Is The Universe Really Expanding?
S D Rodrian
"craigandkaren" <craiga...@cwk.imag.net> wrote:
> Maybe the universe is expanding, if all
> forms of matter is drawn into black
> holes, and only a beam of neutrinos can
> escape these neutrino beams may be
> seeding the outer limits of the universe
Sorry. No. Neutrinos do not escape from black holes:
All matter "expelled" comes from just outside the
event horizon only... as a reaction to the explosive
nature of the "shock" that that boundary is to all
matter in proximity to it. [And the "plumes" shooting
out from its ("poles") are also the result only of
all the activity outside the event horizon.] There is
a proposal by Hawking concerning a sort of "evaporation"
of black holes going on by virtual particles combining
into permanent particles; but this isn't proven--even if
it were, one would need to explain what energy/fuel is
involved in ALL such "ejecting" particles' moving away
from the black hole. In other words: "Why?" (Practically
anybody can propose "how.")
> with sub=atomic particals which
> could be used as the building blocks
> for solar systems and even life itself.
> what if black holes are galactic recycling
> units allowing the universe to
> expand but doomed to never grow in the
> ammount of matter present which means
> that the systems will invariably
> get farther appart with time.
Your IF would leave us with a marvelous
display of magic ... as it would not explain
the source of any effect--e.g. the solution
to the problem--and it would merely be the
equivalent of saying, "It might be doing
what it's doing differently than how it seems
to be doing it." [You fill in the blanks.]
The bottom line is that regardless of what
the universe "appears" to be doing, it HAS TO
be doing something which follows the laws of
physics. And since gravity is the ONLY force
at work throughout the entire extent of its
existence... it can ONLY be imploding. Therefore
the solution is NOT simply describing what it
looks like it's doing, but trying to find out how
it's doing what it MUST be doing. [How it can
seem to be expanding when it's really imploding.]
You must remember that the only "proof" that
the universe is expanding is that "the galaxies
are moving away from each other." But this illusion
can be easily explained away by considering two
planets standing side-by-side... which suddenly
begin shrinking towards their centers: Notice that
their centers NEVER really move away from each
other although their surfaces do (i.e. if the two
planets shrink so symmetrically that their inhabitants
never have any reason to suspect they are shrinking,
what they will SEE when they look at each other's
planets is that the planets will appear to be getting
smaller and smaller,... which they will be forced
to interpret to mean that the two planets are getting
farther and farther from each other--One can't really
expect them to come to any other conclusion if the
only thing they know is what they're looking at (and
remember just how hard it would really be for these
planets' inhabitants to propose that they're all just
merely shrinking "in place" as it were, when the so
"apparent" solution (that the planets are moving away
from each other does not need to be given a lot of
thought at all--at least no more than how one would
explain a ball bouncing off a wall--while the "real"
solution (that they are all shrinking) needs to be
carefully and darn well thought out. But that's the
crucial thing which always debunks all proposals of
magic... regardless of how impressively the magician
makes the elephant disappear WE NEVER BELIEVE
THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS WHAT'S REALLY
HAPPENING because we KNOW that reality obeys
the laws of physics regardless of how perfect the illusions
may look: Our thoughts are all about how the magician
managed to make the elephant appear to vanish (for it
could not have really vanished against the laws of physics);
and all our thought ought to be about how the universe
makes it appears that it's expanding (for it cannot possibly
really be expanding... against all the laws of physics).
Once you know which is the correct path to take to the
correct solution, it's just a matter of time before we
get there. [ For my solution see: http://web.sdrodrian.com ]
But, all my own claims aside: I am not God, and I "could"
be wrong. So, here's your chance to get it right yourself!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
"John Afdem" <a...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> BIG FLAW:
Well, let's see just how big it is...
> You say:
> > You must remember that the only "proof" that
> > the universe is expanding is that "the galaxies
> > are moving away from each other." But this illusion
> > can be easily explained away by considering two
> > planets standing side-by-side... which suddenly
> > begin shrinking towards their centers:
>
> But the fact that galaxies are moving away
> from each other is NOT based upon
> shrinking angular diameters, it's evidenced
> by the redshift in the light
> from those objects.
Unfortunately, although it takes but a fraction of a minute
to cut through the fallacy that comes out of misinterpreting
the implications of the Hubble discovery (from the red-
shifted nature of the galaxies)... unfortunately, the solution
is not being (or, at least, has not been up to now) looked for.
And one never find anything where one does not look. But
despair not, for I will now show you the solution; and you
must realize how elegant it is (all on your own)...
> Just like sound doensn't change speed in a constant
> medium, but changes apparant FREQUENCY (see
> 'doppler effect) to an observer
> when the source is moving (relatively), light
> changes frequency, but not
> it's speed, when two objects are moving away
> relative to each other.
> The 'Hubble Constant' describes by observations
> (albeit observations that
> are still being refined) that objects in the
> universe are moving away from
> each other faster, the further away they are.
1) The galaxies ARE "moving away from each other
faster the farther they are from each other" (but
this statement is a semantic trap, because what is
really happening is that "the distance between them
is increasing faster the farther they are from each
other"). This is a crucial distinction as you will learn
from the following analogy to the reality of our
imploding universe:
a) There are two planets "standing" side-by-side.
Suddenly they begin shrinking "in place" (i.e.
towards their centers). BUT, because they are
shrinking while perfectly retaining their shape(s)
the inhabitants of said planets don't even so much
as suspect any shrinking's going on (remember:
the planets are NOT collapsing like novas --as there
are NO fundamental forms of matter in them--, so
every imaginable item in/of them that qualifies as
matter is itself shrinking "towards its own center"
... with the overall effect that the forms of the planets
never really change in any easily appreciable manner
as they shrink).
b) How would we expect the inhabitants of those planets
to interpret what they're witnessing? Put yourself in
their place: You can't imagine your planet is shrinking
(and, while the two planets remain close to each other,
you can rocket over to the other planet and testify that
the other planet also is not shrinking, since your ruler
always remains exactly the same length as theirs). And
yet... if you use that ruler to measure the "distance"
between the planets over time, you discover an irrefutable
fact: as time goes on... it takes more and more rulers
(stringed end-to-end) to bridge the "distance" between
the two planets. Obviously you could not possibly imagine
that everything, including your ruler, is shrinking... So,
again, what conclusion would you be forced into?
c) Now you realize what's happening: There are two seemingly
self-contradicting truths here (the paradox that while the
two planets are NOT moving away from each other, they
give every proof that that is exactly what they are doing).
But there are no paradoxes in Nature, only in our minds.
In this analogy we are God, as it were (standing outside
the reality of the shrinking planets, ourselves unshrinking,
so that when we look at them all we see is that they are
shrinking completely IN PLACE, never moving so much as
one (of our) millimeter(s) away from each other), and we
might never appreciate how difficult it would be for us to
convince any of the shrinking planets' inhabitants that
their two planets were NOT, as they can plainly SEE for
themselves, moving away from each other.
d) Because OUR god-like ruler does not shrink, for us the
distance between the exact centers of the two planets will
always remain the same "distance" from each other. However,
because the rulers of the planets' inhabitants ARE shrinking
for them the distance between the same two exact centers
of their planets will always absolutely, positively, without
the slightest room for doubt... will be inexorably increasing.
c) And that is the distinction between the absolute truth and
the purely relativistic truth: Our (human) relativist truth
parallels that of the two planets' inhabitants; and it will be
exceedingly difficult for human beings to accept the fact
that while absolutely, positively, without the slightest room
for doubt... the galaxies really ARE moving away from each
other: in an absolute sense our universe is NOT expanding
but actually IMPLODING. {Add to the analogy above the
reality of our universe, where, analogously, those two
planets would be gravitationally attracted to each other and
therefore not even give the appearance of moving away
from each other and is it any wonder it has taken mankind
up to now to figure out what the universe is really doing
despite all appearances?]
And this is exactly what's happening in our imploding universe;
only slightly more complexly (thereby explaining why it is that
about the only clue available to us, aside from the constancy of
the speed of light in identical mediums... that the universe is
imploding IS, ironically, the "relativistic" fact (truth) that the
galaxies ARE receding from each other).
2) Of necessity... that implosion has to take place in two discrete
and separate steps: FIRST the forms of matter must shrink
towards their centers, and only THEN can they move towards
each other to close the gaps which their shrinking in place is
forever opening between them. The net result, at least at the
human level, is that the almost perfectly symmetrically-shrinking
universe gives every appearance that its "size" remains eternally
unchanging. However, there MUST be an infinitesimal "lapse"
between the two steps (i.e. they cannot occur at once); and this
means that the forms of matter will always shrink in place slightly
before (or, faster than) they will then all rush each other to
close the gaps opening between them. At the human level, is "lapse"
is so tiny that it's practically impossible for it to be noticed...
but, given enough "distance" (such as... that between the
galaxies), this once infinitesimal "lapse" will be literally
"astronomically"
magnified (as a factor of that distance)... with the result that
the farther two galaxies are from each other: the faster they
will seem to be receding from each other. [So we live with a
relativistic truth, that the galaxies are receding from each other;
at the same time that we live with an absolute truth, that the
universe is imploding: When life was simpler our relativistic
truth was enough for our purposes, but now we are trying to
explain the workings of the universe in detail, and so now we
must confront the absolute truth, and not just only be comforted
by the relativistic truth.]
3) It should now be simple to understand why it is that the photon
informs us that the galaxies are receding from each other: Like
the shrinking rulers (above) the photons are also shrinking.
[Don't lose sight of the fact that "space" is nothing more than
"distance.] And this means that every photon that "gets to" us
will "come" telling us that the distance between source/observer
has increased and is increasing (Doppler effect/red-shifts). The
longer the shrinking photon takes to bridge the "distance" between
source/observer... the greater it will report that distance to be
(exactly as would the shrinking ruler). And, of course, the longer
they take to bridge that distance the faster they will find the
observer "moving away" from source.
> The universe is clearly
> expanding, and repeatable observations
> prove that beyond a shadow of a
> doubt.
How can I blame you for your conviction? You are
definitely relativisticly correct.
> The only question is wheter it will keep
> expanding, or will slow,
> stop, and collapse. (and we may never truly
> know the answer to that
> one....it's kinda hard to 'observe')
There are no perpetual motion systems in nature:
So we can definitely know what's going to happen
with our universe (another direct consequence of
knowing what the universe is really all about)...
The universe will continue pretty much as it's been
(going) for an unimaginably extended period of time:
The universe uses a definite amount of energy to fuel
its implosion (a percentage of itself, since E=MC^2,
true, but a percentage set forever)... so that the smaller
the universe becomes, the less energy it requires to
fuel its implosion. It's like the man who cuts his speed
in half every time he gets half way to where he's going:
He will never get there, of course, but his journey will
be unimaginably long (especially if it's interpreted as
his becoming half as big every time he gets half way
to where he's going).
Hope this helps,
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:94ofea$md4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
S D Rodrian
"T Quo" <to...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
> Sorry if this is a very nebie question
> but i am studying GCSE physics at the
> momnet and we are taugh the the dopper/red-shift
> effect proves that the
> universe is expanding. Can someone
> explain in relatively simple terms why SD
> Rodrian claims this is not the case?
> TIA
In simple terms: Because an expanding universe
model goes against the laws of physics; while
an imploding universe model explains simply,
elegantly, and inevitably all those paradoxes,
puzzles, and perplexing mysteries that arise
from the superstition that the universe is
somehow expanding. [Balance of the post is
taken up by a quote from a previous post.]
BEGIN QUOTE:
In article <t6vispl...@corp.supernews.com>,
"John Afdem" <a...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> BIG FLAW:
Well, let's see just how big it is...
> You say:
> > You must remember that the only "proof" that
> > the universe is expanding is that "the galaxies
> > are moving away from each other." But this illusion
> > can be easily explained away by considering two
> > planets standing side-by-side... which suddenly
> > begin shrinking towards their centers:
>
Hope this helps,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:94ofea$md4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
END QUOTE
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:94ofge$mdr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3a6e...@rsl2.rslnet.net>,
> > "craigandkaren" <craiga...@cwk.imag.net> wrote:
> >
> > You must remember that the only "proof" that
> > the universe is expanding is that "the galaxies
> > are moving away from each other
Amen
S D Rodrian
Apu Neh Neh
universe must first come after with an expanding universe.
S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:94qr1j$p7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> In simple terms: Because an expanding universe
> model goes against the laws of physics; while
> an imploding universe model explains simply,
> elegantly, and inevitably all those paradoxes,
> puzzles, and perplexing mysteries that arise
> from the superstition that the universe is
> somehow expanding. [Balance of the post is
> taken up by a quote from a previous post.]
>
> Unfortunately, although it takes but a fraction of a minute
> to cut through the fallacy that comes out of misinterpreting
> the implications of the Hubble discovery (from the red-
> shifted nature of the galaxies)... unfortunately, the solution
> is not being (or, at least, has not been up to now) looked for.
> And one never find anything where one does not look. But
> despair not, for I will now show you the solution; and you
> must realize how elegant it is (all on your own)...
>
Jean Corser
jeanibean
S D Rodrian
As soon as I know more about you I'll be able to
tell whether the fact that you don't agree with me
is terribly unsettling or actually comforting.
> Fundamentally, your explanation of an imploding
> universe must first come after with an expanding universe.
Well, look at from my point of view: Figuratively, "if
you're going to have something from nothing, you'd be
far better off trying to concentrate a lot of nothing
into something... than pulling something out of nothing."
Yours comforted,
re:
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > shrinking universe gives every appearance that its "size"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
Rob Vallis <rob...@home.com> wrote:
> Dear S D Rodiran, as Locke says "...I will
> not attempt to convince a
> non-entity of his existence..." You sir,
> claim to be a non-entity. Not
> literally of course, but let me make
> this comparison; that there are
> those who claim that no knowledge
> is possible, that all is but a
> dream...we call them skeptics. You are
> of course aware of them, and most
> like them in that you cling to a "truth"
> which is unobservable.
Do let me know which truth that is
and I will tell you how I came to see it.
> Only as
> 'god', only by one who is not in our
> relativistic universe can we gain
> access to this "truth".
Hardly. It's a simple mental experiment;
same as when someone says, "Put yourself in
that coathanger's place..."
> You deny all
> that you see,
Self-contradictory: If you say I saw it
then I must have told you that I saw it
--and how on earth could I have told you
that I did not see what I told you I saw?!
> because it is
> POSSIBLE *by feats of mental gymnastics
> which privately I feel are
> nothing more than the hubris of men
> who love to hear themselves "think",
> so to speak*
You do live to speak, don't you!
> that all that we see is not
> the case, but an illusion.
Again: Are you talking about women?
> Key
> word here is possible. I suspect it
> will never matter to you how
> IMPLAUSIBLE it is that everything we
> see/perceive is in fact deceit upon
> our senses,
What's this "all" business? I thought
we agreed to talk only about women.
> nor matter it to skeptics
> that any fantastic view of the
> universe which is outside our
> capabilities of understanding, as you
> yourself claim it to be of the
> shrinking universe, is of no signifigance
> to us.
Just because you do not (yet) understand
it... doesn't mean it cannot be understood!
However, you are wrong about my role in
all this; as I have been The very Advocate of
it all being rather simpler to understand
than those who are hopelessly confused usually
MAKE it appear to be (beyond understanding).
> If it truly is impossible to ever
> escape our relativistic world
> and witness the "truth", then it
> does not concern us, and should not
> concern any rational human being. But
It may not be possible for "one" to win
the lottery either, but "one" can still
dream. No?
> alas I feel i have wasted my
> breath as it were, in attempting to
> convince a non-entity of his
> existence.
Now you know how I feel!
> I don't beleive you can hold the view
> of a shrinking universe that you
> do, without also being a skeptic.
That's because that's your law, not mine.
> In which case, their is no argument,
> their is no universe, and no such
> phenomenom as "shrinking" . In fact, I
> didn't even write this, and if I did, it
> was much bigger a few minutes
> ago. Trust me.
> Regards,
> R.
Sorry: I didn't read this post.
And I also didn't reply to it.
SDR
re:
> "if ignorance is bliss crack-heads should watch survivor"
>
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > In article <t6vispl...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "John Afdem" <a...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> > > BIG FLAW:
> >
> > Well, let's see just how big it is...
> >
> > > You say:
> > > > You must remember that the only "proof" that
> > > > the universe is expanding is that "the galaxies
> > > > are moving away from each other." But this illusion
> > > > can be easily explained away by considering two
> > > > planets standing side-by-side... which suddenly
> > > > begin shrinking towards their centers:
> > >
> > > But the fact that galaxies are moving away
> > > from each other is NOT based upon
> > > shrinking angular diameters, it's evidenced
> > > by the redshift in the light
> > > from those objects.
> >
> > Unfortunately, although it takes but a fraction of a minute
> > to cut through the fallacy that comes out of misinterpreting
> > the implications of the Hubble discovery (from the red-
> > shifted nature of the galaxies)... unfortunately, the solution
> > is not being (or, at least, has not been up to now) looked for.
> > And one never find anything where one does not look. But
> > despair not, for I will now show you the solution; and you
> > must realize how elegant it is (all on your own)...
> >
> > > Just like sound doensn't change speed in a constant
> > > medium, but changes apparant FREQUENCY (see
> > > 'doppler effect) to an observer
> > > when the source is moving (relatively), light
> > > changes frequency, but not
> > > it's speed, when two objects are moving away
> > > relative to each other.
> > > The 'Hubble Constant' describes by observations
> > > (albeit observations that
> > > are still being refined) that objects in the
> > > universe are moving away from
> > > each other faster, the further away they are.
> >
> > re:
> >
> > > "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > > > You must remember that the only "proof" that
> > > > the universe is expanding is that "the galaxies
> > > > are moving away from each other." But this illusion
> > > > can be easily explained away by considering two
> > > > planets standing side-by-side... which suddenly
JHS
Apu Neh Neh wrote:
> I don't agree with you. Fundamentally, your explanation of an imploding
> universe must first come after with an expanding universe.
I don't believe in the imploding Universe either.
But If you think take the outside of the Universe
as being a vacuum then the area of the vacuum
increases with the expanding Universe. And then
you get your speed up.
JHS