Is The Universe Really Expanding?
S D Rodrian
R <****j...@home.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > 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.
>
> That the universe is not expanding
> it only appears to be so because of
> the relativistic nature of the universe.
That's funny: I could've sworn I've done
nothing but (provide the ways & means
by which to SEE that the universe is
doing as it does & not as it says it does).
> And you needn't explain it yet
> again, rest assured if I haven't
> gotten it by now I won't.
Fear not: I've long ago realized that
one can lead a horse to water, but if
one's gonna drown'im... one's got to do it
without any help from the stupid beast.
> But I should
> add that my only problem with your claim
> is that you provide no means by
> which we can come to accept it
> by any degree except by faith.
1) In a universe of gravity ONLY an explosion
can make matter "move apart" (and a while back
that's exactly the rationalization someone
came up with to explain the belief that the
universe was expanding)... meaning that ONLY
matter hitting matter can "push" matter in
a direction away from itself (whether it's
by a stick of "dynomite!" or magnetic ions
or some gas molecules under pressure et al)...
2) Such an explosion (against gravity) MUST
gradually slow down--while the so-called
expansion of the universe is actually
accelerating! And let me remind you, in case
you were asleep when this was discovered:
Gravity NEVER causes matter to repel matter.
3) One does NOT need to accept that gravity
ONLY attracts (that matter ONLY attracts
matter)... it is the law o'd'land (or, drop
a brick on you head). On the other hand, in
order to rationalize an instance of matter
repelling matter... one needs to propose
preposterous absurdities which one MUST
accept ONLY on faith.
4) Cases in point:
a) NOT that "there" is an esoteric form of matter
which repels matter but that "there must be"
some sort of "dark matter" which has no
physical effect on anything except that it
quite absolutely inexplicably causes all matter
to repel all other matter IN the same volumes
where gravity is making matter attract all matter!
b) Since the beginnings of civilization we have
known as a matter of course that everything is
almost infinitely divisible AND that those things
we could not yet sunder (such as a diamond) were
exceptions to the rule--therefore, that it was
more likely that diamonds et al COULD be divided
but we just didn't have the means of doing it yet.
And yet we continue to propose all sorts of impossibly
indivisible singularities even in the face of the
fact that they ALL (from the Greeks' proposal of
the atom--which means "indivisible" --to the absurd
proposals today of the existence of "one-dimensional"
singularities)... ALL such proposals (which actually
prove to have a basis in reality, or exist) eventually
prove to be quite, quite, quite divisible.
c) If there is one lesson we are taught by the universe
over and over and over again it is that every bit
of matter that exists (everything) could only exist
because it was "put together" [i.e. that it's an
evolution of some sort]. I will repeat this in other
words so you may not later claim you did not get it:
The ONLY way by which anything can exist is by "growing
into existence" (it's ALWAYS a process of accumulation
over time, and NEVER any sort of instantaneous creation
by the magic of God or some other magician capable of
willy-nilly circumventing the laws of physics). And
d) I'm getting sleepy and must return to bed now.
However, please chew on the above statements a while
and, of you are able to do so, propose any worthwhile
objections to it you feel should be made (and I do NOT
mean that you should post one of the usual, "I don't
like it" or "It just doesn't sit well with me" replies).
> > > 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..."
>
> Yes, but we can never be convinced,
> nor your claim substantiated,
> without 'actually' performing
> the mental feat. Hence faith.
Well, I've given you (above) the actual distinctions
between what is real in our reality and what is but
merely indeed accepted on faith alone. So you no longer
need accept anything on faith: Just repudiate the
facts I have stated, and give your reasons for your
repudiation. This should be simple (it was certainly
simple for me to state the obvious, the self-evident).
Try it some time.
> > > 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?!
>
> Woa. Won't even touch this it's too early
> and the coffee hasn't hit the
> synapes yet.
Well, put yourself in my place--I only do this
when I wake up in the middle of the night (and
run the computer a while so I can get drowsy
enough to get back to sleep). And I'm almost
there now.
> > > 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!
>
> :) Well thrust.
> >
> > > that all that we see is not
> > > the case, but an illusion.
> >
> > Again: Are you talking about women?
>
> :)
> <snip>
> > > 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?
>
> bad analogy, wouldn't you say that
> escaping our relative universe to
> witness and thus be convinced of the
> 'truth' is impossible?
Hardly!!! The human mind can go where
no hand hath ever been proposed it will EVER
be able to go. As that great mind (Emily
Dickinson) wrote 150 years ago:
The brain is wider than the sky,
for, put them side by side,
the one the other will include
with ease, and you beside.
The brain is deeper than the sea,
for, hold them, blue to blue,
the one the other will absorb,
as sponges, buckets do.
The brain is just the weight of God,
for, lift them, pound for pound,
and they will differ, if they do,
as syllable from sound.
--Emily Dickinson
> No one would
> buy a lottery ticket if they didn't see
> that there was a chance (no
> matter how small) of winning,
The odds in the usual state lotteries is
something like 80 or 100 million to 1
... the absurd belief IS that you're going
to beat those odds. So, no: The more reasonable
behavior is to purchase ONE ticket and then
spend the rest of the time until you're told
you lost... dreaming of what you're going to do
with all that money. This is so self-evident
that in New Jersey they even advertise the
lottery in terms of "buying the dream."
> does that chance exist in your claim? If
> it does then most of what I've said is irrelevant.
There is no luck involved! I point out what is
obvious to me, and somebody else points out
what is obvious to him/her. And, lo & behold:
Sometimes people agree that they're seeing
the same thing everybody else is seeing. BUT
first... somebody must point "that" out:
It takes no genius to do it--just a simple and
straightforward resolve to under NO circumstances
accept that the magician is working real magic.
Put thy faith only upon the laws of physics.
> > > 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.
>
> Naw, that's just a personal conjecture
> based on whether my dog goes pee
> outside or scratches himself
> first thing on a wendnesday morning.
> <snip>
>
> cheers,
And good nite! My bed has developed an
overwhelmingly powerful gravitational field.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> R.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/