Origin & Age of The Universe (was: colliding galaxies?)
S D Rodrian
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> How about the idea of quantum vaccuum based inflation?
That is strictly an imagined solution
for a problem which does not really exist:
It is not unlike suggesting that babies
learn to talk by translating their parents'
language into the goo-goo language they are
born with... thereby understanding the new
language they will speak from then on...
Space as a state of minimum energy where
quantum fluctuations consistent with Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle leads to the temporary
formation of particle-antiparticle pairs which,
in your words (cause)...
> Such inflation
> could cause the universe to double in size
> within one hundred trillion-
> trillion-trillionth (1*10**-34) of a second.
... is a description of magic (uncaused effects).
It is either (and/or) a misinterpretation of quantum
theory (or, if you prefer, an error of quantum
theory itself if you insist "you" are infallible).
Try it this way: "There is no magic. So you do NOT
have to discover exactly how the magician's trick
is a trick... before being certain it is indeed
a trick and NOT real magic.) Period.
If a "solution" sounds as if it may be a Rube
Goldberg put-on... chances are it IS (ironically
as when if it sounds too good to be true it is).
The universe is simple and elegant because it needs
to be that way: Were it not, it could never have
started out from the simplest possible condition
which must have existed at its very beginnings
(this is a truth which the quest for a unified
field theory embodies as an accepted principle).
Let this be your mantra: "Things are NEVER as
confusing as the confused MAKE them out to be."
And visit thou: http://web.sdrodrian.com
> In addition, if such high frequency
> inflation is possible, it may be
> meaningless to say the universe is expanding
> (traveling along positive
> space at the speed of light) or
> imploding (traveling along negative
> space in the speed of light).
> Rather than positive or negative space,
> may be there are complex space just like
> numbers can be positive,
> negative or complex.
Answer: It is not possible.
Reality does not always follow absolute
mathematical lines, but can even be better
understood (if perhaps not defined) using
ALL the input available to us rather than
just merely/only logic of one shade or other
... as in:
"What's 1 and 1 ?"
Mathematics would suggest it's 2
while a wiseguy might be thinking
it's 11
and if the wiseguy has a gun to your head
and your life depends on your answering
his question the way he wants it answered:
You're as extinct as... the guy under the
tombstone that reads: "I had the right-of-way."
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
> In article <91j13k$3d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
> > > >
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > > >
> > > > And be enlightened.
> > >
> > > Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.
> >
> > Well, I've already answered this a thousand times
> > (so I guess one more time won't hoit)...
> >
> > There is no "bottom" beyond which the implosion
> > cannot continue--If there were, this would mean
> > that there is some sort of fundamental "particle"
> > of "matter," and that (i.e. a perfectly homogeneous
> > singularity) is something Nature seems to abhor.
> >
> > Instead, what the implosion model implies is
> > that the universe's "forms of matter" are just
> > that: "forms/shapes," and NOT fundamental. [This
> > means that the implosion does not result in a
> > "pile up" at its center, but instead --E=MC^2--
> > produces a "singularity of matter" (quite non-
> > homogeneous, as you can see by looking about you)
> > which will "forever" implode without (appreciably)
> > changing its form/shape... as it fuels the "work"
> > of imploding with the ONLY storehouse of energy
> > available to it: the energy IN matter itself.]
> >
> > Curiously, this "eternal" (self-fueled) implosion
> > means that the "universe of matter" is given one
> > monstrously long life... considering that, as it
> > continues, the implosion of the universe of matter
> > always results in an unendingly diminishing sum of
> > its total remaining mass (as the implosion converts
> > matter to the energy it uses to implode)... and this
> > means that there is an ever-decreasing demand on its
> > necessarily finite remaining "pool of energy" reserves
> > [required--by the laws of physics--for fueling its own
> > implosion] AT THE SAME TIME that those same "reserves
> > of energy" (available for fueling the never-ending
> > "work" of imploding) are eternally diminishing...
> > PRECISELY BECAUSE there is & ever will be less and less
> > of the universe (that needs) to be imploded.
> >
> > Think of it this way... you have a container of water
> > which is forever evaporating (water standing in for the
> > energy reserves of the universe). If you could determine
> > how much water there is and the rate of evaporation, you
> > would know ("the age of the universe") and how long it has
> > to "live." But the real-world problem we face in trying
> > to determine the age of our universe of matter is that the
> > "vessel" holding our eternally-evaporating "water" is not
> > only funnel-shaped but its tapering (ever-slimming down) body
> > goes on & on (not for a few inches but) for a whopping length
> > of trillions of light-years top to bottom! Add to that
> > the fact that we have no idea how fast the "water" is
> > "evaporating" [at any point along the body of said vessel]
> > and we can only theorize that the rate of evaporation is
> > forever diminishing. Throw in the very real probability that
> > there exist any number of unpredictable variables (along the
> > lines of whether the vessel's ever-receding "mouth" [receding
> > in order to offer the surface of the water the ability to
> > continue evaporating even as the diameter of that "mouth"
> > slowly constricts top to bottom] may be "passing through"
> > a desert or a rain forest, destroying any possibility of
> > an ever-constant rate of evaporation over the entire length)
> > ... and you can see why we might never know the true age of
> > our universe of matter. [Note that I am not saying it is
> > impossible to know the age of the universe but only why it
> > may be impossible--in other words: stating the problem that
> > needs to be solved.] However, this much we can know: Because
> > of its massiveness at its beginning and the fact that there
> > is no "bottom" against which its implosion will crash... our
> > universe is for all practical purposes quite, quite almost
> > "eternal" ... as it shall "continue" in its present "form"
> > until there isn't enough "energy" to sustain its "forms"
> > while giving few hints that much about it is changing at all.
> >
> > > [I didn't
> > > have the patience to read all of it, considering
> > > the wierd analogies used,
> >
> > Well, we can never know a thing for the first time except
> > by placing it in some context; and that means that analogies
> > are indispensable when we are trying to know things for the
> > first time ever (it is like learning a new language, whose
> > (more abstract?) terms may need to be put into some context
> > in the language one already knows, be it one's tongue or
> > mimicry and sign-language).
> >
> > > so i skimed over large portions of it.]
> > >
> > > Also, if the universe didn't start in a big bang,
> > > how did it start? (i'm
> > > not defending good ole BB here, just
> > > wondering what your ideas are.)
> >
> > Think of the mythical "primordial singularity" not
> > as a point that magically exploded... but as the full
> > breadth of an almost infinite stretch of (scalar) mass.
> >
> > If we're trying to understand its nature in terms of
> > the laws of thermodynamics, then you must NOT envision
> > it (that universe of energy) as absolutely/perfectly
> > homogeneous--but you must somehow learn to understand it
> > as the ONE single Motion in all existence. [All motions
> > are so because they are relativistic, of course, but
> > for us here on this side of "the universe of energy"
> > it is impossible to even imagine "relative to what" that
> > primordial Single Motion in all of existence may be; so
> > we can only think of it as... ONE Single Motion in OUR
> > existence.] The practical result of this is that it then
> > becomes possible for us to think of it in terms of it
> > being (at least for us, here in the universe of matter)
> > both Absolute Rest AND all the energy that ever was and
> > ever will be available to us: Therefore the advent of
> > gravity in/from that "universe of energy" gives birth to
> > motions relative to Absolute Rest (itself), from where it
> > (the universe of matter) gets its finite amount of energy
> > when it begins --the equivalent of the Big Bang-- and to
> > which it then spends the entirely of its "life" returning
> > that energy to [you see why it's easier to understand this
> > in terms of Absolute Rest giving birth to the relativistic
> > motions of our universe of matter... which then gradually
> > but ever inexorably/inevitably return to Absolute Rest].
> >
> > Those vector motions form into gravitational systems which
> > not only coalesce toward their centers but which also
> > establish gravitational interactions among themselves...
> > as their "combinations" over time create ever more complex
> > structures of their interactions. [In other words... natural
> > evolution any way you might put it.] But you can appreciate
> > from this why it is that there are no fundamental forms of
> > matter (particles) and why there can not be. And thus we
> > are not faced with the impossible puzzle of trying to explain
> > how/why the universe (of matter) could have somehow Big Banged
> > out of a mystical Cosmic Egg. Instead we finally come to
> > realize that the "primordial singularity of energy" did not
> > explode unfathomably... but necessarily imploded once
> > gravity (vector motions) manifested itself. [Note that an
> > implosion would begin very slowly and accelerate throughout
> > the length of its existence, exactly as it has now been
> > confirmed our universe is "doing its work. And that this
> > means that its "activity" can be described in part as... huge
> > slow motions gradually becoming small fast motions--or, as
> > the coalescence of its "forms" (and "particles").] You do not
> > need to invent "mathematical dimensions" (et al) to explain
> > Nature because Nature only works by patiently re-working the
> > structures into which its "motions" fall... over sufficient
> > time to settle "out" those that are passing and brief because
> > they are feeble and ineffectual (impractical in Nature)... and
> > to settle "upon" those that are permanent because they are
> > (prove themselves to be) stable and sound (in a word: material).
> >
> > > Personaly, I also think the universe is decreasing
> > > in volume, but not in the same way you suggest.
> >
> > Well, the way I've described it follows the laws of physics
> > (conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc.). Although
> > I would certainly be interested in hearing that there are
> > other alternatives to this model which may also be "supported"
> > by the laws of physics and which do not require convoluted
> > Rube Goldberg "mathematical realities" in order to conform to
> > them.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
> > music.sdrodrian.com
> >
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <91uopm$hma$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>> In article <91j4eg$5sv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> How about the idea of quantum vaccuum based inflation?
>>
>> That is strictly an imagined solution
>> for a problem which does not really exist:
>> It is not unlike suggesting that babies
>> learn to talk by translating their parents'
>> language into the goo-goo language they are
>> born with... thereby understanding the new
>> language they will speak from then on...
>>
>> Space as a state of minimum energy where
>> quantum fluctuations consistent with Heisenberg's
>> uncertainty principle leads to the temporary
>> formation of particle-antiparticle pairs which,
>> in your words (cause)...
>>
> Such inflation
> could cause the universe to double in size
> within one hundred trillion-
> trillion-trillionth (1*10**-34) of a second.
>>
>> ... is a description of magic (uncaused effects).
>
Only in identical mediums. The distinction is
quite telling: When a photon "travels" across
medium A and then traverses medium B (which is
a "thicker" medium) and then traverses medium C
(which is as "thin" as medium A)... the photon
will "slow down" while traversing medium B but
"speed up" again (as it traverses medium C) to
the same speed as it had when it traversed
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
A-B-C "paradox" (above) now becomes understandable
because a thicker/stronger "gravitational field"
(medium) would "push along" (or, drag) the photon
a lot more than a weaker/thinner (medium) one. And
if the observer is looking at the photon from the
"passing" universe it would look to "him" as if the
photon were "slowing down" while traversing thicker
mediums... and speeding up while traversing thinner
ones--when it is exactly the reverse that's occurring,
or... the photon can "slow down" in thinner mediums
(weaker gravitational fields) and is "pulled" (dragged)
by/in stronger gravitational fields (mediums).]
> It means that the moment a photon is
> brough into existence, let us say,
> by flipping the light switch, it moves
> at full speed, no acceleration
> is required. It travels at the full speed
> at the first trillion-
> trillion-...-trillionth of a second.
As I explained above: It is NOT the photon
that is "moving" but everything other than:
Of course, the casual observer cannot really
be blamed if he/she assumes that exactly the
opposite of what is happening is what's really
happening--Until he/she reads this post, that
is: After this moment... he/she can be blamed
for it, and will probably be shamed if he/she
doesn't, from here on out, use his/her brain.
For the complete source of the following, SEE:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=686754901&fmt=text
START QUOTE
There IS a "place" where absolute rest lies:
The only thing that makes motion meaningful
is the existence (or postulation) of some
"platform" at rest relative to that motion (all
motion is relative). So if the universe of matter
is absolutely in motion it can only be so
because it is moving away (from/towards) the
universe of energy [the only way to fully
understand the complete universe is to
realize/postulate that it comprises both halves,
energy/matter]... If the universe of matter can
be described as infinite material mass in
"infinitely relativistic motion" ... the universe
of energy can be described as infinite (scalar)
mass at "absolute rest."
END QUOTE
[Absolute Rest = Nothingness. i.e. = no energy
(usually). But not if, as in this instance, we
are describing "a" motion which is the ONLY motion
we know of to exist in all of existence: That is
what the "universe of energy" or "primordial
singularity" boils down to... it is the ONLY motion
in all of existence, and because it cannot be
described as "one motion in relation to some other
motion" we might as well posit it as Absolute Rest.
But you can immediately see (the obvious and self-
evident, i.e. that Motion = Energy, Energy = Motion)
or, that our Absolute Rest far from being Nothingness
and an absence of energy/motion, is, in fact: ALL
the energy that has ever been/will always be, and
the ultimate source of the energy of/in the universe
of matter--the primordial energy which will go into
matter, and the ultimate destination of the energy IN
matter as it gives back the energy it was given by/at
the inception of the universe (of matter). By the way:
What exactly is the universe of energy, in the sense
of where does its energy come from? We will never have
direct observation of that. But we can deduce from
the laws of physics--and we have NO reason to believe
that they "only apply in our reality," or that our
reality is confined to our region of existence alone--
we can deduce that the energy of the primordial
singularity (or Absolute Rest) of motion must itself
be a motion relative to some other, greater motion
--even if it too is a singularity of motion--beyond
it: You can term it the River of Life, or any other
metaphor that suits you, forming eddies along its
"banks" one of which is our universe of matter. But
I prefer to think of it as an infinite sequence of
cogged wheels each one of which is moved by a larger
cogged wheel and which in turn moves the next (smaller)
cogged wheel: This way each wheel in the sequence is
given enough energy/motion not only to itself move
but to also impart enough energy/motion to the next
cogged wheel down the line... from an almost infinite
top to an infinitesimal bottomless continuity of
eternally smaller and smaller wheels--The meaning of
which is always the same: There is a finite amount
of energy at the top, and this forever dooms the
bottom to an finite amount of energy which is less
and less as it "dissipates" itself into Nothingness.]
START QUOTE
Inside the universe of matter everything is
relativistic, but the universe of matter itself
too is relativistic: ONLY it's so "against"
the universe of energy (absolute rest)... this
means that, relative to the universe of energy,
the universe of matter has only one absolute
"direction of motion" and that is "toward
imploding." And since the universe of matter
is the only "thing" that absolutely "physically
exists" ... it is always moving at the absolutely
highest possible speed (regardless how slow or fast
that speed may be relative to our own always only
human (relativistic) notions of what is slow/what
is fast).
And now that you know what Einstein never knew
(that there IS a "place" at absolute rest in the
(complete) universe)... you can describe a reality
Einstein could never have imagined:
1) The universe of matter is absolutely imploding.
2) Because the forms of matter are not fundamental
(ultimately physical), from within the universe
of matter (where the only reality we understand
is a relativistic one) it will always seem as if
the absolutely imploding universe is forever the
same "size/form/shape" and eternally unchanging
(that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is
the relativistic truth/law that rules IN here).
You can describe the universe of matter as a
"singularity" at the center of the complete
universe (surrounded by the universe of energy).
But since WE live IN that "singularity" = now you
know exactly how homogeneous "singularities" are.
3) But, if the universe of matter can move relative to
the universe of energy, then it's not impossible that
there might exist other "things" whose motion is
also relative to the universe of energy rather than
to the universe of matter (whether absolutely/mostly).
4) How does the photon behave IN our universe (of
matter)...? Well, like every other form of matter
it must be "shrinking" (otherwise they'd blow up
to the size of galaxies before our eyes). However,
unlike the ordinary forms of matter (which then
rush each other to fill/close the gaps created
by their shrinking)... the photon "somehow" ceases
to behave relativistically (not completely, just
partly) and begins to behave AS IF it had as much
mass as the universe of matter itself: It is still
"moving" [relative to the universe of energy, or
"absolute rest" i.e. the photon itself is NOT at
absolute rest]... partly moving as it still "chases
after" the "swiftly fleeing" universe of matter (if
with little enthusiasm).
5) The net result is that it is the universe of matter
which is "moving" past the photon [accounting for
the reason the photon's speed always registers as
a constant in identical mediums] and not the other
way around: Were our universe NOT imploding, I would
find it hard to imagine a mechanism by which radiation
behaves as it does here IN this universe of ours.
Conclusion: The photon, pale, frail, and delicate
as it may be... exhibits a HUGE amount of mass (as
the "passing" universe of matter does not seem to
be able to "drag" it with it... as it rushes forever
onwards in its absolute direction of shrinking/imploding).
NOTE that stars, planets, galaxies and all other "bodies"
offer not even a smidgen as much resistance to being
hurried along (that is to say: "accelerated") as the
itsy bitsy photon.
Therefore the complete universe "looks like" (behaves)
as if it were the "white hole" of legend; for it would
"look" to God like a brilliant roman candle eternally
casting photons into the surrounding darkness out of
a "hole" at its center which was forever choking shut
with the "passage of time" instead of opening more
and more: Entropy in the complete universe increases
on one side even as it decreases on its other side.
END QUOTE
> It sounds like magic in comparison with our
> daily experiences. But is
> it uncaused?
"It" (anything) can never be "uncaused." Period.
[Though your "it" (above), that the photon moves
is only a misinterpretation of reality. Just as
assuming that the universe is "expanding" from
seeing the galaxies receding from each other... is
also a misinterpretation of what one's looking at.]
re:
S D Rodrian
milb...@aol.com (Milbert 2) wrote:
> If a photon is not moving
> and the matter universe is
> shrinking/imploding then
> how do you explain the phenomenon of
> reflection ie.a mirror or any type of
> light reflection at all?
I don't, as it's been done for centuries now
by many others: "When light falls on a body
some of the light may be reflected, some
absorbed, and some transmitted through the
body. In order for a smooth surface to act as
a mirror, it must reflect as much of the light
as possible and must transmit and absorb as
little as possible. In order to reflect light rays
without scattering or diffusing them, a mirror's
surface must be perfectly smooth or its
irregularities must be smaller than the wavelength
of the light being reflected. (The wavelengths of
visible light are on the order of 5 X 10 ^-5 cm.)
Mirrors may have plane or curved surfaces.
A curved mirror is concave or convex depending
on whether the reflecting surface faces toward the
center of curvature or away from it. Curved mirrors
in ordinary usage have surfaces that are spherical,
cylindrical, paraboloidal, ellipsoidal, and hyperboloidal.
Spherical mirrors produce images that are magnified
or reduced--exemplified, respectively, by mirrors for
applying facial makeup and by rearview mirrors for
automobiles. Cylindrical mirrors focus a parallel beam
of light to a line focus. A paraboloidal mirror may be
used to focus parallel rays to a real focus, as in a
telescope mirror, or to produce a parallel beam from
a source at its focus, as in a searchlight. An
ellipsoidal mirror will reflect light from one of its two
focal points to the other, and an object situated at the
focus of a hyperboloidal mirror will have a virtual image."
In effect: As far as the "reflected" photon is concerned,
it is "hit back" by the mirror (given a new orientation
as absolutely as if the mirror itself were its original
source). This is not the case with a photon that is
absorbed: The photon does not "move" ... either a non-
reflecting bit of matter hits it and absorbs it, or a
reflecting surface hits it and endows it with a new
"orientation." [This is because the only connection a
photon can have with/to its "source" in an imploding
"singularity" as massive as our universe (in which, for
all practical effects, everything is imploding (shrinking)
at/towards every imaginable coordinate) IS such an
orientation: Basically, assuming you as source, photons
"created" to your right side will appear to zoom away
from that side, and photons "created" on your left side
will appear to zoom away from that side--the culmination
of this analogy occurs with a lightbulb, which effectively
"spews forth" photons in every possible orientation.]
> If a photon is not moving than
> how do you explain the
> travel of light from
> a source in all direction?
Say, a lightbulb...?
S D Rodrian
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Let's try this.
I don't see why not (my astigmatism makes me
practically blind as it is).
> In article <91j13k$3d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
>
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > > >
> > > > And be enlightened.
>
> > > Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.
>
> > Well, I've already answered this a thousand times
> > (so I guess one more time won't hoit)...
>
> > There is no "bottom" beyond which the implosion
> > cannot continue--If there were, this would mean
> > that there is some sort of fundamental "particle"
> > of "matter," and that (i.e. a perfectly homogeneous
> > singularity) is something Nature seems to abhor.
>
> Define homogeneous singularity.
> That is a contradiction in my mind.
> Homogenize means to "mix thoroughly"
There are many more things in your mind,
Horatio, which turn your thoughts into
self-contradictions than... there are
individual hairs on Robin WIlliams.
Oxford Concise Dic sez:
homogeneous adj.
1 of the same kind.
2 consisting of parts all of the same kind; uniform.
3 Math. containing terms all of the same degree.
singularity n.
1 the state or condition of being singular.
2 an odd trait or peculiarity.
3 Physics & Math. a point at which a function takes
an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is
infinitely dense as at the centre of a black hole.
A homogeneous singularity would therefore be
a "condition" IN which all is the same (without
any bit of it being distinct/different from
every other bit of it), or so solid a "place"
as to not admit anything other than the one thing
that makes it solid.
This is not possible in nature because
in our three-dimensional reality everything
that exists holds in it a reason why
the portions at its center are there
and not at its rim. (Everything has been
put together by the laws of thermodynamics.)
The confused will define it as a "point"
"necessarily" one-dimensional. But this is
utter nonsense because everything that exists
exists only because it's three-dimensional.
When I speak of a primordial singularity
what I mean is that it was ALL energy/motion
(without matter). It is a singularity because
it a (from our perspective) a MOTION which is
the only motion that exists--and therefore
can NOT be described in terms of vectors; and
can even, in fact, be described as Absolute
Rest! AND YET it is still motion (and therefore
a form of energy whose physicality our human
senses can "grasp" (understand).
Now imagine that primordial singularity (whether
you think of it as the greatest amount of motion
that exists, or you think of it as Absolute Rest).
One thing it MUST absolutely do is obey the laws
of thermodynamics, otherwise it would be absolutely
solid and nothing would ever come of it (let alone
trying to explain how in Heavens such a "homogeneous
singularity" could have possibly put itself together).
That singularity, for our purposes here, is not unlike
a bow with tension in it (Absolute Rest/yet a quantity
of stored/potential energy). Now, how is motion described
in an universe where gravity is all that exists? Motion
is towards its sundry "centers." [Vectors are only possible
in an universe with a number of discrete individual bits.
The MOTION of/in the primordial singularity, remember, is
one that has NO vectors because it is the ONLY "THING"
in existence. You could even describe such a MOTION as
purely expansive/repulsive (as opposed to gravity's
coalescent/attractive nature)... it really matters not:
The crucial point of distinction is that we have (in
the universe of energy which gave birth to the universe
of matter) a uniformity of existence which we can barely
describe in terms that make any sense to our materialistic
understanding of reality--but which is nevertheless a
quantity of energy (and therefore, that we poor humans
may understand what the universe means by energy: motion).
What does the advent of gravity means in such a condition?
(i.e. What is gravity?) Essentially: the force of gravity
is a motion against/away from that singularity of Absolute
Rest: The bow breaks, in one sense, and instead of ONE
vectorless MOTION we have all that energy moving away
from Absolute Rest and towards slowly-defining centers of
gravitational systems which will eventually evolve into
our present-day particles. [Now you can see why it is that
if we speak of the gravity-bound universe of matter as
one having an attracting nature, we can then speak of the
universe of energy as one having a repelling nature: It is
impossible to describe the One/Only MOTION in all existence
as moving in any "direction." This doesn't mean, by the way,
that every one of those primordial gravitational systems
evolved into "a" modern particle any more than every one of
the primordial simple nucleic acids/neucleotides "evolved"
into specific modern mammals: The amount of "energy" in
modern day particles ALONE clearly indicates that modern
day particles are extremely complex organizations of perhaps
trillions of such primordial gravitational systems in
complicated networks of distinct inner scaffoldings. And
now it's easy for us to understand that every such particle
consists of a structure which can be theoretically/actually
sundered/split--something not unlike being able to separate
the stars in a binary system, or the Milky Way from the
Andromeda Galaxy.] The primordial gravitational systems
which first "broke" from Absolute Rest (the universe of
energy, or our beloved primordial singularity of motion)...
must have been so truly immense/massive (in relation to
what we today imagine the so-called unlimited expanses of
the Cosmos to be) that their self-organization must have
taken place over a truly mind-boggling excruciatingly long
amount of time... perhaps something completely beyond what
we now think of as trillions of centuries. But as they
organized themselves, they NECESSARILY coalesced towards
their centers... obviously accelerating as they "shrank"
towards their centers while conserving their energy/motion
(i.e. "large slow motions = small fast motions). This is
the "point in time" that witnessed the first creation of
"space" (really nothing more than the ever-growing distance
between --bits of pre-matter, or-- the ever-coalescing forms
of matter)... or, in other words, once the (ONE & ONLY)
Great Primordial Singularity of motion began to break up
into many distinct "self-winding" smaller motions there HAD
to be very pronounced lines of demarcation between them, or
"gaps" (space/distance). [If these gravitational systems
would have shrunk toward their centers WITHOUT the sum of
them THEN closing the gaps being created by their shrinking
what would have happened would have been a universe in
which every bit of/in it would have literally vanished
in place (or, eternally creating such growing/growing
distances between its bits that before long every bit of
the universe would have found itself as isolated as if
it were the only "thing" in all of existence). As it is,
however, even though the implosion of the universe creates
more and more space even as that implosion accelerates...
that increase is (probably 99.99999999%) canceled out by
the fact that the individual gravitational systems are
themselves rushing towards each other (as if) trying to
"close those gaps" forever opening between them. [And this
form of implosion, unlike, say, the implosion of a star
(which obviously involves no shrinking in place)... the
implosion of the universe is taking place as if every one
of all those gravitational systems were the direction
toward which the entire universe is shrinking/imploding.]
Always keep in mind that there is no functional/practical
distinction to be made between what the "material" IN
those gravitational systems is doing (gravitating towards
its centers) and what the individual gravitational systems
themselves are doing in relation to each other (or, again:
gravitating towards themselves). Remember that our present
day particles are complex conglomerations of God-only-knows
how many of those simple (and simplest of all) primordial
gravitational systems in as complicated interactions as...
DNA/RNA are engaging in IN modern day animals.
The result is that the greatest "speed" possible in the
universe is towards shrinking (followed by the speed of the
subsequent "gathering" of the individual gravitational
systems). In other words: the "speed" of light (viewed from
this new perspective) is not a measure of how fast the
universe is imploding/shrinking--rather, it's simply a
measure of how much more rapidly the universe is shrinking
(imploding) than the photon's speed: Remember that the
photon is shrinking towards center at the same rate as
every other form of matter, but even though it is not
being "dragged along" (by the "second motion of matter,"
or the subsequent "gathering") at the SAME speed. Please
remember that the speed of light is constant ONLY in
identical mediums... so, self-evidently: the photon DOES
respond to gravity even if it does so infinitesimally:
When it's (near) in a stronger gravity fields it is dragged
along much faster than when it is in (proximity) weaker
gravitational fields--Which from our perspective looks as if
it were traversing more slowly through air than through a
vacuum, of course.
The true absolute speed at which the universe is imploding
is therefore measured only against Absolute Rest. And that
absolute rate may be beyond our ability to ascertain it.
Although we can safely say that it MUST be faster than the
speed of light; and probably unimaginably faster.
> therefore, more than ONE thing is
> then blended, which means once you have
> "homogeneity" you have already
> left "singularity. Comprende?
Si, Seignior: You are a confused hombre. But,
fear not... confusion is not permanent (unless
you stubbornly determine to be confused for the
rest of your life).
> I will skip the rest of your less than
> well thought out argument until
> you clear up this defect.
Albeit I have no idea which defect you mean:
I have cleared up something (now it's up to you
to determine just what that was). No hints.
> Then I will proceed to explain to you the
> nature of reality.
Hot dog! I've been trying to learn that
for ages!
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
S D Rodrian
optional...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91j13k$3d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
> > > >
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > > >
> > > > And be enlightened.
> > >
> > > Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.
> >
> > Well, I've already answered this a thousand times
> > (so I guess one more time won't hoit)...
> >
> > There is no "bottom" beyond which the implosion
> > cannot continue--If there were, this would mean
> > that there is some sort of fundamental "particle"
> > of "matter," and that (i.e. a perfectly homogeneous
> > singularity) is something Nature seems to abhor.
> >
> how do you explain the
> that BB theory predicted, and
> found?
The cosmic background radiation matter
resolves to this: "There is a constant
"residual" temperature evenly spread
throughout the universe." This is a proven
fact. However, the "residual" aspect of it
is a guess, purely, entirely... a guess
and nothing other than than. The Big Bangers
guess that it's the temperature (so "cold"
by now that by the present epoch
"the radiation temperature would have
dropped to very low values, about 5º above
absolute zero (0 K, or -273º C)
according to the estimates of Alpher
and Herman." (Better measurements
by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
satellite determined the spectrum to be exactly
characteristic of a blackbody at 2.735 K.)"
But, as was most appropriately presented
in a Sherlock Holmes episode (where Watson
found a "residual" temperature in an oven):
HOLMES: And what does this tell you, Watson?
WATSON: Elementary, my dear Holmes:
It tells me that this oven
was recently hotter and has cooled
to this very low temperature.
HOLMES: Watson, did you bother to open
the furnace at the bottom
of the oven? It appears as if
somebody has only recently started
burning fuel down there...
WATSON: Oh dear. You mean.... this oven
is not growing colder after
a huge passage of time
but just now growing hotter instead?
HOLMES: Yes. That was my deduction as well,
old boy! You're quite
a brilliant detective, Watson.
And I mean that sincerely.
WATSON: Thank you, Holmes.
BAKER: Ere! What're you two doing
playing with me oven?
HOLMES: Never mind, my good fellow.
We were just leaving.
Come Watson!
WATSON: After you, Holmes!
"Playing with me oven,"
indeed! Huh!
> I hope this is a reasonable question!
All questions with a reasonable answer
are themselves reasonable.
Happy New Year.