What is gravity really.

1 view
Skip to first unread message

S D Rodrian

Nov 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/18/00
In article <8usfqi$s1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> popped his lit'l head out
from the black hole of his imagination & wrote:

> In article <2285-3A...@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> > Hi Henry Sorry Henry That theory
> > was tried about 1830 It is that
> > gravity is a push rather than a pull.
> > The denser the object the harder
> > space pushed. I can see there you came from,
> > for we talk of dense stars
> > imploding(supernova's) Space doing
> > the pushing creates more questions
> > than it can answer. Herb
> ==
> [EL]
> This is not true, and if Henry was saying so
> I would have supported him.
> Because gravity is neither a push nor a pull
> but a phenomenon of vacuum pressure.

Lord! Won't these flat-earthers ever quit!?
Sir, you overlook the most basic fact of all:
The force of Gravity increases with proximity!
Where in Heaven's sake have you flat-heads ever
heard of ANY vacuum in which "pressure" was
greater in some portions of it than in others?!?!

> Do you have any idea why vacuum sucks
> matter into the void to fill it?

Definitely: As we think... matters flood into
our brains (except that in the case of brains
like yours, my dear troll, the void of your
vacuum is too powerful and you end up with
a black hole for a mind).

> Do you know why vacuum does not
> redistribute matter of a
> planet into the void?

Pay attention, son: Black hole mind!
Anything comes into your brain, truth or
intelligent crap... nothing comes out (not
even intelligent crap). See a doctor, please.

> You see,
> the counterpart of gravity is vacuum
> negative pressure, hence, gravity MUST
> be vacuum positive pressure,

And the counterpart of not sweating is vacuum
negative pressure, hence, sweating MUST
be vacuum positive pressure (so you see,
you're throwing away your money when you
buy a deodorant: ain't nothing gonna take
your stink away... until you get out of your
mental black hole, sorry).

> which is more or less a push rather
> than a pull but from whose point of
> view or what difference does it make to
> call it push or pull? The
> significance is in the symmetry not the name.

That's an old worn-out theory only used
today by a couple of "studios" teaching
ballroom dancing to bored and lazy people
who don't believe in modern calisthenics.

> That is why I prefer
> explosion-implosion pair of words
> or expansion-contraction for the same
> category or emerge-collapse in other sense.

Yes: I can see where you WOULD prefer
to cover both sides of the bet (as long as
you're not talking REAL money). Trouble os
that in the REAL world... they always ask
for cash on the barrel-head AND there isn't
enough money in the world to make money by
betting on both sides (unless you're playing

> So no, Henry is saying that the sky is falling,
> the sky is falling, and
> that makes me sick.
> EL Hemetis

That'd be an almost sane statement

Always eager to help the helpless,

S D Rodrian

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

S D Rodrian

Nov 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/18/00
In article <SsvR5.12049$Xx3....@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au>,
"Brendan Hill" <brend...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> I haven't the faintest idea where this
> thread started, and I don't much
> care, but let me put in my 20 cents about gravity.

It started in the curiosity of some
higher apes with highly developed brains.

> My theory is that every particle of matter is simply a tiny knot in
> that is, a knot in hyperspace. Now, due to the nature of a knot, each
> is slightly tugging on the space around it. OK? If you take a piece of
> string, hold it tightly, and get someone to tie a knot in the middle
> semi-knot, due to the topological impossiblilty of blah blah blah),
> string will pull tighter on you hands. Correct?
> If gadzillions of densely packed knots, such as a planet, were all
> on the space around themselves, they would cause a considerable
> in the space around the whole planet, thus attracting other particles
> itself.
> Think about it- it makes sense. It makes perfect sense. It would also
> explain how a particle and it's anti-particle nullify each other's
> existence: they are *exactly symmetrical* knots, so when they come
> contact with each other, they unravel each other, and there is nothing
> any more.
> What do you think? Have I found the theory of everything?

I think that if you substitute "vortex" or some such
for "knot" you've come pretty close: "Energy is motion,
motion is energy." All the forms of matter are
constructs of energy (motion), "motion cannot be
created or destroyed" ... exactly as Newton put it in
his laws of motion (which are a marvelous insight
into the conservation of motion... or, energy).

Keep thinking, by all means!

S D Rodrian

> -BrendanH
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:8v5rl4$db6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


Nov 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/18/00
What, are you stupid or did you miss class that day? Gravity is NOT push. It is
NOT pull (at least not in the sense you've mentioned). It is not the opposite of
vacuum, neither is it the result of an expanding or collapsing universe.

Gravity is the effect of valence energy attraction between two objects. Clean
and simple. If you place two objects suspended in a magnetic field thereby
synthetically eliminating the effects of gravity, the two objects would begin
moving towards each other. THAT is the EFFECT we call gravity.

This is also why there will never be anti-gravity. There WILL however be null


On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:10:00 GMT, S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com>

S D Rodrian

Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00
In article <3A173499...@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au>,
alexande...@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au wrote:
> The most usefull gravity theory
> i have seen is that gravity is the
> effect of zero point energy pressure on matter.
> If you are standing on earth, the zero
> point energy field from the rest
> of the universe is blocked underneath
> you by the matter of earth. Your
> integrated wave function is thus 'forced' down.
> Alex

This, of course, presupposes
that there exists an "ether" of some sort
(for a wave medium). And once you come to that
it's like seeking to know who made Man
and being told it was God: The thing we are
really seeking is to know where it all
comes from. And so, as the question of
who made God supersedes who made Man (how
did Man evolve), making it irrelevant...
the question of how "matter" came to be
(evolved) is superseded by the question of
how the "ether" came to be: The "ether"
is a proposed solution to a nonexistent
problem... as even Einstein suspected (and
he didn't even try to solve the problem
of the universe's (matter's) evolution

It is always better to be as direct
as possible in the inquiry: How did
Man (and not the theoretical "God") come
to be? How did the universe (and not
the theoretical "ether") come to be?

S D Rodrian


S D Rodrian

Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00
In article <8v7k1o$kve$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> In article <20001118222511...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
> dl...@aol.com (DLZC) wrote:
> > Dear EL:
> >
> > >Yes, but you are replying to S D Rodrian
> > >who is a cross posting idiot
> > >who shall not understand what you are
> > >talking about and start to flame you.

Dear EL, I am still waiting for you to
say something witty, or intelligent, or
reasonable, or which contributes (however
remotely) to the conversations in which
we are engaged. However, I cannot apologize
to you if when you post some idiocy
I point this out in no uncertain terms.
The fault there lies entirely with you
in the first place.

> > So he is really a dragon, with indiscriminate aim?
> >
> > David A. Smith
> > Factually Challenged
> ==
> [EL]
> I really do not know

The rest of the post is superfluous,
like EL (but like EL, it goes on & on).

> if has an aim or not, and
> certainly do not have an
> urge to investigate.

Was I right or what? I'm at least
gratified, EL, that you so readily admit
you know nothing about me even as you
heap your mindless (and truly purposeless)
abuse on me so personally. But I imagine
that's... just you.

> The only fact I know is that his behavior
> reflects that he was or still
> is a terrible kid

"l'enfant terrible?" Isn't there
a litle bit of that in all of us?

> who enjoys spoiling activities of other people to
> attract attention.

Now that I will ask you to document.
(Although I will not hold my breath that you
will, as it is obvious a charge with no merit
whatever: It is you, EL, and some other
few itty-bitty minds, who troll my posts
NOT to contribute meaningfully to the
conversation, but to simply add some
inane personal insult or name calling.)
Fortunately, no one has to take anybody's
word on this... since practically every
reply you've made to my posts are simple
inane attempts at put-downs.

> Most probably his mother never gave him enough
> attention after his father left home
> as she was too busy working to
> support his needs. Freud said so. :-)

That is so apropos!

Thank you, EL, for revealing to all
your true character... that easily.

Still hoping you become a good person
in future,

> EL Hemetis


Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00
Sheesh!! Gravity is what happens when mass/energy exists and distorts
space-time. I think that it is not even a force. It is a consequence.
Graviton particles will never be found IMHO.

I don't get what you are saying. If you synthetically eliminate the effects
of gravity, then how could the two objects move together by gravity? You
are contradicting yourself in the same statement. However, they would move
together because the space-time around the objects is distorted in such a
way to make them come together. Hmmm! I wonder if objects could be devised
in such a way so they would distort space-time to make them go apart from
each other?

And what about dark energy? Does it have what it takes to simulate
anti-gravity thus accelerating the expansion of the Universe? Or is it more
like an expanding pressure kind of effect? If an object could be made of
dark energy, would it "gravitate" away from a normal matter object?



<nu...@biz.net> wrote in message

> What, are you stupid or did you miss class that day? Gravity is NOT push.
It is
> NOT pull (at least not in the sense you've mentioned). It is not the
opposite of
> vacuum, neither is it the result of an expanding or collapsing universe.
> Gravity is the effect of valence energy attraction between two objects.
> and simple. If you place two objects suspended in a magnetic field thereby
> synthetically eliminating the effects of gravity, the two objects would
> moving towards each other. THAT is the EFFECT we call gravity.
> This is also why there will never be anti-gravity. There WILL however be
> gravity.
> EEng
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:10:00 GMT, S D Rodrian

> >sdrodrian.com
> >music.sdrodrian.com

S D Rodrian

Nov 21, 2000, 10:34:38 PM11/21/00
In article <3A1AEF88...@msu.edu>,
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------153C13118A8E48C0B059EB2B
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> ... the truth is
> > that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only
> > the absence of anything existing there--But one can't
> > have everything, so I give thanks for all Einstein
> > gave us and ignore the usual human prejudices inherent
> > to the age one inhabits.
> Hold on there, brother! "The" truth?
> Truth is not relative, but is
> ethereal.

The truth is the mandate of the strong.
(I ripped off, "Might is right." Sue me.)

> It is only an idenitifcation of congrunecy between a
> mathematically-presentable model, and
> general principles operable in all
> experience.

You mean it's true then that 1 and 1 = 11 ...?

> Your equivocation of experience
> and existence is a patent
> mistake, ignoring the nature
> of your hypotheses.

I, on the other hand, propose
that I have enough experience.

> Creating a consistent mathematical model
> does not prove that all
> principles have been accounted for.

1 and 1 = 11 ...?

> Besides which, the model of which
> you speak is not consistent.

1 and 1 <> 11 ...?

> If time does not exist, and the
> 'illusion' of duration is only because
> of the existence of simlar and proximate
> records, you still have the
> sticky problem of explaining why
> we experience *any* now,

Because the Novocain has wore off, pardner!

> let alone, the
> same one, together.

That is only a mental paradox (semantically
superfluous, since paradoxes can only exist
in the mind). "Get yourself together, man!"
is simply a common expression (one never
experiences the necessity to combine with
none other). Besides, as I have been trying
to tell you: The same 1 together (with the
other 1, I assume) is always eleven, and
always will be 11.

> Also - extension does not predicate emptiness.

I am thinking now of a vast extent of
emptiness: Rats! There is no way for you
to understand this. O well....

> The infinte extent of
> various fields means that there is
> no such thing as 'void'.

Which fields are these? If it's a
baseball field... you're going to get
a lot of grief from batters trying for a


> -Tm


> Straylight wrote:
> >
> > This is not an overal criticism of
> > the argument,just a nedling of one point:
> >
> > " The THING that must exist is SOMETHING enduring
> > AND now you have ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE: Motion! "
> >
> > How can there be motion in space
> Motions is everywhere (and, in fact, by definition
> motion is all there is to matter/energy, and
> therefore where there is no matter/energy, there
> is no motion... so it's something of a misnomer
> to say that there is motion IN space--just
> semantics, but it may help you to understand).
> > without time to diferentiate between
> > "frames" of location relative to itelf
> > as it moves/has moved in that
> > space?
> There are no "frames" to differentiate (except IN
> the human mind). Motions is unending, unstopping
> and absolutely relativistic INSIDE the universe.
> By definition TIME requires at least two motions:
> The one times, and the one against which the first
> motion is timed: As you can see, time is a development
> AFTER motion (if you have one motion, it is impossible
> to describe it as slow/fast/OR moving AT ALL ... and
> yet it still exists... that is absolute rest, or the
> universe of energy). You have an irresistible force
> meeting an immovable object (a paradox ONLY in the
> mind, as there are no paradoxes in the universe).
> They meet. Outside the universe one or the other
> may win, but INSIDE the universe they will both
> cancel out because MOTION is relative in here: The
> immovable object is only immovable in relation to
> other motions, while the irresistible force is only
> irresistible in relation to other motions: They meet.
> And become a third motion: Conservation of energy,
> conservation of motion (energy = motion). All that
> exists is motion (energy). All else, the timing of
> motions, the measurements of energy... that is for us
> to entertain ourselves with.
> > If movement is your definition of a
> > "constant instant" you forget that
> > movement itself is a progressive marker.
> There are no pauses or "instants" in nature:
> There is only eternal, unstopping motion.
> A block of steel may seem to you as if it is
> solidly "on hold" (or motionless) only IF
> you do not understand the idea of atoms and
> subparticles.
> > Just trying to join in the fun!
> > Straylight
> Welcome to the madhouse slugfest!
> Look: No commercials. (Only kooks.)
> S D Rodrian
> wisdom.findhere.org
> web.sdrodrian.com

S D Rodrian

Nov 21, 2000, 10:52:31 PM11/21/00
In article <8ve413$jmr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rry...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <8vdm3t$8aa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> > to call energy a force).
> Rod: How does a rodent screw a lightbulb ?
> Simple , the force of gravity . Sit and spin rodent .
> Use the energy of gravity powering your
> lightbulb , to read by
> and ponder the following .
> [EL]
> The physics equations treat gravity as a force (LMT^-2).
> While energy is work (L^2MT^-2).

What is a force? What is gravity? SEE:


Energy is motion, motion does/is work. (There:
isn't that much simpler to understand/visualize.)

Gravity is energy, energy is the force of motion.

The conservation of energy IS the conservation of
motion: A large, slow motion = a small, fast motion.
Individual motions in the universe neither come into
existence or cease to exist... rather, they transfer
their energy to other motions to slow down (Newton)
and acquire energy from other motions to speed up.

(There, now you understand the universe, and you
didn't even have to be an understanding person.)

PS. The infantile portions of the original post
do not merit a response.

> EL Hemetis
> Rod Ryker...

S D Rodrian

Nov 22, 2000, 2:03:02 AM11/22/00
In article <29079-3A...@storefull-136.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:

In article <29779-3A...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>> Hi oc Well I'm back by popular demand.
>> SDR has his vortex gravity at other discussion groups,
>> and like you they ask him the
>> same questions, and he comes up with dogma.
>> Like Einstein said "If a
>> theory is good it can be explained in very few words".
>> He uses vortex energy because like a whirling
>> liquid pulls things toward
>> the center,to him that is the heart of his theory.
>> A vortex needs a
>> medium like air or water.
>> I think SDR should flush this theory down a
>> toilet, for that is where he got his gravity
>> theory from.

> Yeah Herb
> SDR has two things going for him.

Aren't you forgetting my manly good looks?

> He's intuited:

I also read some picture books
with lovely color illustrations
of stars and Big Bangs.

> 1. The primacy of gravity
> 2. That there is an 'Implosion' phase
> in the grand cycle of the
> universe.
> But he has latched onto the idea
> that we're presently IN the Implosion
> phase, and has built a theory around that.

Sorry Bill: That's just not the way it
developed. Many years ago, studying the
Big Bang theories from the perspective of
physics, it was obvious that the conventional
theories described only what we could see
with our eyes and did not try to explain
or even come to terms with what I always
believed to be THE crucial question--Namely,
the origin of "matter" itself. To this day
ALL the "explanations" proposed by conventional
physics boil down to some notion that matter
(subparticles) somehow "bubbled up" out of
space through some process involving the
marriage/divorce of "virtual" particles. And
this is no different than simply saying that
it "just materialized from nothingness!"

The problem seemed to be one of semantics,
actually... where, for some reason I did not
know then, the term "solid physicality" or
"material" did not seem to fit in with the nature
of a universe which seemed nowhere to be
physically solid/material. So the road begins
at the realization that the fundamentality of
"matter" is an illusion only (and thereby only
a convenient semantic fiction to keep us from
trying to come to terms with a reality which
is fundamentally nonexistent much more than
existent, if we think of "matter" as the thing
which exists fundamentally). The problem was
that conventional physics seemed to have
taken the position that matter was fundamental
(even when faced with the paradox that if
matter were fundamental... the only way it
could have come into existence would have
been by magic--i.e. the universe would have
had to evolve FROM fundamental forms of
matter, rather like proposing that life evolved
from life instead of from/out of/in "the earth").

Such self-contradictions are so egregious and self-
evident in conventional physics (astrophysics and
cosmology/astronomy) that sometimes I have my
doubts about the honesty or even the very sanity
of researchers [who propose--now pay attention
to this--who propose that the only possible
explanation for the fact that spinning galaxies
do not fly apart in spite of their observable mass
not being enough to keep them from being torn apart
by centrifugal forces is that "there must exist" some
sort of "dark matter" (up to 80+% of a galaxy's mass!)
which, although utterly invisible and impossible to
detect, yet produces enough gravity to account for the
"missing mass" --and now remember that, according
to this notion, there is 4+ times more gravity-producing
matter in the universe than heretofore proposed--

And yet, once it became impossible to deny/ignore
the fact that the so-called expansion of the universe
is actually accelerating with time... those same
researchers who proposed "dark matter" are now
proposing still even MORE "hypothetical matter" to
account for this acceleration: For they now "think"
"there must be" some sort of "dark energy" out in
space somewhere which, unlike the other forms of
lit matter/dark matter, actually produce some form
of "anti-gravity" repelling effect... "pushing" IN THE
gravity is "pulling" [sic]. [This is the "quintessence," or
Cosmological Constant, "funny energy," or lit'l pixies
they are now proposing to be countering gravity
at the same time & place!] So you now have a picture
of human beings who observe the effects of gravity
and propose gravity as a force "pulling" matter together;
and who, once they also observe that matter is flying
apart as well... propose "there must be" another force
acting WITH gravity--only ALSO acting against gravity
at the same time! Don't you think the thought might
have crossed their minds that they are basically
describing a situation of utterly mutually-excluding
circumstances in the same closed system? Nope. [It
is as our grandmothers used to tell us: Once you tell
a lie... you must then spend the rest of your life
telling bigger lies to cover it, and then even bigger
lies to cover those other lies, ad infinitum... or until
you finally face up to the truth.]

As I have said many times: The true solution is elegant
and straightforward... The universe is NOT really
"expanding" but imploding (not all that differently
from what a black hole is doing, because this is a
natural process). NONE of the forms of matter are
fundamental--ALL of them are just forms/shapes (and
therefore they never change form/shape as they shrink
INSIDE the imploding universe). The ONLY thing that
is fundamental is energy (the gravity of the universe
of matter, AND the infinite (scalar) mass of the universe
of energy). Energy is motion [the relativistic vector
motions of the universe of matter, the absolute rest
of the universe of energy... because if there is but ONE
motion in all of existence, then it becomes impossible
to describe it as "moving" (from/to) in spite of the fact
that it is still MOTION... or "energy" in every sense of
the word, because energy=motion, motion=energy].

ALL of the observable behaviors of the universe of
matter therefore can be explained from that insight
to be as follows: The universe (of matter) is imploding.
All the forms of matter in it are shrinking in TWO
unavoidable steps: FIRST they each shrink in place,
THEN they all rush (each other) filling in the gaps
left/created by their shrinking. [This explains why
it is that the galaxies are receding from each other:
There is an infinitesimal "lapse of time" between the
FIRST motion of shrinking in place, and the SECOND
motion of all the forms of matter then rushing each other
(as they could never rush each other BEFORE there
was space into which they might rush)... and while this
"lapse" is astronomically infinitesimal on the human
scale, it is astronomically magnified with astronomical
distances such as those between galaxies (so therefore
the farther two galaxies are from each other, the faster
they will be found to recede from each other). No magic
needed, and no Rube Goldberg "dark matter"/"dark energy"
totally unfounded strictly mental/mathematical constructs.]

SEE: http://web.sdrodrian.com

> He fails to see the larger
> concept of a continuously-running,
> closed-loop Process in which
> Contraction, Implosion, RE-explosion
> and Expansion are all simultaneous,
> perpetual aspects of the Whole.
> Instead, he has adopted a truncated
> "oscillating" model similar to the
> "Eternal Return" idea, with the
> universe swinging pendulum-like between
> a "universe of matter" and a
> "universe of energy".

Sorry, but I must follow the laws of physics
(and of thermodynamics) where they lead, and
never where one'd prefer to lead them: Once
you understand the laws of thermodynamic, you
will understand how it can be that once ONE
absolute motion exists [and who can really say
that such a motion has not ALWAYS existed?],
or "absolute rest" (the universe of energy)... then
ANY additional/other motions AGAINST that ONE
will embody "energy" (or, eventually EVOLVE
into "matter" E=MC^2).

Now consider the consequences of that:

The primordial "singularity of energy" [or
infinite rest; or, infinite (scalar) mass;
or.. the ONE single MOTION that exists]
manifests "other" (vector) motions.
These primordial vector motions must have
been unimaginably huge/massive AND also
unimaginably slow... but, as soon as they
came into existence (the universe of matter)
it quickly turned into an universal implosion
in which these massive/slow motions evolved
into smaller/faster motions (particles/matter)...
while at once also interacting with each other.
Imagine: vortexes coming into existence AND
then losing their energy... and returning to
the stillness from which they came... and you
have the entire history of every form of matter
in our universe laid out before you.

All you have to understand is that Motion is all
that "exists" (or, "energy"). And, perhaps most
difficult of all... you must understand that IF the
ONLY MOTION that exists is but ONE SINGLE
MOTION, then it's impossible to describe it as
fast, or slow, or even as moving AT ALL. And yet
that infinite (scalar) mass [still MOTION, or
"energy," in spite of our necessity to describe it
semantically (in the human language) as "absolute
rest"] that Single Motion of Existence... is "a"
universe of unimaginably vast potential energy
which can be made to do work by the laws of
thermodynamics (and that work is "matter")
however you might wish to imagine that ONE
fundamental MOTION [against whatever may
exist "outside" (beyond) it, or even as God, who
is often described AS "first cause uncaused" in
the magical/mystical descriptions of creation].

> He tows the same line as
> conventional theory on the
> 'nothingness of space'

The semantic problem, Bill, is that
it is NOT "something" that exists (if you
think only of "matter" as "something").
Well, the day I need nothingness to
construct something... that's the day
I'll myself check out of my insane asylum
and join you normal people out there
killing each other! But, on the contrary,
I have come to realize that the universe
is a natural evolution; that... if in order to
exist Existence would have had to have "a"
beginning... it could NEVER have come
into existence; that "energy" is impossible to
describe without "motion;" and that, most
fundamentally of all: the ONLY "thing" that
"exists" is motion/energy (which has always
existed... and must always exist). In other
words... that "solid matter" is just an illusion
created over the true reality of energy/motion.

> - instead of
> seeing space as the superdense,
> primordial Matrix with matter-energy
> tagged on as superficial
> side-effects. This conventional idea
> of space-as-"vacuum" sees
> matter-energy as the PRIMARY reality,
> with space superficial and
> secondary.

Sorry, Bill, but space is only/just the
absence of matter: Any misunderstandings
that arise come from the fact that space
is an absolute term, while there are no
absolutes IN the universe (so, that what we
really mean is outer space... where there
is no "perfect vacuum," which is a MAJOR
region/part of an "imploding" universe...
eternally experiencing an unimaginable chaos
of infinitesimal motions/energy under massive
stresses). Once the universe of matter
manifested itself (and thereby imploded)
there could never again be any region/part
of it which was absolutely devoid of the same
sort of "super concentrated energy" which
describes matter as well.

> This reality-reversal is
> where SDR and contemporary
> astrophysics are stalled right now.
> (And no, this is not a revival of
> the 'ether' theory. The superdense Matrix
> is the diametric opposite of 'ether'.)
> This does not mean to imply that SDR
> and contemporaries are
> "wrong". They are merely interpreting
> reality based on sensory input and
> sense-based logic. Space is indeed
> a "vacuum" to our senses. Its
> superdensity is not rational to our
> hardwired logic. So contemprary
> physics is forced to invent "messenger
> particles" to explain propagation
> of EM radiation, and SDR if forced to
> invent a "shrinking-in-place"
> theory to satisfy his logic.

AND also sanity itself (don't forget that)
seems to demand it as well.

> A simple reversal in thinking
> - making the superdense Matrix
> the primary reality, and matter/energy
> the secondary "dust bunny" upon
> its surface, could lay the groundwork
> for the next paradigm in physics/
> cosmology.

I think it's also sufficient legal groundwork
in a number of states for a Court to commit
one outright. (Waitaminute, I have to check with
the legal beagle on the cot next to mine...
without his biting me: Hate that.)

> You noted Einstein's comment, "A theory
> is good if it can be
> explained in very few words."

I agree, to a point: "I think, therefore I am"
seems to work, but: "I think I am God" doesn't
seem to work as well.

> Well, the superdensity-of-space and the
> 'Continuous Big Bang' theory places gravity
> seamlessly into the Unified
> Field, with the simple statement
> "The Four Forces are different
> manifestations, on different levels,
> of the Flow of Space."

If you substitute "gravity" for "the Flow
of Space" you will be closer to the truth.
And if you substitute "energy" or even "motion"
for "gravity" you'll even come closer still:

The "flow" of Gravity is always identical for
every form of matter (regardless of its "situation")
because it is everywhere always energy returning
to infinite (scalar) mass, or motion returning to
absolute rest.... the effect of Gravity, all things
being equal, is therefore everywhere always
identical (any differences coming into action only
with proximity/distance). Two bodies, if they were
the only two objects in all of existence, would
always tend to move toward each other because
energy would be flowing out of them evenly
across their entire surfaces except where they
faced each other: There they would establish
a "current" eternally seeking the path of least
resistance; and that path is always self-enhancing
unless impeded from being so by some third party
(obstacle/diversion). So too there is no place IN
the universe completely devoid of Gravity, nor
can there ever be: And all motions IN here must
be relativistic because every item IN the universe
is not just merely "pulling" other items but "pushing"
itself towards it/them as well (and the closer they get
to each other, the stronger the rope which is that
"current" (or flow of energy/gravity) tying them
together becomes. At subatomic proximities that
"current" (or, rope) must be unimagibably difficult
to break.


> oc


Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
Physicists must start to write poetry.
Right? ;-)

S D Rodrian

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
In article <3A1B5331...@msu.edu>,
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> James Hunter wrote:

> >
> > Tom McWilliams wrote:
> >
> > > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > ... the truth is
> > > > that Time only exists in our minds, and Space is only
> > > > the absence of anything existing there--But one can't
> > > > have everything, so I give thanks for all Einstein
> > > > gave us and ignore the usual human prejudices inherent
> > > > to the age one inhabits.
> >
> > Einstein was a only temporal subgenius
> > (a Fig Newton kiss-ass as it
> > were).
> >
> > Since "spacetime" is simply a cheap imitation of space,
> > Einstonian kiss-asses are scheduled to be replaced by robots
> > in the not-to-distance future and the Big "Bang" will be
> > reclassified from a being religous site into a blasting zone.
> Assuming the Zeemen effect does not explain
> the red-shifts. In which
> case, the "Big-Bang" will be
> reclassified as "wrong."
> -Tm

Although it IS quite possible that scientists
may yet find some rationalization or other to
disreguard the evidence of the reh-shifts...

the fact will always remain that the galaxies ARE
receding from each other as Hubble first described

Dogma may be forced upon some men, but
science will ultimately always
reassert the freedom of all men.

S D Rodrian

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00
In article <20001121120029...@ng-md1.aol.com>,

jdg...@aol.com (Jdguil) wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> >In article <26545-3A...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> >herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> >> To All going down a hole 10 miles gravity gets weaker.
> >> Going up 10 miles
> >> gravity gets weaker.
> >
> >Wow! That means that if we're ten miles high [pun]
> >gravity gets weaker when we go down 10 miles.
> >And if we're 10 miles deep gravity gets weaker
> >if we go up 10 miles! [Of course, this seems to
> >contradict itself, but who cares? It's grand!]
> Actually that part of herbertglazer's post
> was not a contradiction. Gravity is
> theoretically strongest at the surface
> of the Earth, and would get weaker if
> you either go up in altitude or down
> into the interior of the Earth.

I'm afraid this is a common misconception with
regards to this particular case: Gravity NEVER
weakens or strengthens but, like a beam of light,
becomes dispersed (thinned out) by distance AND
by another source's gravity running counter to it:

When you go ten miles up from the surface
of the earth... the beam's concentration
becomes dispersed (thinned) into more distance
the farther up you go. So that, in the beam analogy,
the light shining on you will grow dimmer.

But when you go ten miles down in the planet
the concentration ALSO becomes dispersed, this
time by the gravitational effect of all the mass
around you and above you (it is as if the photons
of one beam of light were canceled out and neutralized
by the photons of another intersecting beam of light
with the net result being the same as before... there
are less photons available to you and therefore it all
gets just as dim as if there were only one beam of
light and you were traveling away from it):

Gravity itself can cancel out gravity just as
effectively as distance so that as you go
down farther and farther into the planet you
will weigh less and less (without being crushed
as if between two massive bodies, assuming you're
descending via some astonishingly hardened shaft)
until at the center of the planet you will "experience"
no effect of gravity at all (and you'll be able to
float down there as you would in outer space... provided
there's a great big room there for you to do it in).

This misconception plays a funny role in movies
such as, "Voyage To The Center of The Earth"
where at that "center" they find an ocean very
coolly lying on its bed while the voyagers' rings
and even gold teeth are "sucked upwards."

> <snip>
> Of course the rest of his ideas are, well, rather unique.
> Regards,
> Jim

S D Rodrian

Nov 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/24/00
In article <X3qT5.691411$8u4.10...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
he...@my.com (Chad of the huddled masses) wrote:
> In article <8v5rgq$d8n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> SDRo...@mad.scientist.com says...

> >
> >In article <8usfqi$s1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >EL <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> popped his lit'l head out
> >from the black hole of his imagination & wrote:
> >
> >> In article <2285-3A...@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> >sdrodrian.com
> >music.sdrodrian.com
> >
> Einstein witnessed a man fall from a roof onto some
> soft rubble unhurt, and when someone turned to him and
> said, "That man has fallen" he turned to them and said
> "No, the ground came up to meet him"

Duh! He was smoking "the good stuff" that day.

> Sure gravity is a push instead of a pull.

Well, I can see Gravity standing on something,
lassoing a moon or some such and then pulling in
the rope. But it's pretty hard to visualize
Gravity standing out there in space and PUSHING
so much as even a feather!!!

> How else would hydrogen escape the atmosphere?

They do so because the only thing weighing them down
are their shiny, shiny shoes, and once they shed these
it's Bye-Bye, Baby.

> Why else would super-cooled helium flow up?

Because of the same reason Jesus would walk
on water... surface tension (it's always very
unnerving to know that if you didn't walk on
the surface: the sharks'd getcha).

> Why is space curved?

So that no matter where Superman flies
he can always find his way back to the earth
(it is a substantial universe, you know).

> Why are planets round?

Because were they square day/night would
come too suddenly and folks'd live all their
lives in a jittery state of jet-lag?

> When you fall, you don't feel pulled.
> You feel weightless.

ONLY if you're inside a falling plane: Outside
and butt naked you feel pushed to the limit by
the earth's atmosphere (and then betrayed, when
it turns out that after going through all that grief
it's not really enough to keep you from hitting bottom).
Hell, even if you survive, the cops'll probably take
you in for indecent exposure.

> (and sometimes pushed :)

That's when you really feel like a sucker

S D Rodrian


Nov 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/25/00
I Wrote:
>> If you place two objects suspended in a magnetic field thereby
>> synthetically eliminating the effects of gravity, the two objects would
>> moving towards each other. THAT is the EFFECT we call gravity.

You Wrote:

>I don't get what you are saying. If you synthetically eliminate the effects

>of gravity, then how could the two objects move together by gravity? <snip>

My Reply:

What I meant yet failed to type clearly was:

If you place two objects suspended in a magnetic field thereby synthetically

eliminating the effects of EARTHS gravity, the two objects would begin moving
I apologize for not having stated it as clearly as I should.


S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
In article <IpdU5.7892$nh5.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "S D Rodrian" <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:8vffsd$qav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> > Energy is motion, motion does/is work. (There:
> > isn't that much simpler to understand/visualize.)
> But you seem to have screwed it up anyway.

I've considered that. Have you considered
that it is you who may be wrong?

> There is no motion in chemical potential energy.

Existence itself, whether called energy or motion,
is all there is to the universe (potential energy in
the form of the universe of energy, work in the form
of the universe of matter). However, there being
such dearth of even the most basis knowledge about
the nature/definition of the term "energy" that here
follow a few very brief, but very pertinent quotes
on the matter (intended to highlight why/how energy
is motion/motion is energy). Period.


1) Energy may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal,
electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms.
There are, moreover, heat and work--i.e., energy in
the process of transfer from one body to another.
After it has been transferred, energy is always
designated according to its nature. Hence, heat
transferred may become thermal energy, while work done
may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.
All forms of energy are associated with motion. [For
example, any given body has kinetic energy if it is
in motion. A tensioned device such as a bow or spring,
though at rest, has the potential for creating motion;
it contains potential energy because of its configuration.
Similarly, nuclear energy is potential energy because it
results from the configuration of subatomic particles
in the nucleus of an atom. Energy can be converted from
one form to another in various ways. Usable mechanical
or electrical energy is, for instance, produced by many
kinds of devices, including fuel-burning heat engines,
generators, batteries, fuel cells, and magnetohydrodynamic
systems.] "Interparticle forces not only affect the
chemical and physical behaviour of substances, they
also determine to a large extent how a particle will
RESPOND to the APPROACH of a different particle. If
the two particles REACT with each other to FORM new
particles, a chemical reaction has occurred."

2) The energy of a body represents its ability to do
work, and work itself is a force acting over a distance:
Chemical systems can have both kinetic energy (energy
of motion) and potential energy (stored energy). The
kinetic energy possessed by any collection of molecules
in a solid, liquid, or gas is known as its thermal energy.
The temperature at which all molecular motion comes to
a halt is known as absolute zero. Work, in physics,
is the measure of energy transfer that occurs when
an object is moved over a distance by an external force
at least part of which is applied in the direction of
the displacement. If the force is constant, work may be
computed by multiplying the length of the path by
the component of the force acting along the path. Work
done on a body is accomplished not only by a
displacement of the body as a whole from one place
to another but also, for example, by compressing a gas,
by rotating a shaft, and even by causing invisible
motions of the particles within a body by an external
magnetic force. Work done on a body is equal to the
increase in the energy of the body, for work transfers
energy to the body. If, however, the applied force is
opposite to the motion of the object, the work is
considered to be negative, implying that energy is
taken from the object.

3) Potential energy is stored energy that depends upon
the relative position of various parts of a system. A
spring has more potential energy when it is compressed
or stretched. A steel ball has more potential energy
raised above the ground than it has after falling to
the Earth. In the raised position it is capable of
doing more work. Potential energy is a property of a
system and not of an individual body or particle; the
system composed of the Earth and the raised ball, for
example, has more potential energy as the two are farther
separated. Potential energy arises in systems with parts
that exert forces on each other of a magnitude dependent
on the configuration, or relative position, of the parts.
In the case of the Earth-ball system, the force of gravity
between the two depends only on the distance separating
them. The work done in separating them farther, or in
raising the ball, transfers additional energy to the
system, where it is stored as gravitational potential
energy. [Potential energy also includes other forms: The
energy stored between the plates of a charged capacitor
is electrical potential energy. What is commonly known
as chemical energy, the capacity of a substance to do work
or to evolve heat by undergoing a change of composition,
may be regarded as potential energy resulting from the
mutual forces among its molecules and atoms. Nuclear
energy is also a form of potential energy.] The potential
energy of a system of particles depends only on their
initial and final configurations; it is independent of
the path the particles travel. In the case of the steel
ball and the earth, if the initial position of the ball
is ground level and the final position is ten feet above
the ground, the potential energy is the same, no matter
how or by what route the ball was raised. The value of
potential energy is arbitrary and relative to the choice
of reference point. In the case given above, the system
would have twice as much potential energy if the initial
position were the bottom of a ten-foot-deep hole.
Gravitational potential energy near the Earth's surface
may be computed by multiplying the weight of an object
by its distance above the reference point. In bound
systems, such as atoms, in which electrons are held by
the electric force of attraction to nuclei, the zero
reference for potential energy is a distance from the
nucleus so great that the electric force is not detectable.
In this case, bound electrons have negative potential
energy, and those just free of the nucleus and at rest
have zero potential energy. Potential energy may be
converted into energy of motion, called kinetic energy,
and in turn to other forms such as electrical energy.
Thus, water behind a dam flows to lower levels through
turbines that turn electric generators, producing
electric energy plus some unusable heat energy resulting
from turbulence and friction. Historically, potential
energy was included with kinetic energy as a form of
mechanical energy so that the total energy in
gravitational systems could be calculated as a constant.
Energy also may be stored in atoms or molecules as
potential energy. When protons/neutrons combine to form
the nucleus of a certain element, the reduction in
potential energy is matched by the production of a huge
quantity of kinetic energy.

[Consider, for instance, the formation of the deuterium
nucleus from one proton and one neutron. The fundamental
mass unit of the chemist is the mole, which represents
the mass, in grams, of 6.02 X 10(23 power) individual
particles, whether they be atoms or molecules. One mole
of protons has a mass of 1.007825 grams and one mole
of neutrons has a mass of 1.008665 grams. By simple
addition the mass of one mole of deuterium atoms
(ignoring the negligible mass of one mole of electrons)
should be 2.016490 grams. The measured mass is 0.00239
gram less than this. The missing mass is known as the
binding energy of the nucleus and represents the mass
equivalent of the energy released by nucleus formation.
By using Einstein's formula for the conversion of mass
to energy (E=MC^2), one can calculate the energy equi-
valent of 0.00239 gram as 2.15 X 10(8 power) kilojoules.
This is approximately 240,000 times greater than the
energy released by the combustion of one mole of methane.
Such studies of the energetics of atom formation &
interconversion are part of a specialty known as nuclear
chemistry. NOTE: The energy released by the combustion
of methane is about 900 kilojoules per mole. Although
much less than the energy released by nuclear reactions,
the energy given off by a chemical process such as
combustion is great enough to be perceived as heat and
light. Energy is released in so-called exothermic
reactions because the chemical bonds in the product
molecules, carbon dioxide and water, are stronger and
stabler than those in the reactant molecules, methane
and oxygen. The chemical potential energy of the system
has decreased, and most of the released energy appears
as heat, while some appears as radiant energy, or light.
The heat produced by such a combustion reaction will
raise the temperature of the surrounding air and, at
constant pressure, increase its volume. This expansion
of air results in work being done. In the cylinder
of an internal-combustion engine, for example, the
combustion of gasoline results in hot gases that expand
against a moving piston. The motion of the piston turns
a crankshaft, which then propels the vehicle. In this
case, chemical potential energy has been converted to
thermal energy, some of which produces useful work. This
process illustrates a statement of the conservation of
energy known as the first law of thermodynamics. This
law states that, for an exothermic reaction, the energy
released by the chemical system is equal to the heat
gained by the surroundings plus the work performed. By
measuring the heat and work quantities that accompany
chemical reactions, it is possible to ascertain the
energy differences between the reactants and the products
of various reactions. In this manner, the potential
energy stored in a variety of molecules can be determined,
and the energy changes that accompany chemical reactions
can be calculated.]

4) Kinetic energy is that form of energy that an object
or a particle has by reason of its motion. If work, which
transfers energy, is done on an object by applying a net
force, the object speeds up and thereby gains kinetic
energy. Kinetic energy is a property of a moving object
or particle and depends not only on its motion but also
on its mass. The kind of motion may be translation (or
motion along a path from one place to another), rotation
about an axis, vibration, or any combination of motions.
[The total kinetic energy of a body or a system is equal
to the sum of the kinetic energies resulting from each
type of motion.] For a rotating body, the moment of
inertia, I, corresponds to mass, and the angular velocity
(omega), w, corresponds to linear, or translational,
velocity. Accordingly, rotational kinetic energy is equal
to one-half the product of the moment of inertia and
the square of the angular velocity, or 1/2 Iw(2 power).
[In an inelastic collision the sum of internal and
external energies is conserved, but some of the external
energy of bodily motion is irretrievably transformed
into internal random motions. The conservation of energy
is expressed in the macroscopic language of the first law
of thermodynamics--namely, energy is conserved provided
that heat is taken into account. The irreversible nature
of the transfer from external energy of organized motion
to random internal energy is a manifestation of the second
law of thermodynamics. The irreversible degradation of
external energy into random internal energy also explains
the tendency of all systems to come to rest if left to
themselves. If there is a configuration in which the
potential energy is less than for any slightly different
configuration, the system may find stable equilibrium
here because there is no way in which it can lose more
external energy, either potential or kinetic. This is
an example of an extremal principle--that a state of stable
equilibrium is one in which the potential energy is a
minimum with respect to any small changes in configuration.
It may be regarded as a special case of one of the most
fundamental of physical laws, the principle of increase of
entropy, which is a statement of the second law of
thermodynamics in the form of an extremal principle--the
equilibrium state of an isolated physical system is that
in which the entropy takes the maximum possible value.
[Force, in mechanics, is any action that tends to maintain
or alter the position of a body or to distort it. The
concept of force is commonly explained in terms of Newton's
three laws of motion set forth in his Principia Mathematica
(1687). According to Newton's first principle, a body that
is at rest or moving at a uniform rate in a straight line
will remain in that state until some force is applied to
it. The second law says that when an external force acts
on a body, it produces an acceleration (change in velocity)
of the body in the direction of the force. The magnitude
of the acceleration is directly proportional to the
magnitude of the external force and inversely proportional
to the quantity of matter in the body. Newton's third law
states that when one body exerts a force on another body,
the second body exerts an equal force on the first body.
This principle of action and reaction explains why a force
tends to deform a body (i.e., change its shape) whether or
not it causes the body to move. The deformation of a body
can usually be neglected when investigating its motion.]

5) Late in the 18th century, the interrelated work of
Joseph Priestley and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier led to
the overthrow of the "phlogiston" theory. Lavoisier saw
Priestley's discovery of oxygen in 1774 as the key to
the weight gains known to accompany the burning of sulfur
and phosphorus and the calcination of metals (oxide
formation). In his Traité élémentaire de chimie, he
clearly established that combustion consists of a chemical
combination between oxygen from the atmosphere and
combustible matter. By the end of the century, his ideas
were widely accepted and had been successfully applied
to the more complex processes of respiration and of
photosynthesis. [Reactions in which oxygen was consumed
were classified as oxidations, while those in which
oxygen was lost were termed reductions.] During the 19th
century, the evolving field of electrochemistry led to
a broadened view of oxidation. It was possible, for
instance, to produce the ferric, or iron(III), ion from
the ferrous, or iron(II), ion at the anode (positive
electrode, where electrons are absorbed from solution)
of an electrochemical cell (a device in which chemical
energy is converted to electrical energy). The similarity
of the two processes led to a precursor of the electron-
transfer explanation for redox reactions. After the
discovery of the electron, the conviction that oxidation
and reduction are accomplished through electron loss
and gain became firmly entrenched. Thus, early in the
20th century chemists tended to attribute all redox
reactions to the transfer of electrons. Later work on
chemical bonding, however, demonstrated the incorrectness
of that description. An electronegativity scale (listing
of elements in descending order of their tendency to
attract and hold bonding electrons) provided a firm basis
for the oxidation-state assignments on which oxidation-
reduction definitions have become based. [The very first
approximation of the true nature of combustion was posited
by Lavoisier, who discovered in 1772 that the products of
burned sulfur or phosphorus, in effect their ashes,
outweighed the initial substances, and postulated that
the increased weight was due to their having combined
with air. Interestingly, it was already known that metals
transformed by heat to metallic ash weighed less than
the metallic ash, but the theory was that in certain cases
phlogiston in metals had a negative weight, and upon
escaping during combustion, left the ash of the metal
heavier than it had been with the phlogiston in it. Later,
Lavoisier concluded that the "fixed" air that had combined
with the sulfur was identical to a gas obtained by
Priestley on heating the metallic ash of mercury--that is,
the "ashes" obtained when mercury was burned could be made
to release the gas with which the metal had combined. This
gas was also identical to that described by the Swedish
chemist, Carl Wilhelm Scheele, as an active fraction of air
that sustained combustion. Lavoisier called the gas "oxygen."
[Combustion, with rare exceptions, is a complex chemical
process involving many steps that depend on the properties
of the combustible substance. It is initiated by external
factors such as heat, light, and sparks. The reaction sets
in as the mixture of combustibles attains the ignition
temperature, and several aspects of this step can be defined.
First, a relationship exists between the ignition temperature
and the pressure of the mixture under specific conditions.
Only one temperature corresponds to a given pressure, whereas
one or three pressures, called the explosion limits, may
correspond to one temperature. The mechanism of the reaction
determines the explosion limits: the reaction can proceed
only when the steps in the sequence of reactions occur faster
than the terminal steps. Thus, for combustion to be initiated
with light, or with a spark, the light intensity or the spark
energy must exceed certain minimal values. The complexity of
the combustion reaction mechanism and the rapidly varying
temperatures and concentrations in the mixture make it
difficult and often impossible to derive an equation that
would be useful for predicting combustion phenomena over
wide temperature and concentration ranges. Instead, use is
made of empirical expressions derived for specific reaction

6) Electromagnetism is the science of charge and of the forces
and fields associated with charge. Electricity and magnetism
are two aspects of electromagnetism. Electricity and magnetism
were long thought to be separate forces. It was not until the
19th century that they were finally treated as interrelated
phenomena. In 1905 Albert Einstein's special theory of
relativity established beyond a doubt that both are aspects
of one common phenomenon. At a practical level, however,
electric and magnetic forces behave quite differently and
are described by different equations. [Electric forces are
produced by electric charges either at rest or in motion.
Magnetic forces, on the other hand, are produced only by
moving charges and act solely on charges in motion.
Electric phenomena occur even in neutral matter because
the forces act on the individual charged constituents.
The electric force, in particular, is responsible for most
of the physical and chemical properties of atoms and
molecules. It is enormously strong compared with gravity.
For example, the absence of only one electron out of every
billion molecules in two 70-kilogram (154-pound) persons
standing two metres (two yards) apart would repel them with
a 30,000-ton force. On a more familiar scale, electric
phenomena are responsible for the lightning and thunder
accompanying certain storms. Electric and magnetic forces
can be detected in regions called electric and magnetic
fields. These fields are fundamental in nature and can exist
in space far from the charge or current that generated
them. Remarkably, electric fields can produce magnetic
fields and vice versa, independent of any external charge.
A changing magnetic field produces an electric field, as
the English physicist Michael Faraday discovered in work
that forms the basis of electric power generation.
Conversely, a changing electric field produces a magnetic
field, as the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell
deduced. The mathematical equations formulated by Maxwell
incorporated light and wave phenomena into electro-
magnetism. He showed that electric and magnetic fields
travel together through space as waves of electromagnetic
radiation, with the changing fields mutually sustaining
each other. Examples of electromagnetic waves traveling
through space independent of matter are radio and
television waves, microwaves, infrared rays, visible light,
ultraviolet light, X rays, and gamma rays. All of these
waves travel at the same speed--namely, the velocity of
light (roughly 300,000 kilometres, or 186,000 miles,
per second). They differ from each other only in the
frequency at which their electric and magnetic fields
oscillate. Maxwell's equations still provide a complete
and elegant description of electromagnetism down to,
but not including, the subatomic scale. The interpretation
of his work, however, was broadened in the 20th century.
Einstein's special relativity theory merged electric and
magnetic fields into one common field and limited the
velocity of all matter to the velocity of electromagnetic
radiation. During the late 1960s, physicists discovered
that other forces in nature have fields with a mathematical
structure similar to that of the electromagnetic field.
These other forces are the nuclear force, responsible for
the energy released in nuclear fusion, and the weak force,
observed in the radioactive decay of unstable atomic nuclei.
In particular, the weak and electromagnetic forces have
been combined into a common force called the electroweak
force.] Two English scientists, William Nicholson and
Anthony Carlisle, used a chemical battery to discover
electrolysis (the process in which an electric current
produces a chemical reaction) and initiate the science of
electrochemistry. In their experiment the two employed
a voltaic pile to liberate hydrogen and oxygen from water.
They attached each end of the pile to brass wires and
placed the opposite ends of the wires into salt water.
The salt made the water a conductor. Hydrogen gas
accumulated at the end of one wire; the end of the other
wire was oxidized. Nicholson and Carlisle discovered
that the amount of hydrogen and oxygen set free by the
current was proportional to the amount of current used.
By 1809 the English chemist Humphry Davy had used a
stronger battery to free for the first time several very
active metals--sodium, potassium, calcium, strontium,
barium, and magnesium--from their liquid compounds.
Faraday, who was Davy's assistant at the time, studied
electrolysis quantitatively and showed that the amount
of energy needed to separate a gram of a substance from
its compound is closely related to the atomic weight
of the substance. Electrolysis became a method of
measuring electric current; and the quantity of charge
that releases a gram atomic weight of a simple element
is now called a faraday in his honour. Once scientists
were able to produce currents with a battery, they could
study the flow of electricity quantitatively. Because of
the battery, the German physicist Georg Simon Ohm was able
experimentally in 1827 to quantify precisely a problem that
Cavendish could only investigate qualitatively some 50
years earlier--namely, the ability of a material to
conduct electricity. The result of this work--Ohm's law--
explains how the resistance to the flow of charge depends
on the type of conductor and on its length and diameter.
According to Ohm's formulation, the current flow through
a conductor is directly proportional to the potential
difference, or voltage, and inversely proportional to
the resistance--that is, i = V/R. Thus, doubling the
length of an electric wire doubles its resistance, while
doubling the cross-sectional area of the wire reduces the
resistance by a half. Ohm's law is probably the most
widely used equation in electric design.

> The fact that there definitely is stored chemical energy
> is evident every time you switch on a flashlight/torch.

Read carefully above: In a simple analogy... The potential
energy stored in a battery is in the form of "unbalanced"
negatively-charged atoms, which, given the chance to
"balance out" (against/with) other positively-charged atoms
... establishing a "flow" (exchange) of electrons.


> > Gravity is energy, energy is the force of motion.

> Your concept of energy needs to be expanded to
> include stored energy that
> has no motion associated with it,

ONLY as a semantic convenience, remember: E=MC^2
(Or, if an atom stops "moving," does it still
remain an atom? ... Absolutely: NOT.)

> like that snow shelf that could be
> triggered by a sharp noise into collapsing
> into an avalanche.

Precisely: That snow shelf is entirely made of
matter with a definite mass (if it's just a couple
of flakes its WORK will be very slight, and if it's
a couple of thousand tons... watch out, because
it will WORK wonders downhill)... BUT all matter
(whose mass has "weight" or "inertia") is at its
most fundamental... nothing but motion (or energy,
as in "E=MC^2"), OR atoms cannot be split, my friend.

> Tom Davidson
> Brighton, CO

S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00
In article <wkvS5.183$xg.1...@read2.inet.fi>,
"Henry Haapalainen" <mon...@icon.fi> wrote:
> S D Rodrian kirjoitti viestissä <8vdm9r$8bd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <3A1A539C.5A35@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com>,

> >Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote:
> >> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, Herb: Gravity is energy
> >> > and energy is NEVER really owned: It's
> >> > only rented... so if you stuff yourself
> >> > (this Thanksgivings) be prepared to
> >> > throw it all up... or to Go To The Can
> >> > (do not stop on GO, do not collect $200).
> >>
> >> Gravity is a force.
> >
> >There is but one force in the universe
> >and that is Gravity; the only thing that
> >exists in the universe is motion, and that
> >is energy; the only energy that exists
> >in the universe can only be fundamentally
> >described as either vectored energy or
> >as infinite (scalar) mass: Therefore
> >the only force in the universe is Gravity
> >(the universe of matter) and, by definition:
> >the repelling force embodied in the universe
> >of energy (infinite (scalar) mass).

> >
> >Gravity is energy (even if you wish
> >to call energy a force).
> >
> >> > In any case: Happy Thanksgivings!
> >> > (And may Bush win.)
> >>
> >> He'll fuck up worse than
> >> Herbert Hoover. I personally
> >> can't wait.
> >
> >You may be right; although, unlike
> >you: I sure hope he doesn't.

> >
> >S D Rodrian
> >web.sdrodrian.com
> >sdrodrian.com
> >
> HH: Gravity is not a force.
> The theory of gravity of falling space (GOFS)
> www.wakkanet.fi/~fields
> Henry Haapalainen

Harry, this theory is misnamed. It should
be called: The Theory By Falling Brains.

S D Rodrian

S D Rodrian

Nov 27, 2000, 11:44:55 PM11/27/00
In article <15014-3A...@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> Not yet answered is the one simple question:

This is the end-game then?

> Why is there no discernable upper limit
> to the amplitude of energy that
> can be transmitted through "nothing" or vacuum?

Of a transverse or longitudinal wave? Einstein
swore that waves couldn't travel through a vacuum
and that the photon is a quantum particle. And
a wave of electric and magnetic fields propagating
at the speed of light c through empty space [electric
and magnetic fields are always perpendicular to each
another and at right angles to the direction of
propagation] still do NOT equate to a wave propagating
through vacuum: Electromagnetic radiation in vacuum
yet obeys Einstein's quantum authority. Basically
there is no limit to the number of photons you can
pitch across a vacuum (practically).

> The one caveat: no "messenger particles"
> are allowed. Such "messengers"
> are invoked when logic is stymied, and
> are the modern equivalent of the
> deities of ancient priesthoods.
> So what does pure logic say to
> the aforementioned question? "Messenger
> particles"? Or, a superdense,
> pre-existant Matrix underlying the
> superficial phenomena of matter/energy?

Bill, there is NO Aether. Period. What Einstein
accomplished was to PROVE that no Aether was EVER
needed: The idea of an "ether" was proposed ONLY
as a solution to a nonexistent problem (namely
how can waves propagate without a medium, which
originated with the wave-side theory of light).
That "aethers" are still talked about today is
about as useful as the chatter of all those folks
you hear up in the hills somewhere who are still
convinced that the earth is flat.

> (This Matrix is not to be confused with
> the 'ether'. As the
> word implies, 'ether' is tenuous and insubstantial

If it walks like a duck, Bill: [no pun]
The classical Aether HAD to be absolutely rigid
and absolutely strong (for it to be able to serve
as a medium for ultra-fast waves and ultra-heavy
masses... imagine the slowness with which an ocean
wave travels and the quickness with which a wave
travels through a pipe when you bang on it). You
may call it Matrix, or you may call it, Joe, or
you may call it Mary... but it's all the same.

> in comparison to
> matter, making 'ether' the diametric opposite
> of the Matrix of space. To
> this Matrix, the universe of matter/energy
> is the tenuous and diaphanous
> after-thought tagged on.)

A solution to a nonexistent problem. The world
of Physics (unfortunately... most especially of
all) is teeming with'em. But fret not: I'm working
on it.

> The late physicist David Bohm was one of the few
> 'mainstream' scientists to posit such a concept.
> He saw the phenomenal
> density of space itself as primal to all else
> - and the Newtonian
> universe as a great hologram within it.
> Dr. Karl Pribram, a Stanford
> neurophysiologist, was a corroborator with
> Bohm on the holographic
> nature of reality.

And Einstein proposed his goofy Cosmological
Constant (yet another solution to a nonexistent
problem) for the same reason: Even the most
brilliant minds ever can never resolve a problem
the full scope of which they are unawares...
The reason Einstein proposed the mythological
Cosmological Constant is because he did not know
that the universe is imploding... and the reason
why even now there are people resurrecting Einstein's
"greatest mistake" is because THEY too do not know
the universe is imploding. Once they find out about
the true nature of the universe [ http://web.sdrodrian.com ]
all this goofy talk about Quintessences, funny
energies, and cosmological constants will be as
embarrassing as the idea that the universe orbits
the earth. Only, Bill... please: No more talk about
"ethers," regardless of what you call them.


> Two websites worth checking out on Bohm and Pribram are -
> www.muc.de/~heuvel/bohm/
> www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html
> oc

S D Rodrian

Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00
In article <3A1C7528...@msu.edu>,

Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > Since "spacetime" is simply a cheap imitation of space,
> > Einstonian kiss-asses are scheduled to be replaced by robots
> > in the not-to-distance future and the Big "Bang" will be
> > reclassified from a being religous site into a blasting zone.
> Assuming the Zeemen effect does not explain
> the red-shifts. In which
> case, the "Big-Bang" will be
> reclassified as "wrong."
> -Tm
> >
> > Although it IS quite possible that scientists
> > may yet find some rationalization or other to
> > disreguard the evidence of the red-shifts...

That was a sarcastic quip about how easy
it is for "some" scientists to come up with
just about any rationalization they require.

> > the fact will always remain that the galaxies ARE
> > receding from each other as Hubble first described
> > them:

> The Zeemen effect explains the red-shifts
> without invoking the doppler effect.
> The evidence wouldn't go anywhere,
> it would simply be indicative of
> something other than the recession
> which you evidently assume.

If red-shift works on the short-run
you will need positive proof that it does NOT
work in the long-run. And, frankly,
to speak of the recession of the galaxies
as merely an assumption is about on par with
speaking of the splitting of the atom as
merely an assumption (and vice versa).

> There is some evidence that the red-shifts
> are quantized. It will be
> the Big-Bang proponents that will be
> left rationalizing, if that
> evidence strengthens.
> -Tm

It may simply modify estimates of distance/age.

There are problems with your Zeemen rationalization:
Splitting of special emission lines due to the presence
of a strong magnetic field means you need a constant
such field in every photon or practically every coordinate
of the universe (not to mention the little matter of the
fact that if the galaxies are NOT receding from each
other... the universe is pretty much inexplicable).
Moreover: Lines split into 3 or more polarization
components that are circular if the local magnetic field
is parallel to the line of sight and linear if the magnetic
field is perpendicular to the line of sight means a dizzying
amount of "just right" circumstances that fall outside
probability. (Not to mention the fact that the amount
of splitting needs to be proportional to the strength of
your "omnipresent" magnetic field.)

However: Among the ranks of the Truth-Seekers
it is not always the best thing to only
accept the Truth from your sergeant. So I will
always keep an open mind, no matter what.

S D Rodrian

S D Rodrian

Nov 30, 2000, 1:24:44 AM11/30/00
In article <8143-3A...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> SDR wrote,
> >There is NO Aether, period..
> Agreed!

> >The classical Aether HAD to be absolutely
> >rigid and absolutely strong (for it to be able to
> >serve as a medium for ultra-fast waves and
> >ultra-heavy masses...
> Not so fast here, Bucko. You're
> reading something into it that simply
> was not implied in the classical ether
> theories of Aristotle, Hooke, or
> Huygens.

Not so fast there, Bucko. You're confusing
together classical physics with classical Greek
philosophy: Anaxagoras's classical "ether,"
for example (that... above the air surrounding
the earth there is a rarefied sort of air,
"alive and divine" and having the nature of
fire), apparently leaving no room for any true
"vacuum" anywhere; and Democritus's more
materialist view that matter was [de facto]
distinguished from non-matter exactly because
there were "spaces" (between atoms), although
to him the ether consisted of "little atoms"
within the "vacuums" (or Heavenly spaces) and
that the "motions" of this polka-dotted ether
"carried" the Heavenly bodies along in their
orbits. [Very little attempt was made, basically
until the seventeenth century, to factor in
a gravitational interpretation of this "space
between atoms."] Aristotle's "fifth element"
is incorruptible, unchanging, and to be found
only "in the region outside the sphere of the
moon... its natural motion being that which is
nearest the perfection of rest." [Here, at least,
ancient philosophy coincides in some aspects
with my own interpretation of the universe... as
a kinf of "black hole" whose imploding/shrinking
"singularity" (that part of it which we know as the
universe of matter) is forever AT MOTION away from/
against the "absolute rest" of the universe of
energy... which corresponds to the complete "black
hole" extending even outside its event horizon.]
Aristotle's plenary ether IS the Heavenly bodies,
planets & moons, and there is no "vacuum" to
"interject" any annoying need for a gravitation
as we know it today. [The conceptualization of
"space" has always been rather problematical.]

Seventeenth Century philosophers, Descartes in
particular (and not unlike a surprisingly large number
of "original theorists" in these newsgroups to this
very day)... believed in a kind of gravitation "towards
the earth" which consisted of a vortical motion around
the earth of the ether (and, by extension, of everything
in the Heavens thought to be embedded in it) creating
a centrifugal outward pressure (away from the earth)...
so that when bodies were left "unsupported" by this
supposed centrifugal pressure (as would be the case with
everything here on earth, falling apples and cathedrals)
... they would naturally fall "down" to earth. [One can
still come across this simplistic notion (extended into
some just as simplistic mathematical mumbo-jumbo, of
course) today, in which gravity is portrayed as some sort
of "space falling" effect--only now portrayed as falling
"down to" every bit of matter and not simply to earth:
The conceptualization of "space" has returned to where
it was before anyone thought they needed any theory of
gravitation! Although I marvel how Descartes described
the importance of absolute rest in reverse... just like
others used to describe the universe as orbiting the earth
instead of the other way around.]

Seventeenth century theoreticians also proposed the ether
as a more down-to-earth medium for the transmission of
magnetism, light, and heat... across "vacuums" (or as they
called it "the void"). Einstein's "original" objection to
an ether was that "technicality of convenience" still used
in physics today... namely, the assumption that "if a
quantity is unmeasurable or unobservable, it is therefore
meaningless to physics & ought not to be made an integral
part of a physical theory." ["If you have no idea what it
is... don't try to guess what it's for." And by the start
of the twentieth century is was obvious that the ether
was entirely beyond the capabilities of "modern" physics.]
Note the Aristotle connection to Einstein here: Einstein
"deprived himself" (literally) of the ability to posit
anything at absolute rest... and this "self-denial" here
however it may have assisted him in developing relativistic
philosophies... prevented him (very effectively shut him
off) from being able to consider that a complete theory
of the universe might have to include not only the very
"observable" universe of matter but the universe of energy
from whence it originated. With the inevitable result that
it was impossible for him (or his contemporaries and later
disciples) to imagine a natural evolution of the universe
of matter, and they instead opted to try to "create" it
"spontaneously" as it were. [The perfect analogy is with
biological evolution: What today's theorist (on the origin
of the universe) are doing is not unlike trying to develop
a theory of evolution by studying the qualities of today's
fully-evolved life-forms and hunting their fossils without
yet having acknowledged that it all evolved from the
chemistry of a few simple animo acids: The interpretation
of a universe arising from four "forces" instead of the one
(simple "gravity," or "energy," or, ultimately: "motion")
is as if evolutionists were trying to trace back horses
and pigs and pigeons NOT to one species from which they
might have all evolved BUT to a primal horse, a primal pig,
and a primal pigeon... every one of which evolved quite
independently from each other in the same environment.]

As I have said before: Things are NEVER as confusing
as the confused MAKE them out to be! The universe of
matter EVOLVED naturally, inevitably from the universe
of energy. Fundamentally... all that exists is motion:
Vector motion in/is the universe of matter and absolute
motion in/is the universe of energy (or, absolute rest,
because while there exist two or more "motions" they
can describe "relative motion" ... but when there exists
only ONE single "motion" in all of existence, it is
impossible to describe that one singular motion as being
either fast or slow, or even "moving" at all). We may
never even be able to propose what that singular motion
which I call the universe of energy and absolute rest
(relative to us) may be "moving" against (for self-evident
reasons), but we CAN say that it embodied all the stored
energy... "some portion" of which it then conferred upon
the universe of matter... and ANY motion relative to
that absolute rest (vector) has no choice but to remain
relativistic not only against absolute rest, but against
every other motion the universe of energy gives birth to
in the crucible of the laws of thermodynamics: that all
those vector motions, collectively, comprise our universe
of matter even unto this day. And so, imagine the stupendous
(potential) magnitude of the universe of energy (to be able
to have given birth (energy) to the universe of matter).
And visualize that "birth" as "the advent of gravity" ...
What must have followed HAD to have been that, immediately,
it precipitated an unstoppable implosion of the universe
of matter (an implosion which will continue imploding NOT
until matter piles up at some central point like a white
dwarf BUT which will continue until matter itself dissolves
its energy pool doing the work of that very implosion... like
a cup of water abandoned to the years' inevitable evaporation
until it has become so dry that it's... as if it had never
held water at all). see: http://web.sdrodrian.com

There will you find why an imploding universe requires
that the speed of light always be measured as a constant
in identical mediums; why an imploding universe demands
that the "observable" recession of the galaxies be found
to be accelerating; and why & how it is that "space"
(whether you call it "the void" or "vacuum") exists
at all... the reason for the red-shifted galaxies). But
no universe that can forever "exist" by means of magic.
And no ether, no Matrix, no Dark Matter, no Cosmological
Constant, or "funny energy" need apply, Bill. (Just as
Rube Goldberg constructs such as the Cosmological Constant
and Dark Matter would, by some magical means, have to be
made to work against each other in some places and with
each other in some other places with great planning and
intelligent execution... an ether, or Matrix Rube Goldberg
construct would demand that you account for the material
effects of its, one must assume, "considerable" gravity
... unless it's all "funny energy" at the Matrix ether.)

> They envisioned just what the word
> implies - somethng spiritous
> and insubstantial relative to 'real' substance.
> Although endowed with
> "permitivity" and 'permeability', it was
> still the least substantial
> medium in nature - hence "ether".
> If at any time they had proposed a
> Superdense Matrix as the primary reality
> with matter/ energy tagged on
> as insubstantial side-effects, exactly
> the same problem would have come
> up as it did with Wolter -
> the "conundrum of discreet objects". How can
> discreet objects move and interact kinetically
> while embedded in a
> much-denser medium?
> Michelson-Morley's famous 1887 experiment
> disproving the ether was
> before the advent of QM, particularly
> quantum nonlocality, and the
> holographic principle. The way Wolter
> worked it out, drawing on the work
> of Bohm-Pribram, I can only paraphrase
> for brevity, as in the prevous
> posts. But then that's 'goofy'. Hhyyup.
> There is no superdense Matrix,
> space is a vast void of nothingness,
> and we reside in the Imploding phase
> of the universe. And
> oh yeah.. it's an 'oscillating' universe.
> And everything's 'shrinking in
> place'. Hoop de doo.
> oc

As I said, Bill: Fundamental principles:

1) If in order to exist

Existence would have had to have a beginning

it could never have come into existence.

This is no different than saying that everything
evolved, and was not created either by God, or
by The Four Forces over a hand of poker either:
If the universe consists of motion (energy) now
there must have always been energy (motion).

2) Things are NEVER as confusing
as the confused MAKE them out to be.

And this is no different than saying that
you don't even have to know that an apple
comes from an apple tree to know that the guy
who swears to you that it was created by a
Rube Goldberg process of virtual particles
coalescing the "energy of space" to an apple
... has obviously not been eating his daily
ration of apples, and needs a doctor. And it's
not fraud we're talking about here, just... some
poor soul who doesn't know anything AND doesn't
know how to admit it even to himself: Human
nature, really. You can't blame a cat for shedding.

So no sense getting all worked up about it.

Ed Hanna

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
I have an informational question, since this discussion on gravity has
brought up the aether or lack thereof.

Question: did the MMX null result and/or Einstein's interpretation of it
actually *prove* that there is no aether? Or was it more a matter of showing
that it was not needed to explain *any* experimental results, and therefor
it didn't matter if it existed or not, and thus should be dropped from
future discussion?

What's the general consensus on this?


S D Rodrian wrote in message <904rr8$cva$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>In article <8143-3A...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
>> SDR wrote,
>> >There is NO Aether, period..
>> Agreed!


>Not so fast there, Bucko. You're confusing
>together classical physics with classical Greek
>philosophy: Anaxagoras's classical "ether,"
>for example (that... above the air surrounding
>the earth there is a rarefied sort of air,
>"alive and divine" and having the nature of
>fire), apparently leaving no room for any true
>"vacuum" anywhere; and Democritus's more
>materialist view that matter was [de facto]
>distinguished from non-matter exactly because
>there were "spaces" (between atoms), although
>to him the ether consisted of "little atoms"
>within the "vacuums" (or Heavenly spaces) and
>that the "motions" of this polka-dotted ether
>"carried" the Heavenly bodies along in their

<snip historical information>

Charles Francis

Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
In article <ZWqV5.46697$751.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, thus spake
Ed Hanna <st...@yahoo.com>

>I have an informational question, since this discussion on gravity has
>brought up the aether or lack thereof.
>Question: did the MMX null result and/or Einstein's interpretation of it
>actually *prove* that there is no aether? Or was it more a matter of showing
>that it was not needed to explain *any* experimental results, and therefor
>it didn't matter if it existed or not, and thus should be dropped from
>future discussion?
>What's the general consensus on this?

Einstein himself reminded people on occasion that special relativity did
not disprove the aether, merely made its existence irrelevant. If it
were just a matter of special relativity most physicists would simply
drop it from discussion, but in fact we have general relativistic models
and relativistic quantum mechanical models, and it is very difficult to
see how the existence of the aether in anything like its original form
could be compatible with either.


Charles Francis


Nov 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/30/00
In article <14262-3A...@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> >So no sense getting all worked up about it.
> >S D Rodrian
> Hear! hear!
> Absolutely true. That's why i closed out
> the whole subject. It's outside
> the purview of these astronomy NGs.

Yes. I can see where astronomers
would have no interest in discussions
about the universe. (I've been running
into that very wall most of my life.)

> It'd be more appropriate in
> alt.philosophical cosmologies or some such.

It's there. Philosophers also seem to be
interested in the whys & hows of existence
for some odd reason... beats me.

> Astronomy folks want to
> discuss things within their arena.

Sand castles & that sort? I getcha:
They like to feel the sand on their butts
as they squirm under the pressure of
the Heavens above them. Wow!

> And you would be well advised to do the same.

I have tried to answer here posts you have addressed
to me here, ye old coot! If you had asked them
in alt.old-farts I'd have to post my answers there.

> If you want to be
> taken seriously,

Can't say I've ever long longed to be
taken... least of all seriously taken!!!

> you don't walk into an astronomy group and start
> evangelizing "shrinking in place" and "we live
> in an imploding
> universe".

Not right off the bat, silly! Somebody'd
throw lemonade on your face and have you
dragged off to the drunk tank. No. You
have to come in, sit down, meet a few people,
down a few Tostitos, and then AND only then
do you stand up and start shouting: "WE LIVE
IMPLODING UNIVERSE!!!" Possibly, when you
come up before the judge: "SHRINKING IN PLACE!!!
SHRINKING IN PLACE!!!" Unless your lawyer
can get you off altogether.

> It makes you a pariah,

Is that one of those fishies that swim around
in the Amazon wearing dentures?

> and makes you look really, really stupid.

Can it beat my mirrors? I seriously doubt it.

> Your whole modus operendi and
> demeanor proclaims "hey look at
> me" "Look how important I am."

You left out the placards I wear
(on my chest & back) with those very words
... and the red ball on my nose.

> The whole thing is a venue for SDR's
> promoting of SDR.

Well, I started out promoting broccoli.
But, after a few years, I thought: what the Hell...

> If you want to promote yourself that badly

If I wanted to promote myself badly
I wouldn't do it myself. Duh!

> and really impress
> your hearers with your astuteness,
> this is not the place to do it.

Yeah. Like I didn't learn my lesson
that time I tried to do it in a men's room!

> There
> are plenty of alt.science type NGs
> that would really be impressed with
> your stuff.

You're talking about alt.hock aren't you!

> If on the other hand you really
> want to talk astronomy for its
> own sake, you drop SDR out of the equation
> and stay within the
> boundaries of current theory.

Sorry, Bill: I've never been a yes man.
(Not even when I got a job as a yes man:
I got fired for a maybe... maybe.)

> Then you can actually look smart to your
> hearers.

You blind?!?! I never would've suspected it
from the way you type: Do you use Braille or
some voice-to-typing device? Impressed.

(Jeepers! Hope he doesn't see this.)


> the oc

J.R. Chaffer

Dec 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/1/00
Oh my, how entertaining. Please, please, SDR, keep us updated
on your latest "theories" - it is all so nice. My my.


S D Rodrian wrote:

> > EL Hemetis

S D Rodrian

Dec 1, 2000, 9:28:24 PM12/1/00
In article <11376-3A...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> SDR wrote,
> >You blind?
> Yep. Blind in one eye, and
> can't see out of the other.

[Why, O why do they ALWAYS give the evil guy
in the movies some handicap?!?!] Exactly what
is it you see inside your "other" eye, Bill?

> Waal, the whole point is, if you
> seriously believe the whole "shrinking

> in place" and "we live in an imploding

> universe" business, and

Sorry, Bill: Belief does not come into it.
I have proposed an explanation to the riddles
of cosmology. It's not at all necessary
that I believe my explanation is correct:
The ONLY requirement is that the theory itself
stand up to whatever objections to it may arise.
(And, in fact, no author is ever an objective
arbitor/judge of his own theory... so it's
useless for me to claim I have yet to find any
objections to it myself. Albeit I still claim it
anyway... you know me.) In any case, my role
as its creator is finished. If I now so much as
attempt to place my theory in the best possible
light... I may never know whether others are
being blinded by its brilliance or by the
spotlight I'm shining in their eyes. (By the way,
I made no provisions for the blind... outside
a bit of humor, perhaps. Sorry, Bill.)

> apparently you do, it'd be preferable
> to heed ol' J.C.'s admonition to
> not cast your pearls before the
> unappreciative - but rather cast them
> where they're appreciated.

That was easy for JC to say because, as
I heard tell of Him, He never was in the
pearl-mongering business. More cold-blooded
businessmen will tell you that it's harder
by far to find people who appreciate the pearls
(of the mind, especially) than it is to find
the pearls (themselves). [Translation: Every
customer is worth his weight in gold... even if
some customers ARE more lightweight than others.]

> That's not being a "yes man".

If there are two sides to the story, Bill,
and but one man holding to one side (while
everybody else holds for the other side)...
I will always add my voice to that one man's
whenever I agree with him. But I cannot
imagine EVER joining a chorus that doesn't
really need my voice. It's just... not me.

You expect me to join in ONLY when I agree
with what everybody agrees with. And it's
a vain expectation. [sic]

> The astronomy folks may be doing
> "sand castles" or whatever,
> but hey - they're just doing what they do.
> Can't fault them for it. In
> your own words, "cats shed".
> You don't kick your cat for shedding. (Or
> maybe you do.)

Of course I do NOT! I just torch him
every couple of months (soon as his fur
grows back). Bill, I wouldn't have the heart
to kick him afterwards (and he doesn't let
anybody touch him for at least a week either).

> Apparently you're just so ticked off
> at the astrophysics

That I see stars?

> community in general that your whole agenda
> is to twang their nose at

Yuck! All of'em have
only one nose?!

> every opportunity, even at the price
> of looking like a complete, utter,
> and unabashed dork.

All right! Please vote for me at:


That's me, all right! Bill: You should've been
a psychiatrist. Instead of a patient--AND I hope
you're not going to claim now that you're NOT
patient (for I know of no one who ever wasted any
time claiming to not be patient).

Take a pill, Bill. *

S D Rodrian

PS. This invitation is only for a confused
special few who may wish to finally know
The Meaning of Life... O lucky you, go to:


> the oc

* To be sung to the melody of:
"Hit The Road, Jack!"

S D Rodrian

Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00
In article <3A287F31...@mcn.net>,

"J.R. Chaffer" <jrc...@mcn.net> wrote:
> Oh my, how entertaining. Please, please, SDR, keep us updated
> on your latest "theories" - it is all so nice. My my.
> jr

I will, I will!!! O my.
You are so polite, so precious
it'll be SUCH a pleasure!