Universal starting point?
S D Rodrian
jo10...@aol.com (Jo10bi12) wrote:
> Rodrian,
O Dear! John, [hate these dearjohn letters]
> I find all of the following quote from
> your web page to be quite confusing.
Unfortunately, one can't just blurt out
the truth to people who are living a lie.
It takes a bit of preparation (one must
begin by gingerly separating them from their
beloved lie... and only then will the truth
appear a reasonable alternative to folks who
have been for so long comforted by the lie).
> The Universe is by definition all that is.
Indeed: Remember that the uni-verse is both
"one thing" and "all the things in it." But
this is not a paradox in reality (only in the
way the human mind goes about thinking it).
> That being the case a Universe that is
> a uniform and even distribution
> of energy would have no reason
> to ever do anything but remain just that
> - a uniform and even distribution of
> energy ( the ability to do work ).
Indeed! And now you have described one reason
(at least) why there can not exist any true (truly)
homogeneous singularity--Any volume which takes up
more than one singular "space" will (very likely)
experience those pesky convection currents which
the laws of thermodynamics always push from higher
zones of pressure to zones with lower pressures.
[Of course, current theorists, and others coming out
of recent electric shock treatments, therefore propose
their singularities as so small that they are not three-
dimensional objects any longer but one-dimensional
"points" ... and how anything NOT three-dimensional
can have a "position" ANYWHERE in our three-dimensional
reality (or: How the begoogies can two guys standing
to either side of "it" possibly describe "it" as "there"
--here they point with their index fingers--)... that
is part of that "bit-o-reason" which "being current"
rips right off their electrifying brains, recken.]
The primordial (or, I should say: the pre-universe of
matter) universe of energy could not "have been" a true
homogeneous singularity BECAUSE the laws of physics
(thermodynamics) de facto were active IN it (otherwise
the universe of matter would never have been able to
"come" out of it. All you need understand is that (as far
as human understanding is concerned) "energy is motion
and motion is energy." [So the distinction between the
universe of matter and the universe of energy is reduced
to the universe of energy "being" (very nearly) ONE
"singularity" of motion, or The ONLY MOTION in existence
--which therefore can NOT be described as either "faster
than" or "slower than" nor even as "motion" at all,
since "all motion is relative" and can only be spoken of
as merely/purely/only "existing." (This is how we humans
understand that existence has always existed.) And once
you too understand this about the universe of energy, you
too can (hopefully) begin to understand that the universe
of matter comes into "being" at that instant when that
One/Only Singularity of motion
(literally) begins to "break up" into a zillion differently-
oriented "motions" (relativistic, as opposed to the
absolute motion of the universe of energy) which make
vectors possible, and which ultimately make "matter"
possible... since all those (now, suddenly) individual
and discrete "zillions of motions" have no place to "go"
except into themselves--i.e. they form into individual
and discrete gravitational systems forever after winding
up tighter and tighter while speeding up faster and faster
... and if you can't see that the result of this (combined
with the fact that all those individual systems will also
tend to move towards each other)... if you cannot see that
the result of all this is an absolutely imploding/shrinking
universe which at the same time tends to maintain its form,
then I doubt you will be able to see much in this world
of ours--because this is kindergarten-simple stuff here.]
In the language of your statement: It is matter itself
which is "the work" being done by "the energy" that is
the primordial (pre-matter universe) universe. And if
you want it simplified: An absolute singular motion breaks
down into a chaos of relativistic motions (which being
"smaller" naturally accelerate as they become ever even
smaller and smaller). In turn, they form more and more
complex structures (interactions), or super-gravitational
systems which eventually result in our Standard Model
particles (which themselves for even more complex super-
architectures, which eventually will form black holes, which
eventually will form--?)... ad infinitum.
> It would have nothing to expand into since
> by its own definition the universe is everyting.
This is why I often propose that "you" (dear reader)
instead of trying to visualize "the shrinking universe"
try to visualize "x-space" escaping from matter, as it
were (expanding) while matter itself remains unchanged:
This is also what's going on, at the human level, since
the consequences of our universe imploding while yet
retaining its same form/shape... is so distant from our
ordinary experience. But the absolute fact is that the
universe is imploding/shrinking, not exploding/expanding.
> It could not contract.
> Contraction implies that something
> is being left behind.
And so it is: Energy! Simplified: The universe of
energy (which, remember, as I said before can not be
described by us as either expanding/shrinking or even
as anything other than (at) absolute rest) "breaks down"
into the universe of matter... which immediately begins
to implode (literally: to move in the direction of
shrinking) AT/INTO its every imaginable coordinate. "The
(energy) motion of the universe is winding down." Energy
becomes matter (certainly NOT by congealing but, on the
contrary... by accelerating: "Motion is energy, and energy
motion" ... and (E=MC^2) "matter" is made up of an
unimaginable nvestment of energy/motion: Materiality is
an illusion. There are no ultimately "solid" (fundamental)
forms of matter. All forms of matter are a conservation of
energy. Motion is our understanding of energy. However:
our understanding cannot easily separate the nature of
energy from the nature of matter except via the "paradox"
that ["energy is motion" while "matter is what is moving"].
We have grown up/evolved with one singular understanding
of what "things which exist" are... and that is: "material").
So it is hard at this stage of our evolutionary development
to learn that "not all that moves need be made of matter."
Remember: There are NO paradoxes in nature, only in our
minds. The conversation between us and the universe is
one often at cross-purposes: We speak to the universe in
terms of matter... and the universe speaks to us in terms
of energy... which we cannot fully "grasp" any more than
can the universe "imagine" what we're talking about when
we speak of "matter."
> Even if this is just "space"
> it is something and you would be
> separating this ( space ) from
> all that is - the universe as a whole.
John, think for a minute: The universe of energy
really IS "all that exists." There is no "space" (or
any "place" in it where "it" does not exist--i.e.
"space" is unknown in/to the universe of energy).
It is ONLY when the universe of matter is born that
individual gravitational systems begin to form IN
THE DIRECTION of shrinking (every last one of'em)
---with the result that they also necessarily "shrink"
away from each other: This is the birth of "space"
(or, the "distance" between them). Moreover, all
those individual gravitational systems do not remain
static (in place) but also begin moving toward each
other immediately upon all those gaps opening up
between them--Repeat after me: "Implosion. Shrinking."
It is this very implosion which creates "space" (there
just is NO OTHER WAY to explain the distances between
the universe's gravitational systems). The universe of
energy does not experience gravity (however you might
wish to describe it... either as ONE motion with ONE
single orientation; or as an outward motion (which, self-
repelling, creates different regions of "pressure").
> In effect creating something seperate
> from all that is. A universe of static energy
> alone would have no reason to do
> anything. Energy is nothing more then
> the ability to do work. That is, put
> energy to some use. Your definition
> leaves out "reason". Who or what put the
> energy to use ( did work )?? Where
> is the reason?? Why would static energy (
> in your own words: " In the begining
> the universe consisted only of energy" ...
> ) alone do anything??
"In the beginning... everything was utterly
utterly simpler: Then things evolved into
greater complexities." --Simplified Darwin.
> " In the beginning the universe consisted only of energy
> (the primordial singularity). [It could never EVER have
> consisted of absolute nothingness because the jump from
> absolute nothingness to something can only be breached
> by magic.] At that point in the history of the universe
> energy did not "flow" in any direction (it is therefore
> possible to speak of the sum total of the universe then
> as "one" infinite scalar mass and therefore also possible
> to speak of the universe then as "one" single homogeneous
> form of "special" matter). And it's also possible to speak
> of the universe then as being free of any force (as we
> understand a force, or gravity) since it was also free of
> the 2nd law of thermodynamic--Therefore it's only an ideal
> universe and not one which likely could have existed for
> any appreciable length of time, considering how unimaginable
> it is that all its far-flung regions would have had the ability
> to agree among themselves on a "mean" value (or "thermo-
> value") for all its parts."
The above quote from (my website?) merely means that
the universe of energy (or, the primordial singularity)
could never have been perfect--otherwise, as you yourself
understand: It would forever remain perfect(ly frozen).
> Why would a universe that consist of energy alone
> be involved with the concept
> ( thought ) of time?? Time assumes change.
Not that "time" lunacy again!
John: The universe does not think!
Hell, nor do half the people I know
(who can't grasp that time is just a
measurements regime).
> Why would anything in a universe of
> static energy change??
Repeat after me: The universe of energy is
NOT a perfect singularity. It is a construct
(of the laws of thermodynamics). It is finite
in the very real sense that it implodes and
therefore "uses itself up" (diminishes/shrinks).
> Why would the "far - flung regions"
> have to agree among
> themselves on a "mean" value for all its parts??
I cannot imagine they could! It is my firm
conviction that the laws of thermodynamics rule!
> All of your statements will
> only make sense if
... Simon sez they make sense?
> you assume the constant and ever
> present existance of a thinker.
This is one hell of a non sequitur!
Congratulations. And as for me:
I have to hit the hay now...
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/