Origin & Age of The Universe
S D Rodrian
Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote:
> In sci.astro S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> : medium A. IF the photon were the one moving
> : the fact that it "accelerates" (C) after having
> : slowed down (B) would demand some mechanism for
> : propulsion: But the photon has none (not even
> : so much as a loss of energy). So that there can
> : be NO question that the photon either must NOT
> : be moving at all, or very little in any case:
> : To demand that every photon in the universe
> : know the velocity of every other photon in the
> : universe and that they all synchronize the "speed"
> : at which they "travel" through identical mediums
> : (in a true expanding universe) is as unreasonable
> : as demanding that, were they all rockets, every
> : last one of their "captains" obey the various
> : different speed limits (of identical "mediums")
> : everywhere in the universe and without consulting
> : ever with each other! However, if it were the
> : universe itself (with the exception of photons)
> : that was "moving" past them (photons), necessarily
> : doing so at the same "speed" everywhere throughout
> : the universe (approx.)... then you would have the
> : effect that you in fact observe in our universe:
> : Namely, that all throughout the entirety of the
> : universe... photons are always "passed" at the same
> : "speed" by a universe which is obviously everywhere
> : traveling (imploding/shrinking) at (approx.) the same
> : "speed" all across its full breadth/length/scope: The
>
> I don't see how this gains anything.
You may need to look again, that's all.
> It just seems to make
> a more difficult problem, as now
> you have to have ALL the
> particles in the universe moving
> in synchronization (and
> shrinking in absolute size as well).
You will need to explain how it could be
otherwise in an imploding body... But, you
MUST see that that is the crucial, the very
reason why the speed of light is a constant
(in identical mediums)... because the
universe itself MOVES at ONE "speed."
[Although this is true only in the sense that
in regions closer/farther from center all
mass is experiencing approximately the same
level of gravitational force: Obviously
mass both further from center AND closest
to center will be imploding "slower" than
mass where most of the universe's matter
is more heavily concentrated--but this is
irrelevant on the human scale because of
the tremendous distances between all such
fluctuations, obviously.]
> It also does not explain
> the simple bouncing of a light beam
> off of a reflecting surface.
> Now you have to have the universe
> shrinking in two different
> directions at the same time.
Actually the universe is shrinking in
EVERY imaginable direction at once: It's
not a lit'l collapsing star... which has
an absolute vector relative to us and
therefore "shrinks" toward its very obvious
center and away from its obvious surface(s).
The sheer massiveness of the universe
means that -- at the human level -- its
shrinking is effectively occurring towards
literally every possible coordinate [not
absolutely, for sure, but relativistically
--and that's our reality INSIDE the universe].
And since the ONLY connection possible
between a light-source and its photons is
whatever orientation that source gives
(relative to itself, of course) those
specific photons [i.e. if you "create" a
photon to YOUR left that photon will seem
to zoom away from your left side, etc.]...
this means that a reflective surface will
not only intercept a photon (as it moves
toward the photon) but it will also give it
a new orientation (relative to itself) whenever
the photon "bounces" off it... because it now
becomes the "source" of that "bounced" photon
and if, as I said, a photon is "created" to
the left side of its source that photon will
appear to zoom away from the left side of that
source--including the angles light "strikes"
all reflective surfaces...
The only problem which must give us thought
at this point is the always delicate matter of
just how "fast" IS the universe imploding (or,
"shrinking"). And although we are forced to say
that it MUST be imploding FASTER than the speed
of light ... because different "thicknesses" of
matter the photon goes through (mediums) affect
its speed, obviously... and this means that as long
as the photon is "in" ANY portion of the universe
it ought to be being "dragged" to SOME lesser or
greater extent by the universe's gravity, for one.
And, for another thing, the nature of all "matter"
fundamentally reduces to motion (or, energy) and
the true "absolute" speed at which the universe is
imploding is therefore NOT measured against the
photon but against Absolute Rest [and, at this time,
I do not know how fast the photon is moving relative
to Absolute Rest--all I know is that the photon can
not itself be "at" absolute rest if for no other
reason than that there "is" NO "matter" at Absolute
Rest, and the photon is necessarily a matter construct
(even if a very "delicate" matter construct) no less
than the electron and the quark].
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
SDRodrian
dusty...@aol.com (Dusty55Art) wrote:
> >The only problem which must give us thought
> >at this point is the always delicate matter of
> >just how "fast" IS the universe imploding (or,
> >"shrinking"). And although we are forced to say
> >that it MUST be imploding FASTER than the speed
>
> >of light ... because different "thicknesses" of
> >matter the photon goes through (mediums) affect
> >its speed, obviously... and this means that as long
> >as the photon is "in" ANY portion of the universe
> >it ought to be being "dragged" to SOME lesser or
>
> >greater extent by the universe's gravity, for one.
>
> conversation without knowing
> what was written before in the conversation,
> but, why does the universe have to
> be exploding or imploding?
The same question can be asked of anything and
everything IN the universe: Things change.
> Why can't it just be expanding and
> contracting at a
> civilized speed?
The same question can be asked
of a supernova, et al.
> A very small expansion and contraction
> could appear to us as
> an emplosion or explosion, but
> to an infinite universe those terms do not fit.
Nothing is infinite or eternal. Things change.
(Not even that things change is eternal, because
eventually the changing things will cease to
exist--as things.)
> If the universe is infinite, then an
> implosion would have to take matter away
> from some plece. What place is becomeing empty?
> How could galaxies be torn
> apart from another part of the spangled
> universe and for what reason?
Visit thou: http://web.sdrodrian.com
and be enlightened:
If your scenario (even that of your question)
does not follow the laws of physics: It ain't so.
> The same
> with an explosion. Where do the galaxies go
> in an infinite universe? They would
> all have to collide someplace. For what reason?
That's why BEFORE Hubble saw the recession of
the galaxies Einstein proposed that there
had to be some "mysterious force" keeping the
universe from collapsing. He made a silly stab
at giving a name to this force (the "Cosmological
Constant"). But, of course, he did not tread where
where fools are even now trying to "invent" what
this "funny energy" is and how it works.
> Everything has a REASON to happen (except
> Chicken Little) Expansion and
> contraction can be due to temperature.
> That is a reason for small time movement
> which to us would be big time because
> we are so tiny. ..... But explosions and
> implosions? .... There is no reason for that.
Live and learn. Cease learning, and
you're dead... any way you look at it.
> Base your theories on the book of Genesis
> because it is obvious that the writer
> was inspired by God the creator. I am not
> talking about the confusion recorded
> by King James translators or any other
> English translation. I am talking about
> the original Hebrew text recorded by the
> author of Genesis that was inspired by
> God.
If you're going to believe the bible, the
least you can do is believe the Bible's version.
Period. It's only when you wish to discover
the true nature of reality, and not simply
believe the most likable fairy tale, that
science comes into it: For science is the quest
for the knowledge of how it all works together
and not simply/only that they do work. [This is
also the distinction between true scientists and
just plain fools.]
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> Dusty
S D Rodrian
elqu...@aol.commie (Samuel Waters) wrote:
> In article <92gdhj$1nu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, SDRodrian
<Don_Q...@mindless.com>
> writes:
>
> >That's why BEFORE Hubble saw the recession of
> >the galaxies Einstein proposed that there
> >had to be some "mysterious force" keeping the
> >universe from collapsing. He made a silly stab
> >at giving a name to this force (the "Cosmological
> >Constant"). But, of course, he did not tread where
> >where fools are even now trying to "invent" what
> >this "funny energy" is and how it works.
>
Absolutely: The fact that since the universe
is NOT expanding... no predictable slowing down,
halt, and collapse of it is in its future.
> The universal expansion is slowing
> down, but not fast enough.
You're out-of-date: In 1998 it was
established that the so-called expansion
is actually accelerating. Try to explain that
in a true expanding/exploding universe and you
have to use fanciful Rube Goldberg nonsensical
architectures. But in an imploding universe
it would be a miracle if the implosion were NOT
accelerating with time, since (Newton) acceleration
is produced by a force acting continuously on
a body: Here, the one body is the universe itself,
and the one (and only) force here is gravity. ergo
> Heat death is the end we know right now.
Then you must have one weird stove, where
you turn on the cold and then it slowly
heats up when you turn it off! Wow!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
a...@silmarill.org wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:08:34 GMT,
>SDRodrian <Don_Q...@mindless.com> wrote:
> >In article <20001228090122...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
> >dusty...@aol.com (Dusty55Art) wrote:
> >> >The only problem which must give us thought
> >> >at this point is the always delicate matter of
> >> >just how "fast" IS the universe imploding (or,
> >> >"shrinking"). And although we are forced to say
> >> >that it MUST be imploding FASTER than the speed
> >> >of light ... because different "thicknesses" of
> >> >matter the photon goes through (mediums) affect
> >> >its speed, obviously... and this means that as long
>
Sorry, no: It is any "speed" as long as it is
constant in identical mediums. The speed of light
in vacuum is simply "faster" than it is in "air."
This is the conventional explanation, of course.
The truth is that the photon doesn't (much) "move."
In our imploding universe it is everything except
the photon that is moving (past the photon, of course).
And this is why there is such mind-boggling constancy
to its "speed" ... why in identical mediums? Think
about it for a second: In a "thicker" medium there is
a stronger gravitational field than in a "thinner"
medium: Therefore the photon which is IN a thicker
medium is "pulled along" (dragged) more than the photon
IN a thinner gravitational field (medium). We mortal
observers are, of course, ON the moving ("passing
the photon") universe looking upon it, so from our
perspective it looks as if it's the photon that's really
"moving." [e.g. The photon which is being pulled along
(dragged with us) will seem to be moving more slowly
than the photon which is being dragged along (with us)
a lot less: The photon "moving" through a thicker medium
looks like it's "moving" more slowly than the photon that is
traveling through a medium closer to vacuum. But looks
can be deceiving.]
> That's what's meant when it is said that speed of
> light is constant and is 300k km/s. Naturally photons
> move much slower through, say, middle of neutron star
> (if at all) but constant is still the same cause it
> applies to speed in vacuum.
You're looking at it as if you were ON the photon!
You have to look upon it from your true perspective:
From the universe of ordinary matter looking AT
the photon.
> IOW, you can't say 'must be imploding
> faster than speed
> of light'. This is just not possible.
"This is just not possible" is not an argument
but an emotional outburst. Visit thou my site at:
and patiently work your way through the massive
strata of elucidations there... which I've been giving
on Usenet for years now.
For the time being, think of this: Is the speed
of light slow, or fast? Well, if you race a horse
against it... you will think it's very fast. But
it takes the average photon almost 8 minutes
to travel to the earth from the Sun. And it takes
billions of years for a photon to "travel" to the
farthest-visible regions of our local region of the
universe. So you see: The speed of light on the
human level may indeed seem to us as if it's
tremendously fast, but on a more objective scale
it's really a frustratingly slow, slow, slow "speed."
>Andrei
S D Rodrian
akl...@villagenet.com wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:46:58 GMT, S D Rodrian
> <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Sorry, no: It is any "speed" as long as it is
> >constant in identical mediums. The speed of light
> >in vacuum is simply "faster" than it is in "air."
> >This is the conventional explanation, of course.
> >The truth is that the photon doesn't (much) "move."
> >In our imploding universe it is everything except
> >the photon that is moving (past the photon, of course).
> >And this is why there is such mind-boggling constancy
> >to its "speed" ... why in identical mediums? Think
> >about it for a second: In a "thicker" medium there is
> >a stronger gravitational field than in a "thinner"
> >medium: Therefore the photon which is IN a thicker
> >medium is "pulled along" (dragged) more than the photon
> >IN a thinner gravitational field (medium). We mortal
> >observers are, of course, ON the moving ("passing
> >the photon") universe looking upon it, so from our
> >perspective it looks as if it's the photon that's really
> >"moving." [e.g. The photon which is being pulled along
> >(dragged with us) will seem to be moving more slowly
> >than the photon which is being dragged along (with us)
> >a lot less: The photon "moving" through a thicker medium
> >looks like it's "moving" more slowly than the photon that is
> >traveling through a medium closer to vacuum. But looks
> >can be deceiving.]
>
> constant speed in varying
> frames of reference?
Please note that the "x-space" referenced
in the quote below is merely a convenient
way to "visualize" the methodology of the
universe's shrinking/imploding without changing
form/shape... by looking at the universe of
matter itself as "permanent" and instead
thinking of "space" as the thing "expanding."
BEGIN QUOTE
Constancy of The Speed of Light In Identical Mediums
One may also begin here: A bullet
traveling (say, through a "perfect"
vacuum) "knows" why it travels at
the speed it does: The amount of gun
powder in the bullet casing tells it
(+/- the gun's velocity). But how
do all photons know why they must,
every last one of them, travel at the
"speed" they do when no photon can
be given less or more impetus by its
source/creator? The most immediate
("only") possible answer is that the
photon is [relatively speaking] not
traveling (moving) at all: In an imploding
universe it is "ordinary matter" itself
is what is "in motion" [this is not a
linear motion, remember, but a motion
"towards" a "shrinking" which only
x-space "recognizes"]; considering which
ought to make it instantly obvious
that any & all "ordinary-matter objects"
in our universe which "appear" to
be linearly accelerating (up towards
the so-called "speed of light") are "in
absolute reality" [in x-space's reality]
decelerating (down towards "absolute
rest")... and the faster an object made
of ordinary matter travels linearly
in our universe the closer it moves to
absolute rest. [Why we need to
accelerate objects in our universe to
increase the force with which they clash
linearly is, of course, made obvious
by picturing a group of men playing
baseball inside a moving train: the
train's "speed" is irrelevant to their game.]
The photon is still part of the
ordinary matter of our universe, of
course; it's only that the photon is
a matter-construct which ONLY
obeys the 1st motion of matter
(shrinking in place) while apparently
remaining free from having to obey
the second motion of matter (or,
closing the "gaps" opened by the
1st motion of matter). This requires
that the photon (and all such particles)
be extremely and uniquely
constructed "universes unto themselves."
[The description of the
photon as "a discrete quantum packet" is
therefore here very pertinent
indeed (as is Frank Wilczek's idea
of "asymptotic freedom," which
holds that quarks feel scarcely any
mutual attraction when they are
very near each other despite their
powerful attraction when separated):
If the universe is to exist as a
stratified architecture in which the
forms of matter in any given stratum
cannot directly interact with
forms of matter in other strata...
there must yet exist a method by
which different strata can equalize
(exchange) their different energy
values and therefore one or more
"special particles" is required to
mediate this interaction between
the strata: The photon fits this
requirement perfectly: Every other
form of ordinary matter is the
absolute slave and prisoner of its
stratum. But the photon is the
means by which the different strata
of our universe "mediate" (or
"exchange"), really "maintain"
their "energy equilibrium" --a "side
effect" of which mediation is that
energy is also made available for
an opportunistic parasite of the
universe, namely... most forms of life:
which would find it very hard to
make a living in the universe
without having this most direct
and easy access to the energy of
the universe which the photon also offers them.]
One hint that this is the correct model
comes from the fact that there
is no absolute/perfect vacuum (one
even devoid of "gravitons")... and
yet the apparent speed of light is
always a constant in whatever identical
medium. [To posit such a perfect vacuum
theoreticians must say that the
graviton simply does not exist, and
that therefore gravity acts purely by
magic at a distance! Of course, they
use the term "space-time" to escape
straitjackets.] In any case... such
an universally constant "speed" might be
understandable inside a perfect vacuum
perhaps, but outside a perfect
vacuum a moving photon MUST experience
a permanent drag, however
infinitesimal [and since c is really
a very, very slow speed in cosmological
terms... that drag should become
appreciable at some point]: The same
"moving" photons traveling first through
a vacuum A, then through air, and
then through another vacuum B... when
measured at vacuum B ought to
reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when
passing through air (and not "return"
to the same "higher speed" they had
in vacuum A). The only possible
explanation is that while air adds
a slight "push" to the photon (remember
that this "air" is the one "moving by"
the photon)... once the "push" of air
is no longer there, the photon "returns"
to the same (greater) degree of rest
it had when passing through vacuum A.
Any other explanation would require
a Rube Goldberg construct--And many a
permeability/permittivity Rube
Goldberg construct have I waded through
indeed, or... eternally tireless
Tarzan-like photons swinging frictionlessly
from out on one limb to the next!
Say that the universe of ordinary matter
"shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a
given direction] in relation to
x-space [and so "moves through it"]
while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the
(approximate) "place" at/in which it
was created (which makes it appear
to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of
ordinary matter "where" it originated);
thereby the so-called "speed of light"
remains constant regardless of its
source/origin/direction because "about"
the only connection a photon has
with its source is "orientation"
[x-space is expanding equally from/at all
coordinates, so the only quality
the photon creator/source can impart unto
"his" creation is an orientation
relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you"
create the photon to the west of "you"
that photon will "seem" to shoot
out away from your west side, and if
you create a photon to the north
of you... it will then "seem" to shoot
out away from your north side,
since x-space will always take "you"
to be the exact center of its universe]
... Add the proviso that if
"enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational
field) passes close enough to a photon
then that photon will suddenly
display a new "linear" orientation
vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will
naturally be "observable" by the rest of
our universe because in our
universe the "orientation" of any & all
bits of ordinary matter with respect
to any & all other bits of ordinary
matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter,
period). There are other concerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding
all other linear motions of our
universe... earth's revolution, orbits,
et al; but this one simple "absolute
law" you really have to understand to
avoid having to delve into synonymous
but much more complex geometry equivalents:
"your" orientation with
respect to the rest of the universe is
absolute... so once the photon "adopts"
an orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same
("your") orientation with respect to
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.
Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN
NOT be added to or subtracted
from the so-called "speed of light" because
obviously the direction of our
"real" motion (x-space = absolute rest) is
never "really" linear at all but always
everywhere "towards shrinking." [And
therefore one is hard put to imagine any
bit of ordinary matter in our universe
achieving any true/real "greater velocity"
than the one it already has when it is
at its "greatest rest" ... with respect to the
rest of the universe of ordinary matter
taken as a unit, of course.]
A simple analogy may help visualize this:
Imagine two side-by-side photons
"traveling" towards a man standing next to
a woman (neither of whom have yet
been enlightened by me that it is they
who are "moving towards" the photons
and not the reverse--further, I have also
never mentioned to them that the only
"real" change in velocity they are
capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS
of anything they might attempt in this reality)...
Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman
that he can catch his photon
before she can catch hers and rushes his
"approaching" photon at 10 mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks
the bet childish and tells the
man she can wait for her photon right
where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the
woman catches hers; but then
something odd happens: [for the sake of
simplicity, here] the man reports
to the woman that he caught his photon
at 100 mph and the woman
reports to the man that she also
caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!
Why doesn't he report to the woman that
he caught his photon at 100 mph
PLUS his 10 mph acceleration?
--Although you already know the answer...
it is, of course, that he "really"
wasn't accelerating at all (because it is
impossible to "really" accelerate in
his reality) and what he was really doing
was decelerating (with respect
to the photon's "position"). But then why
doesn't he report to the woman that he
caught his photon at 90 mph? And
the answer is that if the only two things
that existed were he and the photon
they might indeed agree (between photon
& man) on that 90 mph; but it is
the woman he must agree with on
the speed of the photon... and that is where
the mystery of x-space forever will
confound them both because even though
(in "Paradise") he and the photon
indeed "hit" at 90 mph... in this world he
can never report this to the woman without
factoring in his acceleration of
10 mph with respect to her!
Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man
"takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops
(he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have
no problem understanding that they
will both report catching their photons
at 100 mph). The same is true if
he "takes the time" to step back a few
paces as well: he will catch his
photon after she catches hers, but
you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both
report catching their photons at 100 mph.
The matter is not one of time, but
of acceleration/deceleration: The paradox
[and please keep in mind that there are
no paradoxes in nature, only in our minds],
this paradox will always rest with what they
will interpret as acceleration vs what the
photon will interpret as deceleration...
and in that "misinterpretation" lies
their eternal impossibility to agree
between them that the speed at which
a photon has been caught is anything
except constant regardless of their
relative velocities with respect to the photon!
And there the matter forever rests
in our reality: As far as ordinary
matter in our universe goes... the
so-called "speed of light" will always
be measured in this perfectly inversely
proportional manner to be
identical (in identical mediums) by
all moving observers regardless of
their velocities (linear) relative to
each other: It is an absolute set value
(agreed to) between the man and the woman
(that whichever one of
them "hits" a photon at a "true/real"
slower speed will always report to
the other one that he/she hit it
exactly that much faster, thereby canceling
out all differences between them).
They have no choice in this agreement,
of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them
by the nature of this reality/existence...
and thus too, along with the man and
the woman, every bit
of ordinary matter in our universe
has also "signed" this Absolute Relativity
covenant with every other bit of
ordinary matter in our universe.
END QUOTE
> --
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> aklein at villagenet dot com
S D Rodrian
elqu...@aol.commie (Samuel Waters) wrote:
> In article <92go88$a6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian
> <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
>
> >In article <20001228184637...@nso-cu.aol.com>,
> >elqu...@aol.commie (Samuel Waters) wrote:
> >> In article <92gdhj$1nu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, SDRodrian
> ><Don_Q...@mindless.com>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> >That's why BEFORE Hubble saw the recession of
> >> >the galaxies Einstein proposed that there
> >> >had to be some "mysterious force" keeping the
> >> >universe from collapsing. He made a silly stab
> >> >at giving a name to this force (the "Cosmological
> >> >Constant"). But, of course, he did not tread where
> >> >where fools are even now trying to "invent" what
> >> >this "funny energy" is and how it works.
> >>
> >> Well something is preventing the collapse.
> >
> >Absolutely: The fact that since the universe
> >is NOT expanding... no predictable slowing down,
> >halt, and collapse of it is in its future.
>
> any galaxy? How is that possible
> without a continued expansion?
BEGIN QUOTE
I shall state it plainly: Everything IN the universe is
relativistic (with the conceit that everything outside
the universe is "absolute" used in order to understand
the nature of relativity here inside the universe): Now
consider it from that perspective...
1) The universe is absolutely imploding (this means that
if you were God standing outside the universe you would
absolutely see it getting smaller and smaller--than you).
This means that the galaxies ARE (in an absolute sense)
indeed moving (compacting) towards each other. However...
2) Everything INSIDE the universe is relativistic (this
means that for anyone standing inside the universe, and
also shrinking, it would not be possible to tell there
was any "shrinking" going on at all). For us the galaxies
are NOT shrinking, here inside the relativistic universe:
This means that as ALL the galaxies absolutely "shrink"
the only possible effect that we might ever notice is
IF somehow the process of shrinking were to produce the
phenomenon where the forms of matter shrunk ahead of
their then moving/rushing towards each other... and that
is precisely what the laws of physics demand: If there
were no room for them to move closer (they were fundamental)
you'd get a centralized accumulation; but because energy
is required to get things going... that is the first thing
that happens in the process [E=MC^2 = that energy is stored
"conserved" in the forms of matter, and when it is used (up)
to "fuel" movement... it MUST drain from the ONLY place where
it is conserved: IN the forms of matter themselves... and
when you pull air from your balloon it shrinks].
a) Energy is taken from matter
b) Matter shrinks
c) Room (gaps) open(s) between (really, inside) matter
d) Matter then, and only then, closes the gaps
These steps MUST occur in sequence. Therefore there is
an infinitesimal but real "delay" between the steps and
THAT infinitesimal hesitation at the super-micro level
will not only also exist in the macro level but actually
be astronomically magnified by astronomical distances:
The result is that the galaxies REALLY ARE receding from
each other (even if it's only a relativistic "reality"
here inside the universe, and not absolutely).
END QUOTE
The galaxies really ARE receding from each other because
"space" is merely/only the distance between them, and if you
think about it: If the earth & the moon were to suddenly
begin to shrink towards their centers while yet retaining
their shape/form... we would be, at first glance, incapable
of realizing that the two bodies were shrinking (in place,
as their two centers would, of course, never really move
away from each other when measured by some impossibly
absolute ruler which itself didn't engage in shrinking).
The "obvious" conclusion we would jump to would be that
the two bodies were receding from each other (the same
premature conclusion that Hubble & company jumped to).
But note, as I've said, that relativistically the two
shrinking bodies would REALLY be receding from each other
in spite of the fact that they would not be doing so
absolutely.
> Has the light just not gotten here yet from the
> ones that have reversed or become static?
> (And static to what?). May humanity
> have just come alone at the right moment?
Only in the sense that at least this region of the universe
is in the process of shifting from a volume of galaxies
and atoms to one of black holes and--??????
But the reason you seek is answered this way: The photon
is also shrinking (even if it is not joining in the 2nd
motion of matter... which is the coming together of all the
forms of matter). So that the growing "distances" and the
speeds the galaxies are receding from each other is quite
accurately reported by the photon (the spectrum's redshifts).
> >> The universal expansion is slowing
> >> down, but not fast enough.
> >
> >You're out-of-date: In 1998 it was
> >established that the so-called expansion
> >is actually accelerating. Try to explain that
> >in a true expanding/exploding universe and you
> >have to use fanciful Rube Goldberg nonsensical
> >architectures. But in an imploding universe
> >it would be a miracle if the implosion were NOT
> >accelerating with time, since (Newton) acceleration
> >is produced by a force acting continuously on
> >a body: Here, the one body is the universe itself,
> >and the one (and only) force here is gravity. ergo
>
> Gravity is a force now?
No, it's actually been a force for some time now.
> >> Heat death is the end we know right now.
> >
> >Then you must have one weird stove, where
> >you turn on the cold and then it slowly
> >heats up when you turn it off! Wow!
>
> No, I have a stove that once is very hot
> and turned off, it gets colder with time.
Then you should have said "cold death
is the end..."
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com