# What is gravity really.

2 views

### S D Rodrian

Nov 20, 2000, 10:42:49 PM11/20/00
to
In article <8vahf6\$mr0\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> In article <3a18...@news.sentex.net>,
> "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
>
> > Um...just for the sake or argument, why
> > would it require ether for a wave
> > medium? EM waves don't.
> ==
> [EL]
> Why do you need hands to wave your hands?
> Why do you need a sea to make waves you can see?
> Why do you need air to make sound waves and know
> that they are there?
> Waves in nothing are not waves "of" nothing,
> but just nothing with no waves.
> We are not talking about Aether "out there"
> but right "in here".
> What you understand as the empty space in
> an atom is not empty at all.
> :-)
> Particles are waves in Aether.
> It is that simple.

Errrrr.... pardon moi, EL, but I believe the poster was
asking how come, if (Maxwell's equations) EM waves can
propagate without a medium, how come other waves can't.
It's not as simple as just merely saying that no wave
can propagate through a vacuum.

START QUOTE

In a nut-shell (no pun intended)...

Maxwell's theory is a theory of waves
in a continuous (i.e., infinitely divisible)
medium. The energy of the waves is also infinitely
divisible so that an indefinitely small amount
can be emitted or absorbed by matter. Classical
physical theories of the 19th century had predicted
that in such a system the energy in equilibrium
would be distributed so as to give an equal amount
to each mode (frequency) of vibration. Because
a continuous medium has an infinite number of modes
of vibration, and the atoms (which constitute matter)
have only a finite number, all the energy of the
universe would be transformed into waves of high
frequency. Maxwell understood this difficulty, which
was later most clearly stated in the Rayleigh-Jeans law
(after two English physicists, Lord Rayleigh and
Sir James Hopwood Jeans) of the radiation of a
blackbody (a body in which the intake and output
of energy are in equilibrium). The German physicist
Max Planck demonstrated that it is necessary to
postulate that radiant-heat energy is emitted only
in finite amounts, which are now called quanta.
At first, it was hoped to retain, without modification,
the theory of light as electromagnetic waves in free
space and to use the quantum concept only in relation
to the interaction between radiation and matter.
In 1905, however, Einstein showed that, in the
photoelectric effect, light behaves as if all the
energy were concentrated in quanta--i.e., particles
of energy now called photons. In the same year,
Einstein published the theory of relativity, which
modified the whole of physics and gave a special role
to the velocity constant c. Because light, in some
situations, behaves like waves and, in others, like
particles, it is necessary to have a theory that
predicts when and to what extent each kind of
behaviour is manifested. The main development of
the quantum mechanics, which does precisely this,
took place between 1925 and 1935.
Light from ordinary sources is emitted by atoms
the phases of which are not correlated with one
another, so that there is a random irregularity
or incoherence between the waves emitted from
different atoms. This places severe restrictions
on the conditions under which the periodicity
associated with wave theory can be observed.
In England, Lord Rayleigh appreciated this effect
and knew that, by the use of pinholes or slits and
light of a narrow range of wavelength, effectively
coherent light could be produced. For a long time,
interest in this topic lapsed. About 1935 Frits
Zernike, a Dutch physicist, and others extended
the theory of coherence to include the concept of
partial coherence. This appeared to be of practical
importance only in a few rather special applications
(e.g., in the Michelson stellar interferometer). [It is
difficult to estimate the accuracy of Michelson's 1927
and 1935 experiments, and it is no longer important
to do so in view of the more accurate measurements
made since 1945. His most important contribution to
the measurement of the velocity was the proof that
the velocity agreed with Maxwell's prediction to
better than one part in a thousand. This gave
confidence to those working on applications of the
electromagnetic theory.] A theory of stimulated
emission, attributable to the work of Einstein
and an English physicist, Paul A.M. Dirac, postulated
that under certain conditions atoms could be made to
could be maintained indefinitely. The practical
realization of these conditions, previously thought
to be impossible, was achieved in 1960. A second major
development in the theory of light in this century is
the application of so-called Fourier transform methods
(a mathematical treatment of light waves) to a wide
range of optical problems and, especially, to the
transfer of information in optical systems. Today,
the theory of light has again reached a point at which
all known terrestrial phenomena are included in one
logical theory. The known unsolved problems concern
the transmission of light over the vast distances of
intergalactic space. Here the theory of light impinges
on the science of cosmology.

Historically the theory of electricity and magnetism
developed in the form of a number of empirical laws
each of which was a generalization based on a series
of experiments; e.g., Coulomb's law dealt with the
force between two stationary electric charges.
Maxwell replaced all these laws by a single theory
concisely stated in the form of a set of vector
equations. It has been said that Maxwell's theory is
Maxwell's equations, and indeed it is impossible to do
justice to Maxwell's achievement without use of these
equations. [You may refer to standard texts on
electromagnetic theory for the equations themselves
which are understandable to those who understand them
already, and so not useful here.] However... Electric
and magnetic fields are specified by means of the
vectors E and H with which are associated the
vectors D, B, and J (electric and magnetic induction
and density of electric current). Maxwell's equations
fall into two groups: (1) three constitutive equations
and (2) four field equations. All material bodies
contain electrons. These are negative charges circulating
around heavier nuclei that are positively charged. When
an electric field is applied to a material body, the
average positions of the negative charges relative to
the positions of the positive charges are changed.
This creates an internal electric field. Similarly
the action of a magnetic field on a material changes
the movement of the electrons and sets up an internal
magnetic field. The constitutive equations state that
effects within a material body are proportional to
the applied fields so that the resultant fields within
the body are proportional to the applied field. Certain
constants are defined: is the dielectric constant, is
the magnetic permeability, and is the electrical
conductivity. There is no general agreement, however,
concerning these constants, and therefore some
authorities use a different nomenclature.

The first of the four field equations quantifies certain
properties of the electric induction at the boundary of
a volume that contains a net positive or negative charge.

The second states that, since there are no free magnetic
poles, a certain integral of magnetic quantities is zero.

The third equation states that, when the magnetic flux
through a surface changes, electrical voltages appear on
the boundaries of the surface.

The fourth states that electrical currents in conducting
materials and changes of the electric induction in
nonconducting materials produce magnetic effects.

[When Maxwell's equations are combined, using standard
mathematical methods, a new equation is obtained. It
predicts the existence of electromagnetic waves, with
well-defined properties which says that in free space
(vacuo) electromagnetic waves are propagated with a phase
velocity c. Plane waves are propagated without attenuation.
Spherical waves have an amplitude inversely proportional
to the distance from a small source.]

The field equations (like the constitutive equations)
are linear equations: they state that certain quantities
are proportional to one another; e.g., the third equation
states that the electrical voltages are directly proportional
to the rate of change of magnetic flux. In Maxwell's
equations, electricity and magnetism are two aspects of
one thing called electromagnetism. Maxwell's theory can
indeed be stated in a way that does not mention electricity
and magnetism separately. The three constitutive equations
and the first three of the field equations are precise
formulations of known empirical laws.

In the fourth field equation Maxwell introduced a new
hypothesis--that an electrical change in a nonconductor
produces magnetic effects. This hypothesis--which can be
verified by electrical experiments--leads to the theory of
electromagnetic waves capable of being propagated through
a vacuum.

END QUOTE

As you can see... "waves through a vacuum" is a very
special interpretation of electromagnetism. While
conventionally waves require a medium to propagate
(and this led to Einstein's description of light
traveling through a vacuum NOT as a wave but as a
quantum particle, which is our dearly beloved photon).
Thank you, Einstein, for getting rid once & for all
of that goofy 19th Century delusion... the Ether!
Too bad Einstein simply replaced one myth with another
myth (namely, the delusion that Time AND space have
pertinent/critical existence... while the truth is
that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only
the absence of anything existing there--But one can't
have everything, so I give thanks for all Einstein
gave us and ignore the usual human prejudices inherent
to the age one inhabits).

> I recommend shaving by Occam's razor, it is the best.
> EL Hemetis

ONLY when the razor is in the hands of a competent
barber (like me, for instance). In the clumsy hands
of a butcher like EL (and others in these NGs, who
shall remain unnamed by me, but who will be only too
eager to show off who/what they are)... all fine
instruments turn destructively cumbersome and crude.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### S D Rodrian

Nov 20, 2000, 11:07:41 PM11/20/00
to
In article <26545-3A...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> To All going down a hole 10 miles gravity gets weaker.
> Going up 10 miles
> gravity gets weaker.

Wow! That means that if we're ten miles high [pun]
gravity gets weaker when we go down 10 miles.
And if we're 10 miles deep gravity gets weaker
if we go up 10 miles! [Of course, this seems to
contradict itself, but who cares? It's grand!]

> Man can create his own gravity.

Absolutely: If you jump of a cliff
will be so heavy they'll with crack stones
(not just corns)... provided the cliff
was high enough [no pun].

> Nature uses
> gravity in every way.

Except when somebody breaks wind in
a crowded elevator--Stuff goes right up
everybody's noses like lit rockets!

> I would like to think that
> electromagnetizum was a
> form of a gravity force(no way)

Myself, I would like to think that
I have no worries in this world.

> Nature gave us free force of
> gravity.Electricity as a useful energy
> we have to produce our selves. It
> would be nice if we could plug into
> the ground instead of a wall socket.

Save that snippet (it'll make a
hell of an ad for the Earth-Soil
Power Company... E S P ).

> There is no free lunch,

There is too: But one must NOT
be able to afford it (to get it).
I wonder if you got it, Herb.

> but gravity is a free dinner. Herb

Sorry, Herb: Gravity is energy
and energy is NEVER really owned: It's
only rented... so if you stuff yourself
(this Thanksgivings) be prepared to
throw it all up... or to Go To The Can
(do not stop on GO, do not collect \$200).

In any case: Happy Thanksgivings!
(And my Bush win.)

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org

### S D Rodrian

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
to
In article <3A1A539C.5A35@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:

> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Herb: Gravity is energy
> > and energy is NEVER really owned: It's
> > only rented... so if you stuff yourself
> > (this Thanksgivings) be prepared to
> > throw it all up... or to Go To The Can
> > (do not stop on GO, do not collect \$200).
>
> Gravity is a force.

There is but one force in the universe
and that is Gravity; the only thing that
exists in the universe is motion, and that
is energy; the only energy that exists
in the universe can only be fundamentally
described as either vectored energy or
as infinite (scalar) mass: Therefore
the only force in the universe is Gravity
(the universe of matter) and, by definition:
the repelling force embodied in the universe
of energy (infinite (scalar) mass).

Gravity is energy (even if you wish
to call energy a force).

> > In any case: Happy Thanksgivings!

> > (And may Bush win.)
>
> He'll fuck up worse than
> Herbert Hoover. I personally
> can't wait.

You may be right, although, unlike
you: I hope he doesn't.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### EL

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
to
In article <8vdm3t\$8aa\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

> In article <3A1A539C.5A35@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,
> Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> > S D Rodrian wrote:

> Gravity is energy (even if you wish to call energy a force).

> S D Rodrian
===========
[EL]
The physics equations treat gravity as a force (LMT^-2).
While energy is work (L^2MT^-2).
Yet an ignorant Rodrian likes to drool drivel driven by Spam unforgiven.
Force to you is like when you were raped by force.
You post to humor because your search engine reported it
when you were looking for hemorrhoids
(you should have used a spelling checker first).
--
Now learn a lesson from the source.
Say after me that gravity is a force.
No need to talk, I know you're a horse.
A horse of course is a horse.
Yet some are sons of whores.
You Spam to often and run off course.
Say gravity is a force of course.
Now don't you try feel remorse.
Its all in books of course of course.
And all the fun is in the pun Up yours.
But a horse can't talk of course.
Say gravity is a force of course.
or kick then blow your nose.
while I tell you the tale.
Say gravity is a force of course.
But a horse can't talk of course.
You Spam to often and run off course.
Say gravity is a force
--
EL Hemetis

### EL

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
to

### G=EMC^2 Glazier

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
to
Hi SDR There is no contradiction about the way II showed the gravity
would be buoyant the other the direction of the elevator. Herb PS My
advice if you have a theory that you think is good,say it in as few
words as possible

### rry...@hotmail.com

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
to
In article <8vdm3t\$8aa\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

> Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> to call energy a force).

Rod: How does a rodent screw a lightbulb ?
Simple , the force of gravity . Sit and spin rodent .
Use the energy of gravity powering your lightbulb , to read by
and ponder the following .

--
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth .

### Bill Sheppard

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
to
Not yet answered is the one simple question:

Why is there no discernable upper limit to the amplitude of energy that
can be transmitted through "nothing" or vacuum?

The one caveat: no "messenger particles" are allowed. Such "messengers"
are invoked when logic is stymied, and are the modern equivalent of the
deities of ancient priesthoods.

So what does pure logic say to the aforementioned question? "Messenger
particles"? Or, a superdense, pre-existant Matrix underlying the
superficial phenomena of matter/energy?
(This Matrix is not to be confused with the 'ether'. As the
word implies, 'ether' is tenuous and insubstantial in comparison to
matter, making 'ether' the diametric opposite of the Matrix of space. To
this Matrix, the universe of matter/energy is the tenuous and diaphanous
after-thought tagged on.)
The late physicist David Bohm was one of the few
'mainstream' scientists to posit such a concept. He saw the phenomenal
density of space itself as primal to all else - and the Newtonian
universe as a great hologram within it. Dr. Karl Pribram, a Stanford
neurophysiologist, was a corroborator with Bohm on the holographic
nature of reality.

Two websites worth checking out on Bohm and Pribram are -

www.muc.de/~heuvel/bohm/

oc

### S D Rodrian

Nov 21, 2000, 10:33:43 PM11/21/00
to
In article <3A1AEF88...@msu.edu>,
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------153C13118A8E48C0B059EB2B
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> ... the truth is

> > that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only
> > the absence of anything existing there--But one can't
> > have everything, so I give thanks for all Einstein
> > gave us and ignore the usual human prejudices inherent
> > to the age one inhabits.
>
> Hold on there, brother! "The" truth?
> Truth is not relative, but is
> ethereal.

The truth is the mandate of the strong.
(I ripped off, "Might is right." Sue me.)

> It is only an idenitifcation of congrunecy between a
> mathematically-presentable model, and
> general principles operable in all
> experience.

You mean it's true then that 1 and 1 = 11 ...?

> and existence is a patent
> mistake, ignoring the nature

I, on the other hand, propose
that I have enough experience.

> Creating a consistent mathematical model
> does not prove that all
> principles have been accounted for.

1 and 1 = 11 ...?

> Besides which, the model of which
> you speak is not consistent.

1 and 1 <> 11 ...?

> If time does not exist, and the
> 'illusion' of duration is only because
> of the existence of simlar and proximate
> records, you still have the
> sticky problem of explaining why
> we experience *any* now,

Because the Novocain has wore off, pardner!

> let alone, the
> same one, together.

That is only a mental paradox (semantically
superfluous, since paradoxes can only exist
in the mind). "Get yourself together, man!"
is simply a common expression (one never
experiences the necessity to combine with
none other). Besides, as I have been trying
to tell you: The same 1 together (with the
other 1, I assume) is always eleven, and
always will be 11.

> Also - extension does not predicate emptiness.

I am thinking now of a vast extent of
emptiness: Rats! There is no way for you
to understand this. O well....

> The infinte extent of
> various fields means that there is
> no such thing as 'void'.

Which fields are these? If it's a
baseball field... you're going to get
a lot of grief from batters trying for a
homerun!

music.sdrodrian.com

> -Tm

re:

> Straylight wrote:
> >
> > This is not an overal criticism of
> > the argument,just a nedling of one point:
> >
> > " The THING that must exist is SOMETHING enduring
> > AND now you have ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE: Motion! "
> >
> > How can there be motion in space
>
> Motions is everywhere (and, in fact, by definition
> motion is all there is to matter/energy, and
> therefore where there is no matter/energy, there
> is no motion... so it's something of a misnomer
> to say that there is motion IN space--just
>
> > without time to diferentiate between
> > "frames" of location relative to itelf
> > as it moves/has moved in that
> > space?
>
> There are no "frames" to differentiate (except IN
> the human mind). Motions is unending, unstopping
> and absolutely relativistic INSIDE the universe.
>
> By definition TIME requires at least two motions:
> The one times, and the one against which the first
> motion is timed: As you can see, time is a development
> AFTER motion (if you have one motion, it is impossible
> to describe it as slow/fast/OR moving AT ALL ... and
> yet it still exists... that is absolute rest, or the
> universe of energy). You have an irresistible force
> meeting an immovable object (a paradox ONLY in the
> mind, as there are no paradoxes in the universe).
> They meet. Outside the universe one or the other
> may win, but INSIDE the universe they will both
> cancel out because MOTION is relative in here: The
> immovable object is only immovable in relation to
> other motions, while the irresistible force is only
> irresistible in relation to other motions: They meet.
> And become a third motion: Conservation of energy,
> conservation of motion (energy = motion). All that
> exists is motion (energy). All else, the timing of
> motions, the measurements of energy... that is for us
> to entertain ourselves with.
>
> > If movement is your definition of a
> > "constant instant" you forget that
> > movement itself is a progressive marker.
>
> There are no pauses or "instants" in nature:
> There is only eternal, unstopping motion.
> A block of steel may seem to you as if it is
> solidly "on hold" (or motionless) only IF
> you do not understand the idea of atoms and
> subparticles.
>
> > Just trying to join in the fun!
> > Straylight
>
> Welcome to the madhouse slugfest!
> Look: No commercials. (Only kooks.)
>
> S D Rodrian
> wisdom.findhere.org
> web.sdrodrian.com

### S D Rodrian

Nov 21, 2000, 10:51:42 PM11/21/00
to
In article <8ve413\$jmr\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

rry...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <8vdm3t\$8aa\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> > to call energy a force).
>
> Rod: How does a rodent screw a lightbulb ?
> Simple , the force of gravity . Sit and spin rodent .
> Use the energy of gravity powering your
> lightbulb , to read by
> and ponder the following .
>
> [EL]
> The physics equations treat gravity as a force (LMT^-2).
> While energy is work (L^2MT^-2).

What is a force? What is gravity? SEE:

http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity/ar-11.htm

Energy is motion, motion does/is work. (There:
isn't that much simpler to understand/visualize.)

Gravity is energy, energy is the force of motion.

The conservation of energy IS the conservation of
motion: A large, slow motion = a small, fast motion.
Individual motions in the universe neither come into
existence or cease to exist... rather, they transfer
their energy to other motions to slow down (Newton)
and acquire energy from other motions to speed up.

(There, now you understand the universe, and you
didn't even have to be an understanding person.)

PS. The infantile portions of the original post
do not merit a response.

> EL Hemetis
> Rod Ryker...

### nightbat

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
to
nightbat wrote

Bill, because of the skin effect of voltage differential.
Thermal differential is the matrix's instantaneous self messenger. The
ether is internally bipolar in neutral conformity to an uniform
homogenous physical frequency reality. The rest are localized
dimensional states of curved distortions, and relative, as Dr. Einstein
predicted. The thermal coefficient is the tensor that acts as the
elastic conduct for upper or lower limit of degree of reflection of
variant kinetic motion. The Master frequency of totality of potential
uniform neutral force itself invariant but at once reducible into
multiple sub octaves of point or wave like dynamic singularity, of
attractive or repulsive higher or lower resonance's and pitch. As
nonuniform motion or velocity changes + or - , so does the voltaic
differential and hence its thermal state. All electric charge therefore
seeks body of most uniform motion, non resistance, or ground state.

the nightbat

### S D Rodrian

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
to
In article <3A1B5331...@msu.edu>,
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> James Hunter wrote:

> >
> > Tom McWilliams wrote:
> >
> > > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > ... the truth is
> > > > that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only
> > > > the absence of anything existing there--But one can't
> > > > have everything, so I give thanks for all Einstein
> > > > gave us and ignore the usual human prejudices inherent
> > > > to the age one inhabits.
> >
> > Einstein was a only temporal subgenius
> > (a Fig Newton kiss-ass as it
> > were).
> >
> > Since "spacetime" is simply a cheap imitation of space,
> > Einstonian kiss-asses are scheduled to be replaced by robots
> > in the not-to-distance future and the Big "Bang" will be
> > reclassified from a being religous site into a blasting zone.
>
> Assuming the Zeemen effect does not explain
> the red-shifts. In which
> case, the "Big-Bang" will be
> reclassified as "wrong."
> -Tm

Although it IS quite possible that scientists
may yet find some rationalization or other to
disreguard the evidence of the reh-shifts...

the fact will always remain that the galaxies ARE
receding from each other as Hubble first described
them:

Dogma may be forced upon some men, but
science will ultimately always
reassert the freedom of all men.

music.sdrodrian.com

### S D Rodrian

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
to
that would be less flattering here to the poster
than the unflattering self-portrait the poster
paints of himself with his own post.

re:

In article <8ve413\$jmr\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rry...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <8vdm3t\$8aa\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> > to call energy a force).
>
> Rod: How does a rodent screw a lightbulb ?
> Simple , the force of gravity . Sit and spin rodent .
> Use the energy of gravity powering your lightbulb , to read by
> and ponder the following .
>
> [EL]
> The physics equations treat gravity as a force (LMT^-2).
> While energy is work (L^2MT^-2).

### S D Rodrian

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
to
In article <20001121120029...@ng-md1.aol.com>,

jdg...@aol.com (Jdguil) wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> >In article <26545-3A...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> >herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> >> To All going down a hole 10 miles gravity gets weaker.
> >> Going up 10 miles
> >> gravity gets weaker.
> >
> >Wow! That means that if we're ten miles high [pun]
> >gravity gets weaker when we go down 10 miles.
> >And if we're 10 miles deep gravity gets weaker
> >if we go up 10 miles! [Of course, this seems to
> >contradict itself, but who cares? It's grand!]
>
> Actually that part of herbertglazer's post
> was not a contradiction. Gravity is
> theoretically strongest at the surface
> of the Earth, and would get weaker if
> you either go up in altitude or down
> into the interior of the Earth.

I'm afraid this is a common misconception with
regards to this particular case: Gravity NEVER
weakens or strengthens but, like a beam of light,
becomes dispersed (thinned out) by distance AND
by another source's gravity running counter to it:

When you go ten miles up from the surface
of the earth... the beam's concentration
becomes dispersed (thinned) into more distance
the farther up you go. So that, in the beam analogy,
the light shining on you will grow dimmer.

But when you go ten miles down in the planet
the concentration ALSO becomes dispersed, this
time by the gravitational effect of all the mass
around you and above you (it is as if the photons
of one beam of light were canceled out and neutralized
by the photons of another intersecting beam of light
with the net result being the same as before... there
are less photons available to you and therefore it all
gets just as dim as if there were only one beam of
light and you were traveling away from it):

Gravity itself can cancel out gravity just as
effectively as distance so that as you go
down farther and farther into the planet you
will weigh less and less (without being crushed
as if between two massive bodies, assuming you're
descending via some astonishingly hardened shaft)
until at the center of the planet you will "experience"
no effect of gravity at all (and you'll be able to
float down there as you would in outer space... provided
there's a great big room there for you to do it in).

This misconception plays a funny role in movies
such as, "Voyage To The Center of The Earth"
where at that "center" they find an ocean very
coolly lying on its bed while the voyagers' rings
and even gold teeth are "sucked upwards."

> <snip>
> Of course the rest of his ideas are, well, rather unique.
>
> Regards,
> Jim

### Pete Lawrence

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
g

### Pete Lawrence

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
g

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:16:54 GMT, S D Rodrian

>that would be less flattering here to the poster
>than the unflattering self-portrait the poster
>paints of himself with his own post.
>
>S D Rodrian
>wisdom.findhere.org
>web.sdrodrian.com
>
>re:
>
>In article <8ve413\$jmr\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rry...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> In article <8vdm3t\$8aa\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

>> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>>

### Marcus Webb

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
m

### Marcus Webb

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
a

### G=EMC^2 Glazier

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00
to
Hi SDR Gravity is what I think most of.So I'll sum up my thought with
rather known stuff.First I like the word gravitation better.I like the
definition of a force as what makes things move. The gravitational
force acts between any two pieces of matter and tries to bring them
together.(good so far?) That takes in every particle in the universe.It
seems that gravitational attraction is an inherent property of matter
itself.The big question is WHY? It is in my
thinking that "mutual attraction" is much better than a one-way
attraction. Einstein said if the earth came up to the
apple it could answer some questions.It does not because of its superior
mass. An objects mass is the amount of
stuff it contains,Here on earth we measure mass by seeing how strongly
the earth's gravity can pull it down on a scale.The amount of pull is
the objects weight.The scale needs some thought,for it is measuring the
amount of mutual attraction between the earth and the object.
SRD if you get on a scale do not blame it on the earth's gravity getting
stronger,its because you eat to much turkey. Well you could blame it on
moving closer to the earth's poles. Well to sum up
all these facts is nice but it does not answer WHY the particle
attraction. I have my theories on this,but I use another group that is
for new theories to air them. Herb

Nov 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/26/00
to

"S D Rodrian" <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:8vffsd\$qav\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> Energy is motion, motion does/is work. (There:
> isn't that much simpler to understand/visualize.)

But you seem to have screwed it up anyway. There is no motion in chemical
potential energy. The fact that there definitely is stored chemical energy
is evident every time you switch on a flashlight/torch.

> Gravity is energy, energy is the force of motion.

Your concept of energy needs to be expanded to include stored energy that
has no motion associated with it, like that snow shelf that could be
triggered by a sharp noise into collapsing into an avalanche.

Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO

### G=EMC^2 Glazier

Nov 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/26/00
to
The definition of a force is it creates motion. Centripetal
force can create a gravity effect. It also is best to say the astronauts
are operating in micro gravity and nor zero gravity,for there is no such
thing as zero gravity. Let me add that centripetal force is not exempt
from gravity.Gravity makes the universe a unit and as a unit,avery
particle feel the attraction.This has been proven in a few ways.
Herb

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
>
> "S D Rodrian" <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:8vffsd\$qav\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

>
> > Energy is motion, motion does/is work. (There:
> > isn't that much simpler to understand/visualize.)
>
> But you seem to have screwed it up anyway.

I've considered that. Have you considered
that it is you who may be wrong?

> There is no motion in chemical potential energy.

Existence itself, whether called energy or motion,
is all there is to the universe (potential energy in
the form of the universe of energy, work in the form
of the universe of matter). However, there being
such dearth of even the most basis knowledge about
the nature/definition of the term "energy" that here
follow a few very brief, but very pertinent quotes
on the matter (intended to highlight why/how energy
is motion/motion is energy). Period.

START QUOTE

1) Energy may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal,
electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms.
There are, moreover, heat and work--i.e., energy in
the process of transfer from one body to another.
After it has been transferred, energy is always
designated according to its nature. Hence, heat
transferred may become thermal energy, while work done
may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.
All forms of energy are associated with motion. [For
example, any given body has kinetic energy if it is
in motion. A tensioned device such as a bow or spring,
though at rest, has the potential for creating motion;
it contains potential energy because of its configuration.
Similarly, nuclear energy is potential energy because it
results from the configuration of subatomic particles
in the nucleus of an atom. Energy can be converted from
one form to another in various ways. Usable mechanical
or electrical energy is, for instance, produced by many
kinds of devices, including fuel-burning heat engines,
generators, batteries, fuel cells, and magnetohydrodynamic
systems.] "Interparticle forces not only affect the
chemical and physical behaviour of substances, they
also determine to a large extent how a particle will
RESPOND to the APPROACH of a different particle. If
the two particles REACT with each other to FORM new
particles, a chemical reaction has occurred."

2) The energy of a body represents its ability to do
work, and work itself is a force acting over a distance:
Chemical systems can have both kinetic energy (energy
of motion) and potential energy (stored energy). The
kinetic energy possessed by any collection of molecules
in a solid, liquid, or gas is known as its thermal energy.
The temperature at which all molecular motion comes to
a halt is known as absolute zero. Work, in physics,
is the measure of energy transfer that occurs when
an object is moved over a distance by an external force
at least part of which is applied in the direction of
the displacement. If the force is constant, work may be
computed by multiplying the length of the path by
the component of the force acting along the path. Work
done on a body is accomplished not only by a
displacement of the body as a whole from one place
to another but also, for example, by compressing a gas,
by rotating a shaft, and even by causing invisible
motions of the particles within a body by an external
magnetic force. Work done on a body is equal to the
increase in the energy of the body, for work transfers
energy to the body. If, however, the applied force is
opposite to the motion of the object, the work is
considered to be negative, implying that energy is
taken from the object.

3) Potential energy is stored energy that depends upon
the relative position of various parts of a system. A
spring has more potential energy when it is compressed
or stretched. A steel ball has more potential energy
raised above the ground than it has after falling to
the Earth. In the raised position it is capable of
doing more work. Potential energy is a property of a
system and not of an individual body or particle; the
system composed of the Earth and the raised ball, for
example, has more potential energy as the two are farther
separated. Potential energy arises in systems with parts
that exert forces on each other of a magnitude dependent
on the configuration, or relative position, of the parts.
In the case of the Earth-ball system, the force of gravity
between the two depends only on the distance separating
them. The work done in separating them farther, or in
raising the ball, transfers additional energy to the
system, where it is stored as gravitational potential
energy. [Potential energy also includes other forms: The
energy stored between the plates of a charged capacitor
is electrical potential energy. What is commonly known
as chemical energy, the capacity of a substance to do work
or to evolve heat by undergoing a change of composition,
may be regarded as potential energy resulting from the
mutual forces among its molecules and atoms. Nuclear
energy is also a form of potential energy.] The potential
energy of a system of particles depends only on their
initial and final configurations; it is independent of
the path the particles travel. In the case of the steel
ball and the earth, if the initial position of the ball
is ground level and the final position is ten feet above
the ground, the potential energy is the same, no matter
how or by what route the ball was raised. The value of
potential energy is arbitrary and relative to the choice
of reference point. In the case given above, the system
would have twice as much potential energy if the initial
position were the bottom of a ten-foot-deep hole.
Gravitational potential energy near the Earth's surface
may be computed by multiplying the weight of an object
by its distance above the reference point. In bound
systems, such as atoms, in which electrons are held by
the electric force of attraction to nuclei, the zero
reference for potential energy is a distance from the
nucleus so great that the electric force is not detectable.
In this case, bound electrons have negative potential
energy, and those just free of the nucleus and at rest
have zero potential energy. Potential energy may be
converted into energy of motion, called kinetic energy,
and in turn to other forms such as electrical energy.
Thus, water behind a dam flows to lower levels through
turbines that turn electric generators, producing
electric energy plus some unusable heat energy resulting
from turbulence and friction. Historically, potential
energy was included with kinetic energy as a form of
mechanical energy so that the total energy in
gravitational systems could be calculated as a constant.
Energy also may be stored in atoms or molecules as
potential energy. When protons/neutrons combine to form
the nucleus of a certain element, the reduction in
potential energy is matched by the production of a huge
quantity of kinetic energy.

[Consider, for instance, the formation of the deuterium
nucleus from one proton and one neutron. The fundamental
mass unit of the chemist is the mole, which represents
the mass, in grams, of 6.02 X 10(23 power) individual
particles, whether they be atoms or molecules. One mole
of protons has a mass of 1.007825 grams and one mole
of neutrons has a mass of 1.008665 grams. By simple
addition the mass of one mole of deuterium atoms
(ignoring the negligible mass of one mole of electrons)
should be 2.016490 grams. The measured mass is 0.00239
gram less than this. The missing mass is known as the
binding energy of the nucleus and represents the mass
equivalent of the energy released by nucleus formation.
By using Einstein's formula for the conversion of mass
to energy (E=MC^2), one can calculate the energy equi-
valent of 0.00239 gram as 2.15 X 10(8 power) kilojoules.
This is approximately 240,000 times greater than the
energy released by the combustion of one mole of methane.
Such studies of the energetics of atom formation &
interconversion are part of a specialty known as nuclear
chemistry. NOTE: The energy released by the combustion
of methane is about 900 kilojoules per mole. Although
much less than the energy released by nuclear reactions,
the energy given off by a chemical process such as
combustion is great enough to be perceived as heat and
light. Energy is released in so-called exothermic
reactions because the chemical bonds in the product
molecules, carbon dioxide and water, are stronger and
stabler than those in the reactant molecules, methane
and oxygen. The chemical potential energy of the system
has decreased, and most of the released energy appears
as heat, while some appears as radiant energy, or light.
The heat produced by such a combustion reaction will
raise the temperature of the surrounding air and, at
constant pressure, increase its volume. This expansion
of air results in work being done. In the cylinder
of an internal-combustion engine, for example, the
combustion of gasoline results in hot gases that expand
against a moving piston. The motion of the piston turns
a crankshaft, which then propels the vehicle. In this
case, chemical potential energy has been converted to
thermal energy, some of which produces useful work. This
process illustrates a statement of the conservation of
energy known as the first law of thermodynamics. This
law states that, for an exothermic reaction, the energy
released by the chemical system is equal to the heat
gained by the surroundings plus the work performed. By
measuring the heat and work quantities that accompany
chemical reactions, it is possible to ascertain the
energy differences between the reactants and the products
of various reactions. In this manner, the potential
energy stored in a variety of molecules can be determined,
and the energy changes that accompany chemical reactions
can be calculated.]

4) Kinetic energy is that form of energy that an object
or a particle has by reason of its motion. If work, which
transfers energy, is done on an object by applying a net
force, the object speeds up and thereby gains kinetic
energy. Kinetic energy is a property of a moving object
or particle and depends not only on its motion but also
on its mass. The kind of motion may be translation (or
motion along a path from one place to another), rotation
about an axis, vibration, or any combination of motions.
[The total kinetic energy of a body or a system is equal
to the sum of the kinetic energies resulting from each
type of motion.] For a rotating body, the moment of
inertia, I, corresponds to mass, and the angular velocity
(omega), w, corresponds to linear, or translational,
velocity. Accordingly, rotational kinetic energy is equal
to one-half the product of the moment of inertia and
the square of the angular velocity, or 1/2 Iw(2 power).
[In an inelastic collision the sum of internal and
external energies is conserved, but some of the external
energy of bodily motion is irretrievably transformed
into internal random motions. The conservation of energy
is expressed in the macroscopic language of the first law
of thermodynamics--namely, energy is conserved provided
that heat is taken into account. The irreversible nature
of the transfer from external energy of organized motion
to random internal energy is a manifestation of the second
law of thermodynamics. The irreversible degradation of
external energy into random internal energy also explains
the tendency of all systems to come to rest if left to
themselves. If there is a configuration in which the
potential energy is less than for any slightly different
configuration, the system may find stable equilibrium
here because there is no way in which it can lose more
external energy, either potential or kinetic. This is
an example of an extremal principle--that a state of stable
equilibrium is one in which the potential energy is a
minimum with respect to any small changes in configuration.
It may be regarded as a special case of one of the most
fundamental of physical laws, the principle of increase of
entropy, which is a statement of the second law of
thermodynamics in the form of an extremal principle--the
equilibrium state of an isolated physical system is that
in which the entropy takes the maximum possible value.
[Force, in mechanics, is any action that tends to maintain
or alter the position of a body or to distort it. The
concept of force is commonly explained in terms of Newton's
three laws of motion set forth in his Principia Mathematica
(1687). According to Newton's first principle, a body that
is at rest or moving at a uniform rate in a straight line
will remain in that state until some force is applied to
it. The second law says that when an external force acts
on a body, it produces an acceleration (change in velocity)
of the body in the direction of the force. The magnitude
of the acceleration is directly proportional to the
magnitude of the external force and inversely proportional
to the quantity of matter in the body. Newton's third law
states that when one body exerts a force on another body,
the second body exerts an equal force on the first body.
This principle of action and reaction explains why a force
tends to deform a body (i.e., change its shape) whether or
not it causes the body to move. The deformation of a body
can usually be neglected when investigating its motion.]

5) Late in the 18th century, the interrelated work of
Joseph Priestley and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier led to
the overthrow of the "phlogiston" theory. Lavoisier saw
Priestley's discovery of oxygen in 1774 as the key to
the weight gains known to accompany the burning of sulfur
and phosphorus and the calcination of metals (oxide
clearly established that combustion consists of a chemical
combination between oxygen from the atmosphere and
combustible matter. By the end of the century, his ideas
were widely accepted and had been successfully applied
to the more complex processes of respiration and of
photosynthesis. [Reactions in which oxygen was consumed
were classified as oxidations, while those in which
oxygen was lost were termed reductions.] During the 19th
century, the evolving field of electrochemistry led to
a broadened view of oxidation. It was possible, for
instance, to produce the ferric, or iron(III), ion from
the ferrous, or iron(II), ion at the anode (positive
electrode, where electrons are absorbed from solution)
of an electrochemical cell (a device in which chemical
energy is converted to electrical energy). The similarity
of the two processes led to a precursor of the electron-
transfer explanation for redox reactions. After the
discovery of the electron, the conviction that oxidation
and reduction are accomplished through electron loss
and gain became firmly entrenched. Thus, early in the
20th century chemists tended to attribute all redox
reactions to the transfer of electrons. Later work on
chemical bonding, however, demonstrated the incorrectness
of that description. An electronegativity scale (listing
of elements in descending order of their tendency to
attract and hold bonding electrons) provided a firm basis
for the oxidation-state assignments on which oxidation-
reduction definitions have become based. [The very first
approximation of the true nature of combustion was posited
by Lavoisier, who discovered in 1772 that the products of
burned sulfur or phosphorus, in effect their ashes,
outweighed the initial substances, and postulated that
the increased weight was due to their having combined
with air. Interestingly, it was already known that metals
transformed by heat to metallic ash weighed less than
the metallic ash, but the theory was that in certain cases
phlogiston in metals had a negative weight, and upon
escaping during combustion, left the ash of the metal
heavier than it had been with the phlogiston in it. Later,
Lavoisier concluded that the "fixed" air that had combined
with the sulfur was identical to a gas obtained by
Priestley on heating the metallic ash of mercury--that is,
the "ashes" obtained when mercury was burned could be made
to release the gas with which the metal had combined. This
gas was also identical to that described by the Swedish
chemist, Carl Wilhelm Scheele, as an active fraction of air
that sustained combustion. Lavoisier called the gas "oxygen."
[Combustion, with rare exceptions, is a complex chemical
process involving many steps that depend on the properties
of the combustible substance. It is initiated by external
factors such as heat, light, and sparks. The reaction sets
in as the mixture of combustibles attains the ignition
temperature, and several aspects of this step can be defined.
First, a relationship exists between the ignition temperature
and the pressure of the mixture under specific conditions.
Only one temperature corresponds to a given pressure, whereas
one or three pressures, called the explosion limits, may
correspond to one temperature. The mechanism of the reaction
determines the explosion limits: the reaction can proceed
only when the steps in the sequence of reactions occur faster
than the terminal steps. Thus, for combustion to be initiated
with light, or with a spark, the light intensity or the spark
energy must exceed certain minimal values. The complexity of
the combustion reaction mechanism and the rapidly varying
temperatures and concentrations in the mixture make it
difficult and often impossible to derive an equation that
would be useful for predicting combustion phenomena over
wide temperature and concentration ranges. Instead, use is
made of empirical expressions derived for specific reaction
conditions.]

6) Electromagnetism is the science of charge and of the forces
and fields associated with charge. Electricity and magnetism
are two aspects of electromagnetism. Electricity and magnetism
were long thought to be separate forces. It was not until the
19th century that they were finally treated as interrelated
phenomena. In 1905 Albert Einstein's special theory of
relativity established beyond a doubt that both are aspects
of one common phenomenon. At a practical level, however,
electric and magnetic forces behave quite differently and
are described by different equations. [Electric forces are
produced by electric charges either at rest or in motion.
Magnetic forces, on the other hand, are produced only by
moving charges and act solely on charges in motion.
Electric phenomena occur even in neutral matter because
the forces act on the individual charged constituents.
The electric force, in particular, is responsible for most
of the physical and chemical properties of atoms and
molecules. It is enormously strong compared with gravity.
For example, the absence of only one electron out of every
billion molecules in two 70-kilogram (154-pound) persons
standing two metres (two yards) apart would repel them with
a 30,000-ton force. On a more familiar scale, electric
phenomena are responsible for the lightning and thunder
accompanying certain storms. Electric and magnetic forces
can be detected in regions called electric and magnetic
fields. These fields are fundamental in nature and can exist
in space far from the charge or current that generated
them. Remarkably, electric fields can produce magnetic
fields and vice versa, independent of any external charge.
A changing magnetic field produces an electric field, as
the English physicist Michael Faraday discovered in work
that forms the basis of electric power generation.
Conversely, a changing electric field produces a magnetic
field, as the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell
deduced. The mathematical equations formulated by Maxwell
incorporated light and wave phenomena into electro-
magnetism. He showed that electric and magnetic fields
travel together through space as waves of electromagnetic
radiation, with the changing fields mutually sustaining
each other. Examples of electromagnetic waves traveling
through space independent of matter are radio and
television waves, microwaves, infrared rays, visible light,
ultraviolet light, X rays, and gamma rays. All of these
waves travel at the same speed--namely, the velocity of
light (roughly 300,000 kilometres, or 186,000 miles,
per second). They differ from each other only in the
frequency at which their electric and magnetic fields
oscillate. Maxwell's equations still provide a complete
and elegant description of electromagnetism down to,
but not including, the subatomic scale. The interpretation
of his work, however, was broadened in the 20th century.
Einstein's special relativity theory merged electric and
magnetic fields into one common field and limited the
velocity of all matter to the velocity of electromagnetic
radiation. During the late 1960s, physicists discovered
that other forces in nature have fields with a mathematical
structure similar to that of the electromagnetic field.
These other forces are the nuclear force, responsible for
the energy released in nuclear fusion, and the weak force,
observed in the radioactive decay of unstable atomic nuclei.
In particular, the weak and electromagnetic forces have
been combined into a common force called the electroweak
force.] Two English scientists, William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle, used a chemical battery to discover
electrolysis (the process in which an electric current
produces a chemical reaction) and initiate the science of
electrochemistry. In their experiment the two employed
a voltaic pile to liberate hydrogen and oxygen from water.
They attached each end of the pile to brass wires and
placed the opposite ends of the wires into salt water.
The salt made the water a conductor. Hydrogen gas
accumulated at the end of one wire; the end of the other
wire was oxidized. Nicholson and Carlisle discovered
that the amount of hydrogen and oxygen set free by the
current was proportional to the amount of current used.
By 1809 the English chemist Humphry Davy had used a
stronger battery to free for the first time several very
active metals--sodium, potassium, calcium, strontium,
barium, and magnesium--from their liquid compounds.
Faraday, who was Davy's assistant at the time, studied
electrolysis quantitatively and showed that the amount
of energy needed to separate a gram of a substance from
its compound is closely related to the atomic weight
of the substance. Electrolysis became a method of
measuring electric current; and the quantity of charge
that releases a gram atomic weight of a simple element
is now called a faraday in his honour. Once scientists
were able to produce currents with a battery, they could
study the flow of electricity quantitatively. Because of
the battery, the German physicist Georg Simon Ohm was able
experimentally in 1827 to quantify precisely a problem that
Cavendish could only investigate qualitatively some 50
years earlier--namely, the ability of a material to
conduct electricity. The result of this work--Ohm's law--
explains how the resistance to the flow of charge depends
on the type of conductor and on its length and diameter.
According to Ohm's formulation, the current flow through
a conductor is directly proportional to the potential
difference, or voltage, and inversely proportional to
the resistance--that is, i = V/R. Thus, doubling the
length of an electric wire doubles its resistance, while
doubling the cross-sectional area of the wire reduces the
resistance by a half. Ohm's law is probably the most
widely used equation in electric design.

> The fact that there definitely is stored chemical energy
> is evident every time you switch on a flashlight/torch.

Read carefully above: In a simple analogy... The potential
energy stored in a battery is in the form of "unbalanced"
negatively-charged atoms, which, given the chance to
"balance out" (against/with) other positively-charged atoms
... establishing a "flow" (exchange) of electrons.

END QUOTE

> > Gravity is energy, energy is the force of motion.
>

> Your concept of energy needs to be expanded to
> include stored energy that
> has no motion associated with it,

ONLY as a semantic convenience, remember: E=MC^2
(Or, if an atom stops "moving," does it still
remain an atom? ... Absolutely: NOT.)

> like that snow shelf that could be
> triggered by a sharp noise into collapsing
> into an avalanche.

Precisely: That snow shelf is entirely made of
matter with a definite mass (if it's just a couple
of flakes its WORK will be very slight, and if it's
a couple of thousand tons... watch out, because
it will WORK wonders downhill)... BUT all matter
(whose mass has "weight" or "inertia") is at its
most fundamental... nothing but motion (or energy,
as in "E=MC^2"), OR atoms cannot be split, my friend.

music.sdrodrian.com

> Tom Davidson
> Brighton, CO

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
In article <8ve7ga\$49fvv\$1...@ID-62269.news.dfncis.de>,
"Ewan Chilton" <e.ch...@bcftcs.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> premise 1

>
> > There is but one force in the universe
> > and that is Gravity;
>
> premise 2
>
> >The only thing that

> > exists in the universe is motion, and that
> > is energy
>
> <snip>
>
> conclusion

>
> > Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> > to call energy a force).
>
> well your logic is infallible.
> of course there is no such thing as logic (or
> this post) see premise 2 :)

You logic is almost as well-ironed as mine:
Indeed, even you and I don't exist, and
are only momentary shapes in the mind (which
also doesn't exist). I say:

Enjoy it while it lasts!

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
"Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian kirjoitti viestissÃ¤ <8vdm9r\$8bd\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <3A1A539C.5A35@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,

> >Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> >> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, Herb: Gravity is energy
> >> > and energy is NEVER really owned: It's
> >> > only rented... so if you stuff yourself
> >> > (this Thanksgivings) be prepared to
> >> > throw it all up... or to Go To The Can
> >> > (do not stop on GO, do not collect \$200).
> >>
> >> Gravity is a force.
> >
> >There is but one force in the universe
> >and that is Gravity; the only thing that

> >exists in the universe is motion, and that
> >is energy; the only energy that exists
> >in the universe can only be fundamentally
> >described as either vectored energy or
> >as infinite (scalar) mass: Therefore
> >the only force in the universe is Gravity
> >(the universe of matter) and, by definition:
> >the repelling force embodied in the universe
> >of energy (infinite (scalar) mass).
> >
> >Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> >to call energy a force).
> >
> >> > In any case: Happy Thanksgivings!
> >> > (And may Bush win.)
> >>
> >> He'll fuck up worse than
> >> Herbert Hoover. I personally
> >> can't wait.
> >
> >You may be right; although, unlike
> >you: I sure hope he doesn't.

> >
> >S D Rodrian
> >web.sdrodrian.com
> >sdrodrian.com
> >
> HH: Gravity is not a force.
> The theory of gravity of falling space (GOFS)
> www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
>
> Henry Haapalainen

Harry, this theory is misnamed. It should
be called: The Theory By Falling Brains.

S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
What is Gravity? What is Supergravity?

Mmmmmmmm......

Isn't that another version of:

re:

In article <geron-21110...@lc0844.zianet.com>,
ge...@hotmail.com (geron) wrote:
> In article <8vdmas\$8bm\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian

> Supergravity and the false vacuum is everything, everything we
perceive of
> came from Supergravity. The problem is the definition of what 'is'
is.
> <g>
>
> Everyday, run-of-the-mill gravity is a negative force, the sumtotal of
> which is exactly equal to the mass/energy of the universe. At the
> beginning of this universe, energy was borrowed from Supergravity,
before
> complete symmetry breakdown, in the form of 'normal' gravity, so that
all
> (positive) mass/energy will always exactly balance the (negative)
gravity
> we perceive.
>
> Nothing actually exists, or put another way, 'nothing' actually
exists.
> It's just been sublimely 'borrowed' from the potential of the inflaton
> field (false vacuum). Baby universes emerge from their extremely old
and
> inflated (overstretched) parent universes, nothing can stop this
process,
> it will never end. And there never was a time without or 'before'
> universes, not only because universes create their own time, or the
> illusion we name time -they're closed and self-referential, but
because
> there never was a time without universes. You might think that this
> sounds redundant, circular and self-contingent, and you'd be right,
but
> this is one of the paradoxes of Chaotic Inflation.
>
> Geron

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
to
In article <io5T5.33419\$A2.69...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>,
"D F" <gotod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> HI,
> I always wanted to ask this:
> If a mass exact to that of the Earth passed by
> within, say, 10 feet of the
> Earth, and at a nice slow rate,
> would I fall towards this mass, or
> just float weightlessly between? Or would
> the strange gravitational forces
> effect me in some really dire way?
> Just wondered, and this looked liked the
> place to ask such a
> bizzare question.

Actually, what you wish to know is what the
difference is between standing 10 feet from
the earth and standing exactly between two
earth planets which have my magic come to rest
twenty feet from each other.... And the answer is:

In the first case you would slam into the
single earth and break your collarbone.
While in the second case you would be
completely weightless (provided you could,
by magic, I imagine... manage to "float"
precisely at the POINT where the two planets'
gravity cancel out each other). Which is
really no different than what would happen
if you could, by magic again, reach the exact
gravitational center of the planet: You'd
find gravity canceled out and you'd float
at The Center of The Earth!!!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 10:34:49 PM11/27/00
to
In article <8vuv4u\$kvr\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
EL <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8vu4t1\$2l1\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > > happy gravity in a yard.
> > >
> > > EL
> >
> > What can I say, EL... I love you too.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> ==
> [EL]
> Do not love me, I am only a humble monk,

Ah! Then you get a lot of love in the ole
monastery. Lucky you.

> who is null in the universe.
> Love humanity and feel part of it.
> Love the chance of communication with
> people all around the world.
> Love the News Groups.

Hey, I said I loved you, not
that I was a freaking ho.

> the hundreds of headers you
> post when you Spam.

Spam may be very costly where you are,
but here in the goo-o-us-of-a it's
dirt cheap: That's the beauty of the
free enterprise system.

> Love yourself.

If I loved myself more
my wife'd sue me for
causing my disaffection of her!

> Stop spamming.

Wait until I run outta gas.

> Check my posting history, you shall find me
> most friendly to all, but I
> am the worst enemy of enemies.

Are you an Arab? Sounds like the sort
of stuff they used to say to the
British Army officers in old B movies.

> I never use cuss and smarmy
> unless a case is hopeless.

I never spit at ladies or
lie, cheat & steal...
unless I have to, either

> You earned it by being so
> stubborn and irritating.

I couldn't be either to you
unless I were under your skin.
(By the way: You could bathe
more often, ole boy.)

> You use words in a reckless style

Don't you remember: I am a poet!

> when you say that energy is motion is
> force is momentum is inertia is gravity
> is propagation is obvious is fart.

And you're going to stand there
with your pants deflating like that
and claim a fart has no energy?!?!

> Listen up kid, if you are grown up enough
> you should have a mind to
> reevaluate your status on posting.

I very often do. As do you: Your status
on posts like this one is very shaky.

> Why do you post at all?

To establish primacy of my ideas.
Why do you? (Thought I was going to say
for the benefit of mankind, didn't ya?)

> Why do you read posts?

To make sure my ideas are original.
(Thought I was going to say
to learn from you, didn't ya?)

> Do you need us to read you?

No. Not unless you actually tell me
that you do: What good is it for millions
to rear me, I mean "read" me if they
don't bother to tell they do. But you, EL,
on the other hand... you make me happy
every time you write me to let me know
you're still reading me. That's why eye lov U.

> Do you need to read us?

Yes: I can't have fun if you
don't say something funny first (which
you don't know is funny until I
point it out to you... that's where
I come in).

> Do you want to know or just spit out
> whatever words pop to your genius mind?

Spit.

> Are you full of it,

Yes. It's coming out of my ears
(even though the doctor claimed it
to be wax).

> thinking that you know it all?

But I do know it all. I'm a wise guy.

> Start by understanding that if your mind
> was a balloon where knowledge
> is air, then the more you know the more you don't.

That explains my soaring thoughts!

> The more knowledge you acquire
> within your mind the more you encounter
> the external by touching it
> bowing in admission saying: "I am ignorant".

I said that to one of my professors once
and it didn't work: He agreed with me.

> Do not love me, leave me.
> Do not love me, die for me.
> Do not love me, put your hand
> in my hand with sincerity.
> Do not love me, give me a hand
> to move a bench where you, me and others
> could sit and watch a game.
> Do not love me, I do not need empty words
> but I certainly need your
> straight deeds,

Doris Day sang that some years ago,
right? If not, it'd make a marvy
maybe toss in a dawg and a pickup?)

> STOP CROSS POSTING.
> EL

Sorry, EL: No can do: I am a Christian
and if I start STAR-OF-DAVID POSTING at
this stage... I'm gonna look like Judas. *

* Judas never wore glasses.

### S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 11:43:59 PM11/27/00
to
In article <15014-3A...@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> Not yet answered is the one simple question:

This is the end-game then?

> Why is there no discernable upper limit
> to the amplitude of energy that
> can be transmitted through "nothing" or vacuum?

Of a transverse or longitudinal wave? Einstein
swore that waves couldn't travel through a vacuum
and that the photon is a quantum particle. And
a wave of electric and magnetic fields propagating
at the speed of light c through empty space [electric
and magnetic fields are always perpendicular to each
another and at right angles to the direction of
propagation] still do NOT equate to a wave propagating
through vacuum: Electromagnetic radiation in vacuum
yet obeys Einstein's quantum authority. Basically
there is no limit to the number of photons you can
pitch across a vacuum (practically).

> The one caveat: no "messenger particles"
> are allowed. Such "messengers"
> are invoked when logic is stymied, and
> are the modern equivalent of the
> deities of ancient priesthoods.
> So what does pure logic say to
> the aforementioned question? "Messenger
> particles"? Or, a superdense,
> pre-existant Matrix underlying the
> superficial phenomena of matter/energy?

Bill, there is NO Aether. Period. What Einstein
accomplished was to PROVE that no Aether was EVER
needed: The idea of an "ether" was proposed ONLY
as a solution to a nonexistent problem (namely
how can waves propagate without a medium, which
originated with the wave-side theory of light).
That "aethers" are still talked about today is
about as useful as the chatter of all those folks
you hear up in the hills somewhere who are still
convinced that the earth is flat.

> (This Matrix is not to be confused with
> the 'ether'. As the
> word implies, 'ether' is tenuous and insubstantial

If it walks like a duck, Bill: [no pun]
The classical Aether HAD to be absolutely rigid
and absolutely strong (for it to be able to serve
as a medium for ultra-fast waves and ultra-heavy
masses... imagine the slowness with which an ocean
wave travels and the quickness with which a wave
travels through a pipe when you bang on it). You
may call it Matrix, or you may call it, Joe, or
you may call it Mary... but it's all the same.

> in comparison to
> matter, making 'ether' the diametric opposite
> of the Matrix of space. To
> this Matrix, the universe of matter/energy
> is the tenuous and diaphanous
> after-thought tagged on.)

A solution to a nonexistent problem. The world
of Physics (unfortunately... most especially of
all) is teeming with'em. But fret not: I'm working
on it.

> The late physicist David Bohm was one of the few
> 'mainstream' scientists to posit such a concept.
> He saw the phenomenal
> density of space itself as primal to all else
> - and the Newtonian
> universe as a great hologram within it.
> Dr. Karl Pribram, a Stanford
> neurophysiologist, was a corroborator with
> Bohm on the holographic
> nature of reality.

And Einstein proposed his goofy Cosmological
Constant (yet another solution to a nonexistent
problem) for the same reason: Even the most
brilliant minds ever can never resolve a problem
the full scope of which they are unawares...
The reason Einstein proposed the mythological
Cosmological Constant is because he did not know
that the universe is imploding... and the reason
why even now there are people resurrecting Einstein's
"greatest mistake" is because THEY too do not know
the universe is imploding. Once they find out about
the true nature of the universe [ http://web.sdrodrian.com ]
all this goofy talk about Quintessences, funny
energies, and cosmological constants will be as
embarrassing as the idea that the universe orbits
"ethers," regardless of what you call them.

music.sdrodrian.com

> Two websites worth checking out on Bohm and Pribram are -
> www.muc.de/~heuvel/bohm/
> oc
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### S D Rodrian

Nov 28, 2000, 12:24:32 AM11/28/00
to
In article <3A1C7528...@msu.edu>,

Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > Since "spacetime" is simply a cheap imitation of space,
> > Einstonian kiss-asses are scheduled to be replaced by robots
> > in the not-to-distance future and the Big "Bang" will be
> > reclassified from a being religous site into a blasting zone.
>
> Assuming the Zeemen effect does not explain
> the red-shifts. In which
> case, the "Big-Bang" will be
> reclassified as "wrong."
> -Tm
> >
> > Although it IS quite possible that scientists
> > may yet find some rationalization or other to
> > disreguard the evidence of the red-shifts...

That was a sarcastic quip about how easy
it is for "some" scientists to come up with
just about any rationalization they require.

> > the fact will always remain that the galaxies ARE
> > receding from each other as Hubble first described
> > them:
>

> The Zeemen effect explains the red-shifts
> without invoking the doppler effect.
>
> The evidence wouldn't go anywhere,
> it would simply be indicative of
> something other than the recession
> which you evidently assume.

If red-shift works on the short-run
you will need positive proof that it does NOT
work in the long-run. And, frankly,
to speak of the recession of the galaxies
as merely an assumption is about on par with
speaking of the splitting of the atom as
merely an assumption (and vice versa).

> There is some evidence that the red-shifts
> are quantized. It will be
> the Big-Bang proponents that will be
> left rationalizing, if that
> evidence strengthens.
> -Tm

It may simply modify estimates of distance/age.

There are problems with your Zeemen rationalization:
Splitting of special emission lines due to the presence
of a strong magnetic field means you need a constant
such field in every photon or practically every coordinate
of the universe (not to mention the little matter of the
fact that if the galaxies are NOT receding from each
other... the universe is pretty much inexplicable).
Moreover: Lines split into 3 or more polarization
components that are circular if the local magnetic field
is parallel to the line of sight and linear if the magnetic
field is perpendicular to the line of sight means a dizzying
amount of "just right" circumstances that fall outside
probability. (Not to mention the fact that the amount
of splitting needs to be proportional to the strength of

However: Among the ranks of the Truth-Seekers
it is not always the best thing to only
accept the Truth from your sergeant. So I will
always keep an open mind, no matter what.

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com

### Bill Sheppard

Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to
SDR wrote,

>a wave of electric and magnetic fields
>propagating at the speed of light c through
>empty space [electric and magnetic fields are
>always perpendicular to each another and at
>right angles to the direction of propagation]
>still do NOT equate to a wave propagating
>vacuum yet obeys Einstein's quantum
>authority.

So the quintessence of the "photon", then, is reduced to an electric
field and a magnetic field at 90 degrees to each other propafating as a
wave through nothing. Talk about believeing in magic and pixie dust.
What supports an electric field and a magnetic field, pray tell?

Take a look at gravity waves, as yet unsubstantiated but believed by
current theory to exist. Earthbound GW detectors are hampered by
seismic/ tectonic noise and can't yet pull a definitive signal out of
the noise. But now suppose we've got a nice space-based interferometer
GW antenna up, and its free of all that noise. All of a sudden here
comes a beautiful clear-cut signal of 85 hz (cycles per second), and
it's gradually rising in frequency - the signature of a coalescing
binary neutron star, near the point of merging. Wow.
This signal is NOT electromagnetic, yet it propagates at c. Its
frequency happens to fall at the low end of the human auditory range,
and is registering on the interferometer as DIRECT acoustic energy,
taken right out of space. Hmmm. Right out of "nothing".
limit on its amplitude as it propagates through "nothing". Perhaps Scott
can tell us how, drawing from current theory.

oc

### Bill Sheppard

Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
to
SDR wrote,

>There is NO Aether, period..

Agreed!

>The classical Aether HAD to be absolutely
>rigid and absolutely strong (for it to be able to
>serve as a medium for ultra-fast waves and
>ultra-heavy masses...

Not so fast here, Bucko. You're reading something into it that simply
was not implied in the classical ether theories of Aristotle, Hooke, or
Huygens. They envisioned just what the word implies - somethng spiritous
and insubstantial relative to 'real' substance. Although endowed with
"permitivity" and 'permeability', it was still the least substantial
medium in nature - hence "ether". If at any time they had proposed a
Superdense Matrix as the primary reality with matter/ energy tagged on
as insubstantial side-effects, exactly the same problem would have come
up as it did with Wolter - the "conundrum of discreet objects". How can
discreet objects move and interact kinetically while embedded in a
much-denser medium?

Michelson-Morley's famous 1887 experiment disproving the ether was
before the advent of QM, particularly quantum nonlocality, and the
holographic principle. The way Wolter worked it out, drawing on the work
of Bohm-Pribram, I can only paraphrase for brevity, as in the prevous
posts. But then that's 'goofy'. Hhyyup.

There is no superdense Matrix, space is a vast void of
nothingness, and we reside in the Imploding phase of the universe. And
oh yeah.. it's an 'oscillating' universe. And everything's 'shrinking in
place'. Hoop de doo.

oc

### S D Rodrian

Nov 29, 2000, 1:00:36 AM11/29/00
to
In article <9017v7\$f99\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> crossposted:
> In article <90149b\$bu7\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> SDRodrian <Don_Q...@mindless.com> wrote:
> > EL, could you give a SHORT reasoning
> > as to why crossposting is not appropritate?
> > My own opinion is that IF the post
> > is on-topic on more than one newsgroup
> > then there can be no possible reason
> > why it should NOT be posted [to as many NGs
> > as it is on-topic on].
> >
> > Really, seriously: You have my opinion
> > and now I'd like you consider yours
> > (if it's really serious and meaningful,
> > and not some empty mind-dump of your
> > cross-purposes personal passions).
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> =======================================
> [EL]
> Our collective problem is that "YOU"
> are the one who is deciding the
> appropriateness of cross posting.

That is not correct: I leave the decision strictly up
to Einstein. Two barks means don't (post it there).
One bark means go ahead (and post it to that NG).
Dear EL, what would you have me do... ask you?!?!?!

> We certainly (collectively) do not share
> your opinion on being correct.

I believe in democracy, NOT Communism; so
I will consider my voice the equal of all the
other voices (regardless of how far up the
Politburo you think you are). I will not
obey your order to censor myself. Sorry.

> You send the same post

Which post? Is this "legendary" post
the one where I reveal myself to be
"the enemy of the people?"

> to "bible", "Atheism", "Physics",
> "Humor", "Blabla", "what.can.i.say".

My criterion is very simple & straightforward:
Anybody can predict to which NG any post of mine
will most likely be sent just by reading it...

If it deals with god/creation/cosmology/nature
it goes into: "bible", "Atheism", "Physics"

If there's something funny [pun] about it or in it
it goes into: "Humor" (stupid goes to: alt.stupid)

If it's nothing but chitchat: "Blabla"

AND if it concerns apologies/romantic advice/or people
looking for an alibi, definitely: "what.can.i.say"

> Are you aware of the names
> of groups you are cross posting?

No. I do not approve of name-calling.

> They all have a common point for sure
> and it is called the Usenet.

Is that because I too may use it?
It does seem... such an inviting name!

> Also common is that they are
> all used by human beings.

Does that mean my pooch can't use it??!!
Rats! That seems so unfair: He can bark
better than even you (and oftentimes more
intelligently).

> So Mr. genius if that was a good enough
> reason to cross post, why do
> you not tell us your genius idea of
> why there is different NG for
> relativity and research under "sci.physics".

Because the former is for people still
looking into it, while the latter is for people
who think it's all relative anyway, so why bother?

> Would it not be easier if they combined them
> into the mother NG?

If you had ever been in a house where the wife is
a workaholic and the husband a lovable lazy slob
... you wouldn't ask that question!

> Why bother creating them in the first place?

Those were my very words to God the other day!

> Because a four years old genius
> must realize that a group of people
> would like to discuss relativity and
> do not want to discuss research.

If he's really a genius (or really four
years old)... he'd figure out how to "steer"
the conversation to a compromising position. [sic]

> The other group would have the inverse
> interest, but an individual
> interested in both could subscribe to both groups.

I know a lot of people like that: Aren't they
hypocrites!? They pretend to be so intellectual
and sophisticated when they're with you, and then
you run into them soon as you hit a strip joint.

> That individual who subscribes to 300 NGs
> (mad or sane we care not) is
> not a good enough reason to cross post
> up to his genius wish.

Was that a royal "we?" But the individual who
subscribed to 300 NGs... he needs a girlfriend,
is obviously painfully advertising for one, but
is too embarrassed to place an ad in the
"personals" page of the local paper.

> I would indorse cross-posting a thread
> opening only, then if that group
> was interested they can discuss it
> within their scope of interests but
> further cross posting MUST lead to a
> fastest machines.

That is the most puzzling "indorsement"
I've ever read... of a totally unworkable
proposal: The laws of supply and demand
demand that the supply follow the demands;
so it's obvious that when a dictator, say,
demands his supply... it must be supplied
or his demands will grow so much that no
supplies can ever satisfy them (so you see:
Communism "indorses" the laws of supply
and demand, unlike what the dictionary sez).
In any case, I can only try to make my posts
available: If something (whatever) prevents
you from getting to them, that's not my fault.

> This means that you are a major fault
> and crippling the system of
> communications.

Sir, I am a doctor: It is my job
to cripple... things. That is what
malpractice insurance is for (to keep
butchers from having to go back to
working only with dead cows & such).

> Now you should be very satisfied
> that you are deliberately and
> criminally destroying a civilization

I am: It has been my experience, not only
as a student of history but also as a man
who has lived for 55,872 years now, that
civilization only ever works when people
are civilized... I'm sorry I even started
the damned thing (but it seemed like such
a good idea at the time)... Was I really
expected to have known that people would
still be such brutes even 55,000 years later?!

> and you shall not
> know it until they take you to a room
> next to that in which the one who
> was curious of what was in the
> pentagons keep safe is staying.

Hey! I was that guy! (And it was just
a stupid pentagram... for Nancy Reagan.)

> If all these reasons are not

Yes: They are definitely NOT reasons.
They are the mindless babblings of
a mindless brain. (Truth is, I never
really expected you to be capable of
a serious defense of your capricious and
utterly instinctive trolling after me
simply because I am considerate enough
to give those I believe may be interested
in [whatever] the opportunity to peruse it:
Please note that the ONLY persons who have
ever complained (ok, 99%) about my cross-
postings have been those who have disagreed
in some way or other with what I have had
to say. And the results are always the same:

Their objections always boil down to: "I don't
want others to hear what you have to say."
And if you "too" are of the opinion that the
only thing that should be posted in a NG
is what "every" reader of it will love and
agree with... you just haven't been around
NGs as long as I (my posts to alt.wisdom,
for example are older and most of the folks
who are now posting there... in fact, I
might have been the first person to ever
post anything there, since, as I recall,
when I first started posting there I was,
in effect, the only poster who had posted
anything to that group... except 4 some guy
advertising his XXX sites or \$\$\$ schemes).

from start to... half a dozen follow-ups
or so, and you will discover (surprise!)
that most threads very quickly degenerate
into idiotic exchanges of personal insults
and almost immediately diverge into esoteric
matters/subjects having nothing whatever
to do with the thread's title.

So, my dear Mister EL, chill out. Go see
a movie. (I hear The Grinch is very good,
or nearly as terrible as are you--Perhaps
it will even inspire you to have a change
of heart.) In any case, you need to take
life less seriously: People who take life
as seriously as you, EL, make themselves
easy targets of people who are convinced
that "the world is a funny place," like me).

> enough for you
> to understand then you are
> a hopeless case,

I understood that... while still in
me mother's womb. (I used to tickle her
... though never to death: I had a
definite plan to be born.)

> and you are forcing me
> to protect my rights by other

Well, EL: In my life I have been held up
three times at gun point (the first one
is always the most impressive one), and
as I told my third mugger: "Look, I get
hurt (no matter how), that's between me
and the hospital. You commit a crime (no
matter against whom)... that's strictly
between you and the cops." [Any other
all around. And I like to feel good.]

> Forgive me for whatever I shall do
> to protect my freedom violated by
> yours.

That final "s" is a telling Freudian slip!

But I do forgive you... Always! I would
no more blame you for what you are
than I would blame someone with cancer
for coming down with cancer: "I get hurt,
whatever the cause, that's strictly
between me and the hospital." I have a
thick skin and a hard head...

Who could ask for anything more?

> EL Hemetis

### S D Rodrian

Nov 30, 2000, 1:23:42 AM11/30/00
to
In article <8143-3A...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> SDR wrote,
>
> >There is NO Aether, period..
>
> Agreed!
>
> >The classical Aether HAD to be absolutely
> >rigid and absolutely strong (for it to be able to
> >serve as a medium for ultra-fast waves and
> >ultra-heavy masses...
>
> Not so fast here, Bucko. You're
> reading something into it that simply
> was not implied in the classical ether
> theories of Aristotle, Hooke, or
> Huygens.

Not so fast there, Bucko. You're confusing
together classical physics with classical Greek
philosophy: Anaxagoras's classical "ether,"
for example (that... above the air surrounding
the earth there is a rarefied sort of air,
"alive and divine" and having the nature of
fire), apparently leaving no room for any true
"vacuum" anywhere; and Democritus's more
materialist view that matter was [de facto]
distinguished from non-matter exactly because
there were "spaces" (between atoms), although
to him the ether consisted of "little atoms"
within the "vacuums" (or Heavenly spaces) and
that the "motions" of this polka-dotted ether
"carried" the Heavenly bodies along in their
orbits. [Very little attempt was made, basically
until the seventeenth century, to factor in
a gravitational interpretation of this "space
between atoms."] Aristotle's "fifth element"
is incorruptible, unchanging, and to be found
only "in the region outside the sphere of the
moon... its natural motion being that which is
nearest the perfection of rest." [Here, at least,
ancient philosophy coincides in some aspects
with my own interpretation of the universe... as
a kinf of "black hole" whose imploding/shrinking
"singularity" (that part of it which we know as the
universe of matter) is forever AT MOTION away from/
against the "absolute rest" of the universe of
energy... which corresponds to the complete "black
hole" extending even outside its event horizon.]
Aristotle's plenary ether IS the Heavenly bodies,
planets & moons, and there is no "vacuum" to
"interject" any annoying need for a gravitation
as we know it today. [The conceptualization of
"space" has always been rather problematical.]

Seventeenth Century philosophers, Descartes in
particular (and not unlike a surprisingly large number
of "original theorists" in these newsgroups to this
very day)... believed in a kind of gravitation "towards
the earth" which consisted of a vortical motion around
the earth of the ether (and, by extension, of everything
in the Heavens thought to be embedded in it) creating
a centrifugal outward pressure (away from the earth)...
so that when bodies were left "unsupported" by this
supposed centrifugal pressure (as would be the case with
everything here on earth, falling apples and cathedrals)
... they would naturally fall "down" to earth. [One can
still come across this simplistic notion (extended into
some just as simplistic mathematical mumbo-jumbo, of
course) today, in which gravity is portrayed as some sort
of "space falling" effect--only now portrayed as falling
"down to" every bit of matter and not simply to earth:
The conceptualization of "space" has returned to where
it was before anyone thought they needed any theory of
gravitation! Although I marvel how Descartes described
the importance of absolute rest in reverse... just like
others used to describe the universe as orbiting the earth
instead of the other way around.]

Seventeenth century theoreticians also proposed the ether
as a more down-to-earth medium for the transmission of
magnetism, light, and heat... across "vacuums" (or as they
called it "the void"). Einstein's "original" objection to
an ether was that "technicality of convenience" still used
in physics today... namely, the assumption that "if a
quantity is unmeasurable or unobservable, it is therefore
meaningless to physics & ought not to be made an integral
part of a physical theory." ["If you have no idea what it
is... don't try to guess what it's for." And by the start
of the twentieth century is was obvious that the ether
was entirely beyond the capabilities of "modern" physics.]
Note the Aristotle connection to Einstein here: Einstein
"deprived himself" (literally) of the ability to posit
anything at absolute rest... and this "self-denial" here
however it may have assisted him in developing relativistic
philosophies... prevented him (very effectively shut him
off) from being able to consider that a complete theory
of the universe might have to include not only the very
"observable" universe of matter but the universe of energy
from whence it originated. With the inevitable result that
it was impossible for him (or his contemporaries and later
disciples) to imagine a natural evolution of the universe
of matter, and they instead opted to try to "create" it
"spontaneously" as it were. [The perfect analogy is with
biological evolution: What today's theorist (on the origin
of the universe) are doing is not unlike trying to develop
a theory of evolution by studying the qualities of today's
fully-evolved life-forms and hunting their fossils without
yet having acknowledged that it all evolved from the
chemistry of a few simple animo acids: The interpretation
of a universe arising from four "forces" instead of the one
(simple "gravity," or "energy," or, ultimately: "motion")
is as if evolutionists were trying to trace back horses
and pigs and pigeons NOT to one species from which they
might have all evolved BUT to a primal horse, a primal pig,
and a primal pigeon... every one of which evolved quite
independently from each other in the same environment.]

As I have said before: Things are NEVER as confusing
as the confused MAKE them out to be! The universe of
matter EVOLVED naturally, inevitably from the universe
of energy. Fundamentally... all that exists is motion:
Vector motion in/is the universe of matter and absolute
motion in/is the universe of energy (or, absolute rest,
because while there exist two or more "motions" they
can describe "relative motion" ... but when there exists
only ONE single "motion" in all of existence, it is
impossible to describe that one singular motion as being
either fast or slow, or even "moving" at all). We may
never even be able to propose what that singular motion
which I call the universe of energy and absolute rest
(relative to us) may be "moving" against (for self-evident
reasons), but we CAN say that it embodied all the stored
energy... "some portion" of which it then conferred upon
the universe of matter... and ANY motion relative to
that absolute rest (vector) has no choice but to remain
relativistic not only against absolute rest, but against
every other motion the universe of energy gives birth to
in the crucible of the laws of thermodynamics: that all
those vector motions, collectively, comprise our universe
of matter even unto this day. And so, imagine the stupendous
(potential) magnitude of the universe of energy (to be able
to have given birth (energy) to the universe of matter).
And visualize that "birth" as "the advent of gravity" ...
What must have followed HAD to have been that, immediately,
it precipitated an unstoppable implosion of the universe
of matter (an implosion which will continue imploding NOT
until matter piles up at some central point like a white
dwarf BUT which will continue until matter itself dissolves
its energy pool doing the work of that very implosion... like
a cup of water abandoned to the years' inevitable evaporation
until it has become so dry that it's... as if it had never
held water at all). see: http://web.sdrodrian.com

There will you find why an imploding universe requires
that the speed of light always be measured as a constant
in identical mediums; why an imploding universe demands
that the "observable" recession of the galaxies be found
to be accelerating; and why & how it is that "space"
(whether you call it "the void" or "vacuum") exists
at all... the reason for the red-shifted galaxies). But
no universe that can forever "exist" by means of magic.
And no ether, no Matrix, no Dark Matter, no Cosmological
Constant, or "funny energy" need apply, Bill. (Just as
Rube Goldberg constructs such as the Cosmological Constant
and Dark Matter would, by some magical means, have to be
made to work against each other in some places and with
each other in some other places with great planning and
intelligent execution... an ether, or Matrix Rube Goldberg
construct would demand that you account for the material
effects of its, one must assume, "considerable" gravity
... unless it's all "funny energy" at the Matrix ether.)

As I said, Bill: Fundamental principles:

1) If in order to exist
Existence would have had to have a beginning
it could never have come into existence.

This is no different than saying that everything
evolved, and was not created either by God, or
by The Four Forces over a hand of poker either:
If the universe consists of motion (energy) now
there must have always been energy (motion).

2) Things are NEVER as confusing
as the confused MAKE them out to be.

And this is no different than saying that
you don't even have to know that an apple
comes from an apple tree to know that the guy
who swears to you that it was created by a
Rube Goldberg process of virtual particles
coalescing the "energy of space" to an apple
... has obviously not been eating his daily
ration of apples, and needs a doctor. And it's
not fraud we're talking about here, just... some
poor soul who doesn't know anything AND doesn't
know how to admit it even to himself: Human
nature, really. You can't blame a cat for shedding.

So no sense getting all worked up about it.

### G=EMC^2 Glazier

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
Last year two separate research groups came up with the same answer.The
universe is expanding 15% faster now than 7 billion years ago.They
figured out that the expansion force is almost twice as great as the
gravitational pull. What is causing this acceleration of expansion
is the big mystery.So lets put our heads together,for a good theory.
Herb

### S D Rodrian

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
In article <tf3c2t4ssmfe9dvvn...@4ax.com>,
No.one@all wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:08:16 GMT, S D Rodrian

>
> >In article <9017v7\$f99\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> crossposted:
> >> In article <90149b\$bu7\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> SDRodrian <Don_Q...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> >> [EL]
> >> Our collective problem is that "YOU"
> >> are the one who is deciding the
> >> appropriateness of cross posting.
> >
> >That is not correct: I leave the decision strictly up
> >to Einstein. Two barks means don't (post it there).
> >One bark means go ahead (and post it to that NG).
> >Dear EL, what would you have me do... ask you?!?!?!
>

> We seem to have a problem there, one of three possibilities
> 1: You can't count.
> 2: when your dog barks twice you assume that the second bark is
> simply a re-assertion of one bark, a "yes".
> 3: your dog is as stupid as you are.

I protest, sir: I may be stupid, but You
simply do not know my dog!
He's not only invented a Way-Back Machine
but he's actually built it from parts
he purchased at Radio Shack with money
he earned by chasing bums & winos up & down
the streets all day... and then going back and
collecting the spare change... on the ground.

> snip

> >
> >> to "bible", "Atheism", "Physics",
> >> "Humor", "Blabla", "what.can.i.say".
> >
> >My criterion is very simple & straightforward:
> >Anybody can predict to which NG any post of mine
> >will most likely be sent just by reading it...
> >
> >If it deals with god/creation/cosmology/nature
> > it goes into: "bible", "Atheism", "Physics"
>

> And what do any of those subjects have to do with
> atheists?

Sir, have you ever been to the zoo in your car?
What do automobiles have to do with grease monkeys?
What have you to do with reading and writing?

> >If there's something funny [pun] about it or in it
> > it goes into: "Humor"
>

> We have differing ideas of humour.

Makes me smile. What's it do 4 you?

> >(stupid goes to: alt.stupid)
>
> You must post there a lot.

Man, you couldn't keep this one outta there
if you tried.

> >If it's nothing but chitchat: "Blabla"
>

> alt.tasteless seems more appropriate

You'd be surprised how finicky the alt.tasteless
group really is: They have incredibly high
standards for their shit-chat. [sic]

S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com

### Zebrowski

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1703-3A2...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...

One prominent theory as to universal acceleration is that, in the quantum
foam on Planck scales, different areas of space can temporarily have an
increase in energy density. If that energy density is high enough, the
state of that space will change so that it automatically repulses itself.
When this happens over an immense range of space, it looks like the entire
structure is stretching. And as the universe grows larger, more space
exists, further increasing the repulsion, not to mention the fact that the
gravitational force between distant objects has decreased via the inverse
square law.

Ultimately, this might end up causing some interesting results in the
distant future...

Mat.

### Bill Sheppard

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
>So no sense getting all worked up about it.
>S D Rodrian

Hear! hear!

Absolutely true. That's why i closed out the whole subject. It's outside
the purview of these astronomy NGs. It'd be more appropriate in
alt.philosophical cosmologies or some such. Astronomy folks want to
discuss things within their arena.
And you would be well advised to do the same. If you want to be
taken seriously, you don't walk into an astronomy group and start
evangelizing "shrinking in place" and "we live in an imploding
universe". It makes you a pariah, and makes you look really, really
stupid.
Your whole modus operendi and demeanor proclaims "hey look at
me" "Look how important I am." The whole thing is a venue for SDR's
promoting of SDR.

If you want to promote yourself that badly and really impress
your hearers with your astuteness, this is not the place to do it. There
are plenty of alt.science type NGs that would really be impressed with

If on the other hand you really want to talk astronomy for its
own sake, you drop SDR out of the equation and stay within the
boundaries of current theory. Then you can actually look smart to your
hearers.

the oc

### SDRodrian

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
to
In article <14262-3A...@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> >So no sense getting all worked up about it.
> >S D Rodrian
>
> Hear! hear!
>
> Absolutely true. That's why i closed out
> the whole subject. It's outside
> the purview of these astronomy NGs.

Yes. I can see where astronomers
would have no interest in discussions
about the universe. (I've been running
into that very wall most of my life.)

> It'd be more appropriate in
> alt.philosophical cosmologies or some such.

It's there. Philosophers also seem to be
interested in the whys & hows of existence
for some odd reason... beats me.

> Astronomy folks want to
> discuss things within their arena.

Sand castles & that sort? I getcha.

> And you would be well advised to do the same.

in alt.old-farts I'd have to post my answers there.

> If you want to be
> taken seriously,

Can't say I've ever long longed to be
taken... least of all seriously taken!!!

> you don't walk into an astronomy group and start
> evangelizing "shrinking in place" and "we live
> in an imploding
> universe".

Not right off the bat, silly! Somebody'd
dragged off to the drunk tank. No. You
have to come in, sit down, meet a few people,
down a few Tostitos, and then AND only then
do you stand up and start shouting: "WE LIVE
IN AN IMPLODING UNIVERSE!!! WE LIVE IN AN
IMPLODING UNIVERSE!!!" Possibly, when you
come up before the judge: "SHRINKING IN PLACE!!!
SHRINKING IN PLACE!!!" Unless your lawyer
can get you off altogether.

> It makes you a pariah,

Is that one of those fishies that swim around
in the Amazon wearing dentures?

> and makes you look really, really stupid.

Can it beat my mirrors? I seriously doubt it.

> Your whole modus operendi and
> demeanor proclaims "hey look at
> me" "Look how important I am."

You left out the placards I wear
(on my chest & back) with those very words
... and the red ball on my nose.

> The whole thing is a venue for SDR's
> promoting of SDR.

Well, I started out promoting broccoli.
But, after a few years, I thought: what the Hell...

> If you want to promote yourself that badly

If I wanted to promote myself badly
I wouldn't do it myself. Duh!

> and really impress
> this is not the place to do it.

Yeah. Like I didn't learn my lesson
that time I tried to do it in a men's room!

> There
> are plenty of alt.science type NGs
> that would really be impressed with

You're talking about alt.hock aren't you!

> If on the other hand you really
> want to talk astronomy for its
> own sake, you drop SDR out of the equation
> and stay within the
> boundaries of current theory.

Sorry, Bill: I've never been a yes man.
(Not even when I got a job as a yes man:
I got fired for a maybe... maybe.)

> Then you can actually look smart to your
> hearers.

You blind?!?! I never would've suspected it
from the way you type: Do you use Brile or
some voice-to-typing device? Impressed.

(Jeepers! Hope he doesn't see this.)

> the oc

### Bill Sheppard

Dec 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/1/00
to
SDR wrote,

>You blind?

Yep. Blind in one eye, and can't see out of the other.

Waal, the whole point is, if you seriously believe the whole "shrinking
in place" and "we live in an imploding universe" business, and
apparently you do, it'd be preferable to heed ol' J.C.'s admonition to
not cast your pearls before the unappreciative - but rather cast them
where they're appreciated. That's not being a "yes man".
The astronomy folks may be doing "sand castles" or whatever,
but hey - they're just doing what they do. Can't fault them for it. In
your own words, "cats shed". You don't kick your cat for shedding. (Or
maybe you do.)

Apparently you're just so ticked off at the astrophysics
community in general that your whole agenda is to twang their nose at
every opportunity, even at the price of looking like a complete, utter,
and unabashed dork.

the oc

### G=EMC^2 Glazier

Dec 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/1/00
to
Hi Mat I read that QM theory,but not all that happy with it. QM foam
is used as to show what a singularity is made off.That to me is good
thinking. The inverse square law could show why structures are
accelerating. I have a theory that at the
BB the space expansion kept the matter and anti-matter particles from
touching.Maybe that is still true today,and our universes only way to go
is for space between everything to move apart. To sum it
up at the very moment of the BB space expanded and separated all that
there was to be. Herb PS This does not answer how a vacuum has a
force.

### S D Rodrian

Dec 1, 2000, 9:27:26 PM12/1/00
to
In article <11376-3A...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> SDR wrote,
>
> >You blind?
>
> Yep. Blind in one eye, and
> can't see out of the other.

[Why, O why do they ALWAYS give the evil guy
in the movies some handicap?!?!] Exactly what
is it you see inside your "other" eye, Bill?

> Waal, the whole point is, if you
> seriously believe the whole "shrinking
> in place" and "we live in an imploding

Sorry, Bill: Belief does not come into it.
I have proposed an explanation to the riddles
of cosmology. It's not at all necessary
that I believe my explanation is correct:
The ONLY requirement is that the theory itself
stand up to whatever objections to it may arise.
(And, in fact, no author is ever an objective
arbitor/judge of his own theory... so it's
useless for me to claim I have yet to find any
objections to it myself. Albeit I still claim it
anyway... you know me.) In any case, my role
as its creator is finished. If I now so much as
attempt to place my theory in the best possible
light... I may never know whether others are
being blinded by its brilliance or by the
spotlight I'm shining in their eyes. (By the way,
I made no provisions for the blind... outside
a bit of humor, perhaps. Sorry, Bill.)

> apparently you do, it'd be preferable
> to heed ol' J.C.'s admonition to
> not cast your pearls before the
> unappreciative - but rather cast them
> where they're appreciated.

That was easy for JC to say because, as
I heard tell of Him, He never was in the
businessmen will tell you that it's harder
by far to find people who appreciate the pearls
(of the mind, especially) than it is to find
the pearls (themselves). [Translation: Every
customer is worth his weight in gold... even if
some customers ARE more lightweight than others.]

> That's not being a "yes man".

If there are two sides to the story, Bill,
and but one man holding to one side (while
everybody else holds for the other side)...
I will always add my voice to that one man's
whenever I agree with him. But I cannot
imagine EVER joining a chorus that doesn't
really need my voice. It's just... not me.

You expect me to join in ONLY when I agree
with what everybody agrees with. And it's
a vain expectation. [sic]

> The astronomy folks may be doing
> "sand castles" or whatever,
> but hey - they're just doing what they do.
> Can't fault them for it. In
> your own words, "cats shed".
> You don't kick your cat for shedding. (Or
> maybe you do.)

Of course I do NOT! I just torch him
every couple of months (soon as his fur
grows back). Bill, I wouldn't have the heart
to kick him afterwards (and he doesn't let
anybody touch him for at least a week either).

> Apparently you're just so ticked off
> at the astrophysics

That I see stars?

> community in general that your whole agenda
> is to twang their nose at

Yuck! All of'em have
only one nose?!

> every opportunity, even at the price
> of looking like a complete, utter,
> and unabashed dork.

All right! Please vote for me at:

http://dork.findhere.com

That's me, all right! Bill: You should've been
a psychiatrist. Instead of a patient--AND I hope
you're not going to claim now that you're NOT
patient (for I know of no one who ever wasted any
time claiming to not be patient).

Take a pill, Bill. *

PS. This invitation is only for a confused
special few who may wish to finally know
The Meaning of Life... O lucky you, go to:

http://www.geocities.com/deduction.geo/

> the oc

* To be sung to the melody of:

### Bill Sheppard

Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
Well old sport, your sense of humor is admirable. To not take offense
when somebody says something less than flattering, and to laugh at
yourself is a mark of good mental health.
But less self-promotion would make your theories more palatable

### S D Rodrian

Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
In article <15377-3A...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

Thanks, Bill. I'll keep that in mind
next time I'm out to spoon-feed'em.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### Bill Sheppard

Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
to
Yeah, to entirely drop the self-promotion would be the best tactic. Of
course cold-turkey would be the best yet, but you might have to do it in
increments to avoid severe withdrawal reactions (heh heh).
As far a being "creator" of your cosmology, not even Einstein,
Planck, Heisenberg, or Hawking claimed creator-ship of theirs. At best,
they were mere stewards and elucidators of what was already created.
Perhaps the most audacious claim was Hawking's aspiration "to know the
mind of God". But SDR's stated Creator-ship is tacitly claiming to BE
the mind of God.

the oc

### S D Rodrian

Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
In article <90bfu2\$38b\$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
"Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message:
> This and that.

You must always use quotation marks, Tony!

> Hi Roddy - Before I forget - have a merry xmas
> and a great new year.

You too. May your politics never become
as Gored as ours has become of late.

> By the way - I forgot to mention - there is
> another aspect in our universe
> which is often forgotten - it's called evolution

Not by me: I have a strong sense of
human history.

>- and evolution depends entirely
> on a timed sequence of events (not just repetitive,
> or ad hoc motion) - in other

Eating a one-course hotdog depends on
a timed sequence of events (most of'em
chewy; some involving a paper towel).

But evolution is simply the tale of life's
adaptation to its environment. It is not
progressive but adaptive (it can produce Man
for an instant, and when the environment
no longer favors apes & other brutes of that ilk
it will stick with cockroaches and bacteria).

> words it is a progression that has a start
> and we know not whether it has an end.

Our much beloved & lovely little yellow dwarf
will become a red giant in 4.+ billion years:
I'd say that's about as conclusive an end
to evolution hereabouts as any ending can get.

> Each point/phase of evolution is
> indicative of a specific, different, and
> quite
> unique time factor.

Does this include our friend the cockroach?
Seems as if that beastie's been around
for ages! (And everybody swears they'll
be here to see that red giant swallow Earth:
While I don't know if we can even survive
another century!)

> Just thought I'd throw that in for a bit of fun.

Love fun. Hate getting hit on the head
with things people throw, though.

> Look after yourself.

I always walk backwards in here.
That way I can't run INTO a wall.

> All the world loves a thinker.

Shouldn't that be: Everybody in the world
thinks he/she's a lover...?

Sleep tight, and remember this basic
Law of Reality: "Thermodynamics rules!
There can NEVER be a pause to the motion
of the universe BECAUSE it could then
NEVER get going again." [The ONLY "pauses"
in the universe are those that obey
Sir Isaac Newton. Translation: ALL timing "units"
only have a mental existence; and the universe
is but One Single Motion away from & then back to
the universe of energy... all broken up into
the momentary chaos of numberless sub-motions.]

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### G=EMC^2 Glazier

Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
Gravity comes out of the atom's nucleus as gravitons that give particles
there mutual attraction.QM has the graviton as spin 2 massless and can
go to infinity at the speed of light.Like light graviton's wave gets
longer with distance. Herb

### S D Rodrian

Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00
to
In article <4m0n2tgnl27tgjhm3...@4ax.com>,
Zen <mu...@home.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 11:32:39 GMT, S D Rodrian
>
> >Eating a one-course hotdog depends on
> >a timed sequence of events (most of'em
> >chewy; some involving a paper towel).
>
> Lol!

>
> >But evolution is simply the tale of life's
> >adaptation to its environment. It is not
> >progressive but adaptive (it can produce Man
> >for an instant, and when the environment
> >no longer favors apes & other brutes of that ilk
> >it will stick with cockroaches and bacteria).
>
> Moot, however, true.

>
> >> All the world loves a thinker.
> >
> >Shouldn't that be: Everybody in the world
> >thinks he/she's a lover...?
>
> Damn, Rodrian...love your posts! Keep up the good work :-)

Can I help myself?

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com

"Somebody stop me!" --Jim Carrey (in The Mask?)

### S D Rodrian

Dec 4, 2000, 10:40:54 PM12/4/00
to
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
Kumar Yelubandi <zook...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, S D Rodrian wrote:
> > In article <90bfu2\$38b\$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> > "Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message:
> > > This and that.
> > You must always use quotation marks, Tony!
> > > Hi Roddy - Before I forget - have a merry xmas
> > > and a great new year.
> > You too. May your politics never become
> > as Gored as ours has become of late.
>
> Why? Are you flat out Bushed?

Yes I am! (I think we all are, in fact.)
[I should've included the quip just to deter
"you" from it.] But things are looking up:
Al Gore's nuisance suits are now on a peel.

> [...]

> > > By the way - I forgot to mention - there is
> > > another aspect in our universe
> > > which is often forgotten - it's called evolution
> > Not by me: I have a strong sense of
> > human history.
> > >- and evolution depends entirely
> > > on a timed sequence of events (not just repetitive,
> > > or ad hoc motion) - in other

> > Eating a one-course hotdog depends on
> > a timed sequence of events (most of'em
> > chewy; some involving a paper towel).

> > But evolution is simply the tale of life's
> > adaptation to its environment. It is not
> > progressive but adaptive (it can produce Man
> > for an instant, and when the environment
> > no longer favors apes & other brutes of that ilk
> > it will stick with cockroaches and bacteria).
>

>Not when you apply an "intelligence" filter to it.

Some intelligent person's or yours?
[Just kidding.]

>Organic
>evolution taken over a large timescale appears to be oriented
>in the direction of higher intelligence.

Not in my neighborhood. Some of my neighbors have
even gone back to swinging on trees--the lowlifes!
I wouldn't mind it so much if they... did it
in the privacy of their bedrooms, but we've got kids
& decent folks with binoculars here, forGod'sSake!

>We came from apes
>which came from protoapes which came from
>...amino acids from
>...elements.

We came from---?!?! This is gonna be a shock, I know,
but SOMEbody's gotta be the one to tell you... My
friend, hang on to your bloomers, now: We ARE apes!
We have as many hairs as do apes; we have the temperament
of apes; we are as curious and prone to stupid practical
jokes on our fellow apes... as are apes; apes are the only
mammals other than human apes who develop a true culture;
apes (chimps) have engaged in organized warfare against
human farmers in Africa (apes won the battle, lost the war);
and, frankly, I don't know any human ape who wasn't reared
by apes. I grew up in a house of very genmteel, post-Victorian
piano-playing apes, myself: It wasn't the shedding that
bothered me... as much as the petting when I did something well
(their hands were gigantic and it felt like being beaten over
the head with a sack of salt). Practically the only comfort
or joy my siblings and I had at all as children was when they
took us to the park and let us play on the monkey bars... until
we dropped!

>At least, there is much fossil evidence for this
>possibility to make it a probability.

Every time my grandfather used to argue against
our being that closely related to apes, I'd simply
agree with him (he was very free with his money)
... simply adding, "You're probably right, Gramps:
We do seem to share a lot many more traits with
cockroaches than with monkeys." That seemed to
satisfy him. Apparently, it was ANYTHING but apes
for Gramps (which might have had something to do
with the way he'd hoop and "demonstrate" whenever
his team scored--Jikes! (I'm just glad there were
no overhanging bars in our living-room.)

>It appears that
>many other attributes are
>appears to evolve in a certain
>direction (eg. begets itself).

I disagree: Billions of years ago
dinosaurs seemed to have been very professional
printers; but how many lizards are there today
who can even type properly? Hell, today even most
humans can't type worth a hoot... even after
millions of years of human prototypes.

By the way, please note that "intelligence"
(whatever that may be) is as responsive to
"adaptation" as all other traits: Until very
recently it was our common practice to smash
the head of any baby who was not born "perfect"
(it may even be true today in some parts of the
world). [Even wonder why our species suffers from
--really-- so few instances of inherited adverse
mutations?] One of the most important duties
in reproduction is finding the "perfect" mate.
[Translation: Genetic mutations may arise by
"chance" --whatever that may be-- but once they
prove beneficial to survival they will tend to
be irresistibly enhanced until such enhancements
actually become counterproductive and begin
hindering survival: It really is no different
with so-called human "intelligence" ... which
will continue to be enhanced until we become
intelligent enough to destroy ourselves--And
it is just as true even of wisdom... which will
also continue to be enhanced until wisdom itself
becomes sheer self-sacrifice and we actually
embrace extinction most nobly and dignified...
or until the next asteroid hits the earth.] Don't
worry: All signs point against our even achieving
such wisdom (I'm betting on the asteroid). Although
it may be that countless other so-called intelligent
beings may have arisen in the universe only to find
themselves to be their own worst enemies. In any
case... the point is that "intelligence" only
appears (to you) to be an exception to the laws
that govern all biological evolution; and I can
only suggest that the intelligent thing is to
It'll all come to an end soon enough.

>In any event, an infinitely
>higher being appears to be
>co-ordinating the movement of humans
>in this direction.

And has appeared to be doing so ever since
the first pre-human put together the fact that
nothing ever got "done" unless he did it himself
WITH the realization that his world appeared to
be teeming with many, many things fully "done"
which he had NOT himself done: OBVIOUSLY SOME-
BODY other than he had done all that... and if
the greatest thing he was capable of doing was
to pitch a rock at his dog... it had to have been
"the blooming of the flowers in Spring proving
there is a God" ... is totally unacceptable and
inadmissible evidence in most courts of law.

>I would guess that adaptive evolution
>is the basic architecture
>in which nonadaptive evolution is housed.

There is but ONE simple and straightforward
chance to survive, while non-adaptive evolution

>Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!
>-zookumar-

Kind thoughts, sweet dreams, and glorious ideas!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

### S D Rodrian

Dec 5, 2000, 9:07:03 PM12/5/00
to
In article <90jerq\$32e\$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
"Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> Dear Roddy,
> Most of the above contributions [on evolution]
> above are not mine (TC's).

Nor are mine mine either: They're Darwin's
and his disciples'. Interesting stuff, though,
this inquiry into who we are by finding out
where we came from.

> I only raised the subject of evolution
> as a further piece of evidence
> of the existence of time as a separate
> and very vitally important
> dimension giving sequential
> meaning to all movement.

There are only 3 dimensions to our
universe (this is a conceit of
convenience, but we all know what
is meant by it). However, the crucial
thing is that only those 3 dimensions
are needed for everything else: That
is the place (the room) into which
our universe can be put. And, ultimately,
that is all that matters.

Concerning time... all you really need to
understand is that the universe of matter is
but ONE SINGLE MOTION away from Absolute
Rest (the universe of energy) and back again.

[Translation: If the only motion that exists
is but only a single ONE, it is impossible to
describe it as either fast, slow, or even as
"moving" at all... and yet it still is MOTION
(relative to its own whatever background utterly
beyond our ken). This is the case with the universe
of energy: It is ONE singular MOTION nearly
impossible to describe in our mortal language.]

But, this much (I hope) you can understand
of it: Because it [the universe of energy, aptly
also describable as Absolute Rest] is ONE motion:
there is nothing we can "time" it by/against. And
by definition that gives us timeless motion (or,
motion without time) as existing prior to all else:
Motion can exist without time while time cannot
exist without motion (not even without at least
two motions, one of which "may" be absolute rest).

It is ONLY when the universe of energy [or,
that primordial "singularity" which is simply
depicted as "infinite (scalar) mass"] gives birth
to the universe of matter [or, to all the vector
sub-motions which gravity coalesces into all the
eternally evolving gravitational systems whose
present-day descendants are the particles described
by the Standard Model]... that it at last becomes
possible/practical for "us" to begin "timing" one
motion by/against some other motion(s). Know this:
the "universe of matter" [which is created by the
manifestation of gravity and therefore immediately
begins to implode] ultimately boils down to only a
jumble of nearly numberless "independent" relative
motions, some speeding up while others are slowing
down, as described by the gravitational laws (of
motion) ably and elegantly described by Isaac Newton.
But, however you cut it: Even if you wish to be a
stickler for absolutely unambiguous definitions
(namely that "time" began the instant the first
primordial motion "separated" from Absolute Rest,
and that therefore "time" existed before there were
brains to "time" motions), this still does in no way
put into question the fact that Time only "exists"
in our brains... because if there is but one motion
in existence it is de facto timeless... and if that
singular motion is composed of an utter chaos of
internal (and therefore ONLY relativistic) motions
... we here inside the universe of matter may "time"
a few of those motions (necessarily against each other)
as much as we wish, but... of what absolute good are
all our "timings" if we are but timing how long it
takes one soap bubble to burst as opposed to how long
it takes other soap bubbles to burst? The universe
does not care about our whatever notions of time,
it only "understands" that its inner motions are all
relative and that there exists nothing inside the
universe which is at absolute rest. [And it's not
even THAT, because relativistic motions are eternally
speeding up/slowing down and there is no way for us
to synchronize two or more motions inside the universe
... without their eventually falling completely out
of synchronization of their own accord: "The world
grows old, the stars devour themselves," the rotation
of the earth is slowing so the day is growing longer,
and we must forever keep adding nanoseconds to our clocks
to most unnaturally (artificially) keep them from utter
meaninglessness not only to the universe, but to us too.]

> As for the US elections - the rest of the world
> will probably continue to
> wonder who actually won, even after
> a President is named.

I doubt the world will even remember the name
of Al Gore a month from now. And I'll bet you
nobody will care who he was after January, 2000.

> The US can put a man on the moon, but
> can't seem to count voting papers
> reliably.

Unfortunately the opposite may be true:
We may be becoming TOO good at counting
for our own good...

"Ultimately, our only purpose in all this
is to make certain that every (Democratic)
vote is counted. (And that Republican votes
are tossed, no matter how valid they may be.)"

--An ideally honest Al Gore.

> It's a bit of a wierd circumstance.

What?!... Oh, for a minute there I thought
you'd said "circumcision!" Actually, it's
human nature de-evolving again: We used to
be more civic minded and principled (because
it simply became too costly to keep pursuing
victory at any cost). And now I'm afraid we
are condemned to repeat (those painful lessons
of) the past we've seemed to forgotten... as
George Santyana once warned us [if I remember
correctly].

music.sdrodrian.com

> Regards, Tony Cook NZ

### S D Rodrian

Dec 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/7/00
to
In article <3a2ed...@goliath2.newsfeeds.com>,

"Tarver Engineering" <john_...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> "S D Rodrian" <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:90k79s\$7qd\$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> > In article <90jerq\$32e\$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> > "Tony Cook" <tony...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Roddy,
> > > Most of the above contributions [on evolution]
> > > above are not mine (TC's).
> >
> > Nor are mine mine either: They're Darwin's
> > and his disciples'. Interesting stuff, though,
> > this inquiry into who we are by finding out
> > where we came from.
> >
> > > I only raised the subject of evolution
> > > as a further piece of evidence
> > > of the existence of time as a separate
> > > and very vitally important
> > > dimension giving sequential
> > > meaning to all movement.
> >
> > There are only 3 dimensions to our
> > universe (this is a conceit of
> > convenience, but we all know what
> > is meant by it).
>
> Interesting, considering Einstein's insertion
> of a Tensor as Gravity into
> Maxwell's Equations proving Einstein's
> Theory of Relativity.

You mean Einstein inserted a purely mathematical
generalization of vectors (or, multilinear algebra)
into the manifold vision of the universe he pulled
out of absolute differential calculus... in order to
PROVE his own theory?!?! Geee, I wonder why he didn't
prove his own theory was... hogwash? Do U know?

> Perhaps you
> are a neo-Dawrinist with no real understanding
> of Science at all.

A neo-Dawrinist, moi? Perhaps, yes. And perhaps
I just prefer not to dream in pure mathematics...
because everything agrees with itself so elegantly
while you're dreaming in it. But eventually we've all
got to wake up and smell the coffee. Haven't U yet?

> Did you
> know that Macro-Evolution fails to even meet
> the base requirements of the
> Scientific Method?

Who cares? How we know something is
never as important as that we know it.

1. We know what we heard.

2. We tried to explained to each other
what we heard. (The physicists even played
tic-tac-toe games on the sand about it.)

3. We speculated that if we heard one of'em
there might be more of'em.

4. We talked "the stupid one" among us
into staying behind and, if he heard some more
of'em, to come running after us & tell us.

Result: We never heard from him again! (Apparently
the damn thing was so loud it left us all stone deaf.)

> Run along and brush up on some science;