S D Rodrian - some questions
S D Rodrian
"rp" <rpot...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I am fascinated by your posts and by
> the theories on your website.
Me too.
> (Your
> music is great too, and your poems are
> first rate - a real renaissance man!)
Flattery'll get you anything anywhere. Thanks.
> But I have a few questions which occured
> to me while reading your theories.
Yet another compliment! [non-sarcasm]
> Are you actually stating that the universe
> isn't expanding, but that it only
> looks that way because every galaxy
> in the universe is shrinking?
That's about it: Matter can't really expand
--Not atom by atom, nor galaxy by galaxy:
A nuclear expansion is caused by matter FIRST
being concentrated into a critical density. And
a galaxies expansion ALSO can only be caused
by FIRST concentrating them the same way. Ergo,
it's pointless to speak of any universal expansion
because it can only be realized as a sort of anti-
climax to the story of an imploding universe which
would be made up of fundamental forms of matter
that, naturally, would all "pile-up" at "the" center
before Big Banging. Fortunately our universe is
NOT composed of fundamental forms of matter
but only "forms" of (which are composed of) energy
(you know... "E=MC^2" and "energy=motion/motion-energy").
Therefore: In our universe, energy (slow/large motion)
becomes matter (fast/small motion). Or in my own
words, "the universe of energy gives birth to the
universe of matter" (which universe of matter then
grows faster and faster while getting smaller and
smaller... IMPLOSION). [This of the twirling skater
who pulls in her arms.]
Why are the galaxies receding from each other IN
an imploding universe? Because "space" has nothing
to do with existence. [And the fact that there is
some fluff or other IN space is beside the point.]
The fact is that space is merely the absence of
matter: And this means that it's irrelevant to "space"
whether the bits of matter get closer to each other
or farther from each other. [Please think--It helps
a lot. Believe me.] There are two planets next to
each other which suddenly begin to shrink in place
(towards their centers, but so perfectly symmetrically
that their inhabitants never suspect they're shrinking).
These two planets were once a hundred feet from
each other (this is only a mental experiment)... so
that once one could measure the distance between
them with one hundred 12-inch rulers. But now the
same distance requires 200 rulers! Suppose you
tell me what's going on?
Never mind (I forgot you can't speak here)...
You and I are God and one of his angels standing to
one side of this mental experiment (so that WE do not
shrink, and therefore WE know they are shrinking).
You take out your unshrinking holy ruler [pun] and
measure the distance between the two exact centers
of the planets. Then you turn to me and say: "Dear God, [sic]
the distance between the two planets is categorically
NOT changing by so much as a millimeter!" [I just say,
"I know." As I usually do in all cases like these.]
But, because the shrinking is never-ending, by this time
the inhabitants of the planets take out their ever-
shrinking rulers and discover that now it takes 400
of their 12-inch rulers to measure the distance between
their planets! Is this a paradox? Suppose you tell me
(rhetoric) whose 12-inch ruler is telling THE truth,
God's or that of the planets' inhabitants? [Remember
that there are NO paradoxes in nature, only in our minds
--i.e. in our interpretation.]
Well? Are the two planets receding from each other or not?
Well, thus too with the galaxies IN the imploding universe!
The only difference is that our universe is imploding. [In
the language of the analogy above: the two planets are not
only shrinking in place (towards their centers) but they
are also gravitationally attracted to each other... so that
as they shrink they also move closer to each other with such
"timing" that there is NEVER any possible way for their
inhabitants to ever even so much as suspect that any shrinking
whatsoever is going on.] How then do I know that this is
exactly what's happening, you might ask? Because I never
learned anything by rote--i.e. without understanding it. And
as soon as I understood that the universe (like The Mother
of All Black Holes) simply HAD to be imploding, I was free
to pursuit the reason why the universe looks/works as it does.
Here do we begin: Slower/larger motions becoming smaller/faster
motions (ever-tightening gravitational systems). Obviously
it is impossible for the individual gravitational systems to get
closer to each other without there FIRST being between them
enough "room" for them to do this--So the universe of matter
MUST be made up of gravitational systems which FIRST shrink
in place (creating the room between them which we have come
to call "space" and which is but only "distance between...") and
ONLY THEN do they move closer to each other: The FIRST
STEP insures that all the "forms" of matter will retain their forms
regardless of whether they're bigger/smaller; while the SECOND
STEP insures that the universe REALLY is shrinking/imploding
(even if it is an implosion which to us here inside it will forever
appear to be completely unaffecting us). But NOT all that
"completely" because... even though over the lifetime of the
universe its two principal motions have settled into a nearly-
perfect ballet, there is a little truth they cannot avoid: There
is/must be forever an infinitesimal "lapse of time" between the
two motions (of shrinking/collecting). And even though this
infinitesimal "lapse of time" is for all practical purposes
utterly meaningless within relatively "smaller" volumes, given
a large-enough volume... it actually becomes quite noticeable:
The galaxies are far enough from each other that all the itty
bitty infinitesimal "gaps" added up amount to astronomically
(almost infinite)ly huge "gaps" which we can easily notice when
we look at the cosmos and see that the farther galaxies are
from each other the faster they ARE receding from each other.
In other words, the overall "form" of the universe always
remains the same, but shrinking gravitational systems (whatever
they may be called) which lie distant enough from each other
cannot "collect" (take the SECOND STEP) fast enough to match
with absolute perfection the speed with which they are shrinking
in place (distant enough gravitational systems will always be
shrinking faster that those distant gravitational systems can
keep up the "appearance" of solidarity "matter" provides for
our limited human understanding).
> If that
> is the case, why do we see distant objects
> as red shifted only?
Because the photons are behaving exactly like the rulers
of the shrinking planets' inhabitants: As time continues
every time one of those photons/rulers get to us "it" tells
us that the "distance" between (whatever cosmic places) has
increased--Because IT HAS! As the universe implodes, its
photons also shrink and therefore as time goes on they must
travel a longer "distance" [relativistic] that the one they
initially had before them when they first started out on
their "journey." [Photons don't really do must traveling
in an imploding universe, but that's another story.] However
the farther a light source is from us the more red-shifted
it will appear (the faster it will seem to be moving away
from us). Now, suppose you tell me: Is that distance between
cosmic objects really increasing, or is it decreasing" And
how can the galaxies be receding IN an imploding universe?!?
[Hint: There are NO paradoxes in nature, only in our minds
--in our understanding.]
> If the
> galaxy is collapsing uniformly (and not on
> the side facing us only), why is
> the opposite side of the collapsing galaxy
> not blue shifted?
Because of the SECOND STEP (above)... the galaxies
are NOT "just" shrinking in place (towards their
centers) but ALSO "gathering" (moving towards each
other, even if it's slower than they are shrinking).
Can we see this in the doppler effect? Sure. The only
thing standing in the way of that is the fact that
the distance between the sides of a so distant galaxy
is relatively tiny when compared to that galaxy's
distance from us, so the red-shift differences between
its near/far sides are bound to be quite tiny as well
(but they must be there, waiting for us cops of the
universe to look for them with sensitive-enough radar
guns, of course).
> Why is it that
> the more distant an object is from here,
> the greater its red shift? Are you
> suggesting that the closer the galaxy is
> to us, the slower it is
> contracting? Are you suggesting then, that
> the Milky Way is the center of the universe?
Yes. Yes. Yes. And, for all practical purposes: Yes.
Consider it for but an instant... the entire universe
is shrinking NOT (so much) towards "a" center, but
"at" the level of every last one of ALL its gravitational
systems (the least of which may probably be many more
orders of magnitude different from atoms as are atoms
themselves from galaxies). The result of this IS that
the universe is shrinking (imploding towards shrinking)
at every possible imaginable coordinate you can name:
So that God, looking at the universe from some place
beyond it, and Himself unshrinking... would "see" a
universe which indeed shrank (in relation to Him) but
which never appreciably changed its overall shape/form:
It is NOT like one of our collapsing stars, whose
forms of matter (particles) remain pretty much as they
have always been (neutrons, et al)... the universe's forms
of matter are NOT fundamental and are only "forms"
(e.g. they "form" and "de-form"). Thus the universe
will not ultimately result in a pile-up at its whatever
center; but will continue imploding/shrinking until its
forms of "matter" literally run out of enough energy to
maintain their forms [energy=motion/motion=energy, or
as somebody put it, "E=MC^2" ... as matter boils down
to motion/energy].
> If the contraction of galaxies is
> indistinguishable from receding galaxies,
> how do you know that your theory is true?
How do I know that the magicians' tricks is NOT
true magic? Because first I understand the laws of
physics (reality) and THEN I judge all I judge
by the laws of physics. And may God have mercy
on our souls.
> What experimental data do you
> have to prove your theory?
Many years ago (soon as I consulted Newton on this
matter), I realized that "a body in motion will undergo
acceleration as long as a force is acting on it." And
if the only force acting on the universe is gravity, and
gravity is ALWAYS acting on the universe, the universe
has got to be accelerating--That is, whatever the universe
is "doing" it MUST eventually be found to be doing "that"
faster and faster over time: This went completely against
any Big Bang notion (which posited that the "force" that
accelerated the universe at its beginning IS NO LONGER
acting on it). And since the universe was described as
"expanding" it was only logical to suppose that that
seeming expansion of the universe MUST eventually be
found to be accelerating--which would be inexplicable in
terms of any inflationary theory. Well, for many years
this conviction of mine (in effect, that the "expansion"
of the universe had to be accelerating) sounded quite
illogical to everyone--until 1998, when researchers first
tentatively proposed that the universe "might" indeed be
accelerating (moving faster today than yesterday). A
proposal which, so far, has only been confirmed.
Unfortunately, the conventional theorists are even now
attempting to fit this proven observation into their
conventional models of an expanding universe... with
oftentimes hilarious results (such as the proposal that
there "must" exist some sort of anti-gravity "somewhere
out there" resulting from "some matter which instead of
attracting matter, repels it" --even though it would be
hard to imagine how it managed to get itself together
in the first place" ... or the bizarre revival of Einstein's
"greatest blunder" the Cosmological Constant, so-called
because before Hubble saw the galaxies were receding
from each other, Einstein knew that the universe HAD to
be imploding... and could only propose that it was not
because there was "some inexplicable force out there"
which was acting in the exact opposite way gravity acted
--even though it apparently had to be acting in the same
place and at the same time as was gravity [and I will now
ignore the silly suggestions that gravity and this imaginary
anti-gravity have been taking turns... to avoid the obvious
nonsensical nature of the "twin gravities" proposals].
Human nature... it's all human nature. And we are always
proving ourselves to be more clever than wise.
> If the galaxies are generally agreed to be about
> 16 billion years old, and the furthest
> quasars indicate recession speed of
> 90% of the speed of light, assuming
> constant speed during the 16 billion
> years, this would mean our galaxy was
> at least 14.4 billion light years
> across when it was created,
> according to your theory.
You're applied the rules of other theories to mine: The
universe of matter (or, the individual gravitational systems)
began as huge/slow motions, remember: And when I say
"huge" I mean so big that it would never be possible for
the human mind to conceive of just how big is "big."
And when I say "slow" I'm talking something very nearly
close to "absolute rest." Therefore: If God's watch marks
"time" at the "speed" our watches do today... and our
watches are forever accelerating, this means that "time"
at the beginning "passed/moved" so slowly with respect to
its "present speed" that it's meaningless to put a "human"
age on the universe: If you proposed to me that the universe
is trillions of years old raised to the power of C^2 (in
human years) there would be no way for me to contradict
your belief, because, according to my own theories: The only
assertion I can make with regards to the age of the universe
of matter is that, although definitely NOT eternal, it is
nevertheless both unimaginably ancient and will "last" for
an equally unimaginably long length of time (in human years).
I can but say that the universe is as much a process of
evolution as organic life; and that atoms and galaxies are
but its mammals and dinosaurs (I posit no objections to the
"standard model")... What life will evolve into is outside
my ability to foresee. And, as far as cosmic evolution is
concerned, I can but believe that it will continue inexorably
for as long as the universe itself lasts (and so I can easily
come to believe that black holes represent the next
generation of particles, to inherit the universe after galaxies
and atoms become quite extinct... in a "few" years).
> Why are no other
> ancient galaxies that we see
> bigger than 3 million light years across?
Because we're measuring them with our current (shrinking)
rules, I imagine. And so will it be forever (for us).
> I am not a mathematician or physicist, so
> please forgive me if my math or
> logic is wrong.
Well, I may forgive you for not being a mathematician.
But I'll not let any of your "errors" go that easily: It's a curse
(with me) that I like people more than I like their BO.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/