Finding an explanation for our Universe
S D Rodrian
"Stephen John Triffett" <STR...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On what grounds do you hold that existence
> and matter are co-extensive;
On the grounds of Veterans Park, where I am
often to be found feeding the pigeons and
watching the joggers gett'n raped & mugged:
There do I exist on all that matters (to me).
> that
> if there is not matter, there is no thing existing?
Well, I have often pointed to/at pure, unadulterated
"space" (you know, nothingness, El Bigo Nada, zilch,
where matter is not...) and called out: "What is that?"
Upon which my dog often looks up to me and wrinkles his
eyebrows, wagging his tail, thinking: "You see: That's
why I love this guy--You can always answer his questions
with nothing." (Passers-by usually run their noses down
the length of my extended arm, clean over my index finger,
and squint awfully as they try to see what the hell "that"
is I am pointing at/to... way, way past the Nothing I am
really pointing twat.) That's the way it is at the park.
> Is your assumption that
> since only material things can be measured
> or pointed at (by material means)
> then there could only be material things?
> But that is trivial - of course
> only material things can be pointed at
> or measured by material means.
I could never answer that statement in any way,
shape, or form that could make it appear more
utterly vertiginous than it already is: It makes
me feel dizzy just to know it's still up there!
> But
> that is compossible with non-material existants.
I have no objections whatsoever to any incorporeal
"thing" claiming the space I am taking up at the
moment--and not even if it's at the same moment.
(It's'em "real-ly" pushy people I want... nowhere
near me.)
> So 'God' need not be a body to exist.
Correct: God is an idea. And ideas DO "exist."
Not as part of the natural world outside Man's
own existence, naturally. But, certainly, as
whatever Man makes of them. *
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
* Doesn't this pretty much
fully explain "our" God?
re:
> "SDRodrian" <Don_Q...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:93tcoe$5rj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <z7j86.22281$OD.81...@typhoon.snet.net>,
> > "Joe Martin" <joe.w....@nospam-att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > > news:93sd62$dif$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > People "believe" in God (say), but if asked
> > how/why the know God exists (necessarily as
> > a three-dimensional "body") they will either
> > simply say "He's not physical BUT he does
> > exist" (an absurdity)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
"Philip Lewis" <Phili...@it-net.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > In article <94qtvn$rjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > rry...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Rod: Lick my leg dog .
> > > Rod Ryker...
> > > While in article <94qtqc$rh1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > Your leg has its own dog, Number One?!
> > Impressed. Does your head have anything?
> > Hath thine asse any pets, perhaps?
> What are your thoughts on the new hypothesis
> sweeping cosmological physics
> that the speed of light may not be constant
> after all? (the idea is that
> when the universe was "younger" and hotter
> that the speed of light may have
> been much faster than it is today)
The reality is, as usual, the exact complete opposite:
In an imploding universe... the implosion accelerates
with time (and since it's not the photon so much as
it is everything but the photon that is "moving in the
direction of shrinking" ... the farther back in time one
"looks" the slower "the speed of light" would be repor-
ted). However, consider that the "constancy" of "c"
does not apply to the universe ("c" is NOT a universal
"constant")... but ONLY to identical mediums: In a
theoretically perfect vacuum (in relation to everything
but the photon) the "speed of light" would be reported
at its highest value, while recently researchers actually
brought the speed of light down (from 38 mph) to "zero."
But, as I said before, on average, given the same medium
in different time-frames... the speed of matter (since
it is mostly only the forms of ordinary matter, with the
exception of quantum particles, which are really "moving")
the speed of matter is eternally inescapably accelerating
[a body will undergo acceleration as long as a force is
acting on it --Newton--; and since the imploding universe
is forever being acted upon by the force of gravity, of
course... it is forever and ever will it find itself accelerating].
Keep in mind that from our perspective ("we" are in fact
that "ordinary matter")... so it "looks" to us as if the photon
is the one "moving" when it's really "us."
In a true expanding universe (where I would be hard put
to explain how "radiation" would even be possible at all),
its mythical photons WOULD have been moving "faster"
in its past--given the superstition that their universe was
"smaller" (and therefore it took less time for a photon to
"cross its expanse;" or, the universe was smaller but the
speed of light was as constant as it ever is; or so might
go their reasoning]. But this strictly hypothetical scenario
quickly runs into an objection often made by the Big Bang
proponents themselves: namely, that the universe is not
expanding from "a" center but everywhere from every possible
coordinate at once ... "their universe" hath no "center" (to
"hold"). And this would demand a universe which never really
"expands" but merely "creates space/distance" between its
bodies of matter--yes, exactly as in the novel model of an
imploding universe I've described... with one very glaring
difference: NO unimpeachable explanation for such a universe
to be thus expanding can ever be proposed (since it goes
against reason itself for a universe in the grip of gravity
to be expanding at all). In their expanding universe model
nothing would be shrinking, and therefore there could be no
explanation, reason, or cause for photons to even SEEM to be
accelerating over time at all... regardless of the necessarily
different sizes over time of their ever-expanding universe. Or:
It's self-contradictory (or "inconsistent" for you nit-pickers).
> If true this hypothesis apparently solves
> many contradictions - such as the
> discrepency between the actual expansion rate
> of the universe and that
> calculated using the assumption that
> the speed of light is and was always
> constant.
Please note, once and for all: There are NO absolutes
inside the universe... none. Nothing IN here is really
fast or slow: Everything is either faster or slower (than
something else). Everything IN the universe is "absolutely"
relativistic: ALL MOTIONS are purely relativistic. This
means that it's utterly meaningless to speak of "the speed
of light now" (because "this" speed is a motion relative to
the current universe) as being faster or slower than "the
speed of light then" (because "that" speed was a motion
relative to a universe which no longer "exists" ... and one
would be hard put to place a definite number on exactly
how much faster/slower those two universes were/are
expanding OR imploding). The most we can say about
the "speed" with which the universe is expanding or
imploding is that the universe "must be" imploding faster
and faster over time while it "should be" expanding slower
and slower over time: Now we KNOW, since 1998 (at
least), that whatever the universe is doing... it is doing it
faster and faster over time. So: Guess which model of
the universe better "seems to fit" the "observed facts." *
* And --not that it really has anything to do with
the matter at hand-- but, for all you "conservation
of angular momentum" guys out there... at this time
you may think of what happens when your twirling
skater pulls her arms closer to her body (she turns
a bigger/slower motion into a smaller/faster one).
And what happens then... when she again spreads
out her arms (and turns a smaller/faster motion into
a bigger/slower one). The analogy being the difference
between a universe spreading out its arms vs. one (a
universe) pulling in its arms toward its body: And, need
I remind you that since 1998 we have discovered
that the universe is doing whatever it's doing (and I
leave the judgment of what the universe is doing up to
you, kind reader)... faster and faster over time? "Yep."
> --
> Phil
> (The Guy Who's Not Too Fond Of Political Correctness)
> --
>
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > wisdom.findhere.org
> > sdrodrian.com
> > web.sdrodrian.com
Jean Corser
Okay, now I really _do_ understand what you're saying. Should I start
worrying?
And thank you for mentioning the fact that the universe has been speeding
up. I have seen a documentary mentioning this discovery, but everyone I
tried to tell about it just looked at me like I had a treefrog on my nose.
(I don't!)
Thank you. I can now go and totally screw up their brains with your theory.
jeanibean
S D Rodrian
"Jean Corser" <jean...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Okay, now I really _do_ understand what you're saying.
> Should I start worrying?
On the contrary, the superstition of an expanding
universe (of fundamental matter) posited a rather
much grimmer future of either singular loneliness or
collapsing ruin. The truth is rather more comforting:
The universe (of matter) MUST be unimaginably
ancient (even if only because so much of it still
"remains'). And, because, as it implodes (regardless
of how much "faster" its implosion is becoming--because
of the conservation of energy that "larger/slower motion =
smaller/faster motion" represents)... its requirement of
energy/fuel diminishes in direct proportion to the
continuing diminishing of its total mass over time (i.e.
the "smaller" it becomes the less "fuel" it uses or needs).
Couple that with the fact that the universe will forever
retain its current shape/form regardless of how long its
implosion lasts (or, until it literally runs out of the
energy/motion of which it is made: e=mc^2)... and
you can pretty much predict an inconceivably long
"life" for the universe out into the unimaginably distant
future. --With the only sour note, as it were, sounding
at the fact that the galaxies should continue to recede
--shrink away-- from each other until they become as
rare a sight in the Cosmos as black holes [pun]. Though
there IS a bright side to this dark view; and that is that
most galaxies will in all probability end up IN black holes,
so they won't be missed much. [Stupid joke.]
Even our Milky Way should kinda dry up as well; although
there should be quite an extended period of time when a
few million stars will still gravitate about each other (and
the super massive black hole at its center) in a "small"
system in which perhaps life will still be able to evolve
into intelligent creatures... who will look upon their
Cosmos and ultimately find themselves in a tiny little
universe--the universe envisioned by our own primitive
ancestors, only this time they will be sadly correct in
their so sadly limited view. (Ah! You were expecting a
happy ending: Grow up. Billions of years ought to be
enough for anybody.)
> And thank you for mentioning the fact that
> the universe has been speeding
> up. I have seen a documentary mentioning this
> discovery, but everyone I
> tried to tell about it just looked at me
> like I had a treefrog on my nose.
> (I don't!)
I've been mentioning it myself for years now
(long before 1998), as it's an inevitable outcome
of my imploding universe model--So you can imagine
how "people" have been "looking" at me!
> Thank you. I can now go and totally screw up
> their brains with your theory.
I wish you nothing but good luck in your
new endeavor--Nothing I hate more than an
unscrewed brain.
> jeanibean
re:
S D Rodrian
> Should I start worrying?
On the contrary, the superstition of an expanding
> And thank you for mentioning the fact that
> the universe has been speeding
> up. I have seen a documentary mentioning this
> discovery, but everyone I
> tried to tell about it just looked at me
> like I had a treefrog on my nose.
> (I don't!)
I've been mentioning it myself for years now
(long before 1998), as it's an inevitable outcome
of my imploding universe model--So you can imagine
how "people" have been "looking" at me!
> Thank you. I can now go and totally screw up
> their brains with your theory.
I wish you nothing but good luck in your
new endeavor--Nothing I hate more than an
unscrewed brain.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> jeanibean
re: