Question regarding sdrodrian and universe expansion
S D Rodrian
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> mykrowyre wrote:
> >
> > Ok I just accidentally stumbled
> > into SRodrians rantings and after
> > reading about 3 sentences was overcome
> > with an idea. This might be was
> > SRodrian is trying to say too... but here goes:
> >
> > What effect would we notice if we
> > were being sucked into a black hole?
>
> This is addressed somewhat in Ted Bunn's Black Hole FAQ:
> http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/BHfaq.html,
>
> There is also a section on black holes
> in the Usenet relativity FAQ:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html
> >
> > 1) Matter would get compressed as
> > being pulled towards singularity.
> > 2) From the perspective of the compressing
> > matter, everything further
> > away from us would seem to be
> > accelerating away from us and expanding
> > because we would not be able to measure
> > or comprehend our own
> > compression. The further matter is
> > from the gravitational pull of the
> > black hole, the faster it would appear
> > to be moving away from us.
You're getting close, but you missed
(good as a mile).
> > 3) Isn't our galaxy essentially a black hole?
>
> No, though it may harbor one at its core.
> >
> > So, I agree that instead of the
> > universe expanding we could be
> > shrinking, just like everything else
> > in the universe, as it is being
> > pulled towards a singularity.
> >
> > -tom
>
> One small problem with Mr. Rodrian's claims
Thank God it's small.
> - he won't publish them in a
> peer-reviewed astrophysical,
> physics, or astronomy journal.
Are you mad?!?! Can you imagine
Galileo submitting his observations
to the Church-approved-only periodicals
of his day? I've been wracked enough as it is.
> He will make all
> sorts of claims
Haven't claimed to be a gazebo yet
(mmmm... interesting claim, though).
> as to why this hasn't been done,
> but frankly, he is blowing
> smoke unless he can and brings
> the scientific community into the discussion.
Sorry: I never discuss things with
children. I can wait until you grow up.
For the time being, my only interest
is in delighting and tickling you; for I still
love children... the good and the bad.
> There are problems with his ideas which
> have been addressed much in the past
[Fortunately... Mr. Miller will NEVER, EVER,
under any circumstances, tell you exactly where
the location of those problems is, and not even
if he's offered money to do it, because he knows
that deposited at that site are also the now
infamous Internet pixs of him having sex with a
goat. It's nothing personal, though, just funny.]
> and which he has never been able to
> address other than by hand-waving.
Well, I do what I can; and ever will:
I don't think I can reply to all the posts
here (there, and everywhere), but I'll
give it a shot... tomorrow: Gotta wake up
early tomorrow. So, I'll just wave g'night!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
> Scott....@louisville.edu
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Tom McWilliams
>
> In article <3A4D17B1...@louisville.edu>,
> "J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > One small problem with Mr. Rodrian's claims
>
> Thank God it's small.
>
> > - he won't publish them in a
> > peer-reviewed astrophysical,
> > physics, or astronomy journal.
>
> Are you mad?!?! Can you imagine
> Galileo submitting his observations
> to the Church-approved-only periodicals
> of his day? I've been wracked enough as it is.
That's not the same thing, since the goals and epistemology of the two
(science and the church) are different.
If you expect to have your theories considered as scientifically
accurate, you would not fear exposing them to people trained in
scientific thinking in the relavent disciplines.
Comparing such a decision to Galileo being reviewed by the Church is a
way to avoid testing your notions, and nothing more. It's certainly not
a way to support the idea that your theory is as world-shaking as
Galielo's, especially considering the paucity of novelty or illumination
in them.
> > as to why this hasn't been done,
> > but frankly, he is blowing
> > smoke unless he can and brings
> > the scientific community into the discussion.
>
> Sorry: I never discuss things with
> children. I can wait until you grow up.
That response was certainly not calculated to inspire reasonable
discussion.
Using insults is tantamount to admission that you have no basis for your
argument, since if you did, you'd offer it, instead.
> For the time being, my only interest
> is in delighting and tickling you; for I still
> love children... the good and the bad.
Ah, that explains why you aren't concerned with tests of accuracy for
your theories, as your consistent disregard of reasonable questions and
challenges shows.
Note the subject header.
> > There are problems with his ideas which
> > have been addressed much in the past
>
> [Fortunately... Mr. Miller will NEVER, EVER,
> under any circumstances, tell you exactly where
> the location of those problems is...
I've told you, a few times. You have yet to address them:
1) What predictions, based on your model, are different than any other
model?
2) How is your model different than what we already have, with an
unusual coordinate transformation imposed, to no discernable effect?
3) Given that your model produces identical predictions as the currently
formulated Big-Bang 'baby-universe' model, what's the point of the extra
co-ordinate transformation? Since you include Occam on your web-site,
you must admit, if honest, that there is no reason to accept your model,
since it produces predictions which are identical to already published
models, but has an unnecessary layer of explanation.
> > and which he has never been able to
> > address other than by hand-waving.
>
> Well, I do what I can; and ever will:
> I don't think I can reply to all the posts
> here (there, and everywhere), but I'll
> give it a shot... tomorrow: Gotta wake up
> early tomorrow. So, I'll just wave g'night!
Uh huh. You've never even responded to me, let alone answered any of my
*scientific* challenges to your model.
Until you do, I'll consider your theory scientifically repudiated, and
leave you to entertain in peace.
Everyone interested in scientific testing can go home now. I've
definitively debunked SDRodrian's 'theory', and he asserts that having
fun, not explaining the universe, is his goal.
I predict we'll hear nothing to contradict me, and little else about the
theory itself.
-Tm
--
* . * '^
,.. " . *
,
' Tommy Mac
S D Rodrian
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> > In article <3A4D17B1...@louisville.edu>,
> > "J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > > One small problem with Mr. Rodrian's claims
> > Thank God it's small.
> > > - he won't publish them in a
> > > peer-reviewed astrophysical,
> > > physics, or astronomy journal.
> >
> > Are you mad?!?! Can you imagine
> > Galileo submitting his observations
> > to the Church-approved-only periodicals
> > of his day? I've been wracked enough as it is.
>
> That's not the same thing, since the goals
> and epistemology of the two
> (science and the church) are different.
Yes, but the pain/suffering/punishments
are too much alike for me to try them out.
> If you expect to have your theories
> considered as scientifically
> accurate, you would not fear exposing them
> to people trained in
> scientific thinking in the relavent disciplines.
I have news for you: The archives of Usenet
will survive most (if not all) the books and
other sundry paper publications on earth. And
all my "observations" are basically observations
pointing out the obvious. Believe It or Not!!!!
Go thou to http://web.sdrodrian.com and notice
that all I offer IS proofs.
> Comparing such a decision to Galileo
> being reviewed by the Church is a
> way to avoid testing your notions,
> and nothing more. It's certainly not
> a way to support the idea that your theory
> is as world-shaking as
> Galielo's, especially considering the
> paucity of novelty or illumination
> in them.
Well, Tom, if after all the volumes of
"illumination" I have poured your way
you're still in the dark... I just might
consider giving the eye doctor a visit
if I were you.
> > > as to why this hasn't been done,
> > > but frankly, he is blowing
> > > smoke unless he can and brings
> > > the scientific community into the discussion.
> >
> > Sorry: I never discuss things with
> > children. I can wait until you grow up.
>
> That response was certainly not
> calculated to inspire reasonable
> discussion.
By George, he's GOT it! [It is quite true
that I only engage in reasonable discussions
when the discussion is reasonable.]
> Using insults is tantamount to admission
> that you have no basis for your
> argument, since if you did, you'd offer it, instead.
Love a guy who never tires of volumes & volumes
of repetitions--God bless you, Tom! I will take
your advice and keep repeating myself: "Those who
will not learn by the Mind must learn by the Rote!"
> > For the time being, my only interest
> > is in delighting and tickling you; for I still
> > love children... the good and the bad.
>
> Ah, that explains why you aren't concerned
> with tests of accuracy for
> your theories, as your consistent disregard
> of reasonable questions and
> challenges shows.
What tests of accuracy can one possibly propose
for the obvious? Tom, either what I say is self-
evident, or I dare not say it (albeit, like you
yourself.... there are a few Taliban out there
who might not only require to be shown the door
but also have to be told what a door is).
> Note the subject header.
It's not my title: If I agree with a post
it's unlikely I will comment on it. I mostly
just make an objection where I think it's deserved,
or an ellucidation where I think it's helpful.
> > > There are problems with his ideas which
> > > have been addressed much in the past
> >
> > [Fortunately... Mr. Miller will NEVER, EVER,
> > under any circumstances, tell you exactly where
> > the location of those problems is...
>
> I've told you, a few times.
> You have yet to address them:
>
> 1) What predictions, based on your model,
> are different than any other model?
I've already answered this, but I'm doomed to
repeat things to the Taliban because I always
spurned teaching, I suppose. Just one instance:
My model predicted that whatever the universe
was "doing" it would be found to be doing it
faster and faster as it did it. Sure enough, in
1998 researches finally realized that the so-called
expansion of the universe was actually accelerating!
This was the absolutely complete opposite of what
the inflationary universe models had predicted:
Their models varied from a slowing "expansion" to
a complete stop and subsequent contraction. An
acceleration of their inflationary universe model
is as impossible to explain in reasonable terms
as pulling a rabbit out of your ear.
This is really all that is necessary to expose
their models' fallacy and my model's accuracy.
> 2) How is your model different than
> what we already have, with an
> unusual coordinate transformation imposed,
> to no discernable effect?
What does it matter to humanity that the Sun will
become a red giant in 4+ billion years? Tom:
The quest of scientific research is not unlike
the birthing of a child... there is no way to
predict what that baby will grow up to achieve,
but there is always the certainty that if that
baby is stillborn, so will all his/her potentials
to achieve anything also be as stillborn.
The reason why we must search for the true nature
of reality/the universe, is because eventually
all may depend on whether our mortal judgments
are based on a true, or on an imaginary reality.
Ours is a fatal future that requires the greatest
adherence to the truth we can muster in ourselves.
> 3) Given that your model produces
> identical predictions as the currently
> formulated Big-Bang 'baby-universe' model,
> what's the point of the extra
> co-ordinate transformation? Since you
> include Occam on your web-site,
> you must admit, if honest, that there is
> no reason to accept your model,
> since it produces predictions which are
> identical to already published
> models, but has an unnecessary
> layer of explanation.
If it were so, I wouldn't waste a second on it
(as I have always & always will dedicate my life
to distinguishing what may be momentarily true only
to Man from what will always be true to the universe).
Fortunately, my model of an imploding universe
does not make identical prediction (as per the
example I noted above). It's true that my model
in no way contradicts The Standard Model, but
the Standard Model is not unlike a description
of modern day animals: Modern day elements/sub-
particles are like elephants, tigers, and snails:
Highly evolved beasts which are rather adequately
described and understood. My concern is centered
almost exclusively on how it all originated (and
this would be the equal, in biological evolution,
of studying the natural circumstances which led to
the animo acids which led to the origins of life).
I don't believe I need defend research which is
not specifically aimed at producing a specific
product for the public use (as I said before)...
because the historical record shows far too many
instances where research in one field yielded
countless unexpected side benefits. That is the
nature of all objective human research, after all.
> > > and which he has never been able to
> > > address other than by hand-waving.
> >
> > Well, I do what I can; and ever will:
> > I don't think I can reply to all the posts
> > here (there, and everywhere), but I'll
> > give it a shot... tomorrow: Gotta wake up
> > early tomorrow. So, I'll just wave g'night!
>
> Uh huh. You've never even responded to me,
> let alone answered any of my
> *scientific* challenges to your model.
I'm sorry, but it appears that you have missed all my
replies to your posts! But fear not, as you can revisit
at least some of the ones I found in a search resulting in:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696425162&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696736265&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=698530845&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=706604249&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=707027827&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=707023649&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=708119111&fmt=text
Here's the search URL if you wish to find more
(be sure to include ALL the URL in your browser):
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=%2B%22rodrian%
22+AND+%2B%22Tom+McWilliams%
22&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&format=terse&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=ALL&su
bjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=
> Until you do, I'll consider your theory
> scientifically repudiated, and
> leave you to entertain in peace.
Since I have done so: I'll consider that, at least
as far as you're concerned, my theory is
scientifically proved. And I will leave you to
watch the football games on TV in peace.
> Everyone interested in scientific testing
> can go home now. I've
> definitively debunked SDRodrian's 'theory',
> and he asserts that having
> fun, not explaining the universe, is his goal.
I think you have a lot to explain after you
go through this reply to your post definitively.
And, as for fun... I've met so many people who
think that having no fun in life equates with
taking life seriously that I no longer marvel
at the fools, and just enjoy watching them make
fools of themselves. Good luck, Tom.
> I predict we'll hear nothing to contradict me,
> and little else about the
> theory itself.
> -Tm
You need to go into some other business
(than predicting), Tom. Have you tried
really applying yourself to being a right
and proper Taliban? The pay may not be
great, but it's a healthy, outdoors life.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Tom McWilliams
>
> In article <3A4E7F92...@msu.edu>,
> Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > In article <3A4D17B1...@louisville.edu>,
> > > "J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > > > One small problem with Mr. Rodrian's claims
> > > Thank God it's small.
> > > > - he won't publish them in a
> > > > peer-reviewed astrophysical,
> > > > physics, or astronomy journal.
> > >
> > > Are you mad?!?! Can you imagine
> > > Galileo submitting his observations
> > > to the Church-approved-only periodicals
> > > of his day? I've been wracked enough as it is.
> >
> > That's not the same thing, since the goals
> > and epistemology of the two
> > (science and the church) are different.
>
> Yes, but the pain/suffering/punishments
> are too much alike for me to try them out.
This just avoids the point, as well as mis-representing the reality
behind Galileo's experience. He knew that he saw Jupiter's moons
orbiting. If he only had to deal with people failing to believe him,
failing to accomodate his observation, or failing to make the
observation themselves, he wouldn't have suffered at all.
Making comparisions between trial for heresy and getting picked on is
disingenuous.
Your other comparisons between Religion and Science suffer the same
problem; they don't make much sense, and don't really mean anything.
Rhetorical, but not meanigful in the anayltic/scientific test sense.
> > If you expect to have your theories
> > considered as scientifically
> > accurate, you would not fear exposing them
> > to people trained in
> > scientific thinking in the relavent disciplines.
>
> I have news for you: The archives of Usenet
> will survive most (if not all) the books and
> other sundry paper publications on earth. And
> all my "observations" are basically observations
> pointing out the obvious. Believe It or Not!!!!
From what I've seen on your site, such exposure hasn't led to better
support for your main theory, or a better methodology on your part.
Since modern scientific journals don't engage in trails, your expressed
fear is more accurately termed a 'phobia.' I would suggest you get over
it, and expose your theory to professional review, if you consider them
solid.
> Go thou to http://web.sdrodrian.com and notice
> that all I offer IS proofs.
I did, and you don't. All I can find is acres of posts, which I don't
care to wade through, before simply challenging you for one, to save
time.
BTW, they aren't proofs. The best anyone can acheive is 'support' or
'consistent with evidence.' If it survives testing and peer-review,
perhaps it will be considered 'well-supported,' one day.
> > Comparing such a decision to Galileo
> > being reviewed by the Church is a
> > way to avoid testing your notions,
> > and nothing more. It's certainly not
> > a way to support the idea that your theory
> > is as world-shaking as
> > Galielo's, especially considering the
> > paucity of novelty or illumination
> > in them.
>
> Well, Tom, if after all the volumes of
> "illumination" I have poured your way
> you're still in the dark... I just might
> consider giving the eye doctor a visit
> if I were you.
It's the way it's written, SD. If you had a systematic list of
predictions and observations confirming them, it would be much clearer.
As it is, I'd have to wade through a sea of posts and discussion (quite
full of your particular brand of rhetoric) to know if I'd found all the
elements of your theory. I have not (and probably won't) taken the time
to do so.
I realize your intent is to make it readable to the regular guy on the
street, but 1) The way it's presented now is not all that clear for
anyone, including the guy on the street and 2) There are an awful lot of
guys on the street that know the basics of the scientific method,
vis-a-vis predictions and observations, so making a systematic list
won't confuse many people.
BTW, you never poured anything my way. You've only poured it onto your
web-site, as far as I can tell.
> > > > as to why this hasn't been done,
> > > > but frankly, he is blowing
> > > > smoke unless he can and brings
> > > > the scientific community into the discussion.
> > >
> > > Sorry: I never discuss things with
> > > children. I can wait until you grow up.
> >
> > That response was certainly not
> > calculated to inspire reasonable
> > discussion.
>
> By George, he's GOT it! [It is quite true
> that I only engage in reasonable discussions
> when the discussion is reasonable.]
If you were truly concerned with engaging people in reasonable
discussion, you wouldn't mimic unreasonable behavior, since you don't
know who decides not to discuss things at all, in response.
IOW, you've just engaged in unreasonable discussion, so your criteria is
self-fulfilling (or -defeating.)
> > Using insults is tantamount to admission
> > that you have no basis for your
> > argument, since if you did, you'd offer it, instead.
>
> Love a guy who never tires of volumes & volumes
> of repetitions--God bless you, Tom! I will take
> your advice and keep repeating myself: "Those who
> will not learn by the Mind must learn by the Rote!"
This turns out to be another admission, as well as another example of
clouding, not clearing, the discussion. I have repeated my objections
to your style far less than you have repeated the useless behavior.
> > > For the time being, my only interest
> > > is in delighting and tickling you; for I still
> > > love children... the good and the bad.
> >
> > Ah, that explains why you aren't concerned
> > with tests of accuracy for
> > your theories, as your consistent disregard
> > of reasonable questions and
> > challenges shows.
>
> What tests of accuracy can one possibly propose
> for the obvious? Tom, either what I say is self-
> evident, or I dare not say it (albeit, like you
> yourself.... there are a few Taliban out there
> who might not only require to be shown the door
> but also have to be told what a door is).
I'm talking about the predictions and supporting observations. The
reason I haven't seen your responses is because I don't look at your
web-site anymore, instead waiting for your responses to show up here.
Since I wrote you here, I can expect you to respond here, rather than on
your site. BTW, I didn't realize I was contributing to your web-work,
and since you haven't asked my permission, nor even informed me, I
consider it on rather shaky ethical grounds.
BTW, the only self-evident 'truths' are those by defintion, and raw
experience, not requiring anaylsis.
> > Note the subject header.
>
> It's not my title: If I agree with a post
> it's unlikely I will comment on it. I mostly
> just make an objection where I think it's deserved,
> or an ellucidation where I think it's helpful.
Great. That's what I was hoping for, as I've been asking for
elucidations on rather specific points.
However, I must disagree with your assertion. Flames, ridicule, jokes,
pointless comparisions, and other such rhetorical tactics have been what
you've "mostly" done.
> > > > There are problems with his ideas which
> > > > have been addressed much in the past
> > >
> > > [Fortunately... Mr. Miller will NEVER, EVER,
> > > under any circumstances, tell you exactly where
> > > the location of those problems is...
> >
> > I've told you, a few times.
> > You have yet to address them:
> >
> > 1) What predictions, based on your model,
> > are different than any other model?
>
> I've already answered this, but I'm doomed to
> repeat things to the Taliban because I always
> spurned teaching, I suppose.
Another admission...and one very uninformed by the reasonable
expectations which I have about the proper place for our discussion.
> Just one instance:
Even one is relevant support...
> My model predicted that whatever the universe
> was "doing" it would be found to be doing it
> faster and faster as it did it.
OK, so that's an assertion. *Why* does your theory predict it? Is it
necessary for, or a necessary result of, your model?
> Sure enough, in
> 1998 researches finally realized that the so-called
> expansion of the universe was actually accelerating!
They did? I'm not familiar with this; perhaps you could point me at the
results that led to this conclusion?
If you are talking about the fact that the Hubble Constant keeps getting
revised, I'm afraid you've confused selection-bias with detecting a
change. One of Hubble's (the 'scope) most useful contributions was
vastly improving parallax measurements, which improved our measures of
large-scale distance, and resulted in an update for, among other things,
"H". These improvements continue, so we should expect updates to
continue, as well, though they will become more a matter of accuracy,
than magnitude, over time.
If this is not the change in "H" to which you refer, I look forward to
seeing your reference for what you do mean.
I'd also be interested in your explanation of another point:
<quote>
It depends on whether you're observing it
from the inside or the outside: From the inside
it is not shrinking at all because everything
in here is relative (so as everything shrinks
at more or less the same rate, the shrinking of
the universe is mostly outside our experience).
</quote>
Since we are inside the universe, I'll ignore the part involving the
observation we can't make, and worry only about the one's we can.
Two other issues that I don't see you deal with are
1) If we can't detect the shrinking occuring on the scale of distance,
why are objects not changing density (mass or charge, for example)? Do
you also posit a corresponding 'shrinking' for the non-spatial
dimensions?
2) Why, if what looks like 'expansion' is actually shrinking, does the
expansion only become evident at large scales, galaxy-cluster-wide,
instead of on every scale? Similarly, at which scale does your theory
predict the 'cut-off' to occur, and why?
> > 2) How is your model different than
> > what we already have, with an
> > unusual coordinate transformation imposed,
> > to no discernable effect?
>
> What does it matter to humanity that the Sun will
> become a red giant in 4+ billion years? Tom:
> The quest of scientific research is not unlike
> the birthing of a child... there is no way to
> predict what that baby will grow up to achieve,
> but there is always the certainty that if that
> baby is stillborn, so will all his/her potentials
> to achieve anything also be as stillborn.
I guess you misunderstood my question. I was referring to the fact that
your model seems like another unnecessary principle (that co-ordinate
x-form) pasted onto an already-sufficient set of principles. Working on
the differences in their predictions is sufficient for me to consider
them separate.
> Fortunately, my model of an imploding universe
> does not make identical prediction (as per the
> example I noted above). It's true that my model
> in no way contradicts The Standard Model, but
> the Standard Model is not unlike a description
> of modern day animals: Modern day elements/sub-
> particles are like elephants, tigers, and snails:
> Highly evolved beasts which are rather adequately
> described and understood. My concern is centered
> almost exclusively on how it all originated (and
> this would be the equal, in biological evolution,
> of studying the natural circumstances which led to
> the animo acids which led to the origins of life).
Good luck. No theory will ever find the *ultimate* origins.
> I don't believe I need defend research which is
> not specifically aimed at producing a specific
> product for the public use (as I said before)...
I agree. However, yours patently is such research, as the continuing
growth of your web-site demonstrates.
> > > > and which he has never been able to
> > > > address other than by hand-waving.
> > >
> > > Well, I do what I can; and ever will:
> > > I don't think I can reply to all the posts
> > > here (there, and everywhere), but I'll
> > > give it a shot... tomorrow: Gotta wake up
> > > early tomorrow. So, I'll just wave g'night!
> >
> > Uh huh. You've never even responded to me,
> > let alone answered any of my
> > *scientific* challenges to your model.
>
> I'm sorry, but it appears that you have missed all my
> replies to your posts!
I've addressed why I 'missed' them, but I would have characterized the
situation as you missing the correct target; the forum where the
discussion started.
> But fear not, as you can revisit
> at least some of the ones I found in a search resulting in:
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696425162&fmt=text
Your responses here were pure rhetoric, not saying anything at all to
address my questions.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696736265&fmt=text
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=698530845&fmt=text
These bits were about the Zeeman Effect being an alternate explanation
for red-shifting, instead of dopplering, not your 'shrinking scale'
theory. However;
1) I don't propose that this is necessarily the case. The point was
simply that your theory depends on it being incorrect as much as the
Standard Model.
2) The effect *is* proportional to distance, if there are weak magnetic
fields throughout the universe, which is perfectly plausible, though
clearly not 'proven.'
3) The objections to Zeemen Splitting are considered (in the paper I
read ages ago) no worse than much of the patch-work on the Standard
Model, and IIRC, they did address it, though I can't remember the
details. I did a quick search on the web, and though I couldn't find a
presentation of it, I did find this, if you are curious:
http://www.grawlfang.com/SpaceSig/Issue84.html
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=706604249&fmt=text
Also mostly rhetoric, though I found this:
___
Sure: An imploding universe conforms
to the conservation of energy laws.
An exploding (expanding) universe can only
work by magic, because in Nature there are
no explosions which do not result from
concentrations.
Just in case you missed it: A description
of the universe exploding cannot explain
anything, as any explanation of the universe
must explain its origins (why "it" became
a concentration... why/how)... and not simply
limit its explanation to how the internal combustion
engine works, or some such other afterthoughtl).
___
By this criteria, you've just claimed your own theory can't explain
anything (I consider the criteria you've offered unreasonable, however)
The conservation of energy is violated by the existence of anything,
once you demand that "before the universe" (ie, 'origins') is part of
the total system. Hence, yours violates the same principle stated in
paragraph one.
You're attempting to hoist yourself on your own petard.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=707027827&fmt=text
>> 2) Are there any observations which
>> you can think of that would
>> disprove it?
>Not so far: So far in EVERY case which I've examined of "proven"
>(verified) observational facts the imploding universe model explains
>how/why it's so.
You missed my point. I wasn't asking if you *had* found such disproving
observations. I was asking if you had thought of any observations which
*could* disprove it. IOW, try to think of an observation which *would*
prove it wrong, were it to actually be the case, once the relavant
observation was made.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=708119111&fmt=text
___
>> > > >It's more accurate to say that Existence
>> > > >is "all there is." And that therefore
>> > > >all that has existed and all that will exist
>> > > >is (still/aways) right here with us (just
>> > > >in, for the present, an unrecognizable form).
>> > >
>> > > This sounds vaguely familiar, like some
>> > > kind of religious doctrine, or
>> > > shades of the old 'clockwork' universe.
>> >
>> > It certainly ought to sound familiar
>> > as it's just a real-world language
>> > expression of the law of energy conservation!
Actually, it sounds more like the steady-state theory.
>> So, quantum-level particles don't share
>> in 'existence', then? How,
>> then, do we perceive them, or exist, ourselves?
>There is a chasm between believing they exist
>because they represent an existence we have no
>easy way to observe directly, and believing that
>they are coming into existence out of the voids.
I'm not sure what you mean, or how this applies to my question.
I was referring to Heisnberg's uncertainty principle, and how the
principle, based on the 'spread out' non-discrete nature of QM particles
explains QM tunneling, evaporation of black-holes, and the like, and
also infoorms us that QM-stuff exists in a fundamentally different way
than the macroscopic phenomena which we perceive with our naked senses.
>... how would I
>even be able to definitely recognize a miracle by
>God~!?!?!?!
The same way you recognized God, I presume. IOW, one recognizes God by
his miracles, or so I've been led to believe. I have yet to experience
one.
>> > I am thinking of a universe
>> > not a single bit of which depends
>> > one whit on what anybody's thinking.
>>
>> I don't suppose you recognize the contradiction
>> (and hence, necessary falsehood) in this statement?
>It is marvelously ironic, but not self-contradicting
>because there are no paradoxes in nature (reality)
>... only in the mind:
That's pretty much my point, SD. You are thinking (...in the mind) of a
Universe, whose existence depends on your thinking (since that's why it
exists), where what one thinks doesn't matter. IOW, the paradox is your
model...in your mind.
> IOW, you can't think of such a universe.
"You may/must not think of such..."
It's not a rule, it's a fact. Maybe you could *find* one where thought
doesn't matter, but *thinking* of one doesn't do it, since such a
conception is impossible.
>> > I am working on how the universe
>> > created us... by concentrating on
>> > eradicating our cherished superstitions
>> > regarding how we created the universe.
>There, you see: What I'm trying to do IS
>to eliminate anthropomorphism from the
>equation. [Told ya that's what I was up 2.]
Telling me what you are attempting doesn't mean much, if you haven't
suceeded in your attempt.
>> Good luck. The phenomenological necessity
>> of any conception of Universe
>> makes you task difficult at best,
>> and untestable, at worst.
>Fortunately I've read tons of novels and other
>fictions to know by now how easy it is for
>most folks to create their own little worlds
>and move right in (to) them! Some people even
>believe their imagined universe is he real one
>and not "ours" to such extent that they must be
>put away in those special little worlds with
>padded walls we've created for people like that...
And what evidence do you have of a shared, external reality, other than
your experiences of communication?
>> Simply put, the Universe is the sum
>> total of all experiences, nothing more.
>I have a slightly different take on that: I'd say
>the universe is the sum total of everything in it;
>and our experiences usually extend no further than
>our greatest treasure of begrudgingly accepted
>knowledge... or the most cherished oceans of
>ignorance in which we drown. Since the beginnings
>of the human mind... we have loved our dreams
>far, far better than we have ever learned to live
>with our lives.
I think you miss he point, RD. All evidence is experience, so there is
no evidence that can distinuish between a Universe composed of nothing
but experience, and a Universe composed of 'stuff.'
All science can proceed exactly as before, without it. It's very
convinient for communication, and conception, but not necessary for
"putting in order the facts of experience."
IOW, the portion of any model of Universe (or any subsection of it)
involving 'stuff' is unnecessary and unprovable, just like the layers of
similar 'nouemeal reality' added by Kant and the others who tried to get
past the phenomenological issue.
> The existence of a separate, external
> 'reality' is both
> unprovable, and completely unnecessary
> for the accurate modelling of
> repeatable experiences.
> -Tm
>Tom, I think you may be greatly surprised
>to find (when you do) that most of the mind's
>labor involves the comparison of things real
>with things in he mind possible and impossible.
You are mistaken about the labor of the mind, since the only things we
have to compare are different experiences.
>And whether we, each one of us, achieves the
>correct match... pretty much depends on the
>integrity/soundness of those mental images
>we carry around with us (of what is possible
>and/or impossible) being compatible with the
>reality outside our thoughts: Any number of
>times it's possible for life to go on much un-
>affected by our being totally wrong (we did
>believe for centuries that the universe orbited
>the earth)... but sometimes it's the littlest
>things that kill us (witchdoctors telling us
>that bullets would have no effect on us if we
>wore... a few thin twigs shaped like a bear).
I think you misunderstand what is meant by 'untestable hypothesis' since
you fail to recognize that 'the reality outside of our experience' is
such a hypothesis. The repeatable nature of experience supports it, but
does not prove it, or require it.
>See'ya at the asylum, buddy!___
I don't think so. Not only am I prefectly sane, you can carry an
untestable hypothesis approximately forever, with negligible
disadvantage to your understanding or life. Indeed, there are sometimes
advantages, such as easing communication, in this case.
> Here's the search URL if you wish to find more
> (be sure to include ALL the URL in your browser):
<gigantic URL snipped>
I'm done looking other places for our discussion, here. Please respond
in this forum, if you respond. If there is some other response you had
that you think relavent, please repeat it or find the corresponding URL.
> > Until you do, I'll consider your theory
> > scientifically repudiated, and
> > leave you to entertain in peace.
>
> Since I have done so: I'll consider that, at least
> as far as you're concerned, my theory is
> scientifically proved.
"Not disproved" =/ "proved," unfortunately. But, yes, you've addressed
my questions, so far.
> > Everyone interested in scientific testing
> > can go home now. I've
> > definitively debunked SDRodrian's 'theory',
> > and he asserts that having
> > fun, not explaining the universe, is his goal.
>
> I think you have a lot to explain after you
> go through this reply to your post definitively.
Not really. The point of that particular challenge was to get you
posting, or, as it turns out, posting where you should; here, in the
forum where I've written. It worked great, too.
<rhetoric snipped>
> > I predict we'll hear nothing to contradict me,
> > and little else about the
> > theory itself.
> > -Tm
>
> You need to go into some other business
> (than predicting), Tom.
On the contrary, this was also calculated to get you out in the open,
and though I didn't express it, I knew one of two things had to
happen. Either 1) You'd fail to meet my challenge, confirming my
expressed prediction or 2) You'd respond (where I knew about it), so I
could get the answers to my questions.
It's called a double-bind, and, if designed correctly, is impossible to
escape, without fulfilling the desire inspiring them, as you've
demonstrated.
> Have you tried
> really applying yourself to being a right
> and proper Taliban? The pay may not be
> great, but it's a healthy, outdoors life.
I don't even know what a Taliban is, so I can't answer that.
Tom McWilliams
>
> In article <3A4E7F92...@msu.edu>,
> Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > In article <3A4D17B1...@louisville.edu>,
> > > "J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > > > One small problem with Mr. Rodrian's claims
> > > Thank God it's small.
> > > > - he won't publish them in a
> > > > peer-reviewed astrophysical,
> > > > physics, or astronomy journal.
> > >
> > > Are you mad?!?! Can you imagine
> > > Galileo submitting his observations
> > > to the Church-approved-only periodicals
> > > of his day? I've been wracked enough as it is.
> >
> > That's not the same thing, since the goals
> > and epistemology of the two
> > (science and the church) are different.
>
> Yes, but the pain/suffering/punishments
> are too much alike for me to try them out.
This just avoids the point, as well as mis-representing the reality
behind Galileo's experience. He knew that he saw Jupiter's moons
orbiting. If he only had to deal with people failing to believe him,
failing to accomodate his observation, or failing to make the
observation themselves, he wouldn't have suffered at all.
Making comparisions between trial for heresy and getting picked on is
disingenuous.
Your other comparisons between Religion and Science suffer the same
problem; they don't make much sense, and don't really mean anything.
Rhetorical, but not meanigful in the anayltic/scientific test sense.
> > If you expect to have your theories
> > considered as scientifically
> > accurate, you would not fear exposing them
> > to people trained in
> > scientific thinking in the relavent disciplines.
>
> I have news for you: The archives of Usenet
> will survive most (if not all) the books and
> other sundry paper publications on earth. And
> all my "observations" are basically observations
> pointing out the obvious. Believe It or Not!!!!
>From what I've seen on your site, such exposure hasn't led to better
support for your main theory, or a better methodology on your part.
Since modern scientific journals don't engage in trails, your expressed
fear is more accurately termed a 'phobia.' I would suggest you get over
it, and expose your theory to professional review, if you consider them
solid.
> Go thou to http://web.sdrodrian.com and notice
> that all I offer IS proofs.
I did, and you don't. All I can find is acres of posts, which I don't
care to wade through, before simply challenging you for one, to save
time.
BTW, they aren't proofs. The best anyone can acheive is 'support' or
'consistent with evidence.' If it survives testing and peer-review,
perhaps it will be considered 'well-supported,' one day.
> > Comparing such a decision to Galileo
> > being reviewed by the Church is a
> > way to avoid testing your notions,
> > and nothing more. It's certainly not
> > a way to support the idea that your theory
> > is as world-shaking as
> > Galielo's, especially considering the
> > paucity of novelty or illumination
> > in them.
>
> Well, Tom, if after all the volumes of
> "illumination" I have poured your way
> you're still in the dark... I just might
> consider giving the eye doctor a visit
> if I were you.
It's the way it's written, SD. If you had a systematic list of
predictions and observations confirming them, it would be much clearer.
As it is, I'd have to wade through a sea of posts and discussion (quite
full of your particular brand of rhetoric) to know if I'd found all the
elements of your theory. I have not (and probably won't) taken the time
to do so.
I realize your intent is to make it readable to the regular guy on the
street, but 1) The way it's presented now is not all that clear for
anyone, including the guy on the street and 2) There are an awful lot of
guys on the street that know the basics of the scientific method,
vis-a-vis predictions and observations, so making a systematic list
won't confuse many people.
BTW, you never poured anything my way. You've only poured it onto your
web-site, as far as I can tell.
> > > > as to why this hasn't been done,
> > > > but frankly, he is blowing
> > > > smoke unless he can and brings
> > > > the scientific community into the discussion.
> > >
> > > Sorry: I never discuss things with
> > > children. I can wait until you grow up.
> >
> > That response was certainly not
> > calculated to inspire reasonable
> > discussion.
>
> By George, he's GOT it! [It is quite true
> that I only engage in reasonable discussions
> when the discussion is reasonable.]
If you were truly concerned with engaging people in reasonable
discussion, you wouldn't mimic unreasonable behavior, since you don't
know who decides not to discuss things at all, in response.
IOW, you've just engaged in unreasonable discussion, so your criteria is
self-fulfilling (or -defeating.)
> > Using insults is tantamount to admission
> > that you have no basis for your
> > argument, since if you did, you'd offer it, instead.
>
> Love a guy who never tires of volumes & volumes
> of repetitions--God bless you, Tom! I will take
> your advice and keep repeating myself: "Those who
> will not learn by the Mind must learn by the Rote!"
This turns out to be another admission, as well as another example of
clouding, not clearing, the discussion. I have repeated my objections
to your style far less than you have repeated the useless behavior.
> > > For the time being, my only interest
> > > is in delighting and tickling you; for I still
> > > love children... the good and the bad.
> >
> > Ah, that explains why you aren't concerned
> > with tests of accuracy for
> > your theories, as your consistent disregard
> > of reasonable questions and
> > challenges shows.
>
> What tests of accuracy can one possibly propose
> for the obvious? Tom, either what I say is self-
> evident, or I dare not say it (albeit, like you
> yourself.... there are a few Taliban out there
> who might not only require to be shown the door
> but also have to be told what a door is).
I'm talking about the predictions and supporting observations. The
reason I haven't seen your responses is because I don't look at your
web-site anymore, instead waiting for your responses to show up here.
Since I wrote you here, I can expect you to respond here, rather than on
your site. BTW, I didn't realize I was contributing to your web-work,
and since you haven't asked my permission, nor even informed me, I
consider it on rather shaky ethical grounds.
BTW, the only self-evident 'truths' are those by defintion, and raw
experience, not requiring anaylsis.
> > Note the subject header.
>
> It's not my title: If I agree with a post
> it's unlikely I will comment on it. I mostly
> just make an objection where I think it's deserved,
> or an ellucidation where I think it's helpful.
Great. That's what I was hoping for, as I've been asking for
elucidations on rather specific points.
However, I must disagree with your assertion. Flames, ridicule, jokes,
pointless comparisions, and other such rhetorical tactics have been what
you've "mostly" done.
> > > > There are problems with his ideas which
> > > > have been addressed much in the past
> > >
> > > [Fortunately... Mr. Miller will NEVER, EVER,
> > > under any circumstances, tell you exactly where
> > > the location of those problems is...
> >
> > I've told you, a few times.
> > You have yet to address them:
> >
> > 1) What predictions, based on your model,
> > are different than any other model?
>
> I've already answered this, but I'm doomed to
> repeat things to the Taliban because I always
> spurned teaching, I suppose.
Another admission...and one very uninformed by the reasonable
expectations which I have about the proper place for our discussion.
> Just one instance:
Even one is relevant support...
> My model predicted that whatever the universe
> was "doing" it would be found to be doing it
> faster and faster as it did it.
OK, so that's an assertion. *Why* does your theory predict it? Is it
necessary for, or a necessary result of, your model?
> Sure enough, in
> 1998 researches finally realized that the so-called
> expansion of the universe was actually accelerating!
They did? I'm not familiar with this; perhaps you could point me at the
2) Why, if what looks like 'expansion' is actually shrinking, why does
the
expansion only become evident at large scales, galaxy-cluster-wide,
instead of on every scale? Similarly, at which scale does your theory
predict the 'cut-off' to occur, and why?
> > 2) How is your model different than
> > what we already have, with an
> > unusual coordinate transformation imposed,
> > to no discernable effect?
>
> What does it matter to humanity that the Sun will
> become a red giant in 4+ billion years? Tom:
> The quest of scientific research is not unlike
> the birthing of a child... there is no way to
> predict what that baby will grow up to achieve,
> but there is always the certainty that if that
> baby is stillborn, so will all his/her potentials
> to achieve anything also be as stillborn.
I guess you misunderstood my question. I was referring to the fact that
your model seems like another unnecessary principle (that co-ordinate
x-form) pasted onto an already-sufficient set of principles. Working on
the differences in their predictions is sufficient for me to consider
them separate.
> Fortunately, my model of an imploding universe
> does not make identical prediction (as per the
> example I noted above). It's true that my model
> in no way contradicts The Standard Model, but
> the Standard Model is not unlike a description
> of modern day animals: Modern day elements/sub-
> particles are like elephants, tigers, and snails:
> Highly evolved beasts which are rather adequately
> described and understood. My concern is centered
> almost exclusively on how it all originated (and
> this would be the equal, in biological evolution,
> of studying the natural circumstances which led to
> the animo acids which led to the origins of life).
Good luck. No theory will ever find the *ultimate* origins.
> I don't believe I need defend research which is
> not specifically aimed at producing a specific
> product for the public use (as I said before)...
I agree. However, yours patently is such research, as the continuing
growth of your web-site demonstrates.
> > > > and which he has never been able to
> > > > address other than by hand-waving.
> > >
> > > Well, I do what I can; and ever will:
> > > I don't think I can reply to all the posts
> > > here (there, and everywhere), but I'll
> > > give it a shot... tomorrow: Gotta wake up
> > > early tomorrow. So, I'll just wave g'night!
> >
> > Uh huh. You've never even responded to me,
> > let alone answered any of my
> > *scientific* challenges to your model.
>
> I'm sorry, but it appears that you have missed all my
> replies to your posts!
I've addressed why I 'missed' them, but I would have characterized the
situation as you missing the correct target; the forum where the
discussion started.
> But fear not, as you can revisit
> at least some of the ones I found in a search resulting in:
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696425162&fmt=text
Your responses here were pure rhetoric, not saying anything at all to
address my questions.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=696736265&fmt=text
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=698530845&fmt=text
These bits were about the Zeeman Effect being an alternate explanation
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=706604249&fmt=text
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=707027827&fmt=text
also informs us that QM-stuff exists in a fundamentally different way
> Here's the search URL if you wish to find more
> (be sure to include ALL the URL in your browser):
<gigantic URL snipped>
I'm done looking other places for our discussion, here. Please respond
in this forum, if you respond. If there is some other response you had
that you think relavent, please repeat it or find the corresponding URL.
> > Until you do, I'll consider your theory
> > scientifically repudiated, and
> > leave you to entertain in peace.
>
> Since I have done so: I'll consider that, at least
> as far as you're concerned, my theory is
> scientifically proved.
"Not disproved" =/ "proved," unfortunately. But, yes, you've addressed
my questions, so far.
> > Everyone interested in scientific testing
> > can go home now. I've
> > definitively debunked SDRodrian's 'theory',
> > and he asserts that having
> > fun, not explaining the universe, is his goal.
>
> I think you have a lot to explain after you
> go through this reply to your post definitively.
Not really. The point of that particular challenge was to get you
posting, or, as it turns out, posting where you should; here, in the
forum where I've written. It worked great, too.
<rhetoric snipped>
> > I predict we'll hear nothing to contradict me,
> > and little else about the
> > theory itself.
> > -Tm
>
> You need to go into some other business
> (than predicting), Tom.
On the contrary, this was also calculated to get you out in the open,
and though I didn't express it, I knew one of two things had to
happen. Either 1) You'd fail to meet my challenge, confirming my
expressed prediction or 2) You'd respond (where I knew about it), so I
could get the answers to my questions.
It's called a double-bind, and, if designed correctly, is impossible to
escape, without fulfilling the desire inspiring them, as you've
demonstrated.
> Have you tried
> really applying yourself to being a right
> and proper Taliban? The pay may not be
> great, but it's a healthy, outdoors life.
I don't even know what a Taliban is, so I can't answer that.
-Tm
Mark K.
write here appears on about 60 irrelevant newsgroups....
Mark
Tom McWilliams
I can't take responsibility for his spamming. I do remove a few groups
from the headers, which I consider OT.
My objections to his non-consesual use of other's writing was voiced, as
well.
S D Rodrian
dav...@aol.comeherebob (DBC) wrote:
> In article <92qpt3$feb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
>
> >An
> >acceleration of their inflationary universe model
> >is as impossible to explain in reasonable terms
> >as pulling a rabbit out of your ear.
>
> acceleration of a falling object? Not the
> same, but vaguely similar?
> ~David
Actually it's exactly that! In other words:
You have a universe which is in the grips
of that attracting force Gravity which seems
to be expanding instead of collapsing! And
the questions such a self-contradicting notion
give rise to are literally never-ending:
How is such a thing possible at all?
Well, of course it just isn't... so all
the rationalizations you will run across
to attempt to explain this paradox will of
necessity be utter nonsense and gibberish.
"There are NO paradoxes in nature, only
in our minds." --SDR
For a long time now I have been convinced
that "whatever the universe was doing" it
HAD to be doing that at an accelerating pace
because Newton's dictum that a force applied
to a body results in the acceleration of that
body as long as it's being acted on by said
force--Remember that the universe is in the
grips of the force of gravity: There is no
alternative but that "whatever the universe
is doing... it must be found, sooner or later,
to be doing "this" faster and faster as it
continues. And in 1998, finally researchers
discovered that the so-called recession of the
galaxies (the usual proof the the universe is
expanding) is actually accelerating! [1998 was
a very good year for me.] This discovery, of
course, is impossible to explain with any model
of an inflationary universe without employing
nonsensical rationalizations/gibberish such as
the imaginative proposal that there exists some
sort of "funny matter" which produces some sort
of "funny energy" which repels where gravity
attracts--at the same time/place, mind you! Or
the unholy resurrection of Einstein's "worst
blunder" ... that goofy Cosmological Constant he
pulled out of his hat to try to rationalize why
in a universe in the grips of gravity... there
did not seem to be an implosion on a cosmic level:
It was as monstrous a paradox for Einstein as
it still is for everybody else whose superstition
remains that the universe is really expanding;
and, as you can see, their reaction is not only
the same as Einstein's but in some case it IS
Einstein's! [Einstein, of course, immediately
acknowledged the utter goofiness of his "funny
energy" (or Cosmological Constant) proposal as
soon as Hubble established the recession of the
galaxies "constant" ... which is, at least more
reasonably explained by imagining some primordial
Big Bang as the source of the recession/expansion.
[And the reason Einstein was so awfully embarrassed
by his Cosmological Constant proposal is precisely
because it was --and remains-- so darn goofy.]
And there the matter seemed to rest until 1998 when
it was discovered (as it absolutely HAD to be found
in an imploding model) that the so-called expansion
of the universe is accelerating! This pretty much
eliminates the Big Bang theories as the raison d'ete
of such an expansion... and sends cosmology back to
the drawing board where all fanciful Rube Goldberg
confusions are given birth to by our poor unchanging
human nature--e.g. all modern proposals pretty much
run a long the lines of Einstein's "greatest blunder."
So we are back to scratch. And the hurdle remains the
same as faced by Einstein: How is it possible that in
an imploding universe there is not a pile-up of matter?!?!
The answer was always there in the divisibility of
the atom, of course: The atom is NOT fundamental.
This was hard to accept by many, and many more to
this day persist in rejecting the next logical step
(namely, that NO subparticle of matter whatsoever
is likewise fundamental and indivisible... in effect,
that ALL forms of matter are simply that: just "forms").
Once you accept that, it tells you why it is that our
imploding universe does not and never can result in
an accumulation (pile-up) of fundamental matter at its
whatever "center" ... because there is no such thing
in the entire universe as a fundamental form of matter
to begin with! [Yes, neutrons result in a pile-up IN
neutron stars, but Black Hole stars tear them all down
to some more fundamental subparticle(s) if at that, and
so it goes ad infinitum.] And if the entire universe
itself is not only made up simply/exclusively of forms
and not fundamental particles, then the universe itself
is also "a" form and NOT fundamentally "material." And
this is why it can implode/shrink (in place as it were)
without easily giving up the secret of what it's really
up to (imploding)... as at the human level all the grand
choreography of its (the universe's) forms of matter
(each & every last single one of them) imploding (or
"shrinking towards their centers")... creates an almost
perfect ballet of eternal unchangeability for our wonder,
awe, and sheer entertainment. It is both elegant... and
quite simply unimaginably wonderful to behold with eye
or mind.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian
music.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
"I,JM" <X-...@magick.de.PANTS.mon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <93ag0k$vbd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Smug Deluded Rodrian
> <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> writes
> >"There are NO paradoxes in nature, only
> >in our minds."
>
>
> I,JM
Okay then... just for YOU,JM:
"There are no paradoxes in nature, only
in our minds as apart from nature." *
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
* "Nature does not dream, nature does not
lie, nature does not delude herself...
that is something only we do (apart from
nature... as that is our nature)." --SDR