Origin & Age of The Universe (was: colliding galaxies?)
Timothy Rue
SDR> In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
SDR> "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
>> > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
>> >
>> > http://web.sdrodrian.com
>> >
>> > And be enlightened.
>>
>> Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
>> whether your theory implies
>> the universe to be imploding to a point,
>> or imploding in general.
SDR> Well, I've already answered this a thousand times
SDR> (so I guess one more time won't hoit)...
[snipped - see thread]
SDR> Well, the way I've described it follows the laws of physics
SDR> (conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc.). Although
SDR> I would certainly be interested in hearing that there are
SDR> other alternatives to this model which may also be "supported"
SDR> by the laws of physics and which do not require convoluted
SDR> Rube Goldberg "mathematical realities" in order to conform to
SDR> them.
hehe...
from http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/vic-must-read.html
"Concept #0:Consciousness
Einstein searched until the moment he died for the equation of
the "Unified Field Theory". He never realized the missing
element was the same element that caused so much of his life to
be what it was. From the cheers and recognition from supporters of
his work to the threats on his life, exile out of his country and
destruction of publications on his work. All this caused from the
element Einstein was exercising, but not realizing, the element
of consciousness. It was Einsteins' conscious efforts that lead
him to produced his work. The consciousness of those who
recognized his work and put forth the effort to honor him for it.
The conscious efforts of some to create an illusion, leading many
into action of threat, destruction and force to have a physical
impact on Einstein and many others. And it was the conscious
efforts to apply Einsteins' work that contributed to creating the
physical power that removed the force which cause Einstein to
leave his country. Perhaps Einstein did come to intimately know
what the missing element was, in those last few moments of his
life.
The Spinoza equation "T1 = T2 k" expresses two perspectives: All
things in physical reality can be comprehended/translated into
conscious thought and conscious thought can be
converted/translated into physical reality. For those who have
doubt about the validity of this equation: Look around and note
all the physical things you perceive. Then determine, to the best
of your ability, what exist as a result of conscious
comprehension of physical reality and conscious directed action,
effort and intent to apply physical movement to create? In other
words: What do you see that originated in conscious imagination?
For those still in doubt: What don't you perceive, but know by
what you do perceive, that there must exist both the conscious
ability to comprehend physical reality and conscious imagination
to cause intentional control of physical reality?
(i.e. Computer usage and its internal operations. Software and
it's existence on magnetic media. Disease identification and
treatment or cure. Radio wave creation used in sending and
receiving data, and its' translation to and from what we can
perceive - music, pictures of stars we cannot see from earth but
now know they exist. The life we create via genetic control and
duplication, etc..)"
---
Seems we still need to figure out the physics of how living
consciousness can alter what exist in existance. You know, before
we can be so sure about theories that exclude what is obviously an
altering and controlling important factor.
The big picture is motivated by the basic instinct to survive.
And if that means to evolve consciousness to the level of universe
creation capability then I suppose we will one day create a univers
or two and care for it, so that out of it will also evolve consciousness
that can continue the cycle, perhaps multiplying the creation of new
universes and evolutions of consciousness.
Otherwise, what good is what exist in existance if no-one is there to
experience it?
Where did existance come from? It's a stupid pointless question. But
where and why does what exist in existance is ........ well the computer
you are using exist because of why?
What if consciousness is the initial generator of gravity? Like in the
gravity that manifested itself into an atomic bomb or two....
---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
Tom McWilliams
>
> On 17-Dec-00 13:32:36 S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> SDR> In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> SDR> "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
> >> > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> >> > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
> >> >
> >> > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> >> >
> >> > And be enlightened.
I found your theory quite the opposite of enlightening.
For example, you assert that Astrophysicists don't want to 'upset the
apple cart', so to speak, by questioning certain assumptions, when even
a cursory look at the history of science shows that one acheives fame by
doing exactly that, making that particular hypothesis rather douobtful.
If that hypothesis was true, what was Einstein's, Mach's, or Galileo's
excuse?
But maybe it's just the way you've presented it. Do you have a concise
statement of your model, without all the intervening conversation-pieces
and "terms"?
My very first question, once you've suggested that the Universe is
actually shrinking, is "compared to what"?
-Tm
--
* . * '^
,.. " . *
,
' Tommy Mac
S D Rodrian
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> hehe...
Oh-Oh...
> Otherwise, what good is what exist
> in existance if no-one is there to
> experience it?
It's good for the rocks to settle on.
> Where did existance come from?
From what it is: If existence would have
had to have a beginning: it could never
have come into existence: Nothing comes
from Nothing, you know.
> It's a stupid pointless question.
And about on the level of he average
human intellect, I'd say. (Most of us
will be able to comprehend its implications.)
> But
> where and why does what exist in existance is
Where? Where it is (although it's more
accurate to say "where it was" because
the nature of reality is motion).
Why? Why would you ask such a question
(as if the rocks in the universe were
the same rocks as those in your head)...?
> ........ well the computer
> you are using exist because of why?
Because I paid for it (you try not
paying for it and see how long it exists
for your to use).
> What if consciousness is the initial
> generator of gravity?
What is the origin of that idea is
generated by just your consciousness
and the universe cares not one whit
what you think? Have you though of that?
> Like in the
"As" in the
> gravity that manifested itself
> into an atomic bomb or two....
You may find, if you look into it a little
more dispassionately, that your statement
above is only "true" if you create such a
"disconnect" between the manifestation of
gravity (the separation of the universe of
matter from the universe of energy) AND
the Manhattan Project... as to render all
our ability to talk about it meaningless.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mark K.
>
This thread came from Sci astro,
SO WHY XPOST IT TO:
alt.writing
alt.wisdom
alt.prose
rec.arts
umich.physics.astro.ph
comp.ai.philosophy
sci.space.policy
YOU FUCKEN MORON, Rodrian ?!!
S D Rodrian
Mark K. <mark_k...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <91ko5c$bkr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> This thread came from Sci astro,
> SO WHY XPOST IT TO:
>
> alt.writing
Because as it embodies clear thinking
amidst the chaos of hurried exchanges
it is a example of good writing.
> alt.wisdom
Once because of its cosmic wisdom
now because of a sense of irony.
> alt.prose
Because there is so much poor writing
it can serve as a practical lesson on
how not to compose prose.
> rec.arts
Mmmmm... don't remember posting it
there (but you're free to do so
if you wish).
Duh! You think the guys/gals in
Michigan only think about football?!
> comp.ai.philosophy
Because the natural evolution of the
universe can serve as a model for all
sorts of self-evolved neural artificial
intelligence programming.
> sci.space.policy
Because if our space policy is
based upon a fundamentally flawed
interpretation of... space
we will waste a lot of mullah
going in the wrong direction.
> YOU FUCKEN MORON, Rodrian ?!!
Well, not at THIS particular moment
(I'm typing on the computer now
if you MUST know).
Always glad to help the helpless,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.org
sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
Tom McWilliams <mcwi...@msu.edu> wrote:
> Timothy Rue wrote:
> > On 17-Dec-00 13:32:36 S D Rodrian
> > <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > SDR> In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > SDR> "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > >> > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > >> >
> > >> > And be enlightened.
>
> I found your theory quite the opposite of enlightening.
Yes, but did you read it with your eyes open?
> For example, you assert that
> Astrophysicists don't want to 'upset the
> apple cart', so to speak, by questioning
> certain assumptions, when even
> a cursory look at the history of science
> shows that one acheives fame by
> doing exactly that, making that particular
> hypothesis rather douobtful.
I refer you to the very famous Jesus
of Nazareth. And let you ponder why
more folks don't pick His profession
of choice.
> If that hypothesis was true, what was
> Einstein's, Mach's, or Galileo's excuse?
Pride, vanity...? The fallacious notion
that if they didn't do "it" it'd never
get done? It's the "Christ-like Syndrome"
(all who think they have achieved something
original suffer from)... ignoring the cold-
blooded fact that if the first thousand
inventors of the wheel had been killed to
prevent the wheel from being invented
it'd probably keep the wheel from the world
for..what?.... a few months more?
> But maybe it's just the way
> you've presented it.
I've tried to put it in a language
that the man in the street can understand.
> Do you have a concise
> statement of your model,
> without all the intervening conversation-pieces
> and "terms"?
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).
> My very first question,
Ah! Now we are getting someplace.
> once you've suggested that the Universe is
> actually shrinking, is "compared to what"?
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).
But from the outside (where we might not be able
to bicycle but our minds can fly to)... there
is no alternative but to conclude that a mass
(even one as extensive as the universe) ought to
be coalescing. Then, examining what the universe
seems to be doing... we find that it is doing "that"
at an ever accelerating pace (and this conforms to
our notion that a body undergoes acceleration when
a force (gravity in this case) is being continuously
applied to it. [In order to explain this acceleration
taking place in an expanding universe model one has
to go outside the laws of physics and propose all
sorts of nutty Rube Goldberg theoretical-only (or,
mathematical) nonsense such as ("dark matter"),
"funny energy," " cosmological constant," et al...]
Add to this the fact that photons behave as if they
were not participating fully in the implosion of the
universe [again: it is impossible to describe the behavior
of the photon in an expanding universe model without
doing so in nonsensical terms)... and we finally have
something against which we can compare the implosion
of all the "other" (ordinary forms of) matter! [There are
many other perhaps not so obvious clues that the universe
is imploding, but it usually takes someone like... me, for
example, to point out where they are and why they are there
to someone like... ya'all.] And now it's all available to
one & all at: http://web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> -Tm
Mark K.
Mark K.
S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> In article <91m51p$ico$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mark K. <mark_k...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <91ko5c$bkr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > This thread came from Sci astro,
> > SO WHY XPOST IT TO:
> > alt.writing
> > alt.prose
> > rec.arts
> > umich.physics.astro.ph
> > comp.ai.philosophy
> > sci.space.policy
>
>
> S D Rodrian
> web.sdrodrian.com
> wisdom.findhere.org
> sdrodrian.com
Nope, NOT VALID REASONS TO XPOST, Dimshit.
Get wise.
George Bajszar
Forum?
Mark K.
SD RODENT has the delusion that anything he says is of interest to
everyone, it's a psychological problem.
Mark K.
S D Rodrian
Briesmeister <br...@elltel.net> wrote:
> ... imploding universe...
> photons not participating in this implosion...
> perhaps.... << suspenseful background music >>
> Redshift?
> if the universe is imploding, and
> we have observed undenyably that
> light is effected by gravity
> << black holes >> then perhaps
> this implosion is caused by gravity,
No perhaps about it.
> the magnitude of which is
> capable of decreasing the frequency of the light...
Almost: The process by which the universe
is imploding dictates that it happen in TWO
distinct steps: FIRST the forms of matter
shrink in place (towards their centers) and this
is what creates "space" which is literally ONLY
the distance between the forms of matter. THEN
the forms of matter rush towards each other
(closing the gaps --space/distance-- created by
STEP ONE. This means that there is a "time lag"
between the two steps. And although at very
close distances this "time lapse" is infinitesimal
you can deduce that the effect is magnified by
(with) astronomical distances... until we get
the recession of the galaxies as described by
their red-shifts. [This is how "space" is created.
This is the ONLY way "space" comes to be: Please
notice that "space" without being the distance
between two or more forms of matter is like the
sound of one hand clapping: Ain't happening.]
Notice, as well, that "distance" ("space" if you
like)... is the ONLY "thing" being created in the
universe: This is because that is the ONLY thing
that can "come into existence" out of Nothingness
without violating the laws of physics. And HOW is
distance being created? Imagine two planets a mile
from each other (this is strictly a mental experiment)
which suddenly begin to shrink towards their centers:
In a very real absolute sense... they are not moving
so much as an inch "away from each other" (if you
measure the distance between their exact enters with
a non-shrinking ruler). But, measure that same "space"
(or, "distance") between the two centers with a ruler
which is shrinking at the same rate as the planets,
and you will find that the two planets ARE moving
away from each other by any criterion you'd care to
use to give meaning to that fact! A photon traveling
between those two shrinking planets (which is also
shrinking at the same rate as they) behaves exactly
like that ever-shrinking ruler... and reports that the
distance between the two planets is indeed growing!
BECAUSE "space" if just/only/merely "distance" (or
the lack of "anything" there) there is literally NO
LIMIT either to how far it can be "stretched" OR
the speed at which it can be "stretched." So do not
look for ANY universal "speed limits" in our Cosmos.
BEGIN QUOTE
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).]
END QUOTE
> ... SDR, let me know what you think,
> have I explained another
> bit to prove your theory on the implosion?
Every little bit helps, Briesmeister!
(But I did like the suspenseful music.)
Tom McWilliams
to this one;
Since your 'theory' is just a co-ordinate transformation, preserving all
of the current observations,
1) By what criteria would you call yours 'more true' and
2) Are there any observations which you can think of that would
disprove it?
-Tm
Jure Sah
> In article <91oaae$9mr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> George Bajszar <gy...@usa.net> wrote:
> > And what does any of this have to do with an Artificial Intelligence
> > Forum?
>
> SD RODENT has the delusion that anything he says is of interest to
> everyone, it's a psychological problem.
> Mark K.
Is there anything else you expect from a mad.scientist?
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
Happy new year and this time the new millennium too. ;)
Those that are interested in the Mind project might look at:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind.html (updated: 24.11.00)
457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
S D Rodrian
I've only so much TIME to give to this
"hobby" but sooner/later I probably will find
"most" posts addressed to me and answer those
of them I can to the best of my ability (even if
the poster later refuses to acknowledge my answer
was an answer--which is not the case with you).
> Perhaps you will
> to this one;
>
> Since your 'theory' is just a
> co-ordinate transformation, preserving all
> of the current observations,
>
> 1) By what criteria would you
> call yours 'more true' and
By any number of them; but for brevity's sake
here it might be best to leave it to Occam's
Razor to cut to the chase: If my imploding universe
model explains in a few simple lines the same
and much, much more than the billions of Rube
Goldberg convoluted and often self-contradicting
"lines" [pun] of the expanding universe model's
attempts to explain (and more often than not
actually not even attempting to explain anything)
... the imploding universe model is simply more
likely to be the truer reflection of reality.
> 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. While in most cases
the expanding universe model not only
explains nothing but often even makes
proposals which run against the laws
of physics and sanity itself... a rather
sad state of affairs which, because that
being the model adapted by the physics
community, this then promotes/encourages
the very self-defeating tactic of
not even trying to explain anything
in the first place! (which see.)
re:
Romano AMODEO
I and my New Italic School affirm that our "ego" is the cause of all what we
perceive and visualize, as in quantity, as in conceptual quality.
The quantity is the supposition N^0=1, made on the <idea> that the <ego> is
a quantity more than 0... a pure supposition of bigness attributed to a pure
spirit!
The quality derives from conceptualizations conferred to the different
quantities, as they are numbered.
In this sistuation the UNIVERSE is wide, in space, in exact dependence by
our concepts referred to the space existing.
I.S. (International System of weights and measurements) informs us that all
the unit space contains 10^3 unitary masses.
Einstein adds that it is necessary the fourth dimension of the time, to
consent to the volume to exist in our time.
In this way 10^3 becomes the full space-time 10*10^3=10^4.
Wen we consider this power as a number, and the number as an expontent (of
the same absolute basis 10 of 10^4) we have numbered in:
m 10^10000
in meters, all the space width and in:
s 10^10000
in second minutes, all the persistence, in time, of the universe.
In conclusion we see the wole in direct function of our mental
interpretative scheme.
If you open www.new-is.com you'll find a complete theory regardin all our
vision through numbers.
Our School is called New <Italic Scool> because it opens the ancien Italic
School of Pitagora, bringing it to conclusion, that is explaining how and
why we perceive using some ideal conceptual numbers meaning dimensions of
all what exists.
Happy Christmas bay New Italic School !
Romano Amodeo
Tom McWilliams
>
> Origin and age of univers ?
>
> I and my New Italic School affirm that our "ego" is the cause of all what we
> perceive and visualize, as in quantity, as in conceptual quality.
Nice try, but you've added a layer of interpretation which is
unnecessary, useless, and conceited, as well. Our models of the
universe require conceptioning, but experience, not interpretation, is
what the universe is made of.
Interpretation is not required to either bring you into the world, or
take you out. Getting hit by a train you are unaware of ends your
experience regardless of how you interpret it.
-Tm
James Hunter
Tom McWilliams wrote:
Not really, you need the ego to verify that the Big Fart is *retarded*.
Without that, "science" is just recursively getting hit by trains
one after another.
Tom McWilliams
If I'm reading your metaphor correctly, you are saying the same thing:
The universe is perception/sensation/experience, and science is
visualization/conceptioning/modelling of those experiences.
The belief that the universe is taxa is just nonsense, though, as so
many taxa have proven contrary to reality. This is what makes the tests
that distinguish science possible in the first place.
S D Rodrian
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> How about the idea of quantum vaccuum based inflation?
That is strictly an imagined solution
for a problem which does not really exist:
It is not unlike suggesting that babies
learn to talk by translating their parents'
language into the goo-goo language they are
born with... thereby understanding the new
language they will speak from then on...
Space as a state of minimum energy where
quantum fluctuations consistent with Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle leads to the temporary
formation of particle-antiparticle pairs which,
in your words (cause)...
> Such inflation
> could cause the universe to double in size
> within one hundred trillion-
> trillion-trillionth (1*10**-34) of a second.
... is a description of magic (uncaused effects).
It is either (and/or) a misinterpretation of quantum
theory (or, if you prefer, an error of quantum
theory itself if you insist "you" are infallible).
Try it this way: "There is no magic. So you do NOT
have to discover exactly how the magician's trick
is a trick... before being certain it is indeed
a trick and NOT real magic.) Period.
If a "solution" sounds as if it may be a Rube
Goldberg put-on... chances are it IS (ironically
as when if it sounds too good to be true it is).
The universe is simple and elegant because it needs
to be that way: Were it not, it could never have
started out from the simplest possible condition
which must have existed at its very beginnings
(this is a truth which the quest for a unified
field theory embodies as an accepted principle).
Let this be your mantra: "Things are NEVER as
confusing as the confused MAKE them out to be."
And visit thou: http://web.sdrodrian.com
> In addition, if such high frequency
> inflation is possible, it may be
> meaningless to say the universe is expanding
> (traveling along positive
> space at the speed of light) or
> imploding (traveling along negative
> space in the speed of light).
> Rather than positive or negative space,
> may be there are complex space just like
> numbers can be positive,
> negative or complex.
Answer: It is not possible.
Reality does not always follow absolute
mathematical lines, but can even be better
understood (if perhaps not defined) using
ALL the input available to us rather than
just merely/only logic of one shade or other
... as in:
"What's 1 and 1 ?"
Mathematics would suggest it's 2
while a wiseguy might be thinking
it's 11
and if the wiseguy has a gun to your head
and your life depends on your answering
his question the way he wants it answered:
You're as extinct as... the guy under the
tombstone that reads: "I had the right-of-way."
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
re:
> In article <91j13k$3d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
> > > >
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > > >
> > > > And be enlightened.
> > >
> > > Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > [I didn't
> > > have the patience to read all of it, considering
> > > the wierd analogies used,
> >
> > Well, we can never know a thing for the first time except
> > by placing it in some context; and that means that analogies
> > are indispensable when we are trying to know things for the
> > first time ever (it is like learning a new language, whose
> > (more abstract?) terms may need to be put into some context
> > in the language one already knows, be it one's tongue or
> > mimicry and sign-language).
> >
> > > so i skimed over large portions of it.]
> > >
> > > Also, if the universe didn't start in a big bang,
> > > how did it start? (i'm
> > > not defending good ole BB here, just
> > > wondering what your ideas are.)
> >
> > Think of the mythical "primordial singularity" not
> > as a point that magically exploded... but as the full
> > breadth of an almost infinite stretch of (scalar) mass.
> >
> > If we're trying to understand its nature in terms of
> > the laws of thermodynamics, then you must NOT envision
> > it (that universe of energy) as absolutely/perfectly
> > homogeneous--but you must somehow learn to understand it
> > as the ONE single Motion in all existence. [All motions
> > are so because they are relativistic, of course, but
> > for us here on this side of "the universe of energy"
> > it is impossible to even imagine "relative to what" that
> > primordial Single Motion in all of existence may be; so
> > we can only think of it as... ONE Single Motion in OUR
> > existence.] The practical result of this is that it then
> > becomes possible for us to think of it in terms of it
> > being (at least for us, here in the universe of matter)
> > both Absolute Rest AND all the energy that ever was and
> > ever will be available to us: Therefore the advent of
> > gravity in/from that "universe of energy" gives birth to
> > motions relative to Absolute Rest (itself), from where it
> > (the universe of matter) gets its finite amount of energy
> > when it begins --the equivalent of the Big Bang-- and to
> > which it then spends the entirely of its "life" returning
> > that energy to [you see why it's easier to understand this
> > in terms of Absolute Rest giving birth to the relativistic
> > motions of our universe of matter... which then gradually
> > but ever inexorably/inevitably return to Absolute Rest].
> >
> > Those vector motions form into gravitational systems which
> > not only coalesce toward their centers but which also
> > establish gravitational interactions among themselves...
> > as their "combinations" over time create ever more complex
> > structures of their interactions. [In other words... natural
> > evolution any way you might put it.] But you can appreciate
> > from this why it is that there are no fundamental forms of
> > matter (particles) and why there can not be. And thus we
> > are not faced with the impossible puzzle of trying to explain
> > how/why the universe (of matter) could have somehow Big Banged
> > out of a mystical Cosmic Egg. Instead we finally come to
> > realize that the "primordial singularity of energy" did not
> > explode unfathomably... but necessarily imploded once
> > gravity (vector motions) manifested itself. [Note that an
> > implosion would begin very slowly and accelerate throughout
> > the length of its existence, exactly as it has now been
> > confirmed our universe is "doing its work. And that this
> > means that its "activity" can be described in part as... huge
> > slow motions gradually becoming small fast motions--or, as
> > the coalescence of its "forms" (and "particles").] You do not
> > need to invent "mathematical dimensions" (et al) to explain
> > Nature because Nature only works by patiently re-working the
> > structures into which its "motions" fall... over sufficient
> > time to settle "out" those that are passing and brief because
> > they are feeble and ineffectual (impractical in Nature)... and
> > to settle "upon" those that are permanent because they are
> > (prove themselves to be) stable and sound (in a word: material).
> >
> > > Personaly, I also think the universe is decreasing
> > > in volume, but not in the same way you suggest.
> >
> > Well, the way I've described it follows the laws of physics
> > (conservation of energy, thermodynamics, etc.). Although
> > I would certainly be interested in hearing that there are
> > other alternatives to this model which may also be "supported"
> > by the laws of physics and which do not require convoluted
> > Rube Goldberg "mathematical realities" in order to conform to
> > them.
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
> > music.sdrodrian.com
> >
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <91uopm$hma$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>> In article <91j4eg$5sv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> How about the idea of quantum vaccuum based inflation?
>>
>> That is strictly an imagined solution
>> for a problem which does not really exist:
>> It is not unlike suggesting that babies
>> learn to talk by translating their parents'
>> language into the goo-goo language they are
>> born with... thereby understanding the new
>> language they will speak from then on...
>>
>> Space as a state of minimum energy where
>> quantum fluctuations consistent with Heisenberg's
>> uncertainty principle leads to the temporary
>> formation of particle-antiparticle pairs which,
>> in your words (cause)...
>>
> Such inflation
> could cause the universe to double in size
> within one hundred trillion-
> trillion-trillionth (1*10**-34) of a second.
>>
>> ... is a description of magic (uncaused effects).
>
Only in identical mediums. The distinction is
quite telling: When a photon "travels" across
medium A and then traverses medium B (which is
a "thicker" medium) and then traverses medium C
(which is as "thin" as medium A)... the photon
will "slow down" while traversing medium B but
"speed up" again (as it traverses medium C) to
the same speed as it had when it traversed
medium A. IF the photon were the one moving
the fact that it "accelerates" (C) after having
slowed down (B) would demand some mechanism for
propulsion: But the photon has none (not even
so much as a loss of energy). So that there can
be NO question that the photon either must NOT
be moving at all, or very little in any case:
To demand that every photon in the universe
know the velocity of every other photon in the
universe and that they all synchronize the "speed"
at which they "travel" through identical mediums
(in a true expanding universe) is as unreasonable
as demanding that, were they all rockets, every
last one of their "captains" obey the various
different speed limits (of identical "mediums")
everywhere in the universe and without consulting
ever with each other! However, if it were the
universe itself (with the exception of photons)
that was "moving" past them (photons), necessarily
doing so at the same "speed" everywhere throughout
the universe (approx.)... then you would have the
effect that you in fact observe in our universe:
Namely, that all throughout the entirety of the
universe... photons are always "passed" at the same
"speed" by a universe which is obviously everywhere
traveling (imploding/shrinking) at (approx.) the same
"speed" all across its full breadth/length/scope: The
A-B-C "paradox" (above) now becomes understandable
because a thicker/stronger "gravitational field"
(medium) would "push along" (or, drag) the photon
a lot more than a weaker/thinner (medium) one. And
if the observer is looking at the photon from the
"passing" universe it would look to "him" as if the
photon were "slowing down" while traversing thicker
mediums... and speeding up while traversing thinner
ones--when it is exactly the reverse that's occurring,
or... the photon can "slow down" in thinner mediums
(weaker gravitational fields) and is "pulled" (dragged)
by/in stronger gravitational fields (mediums).]
> It means that the moment a photon is
> brough into existence, let us say,
> by flipping the light switch, it moves
> at full speed, no acceleration
> is required. It travels at the full speed
> at the first trillion-
> trillion-...-trillionth of a second.
As I explained above: It is NOT the photon
that is "moving" but everything other than:
Of course, the casual observer cannot really
be blamed if he/she assumes that exactly the
opposite of what is happening is what's really
happening--Until he/she reads this post, that
is: After this moment... he/she can be blamed
for it, and will probably be shamed if he/she
doesn't, from here on out, use his/her brain.
For the complete source of the following, SEE:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=686754901&fmt=text
START QUOTE
There IS a "place" where absolute rest lies:
The only thing that makes motion meaningful
is the existence (or postulation) of some
"platform" at rest relative to that motion (all
motion is relative). So if the universe of matter
is absolutely in motion it can only be so
because it is moving away (from/towards) the
universe of energy [the only way to fully
understand the complete universe is to
realize/postulate that it comprises both halves,
energy/matter]... If the universe of matter can
be described as infinite material mass in
"infinitely relativistic motion" ... the universe
of energy can be described as infinite (scalar)
mass at "absolute rest."
END QUOTE
[Absolute Rest = Nothingness. i.e. = no energy
(usually). But not if, as in this instance, we
are describing "a" motion which is the ONLY motion
we know of to exist in all of existence: That is
what the "universe of energy" or "primordial
singularity" boils down to... it is the ONLY motion
in all of existence, and because it cannot be
described as "one motion in relation to some other
motion" we might as well posit it as Absolute Rest.
But you can immediately see (the obvious and self-
evident, i.e. that Motion = Energy, Energy = Motion)
or, that our Absolute Rest far from being Nothingness
and an absence of energy/motion, is, in fact: ALL
the energy that has ever been/will always be, and
the ultimate source of the energy of/in the universe
of matter--the primordial energy which will go into
matter, and the ultimate destination of the energy IN
matter as it gives back the energy it was given by/at
the inception of the universe (of matter). By the way:
What exactly is the universe of energy, in the sense
of where does its energy come from? We will never have
direct observation of that. But we can deduce from
the laws of physics--and we have NO reason to believe
that they "only apply in our reality," or that our
reality is confined to our region of existence alone--
we can deduce that the energy of the primordial
singularity (or Absolute Rest) of motion must itself
be a motion relative to some other, greater motion
--even if it too is a singularity of motion--beyond
it: You can term it the River of Life, or any other
metaphor that suits you, forming eddies along its
"banks" one of which is our universe of matter. But
I prefer to think of it as an infinite sequence of
cogged wheels each one of which is moved by a larger
cogged wheel and which in turn moves the next (smaller)
cogged wheel: This way each wheel in the sequence is
given enough energy/motion not only to itself move
but to also impart enough energy/motion to the next
cogged wheel down the line... from an almost infinite
top to an infinitesimal bottomless continuity of
eternally smaller and smaller wheels--The meaning of
which is always the same: There is a finite amount
of energy at the top, and this forever dooms the
bottom to an finite amount of energy which is less
and less as it "dissipates" itself into Nothingness.]
START QUOTE
Inside the universe of matter everything is
relativistic, but the universe of matter itself
too is relativistic: ONLY it's so "against"
the universe of energy (absolute rest)... this
means that, relative to the universe of energy,
the universe of matter has only one absolute
"direction of motion" and that is "toward
imploding." And since the universe of matter
is the only "thing" that absolutely "physically
exists" ... it is always moving at the absolutely
highest possible speed (regardless how slow or fast
that speed may be relative to our own always only
human (relativistic) notions of what is slow/what
is fast).
And now that you know what Einstein never knew
(that there IS a "place" at absolute rest in the
(complete) universe)... you can describe a reality
Einstein could never have imagined:
1) The universe of matter is absolutely imploding.
2) Because the forms of matter are not fundamental
(ultimately physical), from within the universe
of matter (where the only reality we understand
is a relativistic one) it will always seem as if
the absolutely imploding universe is forever the
same "size/form/shape" and eternally unchanging
(that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is
the relativistic truth/law that rules IN here).
You can describe the universe of matter as a
"singularity" at the center of the complete
universe (surrounded by the universe of energy).
But since WE live IN that "singularity" = now you
know exactly how homogeneous "singularities" are.
3) But, if the universe of matter can move relative to
the universe of energy, then it's not impossible that
there might exist other "things" whose motion is
also relative to the universe of energy rather than
to the universe of matter (whether absolutely/mostly).
4) How does the photon behave IN our universe (of
matter)...? Well, like every other form of matter
it must be "shrinking" (otherwise they'd blow up
to the size of galaxies before our eyes). However,
unlike the ordinary forms of matter (which then
rush each other to fill/close the gaps created
by their shrinking)... the photon "somehow" ceases
to behave relativistically (not completely, just
partly) and begins to behave AS IF it had as much
mass as the universe of matter itself: It is still
"moving" [relative to the universe of energy, or
"absolute rest" i.e. the photon itself is NOT at
absolute rest]... partly moving as it still "chases
after" the "swiftly fleeing" universe of matter (if
with little enthusiasm).
5) The net result is that it is the universe of matter
which is "moving" past the photon [accounting for
the reason the photon's speed always registers as
a constant in identical mediums] and not the other
way around: Were our universe NOT imploding, I would
find it hard to imagine a mechanism by which radiation
behaves as it does here IN this universe of ours.
Conclusion: The photon, pale, frail, and delicate
as it may be... exhibits a HUGE amount of mass (as
the "passing" universe of matter does not seem to
be able to "drag" it with it... as it rushes forever
onwards in its absolute direction of shrinking/imploding).
NOTE that stars, planets, galaxies and all other "bodies"
offer not even a smidgen as much resistance to being
hurried along (that is to say: "accelerated") as the
itsy bitsy photon.
Therefore the complete universe "looks like" (behaves)
as if it were the "white hole" of legend; for it would
"look" to God like a brilliant roman candle eternally
casting photons into the surrounding darkness out of
a "hole" at its center which was forever choking shut
with the "passage of time" instead of opening more
and more: Entropy in the complete universe increases
on one side even as it decreases on its other side.
END QUOTE
> It sounds like magic in comparison with our
> daily experiences. But is
> it uncaused?
"It" (anything) can never be "uncaused." Period.
[Though your "it" (above), that the photon moves
is only a misinterpretation of reality. Just as
assuming that the universe is "expanding" from
seeing the galaxies receding from each other... is
also a misinterpretation of what one's looking at.]
re:
Bill Nelson
: medium A. IF the photon were the one moving
I don't see how this gains anything. It just seems to make
a more difficult problem, as now you have to have ALL the
particles in the universe moving in synchronization (and
shrinking in absolute size as well).
It also does not explain the simple bouncing of a light beam
off of a reflecting surface.
Now you have to have the universe shrinking in two different
directions at the same time.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
S D Rodrian
You may need to look again, that's all.
> It just seems to make
> a more difficult problem, as now
> you have to have ALL the
> particles in the universe moving
> in synchronization (and
> shrinking in absolute size as well).
You will need to explain how it could be
otherwise in an imploding body... But, you
MUST see that that is the crucial, the very
reason why the speed of light is a constant
(in identical mediums)... because the
universe itself MOVES at ONE "speed."
[Although this is true only in the sense that
in regions closer/farther from center all
mass is experiencing approximately the same
level of gravitational force: Obviously
mass both further from center AND closest
to center will be imploding "slower" than
mass where most of the universe's matter
is more heavily concentrated--but this is
irrelevant on the human scale because of
the tremendous distances between all such
fluctuations, obviously.]
> It also does not explain
> the simple bouncing of a light beam
> off of a reflecting surface.
> Now you have to have the universe
> shrinking in two different
> directions at the same time.
Actually the universe is shrinking in
EVERY imaginable direction at once: It's
not a lit'l collapsing star... which has
an absolute vector relative to us and
therefore "shrinks" toward its very obvious
center and away from its obvious surface(s).
The sheer massiveness of the universe
means that -- at the human level -- its
shrinking is effectively occurring towards
literally every possible coordinate [not
absolutely, for sure, but relativistically
--and that's our reality INSIDE the universe].
And since the ONLY connection possible
between a light-source and its photons is
whatever orientation that source gives
(relative to itself, of course) those
specific photons [i.e. if you "create" a
photon to YOUR left that photon will seem
to zoom away from your left side, etc.]...
this means that a reflective surface will
not only intercept a photon (as it moves
toward the photon) but it will also give it
a new orientation (relative to itself) whenever
the photon "bounces" off it... because it now
becomes the "source" of that "bounced" photon
and if, as I said, a photon is "created" to
the left side of its source that photon will
appear to zoom away from the left side of that
source--including the angles light "strikes"
all reflective surfaces...
The only problem which must give us thought
at this point is the always delicate matter of
just how "fast" IS the universe imploding (or,
"shrinking"). And although we are forced to say
that it MUST be imploding FASTER than the speed
of light ... because different "thicknesses" of
matter the photon goes through (mediums) affect
its speed, obviously... and this means that as long
as the photon is "in" ANY portion of the universe
it ought to be being "dragged" to SOME lesser or
greater extent by the universe's gravity, for one.
And, for another thing, the nature of all "matter"
fundamentally reduces to motion (or, energy) and
the true "absolute" speed at which the universe is
imploding is therefore NOT measured against the
photon but against Absolute Rest [and, at this time,
I do not know how fast the photon is moving relative
to Absolute Rest--all I know is that the photon can
not itself be "at" absolute rest if for no other
reason than that there "is" NO "matter" at Absolute
Rest, and the photon is necessarily a matter construct
(even if a very "delicate" matter construct) no less
than the electron and the quark].
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
SDRodrian
dusty...@aol.com (Dusty55Art) wrote:
> >The only problem which must give us thought
> >at this point is the always delicate matter of
> >just how "fast" IS the universe imploding (or,
> >"shrinking"). And although we are forced to say
> >that it MUST be imploding FASTER than the speed
>
> >of light ... because different "thicknesses" of
> >matter the photon goes through (mediums) affect
> >its speed, obviously... and this means that as long
> >as the photon is "in" ANY portion of the universe
> >it ought to be being "dragged" to SOME lesser or
>
> >greater extent by the universe's gravity, for one.
>
> conversation without knowing
> what was written before in the conversation,
> but, why does the universe have to
> be exploding or imploding?
The same question can be asked of anything and
everything IN the universe: Things change.
> Why can't it just be expanding and
> contracting at a
> civilized speed?
The same question can be asked
of a supernova, et al.
> A very small expansion and contraction
> could appear to us as
> an emplosion or explosion, but
> to an infinite universe those terms do not fit.
Nothing is infinite or eternal. Things change.
(Not even that things change is eternal, because
eventually the changing things will cease to
exist--as things.)
> If the universe is infinite, then an
> implosion would have to take matter away
> from some plece. What place is becomeing empty?
> How could galaxies be torn
> apart from another part of the spangled
> universe and for what reason?
Visit thou: http://web.sdrodrian.com
and be enlightened:
If your scenario (even that of your question)
does not follow the laws of physics: It ain't so.
> The same
> with an explosion. Where do the galaxies go
> in an infinite universe? They would
> all have to collide someplace. For what reason?
That's why BEFORE Hubble saw the recession of
the galaxies Einstein proposed that there
had to be some "mysterious force" keeping the
universe from collapsing. He made a silly stab
at giving a name to this force (the "Cosmological
Constant"). But, of course, he did not tread where
where fools are even now trying to "invent" what
this "funny energy" is and how it works.
> Everything has a REASON to happen (except
> Chicken Little) Expansion and
> contraction can be due to temperature.
> That is a reason for small time movement
> which to us would be big time because
> we are so tiny. ..... But explosions and
> implosions? .... There is no reason for that.
Live and learn. Cease learning, and
you're dead... any way you look at it.
> Base your theories on the book of Genesis
> because it is obvious that the writer
> was inspired by God the creator. I am not
> talking about the confusion recorded
> by King James translators or any other
> English translation. I am talking about
> the original Hebrew text recorded by the
> author of Genesis that was inspired by
> God.
If you're going to believe the bible, the
least you can do is believe the Bible's version.
Period. It's only when you wish to discover
the true nature of reality, and not simply
believe the most likable fairy tale, that
science comes into it: For science is the quest
for the knowledge of how it all works together
and not simply/only that they do work. [This is
also the distinction between true scientists and
just plain fools.]
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
> Dusty
S D Rodrian
elqu...@aol.commie (Samuel Waters) wrote:
> In article <92gdhj$1nu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, SDRodrian
<Don_Q...@mindless.com>
> writes:
>
> >That's why BEFORE Hubble saw the recession of
> >the galaxies Einstein proposed that there
> >had to be some "mysterious force" keeping the
> >universe from collapsing. He made a silly stab
> >at giving a name to this force (the "Cosmological
> >Constant"). But, of course, he did not tread where
> >where fools are even now trying to "invent" what
> >this "funny energy" is and how it works.
>
Absolutely: The fact that since the universe
is NOT expanding... no predictable slowing down,
halt, and collapse of it is in its future.
> The universal expansion is slowing
> down, but not fast enough.
You're out-of-date: In 1998 it was
established that the so-called expansion
is actually accelerating. Try to explain that
in a true expanding/exploding universe and you
have to use fanciful Rube Goldberg nonsensical
architectures. But in an imploding universe
it would be a miracle if the implosion were NOT
accelerating with time, since (Newton) acceleration
is produced by a force acting continuously on
a body: Here, the one body is the universe itself,
and the one (and only) force here is gravity. ergo
> Heat death is the end we know right now.
Then you must have one weird stove, where
you turn on the cold and then it slowly
heats up when you turn it off! Wow!
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
a...@silmarill.org wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:08:34 GMT,
>SDRodrian <Don_Q...@mindless.com> wrote:
> >In article <20001228090122...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
> >dusty...@aol.com (Dusty55Art) wrote:
> >> >The only problem which must give us thought
> >> >at this point is the always delicate matter of
> >> >just how "fast" IS the universe imploding (or,
> >> >"shrinking"). And although we are forced to say
> >> >that it MUST be imploding FASTER than the speed
> >> >of light ... because different "thicknesses" of
> >> >matter the photon goes through (mediums) affect
> >> >its speed, obviously... and this means that as long
>
Sorry, no: It is any "speed" as long as it is
constant in identical mediums. The speed of light
in vacuum is simply "faster" than it is in "air."
This is the conventional explanation, of course.
The truth is that the photon doesn't (much) "move."
In our imploding universe it is everything except
the photon that is moving (past the photon, of course).
And this is why there is such mind-boggling constancy
to its "speed" ... why in identical mediums? Think
about it for a second: In a "thicker" medium there is
a stronger gravitational field than in a "thinner"
medium: Therefore the photon which is IN a thicker
medium is "pulled along" (dragged) more than the photon
IN a thinner gravitational field (medium). We mortal
observers are, of course, ON the moving ("passing
the photon") universe looking upon it, so from our
perspective it looks as if it's the photon that's really
"moving." [e.g. The photon which is being pulled along
(dragged with us) will seem to be moving more slowly
than the photon which is being dragged along (with us)
a lot less: The photon "moving" through a thicker medium
looks like it's "moving" more slowly than the photon that is
traveling through a medium closer to vacuum. But looks
can be deceiving.]
> That's what's meant when it is said that speed of
> light is constant and is 300k km/s. Naturally photons
> move much slower through, say, middle of neutron star
> (if at all) but constant is still the same cause it
> applies to speed in vacuum.
You're looking at it as if you were ON the photon!
You have to look upon it from your true perspective:
From the universe of ordinary matter looking AT
the photon.
> IOW, you can't say 'must be imploding
> faster than speed
> of light'. This is just not possible.
"This is just not possible" is not an argument
but an emotional outburst. Visit thou my site at:
and patiently work your way through the massive
strata of elucidations there... which I've been giving
on Usenet for years now.
For the time being, think of this: Is the speed
of light slow, or fast? Well, if you race a horse
against it... you will think it's very fast. But
it takes the average photon almost 8 minutes
to travel to the earth from the Sun. And it takes
billions of years for a photon to "travel" to the
farthest-visible regions of our local region of the
universe. So you see: The speed of light on the
human level may indeed seem to us as if it's
tremendously fast, but on a more objective scale
it's really a frustratingly slow, slow, slow "speed."
>Andrei
S D Rodrian
milb...@aol.com (Milbert 2) wrote:
> If a photon is not moving
> and the matter universe is
> shrinking/imploding then
> how do you explain the phenomenon of
> reflection ie.a mirror or any type of
> light reflection at all?
I don't, as it's been done for centuries now
by many others: "When light falls on a body
some of the light may be reflected, some
absorbed, and some transmitted through the
body. In order for a smooth surface to act as
a mirror, it must reflect as much of the light
as possible and must transmit and absorb as
little as possible. In order to reflect light rays
without scattering or diffusing them, a mirror's
surface must be perfectly smooth or its
irregularities must be smaller than the wavelength
of the light being reflected. (The wavelengths of
visible light are on the order of 5 X 10 ^-5 cm.)
Mirrors may have plane or curved surfaces.
A curved mirror is concave or convex depending
on whether the reflecting surface faces toward the
center of curvature or away from it. Curved mirrors
in ordinary usage have surfaces that are spherical,
cylindrical, paraboloidal, ellipsoidal, and hyperboloidal.
Spherical mirrors produce images that are magnified
or reduced--exemplified, respectively, by mirrors for
applying facial makeup and by rearview mirrors for
automobiles. Cylindrical mirrors focus a parallel beam
of light to a line focus. A paraboloidal mirror may be
used to focus parallel rays to a real focus, as in a
telescope mirror, or to produce a parallel beam from
a source at its focus, as in a searchlight. An
ellipsoidal mirror will reflect light from one of its two
focal points to the other, and an object situated at the
focus of a hyperboloidal mirror will have a virtual image."
In effect: As far as the "reflected" photon is concerned,
it is "hit back" by the mirror (given a new orientation
as absolutely as if the mirror itself were its original
source). This is not the case with a photon that is
absorbed: The photon does not "move" ... either a non-
reflecting bit of matter hits it and absorbs it, or a
reflecting surface hits it and endows it with a new
"orientation." [This is because the only connection a
photon can have with/to its "source" in an imploding
"singularity" as massive as our universe (in which, for
all practical effects, everything is imploding (shrinking)
at/towards every imaginable coordinate) IS such an
orientation: Basically, assuming you as source, photons
"created" to your right side will appear to zoom away
from that side, and photons "created" on your left side
will appear to zoom away from that side--the culmination
of this analogy occurs with a lightbulb, which effectively
"spews forth" photons in every possible orientation.]
> If a photon is not moving than
> how do you explain the
> travel of light from
> a source in all direction?
Say, a lightbulb...?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Let's try this.
I don't see why not (my astigmatism makes me
practically blind as it is).
> In article <91j13k$3d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
>
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > > >
> > > > And be enlightened.
>
> > > Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.
>
> > 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.
>
> Define homogeneous singularity.
> That is a contradiction in my mind.
> Homogenize means to "mix thoroughly"
There are many more things in your mind,
Horatio, which turn your thoughts into
self-contradictions than... there are
individual hairs on Robin WIlliams.
Oxford Concise Dic sez:
homogeneous adj.
1 of the same kind.
2 consisting of parts all of the same kind; uniform.
3 Math. containing terms all of the same degree.
singularity n.
1 the state or condition of being singular.
2 an odd trait or peculiarity.
3 Physics & Math. a point at which a function takes
an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is
infinitely dense as at the centre of a black hole.
A homogeneous singularity would therefore be
a "condition" IN which all is the same (without
any bit of it being distinct/different from
every other bit of it), or so solid a "place"
as to not admit anything other than the one thing
that makes it solid.
This is not possible in nature because
in our three-dimensional reality everything
that exists holds in it a reason why
the portions at its center are there
and not at its rim. (Everything has been
put together by the laws of thermodynamics.)
The confused will define it as a "point"
"necessarily" one-dimensional. But this is
utter nonsense because everything that exists
exists only because it's three-dimensional.
When I speak of a primordial singularity
what I mean is that it was ALL energy/motion
(without matter). It is a singularity because
it a (from our perspective) a MOTION which is
the only motion that exists--and therefore
can NOT be described in terms of vectors; and
can even, in fact, be described as Absolute
Rest! AND YET it is still motion (and therefore
a form of energy whose physicality our human
senses can "grasp" (understand).
Now imagine that primordial singularity (whether
you think of it as the greatest amount of motion
that exists, or you think of it as Absolute Rest).
One thing it MUST absolutely do is obey the laws
of thermodynamics, otherwise it would be absolutely
solid and nothing would ever come of it (let alone
trying to explain how in Heavens such a "homogeneous
singularity" could have possibly put itself together).
That singularity, for our purposes here, is not unlike
a bow with tension in it (Absolute Rest/yet a quantity
of stored/potential energy). Now, how is motion described
in an universe where gravity is all that exists? Motion
is towards its sundry "centers." [Vectors are only possible
in an universe with a number of discrete individual bits.
The MOTION of/in the primordial singularity, remember, is
one that has NO vectors because it is the ONLY "THING"
in existence. You could even describe such a MOTION as
purely expansive/repulsive (as opposed to gravity's
coalescent/attractive nature)... it really matters not:
The crucial point of distinction is that we have (in
the universe of energy which gave birth to the universe
of matter) a uniformity of existence which we can barely
describe in terms that make any sense to our materialistic
understanding of reality--but which is nevertheless a
quantity of energy (and therefore, that we poor humans
may understand what the universe means by energy: motion).
What does the advent of gravity means in such a condition?
(i.e. What is gravity?) Essentially: the force of gravity
is a motion against/away from that singularity of Absolute
Rest: The bow breaks, in one sense, and instead of ONE
vectorless MOTION we have all that energy moving away
from Absolute Rest and towards slowly-defining centers of
gravitational systems which will eventually evolve into
our present-day particles. [Now you can see why it is that
if we speak of the gravity-bound universe of matter as
one having an attracting nature, we can then speak of the
universe of energy as one having a repelling nature: It is
impossible to describe the One/Only MOTION in all existence
as moving in any "direction." This doesn't mean, by the way,
that every one of those primordial gravitational systems
evolved into "a" modern particle any more than every one of
the primordial simple nucleic acids/neucleotides "evolved"
into specific modern mammals: The amount of "energy" in
modern day particles ALONE clearly indicates that modern
day particles are extremely complex organizations of perhaps
trillions of such primordial gravitational systems in
complicated networks of distinct inner scaffoldings. And
now it's easy for us to understand that every such particle
consists of a structure which can be theoretically/actually
sundered/split--something not unlike being able to separate
the stars in a binary system, or the Milky Way from the
Andromeda Galaxy.] The primordial gravitational systems
which first "broke" from Absolute Rest (the universe of
energy, or our beloved primordial singularity of motion)...
must have been so truly immense/massive (in relation to
what we today imagine the so-called unlimited expanses of
the Cosmos to be) that their self-organization must have
taken place over a truly mind-boggling excruciatingly long
amount of time... perhaps something completely beyond what
we now think of as trillions of centuries. But as they
organized themselves, they NECESSARILY coalesced towards
their centers... obviously accelerating as they "shrank"
towards their centers while conserving their energy/motion
(i.e. "large slow motions = small fast motions). This is
the "point in time" that witnessed the first creation of
"space" (really nothing more than the ever-growing distance
between --bits of pre-matter, or-- the ever-coalescing forms
of matter)... or, in other words, once the (ONE & ONLY)
Great Primordial Singularity of motion began to break up
into many distinct "self-winding" smaller motions there HAD
to be very pronounced lines of demarcation between them, or
"gaps" (space/distance). [If these gravitational systems
would have shrunk toward their centers WITHOUT the sum of
them THEN closing the gaps being created by their shrinking
what would have happened would have been a universe in
which every bit of/in it would have literally vanished
in place (or, eternally creating such growing/growing
distances between its bits that before long every bit of
the universe would have found itself as isolated as if
it were the only "thing" in all of existence). As it is,
however, even though the implosion of the universe creates
more and more space even as that implosion accelerates...
that increase is (probably 99.99999999%) canceled out by
the fact that the individual gravitational systems are
themselves rushing towards each other (as if) trying to
"close those gaps" forever opening between them. [And this
form of implosion, unlike, say, the implosion of a star
(which obviously involves no shrinking in place)... the
implosion of the universe is taking place as if every one
of all those gravitational systems were the direction
toward which the entire universe is shrinking/imploding.]
Always keep in mind that there is no functional/practical
distinction to be made between what the "material" IN
those gravitational systems is doing (gravitating towards
its centers) and what the individual gravitational systems
themselves are doing in relation to each other (or, again:
gravitating towards themselves). Remember that our present
day particles are complex conglomerations of God-only-knows
how many of those simple (and simplest of all) primordial
gravitational systems in as complicated interactions as...
DNA/RNA are engaging in IN modern day animals.
The result is that the greatest "speed" possible in the
universe is towards shrinking (followed by the speed of the
subsequent "gathering" of the individual gravitational
systems). In other words: the "speed" of light (viewed from
this new perspective) is not a measure of how fast the
universe is imploding/shrinking--rather, it's simply a
measure of how much more rapidly the universe is shrinking
(imploding) than the photon's speed: Remember that the
photon is shrinking towards center at the same rate as
every other form of matter, but even though it is not
being "dragged along" (by the "second motion of matter,"
or the subsequent "gathering") at the SAME speed. Please
remember that the speed of light is constant ONLY in
identical mediums... so, self-evidently: the photon DOES
respond to gravity even if it does so infinitesimally:
When it's (near) in a stronger gravity fields it is dragged
along much faster than when it is in (proximity) weaker
gravitational fields--Which from our perspective looks as if
it were traversing more slowly through air than through a
vacuum, of course.
The true absolute speed at which the universe is imploding
is therefore measured only against Absolute Rest. And that
absolute rate may be beyond our ability to ascertain it.
Although we can safely say that it MUST be faster than the
speed of light; and probably unimaginably faster.
> therefore, more than ONE thing is
> then blended, which means once you have
> "homogeneity" you have already
> left "singularity. Comprende?
Si, Seignior: You are a confused hombre. But,
fear not... confusion is not permanent (unless
you stubbornly determine to be confused for the
rest of your life).
> I will skip the rest of your less than
> well thought out argument until
> you clear up this defect.
Albeit I have no idea which defect you mean:
I have cleared up something (now it's up to you
to determine just what that was). No hints.
> Then I will proceed to explain to you the
> nature of reality.
Hot dog! I've been trying to learn that
for ages!
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
S D Rodrian
akl...@villagenet.com wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:46:58 GMT, S D Rodrian
> <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Sorry, no: It is any "speed" as long as it is
> >constant in identical mediums. The speed of light
> >in vacuum is simply "faster" than it is in "air."
> >This is the conventional explanation, of course.
> >The truth is that the photon doesn't (much) "move."
> >In our imploding universe it is everything except
> >the photon that is moving (past the photon, of course).
> >And this is why there is such mind-boggling constancy
> >to its "speed" ... why in identical mediums? Think
> >about it for a second: In a "thicker" medium there is
> >a stronger gravitational field than in a "thinner"
> >medium: Therefore the photon which is IN a thicker
> >medium is "pulled along" (dragged) more than the photon
> >IN a thinner gravitational field (medium). We mortal
> >observers are, of course, ON the moving ("passing
> >the photon") universe looking upon it, so from our
> >perspective it looks as if it's the photon that's really
> >"moving." [e.g. The photon which is being pulled along
> >(dragged with us) will seem to be moving more slowly
> >than the photon which is being dragged along (with us)
> >a lot less: The photon "moving" through a thicker medium
> >looks like it's "moving" more slowly than the photon that is
> >traveling through a medium closer to vacuum. But looks
> >can be deceiving.]
>
> constant speed in varying
> frames of reference?
Please note that the "x-space" referenced
in the quote below is merely a convenient
way to "visualize" the methodology of the
universe's shrinking/imploding without changing
form/shape... by looking at the universe of
matter itself as "permanent" and instead
thinking of "space" as the thing "expanding."
BEGIN QUOTE
Constancy of The Speed of Light In Identical Mediums
One may also begin here: A bullet
traveling (say, through a "perfect"
vacuum) "knows" why it travels at
the speed it does: The amount of gun
powder in the bullet casing tells it
(+/- the gun's velocity). But how
do all photons know why they must,
every last one of them, travel at the
"speed" they do when no photon can
be given less or more impetus by its
source/creator? The most immediate
("only") possible answer is that the
photon is [relatively speaking] not
traveling (moving) at all: In an imploding
universe it is "ordinary matter" itself
is what is "in motion" [this is not a
linear motion, remember, but a motion
"towards" a "shrinking" which only
x-space "recognizes"]; considering which
ought to make it instantly obvious
that any & all "ordinary-matter objects"
in our universe which "appear" to
be linearly accelerating (up towards
the so-called "speed of light") are "in
absolute reality" [in x-space's reality]
decelerating (down towards "absolute
rest")... and the faster an object made
of ordinary matter travels linearly
in our universe the closer it moves to
absolute rest. [Why we need to
accelerate objects in our universe to
increase the force with which they clash
linearly is, of course, made obvious
by picturing a group of men playing
baseball inside a moving train: the
train's "speed" is irrelevant to their game.]
The photon is still part of the
ordinary matter of our universe, of
course; it's only that the photon is
a matter-construct which ONLY
obeys the 1st motion of matter
(shrinking in place) while apparently
remaining free from having to obey
the second motion of matter (or,
closing the "gaps" opened by the
1st motion of matter). This requires
that the photon (and all such particles)
be extremely and uniquely
constructed "universes unto themselves."
[The description of the
photon as "a discrete quantum packet" is
therefore here very pertinent
indeed (as is Frank Wilczek's idea
of "asymptotic freedom," which
holds that quarks feel scarcely any
mutual attraction when they are
very near each other despite their
powerful attraction when separated):
If the universe is to exist as a
stratified architecture in which the
forms of matter in any given stratum
cannot directly interact with
forms of matter in other strata...
there must yet exist a method by
which different strata can equalize
(exchange) their different energy
values and therefore one or more
"special particles" is required to
mediate this interaction between
the strata: The photon fits this
requirement perfectly: Every other
form of ordinary matter is the
absolute slave and prisoner of its
stratum. But the photon is the
means by which the different strata
of our universe "mediate" (or
"exchange"), really "maintain"
their "energy equilibrium" --a "side
effect" of which mediation is that
energy is also made available for
an opportunistic parasite of the
universe, namely... most forms of life:
which would find it very hard to
make a living in the universe
without having this most direct
and easy access to the energy of
the universe which the photon also offers them.]
One hint that this is the correct model
comes from the fact that there
is no absolute/perfect vacuum (one
even devoid of "gravitons")... and
yet the apparent speed of light is
always a constant in whatever identical
medium. [To posit such a perfect vacuum
theoreticians must say that the
graviton simply does not exist, and
that therefore gravity acts purely by
magic at a distance! Of course, they
use the term "space-time" to escape
straitjackets.] In any case... such
an universally constant "speed" might be
understandable inside a perfect vacuum
perhaps, but outside a perfect
vacuum a moving photon MUST experience
a permanent drag, however
infinitesimal [and since c is really
a very, very slow speed in cosmological
terms... that drag should become
appreciable at some point]: The same
"moving" photons traveling first through
a vacuum A, then through air, and
then through another vacuum B... when
measured at vacuum B ought to
reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when
passing through air (and not "return"
to the same "higher speed" they had
in vacuum A). The only possible
explanation is that while air adds
a slight "push" to the photon (remember
that this "air" is the one "moving by"
the photon)... once the "push" of air
is no longer there, the photon "returns"
to the same (greater) degree of rest
it had when passing through vacuum A.
Any other explanation would require
a Rube Goldberg construct--And many a
permeability/permittivity Rube
Goldberg construct have I waded through
indeed, or... eternally tireless
Tarzan-like photons swinging frictionlessly
from out on one limb to the next!
Say that the universe of ordinary matter
"shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a
given direction] in relation to
x-space [and so "moves through it"]
while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the
(approximate) "place" at/in which it
was created (which makes it appear
to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of
ordinary matter "where" it originated);
thereby the so-called "speed of light"
remains constant regardless of its
source/origin/direction because "about"
the only connection a photon has
with its source is "orientation"
[x-space is expanding equally from/at all
coordinates, so the only quality
the photon creator/source can impart unto
"his" creation is an orientation
relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you"
create the photon to the west of "you"
that photon will "seem" to shoot
out away from your west side, and if
you create a photon to the north
of you... it will then "seem" to shoot
out away from your north side,
since x-space will always take "you"
to be the exact center of its universe]
... Add the proviso that if
"enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational
field) passes close enough to a photon
then that photon will suddenly
display a new "linear" orientation
vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will
naturally be "observable" by the rest of
our universe because in our
universe the "orientation" of any & all
bits of ordinary matter with respect
to any & all other bits of ordinary
matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter,
period). There are other concerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding
all other linear motions of our
universe... earth's revolution, orbits,
et al; but this one simple "absolute
law" you really have to understand to
avoid having to delve into synonymous
but much more complex geometry equivalents:
"your" orientation with
respect to the rest of the universe is
absolute... so once the photon "adopts"
an orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same
("your") orientation with respect to
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.
Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN
NOT be added to or subtracted
from the so-called "speed of light" because
obviously the direction of our
"real" motion (x-space = absolute rest) is
never "really" linear at all but always
everywhere "towards shrinking." [And
therefore one is hard put to imagine any
bit of ordinary matter in our universe
achieving any true/real "greater velocity"
than the one it already has when it is
at its "greatest rest" ... with respect to the
rest of the universe of ordinary matter
taken as a unit, of course.]
A simple analogy may help visualize this:
Imagine two side-by-side photons
"traveling" towards a man standing next to
a woman (neither of whom have yet
been enlightened by me that it is they
who are "moving towards" the photons
and not the reverse--further, I have also
never mentioned to them that the only
"real" change in velocity they are
capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS
of anything they might attempt in this reality)...
Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman
that he can catch his photon
before she can catch hers and rushes his
"approaching" photon at 10 mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks
the bet childish and tells the
man she can wait for her photon right
where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the
woman catches hers; but then
something odd happens: [for the sake of
simplicity, here] the man reports
to the woman that he caught his photon
at 100 mph and the woman
reports to the man that she also
caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!
Why doesn't he report to the woman that
he caught his photon at 100 mph
PLUS his 10 mph acceleration?
--Although you already know the answer...
it is, of course, that he "really"
wasn't accelerating at all (because it is
impossible to "really" accelerate in
his reality) and what he was really doing
was decelerating (with respect
to the photon's "position"). But then why
doesn't he report to the woman that he
caught his photon at 90 mph? And
the answer is that if the only two things
that existed were he and the photon
they might indeed agree (between photon
& man) on that 90 mph; but it is
the woman he must agree with on
the speed of the photon... and that is where
the mystery of x-space forever will
confound them both because even though
(in "Paradise") he and the photon
indeed "hit" at 90 mph... in this world he
can never report this to the woman without
factoring in his acceleration of
10 mph with respect to her!
Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man
"takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops
(he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have
no problem understanding that they
will both report catching their photons
at 100 mph). The same is true if
he "takes the time" to step back a few
paces as well: he will catch his
photon after she catches hers, but
you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both
report catching their photons at 100 mph.
The matter is not one of time, but
of acceleration/deceleration: The paradox
[and please keep in mind that there are
no paradoxes in nature, only in our minds],
this paradox will always rest with what they
will interpret as acceleration vs what the
photon will interpret as deceleration...
and in that "misinterpretation" lies
their eternal impossibility to agree
between them that the speed at which
a photon has been caught is anything
except constant regardless of their
relative velocities with respect to the photon!
And there the matter forever rests
in our reality: As far as ordinary
matter in our universe goes... the
so-called "speed of light" will always
be measured in this perfectly inversely
proportional manner to be
identical (in identical mediums) by
all moving observers regardless of
their velocities (linear) relative to
each other: It is an absolute set value
(agreed to) between the man and the woman
(that whichever one of
them "hits" a photon at a "true/real"
slower speed will always report to
the other one that he/she hit it
exactly that much faster, thereby canceling
out all differences between them).
They have no choice in this agreement,
of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them
by the nature of this reality/existence...
and thus too, along with the man and
the woman, every bit
of ordinary matter in our universe
has also "signed" this Absolute Relativity
covenant with every other bit of
ordinary matter in our universe.
END QUOTE
> --
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> aklein at villagenet dot com
S D Rodrian
elqu...@aol.commie (Samuel Waters) wrote:
> In article <92go88$a6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, S D Rodrian
> <Rod...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
>
> >In article <20001228184637...@nso-cu.aol.com>,
> >elqu...@aol.commie (Samuel Waters) wrote:
> >> In article <92gdhj$1nu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, SDRodrian
> ><Don_Q...@mindless.com>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> >That's why BEFORE Hubble saw the recession of
> >> >the galaxies Einstein proposed that there
> >> >had to be some "mysterious force" keeping the
> >> >universe from collapsing. He made a silly stab
> >> >at giving a name to this force (the "Cosmological
> >> >Constant"). But, of course, he did not tread where
> >> >where fools are even now trying to "invent" what
> >> >this "funny energy" is and how it works.
> >>
> >> Well something is preventing the collapse.
> >
> >Absolutely: The fact that since the universe
> >is NOT expanding... no predictable slowing down,
> >halt, and collapse of it is in its future.
>
> any galaxy? How is that possible
> without a continued expansion?
BEGIN QUOTE
I shall state it plainly: Everything IN the universe is
relativistic (with the conceit that everything outside
the universe is "absolute" used in order to understand
the nature of relativity here inside the universe): Now
consider it from that perspective...
1) The universe is absolutely imploding (this means that
if you were God standing outside the universe you would
absolutely see it getting smaller and smaller--than you).
This means that the galaxies ARE (in an absolute sense)
indeed moving (compacting) towards each other. However...
2) Everything INSIDE the universe is relativistic (this
means that for anyone standing inside the universe, and
also shrinking, it would not be possible to tell there
was any "shrinking" going on at all). For us the galaxies
are NOT shrinking, here inside the relativistic universe:
This means that as ALL the galaxies absolutely "shrink"
the only possible effect that we might ever notice is
IF somehow the process of shrinking were to produce the
phenomenon where the forms of matter shrunk ahead of
their then moving/rushing towards each other... and that
is precisely what the laws of physics demand: If there
were no room for them to move closer (they were fundamental)
you'd get a centralized accumulation; but because energy
is required to get things going... that is the first thing
that happens in the process [E=MC^2 = that energy is stored
"conserved" in the forms of matter, and when it is used (up)
to "fuel" movement... it MUST drain from the ONLY place where
it is conserved: IN the forms of matter themselves... and
when you pull air from your balloon it shrinks].
a) Energy is taken from matter
b) Matter shrinks
c) Room (gaps) open(s) between (really, inside) matter
d) Matter then, and only then, closes the gaps
These steps MUST occur in sequence. Therefore there is
an infinitesimal but real "delay" between the steps and
THAT infinitesimal hesitation at the super-micro level
will not only also exist in the macro level but actually
be astronomically magnified by astronomical distances:
The result is that the galaxies REALLY ARE receding from
each other (even if it's only a relativistic "reality"
here inside the universe, and not absolutely).
END QUOTE
The galaxies really ARE receding from each other because
"space" is merely/only the distance between them, and if you
think about it: If the earth & the moon were to suddenly
begin to shrink towards their centers while yet retaining
their shape/form... we would be, at first glance, incapable
of realizing that the two bodies were shrinking (in place,
as their two centers would, of course, never really move
away from each other when measured by some impossibly
absolute ruler which itself didn't engage in shrinking).
The "obvious" conclusion we would jump to would be that
the two bodies were receding from each other (the same
premature conclusion that Hubble & company jumped to).
But note, as I've said, that relativistically the two
shrinking bodies would REALLY be receding from each other
in spite of the fact that they would not be doing so
absolutely.
> Has the light just not gotten here yet from the
> ones that have reversed or become static?
> (And static to what?). May humanity
> have just come alone at the right moment?
Only in the sense that at least this region of the universe
is in the process of shifting from a volume of galaxies
and atoms to one of black holes and--??????
But the reason you seek is answered this way: The photon
is also shrinking (even if it is not joining in the 2nd
motion of matter... which is the coming together of all the
forms of matter). So that the growing "distances" and the
speeds the galaxies are receding from each other is quite
accurately reported by the photon (the spectrum's redshifts).
> >> The universal expansion is slowing
> >> down, but not fast enough.
> >
> >You're out-of-date: In 1998 it was
> >established that the so-called expansion
> >is actually accelerating. Try to explain that
> >in a true expanding/exploding universe and you
> >have to use fanciful Rube Goldberg nonsensical
> >architectures. But in an imploding universe
> >it would be a miracle if the implosion were NOT
> >accelerating with time, since (Newton) acceleration
> >is produced by a force acting continuously on
> >a body: Here, the one body is the universe itself,
> >and the one (and only) force here is gravity. ergo
>
> Gravity is a force now?
No, it's actually been a force for some time now.
> >> Heat death is the end we know right now.
> >
> >Then you must have one weird stove, where
> >you turn on the cold and then it slowly
> >heats up when you turn it off! Wow!
>
> No, I have a stove that once is very hot
> and turned off, it gets colder with time.
Then you should have said "cold death
is the end..."
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
optional...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91j13k$3d0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > In article <8zi_5.133$SKV4.3...@news.randori.com>,
> > "Janus" <Ja...@internetconnect.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3) And, by the way, the universe is NOT
> > > > "expanding" but "imploding." Visit thou:
> > > >
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> > > >
> > > > And be enlightened.
> > >
> > > Interesting theory, but i'm not quite certain
> > > whether your theory implies
> > > the universe to be imploding to a point,
> > > or imploding in general.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> O.K. This is a cool theory (IMO) however,
> how do you explain the
> that BB theory predicted, and
> found?
The cosmic background radiation matter
resolves to this: "There is a constant
"residual" temperature evenly spread
throughout the universe." This is a proven
fact. However, the "residual" aspect of it
is a guess, purely, entirely... a guess
and nothing other than than. The Big Bangers
guess that it's the temperature (so "cold"
by now that by the present epoch
"the radiation temperature would have
dropped to very low values, about 5º above
absolute zero (0 K, or -273º C)
according to the estimates of Alpher
and Herman." (Better measurements
by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
satellite determined the spectrum to be exactly
characteristic of a blackbody at 2.735 K.)"
But, as was most appropriately presented
in a Sherlock Holmes episode (where Watson
found a "residual" temperature in an oven):
HOLMES: And what does this tell you, Watson?
WATSON: Elementary, my dear Holmes:
It tells me that this oven
was recently hotter and has cooled
to this very low temperature.
HOLMES: Watson, did you bother to open
the furnace at the bottom
of the oven? It appears as if
somebody has only recently started
burning fuel down there...
WATSON: Oh dear. You mean.... this oven
is not growing colder after
a huge passage of time
but just now growing hotter instead?
HOLMES: Yes. That was my deduction as well,
old boy! You're quite
a brilliant detective, Watson.
And I mean that sincerely.
WATSON: Thank you, Holmes.
BAKER: Ere! What're you two doing
playing with me oven?
HOLMES: Never mind, my good fellow.
We were just leaving.
Come Watson!
WATSON: After you, Holmes!
"Playing with me oven,"
indeed! Huh!
> I hope this is a reasonable question!
All questions with a reasonable answer
are themselves reasonable.
Happy New Year.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com