Origin & Age of The Universe (was: colliding galaxies?)
S D Rodrian
identifiable entity with necessarily
definable boundaries-Therefore it's quite
possible to say that it has both a
beginning and an end (it formed and will
lose its form --change-- from here to there).
However, I understand what you mean when
you say, "There is no origin or age of
the universe." What you are really saying
is that existence has no beginning or end.
This is, perhaps as far as we will ever know:
absolutely so. (As it is impossible, to
our knowledge, to get Something from nothing.)
But, as I said, while existence cannot possibly
have "a" beginning or "an" end... the "things"
in/of existence are themselves neither eternal
nor infinite: The universe (at least the universe
of matter) is NOT ONE "thing" but simply the
sum of "everything" (and, obviously, "everything
changes" although nothing really "goes out of
existence" ... an orange will ripen and rot, but
every element in it will continue to exist.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
In article <3A4E96C3...@nospam.com>,
"J.L. Webb" <jlw...@nospam.com> wrote:
> tim gueguen wrote:
>
> > "J.L. Webb" <jlw...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A4D38B0...@nospam.com...
> > > There is no origin or age of the universe.
> > >
> > And your evidence for making this claim is?
>
> It is impossible for it to have an age or origin, else there would
have
> to be existence before the universe and a "place" for it to be created
> and begin in!
>
> It is the people of the mythologies of "creationism" and "the big bang
> theory" (both the exact same mythologies) that must PROVE and show
> EVIDENCE of these wacky claims, not the person who does NOT claim the
> universe has age or origin.
>
> The atheist does not have to prove there is no god, as he is not the
one
> who made up the idea of god!
>
> If I tell you there is a giant invisible 1000 ton dinosaur with 10
heads
> living at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, and you tell me that is a
> bunch of crap, and I ask you where your evidence is for making that
> claim, how the hell would you be able to DISPROVE what I said?
>
> Anyone who just sits and THINKS about it for a moment will see that it
> is impossible for the universe to have an age, origin, or beginning!
> Just as it is impossible for a god to have created everything in the
> universe! Some say that in order to have such complexity as humans
and
> the universe, there would HAVE to be some supreme being or mind to
> create such complex things, yet these same confused people have no
> problem taking for fact that the even MORE complex supreme being "god"
> could just have always been around and needed nothing even more
supreme
> to create something as complex and great as "god" himself! And
someone
> would have had to create HIS god, and so on and so on. See how stupid
> this logic is? There always had to be existence, and there always
will
> be existence.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
> In article <92h3eg$j00$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> >In article <20001224014255...@ng-fr1.aol.com>,
> >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?
>
> [snip crapola]
>
> >> If a photon is not moving than
> >> how do you explain the
> >> travel of light from
> >> a source in all direction?
> >
> >Say, a lightbulb...?
>
> How can you miss the point so completely?
Easily! It's hitting the point with the crapola
that's really hard.
> Try this: You claim that photons do not move.
Sorry. Perhaps you should actually read what you're
criticizing: I wrote that the photon does not move
"as much as" all the other forms of ordinary matter
(with respect to absolute rest). That is: The greatest
"speed" in the universe is that of the ordinary forms
of matter TOWARDS imploding (but this is an absolute
velocity, so therefore it will be extremely difficult
for us here inside the relativistic universe to ever
establish exactly how fast that speed is). The speed
of light, however, IS relativistic (that is, a speed
relative to "us" the forms of ordinary matter). This
is precisely WHY the speed of light is reported as
constant NOT everywhere universally BUT always ONLY
in identical mediums: The photon, to our knowledge,
never actually comes to (reaches) "absolute rest"
(where it would always be reported at an absolute
speed regardless of its medium) but is instead very
much affected (moved) by gravity just as is every other
form of ordinary matter... it's just that it's not
affected in the same way nor to the same degree: And
you can actually see this most spectacularly of all
when its "speed" was "slowed down" to 38 miles per hour
in the Bose-Einstein Condensate medium.
And if you understand HOW the universe is imploding
you understand the behavior of the photon in it: At
the time when the universe of matter first "broke away"
from the universe of energy... all of the "effects"
which might be described as "the earliest gravitational
systems" were absolutely just that (swirls about their
centers)... so that the universe's implosion could be
understood in rather simple and straightforward terms:
There were/are, and there will always be two distinct
STEPS to the process of implosion which must occur in
an inviolable sequence (and I'm sure I need not explain
why... over and above explaining exactly what these so
very necessarily two steps are).
STEP ONE is the one that actually defines the point at
which the universe of matter becomes distinct from the
universe of energy: The advent of gravity necessarily
produces discrete gravitational systems forever turning
massive (beyond imagining) primordial systems that are
slowly organizing about their centers (locally)... into
ever faster and eternally smaller systems which will from
then on forever continue this unstoppable "acceleration"
towards their centers (thereby "shrinking in place"). If
that were ALL these gravitational systems were doing, then
you can imagine what would result: The absolute volume of
the universe would eternally remain the same even while
inside its volume... its individual gravitational systems
would quite literally "shrink away from each other" until
they were all so isolated by the empty space between them
that the universe of matter would literally vanish into
nothingness for all practical purposes. However...
STEP TWO is the one that rescues us from oblivion, as
the "shrinking in place" gravitational systems begin
(again, slowly at first but at an eternally accelerating
rate), begin to be attracted to each other. And if you
understand that the "space" (or distances between them all)
must have been non-existent in the primordial universe of
energy... you can understand that in the beginning of the
universe of matter such "space" (between all these "pre-
particles," if you like) must have been quite extremely
infinitesimally small, as it came into existence, and then
must have also undertaken an eternally accelerating rate
of growth which is continuing to this day and ever will
continue... but a growth of space ("distance" between the
forms of matter) always just infinitesimally lagging behind
the rush of the gravitational systems TOWARDS each other (or,
this is where "space" comes from... how it is "created" in/by
the universe of matter).
Although these two steps are the foundation of its very
existence, the universe of matter doesn't consist of these
primordial equidistant gravitational systems now... because
inevitably that equidistance will become strained (by the
fact that the force of gravity is "stronger" at a closer
range than at a greater range) and that fact must eventually
result in very massive and complex "mega gravitational systems"
structured (organized) by/of "bunches" of quite unimaginable
numbers of the (simpler) primordial gravitational systems
which will always "prefer" to interact gravitationally among
themselves much more than with other likewise "mega bodies of
such interacting primordial gravitational systems" themselves
also forming more complex local interactions ad infinitum (i.e.
those 2nd tier gravitational formations will themselves create
more complex formations which will form yet much more complex
formations which will one day become our Standard Model particles
... which will create stars, moons, and planets... which are
even now creating black holes... which will create--?). But this
is a THIRD STEP which is just merely the logical outcome of the
other first two.
However, you can see why I have always been convinced
that "whatever the universe was doing" it HAD to be doing
"that" faster and faster as it went on. [And remember the
skater who spins faster when he/she pulls in his/her arms?
Well, the universe implodes faster and faster with time;
and massive and slow gravitational systems = smaller but
faster gravitational systems.] This law that as long as
a body is being acted on by a force (gravity in this case)
it will experience an acceleration was spoken of by Newton,
and, as far as I know, it's still the law.
But let's turn to what the photon is doing amid all this
imploding: It is self-evident that the photon ALSO partakes
of STEP ONE (shrinking in place), otherwise photons would
almost instantaneously blow up into massive size before us.
The curious thing about the photon is that, unlike every
other form of ordinary matter, it does not appear to obey
STEP TWO (at least, not altogether fully/to the degree that
"everybody else" obeys it). And here is the explanation
why c constancy is ONLY identical in identical mediums and
NOT across the entirety of the universe regardless of
medium: The photon is also engaging in STEP TWO, it's just
not doing so to the extent that all the other forms of
ordinary matter do. [The 64 cent question is, "Why?" And
one may take the easy way out and theorize that it's because
there is just not enough matter (energy) to/in it for its
structure to be stable/solid---Einstein already described
its quantum nature, and there's very little doubt that the
photon's structure is less matter than energy: the ordinary
forms of matter have a very ancient pedigree, and so they
must consist of huge amounts of energy for their volume(s),
while the photon (born yesterday, so to speak), is probably
a very basic/uncomplicated "construction" with very few
internal "components" ... a distinction which might be
analogous to the difference between a couple of knotted
hairs... and a royal wig, perhaps.] But the result...
The photon responds to gravity a lot less than do the other
forms of "ordinary matter." And yet it does respond: Say...
a baseball passing as close to the Sun as passes a photon
from a background star would be instantly sucked into the
Sun... yet the photon only slightly "bends" its trajectory
while passing through the Sun's massive gravitational field
(creating the illusion that the source star has changed its
position from behind the Sun ever-so-slightly to just above
and beyond the Sun). Then again, a photon may escape even
the biggest of the (visible) stars [no pun intended] but not
from a black hole: The photon is NOT at absolute rest.
> If that is the
> case, the photons do not move relative to each other. Photons
> from a lightbulb *do* move relative to each other. How do you
> explain that?
Well, if you can remember what I've just said about photons
NOT being at absolute rest... perhaps I might make it easier
for you by disassembling the model into a few key components:
The thing to keep in mind from the start is that the universe
is not imploding relativistically (like a collapsing star
whose surface moves away from the rest of the universe as it
implodes). Because it is the ONLY "thing" that exists, the
universe is imploding in the most absolute condition imaginable:
What "would correspond to its surface" is self-evidently NOT
moving away from "anything outside it" because there just isn't
anything outside it, of course. And it's (its surface) is not
even moving towards its "center" because that would require that
it pile-up fundamental forms of matter WHICH IT DOES NOT HAVE.
If you remember what I said before about the beginnings of the
universe of matter you already know exactly how the universe is
imploding absolutely: STEP ONE is when all the forms of matter
(individual/distinct gravitational systems) shrink towards their
centers; literally imploding on an individual level, every one
of them. And this means that the universe of matter is imploding
absolutely "in the direction" of shrinking throughout/across its
full breadth/length, and NOT, like a little collapsing star in it,
relativistically: STEP TWO, the subsequent (relativistic) "coming
together" of all those imploding individual gravitational systems
creates --here inside the universe of matter-- the relativistic
absolute "illusion" that there is little IF ANY shrinking/imploding
really taking place at all. [And even though the absolute implosion
of the individual gravitational systems is a greater/profounder truth
(STEP ONE), than STEP TWO... which is strictly a relativistic motion,
it is no less of a truth: It may appear to us that the universe is
forever "absolutely" the same size, but while it is NOT so absolutely
... it's still so to all practical purposes for us relativistic forms
of matter IN it.]
This means that for all intents & purposes, the universe of
matter is imploding at/towards/into practically every conceivable
coordinate inside it. And now superimpose the behavior of the
photon on that universe: ALL the forms of ordinary matter partake
in STEP ONE but the photon refuses to partake fully in STEP TWO.
So the ONLY "connection" between a photon and its source depends
entirely on whether the photon comes into existence to one or
another "side" of its source: Once the photon is created its
relationship between its source and itself is not unlike that
between two planets "magically standing" side by side which (without
absolutely moving away from each other) suddenly begin to shrink
(even as they retain their shape/form)... if the inhabitants of
those planets do not KNOW they are shrinking, the ONLY possible
conclusion to which they could come is that they (the two planets)
have begun moving away from each other. This is also the conclusion
WE ourselves are forced into, until we discover the true nature of
our universe... that the photon is moving away from us--It IS only
relativistically, even though it is certainly NOT (nearly) so in
the absolute. [Ans so too when Hubble misunderstood the recession
of the galaxies to mean that the universe was expanding... a merely
relativistic truth "only," yes, but an absolute misunderstanding of
the absolute nature of the universe.]
However, while the photon and its source are not really moving away
from each other (that much). It is not merely they alone who are
shrinking (imploding), so imagine that our Mr. Source turns on a
flashlight and aims it at a "wall" some distance from him: That wall
--remember STEP TWO-- will rush at him unimaginably fast... and
although the wall will never hit Mr. Source himself it will/must
inescapably yet "hit" Mr. Source's photon. {Mr. Source --WE-- shall
interpret it the other way around, of course, and "see" the photon
hit the wall which forever remains ever at the same "distance" from
him. But that's just the way we must understand our reality in order
to make sense of it... backwards!]
Moreover, imagine now two Mister(s) Source standing face to face
some distance from each other (each of them holding a flashlight
and each of them standing behind a wall of his own--with only their
flashlights showing, naturally): Mr. A. Source aims his flashlight
at Mr. B. Source's wall, while Mr. B. Source aims his flashlight
at Mr. A. Source's wall. The result is that there is NO DIFFERENCE
in the behavior of the A photon and the B photon: The A photon will
be invariably struck by the B wall absolutely rushing towards Mr. A,
while the B photon itself just as inescapably will also be struck
by the A wall rushing absolutely towards Mr. B~! [Even as our two
fellows "stand there," forever (relativistically) holding the "same
distance" between them: This is because neither of the two Mister(s)
Source are really at absolute rest; and yet both of them can quite
truthfully (relativistic truth) claim to be at the "center" of the
imploding universe.
Ah! BUT, you might say here (as you have already done: "Photons
from a lightbulb *do* move relative to each other. How do you
explain that?"), or: "I can understand why the walls might crash
against the photons in their way, but, if photons DO NOT MOVE
how then can two photon aimed at each other ever meet--when it's
self-evident that they in fact do meet head to head all the time,
and not merely in lab experiments?!?" And the answer again comes
out of the fact that the speed of light is NOT a universal constant
[as it would be if photons really stood absolutely motionless at
(with respect to) Absolute Rest]... rather, the speed of light is
ALWAYS identical in IDENTICAL MEDIUMS ONLY (which means that the
photon DOES move, as proven by the famous Einstein light-bending
by a strong gravitational field (proven) prediction; and by the
obvious fact that photons cannot escape a black hole, et al).
If you can remember that the universe really behaves in exactly
the opposite way you perceive it as behaving, you will understand
that when the photon appears to us to be moving faster it is in
fact moving slower, and when it seems to us to be moving slower
it's really moving faster (with respect to Absolute Rest). In
other words, it is the universe of matter that is what is moving
at the fastest possible speed, while the universe of energy (to
which all energy IN matter is being returned) that is at Absolute
Rest relative to us. [In point of fact, when anything seems to us
to be accelerating (up toward the speed of light, say) it is in
"absolute" reality decelerating down towards Absolute Rest. This is
why the infamous twins paradox results in the "faster traveling"
twin aging less than the twin that remains behind (or, who "remains
traveling" at the relatively lesser "speed"): As the voyaging twin
appears to us to be moving towards the speed of light, he is really
moving away from the highest/greatest possible speed in the universe
and so de facto towards Absolute Rest... so that in his experience
ALL elemental/nuclear "motions" are also forced towards Absolute Rest:
In effect, the traveling twin starts to freeze up, while all the
elemental/nuclear activity of the twin that remained back on earth
keeps churning on at the same rate as ever it did. And, too, Lorentz's
transformation is equally the result of this absolute reality; or
"greater mass = greater motion in the direction of absolute rest," as
"Absolute Rest itself = infinite (scalar) mass," or the universe of
energy.] Now, remember...
The photon does no stop dead at Absolute Rest, but is still
participating in STEP TWO, only not as fast by a factor of...
the speed of light, yes. [However, while it is possible for us
to KNOW that "we" are imploding/moving faster than the speed of
light, it is also possible to know that we really do not know
how fast the photon is moving relative to Absolute Rest... all
we can say, at this time, is that the photon is moving relative
to absolute rest some 186,282 (of our relativistic) miles per
second SLOWER than all the other forms of ordinary matter, "us."}
And this ought to tell you why it is that even though Mister(s)
Source are relativistically never moving towards each other as
they fire their photons at each other... those photons will still
(absolutely) meet each other head to head long before Mr. A and
Mr. B themselves ever will (when in fact if neither of them walks
towards each other... they will NEVER meet at all). As the universe
implodes, our two Mister(s) Source may never themselves meet, but
their two photons eventually will collide with each other AND right
"there" between the two men yet... it's just that the universe
plays a bit of a trick on us that-a-way, and we ordinary forms of
matter can never really establish the true "speed" at which the two
photons collide... because to us ALL photons will ALWAYS appear to
be traveling at c constant in identical mediums:
START 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.]
...
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!
... 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 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
> If, as I suspect you are going to, you point out that this can
> easily be explained by the collapsing of the universe, I would
> like you do consider the case of two lightbulbs near each other.
Been there, done that. The result is the same as if one had
numberless individual Mister(s) Source casting forth photons
every whichside: It may look chaotic (because the lightbulb
obviously produces so many photons in every conceivable
orientation with respect to itself), but every individual photon
is nevertheless produced with "a" given orientation that each
one of them retains with respect to its Mr. Source (which that
resourcefully creative fellow was "kind enough" to endow his
photon with... with respect to the rest of the universe). The
thing which will probably confuse you in situations such as these
is when you do not take into consideration that the photons are
also shrinking/imploding [remember the two planets analogy?].
And you must also always keep in mind that the universe is NOT
imploding toward its whatever center (relative to its portions
not its center) but toward every last one of all its possible
imaginable coordinates (i.e. not relativistically but absolutely).
The logical result of this is that, ultimately (when one considers
all those many, many photon MUST be crossing the entire extent of
the universe of matter without actually colliding with any "thing")
... if there were an absolute (therefore unshrinking) God standing
watch outside the universe... our universe must look to Him like a
brilliant "white hole" spewing forth its light even as it is ever
imploding/shrinking: The photons would still be dragged behind by
the singularity of matter, yes, but that so-called singularity (our
visible universe of ordinary matter) would itself not be "visible"
from outside (it's just imploding too quickly; or, so much faster
than are the photons lagging it behind in STEP TWO). What would be
visible is that ever-shrinking halo of blinding light (which might
also have its "event horizon" just like our black holes, except that
the universal white hole would be "pushing out" photons, as it were,
instead of swallowing them). But because no form of matter is forever
(and the photon is a form of matter just as every other form of matter)
... even the ball of light which is the God's eye-view of the universe
must itself be imploding, or shrinking away from an Absolute God: Only
a relativistic God (Who would be just like "the rest of us") would ever,
just like us, continue to be witness to The Eternal Light (like us).
> Some of the photons are moving towards each other, some away,
> and some not moving relative to each other. I'd be fascinated
> to know how this fits in with your "theories".
Rather niftily, I'd say. Thank you for asking.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> Alan