "for as
long as the universe lasts."

The hardest obstacle to realizing that ours is a
universe in implosion may be that, being INSIDE this
implosion, we imagine it's exactly like what happens
in a black hole collapse (destroying all forms of
matter in it & around it in milliseconds ... the sort
of milliseconds measured by our clocks AND the
impossible clock of someone INSIDE the black hole
we're observing... which clocks we assume to be
forever absolutely synchronized).

Rather, think of one of those films of street crowds
which are sped-up and you see streams of cars & people
rushing "through" each other without a single one of
them running into anything... Well, that film is
"sped-up" from our point of view (by us), where we
exist at {what?} speed watching the film--but for
anyone "in" that sped-up scene we're watching
"existence" was unfolding at "normal" speed, and any
idea that they were going so blindingly "fast" that it
may be impossible for them to crash into everything
would seem almost insulting. [ By {what absolute
standard?} do we believe that "our speed" is the
"normal speed" of existence itself?!? ]

.. Rather, the speed of light is "fast" because we
imagine it is (measured against our walking speed).
While the speed of one set of atoms decaying into
another element is "slow" because, again, we measure
it against our walking speed, or the speed it takes us
to eat a bowl of cherries, or to live out our whole
lives, or even the lives of all the generations of
man, for that matter. We find it hard to imagine that
all the generations of man, or all the generations
of all the organisms that ever lived on this planet,
or all the generations of stars, et al, might fly by
in the "time" it takes "someone standing outside our
universe" to glance to one side and notice that it
(our universe, unsuspected by him) has imploded (in
milliseconds, as measured by his watch). But that is
EXACTLY what has happened, will happen, and is
happening: The relativity of time is absolute (and
that relativity extends to outside our universe): The
relativity of "speed" ABSOLUTELY has everything to do
with what the mass around your "watch" is doing (its
"speed" ... in effect, its "time").

I have said it before and I will repeat it endlessly:
"Everything that is now described as "the pull of
gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of
velocity." It doesn't mean that "rocket scientists"
will have to find some other way to "sling-shoot"
their space vehicles (than by gravitational orbits)
--rather, they must eventually come to realize that
what they're doing is the same thing that happens to
a leaf that's sucked into the eye-wall of a hurricane:
The closer to any "point of implosion" anything comes
the greater the velocity it must experience (and those
"points of implosion" exactly coincide with what we
now call "centers of gravity") ... which is identical
to saying now "the greater pull of gravity they must
experience."

WHERE are these "points of implosion" located inside
the universe? Well, self-evidently they cannot be
located in the middle of space (space with more space
around them) because space can neither implode or
explode. Therefore, they ONLY exist where the matter
of the universe is imploding (its material substance)
and that boils down to mass, mass, and more mass:
This makes "a" point of implosion absolutely relative
to the mass around it. So that any mass which is added
or subtracted from any "imploding system" (which is
any congregation of matter sufficiently separated from
the rest of the universe to exhibit independent motion
towards its own unique point of implosion, whether it
be the earth-moon system, or the Solar System, or the
Milky Way system, or even the earth-Newton's Apple
system)... any mass which is added to or subtracted
from any "imploding system" has an immediate effect
upon the "location" of its "point of implosion (making
ALL such "points of implosion" then absolutely
relative to the mass about them). [And I certainly
don't want to get any "the speed of gravity" nonsense
here--suffice it to say that if the Sun were to vanish
by some magical miracle, what's to prevent a magical
miracle from being instantaneous across the entire
universe?] However: Since all the mass (matter) of the
universe is moving towards such "points of implosion"
(BECAUSE such "points of implosion" exist in isolation
--from the rest of the universe--NOTICE the "space"
between them) they are all entirely relativistic: That
is, while the moon and earth are "trying" to "roll
down their own mutual/common point of implosion" they
are also, as ONE system/mass vying with the Sun to
"roll down their own mutual/common point of implosion"
and so on: so that NONE of this invalidates Galileo's
marvelous description of "gravitational" trajectories
(loss of momentum) nor Newton's laws of gravitation,
or Einstein's geometrical perfecting of them: If two
bodies approach each other with just the right amount
of momentum away from their "common point of
implosion" they will go into a mutual orbit; and if
they are both aimed straight at their "common point of
"implosion" they must surely collide. And if two
immense bags of those styrofoam packing beans pass
close enough to one another, surely a lot of those
styrofoam beans will not have/or will not be able to
maintain enough momentum away from their "common point
of implosion" to prevent a pileup too.

The point is that the entirety of the universe is ONE
geometric unit. And that the existence (and position)
of every last bit of mass in the universe affects its
entire configuration--which is the same as saying that
the "effect of gravity" extends "infinitely" across
the entirety of the universe. Which is just another
way of saying that the entire mass (matter) of the
entire universe also has its own definite/absolute
"point of implosion" towards which everything in the
universe is "moving" [not because of the mythical
"pull of gravity" but because that is the geometric
center towards which its "body" was "pushed" from
its origin].

And because the mass of the universe does not "ride"
upon some inflexible/rigid aether, naturally the
closer two "bits" of mass are to each other the
greater the acceleration they must experience toward
their common "point of implosion" (the effect is
indistinguishable in practice from the effect
described up to now as gravity, except that for many
hundreds of years scientists used a cosmological
system in which the universe revolved around the earth
to predict with great accuracy the motions of the
heavens... until a simpler, more straightforward
solution was found--a solution which also embodied the
explanation everyone was searching for). And so it is
at this writing, when the inflationary/gravitational
point of view can be used to predict the motions of
the heavens with great accuracy BUT it is only the
implosion model that at last offers the simpler, more
straightforward solution (and also embodies the
answer) everyone is searching for.

Now you know how all that is possible WITHOUT there
being some magical mediating particle (the mythical
graviton) to cross the full length of the universe:
The mass of Newton's apple and the mass of the
earth are "seeking" their common center/point of
implosion (since they do not ride any mythical
rigid matrix/aether)... and they are both "moving"
towards the "center of the universe" both as a
system while being such an infinitesimal portion
of that system that I seriously doubt we will ever
definitely ascertain its orientation. [So you
observe Newton's apple moving towards the earth
with a greater acceleration than the moon is moving
towards the earth, or the earth-moon system are
moving toward the Sun, and the Solar System is
moving toward the "center" of the Milky Way, etc.]

Simply assume that our universe IS imploding...
and begin to re-examine all the observations which
have for the last 100 years (and longer) "argued" for
so many counter-intuitive, and self-contradictory, and
just plain illogical/crazy explanations for/of why/how
the photon "knows" at what speed it should travel and
in which direction? How is it possible for the effect
of gravity to extend infinitely (and WITHOUT any
mediating particle WHATSOEVER--because the proposition
of the graviton's existence is just a guess exactly
like the proposition of "dark matter")? How spiral
galaxies can do what they're doing with only the mass
of their stars! And, indeed, why/how the so-called
"expansion" of the universe can itself be forever
accelerating with no visible expenditure of the
tremendous amounts of energies such an acceleration
obviously requires or we are all mad!

And everything else, to boot: Imagine what some being
riding upon one of these independent systems (say, a
planet), what such a being must think when he looks
out into space and observes all the other systems
"draining" down into their whatever "points of
implosion" ... without suspecting the true nature of
what he is looking at: Let's call such a being Edwin
Hubble, and he notices that there is a "constant"
relationship between the distance from us of "an
object" and the speed at which it looks like it's
receding away from us: Not suspecting that the
universe is in implosion, and therefore that all its
"independent systems" (galaxies, say) are (as it were)
"shrinking into themselves" wherever they happen to
be--that is, not knowing that it's really his ruler
that's "shrinking" Hubble assumed that it is the
distance between all the systems that's "growing" [and
necessarily, the farther a galaxy is from ours the
"faster" Hubble assumed it was receding away from us).

REMEMBER: The closer something is to something else
the "faster" it is imploding. Therefore the
universe is imploding fastest at the quantum level
--if for no other reason than that is the smallest"
(and therefore "closest") level of which we know.

The inflationary models cannot even explain the most
basic phenomena we observe in our universe, such as
WHY/HOW radiation propagates except by gibberish/
nonsense. While in an imploding model the "disconnect"
between massive and nearly-massless matter perfectly
explains why one "moves" and the other does not: If
you are riding the "moving" part of it and you do no
suspect that you are the one moving, you tend to
imagine that the part you are passing by is the thing
doing the moving--

And now you also know why no matter how much the
photon is slowed it must "regain" its full velocity
once it is freed from whatever was slowing it down:
The velocity at which the "more massive" matter of the
universe is imploding must certainly hold very
steadily across a very large swath of the universe
--since it is all governed by the mass (matter) about
it. But, thereby the reason why the speed of light is
fixed.] But I imagine that at some point most thinking
persons will eventually realize that while the Big
Bang (inflationary) models of the universe are
forever drowning in self-contradictions and utter and
hilariously zany science fiction... there is not one
serious challenge to the implosion model that has ever
gone adequately unanswered (even as you can read in
this very text).

Again: ONCE you consider the universe from that point
of view, then ALL the puzzles and conundrums which
plague and baffle us now (causing us to propose
near-or-just-plain-ole magical solutions) to mysteries
such as "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement),
how a single photon can interact with itself, and the
impossibility of making sense of relativity and QM
existing in the same world ... all of them and more
will finally begin to "argue" their own solutions, as
"you" say, despite all our most cherished prejudices.

= Everything that is now described as "the pull of
gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of
velocity. This includes so-called lesser/greater
massive gravitational fields as described by\in
relativity theory. OR: If you are "a mile" from a
neutron star you are obviously a LOT closer to the
"point of implosion" of a greater amount of mass
than if you were even an inch from, say, the moon.

The implosion model in no way invalidates relativity;
but, on the contrary it is clear just how remarkable
an achievement Einstein managed while never even
suspecting that the universe is imploding--that he
should be able to describe it with such purely
geometrical perfection... at last putting an end to
the ancient myth of the aether. And without realizing
exactly why it should be that the universe acts rather
more like a geometrical structure than a purely
gravitational one (as previously described by Newton).

If gravity were ANY KIND OF "force" then it would,
by the laws of physics (QM) blow up the universe
to smithereens.

It would ALSO create stars and watery planets with
hollowed-out centers BECAUSE there would be little
or no "gravity" at their centers: Yet, the theories we
have about how our Sun works calls for most of its
nuclear reactions to be taking place precisely AT ITS
CENTER, under the greatest "pressures" therein! And
no one that I know of has EVER proposed hollow
planets (except some laughable comic book I read
as a child, as I recall). Oy! But people don't think.

What then are orbits, galaxies? Use the simplest
of all analogies: In an imploding universe
EVERYTHING is (perhaps not so figuratively) going
down the drain:

Look at the whirlpool that forms as water tries to go
down your kitchen drain pipe (the same thing is taking
place in tornadoes and hurricanes, where pressure in
the eye-wall forces air to "drain" up, sucking in air
from the area surrounding the "funnel"). Why does
a whirlpool form at the mouth of your drainpipe?
Because some water drops, unfortunately for them, have
just enough momentum toward one side to avoid going
directly down the drain. And the more water, the more
likelihood there is of a whirlpool forming...

And whether it's the earth/moon system, or the Solar
System, or galaxies we're talking about... what we're
looking at is "bodies" (the water drops here) which,
unfortunately for them, have just enough momentum
away from the exact/absolute point of implosion (what
we now call their common center of gravity). [And,
such "absolute points of implosion" are completely
relativistic (i.e. created by the very presence of the
mass around them that creates them).] And just as
not every time you open the faucet does a whirlpool
form at the mouth of the drain (it usually has to do
with the volume of water), not every galaxy develops
into a spiral one like the supermassive Milky Way
(something which also seems to have a correlation with
whether it's a massive or smaller galaxy, surprise,
surprise).

And NONE of it has anything whatever to do with any
"dark matter" or other nonsense like it, I assure you.

> But why things are imploding and where they came
> from remains unanswered.

No they do not: It is all an inevitable consequence of
the laws of thermodynamics... Think (!) of "the void"
as so immense/vast that at some point or other its
"body" hiccups a wave and presto: thermodynamic
currents/waves back & forth. Is it so impossible from
there to think that somewhere a bubble of "lesser
pressure" arose which then burst, as higher pressures
poured into it--the "concentration" at "its center"
being our "visible" universe...? And there you have
our imploding universe, and without having to have a
single graviton in it for it to work EXACTLY as we
can observe it working all around us.

GO backwards from our universe, and it is a
prick-point in some vaster/more diffuse universe,
which is itself but another prickpoint in some
vaster/more diffuse universe, ad infinitum, and
you can see where it all comes from: All you
really need is "something so very close to
nothingness" as to make the difference negligible
indeed. But then, eventually here we are.

Think! That describes the raison d'etre for the
implosion model of the universe, except that any
notion of "time" is moot: ALL time is relative, just
as Einstein began to understand, and while the
implosion of our universe, as viewed (timed) from
outside it, may look like (and take about as long as)
the collapse of a massive star into a black hole seems
to us... we here inside it (because our SENSE of time
is so humongously "fast" ... AND FOREVER SPEEDING UP)
we here inside the universe will "experience" it like
some "unending" amount of time (or, equal to the
entire length of the part of the lifetime of our
universe in which we exist).

It may be a fact that as we go on there is "less and
less time" of the universe left--because, inevitably,
as the universe continues its implosion (or,
concentration into less and less volume) it must
undergo a general acceleration... but because "our
sense of time" is literally accelerating ahead of the
universe... what is left of the universe will always
be, at least for us, quite a lot (and perhaps even
growing as "we" go on--if I may be so bold as to
include us with the rocks & hydrogen atoms out there).

What will our universe end up as? I certainly don't
have enough information to theorize about it with any
real authority. Although I'd like to think it will all
dissolve into plain ole nothingness. It's still
possible it will also be some massive pile-up of black
holes... or a single one, which may well be another
universe-of-sorts ad infinitum. Who knows. Who cares!
The whole human race will certainly be dead long, long
before then. And all that will certainly be a long,
long, long time in our future, of course.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://ar.sdrodrian.com

Other Bits & Pieces, Here & There ...

"Immortalist" wrote:
"sdr" wrote:

>> Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
>> Cosmological Constant (i.e. "Dark Energy") is BOGUS

>If the available evidence argues that most of the
>matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected
>from the light which it emits or fails to emit, the
>question arises about how this stuff which cannot be
>seen directly exists at all unless its presence is
>inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical
>objects, specifically stellar, galactic, and galaxy
>cluster/supercluster observations

"Available evidence" (observations) do not "argue"
anything: It is men, such as you and I, who look at
"something" and "see" in it our prejudices: The
"evidence" of a plane flying overhead "argues" one
set of conclusions from a guy in Philadelphia and
quite another from a stone age hunter (as it did
for New Guinea tribesmen, who in the 40s, thought
the American airmen who were landing there to
prepare for battle against the Japanese HAD TO BE
gods and worshipped them as such).

For many years now MANY different forms of matter
(since all matter MUST needs come in some form)
have been proposed and searched for as candidates
for "dark matter." Either none has been found or
contradictory evidence have suggested that the forms
proposed could not exist where they have been
proposed (as required) or in such forms at all.

We have a specific observation (namely, that some
galaxies behave in a way they should not, given the
mass of their visible stars). It is a puzzle. And it
demands theories/guesses. But until we find the
specific reason/cause for this observation ALL our
best theories are mere guesses:

There is NO argument FOR or requirement of any
such stuff as "dark matter." It is simply ONE guess.
Further, it is a guess which has FOR MANY MANY years
been thoroughly explored and which remains unproved.
Perhaps if we had extended but 1/100th the effort in
some other line of inquiry... we'd know the answer
now.

As a matter of principle, I am against killing ANY
line of inquiry until such time as the solution has
been found. But I myself am of the strong opinion
that the search for some/any/all form(s) of dark
matter are a dead end. Why? SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

>... or in order to
>enable gravity to amplify the small fluctuations in
>the Cosmic Microwave Background enough to form the
>large-scale structures that we see in the universe
>today,

The answer to this mirrors the large-scale structures
of the material universe itself, and the solution is
to be found in the same identical causes which have
given rise to the universe's other large-scale
structures. Namely, the sheer vagaries of matter-
distribution over large scales of time: It is not a
true "random" process, simply one whose dynamics
we have not yet computed (and perhaps never will).

****

The "proposal" for dark energy is not as a result
of any particular requirement in the Big Bang model;
rather, the real world (the universe) was unexpectedly
discovered to be working in the exact opposite manner
that model says it ought to be working... but rather
than acknowledge the observed facts have invalidated
the model, BB theorists merely now said they thought
some "dark energy" MUST exist which is making the
model work in the exact opposite way the BB model
should work.

The original requirement for a "Big Bang" were
effectively nullified by the discovery that the
universe is "expanding" NOT from some primordial
"explosion" (Big Bang) but due to some "other" reason
NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. (The proposal that it MUST BE some
"dark force" is somewhat like people who do not
understand how/why planes fly suggesting that it MUST
BE because of some "dark force" invisibly holding
planes up in the air: It is nonsense which not
everyone has yet realized what utter nonsense it
is. And it is utter nonsense because it violates any
number of physical laws, not least of which is that
its WORKING needs LOADS of energy
consumption/conversion which no one has either
observed or proposed how it is taking place. The
proposal of a pushing force acting in the same place
and at the same time as the "pull" of gravity simply
insults logic.)

Where did the Big Bang model come from? Einstein
asked: "If there is gravity, why hasn't the universe
collapsed?" He thought "there MUST be" some force
keeping the universe from collapsing (i.e. counter-
balancing the "pull" of gravity). He called his "MUST
-BE pushing force" the Cosmological Constant. But then
Hubble discovered that the galaxies "appeared" to be
moving away from each other, and Einstein immediately
realized the folly of his Cosmological Constant
proposal. Instead another down-to-earth bit of
nonsense was proposed: Wasn't it the case here on
earth that whenever things expanded from a
common point there had been an explosion at that
point? Ergo, since the universe' galaxies were seen to
be moving away from each other... they MUST be moving
away from some super-ancient explosion (some really
Big Bang).

Never mind that all "explosions" require energy. Never
mind that the creation of matter/energy from
nothingness revives the ancient paradox of a First
Cause Uncaused (God). Never mind thinking/reasoning at
all. The Big Bang model satisfied men's thirst for a
quick, slick answer. And since people are lazy at
everything, but especially about exercising their
brains... the nonsense's stuck (it's easier to shout
down objections than to think them through seriously).

>Yesterday, [January 12, 2006] Louisiana State
>University astronomer Bradley
>E. Schaefer tossed a grenade
>into this debate, ["dark energy"
>or, Cosmological Constant] presenting
>new research to suggest that
>the force dark energy exerts
>may have varied over time.
>That casts new doubt on the
>validity of Albert Einstein's
>"cosmological constant" only
>a few years after astronomers
>rescued the concept from
>scientific oblivion.
>"I'm not pushing this as a proof,"
>Schaefer said in an
>interview at this week's
>meeting of the American
>Astronomical Society in
>the District, where he presented
>his research. "It's pointing
>against the cosmological
>constant, but it's a first result
>describing how dark energy
>changes with time. We need
>more people to test the
>results and get more information."

Well, I for one am glad that it's so darn hard
for so many to let go of their most cherished
prejudices (they were taught to us all by the fools we
love so much, after all), and to actually see what's
right in front of their eyes ... because that way the
joy of being able to keep telling people that I told
them so is multiplied by the number of dense brains
there are out there.

>Mr. Schaefer based his findings
>on analysis of ultra-bright
>cosmic explosions called
>gamma-ray bursts, detected as
>far as 12.8 billion light-years
>away. He found that the
>most distant explosions
>appeared brighter than they
>should have been if the universe
>were accelerating at
>a constant rate.
>"As you go back in time, the
>universe is pushing [outward]
>less and less," he said. "At
>some point, the pressure of dark
>energy is zero and is exerting
>no force on the universe.
>There is no explanation for it."

NOT in the Big Bang model, certainly. But
consider what the case would be in an imploding
universe: The further back in time you go, the
larger the universe is (i.e. the slower it is
imploding).
Now the observation makes sense. And we can
remove all the nonsense about "dark matter."

What "pushing [outward] less and less," in the
paragraph above means is that the acceleration of
the universe's expansion is "less and less" as we go
"more and more" back in time. At "zero point" there
is no "dark force" at all, and ONLY the pull of
gravity
is acting on the universe (so we are effectively back
at the point where Hubble discovered the galaxies
appear to be moving away from each other AGAINST
the pull of gravity ... devoid of any reason why/how).
However, now any quick/slick "Big Bang" suggestion
becomes more problematic because most explosions
tend to make things move faster at first and then
slower
with time... NOT the other way around, certainly!

>Schaefer's findings, the first
>attempt to use gamma-ray
>bursts to study dark energy,
>produced a result that
>disagreed with accumulating
>evidence gleaned from
>observing a different kind of
>blast -- the exploding stars
>called supernovae. That work
>suggested that the expansion
>of the universe is accelerating
>in accordance with Einstein's
>cosmological constant.
>"The idea of using a gamma-ray
>burst as a distance
>indicator is a very exciting one,"
>said California Institute
>of Technology astronomer
>Richard Ellis, a supernova
>cosmologist. "The trouble is
>there are no ways to check
>the techniques. I'm not saying
>it's no good, but I can't
>believe it's as precise as supernovae."
>The concept of dark energy
>emerged in 1999 as a way to
>explain the fact that the
>expansion of the universe, once
>thought to be slowing ever
>since the big bang about 13.7
>billion years ago, was accelerating.
>That resurrected the
>idea of a cosmological constant,
>introduced by Einstein
>more than 80 years ago as a
>"fudge factor" to explain why
>the universe then appeared to
>be in equilibrium, rather
>than being pulled together
>by gravity.
>A few years later, however,
>astronomer Edwin Hubble
>discovered that the universe
>was not in stasis, after all,
>but was expanding. There
>was no "constant." Einstein
>condemned his own idea
>as "my greatest blunder."

Actually, what Hubble discovered was that the galaxies
"appeared" to be moving away from each other.

The idea that this discovery suggested that the
universe is expanding is both reasonable and idiotic,
since while in a very simple way it resembles the way
an explosion here on earth works... it also presents
impossible hurdles to explaining where all that energy
came from. [Recently someone who must have gotten the
idea from watching bedsheets hung out for drying in a
yard fluttering in the wind... suggested the nonsense
of "branes" flapping in the Mind of God or something,
which when they touch create a rupture through which
pour all the energy in the Big Bang--I must say I had
to laugh like a mule when I read it. But that's me,
other people actually take this nonsense quite
seriously, I swear to God. Naturally, people
who suggest a God as The Origin "forget" to tell us
about the origin of God, and it's no different here,
where they are happy to explain the origin of our
"dimensions" from some other "dimensions" but they
never ever quite get around to explaining the origins
of those other dimensions--which I assume did not
originate from ours.]

>That led to the 1999 discovery
>that the expansion of the
>universe was accelerating
>rather than slowing. There had
>to be some "repulsive force"

THERE JUST HAD TO BE, right?
It just couldn't be something OTHER THAN
what they were imagining/proposing!

>overcoming the gravity that
>should have been causing
>the universe to come together.
>Astronomers called the force
>dark energy, and "it mimics
>the cosmological constant,"
>said Michigan Technological
>University astronomer Robert
>J. Nemiroff. Einstein may
>have been right after all.

Wonder how many times in all people will repeat
the same error before they finally acknowledge it
as an error and move on to something else...!

>Astronomers estimate that
>dark energy makes up 70 percent
>of the universe, but they do not
>know what it is.

Is it some "invisible hand" holding the plane
up in the air?

>Solving the
>mystery is as all-consuming
>as any passion in physics. "It's
>so spooky," said Astronomical
>Society President Robert B.
>Kirshner, a cosmology expert
>at the Harvard-Smithsonian
>Center for Astrophysics.
>"Everybody is looking for ways to
>get at it."

If all the seekers are searching down the wrong path
the chances of any one of them discovering the truth
are nil, and no matter how many seekers. One lone
seeker
searching down the true path is worth all the seekers
in infinity searching down the wrong one.

*******

> Janika Rifley wrote:
> I see gravity as a point of balance between magnetic
> fields, not as a force.

Explain to me what purpose/point there would be
for gravity AT ALL in an imploding universe ... if
the implosion were the result of a "push" given it
at its very beginning by the "greater pressures'
surrounding the hollow into which those "pressures"
cascaded? (Literally, "by their very weight.")

Read thou: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Being a hollow, bubble-like, the outside pressures
which "fell" into it must be "speeding up" as they
concentrate nearer & nearer its geographic center. We
don't notice this acceleration in the normal course of
events, except back around 1998 when two different
groups of astronomers noticed an "inexplicable"
acceleration in a universe which they do not yet
understand is imploding ... and, of course, by one S D
Rodrian, who when years earlier realized that the
universe was indeed imploding deduced that that
implosion therefore had to be accelerating. And,
presto, so it was found to be. Nice. But I don't drink
Champagne (as Dracula once said).

"Dr Nanduri" - wrote:

> This new modelling of reality brings physics very
> much into accord with the general concepts of
> Process Philosophy.

That must have been what was missing in physics:
Less study of physical phenomena & junk like that,
and more tightening up on abstract thinking about
all sorts of crazy things!

Sir, the nature of science is to make as unbiased
a set of observations of physical phenomena as
possible ... in the hope they one day lead to some
sort of unprejudiced interpretation of reality.

Don't be misled by the fact that people like to guess
where the solution will be found before the solution
is actually found ... don't be misled by this into
believing that science and philosophy mix very well
at all: The history of physics the last century is the
sorry proof they do not (being the result of guessers,
so-called theorists, who will blurt out just about any
guess that pops into their flirty heads, proclaiming
it "the only possible solution in the universe").

A good theorist does not merely propose any ole
elephant as the only possible solution, but FIRST
goes through at least the trouble to see whether
there is room in the room into which he wants to fit
his/her theoretical elephant for it to actually fit in
there:

In other words, somebody tells you there is an
elephant in the matchbox he carried around in his
pocket ... don't waste time arguing the physics of his
claim (how/why there is an elephants in...), just
don't.

I tell thee this: There are an awful low of people
nowadays looking at the universe while convinced
that they are looking at something else entirely, and
growing puzzled/confused/baffled (not by the
observations, but by the nonsense theorist are
constantly proposing): Ya can't look at a mule and
believe you're looking at a tornado & not remain
puzzled/confused and baffled by what you "see."

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

[sdro...@sdrodrian.com]

Virgil wrote:
> In article <1152073768....@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> sdro...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>
> > Bill Hobba wroteth:
> > > "S D Rodrian" <s...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> > > news:44AAB880...@sdrodrian.com...

> > > > The Achilles Heel of String Theory.
> > > >
> > > > The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
> > > > elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
> > > > of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
> > > > anything which might exist apart from our reality
> > > > (universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
> > > > fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
> > > > study of reality").
> > >
>

> > HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality, there is no
> > need for it to exist outside it.
>
> As you have referred to reality in terms of dimensions, your "3
> dimensional reality" is, by your own assessment, relegated to science
> fiction.

"One cannot say, 'Him pulled the trigger!'"
--But, gee, Boss: You just said it!

The term "dimensions" is not only used in science and
mathematics but commonly. As in, "the dimensions of
this box are not enough." (I also need a sandwitch.)

But my point stands: It is ALWAYS an absurdity
when anyone limits (sets a number to) "dimensions."
And the number (which number) is irrelevant.

[dan.ec...@gmail.com]

ON dimenswions and much more, see my book on the nature of reality,
free on the web.
www.structureofexistence.com

[Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com]

S D Rodrian wrote:
> The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
> mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
> being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
> three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
> reality."

The three dimensional aspect of space is very simple.
Take an object like the tip of a pencil.
Place it in a square room.
You will find that three measures sufficiently represent its position
relative to the room.
Any more will be wasteful and any less will be broken.
In this sense the Euclidean three dimensional space is an empirical
discovery that takes very little to demonstrate.

Do you deny this?
These are the three dimensions that you are disputing.
Even if more dimenions do exist this behavior must be resolved.
Three dimensions are an observation.

-Tim

[Odysseus]

In article <1152130640.3...@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"dan.ec...@gmail.com" <dan.ec...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ON dimenswions and much more, see my book on the nature of reality,
> free on the web.
> www.structureofexistence.com
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

<SNIP>

Are you trying for a record of some kind in uncouth Usenet behaviour?
Top-posting a semi-literate, unresponsive self-promotion as a reply to a
widely cross-posted thread is bad enough, but quoting the 2700 lines in
full underneath is downright uncivilized.

--
Odysseus

[sdr]

> On 5 Jul 2006 17:28:48 -0700, "Timothy Golden

> BandTechnology.com" <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >S D Rodrian wrote:
> >> The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
> >> mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
> >> being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
> >> three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
> >> reality."
> >
> >The three dimensional aspect of space is very simple.

No doubt, no doubt! Who can't count to three?
Well, there ARE a number of drinks beyond which...

> >Take an object like the tip of a pencil.

What is a tip of a pencil! Certainly to an ant
it must be a mountain top. And to our dear ole
Planck Length Creature it is its universe in all!
But, what is the tip of a pencil to the elephant,
or to the whale! O, what is a tip of a pencil
to the world!

(Good Heavens, I've still got it! --The Poet In Me.]

> >Place it in a square room.

Why does it always HAVE to be a square room?
Every time I am placed in a square room I feel
compelled to only walk in "2" dimensions! Unless
I manage to wiggle out of my strait jacket, of course.
And then I can walk "3" dimensionally (via the rope
my kind keepers like to leave for me tied to a hook
on the ceiling).

> >You will find that three measures sufficiently
> >represent its position
> >relative to the room.

Why bother? Why not simply ask, "You
can't see it?!?! It's right in front of you nose!"

HINT: However way you point it out.... said "way"
is all in your head:

Unless your "lines" are the thickness of a Planck's
Length's Planck's Length's Planck's Length's Planck's
Length's (ad infinitum) your triangulation will only
always ONLY succeed in giving a general direction
as to where the thing is. (Cross you fingers and see
just how large the area is over which they cross.)
And, yes, it works both ways... or try to triangulate
the position of the earth with such itty bitty "lines."

We live in an approximate world only. And this is
the achilles heel of all attempts by Mathematics
to "rule" the universe, I'm afraid. (Who knows not
this, is doomed to waste a lot of his life de-noodling
his mind with infinite minutia.) --SDR

And how comes it that we just happen to live in
an approximate world only, you might ask. Because
in reality we live IN OUR MINDS, and there's very
precious little in there that's not but an estimation.
Or something close to it...

Certainly none of it will have to do with "dimensions"
but only with different approaches to it (or, directions).

START QUOTE

END QUOTE

Repeat after me: IF A ONE-DIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO-
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE. AND A 3-DIMENSIONAL ANY-
THING IS 3 TIMES AS IMPOSSIBLE & SO ON.

A balloon only has two-dimensions. But only
because that's a convenient short-hand in
mathematics: That two-dimensional balloon
helps mathematics neither to add to nor to
substract from REALITY anything whatsoever,
though we speak about it until the Word of God
at last falls silent in the universe. Amen.

> >Any more will be wasteful
> >and any less will be broken.
> >In this sense the Euclidean three
> >dimensional space is an empirical
> >discovery that takes very little to demonstrate.
> >Do you deny this?
> >These are the three dimensions that you are
> >disputing.
> >Even if more dimenions do exist this
> >behavior must be resolved.
> >Three dimensions are an observation.-Tim

You are right at last, Tim: "3" dimensions ARE only
a requirement of the mind (in the mind) and have
nothing whatsoever to do with reality:

Imagine that man has finally become extinct. Then,
to the world that continues without him, what use
are the methods he used to use to point out things
to himself?

I don't mind your use of whatever method you wish
to point things out to yourself, Tim. But don't then
ORDAIN that your brain commands reality, Tim!

That's positively bonkers, ole boy.

> An interesting way to conceptualize this
> is to imagine a large
> screened TV in front of you. Then,
> in your imagination, expand
> the width and height to infinity.
> Next, in your imagination, toss
> the hardware aside, leaving
> only the image in place.
> Persons in this image perceive
> their space as 3-dimensional.

That would be a nice trick for such "persons"
to perform, since they would have to do it
with "brains" which have no "depth" at all.

> That
> is, they can move in any direction they want to.

With "muscles & limbs" which have no "depth"
at all.

> To them, a meter
> stick will appear to be one meter long,
> any way they orient it.

Well, certainly, if they try to orient it from "width" to
"height" they are going to have to make it travel
through a zillion dimensions other than their only "2."

As I've said: I don't mind Mathematics describing
every point in a circumference. But do not let then
Mathematics try to describe the "dimensions" of
reality! (Because, as I said, it's absurd to limit them
in any way... in effect, by any number. It offends
the laws of physics.)

> However, from your perspective,
> these people are limited to
> something very close to two dimensional
> space. Granted, the image
> has some thickness, albeit very small.

Ah! A little bit of sanity creeps into this petty pace!
Not much, but a little bit does. That's a start.

> Now, in your imagination, shrink the
> image's thickness on down to
> less than a Planck Length.

Does it really matter how thick the image is?
And, who sez when we get to a Planck's Length's
thickness we won't get bitten by an even tinier tick?

> From your perspective it is no longer
> discernable, but it is still there.

"In your imagination" everything is possible, yes.

> From your perspective, their
> third dimension is rolled up to less
> than a Planck Length. But,
> from their perspective their third
> dimension is no different than
> their other two dimensions.

A truly "really" three-dimensional "thing" could
only be observed from "six" very specific, very
specifically placed very infinitely infinitesimal
"impossible" positions (hint: no such positions
are possible in reality, ole boy):

BEGIN QUOTE

END QUOTE

Repeat after me: IF A ONE-DIMENSIONAL
ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEN A TWO-
DIMENSIONAL ANYTHING IS TWICE AS
IMPOSSIBLE.

> This is not a real-world kind of thing,

There ya go! THAT's my whole point in a
banana peel.

> but it does provide a
> rather nice way of getting the concept.

I'm sure that as long as you understand, Gordon,
the world/the universe will sleep soundly tonight.

> Those other dimensions
> could very well be right her in our midst,

There ya go! THAT's the whole problem right there
out of the safety of its banana peel:

The instant you even so much as HINT at the
mere possibility that it's possible to assign a
(necessarily limiting) number to the dimensions
of "anything" you are literally knocking all sorts
of bits from "it" OUT of existence (in our reality).

And THAT would be a jolly nice trick indeed. Gordon!

> but if they are less
> than a Planck Length, they are completely
> indiscernible to us.
> Gordon

Gordon, if something exists, it does (or, if it doesn't
it doesn't). But you can't cheat on the rule by ANY
means. (And I should think CERTAINLY NOT by merely
shrinking the thing out of sight... or tossing a hanky
over it and hollering, "Abracadabra!")

Voila!

[sdro...@sdrodrian.com]

EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag Bill
>Hobba <rub...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> > Rest of usual very long winded
> semantic junk snipped.
>
> I too think that this is semantics.

Yup, this is indeed "the study of meaning."
Unless your usage is the reprehensibly vulgar
"propaganda."

> The definition of reality, for
> example, limits the possibilities.

If we do not define reality... we are mad.
It is our social agreement on the purpose/use
(et al) of things (including ourselves)
which makes them sensible.

Think of a dog's brain, and what he makes of
the items in his master's house: Since most of
those items have no "dog use" they must not
register as they do to us. Therefore your dog
must think that you live in a heap of trash, a
clean, a synthetically perfumed dump. (Which
is why most dogs puzzle eternaly over their masters'
objection to their crapping all over the place, I'm
sure: "It's just a dump, forheavens'sake! Wolf!")

Reality is all. And we can hardly go about
thinking everything at the same time, now can we!

> Additionally, there is an underlying
> assumption that human senses can
> completely discern all existing dimensions,
> which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three! This is a
bum assumption [that our reality is confined
to three dimensions] ... but if you go back up
this thread of posts you will eventually reach
the part where I point out your insanity (that's
my job). And then you too shall be cured!

> I'd appreciate comments on these observations
> by the OP.

OP

http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

> A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
> --Edward R. Murrow

A nation of wolves will make a bloody mess of any/all
governments proposed for them. ---S D Rodrian

.
.
.

[Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com]

I hardly banish the notion of higher dimensions.
In fact I believe that I have a construction that supports them while
also supporitng spacetime:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
It is not necessary to deny the 3D observations that we make.
By working out the puzzle of how they come to be we may find the best
theory.
They are generally imposed on theories as empirically evident.
But theory is supposed to predict the empirical, not rely upon it.
The polysign claim is that higher dimensions are poorly behaved
according to the usual concept of dimensionality. Oddly enough these
heigher dimensions are very well behaved arithmetically under the
polysign construction. They just don't conserve distance in their
product above P3.
So the usage of a ruler in the product space will only lead to
cohenernt measures in three of the dimensions. Time is accounted for as
well under this natural construction. There are no special laws in it.
Just special behaviors as a result of those laws.

-Tim

[kunzmilan]

>In graph theory, you can consider graphs as dimensionless objects. Fine.
>It is known that some graphs can not be drawn on paper without crossing edges. Fact.
>Graphs are connected with several kinds of matrices: incidence, Laplace Kirchhoff, adjacency, distance, etc.. Fact.
>These matrices have eigenvalues. Fact
The number of nonzero eigenvalues determines the dimensionality of the
graph (at least the mathematical one). Hypothesis.
>Elements of distance matrices are the number of edges between two vertices.
The largest distance in the linear chain x-x-x-x is 3, similarly as the
largest distance in cube. Fact
>Try to use squared distances, 9 for the linear chain, 3 for the cube. in this case, the number of nonzero eigenvalues is determined by the shape of the arranged objects, not by their number. Fact
>Physical, chemical and biological properties of molecules depend on eigenvalues of their matrices (or their sums). Fact
>It is simpler to consider molecules as multidimensional objects embedded into 3 dimensions than to explain observed facts by other theories.
kunzmilan

[G=EMC^2 Glazier]

Tim There is no Achilles heel in the string theory. That is a mindless
thing to say. The minds of Brian Greene,and Edward Witten have given us
the string theory that makes good science. When we can come up with an
experiment to show its reality we will be that much closer to TOE Bert

[Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com]

I'm open to anything that makes sense.
It's highly likely that the laws of nature can be expressed in several
forms,
no different than a spherical coordinate system is equivalent to a
Cartesian one.
So whether it's strings or point particles I don't care. The catch is
that if the system lacks simplicity it will not be very convincing.
Wouldn't you think that natural laws would come out simple? From what
little I understand of modern string theory it is as inaccessible as
quantum theory. Also the question 'why 3D extended space?' is a
fundamental problem that Brian Greene shrugs off, or at least shrugged
off to me when I asked him once at a book signing after a presentation
of his in Harvard square. This is the fundamental flaw of string
theory. And then on top of it when you have a 10D theory the question
will be 'why 10?'. Will you answer that with a higher dimension theory
of supercurled dimensions? Better to start with 'why 3?' and get a
solid answer.

I've just started working out a quantum flux theory that could be
viewed as a hybrid of the two. It uses n-poles as the basic point
particles. Flux are the only interaction media. They are like magnetism
but strict magnetism is the dipole variety, where there is one line of
flux entering and one leaving. The flux laws are still an open problem
but I think it makes quite a bit of sense. They are probably Dirac
strings, but maybe some of modern string theory would be helpful also.
My attempt is to model the electron, neutron, and proton as n-poles.
Probably the electron is a 1-pole, a neutron a 2-pole, and a proton a
3-pole, each with one identity node of exiting flux, and the other
nodes receptors for incoming flux. It's pretty simpleminded. Probably
you could get a fifth grader to understand it.

-Tim

[G=EMC^2 Glazier]

Tim You ask why 3 dimensions? The answer is 2 would mean a flat world.
Large objects are spheres not circles. Not 10 dimensions anymore Witten
has it down to 7,and three of the 7 are the ones in the macro realm
Bert

[Cranks Reply]

like you would know, you dickwad.

[Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com]

The word 'tautology' comes to mind for most explanations.
Any explanation that requires physics may be flawed in this way.
In the same way the anthropic principle is a weak paradigm.
Spacetime is a deep metaphysical problem.
The string theorists have unknowingly cracked it open.
That these things appear paradoxical to us is appropriate.
We are products of this construction.
Our abilities to observe it or take it apart may be limited.
In that regard pure theory has its place.
We seek a consistent basis.

-Tim

[sdro...@sdrodrian.com]

EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

> I cannot agree that "social agreement ... makes [things] sensible".

Please talk it over with your dog. And you'llassie I'm right.

> Additionally, that which is not sensible may nevertheless be real. Many
> wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are not sensible, and were
> unknown prior to the invention of certain machines. Nevertheless, they
> are real.

I think you're confusing cotton candy with radiation:

All that existed before man existed. And all
that will exist after Man will exist. But nobody
made change for a dollar before Man, and no-
body will laugh at a good joke after Man (nor
at a bad one, smarty pants). --SDR

> The same may hold true for spatial dimensions in excess of 3.

May I speak with your dog? I think it might be
more sensible...

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let's try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

If one abstracts the least single dimension from ANYTHING
it effectivey removes that something from reality. And then
you are talking fantasy (science-fiction).

Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL "dimension(s)"
which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER "dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY part of it
depends on the existence of Santy Claus, then it has NO
connection with reality PERIOD. And since string theory
can only balance its equations by piling on extraneous (e.g.
impossible) "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

> > > Additionally, there is an underlying
> > > assumption that human senses can
> > > completely discern all existing dimensions,
> > > which is an unproven assumption.
>
> > This happens when you come in late into the
> > conversation: You are assuming that there are
> > such things as mathematical dimensions in
> > the universe apart from "our" three!
>

> No, not quite. I am assuming that the possibility exists that there are
> more than 3 spatial dimension.

And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't made up
of all the innumerable (look up that word in a book called
The Dictionary) dimensions of our reality.

IF SOMETING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called other
"dimensions" are superflous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your life
trying to figure out how string theory governs life!

>? I have no strong opinion on whether such
> dimensions are real.

Then prey tell, what be U doing in this conversation?

> I concede that they are not presently sensible. I
> hold open the possibility that, with unknown technology, they may become
> sensible.

What about ghosts? And pixies? And gods? And
those beings that consist only of unglued eyes with ears
stuck to them...?

S D Rodrian

[sdro...@sdrodrian.com]

EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> sdro...@sdrodrian.com wrote:

> Could I be more specific about what I mean?
> Let's try:
> NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
> "ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE
DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.

Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).

> If one abstracts the least single dimension from

> ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from

> reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
> fiction).

This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).

And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).

... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts to
describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.

In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."

The trick is not being led to believe that
"mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.

If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.

Trying to advance the process,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

RE:

> Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
> "dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
> "dimension(s)."
>
> PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/207d22acd7b50bab/9004a8405b2b8dd7?q=rodrian+%22The+Achilles+Heel+of+String+Theory%22&hl=en&rnum=1&lnk=ol

"

> String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
> part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
> then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
> since string theory can only balance its equations
> by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
> "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

> > I am assuming that the possibility exists that

> > there are more than 3 spatial dimension.
>
> And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't
> made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
> a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
> reality.
>

> IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY

> DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
> (And if something exists in one or more dimension
> than those of our reality... then those so-called

> other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)

>
> String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
> Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your
> life trying to figure out how string theory governs
> life!

RE:

The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of

elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely

mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in

animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even
theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything
being even one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion

see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com