Force of Motion Stronger Than gravity
S D Rodrian
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Hi SDR I am the last person that can argue
> about gravity not being the
> power and creator of the universe.
> We seem to have a paradox if gravity
> wants to bring all things together,
> and we see them flying apart in two ways.
> One way by just exploding,and the other
> vacuum of space getting
> larger between them.
It's simple, elegant, and as downright beautiful
as anyone could have ever dreamt of it being:
1) The universe of energy (Absolute Rest, or
"infinite (scalar) mass") is/was/will be only
ONE single motion, and therefore impossible
to describe as even "moving" at all; and yet
it holds within that singular Motion all the
energy in existence... ready to pour it forth
into the universe of matter by the laws of
thermodynamics.
2) The universe of matter is composed of/created by
a jumble of numberless relativistic motions
vectored "away from" Absolute Rest. That is:
Throughout an unimaginably huge cosmic expanse
the force we now call Gravity manifests its
"distinction" from the primordial "singularity"
of energy which can just as readily be described
as the only true "repulsing" force that exists:
Absolute Rest, or "infinite (scalar) mass."
3) As you know, once manifested, Gravity not ONLY
causes an absolute universal implosion, but, more
important to us... its most meaningful/powerful
interactions are "local" (so that you do not have
a universe where energy "currents" shoot into the
center, but one in which all such currents create
very localized gravitational systems (or vortices,
if you like) even as these "forms" themselves then
proceed to partake in a universe-wide tendency of all
such "gravitational systems" to move towards center.
4) At this point you see what's taking place,
I hope: There was really no so-called "space"
IN that primordial singularity of energy which
I call the universe of energy! But, as soon
as gravitational systems began to "materialize"
they began to compact towards their centers
and away from each other--This, and ONLY this,
is what creates (the) "space" (between them).
5) And now you know all there is to know about how
the universe works: The primordial Singularity
never exploded (it's utter nonsense to suggest
it could have done such a thing)... it imploded.
The "materialization" of "discreet, individual"
gravitational systems subsequently became inevitable.
[NOTE: Evolution IS inevitable BECAUSE it is not
consciously directed (and therefore able to go in any
direction it likes), it is inevitable because it's ONLY
a response to (an adaptation to) its environment: If
the environment of upright-walking apes demands higher
intelligence in the competition for survival... one gets
Man; & if the environment of those "first" primordial
gravitational systems (gravity) demands that they
coalesce/integrate into ever more complex structures
all the way up to galaxies: That... they must do & will.]
These "forms of matter" FIRST wind themselves up
ever tighter and tighter and THEN "move" (as distinct
individual entities) towards each other: But notice
that they MUST first "shrink" in order to "create"
the room (gaps between them, or "space") to permit
them to THEN and ONLY then close those gaps.
The understanding of this two-distinct-steps process
is crucial because it is the only way to understand
what "space" really is, and why/how/where it comes
from: There must forever be a "lag" between the two
steps... infinitesimal at the closest of ranges, but
almost infinitely magnified by astronomical distances
(once the universe has evolved into "particles" such as
atoms & galaxies)... only too obviously to our eyes
in the observable phenomenon where the more distant
galaxies are from each other the faster they are receding
from each other: Astronomical distances magnify this
REAL effect, with the result that, for us, the galaxies
really ARE receding (and even if it's only relativistically,
this is meaningless inside a universe where EVERYTHING
is relativistic, including our very selves).
6) Are galaxies absolutely receding from each other?
No. But absolute truth is outside our understanding
(perhaps forever). Only relativistic truth matters
IN here, in this material universe. [SO, at least for
the time being, it is futile to attempt to propose
"gravitons" as some kind of fundamental particles
even if it's impossible for our brains to think in terms
of motion without some "thing" moving.] IN here,
inside this relativistic universe of ours the galaxies are
REALLY and TRULY receding from each other (or,
"creating space" between them). Photons that travel
such "newly minted space" bring us the news that it
(that space, that distance) really does exist AND that
it is forever growing PRECISELY BECAUSE "space"
is the absence of matter, which is all we know "to
exist." Think of it this way... there are 3 bodies: A, B,
and C.... A and C are inhabited planets, while B
is "the photon" that travels between them. If A and
C planets begin to shrink in place but without changing
their forms as they shrink... their inhabitants can never
notice that any shrinking is taking place (they must
conclude that the two planets have suddenly begun
moving away from each other). And because "space"
does not "exist," there is no limit to how much of it can
be "created" between planets A and C. Say now that
the two planets fire photons at each other: If photons
did not shrink, they would ALWAYS take (almost)
the same exact time to travel A to C and there would be
NO red-shifts, which would puzzle A and C scientists
no end, considering they can very obviously SEE that
their planets are receding from each other! But, what
would result if photons also shrink the same way the
planets are shrinking? The photons would take longer
& longer to go from A to C and therefore would report
to the A and C planets' scientists that their planets were
indeed receding from each other. WE know they are in
absolute error (as A and C are NOT moving away from
each other but only shrinking in place)... however, to the
A and C planets' scientists, their relativistic truth would far
outweigh our absolute truth: In their real world experience,
their planets REALLY are moving away from each other...
and so too with "us" here inside our relativistic universe:
Our galaxies really ARE moving away from each other;
and the farther they are... the faster they are doing so.
The shrinking photons IN our universe are telling us that
this is REALLY what's happening (with their red-shifts).
The ONLY difference between our universe and the analogy
above is that photons cannot exist in the world of that
analogy, but only in ours. See: http://web.sdrodrian.com
That fact gives us one of the strongest pieces of evidence
yet that ours is indeed an imploding universe (as natural a
phenomena of Nature as black holes & collapsing stars)
because even though the photons are shrinking in place
exactly like every other form of matter in existence...
they are NOT partaking of that crucial second STEP in
the process of implosion [namely, joining all the other
forms of ordinary matter in their collective "motion"
towards each other]... with the result that the "speed of
light" is always reported as identical in identical mediums
(the universe is imploding throughout "mostly" uniformly
and, therefore, because the photon is not joining in in that
STEP of the imploding motion, everywhere in the universe
where a photon exists... the rest of the universe of matter
is rushing past it at the same rate with regard to mass.]
> SDR the two independent groups came up with the same
> answer,that shows it must be true. The most
> interesting thing I get out of it is
> that over time this expansion is
> accelerating, and that means its getting
> added energy,
THAT, Herb, is the very illogical reason(ing) which
first put me on the path of a more logical approach
to the riddle of how the universe really works:
The ONLY way to accept your notion [above] is to
ignore one of the most cherished laws of physics
(that energy cannot be created or destroyed). And so
the ONLY way to explain a true expanding universe
is to therefore propose that "somewhere in space"
energy is being created out of nothingness! (And
this is the current most popular explanation in today's
conventional physics: sadly betraying the wretched
state of our destitute human condition.) While, on
the other hand, it's obvious that an imploding universe
not only requires no violation of that cherished prohibition
against the creation/destruction of energy... but all the
pieces of the puzzle in an imploding universe model
fit together seamlessly: Energy creates "matter" (work;
and now we know where the energy in/of the primordial
"singularity" has gone)... and the energy in that "matter"
de-creates the "matter" it created (work; and now we
not only know that the energy in matter is going back
to where it came from--thermodynamics--but we also
know what MUST be happening to all that matter in spite
of the fact that we cannot directly observe it very well
because if the energy in matter is being made to do "work"
(siphoned off, as it were, to do "work"), then there can
be but one thing happening to that matter... and that is
that it must be "reducing." And if the forms of matter
are "reducing" (shrinking)... the only thing that could
possibly be keeping us from "seeing" this... is precisely
that because all the forms of matter MUST merely/only
be forms (and not fundamental)... and they are therefore
retaining their form(s) even as they "shrink." And now
you know why the universe of matter will NOT end up
in a pile-up (accumulation) of matter at its "center" but,
rather, will (mostly) "forever" exist as it has always existed
until it runs out of the least amount of energy it requires
to maintain the forms of the forms of matter. Then we will
have what we had at the beginning of the universe of matter
(and ever have had)... ONE singular SINGLE Motion
(however you wish to term it: Absolute Rest, the universe
of energy, or infinite (scalar) mass).
Most important of all: Existence is based upon
a fundamental "storehouse" of energy which, to
us poor relativistic beings in here... has always
existed--Our existence does not result from magic
but from a fundamental motion (stream, current, or
whatever else you wish to call it... I myself call
it "Absolute Rest" (et al)... because to us it is the
basis of existence itself & it's therefore ONE single
Motion (it's impossible for us to describe the ONLY
Motion that "really" exists in relativistic terms: the only
terms that have meaning IN our universe). Moreover,
this does not violate our cherished prohibition against
the creation/destruction of energy: "If in order to exist,
Existence would have had to have a beginning: It could
NEVER have come into existence." However, in spite
of the fact that ALL motion is relative (we might never
know "relative to what" is that Singular Motion of the
universe of energy... motion), that Singular Motion still
remains Absolute Rest in relation to our existence IN
the universe of matter BECAUSE relative to all the
motions IN our universe IT IS (at) Absolute Rest
(however it may be "moving" with respect to whatever
"exists" beyond/outside the complete universe). Period.
> and the further
> away structures are the weaker
> their mutual attraction.
> I will give your implosion theory more thought.
> Have you tied in this
> with the photon's wave length? Herb
No relevancy whatever: The photon is shrinking
right along with the rest of the universe (and
this means that as far as the photon "knows"
the only effect taking place is that galaxies are
indeed receding faster/slower from each other,
so that the wave length remains longer the faster
(and therefore farther away) the source/observer
are). [Or... distances are getting longer, "space"
is getting vaster. Keep in mind that there are NO
absolutes inside the universe (the "width" of the
wave is neither large nor small but larger or smaller
than...)... And keep in mind that "stretching" wave
lengths into the red side of the spectrum can result
either from the photon moving past the observer OR
the observer moving past the photon.]
Distances between cosmic bodies remain forever
caught in a duality of "seemingly" mutually-
excluding conditions. "Seemingly" because there
are NO paradoxes in Nature, only in our minds:
As the universe implodes it absolutely shrinks,
and therefore the galaxies really ARE eternally
coming closer and closer--But, because matter is not
fundamental, and ALL the forms of matter in(side)
the universe are merely/only/just that --forms--
their shrinking (while retaining their "forms/shapes")
really IS "creating space" between them... and to us,
here inside the universe, the galaxies really ARE
eternally receding from each other. The former is
only an Absolute Truth, while the latter is only
a Relativistic Truth... therefore: no real paradox:
If you could look upon the universe from outside
(it) you would see it absolutely shrinking. But,
here, deep inside the universe as we are... we
know something which such an observer looking upon
the universe from outside might never even dare
dream could be possible: Unlike what happens when
a small star collapses, the imploding universe is NOT
resulting (and never will result) in an accumulation
of matter at its center... for the universe is in fact
dissipating!
[So much for all our speculation from way out here
on what the belly of a black hole must be like!]
You may grasp the mechanics of this by visiting:
http://web.sdrodrian.com (And if you still require
even more redundant elucidations: I have added links
to comments I've made to usenet's interested parties
over the last year or so about this.)
E=MC^2 means exactly that: The universe of matter
is "created" from/by the universe of energy: It surges
forth as vector motions and evolves through the millennia
into the particle-based universe we know today... only to
once again vanish back into the universe of energy.
[Remember that energy is motion, motion energy... and
that the universe of energy is "=" absolute rest.] But
in the meantime, here we are enjoying ourselves, and
so it will be NOT until we coalesce at some center zero
coordinate, but for as long as the universe of matter retains
enough "energy" to sustain the wondrous forms and shapes
of the forms and shapes of matter.
I'm still in good shape, Herb. And... are you?
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
S D Rodrian
"hank evans" <h...@sapart.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:911j3p$f1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> <Snip>
>
> But
> > in the meantime, here we are enjoying ourselves, and
> > so it will be NOT until we coalesce at some center zero
> > coordinate, but for as long as the universe of matter retains
> > enough "energy" to sustain the wondrous forms and shapes
> > of the forms and shapes of matter.
> >
> >
>
> Marvelous, SD.
> A very attractive theory (no pun intended) .
Nice none-the-less.
> Apart from the fact that you have formulated
> (discovered) it, I wonder what
> difference it makes to our lives?
Hard to say: It's a little bit like trying to
predict the same thing about some new-born baby.
At the moment, a recognition of the proper way
the universe works merely resolves esoteric puzzles
of interest mostly to astrophysicists and researchers
in related disciplines. [Why the speed of light always
comes out as constant in identical mediums AND
independent of source/observer. Why radiation is even
possible at all, in fact. Why, if the universe really
has been expanding for as long as even the age of its
oldest objects... it's not a lot much more spread out
and diluted than it is. (et al) If we know the true
path of the universe's evolution, it leads us to its
true origins and certain fate. In fact, it is always
the case that the key to getting anywhere in life
is turning up the right path to one's destination.]
As for my own part in all this: You have to
understand that the first "modern" efforts in trying
to understand the origins of the universe go back to
early/mid 20th Century debates between those who
proposed some sort of "steady-state" model (which
did not have to rely on "a" beginning/end) and
those who proposed the naive Big Bang/inflationary
theories in which every new discovery seems to create
yet another objection to previous discoveries... the
latest example of which being the artificial need for
"dark matter" to account for the insufficiency of
spinning galaxies' mass to keep their stars from
drifting into space (as they obviously are managing
to do)... AND the, also artificial, need for some sort
of (repelling, cosmological constant kind of) "funny
energy" to account for the fact that while gravity
is everywhere pulling things together... the universe
"seems" to be AT THE SAME TIME pushing itself apart:
The proof Hubble saw through his telescope, most crucial
of all, threw an almost fatal monkeywrench into the
process (and seemed to close for all time the dialogue
which might have otherwise led to understanding the
true nature of the universe. [In effect, the proof
Hubble saw through his telescope was that not only
were most galaxies receding from planet earth (as
had been developed from the "Doppler" effect posited
by Johann Doppler and demonstrated by Armand Fizeau,
and used by William Higgins, Hertzsprung, Slipher and
other astronomers to pick up clues from cosmic red-
shifts... but that galaxies were receding from each
other faster the farther they were from each other...
or that the entire universe seemed to be expanding!
The discovery of this "proof" was so startling and
conclusive that it killed any & all further attempts
to explain the evolution of the universe in terms of
the laws of physics (murdered in Einstein's own embryonic
Cosmological Constant proposal) and instead "created"
a model of the universe as "bursting forth" out of a
"cosmic egg" almost already fully-formed like Athena
from the forehead of Zeus, or Adam from the sands of
time brought to life but by the Word of Jehovah ("not
that there's anything wrong with that"), and requiring
of subsequent researchers nothing more than a polite
debate over whether the mass of the universe was enough
to cause its expansion to come to a halt and reverse
direction (Big Collapse), or whether its mass was not
enough to counter the force of the primordial Big Bang
and the universe would forever dilute itself into
unimaginably spread-out bits in the eternal nothingness
(not unlike arguing over the exact number of angels
that can dance on the head of a pin... certainly a
mathematician's paradise, I dare say). But, as you see:
I am not as original as you make me out to be (all I
have done is to again pick up the trail from where it was
abandoned because of Hubble's "proof" that the universe
was "expanding" ... a "proof" which ever since then has
resulted in self-contradictions/Rube Goldberg explanations
of every subsequent discovery that has pointed to the
untenable nature of the inflationary universe model).
The seed was the theory of black hole stars and how
it suggested that such phenomena were perfectly natural
in the universe. The precipitant: Finally abandoning
the ancient notion that there is a fundamental particle
(entity) among the ranks of the forms of matter. And
the crucible, as always... the marketplace of free ideas.
> If it is the Absolute Truth (and I'll
> say, again, that I find it very compelling)
> and we exist in a relativistic
> universe which is shrinking, then
> don't we have to say that we have no
> absolute concept of our size?
Absolutely: There is a superstition abroad in the land
that there is a "Planck length" beyond which nothing
smaller can exist--And that is as unreasonable as the
notion that there is a size beyond which nothing bigger
can exist. EVERYTHING is either bigger/smaller than
a bread box, as Steve Allen knew (bless his soul).
> It is always changing.... in fact it is
> increasing [sic] in its rate of shrinking...
It MUST be (because it's doing so under
the continuous application of the "force"
of gravity, the implosion of the universe
MUST forever be accelerating).
> ... and so we might be the size
> of atoms or subatomic particles (by now)......
We will always be the size we have always been
(because our rulers are shrinking as much as we).
> Then couldn't we (our
> relativistic universe) actually be
> as a particle in some being? And,
From the instant gravity manifested itself
and the universe of matter was born, countless
generations of "gravitational systems" (particles
if you like) have been evolving. This is an ongoing
process which can never cease (to my knowledge)
and so it goes on in our "epoch" as well, for
I suspect that black hole stars are yet another
generation of "particle" evolving before our eyes
(and that our universe of galaxies/stars/atoms
will eventually become a universe of whatever
particles our "black holes" will evolve into
their subparticles.
> further, couldn't all the particles
> we claim to be detecting be relativistic
> (shrinking) universes?
Absolutely not! Definitely not universes
in the same way we think of our universe:
Think of atoms and their subparticles as
an interdependent structure creating "a" level
(or generation) of matter in a chain of
generations stretching one upon another back
to the beginning of the universe of matter:
Although I could never categorically rule out
the possibility that life as we know it is only
possible in this the present generation of matter
... I also cannot see how it could be otherwise.
> Doesn't this all add up to pantheism?
Who knows!? Certainly not I. All I can say
with any authority is that, like everybody else,
I know there is no God, yet I believe in Him.
This is the normal/natural dichotomy in the
human experience: Knowledge concerns what we
can verify experimentally, Faith concerns what
we can not repudiate by/with knowledge: I know...
the condition of Faith is an irrational condition,
but it's the human condition.
> I appreciate your posts.... many thanx
You're welcome & thanks 2 U.
> peace ;)
>
> Hank :)
S D Rodrian
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Hi SD Well I put your theory in
> my reference file. I read down to
> where you have the singularity
> not exploding, but imploding.
> QM has the singularity taking up no space.
> So what can it implode into?
The problem, Herb, is that "size" is always
relative; so... if the primordial "singularity"
(of energy) is the ONLY thing that exists...
how are you going to describe it as either
big or small (when it can never be described
as bigger than/smaller than anything else)...?
Moreover: There is NO WAY to describe it
as smaller than "us" without calling upon the
illogical conclusion that Everything comes out of
Nothingness. While, on the other hand, the
proposal that little ole "we" (the universe of
matter) come from something bigger than us
is almost a requirement of Nature:
The universe of energy implodes (creates
the universe of matter we know & love).
This "only" means that the universe of energy
was ALL that existed. And the ONLY thing
we can say... is that the universe of matter
was "smaller than" that universe of energy
(or primordial singularity, if you like) from
which "we" came (evolved).
Think for a minute: Ours (our universe of
matter) is ruled/governed by gravity [in
fact, one can even say that it IS gravity and
ONLY gravity]. So the ONLY thing such
a universe can be doing is imploding. There
is no way to get around that conclusion.
> That tells me it can only go in one direction,
> the direction it is
> still going in, outward. Herb
Herb, if the universe were expanding:
the acceleration of that expansion
would be mind-boggling. But if the
universe is imploding... it would be
impossible to propose that an acceleration
of that implosion could be avoided:
All such accelerations always result only
from a "force" being continuously applied
and the ONLY "force" the universe is being
continuously subjected to is the "force"
of gravity. It's as simple as that--
The notion (I prefer the more accurate term
"superstition") that the universe is expanding
comes ONLY from a historical misinterpretation:
The misinterpreted finding that the galaxies are
receding from each other (no one has stood outside
the universe and directly observed it expanding).
The problem is that practically every natural
effect (which would & is explained very
straightforwardly if you do so from an imploding
universe model)... becomes a self-contradicting
messy puzzle when you attempt to explain it
from an expanding universe model. [As with all
superstitions... ghosts & other supernatural
phenomena is honestly reported... where none can be
ultimately proved. And, ultimately, the fact remains
that in every instance explanations from the
expanding universe model are convoluted, Rube
Goldberg constructs usually notoriously irrational
and counter-intuitive... while, to my knowledge, all
explanations from the imploding universe model
are simple, logical, elegant, and quite, quite, quite
embarrassingly obvious.] http://web.sdrodrian.com
Remember, Herb: There are NO absolutes here:
If the ONLY "thing" that exists is, say, an
electron... is it big? ... small?
That "primordial singularity" could ONLY
have been bigger than the universe of matter
because from the instant of its birth
the universe of matter manifests gravity
(not TNT).
S D Rodrian
S D Rodrian
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Hi SDR The photon's wave tells us t
> he universe is expanding.
No it does NOT, Herb. Think:
What the photon's wave is telling us
is that the galaxies are receding from each other
(or more accurately still: that the distances
between the galaxies are elongating). To jump
from that to the conclusion that the universe
itself is expanding is at least premature... and
humiliating, now that we are beginning to realize
that the universe is in reality imploding.
> The amount
> of matter in the universe is constant.
That goes against one of the most fundamental
truisms in physics (that energy cannot be
created or destroyed)... ONLY the amount of energy
in the (complete) universe can be constant (and only
if it "really" exists homogeneously). But "matter"
CAN NOT "move" without the expenditure of energy
[and, in a simple analogy, you can't burn (move)
a bucket of gas without the gas being used up:
simple as that]. The notion that the universe of
matter can "have" MOTION at all WITHOUT the
expenditure of energy is as irrational/unreasonable
as to propose that in "a pool-table universe"
where the only things (or forms of "matter") that
existed were the balls on that table... those
balls could forever continue to bounce about
without having been "broken (up)" by a pool-shooter
[Big Bang theories] or being kept in motion by
the table itself rattling as if haunted [steady state
theories].
The ONLY mechanism which squares with the truism
that energy cannot be created/destroyed is one
in which energy is momentarily "conserved" IN
the form of matter ("converted" into "matter")
AND --at the same time-- "converted" back into
energy (or, "conserved" once again as energy).
This is the ONLY MOTION that energy/matter can
be put to (to do "work") under the laws of
thermodynamics. And this means that the only
workable/natural/organic/bona fide/valid/intuitive
model of a universe allowed by the laws of physics
and sanity is one which, undergoing implosion,
and in which there can be NO forms of matter that
are fundamental BECAUSE the ONLY place from which
such an implosion could possibly be drawing its
energy from is... from those "forms" of matter.
[Or, as somebody once said: "E=MC^2"]
The intellectual hurdle that as to be crossed
is acceptance of the, admittedly, "bizarre"
effect which results from all the forms of matter
being, not fundamental, but just merely "forms"
(which do not lose their FORM/shapes even as they
are surrendering their energy to the "work" of
the imploding universe)... Nothing seems to change
in the human experience. So it is as difficult
for some of us to accept that fact that the universe
in which we live is as if a "singularity" in the
"center" of some unimaginably huge "black hole"
... as it was for most of us to accept that the
ground on which we walked was but "a spinning sphere
suspended in the voids," as it were. But I have
no doubts that we shall come to a modern realization
of the true nature of our imploding universe
much sooner that we came to accept that the earth
was "round" [Eratosthenes of Cyrene, around 240 BC,
figured out that the reason why when the noontime Sun
in Syene (Egypt) was exactly overhead on June 21
it was just off in Alexandria (500 miles away) and
he realized that it had to be because the surface
of the earth curved away from the Sun: Using simple
geometry Eratosthenes then worked out (from the
difference size of the shadow cast in one place
and the other) by how much the earth's surface
"curved" between the two cities 500 miles apart
... and from the results, of course, it the became
inevitable for Eratosthenes to work out both the
circumference and diameter of the spherical Earth!
By the way, his figures gave him a result of (approx.)
8,000 miles for the diameter of our planet and (again
approx.) 25,000 miles for its circumference--Which
turned out to be MORE accurate than estimates still
being made in the 1700s! Go figure.]
But you can see why I am overwhelmingly confident:
The earth always was and always will be spherical
whether we realize & accept it. And our universe
has always been and will always be imploding; so
it really doesn't matter whether you hear it from
me, discover it yourself, or the whole business is
left to be discovered a couple of thousand years
from now, Herb.
> That means the overall
> gravitational force can't get stronger.
That's only relativistically true: Look at it
this way... as the universe "shrinks" there is
less and less fuel (or, the energy IN matter)
for it to "work" its engine BUT the engine has
less and less "work" to do BECAUSE of the shrinking
of the universe. The net result is that NOTHING
changes for us, here inside the universe of matter.
> If distances keep getting bigger
> between structures this weakens
> their mutual attraction.
ONLY in a true (impossible) expanding universe:
In our imploding universe "distances" are only
elongating relativistically... but they are, in
absolute terms, really diminishing: Think of a
mile's length between two "points" receding from
each other IN our imploding universe... where
the implosion is happening so fast that a mile's
length is reduced to about an inch in the time
it takes our two receding "points" to travel
a couple of feet from each other: Are those two
"points" really coming closer to each other with
time, or getting farther? Again: The answer is
that they are "absolutely" getting closer with
time at the same time that they are getting farther
away from each other relativistically. [And now
you know the answer to whether the galaxies IN
our imploding universe are getting farther and
farther from each other, or coming closer and
closer: They are doing both at the same time; one
being an absolute truth, while the other is only
a relativistic truth. This, in essence, is why
I named the description of this imploding model
of the universe "Absolute Relativity."] Visit:
http://web.sdrodrian.com & take the time to think.
> Size is
> not relative if you are thinking of space.
I seldom think of space (instead
I try to think of something).
> There is a good reason why a
> singularity has no inner space,
> nor does it take up space.
There can be no true perfectly homogeneous
singularities in our universe because there
are NO fundamental forms of matter (particles).
Not to mention the fact that it would violate
the laws of thermodynamics (it it's all the same
"in there" then there is no motion "in it"
and, why mince words: Motion is (energy by its
more human term) the only thing that exists.
> It has to
> also have infinite density.
The only thing that has been proven
time and time again to be infinite IN
our universe... is human ignorance.
> SDR to have
> everything moving inward (imploding)
> might work if the universe was
> contracting, but the opposite is
> what is shown to us on a large scale.
> Stars can implode and create strong
> gravity objects and these are
> spread through space,
> but as strong as their gravity is
> it only effects
> some objects near them
> and the universe goes right on expanding
> at an accelerated rate.
Herb: Think about it for a minute (it's SO
simple, I'm almost embarrassed to repeat it).
1) ALL that exists/ever existed is the universe
of energy (a Singular motion which because
it's the only thing that exists = Absolute Rest).
2) Once gravity is manifested, vector/relativistic
motions arise in the form of gravitational systems
(think of these as coalescing particles, if you
wish) and you can see how as they "pull" away from
each other (shrink in place, if you wish)...
distance (space, if you wish) between them
makes its first ever appearance in the universe.
3) Result: As the forms of matter (particles, or
gravitational systems) shrink... relativistic
distances between them "grows" EVEN AS the entire
imploding universe itself contracts.
4) That process is still ongoing today, of course.
And at this stage, magnified tremendously by
astronomical distances... we can easily observe
the galaxies "creating space/distance" between
themselves. [The farther the distance between
them the more space/distance is necessarily
created.] And the only requirement the universe
makes of us, as it presents us with its ultimate
truths... is that we look on them less with our eyes
than with our insights.
S D Rodrian
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > The answer to your question is within
> > the body of the post you bit into.
> >
> > Please read it again, and this time
> > try to digest it. [Kindly.]
>
> I can't. Perhaps you could kindly rephrase
> your answer so that a simpleton
> like me can understand.
It's a snap! [ Men can ape apes
better than apes and ape man. --SDR ]
> How can the distance between galaxies
> be increasing in an imploding universe?
Simple:
1) the universe is imploding (shrinking)
2) ALL the forms of matter IN it are shrinking
AND they are only "forms/shapes" and NOT
fundamental (i.e. atoms et al can be split)
3) The process is in two steps: FIRST the
forms of matter shrink in place (towards
their "centers") and THEN they all engage
in a collective rush towards each other.
4) Necessarily step 1 must happen before
step 2 because if it were the other way
around... the forms of matter would crash
instead of giving birth (creating) space
between them.
5) This "time lapse" between steps 1 and 2
is infinitesimal up to the human level,
but because it is magnified with distance
at the level of astronomical distances
it becomes observable:
6) We see "space" being created (really only
"distance" being elongated) between galaxies
and it "looks" to us as if they are flying
apart, when what they're really doing is
(mostly) shrinking in place FASTER [step 1]
than they are rushing towards each other [step 2]
I hope you cannot claim now that
I have not simplified it for you, Terri:
The only thing left after this is
simplifying it for the apes. (And, yes:
I can give even that a shot, if I have to.)
> Theresa
S D Rodrian
"Michael Varney" <mva...@muswest.net> wrote:
>
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:91abg6$h53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > > > In article
<23290-3A...@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > > > herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> > > > > Hi SDR The photon's wave tells us t
> > > > > he universe is expanding.
> > > >
> > > > No it does NOT, Herb. Think:
> > > > What the photon's wave is telling us
> > > > is that the galaxies are receding from each other
> > > > (or more accurately still: that the distances
> > > > between the galaxies are elongating). To jump
> > > > from that to the conclusion that the universe
> > > > itself is expanding is at least premature... and
> > > > humiliating, now that we are beginning to realize
> > > > that the universe is in reality imploding.
> > >
> > > then how come the galaxies are
> > > getting further apart ?
> > > Theresa
> >
> > Terri, it's hard enough for us to
> > understand with our brains: Trying to
> > understand with our teeth is... too much.
> > The answer to your question is within
> > the body of the post you bit into.
> >
> > Please read it again, and this time
> > try to digest it. [Kindly.]
>
> Please learn some cosmology and try again.
Bzz! Wrong again Barney.
Try supplying a REASON
why you disagree with what I've said.
... Unless it's all simply just emotional
baggage with you... in which case PLEASE do
keep your lack of REASON to yourself.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.com
sdrodrian.com
Richard A. Schumacher
moving apart from each other, which proves that the universe is
getting smaller. Thanks for sharing.
S D Rodrian
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > 1) the universe is imploding (shrinking)
> >
> > 2) ALL the forms of matter IN it are shrinking
> > AND they are only "forms/shapes" and NOT
> > fundamental (i.e. atoms et al can be split)
>
Because of some stuff or other called
"gravity" (stuff also makes stars shrink
into white dwarfs... weird stuff that).
> > 3) The process is in two steps: FIRST the
> > forms of matter shrink in place (towards
> > their "centers") and THEN they all engage
> > in a collective rush towards each other.
>
> Why ?
Look at the BECAUSE below:
> > 4) Necessarily step 1 must happen before
> > step 2 BECAUSE if it were the other way
> > around... the forms of matter would crash
> > instead of giving birth (creating) space
> > between them.
> >
> > 5) This "time lapse" between steps 1 and 2
> > is infinitesimal up to the human level,
> > but because it is magnified with distance
> > at the level of astronomical distances
> > it becomes observable:
> >
> > 6) We see "space" being created (really only
> > "distance" being elongated) between galaxies
> > and it "looks" to us as if they are flying
> > apart, when what they're really doing is
> > (mostly) shrinking in place FASTER [step 1]
> > than they are rushing towards each other [step 2]
>
> How does red shift fit in?
[God, I hope you know what waves are!]
Picture a background of painted waves and then
imagine two objects passing before them: One very slowly
the other one very quickly. Now, if you take a picture
of one second of each object's passing and look at them
you will notice that within the same (one second) frame
of the two pictures there are many more waves in the
background in the picture with the faster-passing object
than in the picture with the slower-passing one:
This means that if the waves were sound waves the
faster passing object would hear a much higher pitch
than the slower passing object (in spite of the fact
that both of them were passing the same background
painting). And the same is true if the object itself
were standing still and it was the background of waves
that was moving faster/slower.
And, of course, if you're talking light waves (where
the higher pitch = a shift to the blue side of the spectrum
and more distended waves shift to the red side of the
spectrum)... Light waves coming from a galaxy which
is moving away from us will also be "more distended"
than those coming from a galaxy moving towards us.
SImple calculation can then tell us how fast a galaxy
is moving away from/toward us... depending on whether
the light waves are shifted to the red or blue side
of the spectrum. NOW YOU KNOW.
> What predictions does you theory make
> that differ from the standard
> expanding universe idea ?
That the so-called "expansion" would eventually
be found to be accelerating. In 1998 researchers
finally found indisputable proof that this was so
(baffling the entire astrophysics community) and
making it a very satisfying year for moi. SEE:
By the way, it is ONLY by accepting the fact
that the universe is imploding that one can
finally understand why it is that the speed of light
is always constant in identical mediums. Which see.
> > I hope you cannot claim now that
> > I have not simplified it for you, Terri:
>
> Please don't call me that, I hate it.
> Theresa
I don't remember ever calling you That.
However, since you asked, I will call you
Theresa. Unless you want me to call you
Notatol.
S D Rodrian
schu...@convex.hp.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
> Ah, of course! All the clusters
> of galaxies in the universe are
> moving apart from each other, which
> proves that the universe is
> getting smaller.
BEGIN QUOTE
END QUOTE
> Thanks for sharing.
Let me share this as well: The only thing
a closed mind lets is... is flies, for
it is invariably always rotten.
I wish you the best of luck, as
I fear you are going to need it.
S D Rodrian
> of galaxies in the universe are
> moving apart from each other, which
> proves that the universe is
> getting smaller.
BEGIN QUOTE
END QUOTE
> Thanks for sharing.
S D Rodrian
> of galaxies in the universe are
> moving apart from each other, which
> proves that the universe is
> getting smaller.
BEGIN QUOTE
END QUOTE
> Thanks for sharing.
S D Rodrian
"Johannes Fortmann" <J.Fortma...@gmx.de> wrote:
> : It is the same and ONLY thing, Herb:
> : The only force required is the force
> : of gravity. There is NO force repelling
>
> I don't get your point at all.
> The force of gravity is evidently
> existing, you just have to drop
> something to see it.
> If now the universe is expanding,
> like scientists say, there must at
> least have been some other force
> to give it an impulse "outward".
> If this expansion is an acccelerated
> movement, some force must be
> constantly applied (for accelerations sake).
BEGIN QUOTE: [which I spruced up a bit here]
In article <91e9ii$vv1$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:91c5e0$2bu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> How does red shift fit in?
[God, I hope you know what waves are!]
Picture a background (a wall?) of painted waves and then
imagine two persons passing before them: One very slowly
the other one very quickly. Now, if you take a picture of
one second of each person's passing [sic] and look at them
you will notice that within the same (one second) frame
of the two pictures there are many more waves in the
background in the picture with the faster-passing person
than in the picture with the slower-passing one: This
means that if the waves were sound waves the faster passing
person would hear a much higher pitch than the slower passing
person (in spite of the fact that both of them were passing
the same painted background). --Very tightly bunched-up waves
produce a higher pitch than very spaced out ones-- [sic]
And the same effect would also ensue if a person were standing
still and it was the background of waves that was moving "by
him/her" faster/slower... because even if the "pitch" of the
waves is "set in stone" an observer will either "hear it" in
in a higher/lower pitch if either he/she travels through them
faster/slower (thereby stuffing fewer or more of them within
the same "time-frame") or the flow of waves themselves are
the ones traveling faster/slower (thereby stuffing fewer or
more of them into the same "time/frame").
And, of course, if you're talking "light waves" (where the
"higher pitch" = a shift to the "blue" side of the spectrum
while more distended waves shift to the "red" side of the
spectrum)... the "light waves" of quantum particles coming
from a galaxy which is moving away from us will also be
"more distended" than those of quantum particles coming from
a galaxy moving towards us [in the accordion-like existence
of waves, they are stringed out when fewer of them pass
the earth in a given "time-frame" if the earth is (speaking
relativistically now) going their way... than if the earth
is going in the direction the waves are coming from: and there
you have proof not only that some galaxies are moving away
from us faster than others, but, as Hubble discovered, that
the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it's moving away
from us].
In any case, the result is that the galaxies really ARE
receding from each other... faster the farther they are
from each other. But this does no prove (as the post-Hubble
cosmologists prematurely jumped to conclude) that the universe
is "steadily/continuously expanding." [At best, they should
have merely assumed it might mean that... because such an
effect is NEVER to be found anywhere else in Nature (as Newton
knew)... in Nature, ALL inflations/expansions/explosions are
absolutely limited to/by the amount of energy behind them:
volcanic eruption, stick of dynamite, heating of a gas, or
a supernova... whatever, it matters not: "inflations" do NOT
create but destroy.] But, we are creatures ultimately driven
more by instant gratification than by patience and wisdom.
But all that is behind us now. At this point in human history
we can again revisit the Hubble discovery and instead of
simply citing his discovery as proof that the universe is
expanding, we can now ask, perhaps for the first time... what
does it mean that the galaxies seem to be receding from each
other as if against the laws of physics? And if the answer is
that it is merely an optical illusion, how could such an
illusion fit in with the laws of physics? Had these been the
questions raised by Hubble's finding (instead of the answers
he & his contemporaries proposed it was gift-wrapping for them)
it might have been possible for them to deduce that if two
inhabited planets standing side by side were to suddenly begin
shrinking in place (towards their centers)... without giving
any obvious clues that that's what they were really doing: the
inhabitants of those two planets would have no alternative but
to conclude that their planets had suddenly begun receding from
each other! [I have no doubt their scientists would very quickly
develop some inflationary theory or other... in spite of what
their laws of physics told them was impossible, just as ours.]
Although, from a strictly historical perspective, it seems
(at least to me) that physics' fundamental error might really
have turned out to be quite felicitous, because had physicists
learned from the 1920s what they learned in the 1940s at the
Manhattan Project... I wonder if we'd still be here so idly
bantering our whatever opinions back & forth. Now...
I've very often said that the primordial universe of energy
was/is ONE motion--And doesn't that mean that at least it
is some sort of eternally/steadily continuing expansion?
No it does not: To describe the universe of energy as somehow
"increasing" is merely a semantic conceit, for its reality
is far closer to it also being a coalescence of/from some vaster
"region" (it would be a clear violation of the conservation
of energy principle to posit energy gushing out of nowhere
like a fountain and flowing outwardly... so the only possible
alternative left to us is to deduce that that primordial store-
house of energy was/is literally what "it all" boiled down to).
However, being the ONE and only Motion in existence, the universe
of energy can be described both as absolute rest AND as an
outward-ly repelling force... the instant gravity manifests
itself and the universe of matter "moves" away from it: Note
that the universe of matter is also a coalescence (of/from the
universe of energy). And, of course, every single one of its
gravitational systems is also a coalescence... an unbroken
string from the primordial existence to the present on (where
galaxies are even now coalescing into black holes).
> What predictions does you theory make
> that differ from the standard
> expanding universe idea ?
That the so-called "expansion" would eventually
be found to be accelerating. [From Newton's dictum
that it is only when a force is continuously applied
to a body that it undergoes an acceleration Knowing
that the universe is imploding means knowing that the
force of gravity IS continuously exerting its force
on all the bodies of the universe... ergo, it MUST be
found that whatever the universe is "doing" that "work"
either HAD to be found to be accelerating OR the laws
of physics just do not work as they've been defined.
In 1998 researchers finally found indisputable proof
that it was indeed the case that what the universe is
doing it's managing to do faster and faster with time
(baffling the entire astrophysics community)... but
making 1998 a very satisfying year for moi.] SEE:
By the way, it is ONLY by accepting the fact
that the universe is imploding that one can
finally understand why it is that the speed of light
is always constant in identical mediums. Which SEE.
> > I hope you cannot claim now that
> > I have not simplified it for you, Terri:
>
> Please don't call me that, I hate it.
> Theresa
I don't remember ever calling you That.
However, since you asked, I will call you
Theresa. Unless you want me to call you
Notatol.
END QUOTE
> : > What
> : > is causing this acceleration of expansion
> : > is the big mystery.
> :
> : You will find that even the simplest
> : things are tremendous mysteries to
> : the simple.
>
> Without any explanations, such sentences
> always sound like BS.
Shouldn't that be "always taste?" In any case,
this post has enough explanations to satisfy a
bull.
> : > So lets put our heads together,
> : > for a good theory.
> : > Herb
> :
> : Herb: Long before researchers stumbled on
> : the acceleration of the so-called "expansion"
> : of the universe (1998)... I (and perhaps
> : others) had already realized that it HAD
> : to be found to be so... because of GRAVITY
> : itself (Newton). Such an acceleration
> : can ONLY happen (and MUST happen) when
> : a force is continuously applied.
> :
> : One does not need to resort to Rube
> : Goldberg schemes to explain why in
> : a universe governed by gravity... the
> : galaxies are receding from each other
> : faster and faster with time!
>
> : But one MUST begin by accepting the fact
> : that the universe IS governed by gravity
> : ALONE and then try to describe what would
> : result from that basic premise.
>
> In an universe purely governed by
> gravity, everything should
> ultimately _collapse_ in itself.
Ah! At last man of wisdom! You are
absolutely correct... now try to explain why
others (not so wise as you) can still believe
a universe ruled by gravity can "explode?"
> Gravity is an attractive force, so
> every mass should be attracted to
> other masses. But, as you accept,
> there is an expansion.
There is no expansion! What there is
most indisputably is a recession of the galaxies.
But these are two very different things.
> And it is even accelerated. Gravity alone
> cannot explain this, you will at least
> need one other force which is
> continuously applied to everything.
Repeat after me: "Gravity! Gravity!
Only gravity!"
> : If a universe governed/ruled by gravity
> : were expanding... all explanations of ANY
> : acceleration of its expansion would HAVE to
> : run contrary to logic and sanity (and the
> : explanations popularly proposed/believed do).
> :
> : But
> :
> : if a universe governed/ruled by gravity
> : were imploding... no explanation of why
> : that implosion is accelerating would even be
> : required: It would be self-evident that
> : an acceleration would be... inevitable.
> :
> : It's simply a matter of accepting the fact
> : that Nature's workings are --of necessity--
> : elegant and straightforward. Were they not
> : they just wouldn't work, Herb. (Let this be
> : your mantra, Herb: "Things are NEVER as
> : confusing as the confused MAKE them out to be.")
> :
> : We are, in a very real sense, what Carl
> : Sagan said we were: The mind of the universe
> : seeking to know itself.
>
> /Wirr
>
> I want to add something. I don't understand
> at all how an universe
> could be expanding or collapsing. Since
> the universe itself defines
> space and time, any mind inside
> the universe should be unable to
> measure the expansion/collapse, for
> the measure should grow/shrink
> with the universe.
Quite right: But... what if there were one thing
which did not comply absolutely with the laws
governing the implosion of the universe? What if, for
example a quantum particle, say, shrank in pace just
like every other form of matter BUT somehow refused then
to rush in to fill the gaps created when the forms of
matter shrank in place? What effect would this create?
Might it not resemble the behavior of the photon now?
... The photon seems to always travel at a constant speed
in identical mediums. Moreover, it will slow down when
traveling through a "thicker" medium and THEN speed up
again when it crosses over into a less thick medium!!!
Where does the photon gets its acceleration? SEE:
http://web.sdrodrian.com
> If the universe really changes shape, space itself
> must be changed. Since everything we
> can measure would be changed as
> well, we shouldn't come to know
> space had changed. Only someone
> outside the universe could discover
> how space changes. But since this
> person would be sealed off
> of the universe, we would never know...
Johannes, you'd be surprised at what the mind
knows of things touching... no one has ever touched
at all.
S D Rodrian
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > In article <91e9ii$vv1$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > > news:91c5e0$2bu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > 1) the universe is imploding (shrinking)
> > > >
> > > > 2) ALL the forms of matter IN it are shrinking
> > > > AND they are only "forms/shapes" and NOT
> > > > fundamental (i.e. atoms et al can be split)
> > >
> > > Why are they shrinking ?
> >
> > Because of some stuff or other called
> > "gravity" (stuff also makes stars shrink
> > into white dwarfs... weird stuff that).
>
> mean that massive bodies shrink
> at different rates that less massive ones
> which would be detectable no?
No: You have to understand that EVERY bit of
mass is "shrinking" at the same rate of every
other bit of mass (with the same mass). [So if
you wish to make a simple analogy... you can't
place a cup of water alongside a bucket of water
with a "mouth" the same size as the cup and
expect both their contents to evaporate in the
same amount of time--It's more akin to making
sure that the two different bodies of water have
the same proportions of surface/contents.]
Gravity "works" somewhat like evaporation, in
this sense: It acts like a "current" "unwinding"
(unraveling) the "store" of energy in "matter"
--and this means that regardless what they "form"
(what they're doing... being part of a doorknob
in your house or part of a hydrogen atom in the
very belly of the Sun)... every last bit of mass
in the universe "shrinks" at the same rate as
every other bit of mass (they are all the same
"age" and "size" and are "evaporating" at the same
"rate" throughout the entirety of the universe).
Where there is a greater gravitational field
there is a greater concentration of matter, yes,
but it's like the bucket and the cup in that
the water in the bucket is evaporating so much
faster than the water in the cup that the two
vessels will become empty/dry at the same instant.
In other words: We will never "see" the moon
"shrinking" more slowly than Planet Earth.
> > > > 3) The process is in two steps: FIRST the
> > > > forms of matter shrink in place (towards
> > > > their "centers") and THEN they all engage
> > > > in a collective rush towards each other.
> > >
> > > Why ?
> >
> > Look at the BECAUSE below:
> >
> > > > 4) Necessarily step 1 must happen before
> > > > step 2 BECAUSE if it were the other way
> > > > around... the forms of matter would crash
> > > > instead of giving birth (creating) space
> > > > between them.
> > > >
> > > > 5) This "time lapse" between steps 1 and 2
> > > > is infinitesimal up to the human level,
> > > > but because it is magnified with distance
> > > > at the level of astronomical distances
> > > > it becomes observable:
> > > >
> > > > 6) We see "space" being created (really only
> > > > "distance" being elongated) between galaxies
> > > > and it "looks" to us as if they are flying
> > > > apart, when what they're really doing is
> > > > (mostly) shrinking in place FASTER [step 1]
> > > > than they are rushing towards each other [step 2]
> > >
> > > How does red shift fit in?
> >
> > [God, I hope you know what waves are!]
>
> Yes
Picture a background (a wall?) of painted waves and then
imagine two persons passing before them: One very slowly
the other one very quickly. Now, if you take a picture of
one second of each person's passing [sic] and look at them
you will notice that within the same (one second) frame
of the two pictures there are many more waves in the
background in the picture with the faster-passing person
than in the picture with the slower-passing one: This
means that if the waves were sound waves the faster passing
person would hear a much higher pitch than the slower passing
person (in spite of the fact that both of them were passing
the same painted background). --Very tightly bunched-up waves
produce a higher pitch than very spaced out ones-- [sic]
And the same effect would also ensue if a person were standing
still and it was the background of waves that was moving "by
him/her" faster/slower... because even if the "pitch" of the
waves is "set in stone" an observer will either "hear it" in
in a higher/lower pitch if either he/she travels through them
faster/slower (thereby stuffing fewer or more of them within
the same "time-frame") or the flow of waves themselves are
the ones traveling faster/slower (thereby stuffing fewer or
more of them into the same "time/frame").
> Ok I already know what doppler shift is.
And, of course, if you're talking "light waves" (where the
"higher pitch" = a shift to the "blue" side of the spectrum
while more distended waves shift to the "red" side of the
spectrum)... the "light waves" of quantum particles coming
from a galaxy which is moving away from us will also be
"more distended" than those of quantum particles coming from
a galaxy moving towards us [in the accordion-like existence
of waves, they are stringed out when fewer of them pass
the earth in a given "time-frame" if the earth is (speaking
relativistically now) going their way... than if the earth
is going in the direction the waves are coming from: and there
you have proof not only that some galaxies are moving away
from us faster than others, but, as Hubble discovered, that
the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it's moving away
from us].
> I already know that. What I am trying to
> understand is how it fits into a
> shrinking universe rather than an expanding one?
> Do light waves shrink also?
EVERYTHING shrinks--That is the fate of everything
inside a "black hole" any way you wish to put it. But
I imagine you will want to know the mechanism. So
here it be: Imagine a bus traveling a mile (of simple
distance) at a mile-an-hour between points A and B.
If there is no shrinking taking place the bus will
cover that mile in an hour. Now imagine that points A
and B AND the bus begin to shrink in place (towards
their centers). BECAUSE all three are shrinking at
the same rate... the ONLY thing they will notice is
that the distances between all of them is growing!
This means that if the bus now travels a mile-an-hour
(remember that the "ruler" by which the bus driver
measures "a" mile is also shrinking)... its journey
will take considerably more time. And if the shrinking
is faster than a mile-an-hour... that bus (or, photon)
will obviously NEVER be able to get from A to B at all.
But there you have the recession of the galaxies very
neatly explained (again) in the context of an imploding
universe model. [Well, I'm "almost" sure you will say:
If the universe is shrinking faster than the speed of light
--which is my opinion--how then can a photon EVER
travel from A to B...?! And the answer is that photons
DO NOT travel (themselves move) much at all: The
forms of matter in our imploding universe are not just
only shrinking (in place) toward their "centers" ... they
are also collectively closing in on each other as well:
Keep in mind that the universe is so vast/massive
that for all practical purposes (at the human level)
the implosion is taking place at every imaginable co-
ordinate--with the result that, regardless of WHERE
a photon is born, unless it crashes against some bit of
ordinary matter... it will likely "pass through" the entire
"length" of the universe and even continue to travel
beyond it... so that, from the outside, our universe (of
matter) may indeed resemble something like a "white hole"
(one hell of a phenomenal sparkler) lighting up the voids.
And you can read an expanded version of this at:
http://web.sdrodrian.com ... provided you have the patience
to understand the way our universe works (its true nature).]
> > > What predictions does you theory make
> > > that differ from the standard
> > > expanding universe idea ?
That the so-called "expansion" would eventually
be found to be accelerating. [From Newton's dictum
that it is only when a force is continuously applied
to a body that it undergoes an acceleration Knowing
that the universe is imploding means knowing that the
force of gravity IS continuously exerting its force
on all the bodies of the universe... ergo, it MUST be
found that whatever the universe is "doing" that "work"
either HAD to be found to be accelerating OR the laws
of physics just do not work as they've been defined.
In 1998 researchers finally found indisputable proof
that it was indeed the case that what the universe is
doing it's managing to do faster and faster with time
(baffling the entire astrophysics community)... but
making 1998 a very satisfying year for moi.] SEE:
http://web.sdrodrian.com [By the way, it is ONLY
by accepting the fact that the universe is imploding
that one can finally understand why it is that the speed
of light is always constant in identical mediums. Which
also SEE.]
> > That the so-called "expansion" would eventually
> > be found to be accelerating.
>
> By how much ?
Well, I've already answered this a thousand times
(so I guess one more time won't hoit)...
There is no "bottom" beyond which the implosion
cannot continue--If there were, this would mean
that there is some sort of fundamental "particle"
of "matter," and that (i.e. a perfectly homogeneous
singularity) is something Nature seems to abhor.
Instead, what the implosion model implies is
that the universe's "forms of matter" are just
that: "forms/shapes," and NOT fundamental. [This
means that the implosion does not result in a
"pile up" at its center, but instead --E=MC^2--
produces a "singularity of matter" (quite non-
homogeneous, as you can see by looking about you)
which will "forever" implode without (appreciably)
changing its form/shape... as it fuels the "work"
of imploding with the ONLY storehouse of energy
available to it: the energy IN matter itself.]
Curiously, this "eternal" (self-fueled) implosion
means that the "universe of matter" is given one
monstrously long life... considering that, as it
continues, the implosion of the universe of matter
always results in an unendingly diminishing sum of
its total remaining mass (as the implosion converts
matter to the energy it uses to implode)... and this
means that there is an ever-decreasing demand on its
necessarily finite remaining "pool of energy" reserves
[required--by the laws of physics--for fueling its own
implosion] AT THE SAME TIME that those same
"reserves of energy" (available for fueling the never-
ending "work" of imploding) are eternally diminishing...
PRECISELY BECAUSE there is & ever will be less
and less of the universe (that needs) to be imploded.
Think of it this way... you have a container of water
which is forever evaporating (water standing in for the
energy reserves of the universe). If you could determine
how much water there is and the rate of evaporation, you
would know ("the age of the universe") and how long it has
to "live." But the real-world problem we face in trying
to determine the age of our universe of matter is that the
"vessel" holding our eternally-evaporating "water" is not
only funnel-shaped but its tapering (ever-slimming down)
body goes on & on (not for a few inches but) for a whopping
length of trillions of light-years top to bottom! Add to that
the fact that we have no idea how fast the "water" is
"evaporating" [at any point along the body of said vessel]
and we can only theorize that the rate of evaporation is
forever diminishing. Throw in the very real probability that
there exist any number of unpredictable variables (along the
lines of whether the vessel's ever-receding "mouth" [receding
in order to offer the surface of the water the ability to
continue evaporating even as the diameter of that "mouth"
slowly constricts top to bottom] may be "passing through"
a desert or a rain forest, destroying any possibility of
an ever-constant rate of evaporation over the entire length)
... and you can see why we might never know the true age
of our universe of matter. [Note that I am not saying it is
impossible to know the age of the universe but only why it
may be impossible--in other words: stating the problem that
needs to be solved.] However, this much we can know:
Because of its massiveness at its beginning and the fact that
there is no "bottom" against which its implosion will crash...
our universe is for all practical purposes quite, quite almost
"eternal" ... as it shall "continue" in its present "form" until
there isn't enough "energy" to sustain its "forms" while giving
few hints that much about it is changing at all.
> > In 1998 researchers
> > finally found indisputable proof that this was so
>
> By how much ?
Oh, eventually "they" will put a number on it (just as
"they" put a number on Creation by adding up all the
names of the people in the Bible). And that whatever
number will be updated every couple of years, I imagine.
> > (baffling the entire astrophysics community) and
> > making it a very satisfying year for moi. SEE:
> > http://web.sdrodrian.com
>
> This site consists of usenet articles.
> I can't be bothered to wade through
> that lot sorry !
Too bad, because eventually this article will also
find a home there as well.
> Why don't you set your ideas out
> properly on a web site?
Because that's not the way ordinary people
go about absorbing their ideas: The very fact
that my exposition consists of answers supplied
to the ordinary persons in these newsgroups (and
I shall name no names, in case one or two of them
takes "ordinary" to mean "less than average")...
that very fact directs the method and dosage
to be applied in this humble attempt by me to
cure the plague of factual fallacies afflicting us.
> > > > I hope you cannot claim now that
> > > > I have not simplified it for you, Terri:
> > >
> > > Please don't call me that, I hate it.
> > > Theresa
> >
> > I don't remember ever calling you That.
> > However, since you asked, I will call you
> > Theresa. Unless you want me to call you
> > Notatol.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about ?
Well, it isn't always advisable to concern oneself that
seriously with levity when trying to understand gravity.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com
> Theresa