Force of Motion Stronger Than gravity
S D Rodrian
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Hi SDR Instead of saying gravity
> is shrinking space.
Well, for one thing, the shrinking
is not shrinking space but actually
creating it. SEE http://web.sdrodrian.com
> Why don't you go
> with GR and say space is curving in
> and taking matter with it.
Well, for another thing, space
has no existence independent of
the distance it demarcates between
bits of matter.
> That way you have man's great theory
That he is divine?!?!?!
> answering shrinking universe.That
> way you will have your theory
> on a strong foundation. Herb
Herb, a theory is either true or false:
It ought never to be more/less respectable,
popular, or preferred: I am not after
respect, popularity, or affection. (As
you probably can tell.) Your so solid
foundations, I'm sure if you really look
into them, are made up of strong opinions
and not bricks of any strength whatever.
Besides, mine is not a formal theory
but a set of direct observations: If you
cannot "see" that the universe is imploding
perhaps your descendants will. But either way,
the universe will continue doing what it's
doing (imploding) for as many of your
generations as it takes them to realize (see)
its true nature (and I never dreamt at any time
that I would convince anybody by the sheer force
of my Fiat... so I went ahead and bought a Honda).
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
-100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>
Kumar Yelubandi <zook...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, S D Rodrian wrote:
> > In article <3091-3A48A514-5
> >@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> > > Hi SDR Instead of saying gravity
> > > is shrinking space.
> > Well, for one thing, the shrinking
> > is not shrinking space but actually
> > creating it. SEE http://web.sdrodrian.com
>
>in some regions and diluting
>matter in others...with space being
>the "solvent", as it were.
What does gravity do?
It concentrates matter.
Where does it concentrate matter?
Toward centers of gravitational systems.
What happens when matter concentrates
toward its (local) centers?
They shrink away from each other.
[Hubble constant. Which is very pronounced
with astronomical distances but is also taking
place at the micro level... only so infinitesimally
that it's more possible to understand that is
happening than to observe it directly.]
>Obviously, where gravity (mass) is
>great, less space exists
>...ergo, shrinking space is
>a direct result of concentrating
>matter.
Space does not exist. (It doesn't have
existence on its own: If there were nothing
but space in existence there would be
nothing in existence.) Space is merely
the distance between things that do exist
(if these things existed without space
they would still have existence). And that
is precisely what happens in the universe:
There was NO space IN the universe at first
and the state of being could be described
as a kind of singularity of energy. Upon
gravity's manifestation... the existing energy
began to--yes, you guessed it--concentrate
in local gravitational systems every one of which
must have been massive beyond imagining.
Necessarily: These super-massive primordial
gravitational systems (pre-particles, if you will) must
have started moving in the direction of forming self-
contained discrete systems/vortexes very slowly
(and just as slowly accelerating as they coalesced
tighter and tighter), so that the first few "moments"
after the manifestation of gravity... must have taken
place in what we now call trillions of years! [The
universe is older than imagined in our philosophy.]
This is the exact opposite of what is usually described
as the first few moments after the mythological Big Bang
(where everything happens at the greatest possible
speed from the start and then gradually slows down).
And now: you tell me which of the two versions is easily
explained by the laws of physics, and which is impossible
to explain without some nutty Rube Goldberg explanation
which ultimately raises more questions than it answers.
[ Conservation of energy/motion:
Large slow motions = small fast motions. ]
The point is to visualize Existence as a near-singularity
of energy which would be very-nearly homogeneous (or
"solid" throughout, in a conceit of convenience). And
now visualize such "solidity" breaking up into distinct
discrete "pieces" ... The universe does not/cannot expand
but it must implode. The ONLY possible method it can
follow is for the forms of matter to FIRST shrink towards
their centers (basically, in place), and ONLY THEN are
they able to collectively move towards each other. Why?
Know then that the force of gravity is stronger with
proximity--i.e. individual gravitational systems will
ALWAYS experience a greater urge to shrink toward
their centers than to move towards each other: So it was,
and it will always be the case, that the method of imploding
the universe is using MUST everafter CREATE "distances"
between all its forms of matter (or gravitational systems).
And that all such "distance" between "bodies" that exist
we term "space." [Which doesn't mean, of course, that outer
space is some sort of perfect vacuum!]
>So far, SDR, you have stated obvious things
Can a man speak the truth with it being otherwise?!
>(with a little flair,
>granted, but with no great shifting
>of the scientific plinths).
Most of the errors of the conventional physics
community are errors of interpretation, not of
observation. I don't blame those who looked upon
the Hubble universe and interpreted it to mean
that the universe was expanding... I merely "hope"
that someday they or others will consider an
alternative more in tune with the laws of physics.
>But perhaps that is all you are venturing, no?
>IMO, it would be far more interesting
>to assert something akin
>to space being the "solute".
> IOW, what we perceive as particles
>is actually the container(s); and
>what we perceive as space is
>actually the content(s). Not obvious,
>but not boring either. Wot?
I'm not one of those persons who believes that
fiction is more interesting than truth: And even
were that the case, I'd still stick with truth as the
arbiter of my reality (one gets fewer bumps
& falls into fewer bottomless shafts that way).
But that's just me, of course.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> -zookumar-
S D Rodrian
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Hi SDR Since when does a theory
> have to be true or false?
Since before you and I were born, Herb.
The Oxford Concise English Dic sez about theory:
1) a supposition or system of ideas explaining
something, esp. one based on general principles
independent of the particular things to be explained
(cf. hypothesis 2) (atomic theory; theory of evolution).
[If this definition gives us a theory
which can be wrong and ignorant of the facts,
then the world would be a lot more chaotic.]
2) a speculative (esp. fanciful) view (one of my pet theories).
[This is probably the definition you were thinking of.]
3) the sphere of abstract knowledge or speculative
thought (this is all very well in theory, but how
will it work in practice?).
[This definition but demands proof of whether
it may be right or wrong.]
4) the exposition of the principles of a science etc.
(the theory of music).
[This definition has given me years of pleasure.]
5) Math. a collection of propositions to illustrate
the principles of a subject (probability theory;
theory of equations).
[This definition has given me grief for years.]
> They only
> have to answer some questions at a particular time.
I think that may be politicians, not theories.
> They come and go.
ditto.
> Well it is gravity that causes stuff to shrink.
> I was just giving
> you curving of space GR as a way to do it.
Sorry, Herb, but I just can't get a handle
on space (by which I could then bend it).
> I don't think you would like
> QM graviton attraction in your theory. Herb
Quantum theory is phenomenally helpful, Herb.
It's some of the theorists that are not
all that helpful.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
SDRodrian
Rishard <rish...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <92ekh8$l9l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <92dasp$jva$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Rishard <rish...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > What's with the multi-post.
> > > Are you a liberal scientist that thinks
> > > if you repeat it often enough it
> > > will be true?
> >
> > Sorry, no: There are no repeated postings.
> > Not a one. You are looking at posts sent to
> > different places and assuming they are all
> > going to the same place. The fault is not
> > with us but with your self, Horatio.
>
> Sorry, the way that your stuff displays
> on Deja.com is wild.
> Free acount, give it a look.
Dear Rishards, Deja is a reader for reading threads
and NOT for reading individual newsgroups (even
though you may call up a newsgroup... you will NOT
see individual posts there but see full threads
instead). The distinction is crucial: Deja.com
lists the full and complete thread... this means
that ALL the posts posted to that thread are listed
(included) regardless of which NG it was sent to
--AND, pay close attention here, as this is the really
tricky part: If more than one copy of any post was
sent (one copy each) to more than one NG... the thread
will list them all (all of the copies of the same 1 post).
Therefore: There is no way to technically get around
the fact that if you read complete threads you will
be given "all the posts in that thread" ... I know that
this is very hard for "some" people to comprehend, but
you need not use sophisticated technologies to work
around the fact that because you just insist upon eating
waxed fruit... the world owes you a method to make it
possible for you to eat waxed fruit as if they were real
fruits! A little brain work is all that's required, really:
SWITCH thou to real fruit instead of trying to eat those
waxed fruit, please! It will go easier on your digestion
and upon everybody else's nerves (excluding a certain
poor soul named Mark, who is unable to stop himself
from making a complete spectacle of himself, apparently).
AND, if you STILL insist on eating waxed fruit, even
after all this (or... to use the Deja.com threads reader
as your individual NG reader)... Then learn this secret
which has been passed down through the generations of
previous Deja.com users: WHEN you see a number of posts
which are by the same poster and are all attached to
the same vertical "line" ... chances are nearly 100% that
they are all copies of the same post. Check it out & learn!
And so, please use a little/tiny/itty-bitty bit of your brain:
If you only want to read the posts to/at any individual
newgroups do not use the Deja.com threads reader--or,
at least, do not bitch about things no amount of bitching
is ever gonna fix--There are countless free newsreaders
out there, including most probably your browser's and/or
your ISP's!!! You MUST have an ISP... ask them how
you can get access to Usenet through them: It will, in all
probability, be free and allow you to read individual posts
instead of the entire threads in which you find yourself
all entangled now.
Always, the hopeful educator to
the hopelessly uneducable...
S D Rodrian
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
> Rishards
>
> The user name is from Deja.
> But I like it OK
> >
> > > Please fix your Ruby Slippers.
> >
> > You nuts? I've been to Kansas.
> >
> > > And put your mouse on decaffeinated coffee.
> >
> > No way: He won't help me type then.
> >
> > > Rishards
> >
> > Were your parents dyslectic, or
> > just very poor spellers? Just
> > curious...
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > wisdom.findhere.org