Gravity As Thermodynamics:

The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

To understand how the universe works is to understand how it came into existence. Just as to understand how the universe came into existence is to understand how it works: The two are the same thing.

This is the one true equation that describes everything (the so-called unified field theory) because One Single Principle governs the universe, gave rise to it, and evolved everything in it (just as one single evolutionary principle gave rise to every species on earth whether still living or extinct). And the solution is this:

There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet, unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart enough to understand the universe but that they are too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative) illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.

Science is the process of the human mind --Its effort to find and confirm the truth. [And the truth is the truth--no matter WHO brings it to us.]

The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment, a private diversion... but certainly not science.

Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive explanation of the universe in terms of the inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural) phenomenon it is in the universe.

Since I am not here going to give merely one more description of the visible universe but I am actually going to show the causes behind its observed effects, there will be no resorting here either to supernatural interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations (the mere reduction of manifest observations to exacting measurements) behind which the absence of actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.

There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the mystified.

What is Time?

Motion. The question that answers the question is: How fast does time take place? The answer to which is: NOT the same for everyone--To an earthling walking a mile takes "a certain amount of time" (because his clock measures it by the 24 equal sections into which he divides the rotation of the earth). However, the 24-hour watch of a Martian walking the same-length mile at the same speed as the earthling, would record that it took him slightly less time (by his Martian watch) because his clock measures his "24 hours" by the rotation of Mars (a planet which rotates once every 24.62 earth hours). Thereby, if it takes the earthling one hour (by his "earth watch") to walk the mile, it would only take the Martian slightly less than "an hour" (by his "Martian watch") even though they would have both walked the same-sized mile in exactly the same "amount of time" (as measured by yet another clock not tied to those of earth or Mars). But you can see by the need to use THREE independent clocks (above) that "time" has no "universal" meaning (value) and ONLY has meaning/value/relevance in the "minds" of the three clock-makers above. So it goes across the entire plane of existence:

Let's simplify it: Ask a physicist what "time" is in a reality (a universe, if you will) in which there is no matter (or subparticles of any kind; in other words: no motions). And don't let him bamboozle you with any gobbledygook [the "arrow of time" entropy notion breaks down the minute you fill your ice-cube tray and stick it back in the freezer].

That's right: Any and all notions of "time" cease to exist where there are no motions. Therefore, if "time" does not "exist" where there are no motions, why should it even be considered to "exist" as a quality of motion at all? Who is it that dares to paint "time" upon a mere "chaos of motions" in the universe in which they tangle & untangle?

Motions come into existence (in fact, motions ARE existence: all that "exists" and nothing else "exists" outside/except the motions of "matter"), and we humans like to "time" one motion against the other, arbitrarily, according to our own logic... but always ONLY inside our heads. In other words, "time" is merely a human idea which only has "existence" in the human brain: There is no such "thing" as "the past" and there is no such "thing" as "the future" (except as humans like to "think them up").

The universe, outside us (human beings), has no connection with "time" whatsoever. The universe is composed of a number of motions, some faster, some slower, some in one "direction," some in another "direction," some augmenting each other up, some slowing each other down... and our brains evolved to "pick up" a given sweep of them we might take advantage of and survive. [All our avenues to the future are inescapably deterministic.]

Each of the universe's "motions" can be technically considered as independent from all other motions in the universe (until & unless any of them comes into contact with it): Each "motion" is going from "here" to "there" [so its "here" is its "past" while its "there" is its "future"]. It's as simple as that ... One can not "make up" a "dimension of reality" from a mere number of bodies moving independently from each other; one may only glance at "a sum of them" and (for whatever reason one's own) come to believe one "sees" some "recognizable" shape or form in them... at any given moment. [That tells you why "the Past" and "the future" exist ONLY in the human mind. And nowhere else in the universe.]

Was your dead mother on this earth in the past or the present? Yes, we can go look at her bones ... and is that in any way different than going to look at dinosaur bones?

The "past," the "present," and the "future" have no existence outside the human mind: Say you were a child in the past--but YOU have just defined the past. Was yesterday "the past" or "the present?" (You have just defined "the past" again.) How about a few minutes ago? If a few minutes ago is "the present" for you, then YOU (and YOU alone) have just defined "the present" (because anybody else could very well say that "a few minutes ago" is in "the past"). How about a millisecond ago --Was that "the past" or "the present?" Is NOW "the past" or "the present?" If YOU say it is "the present," then a lot of people may still disagree with you, since the "now" you're talking about NOW was clearly definitely a while ago now...

The past, the future, and the present are NOT like three rooms in a row... where you can unequivocally "be" in one of them (and even move from one to the next & back): Those three rooms actually exist outside the human mind--and this is NOT the case with the mere human notion of "time."

But, are not hydrogen atoms (say) "keeping the same time" across the universe? No they are not, because they are moving at different velocities relative to one another [and as you must know by now: the twin moving faster "ages" more slowly]. And if every motion in the universe keeps its own "time" [independent of the "time" being kept by every other motion in the universe] then any notion of there being a general concept of "time" itself obviously loses all meaning (general applicability). And so Time did not "begin" when the universe began (because the universe never had a beginning). Time began when Man first invented the clock.

A confluence of coincidences is not something on which to base a fundamental principle of science.

What is the speed of time?

Certainly, the implosion of the universe, as seen from outside it, must be thought of as something quite comparable to the flash of any explosion or implosion in our common experience--that is, something quite instantaneous. In other words, in its own terms, the implosion of the universe IS "happening" unimaginably fast. What then of us, here inside it, experiencing "time" in human terms? Well, lucky for us (as "time" does not really "exist")... "time" is only a human experience. Therefore, for us, here, walking to the store & back, playing with the dog in the park, watching a movie, or sitting through a 16-inning ball game, watching the night sky filled with billions of "frozen" pops! we call "stars," contemplating the age of our galaxy, of our universe, or of quarks & hydrogen atoms--in the human experience, time is "taking place' at an unimaginably leisurely rate ... and so we humans & all we experience have existed for countless human years, and will of course exist for countless human years to come (in spite of the fact that all of that existence is contained in but a fraction of a fraction of a fraction (fractions almost without end) of the universe's momentary flash! [We only experience the passing of time in human terms, and in no other terms except we do so theoretically... as we might imagine it.]

What is Space?

Have 3 Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?

Space is the absence of matter. *3 Let's simplify this too: Ask a physicist to tell you the exact mechanism by which "space-time" forces the earth and the moon to engage in their orbital dance and he will talk to you about a trampoline tarp in which the heavier earth creates a (downward) "warp" in which the lighter/smaller moon rolls because it cannot roll up out of the earth's warp, and doesn't crash down to the earth because it has too much "spin" (momentum).

Nice. However none of that tells you one thing about what the mechanism is that space-time is using to bind the earth and moon together so they do not go out searching for other partners to "dance" with: Not one thing: If "space" is indeed being "bent," then you are going to have to go down to the quantum level and describe the "gravitons" mediating this dance (quantum inch by quantum inch of this "space"), and how they are doing it, and why they even exist.

Otherwise, the description breaks down, and you are left with the very disturbing impression that when a physicist tells you that space-time is the reason why the moon orbits the earth he is merely saying that it's "because" (just "because").

This is like asking for a description of the mechanism that is keeping the mime trapped inside his invisible box: As there is no such mechanism, the only possible answer is "because" (just "because") ...

In both cases, the logical conclusion is inevitable: There is no mechanism there to describe.

Space is not being bent anymore than the invisible walls of the mime's box are keeping him trapped inside: The mechanism is something other than the given nonsensical explanations.

... BUT, isn't the "frame-dragging" effect real, and proven? The effect is real, the explanation is what is nonsense. For, in a universe that is undergoing implosion (like ours), every bit of matter behaves as if it were fighting every other bit of matter in it to be the first to go "down the drain" which describes the universe's implosion.

It is not that space is being bent by its proximity to matter but that every last bit of matter in the universe is surging towards every other bit of matter in it, thereby intensifying the effect (of this surging towards each other) with proximity.

Just as Galileo described it perfectly: the moon is "eternally" falling towards the earth, but at the last minute, the earth moves out of the way... on its own way to try to fall towards the moon. And this is true for the solar system, for the galaxy, for the total sum of the universe itself, as well as for every last bit of quantum fluff in it. And all of it, mediated, not by gravitons, but by mere proximity:

Every "gravitational system" is, in effect, describing that bit of the universe "going down the drain" [imploding]. And the strengths and the weaknesses of "gravitational fields" are merely describing the proximities of the sums of their masses: Given identical "proximities," a cupful will create but a cupfull's worth of vortex (whirlpool) as it "drains out towards the center," while an ocean's worth trying to "drain out towards the center" will obviously create one quite monstrously powerful "gravitational vortex" [most especially of all: the closer all that mass is "packed"]. Moreover... given increased proximity, the power of the vortex will increase proportionally (which makes even the smallest "black hole" theoretically quite possible.)


It's almost beneath my dignity to speak of so-called "dimensions." The world is not 3-dimensional (such a thing is a physical impossibility: In a 3-dimensional reality one dimension could never "connect" with another). The notion of describing our reality as "three-dimensional" comes from a purely mental mathematical short-hand (reducing all motion to a simplistic "right/left, backwards-forwards, and up-down"). The fact is that in reality there is NO constraint to the "dimensions" possible in our reality (they are of an infinite number); therefore, any "number" imagined in the human mind for them is a number which strictly only "exists" in the human mind and nowhere else outside it: And, if there are no "3" dimensions then there are no 5 dimensions, 11, 60k, a zillion, or more--nor fewer: any 2-dimensional "reality" is a strictly visual mirage, and the idea of a so-called "singularity" is utter nonsense... the sick delusion of an enfeebled thinker. [A Mobius strip is just a twisted strip of paper.] By these means can anyone be certain that all string theory is humbug --as is anything that includes so-called mathematical dimensions in it. Call it "the Santa Clause" ["If your math makes Santa Claus possible, then there is no connection between reality and your math"]: if your math makes dimensions possible or, worse still, relies on the reality of dimensions then there is no connection between reality & your math.

Parallel Universes

The notion that somehow there exists a universe where there is a "you" with the singular difference that whereas "he" combs his hair one way there you comb yours the other way here... is inherently a monstrous violation of any intelligence whatsoever:

Any idea that two universes would produce identical results except for one sudden tiny insignificant entirely original innovation after 14 billion years of existence flies in the face of both the "butterfly effect" and the inviolable laws of determinism:

Imagine two "parallel universes" identical (from beginning to now--as they would need to be just in order to produce two versions of "you"). And then try to imagine what miracle "you" must be in at least one of those universes for "you" to suddenly develop an innovation which is inevitable in one universe but not so in the other (identical) universe! [If such "a unique innovation" occurs but once in either universe even just 1 billion years before "now" the "butterfly effect" would render the rest of its evolution so unimaginably different from its [up to then] "identical twin" that there is virtually no chance whatsoever two version of "you" could ever be produced in them a billion years later, obviously.]

No. If there is another, our "parallel universe" if you will, which is not up to "now" identical in every way... then even the notion of thinking/talking creatures as they exist in this our universe might be called into question. And even if there were such creatures there then they're just as likely to communicate by winks & farts! [Were one such creature to "fall" into our universe I'm sure all he'd be able to do here is raise a big stink & get himself shot--which, as you know, is the way we thinking creatures of our universe communicate: by talk'n & shoot'n).

A deterministic reality does not admit any exception.

And if, in your brainless mind, your reality is NOT deterministic, then please STOP making assertions & expressing opinions out of such an insane reality!

Only a deterministic reality can produce logic, reason, sanity--because of their inevitability. A reality which is not deterministic [in which you enter a room and find yourself a dog on a flea, or whatever] is by definition impossibly insane or insanely impossible (both are equivalent).

The Standard Model of Particle Physics.

In a Big Bang universe the Standard Model is filled with seemingly unanswerable holes: What causes inertia? How do we square gravity with the Standard Model? If we try to fit the graviton into the Standard Model the results are utter nonsense and always make the universe blow up--If we try to understand inertia in terms of particle physics the resulting elusive/mythical/strictly mathematical Higgs boson becomes so difficult to actually prove experimentally that even if we ever do find a candidate for it we will never know with absolute certainly whether we might not have found something entirely different.

But now put the Standard Model into the Imploding Universe Model, and suddenly all the "holes" in the Standard Model aren't there any more: Inertia is an inevitable result of the laws of motion. (Newton's First Law: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.") Well, since everything in the imploding universe is already in motion (towards implosion), and has always been so, it always takes "a" force to "move it." [The amount of the force needed to move said object being proportional to its mass, of course--Or, Newton's Third Law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."]

And same thing with gravity: All the effects that we ascribe to "particle" gravity are the inescapable result of a universe that is undergoing implosion and none of it has anything to do with gravitons or with "strings" masquerading as gravitons. The Standard Model of Particle Physics becomes an almost solid orb of perfection without any more "holes" in it.

The so-called "Higgs field" is not much more than the latest attempt to revive the old ether theory. And like the ether theory, it will probably live a while (and perhaps for quite a while, just like the ether theory). But eventually the complicated rationales which originally gave it birth will themselves make it apparent that the more elegant, simplest explanation is the correct one... namely, that we live in a universe undergoing implosion and that this explains away pretty much all the mysteries that mystify the always mystified.

It is likely that wherever they look *4 they will find "a" particle because there are no fundamental particles: We exist in a reality where ALL so- called particles are made up of sub- particles (which are themselves made up of sub-sub-particles ad infinitum). But, whatever particle they do find, it will not answer the matter of inertia (what gives mass to particles) which the imploding universe model answers much more simply/directly & perfectly.

The problem which begs for "the Higgs boson solution" is NOT a question that Nature asks. Rather, it is a question which "may" answer math problems that man has thrown up for himself. As such, it does not answer "the little matter of everything" but only a subset of a subset of a subset of the questions Man [not Nature] has asked. Only the implosion model answers everything Nature asks elegantly and with near-perfect finality.

Which SEE:

The Double Twins Exegesis

Let's perform a mind experiment with two sets of long-living twins; each set born at the same instant in time in their two very different universes:

The first set of twins is born at the instant of the Big Bang explosion (it is the Big Bang universe, of course), and, of course, they have been moving apart ever since.

(For simplicity's sake let's say that the observer twin catches sight of the observed twin exactly one billion light years away): Now, what exactly does he see? Certainly the observing twin himself will be at least one billion years old. [And, to make this even simpler still, let's say that their Big Bang universe has always been "inflating" at the speed of light.]

In this case, since the image of the distant observed twin requires one billion years to travel back to the observing twin, the observed twin must appear to be a new- born baby. And this will forever hold true no matter how far apart the twins grow (how old their Big Bang universe may be). Therefore, even in a 14 billion years old universe, one twin will "always" be able to look across to the other end of the universe and see the universe as it was "just moments after the Big Bang," no? [This is certainly the Big Bang explanation for why the farther away one looks in the cosmos the younger the universe appears.]

However, this also happens to be incredibly sloppy thinking (and even worse science still)... as the above ONLY holds true provided that the universe is and always has been expanding at the speed of light. [Did you miss this? Then you too are an incredibly sloppy thinker.]

If that premise isn't true (and it really doesn't matter whether the universe's expansion is forever slowing down or speeding up, because what matters is the TIME it takes the twins to grow apart --and whether or not the universe's expansion is happening, all speeds added up, at least at the speed of light): If that premise isn't true, and the universe's expansion is NOT at least at the speed of light, this is what happens:

Even if the rate of expansion were uniformly to be as fast as, say, one quarter the speed of light... you can see that it would not have taken the observed twin one billion years to have reached his position one billion "light years" from the observing twin but considerably more than this. And, in fact, a monstrously huge amount more: Our observer twin could not possibly be a mere/absolute one billion years of age, either--he's necessarily billions of years older (if he has to wait for his twin to travel one billion light years' distance). And, likewise, the image he captures of the observed twin at one billion light years' distance could NEVER be the picture of a newborn. At 14 billion light years' distance the disparity between that amount of time passing and the twins' age would necessarily be that much greater.

And, by the way, if we but just casually look at the actual rate that our universe is expanding (say, by measuring how fast our immediate neighborhood of the universe is "expanding") we get rates that are so "slow" that they could almost qualify as walking speeds! And we can hardly assume that the universe is expanding horrifically slowly in our bit of it and horrifically fast elsewhere (just to compensate for our lack of wits).

But one thing is certain: No matter how far away into the distance the observer twin looked, he could NEVER spot his twin as a baby, because we would always have to add to the amount of time it takes the observed twin to get "that far" from his observing twin the extra amount of time his slower-than-the-speed-of-light speed added to his journey.

Thus it is impossible for an observer in the Big Bang universe to look far enough away (by looking out into astronomical distance, or "back in time") to see the universe as it appeared immediately after the mythical Big Bang. [And since the so-called expansion of the universe (the Hubble Constant) is "apparently" happening not at a quarter the speed of light but many & many orders of magnitude much more slowly than even that... we can be certain that even the farthest object we could ever possibly see in a Big Bang universe will be HORRIFICALLY ancient & haggard --and certainly NEVER "very close to the moment of the Big Bang."]

Yet, this is not the case in this our real universe, where in fact the farther away we look (therefore the further back in time) the younger the universe appears! And astronomers are now catching sight of "extremely distant" regions of our universe with "the very first" galaxies (made up almost entirely of gigantic blue stars which having lived brief explosive lives subsequently produced all the heavier elements that fill up the universe at the present time). This is a contradiction which, assuming a Big Bang universe, can never be resolved.

[The point being that in a true Big Bang universe, where everything is born at once in the same place, there is no way you can look at something which is NOW 14 billion light years away from you and say that it looks 14 billion years younger than you.]

But now assume a "collapsing" (or imploding universe model).

In "the eternal continuum of eternally relativistic densities" there suddenly develops (as a result of the thermodynamic state of flux its very immensity forces it into)... a hollow of lesser density into which the surrounding greater density is therefore forced to "collapse." (In an imploding universe our twins never have to "take the time" to travel away from each other since they are born already the farthest they will EVER be from each other.)

Let's say that theirs is a 14 billion light years sized universe. At this moment if one twin could see the other: the observed twin WOULD look like a newborn to the observer twin (and, yes, it would take 14 billion years for the image of the observed twin to travel across their entire universe--so the observer twin would be 14 billion years old when the image of his twin as a baby got to him.

Now draw a circle inside the one which describes the outermost (earliest) instant of our 14 billion years old universe's birth, and you are describing not only our twins closer to each other, but also their having grown older. And this law continues for circle after circle within circle you care to draw down [and it doesn't really matter how "old" the universe is--or how many circles you draw)... until one reaches the point when the observer twin looks out into the cosmos upon the moon and Sun of our present moment in time... to shake hands with his twin (both of them 14 billion years old... if their universe is imploding at the speed of light). Which describes perfectly what we observe when we look out into the time machine that is created by looking out into the distances of outer space in our universe.

In a Big Bang universe, where the farther away the observed twin is from the observer twin the older they will both be... it is a manifest physical impossibility for the observed twin to appear a newborn (or, if fact, anywhere near anything smacking of youth) because the expansion of the universe NEVER approaches the speed of light:

It is only in an imploding universe [model] that the observing twin can look out far away into the cosmos and see his twin as a baby (regardless of their own age). And this is precisely what we see in our own universe when, looking out into the vast astronomical distances of the cosmos we are yet able to see our universe swaddled in its earliest moments.

This effectively deflates (gives the lie to) any and all inflationary theories [or, nonsense]. Not to mention that the so-called "expansion" of the universe has now been found to be accelerating --which means that if one "rolls the film backwards" [and monkey physicists & astronomers have always accepted "rolling the film backwards" to be irrefutable "proof positive"-!-]... the universe will then always be found to have been "expanding" slower and slower the farther back in time we go --until it actually comes to a complete stop! [This is why "dark energy" was INVENTED in the first place, of course... in a desperate & most pathetic attempt to avoid having to finally acknowledge that any/all inflationary theories about this universe are and always will be made null & void by every fact that reality gives us the time/brains to examine.]

... This is also true of why the universe's background radiation displays an uniform "temperature" throughout: The Big Bang proponents give you a twisted reasoning about how the universe must have "set" this uniform temperature in the first instants of the Big Bang (when all the material of the universe was theoretically packed close enough for this to be feasible). But this is just more muleheaded twisting of the observations to fit their BB theory--as anyone who has observed even the smallest explosion understands (from the different observed colors exhibited within said explosions--depicting the almost instantly-arising different "temperatures" across them). While the more likely cause of this uniformity is that we are looking at a body (mass) of material which, falling inwards from all points of "the everywhere identical pre-universe condition" surrounding us... shares -of necessity- the same quite, quite unimaginably low [lack-of] "temperature." A "temperature" which would then "arise" uniformly all around us as a direct result of an everywhere identical acceleration towards the circuit of our universe (and accompanying increasing density): the only area with a "different temperature" really being here. Or, the very cause of our universe's origin "here" to begin with.

And if this doesn't convince you which of these two points of view perfectly describes the reality of this our universe, frankly I doubt anything else will.

The Two-Fingered Salute to Dark Energy.

How do we know that "dark energy" is NOT driving the "acceleration" of the universe? But perform the following mind experiment:

Imagine that the Big Bang model is the true one. Then place your two index fingers together and accelerate one away from the other as if it were being accelerated by a rocket engine:

If your moving finger's rocket engine fires only for a second: acceleration stops at that point and there will only be drifting of one finger away from the other one from that moment on. This holds true no matter how far from each other the fingers get: In order for the acceleration to continue, the rocket engine must continue to fire. For there to be an eternal acceleration (as in the acceleration of the universe's "expansion") there has to be an eternal rocket firing forever--the instant the rocket engine shuts down the acceleration will also come to a sudden & complete stop, and from that moment on there can only be a drifting apart of your fingers.

Now, consider that your two fingers are moving away from each other, and that the acceleration is not being driven by a rocket but by "an invisible amount of energy" filling out the distance between them--It shouldn't take much for you to realize that for that 'amount of energy" to continue to apply the same force (push) to your fingers it cannot thin out across that ever increasing space but must continue to fill every point of that space at the same "pressure."

This is just as true for the "acceleration" of the galaxies away from each other: The instant "dark energy" becomes a finite amount in the universe there can not be any further acceleration [push] to the ever more and more distant galaxies--if the "pressure" of the energy which had been driving their acceleration is itself thinned out in the increasing space between them: The amount of "dark energy" which would have to be continuously being injected into the universe also cannot remain a finite amount: it must forever be increased AND at ever more exponentially massive amounts.

This presents a very serious problem for theorists, because they would have to not only account for the source of the "dark energy" coming into the universe continuously, but also for its ever more & more monstrous increases. Energy is a very precious commodity. So much so that someone even passed a law sometime ago that it should neither be created nor destroyed.

Remember: There can never be a finite amount of "dark energy" in the universe driving its so-called "expansion" (a finite amount of "dark energy" in the universe is essentially the same as shutting down the rocket engine): As the universe expands, its bits (the galaxies) move away from each other... and the inverse-square law comes into play, just as it does for magnetism (and even your theoretical "gravity"), leaving less and less "dark energy" to do the work.

Every instant that goes by, it takes more and more "dark energy" being poured into the universe in ever exponentially increasing volumes just to keep up the same "pressure" [push], until by comparison the Big Bang of legend is reduced to such a meaningless insignificance that for all practical purposes it vanishes outright and the only thing that matters (remains) IS that theoretical "dark energy" forever & ever growing magically (inexplicably) in mass [sourceless/causeless because its source would not only have to be infinite/eternal, but also forever increasing exponentially].

For all practical purposes then, the acceleration of "the expansion of the universe" is a measure of the amount of "dark energy" that must be injected into the universe--The instant that "acceleration" stops marks the instant "dark energy" has ceased being injected into the universe in forever exponentially increasing quantities. And as on the grand scale there is no record that the so-called "acceleration of the universe" has ceased for long, "dark energy" has "apparently" been being injected into our universe (from some unknown source) in exponentially increasing quantities across all of its aeons.

How/Why/Where Does The Universe Come From?

My guiding principle has been & remains an abiding conviction that the universe must be the result of a slow-paced leisurely step-by-step-by-step evolution [one step immediately and inevitably leading to the following one] over incalculable time, and NOT the result of a "special" single isolated act long-removed from all previous steps leading up to it... which then inexplicably remains the permanent state of affairs.

The history of the universe we see... everywhere conforms with the former understanding, and nowhere supports the latter assumption (except in the fretful brains of those who make a living from dreaming up such improbable fantasies). S D Rodrian

Our imploding universe is undergoing two distinct motions: The first one is "in the direction of" implosion, a motion which creates gravity and inertia (mass). The second one is a strictly 3-dimensional one (we perceive as the Hubble Constant) and which is creating space--a unique feature that can only exist IN a universe where "solid bodies of" matter exist (objects such as atoms, stars, galaxies, & so on).

The first problem to be solved is the prohibition against the creation/destruction of "energy," as embodied in the question of what could have "been there" before there was a universe of visible matter. And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the one which allows us to inquire into levels of existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some of them while not at others [including the statistical research of probability & quantum theory].

But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to "believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid" objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of "matter" alone as the only "solid material" that "exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent" existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe) that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the only thing which really exists") is "momentary" matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy." ["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."] Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter is an "illusion" created by interactions between the electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear forces."

WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.

THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize" sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other "forms")... none of which has any relevance to the question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms" (so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms") without this having any bearing whatsoever on the question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or, the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are made). And this holds true even if the forms are imposed on you by the universe rather than your imagination imposing them on the universe.

This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous theorists from following the line of inquiry we are taking here: Just as it was only after mankind finally accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it is only when we finally give up the human prejudice that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or that there are even such things), that it then becomes possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.

This notion that there exist "immutable and indivisible objects with whose destruction existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human superstition which should have been dropped once it was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).

However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was mulling why it might be that, given the existence of gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of "fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not produce anything other than the "forms of matter" always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby "larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve (or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum) into "smaller/faster" ones], perhaps modern physics might have been spared the last hundred years' nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd (with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions" science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate depending on their distances) could have been understood for what it really is --a clear reflection on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between themselves. [As well as hinting that there might indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in the universe... by which (against which) all eternally shifting local effects might be measured.]

Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?

Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific proposition that there is no fundamental difference between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that they are but merely two levels of the same single process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately there are only "relative differences" in "densities" (or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that from "non-existence" to "existence."

Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it from one form/value/concentration to another "equality."

Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense of "a given energy value") can never have been an all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead always been an entirely relativistic "state") because otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a "leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a clear violation of the laws of physics, but consequently not even a proper subject for science.

The question of "a mathematical infinity" never comes into what is essentially a choice offered by the laws of physics (whether or not "something" can come out of "nothing")... and not the sort of mathematical game exemplified when, say, a new guest shows up at, "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" and the clerk claims that all rooms are full--forcing the new guest to explain that if the hotel is "full but infinite" the clerk can simply make the guest in room 1 move into room 2, move the original guest in room 2 into room 3, and the guest in room 3 into room 4, and so on... depriving no guest of a room but vacating room 1 into which any new guest can then move. i.e. The supposed paradox (like all paradoxes) is artificially created when the clerk erroneously claims that "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" can ever be "full." [There are no paradoxes in nature, only in the mind.]

Acknowledging that "the process of existence itself" is one of evolution (or, that "existence has always existed," as it were) eliminates once & for all the strictly human (mental) "paradox" that existence must "originate" with/as some supernatural Big Bang (special creation) miracle.

Let us posit instead a "given volume of space" ("the void"), its "absolute" energy value (the absolute density of "its whatever material") being irrelevant because as long as that density is purely/solely "relativistic" there can be no "lowest limit" to how tenuous/sparse it can be and still "exist." And this then is the "spatial volume" or, more properly, the "scalar mass" [traditionally termed "the void"]. From our perspective: about as close to infinitely immense as such a thought is humanly possible; that is... without ever permitting time to bring to an end the process of continuing to imagine its immensity.

It quickly becomes clear how unusual (provided such a "volume of space" has ANY "energy value" or "density" at all), how unusual it would be if such an infinitely vast spatial volume could maintain the same identical "density" or "energy value" across the entirety of its unlimited [not to mention: eternally increasing] vastness... regardless how low that energy value or density may be "in absolute terms" which do not apply, remember, because an "absolute" condition of existence demands some absolute lower limit dropping below which "the thing" no longer exists. And, since we exist, it behooves us to assume that the density/energy value of the scalar mass always had to have been "relativistic" and never "all-or-nothing" or "absolute." [Not to mention the fact that to measure anything one must measure it against "something else," and "existence" is all that exists, or obviously "the only thing" that exists.]

In an exclusively "relativistic" context then (one in which the "density" of any given "volume of space" is always merely "relatively" higher or lower than those of "other" volumes of space, and NOT "absolutely" EITHER existent OR nonexistent): there will always be "enough" energy (if you will: "a difference" in "pressures" or "temperatures") already present in "even such primordial" a condition to literally "fuel" everything which may "proportionally" evolve from it --because it's in the nature of "energy" as we have come to understand it (and no less in the cosmic relativity of existence we are discussing here), it is in the nature of "energy" to be (to also "hold") purely a thermodynamic "potential" for "work."

More aptly: "for motion" ... replacing the term "work" with "motion" since we are certainly not going to speak here of "motion without matter." [Energy being "what matter does." Remember: "existence = energy"] Therefore... "if matter is merely energy, matter is also merely motion" (so that: "there has always been motion" is what we really mean when we say that "existence has always existed"). Again: All "the forms of matter" are merely "larger/slower" forms becoming/evolving/ conserving themselves into "smaller/faster ones." Or, from the diametrically opposite perspective (not an entirely unreasonable one, so we'll be discussing it later)... all the "forms of energy" can be thought of as the (denser) faster/smaller forms of energy conserving themselves into larger/slower (more dispersed) ones.

As far as the requirements of "motion" go... the direction of "flow" is irrelevant ("into" will "work" just as well as "out of"). It's a mistake to believe that what's thermodynamically required for "energy" to "perform work" [the term "work" from classical mechanics' "product of force/distance"], that what is thermodynamically required for "energy" to "perform work" is, say, "a boiler-full of heated water" when the sole requirement (for the universe to "work") is that a thermodynamic current "flows" (the sole origin/source of "motion"). Therefore the singular objection to existence is that it not be absolute (or, "all-or-nothing") given that "absolute stillness" has no way of "pushing off" itself, as it were.

In the primordial condition of existence, in which one single elementary (homogeneous) principle constitutes the sum total of "everything/the material" from which all subsequent diversity arises (the evolution of more complex forms from simpler ones, or even a single one) existence can only "flow" [note the always inescapable definition of "existence" as "motion"], existence can only "flow" from this clearly singularly relativistic state rather than from being arbitrarily forced by a human superstition to "flow" from some impossible (magical) "boiler" [or "Big Bang" furnace/mixture] of many already complex primordial states (independent settings) clearly violating creation/destruction laws of energy in some impossible all-or-nothing universe.

With respect to this principle of evolution: If one considers the present universe just in light of the proposed "string" theories: one can hardly help noticing that the present universe is in many, many ways a very elegantly simple concept compared to the notorious complexity of string theories from which it is supposed to "originate" (from which it "subsequently evolves"). Something which is clearly a logical violation of the principle of evolution.

As difficult as it may be to "find" in the primordial "void" a "volume of space" with a density lower than that of the rest of existence, in the first place... that much more difficult is it to even imagine where and how one might possibly (necessarily) "create" a volume with an even higher density, to begin with (or, the infamous Big Bang "boiler" of inflationary models). So the universe (everything that "follows" from "the primordial state") is a lot more likely to begin with the former (or "an evolution" from/of simpler forms) rather than with the latter (some "special creation" Big Bang already complex from its start). And keep in mind that even if one such "Big Bang boiler" could somehow be "produced" (at the "onset of it all")... its destiny surely would be dilution and dissipation, and certainly NOT the concentration and amalgamation which obviously goes into the organization of ever more & more complex forms of matter.]

It is irrelevant whether "the void" comes upon a bubble/area ("hollow") of lesser density (the "egg" that incubates our universe of matter) or such a "hollow" comes into being somewhere within "the void" (my own preference because this makes for a balanced/stable universe in which matter and anti-matter regions balance out each other, making it easier to understand why it is that one form predominates in a given "side" of the universe even as the other form may be the most common one in the "opposite" side of the same universe.

We will always return to this same point of departure: All that is required for the homogeneous "primordial medium" to (perform) "work" [i.e. for "the void" to produce an already perfect/complete machine] is for "the void" (no matter how unimaginably tenuous and sparse its "density") to come into contact with another volume of space "region" or "hollow" (as we shall term it here) having an even lower density.

And, for the purpose of illustrating more easily the "gravitational" evolution of the visible universe, we will "assume" in this text that "our" lesser density "hollow" was more or less completely and entirely (and perhaps even perfectly) encompassed by the greater density "the void." Though common sense rules this out (just as, given their origin, its "discrete bits" could never have been perfectly equidistant from each other). But we will still speak of it this way so we may refer to the universe as having a perfectly spherical shape it can't in fact possibly have.

As the primordial medium of the "the void" encounters our "hollow" of lesser density, its greater density "collapses" our lesser density hollow (collapses into it, that is), sending (crucially for the creation of our universe of visible matter at its center), sending a "shockwave" of higher density "material" into our "hollow" from every point around it. [This "shockwave" of inrushing material effectively represents pretty much the sum total of all the "energy" our visible universe is ever destined to have, by the way.] This imploding pressure wave eventually "condensing" into what we call matter somewhere along the way.

There still being people who think the earth is "flat" (and many who believe it is the universe that orbits the earth--and perhaps there are always going to be such people): somewhere around here advocates of inflationary models "may be tempted to think" that the cosmic collapse of the void's primordial material (energy) into our lower- density "hollow" may well be describing a rationale for their cherished Big Bang model... as "matter" crashes against a pinpoint quantum center and then erupts/echoes back out like 3-dimensional ripples following the dropping of a pebble into a lake... rescuing the ancient superstition that there can be, after all, some fundamental particle from which everything else is made... never mind the fact that this idea leaves us forever unable to explain how a necessarily mythological fundamental object like "matter" could have possibly come into being (out of non-being) in the first place--and "necessarily mythological" because we can never describe a particulate of matter in our universe we can with any degree of certainly assure ourselves is forever immutable and indivisible (even strings' own theory places them neither altogether in our universe nor altogether outside it). But as antidote to this Big Bang superstition, keep in mind that all the forms of matter will condense for a brief time and then "just as quickly" dematerialize. [It's rather likely that we are at the only point along the shifting phases of matter-organization from beginning to end of our universe where life is possible.]

By definition, an indivisible body or object is hardly likely to be made up of two or more bodies or objects... as this would "by definition" make such a body or object, at least theoretically, really already very divisible indeed.

Then again, gravity itself would continue to remain the inexplicable (seemingly magical) "force" we've thought it until now--And the purpose of this very text is to explain how gravity is not some magical unfathomable "force" (of attraction or of anything else) but really only the mistaken description of a perfectly inevitable and natural effect which up to now remained impossible to interpret perfectly.

What Is The Universe REALLY Doing?

The imploding universe is undertaking two crucial motions at the same time: an absolute motion and a relativistic one. We can actually "see" these two motions in action if we but know from where (from which perspective) to look:

Imagine the universe to be an earth-size globe. If we then abstract "ourselves" from it, from now on forever remaining unaffected by its shifting sizes, we can "see" both the absolute and the relativistic motions the universe is undertaking by considering two men standing on opposite sides of this imploding/shrinking globe universe.

The globe is shrinking in an absolute sense, so in an absolute sense the two men are always moving towards each other. [This absolute motion is very much apparent to us all because it's the effect we have come to know as gravity.] However, because they and everything else in their globe universe is shrinking everywhere at a constant rate... in the normal course of events neither of the two men standing on opposite sides of the globe universe will ever notice that they are moving towards each other absolutely. Instead they will forever marvel how/why they seem to "stick" to the globe as if by magic and not "float" away into space. [And if they happen to be scientists and understand the Standard Model they might assume that gravity must be mediated by gravitons & then they will waste their lives trying to make up a Unified Field Theory encompassing gravity and particle forces. But you can see why the geometry of Einstein relativity describes gravity better than the forces of Newton.]

The shrinking of everything at an universally constant rate (so that everything appears to remain relativistically frozen in place/size) is itself the second motion: It is nearly impossible to notice at very close proximities (least of all by two such beings standing across a common lump of matter)... but it can certainly be "seen" when glancing across astronomical distances (and we call this very visible effect the Hubble Constant, which makes it appear as if the galaxies are receding faster from each other the more distant from each other they are). [Although one can substitute "time" for "distance" and "witness" it in practically every object that orbits another body.]

To understand this purely relativistic effect (of course in reality all the galaxies necessarily must be "absolutely" getting closer and closer inside an imploding universe)... one has only to consider the nature of space (in other words, all one has to do is consider it) as the distance between bodies of matter: Where does it come from? How can there be any "spaces" at all in the single ("solid") body which the universe of matter must be from the very first instants of its "massing" in its cosmic hollow?

Well, our universe is very large, and the same laws of thermodynamics which inevitably create the "hollow" into which the higher densities of "the voids" flows now literally tear the "solid" universe into "bits." And it is at the level of these bits that the body of the universe continues to implode... so that from here on out every one of these "bits" begins to implode away from all the other bits about it forever FASTER than the single body of the universe itself can "stuff" those opening spaces: At first there is very little "space" between the numberless bits, but given enough time and whatever form the "bits" of the imploding universe eventually take as they evolve & revolve in ever more complex interactions (galaxies in our epoch of the universe)... you can see how the distances between them can grow to unimaginably astronomical distances (into a "lot" of space indeed).

At first, the "absolute" (viewed from outside our "cosmic hollow")... the "absolute" motion of this thermodynamic "penetrating shockwave" (flow/current) is undoubtedly always "moving" only in the direction of our cosmic hollow's logical center [a "center" which can probably only be "pinpointed" by quantum theory, since obviously anything introduced into the "hollow" to measure the position of its "absolute center" would necessarily shift it---thereby finally making it clear that the world of the very big(gest, really) behaves exactly like the world of the very smal(lest) except perhaps in small minds]. But now you understand how without a particle interaction between them two objects can establish an "orbital" relationship about a so-called "center of gravity."

To say "the world of the very small" is to say "the world of the very near." In a universe undergoing implosion the human perspective stares out both to a much bigger/distant world and to a much smaller/nearer one from somewhere in the middle: The more distant/bigger world always appears to be growing bigger and more distant relativistically; while the smaller/nearer world always appears to be growing ever smaller and nearer in an absolute sense (gravity).

This holds true across the full spectrum of possible perspectives (the view from within the universe is also always relativistic, while seen from outside it the universe would appear to be absolutely "shrinking" in isolation).

As the observer is also imploding, when he looks at "the world he's leaving behind" it appears to him to be big (and the farther away he looks at it the bigger it appears to always be growing), while when he looks at "the world into which he is moving" it appears to him to be small (and the closer he looks into it the smaller it appears).

Counterintuitively, it appears to us as if the world of the very small is a chaotic one (forever shifting its geometric centers), while in reality it is the one behaving in an absolute way: The world of the very big may appear to be stable as it grows bigger and more distant... but in reality it is growing neither bigger nor more distant at all.

Three very specific basic "motions" will describe the nature of the universe from the instant "the void" encounters (one of) these cosmic "hollows" of lesser density which "nurse" entire universes of matter at their core. But I do not include one of these three Basic Motions of Matter (the "pressure shock" of the general void's greater density "falling" into our cosmic "hollow" as it is strictly a 3-dimensional motion towards the "center of "our hollow" up until such material fully saturates it). Essentially, all the "falling" primordial material pressurizing itself "solidly" in place. I leave out this "motion" because I don't see it playing any further role in the processes that keep our universe in its continuing present equilibrium.

At its point (of "highest saturation") this singular homogeneous "solid" mass (call it a "cloud" or call it a "body" of energy) destined to become our universe of visible matter, now finds it has no place to go from here other than to be (literally forever) squeezed into an always smaller & smaller volume of space (for the very reason that, exactly like every other "thing" that exists... it too is neither fundamentally solid nor immutable and therefore can not refuse to be so squeezed)... effectively causing it to "implode" in an "absolute" sense: forever to grow "smaller & smaller" as it is forced to occupy an ever diminishing volume of space--the originally homogeneous "solid" mass now very much literally tearing itself to bits--that is... into "discrete bits" (each a self-contained system forever "winding itself up" in a lifelong strategy designed by the laws of physics to "conserve" its eternally increasing angular momentum--which must fro, now on always increase, as said before, as larger-but-slower systems "conserve themselves" into smaller-but-faster ones)... until they all eventually pay the ultimate price of dissolution. (But that's far off in the future at this point.)

Nonetheless: note the origin of "space" as merely the "distance" between these primordial discrete bits: A process (of space-creation) which has not stopped to this day; and which at the topmost level of matter- organization (that of stars and galaxies) is "easily" observable by us as the Hubble Constant. But a process which is forever on-going at ALL levels of matter-organization.

"A" given level of matter-organization is one which reflects a stage (or state) at which the "local gatherings of interacting "bits" or "clusters of them" (or "gravitational systems") nevertheless begin to behave (or to be thought of) as if they were one single object (giving the impression of having no individual constituent parts within it).

We may begin to trace the history of these matter- organization "levels" from a point where the entire mass of the "visible universe" could be thought of as one single homogeneous mass (or "cloud") which has just completely saturated the "center" of the cosmic hollow into which the primordial material of the higher-density "the void" surrounding it has fallen. (And it's not important for us here whether the "saturation" fills the cosmic hollow completely of merely a given area about its center.)

The crucial thing is that it is at this point that this once "one" solid body begins to "tear itself apart" (or, more to the point, to "bits"). More specifically still: necessarily into fully discrete "bits" (and "necessary" because it's the simplest way that the resulting sum of all such "bits" [once one solid body, and before that a "shockwave" of primordial material falling from "the void" surrounding our cosmic hollow]... can "squeeze" into the eternally diminishing area available to it as it continues its journey toward the center of our cosmic hollow--And since there is literally nothing in its way towards that "center" against which to crash (to stop its journey) except itself (its own nonexistent refusal to permit itself to be squeezed any further)... that journey is one which can only end in/with the utter dissolution of the falling body ("cloud" or "sum of discrete bits").

Crucially, all of those "fully discrete bits" are tearing themselves away from all the other discrete bits in the cosmic body (creating "space" between themselves) as they "implode." To begin with, once the entire mass (body, cloud) of our universe consists only (or even mostly) of these (same-sized or same-wherever) discrete bits, by definition they will effectively collectively constitute our universe's first ever "perfected" or finished" level of matter-organization (the first generation of matter-organization).

Because of the natural chaos which characterizes any active thermodynamic system (since evolution never stands still, in effect): eventually those "individual" discrete bits will begin to "fall" into local interactions (systems of "orbits" and/or crashes) each made up of perhaps only a few discrete bits (in ever continuing interactions) and perhaps each of them made up of many and many handfuls of the "original" first-generation discrete bits... which will, no doubt chaotically at first (until they "fall" into whatever "level of stability" is most "natural" for their "whatever-numbered" interactions) will, after "the chaos of transition" lifts, will then create across most of the cosmos a "second generation" of "gravitational systems" (or "particles") everywhere of a "similar nature/size/structure or number" (perhaps, but) all or most of them interacting in some similarly (in some related) "stable" way.

And note that it is always from this (transitional) "chaos" that everything in the universe is built (by/from the interactions this "chaos" sets into motion... producing "orbits" and/or "crashes"). [There is no "chaos" in nature, there is only our inability to understand its laws.] "Chaos" here is only our convenient description of a nevertheless absolutely determinate process in which there can never be any effect without a cause--otherwise "chaos" would remain eternal, forever precluding our very existence. My apologies if this hurts the sensitivities of the superstitious, but in our existence anything (including in Quantum Theory) outside absolute determinism can only describe magic or insanity. [Now, it may be that our universe is magical or insane, but I tend not to believe that's the case.]

Now: This "quest for stability" also tends to be characterized by a "scarcity" of free-roaming "component particles" (of the previous generation) as these are everywhere quickly incorporated (as the current generation's "preferred" building blocks (of the forms of matter "now seeking" their own "gravitational stability." SEE Standard Model).

Arbitrarily defined as they may be, it is nevertheless "around" a given "perfected" or "finished" level (or levels) of matter-organization that we define "similar forms" interacting 3-dimensionally according to Newton's laws of motion & universal gravitation. [We tend to describe "systems" such as atoms, stars, and galaxies as "objects."] For example: the five or more of these "perfected" or "finished" levels of matter- organization straddled by our own existence (or... that of quarks & gluons, atoms & electrons, stars & planets, and supermassive black holes & the galaxies from which they seem to be evolving at the present moment).

Regardless how brief or long their reign, once these similar "systems" of interacting discrete bits achieve their whatever measure of "stability" as "gravitational systems" across the cosmos... they de facto become the next "perfected" or "finished" level of matter-organization.

At this point in this narrative we are at the "second generation" level of matter-organization ---where it's now the turn of this generation of "perfected" or "finished" gravitational "systems" to build their own local interactions... as either a few or a great many of these second generation "systems" begin to combine (no doubt chaotically at first, until they too find their whatever "level of stability is most natural for their interactions" and) combine into super-systems... which, once they too manage to achieve cosmos-wide stability, also de facto become the (third generation) "perfected" or "finished" level of matter-organization.

And so on, forever, and so on until the ceaseless evolution of generation after generation self- organization of the forms of matter into stable levels reaches our own "finished" (stable) level(s) of matter-organization (those of our atoms, stars, and galaxies). Which is not to say that there might not be just as stable "finished" levels of matter- organization "higher" than ours, of course--And quite entirely unsuspected by us as well.

For now, if only to understand the earliest condition of our universe of matter, the important thing here is a realization that fission/fusion "nuclear processes" only take place at our topmost "finished" level(s) of matter-organization (that of the Standard Model "nuclear" particles). At more fundamental levels of matter-organization (than that of our "particles") the "decay of energy" does not produce what we would recognize as "our" heat, light, or any of "our" other familiar processes of atomic (radio)activity.

Note: Because it does not explain the inevitability of its "strings" ... string theory only really has one function: to supplant the Standard Model. And since that is an unnecessary function by definition string theory itself is unnecessary. (Gravity is not a force, therefore there is no need for it to be "unified" with the 3 forces.)

To continue: if this "hypothesis of eternity" seems to suggest that the overall density of "the void" is constantly being "thinned out" by its incorporation of lower-density regions (like empty "hollows" in some viscous goo) such as the "hollow" of lesser density which produces our own universe of matter at its core (meaning that the bigger "the void" gets, the lower its overall absolute density value falls)... this is because that is exactly what must be occurring.

Remember larger/slower "forms of matter" eternally conserving themselves into smaller/faster ones... Well, in this sense: motion in one direction by one part of a body is balanced by another of its parts moving in the opposite direction. [Newton's Third Law.] Essentially this is the process of the greater density "the void" erasing our lesser density "hollow."

While matter itself is concentrating into "rock hard" imploding discrete bits (ever tighter, harder, hotter, and charged up)... "the void" is itself dissipating into a general inertia as it "grows" (ever larger, and more tenuous, stiller, colder). The two "different" parts of the same "one body" (system) are pushing out from/to exactly opposite directions at once--and we can think of these two opposite "motions" as really in the same direction (having the same energy-conservation objective).

At the end of the process, matter is but motion. So all the "matter" of the visible universe must eventually "slow down" (unwind again) and dissolve.

Moreover, just as our hollow of lesser density is very probably "nothing special" in nature, even our own local "the void" is proportionally almost certainly itself also but some likewise pinprick-size "object" no doubt embedded in the fabric of an even "higher" level "the void." Although likely this must remain as hard for us to distinguish, local from general, as it's hard for us now to distinguish "a" part of eternity from the whole of it. And yet, however this line of inquiry may remain closed to us: the implication remains that vast regions of "our" local "the void" may be\are very probably everywhere pockmarked with similar "hollows of lesser density" (each probably destined to give rise at its core to a universe not unlike ours... as they are one by one "collapsed" by the higher density of "the void" encircling them).

A thought which, by the way, ought to bestow some measure of respect upon even our humblest virtual particle. And certainly illustrates the very persistent "absolute relativity" of existence at any level... as higher level "the void(s)" balance out ever-thinner-and-thinner absolute densities with ever-greater-and-greater absolute expanses--canceling out everywhere all possible breaches of the law against energy creation/destruction.

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

How large was the scalar mass which eventually became the material mass of the universe?

Well, imagine that the "density" of this original scalar mass must have been the greatest vacuum which has even existed--and then imagine how large an area this "vacuum" must have been in order to "contain" all the material mass of the present "material" universe:

None of this mass ("energy" by another name) could ever have been created or destroyed. Merely: The scalar mass has boiled down to material mass. [The unimaginably large "size of the" area containing the scalar mass (or, "original vacuum") has become the unimaginable concentrated material mass of the present "visible" ("cramped in size") universe.]

And, above all: Nothing created, nothing destroyed. [The "unmoving" immensity of the original scalar mass has "conserved" itself into the "ever faster and faster moving" universe of material mass.]

The crucial thing is that the absolute energy value (density) of "the void" always remains an eternally irrelevant (purely absolutely relativistic) number: The strictly human question of where/how this "primordial material" arose "to begin with" is therefore made moot by its always relativistic nature.

Or: "If in order to exist Existence would have had to have had a beginning--it could not exist. We exist, therefore it behooves us to assume that there never could have been a state of non-existence" (however one may wish to define such terms as being & non-being).

What is important for us (strictly a concern for the sentient beings of this one particular universe, that is) is that the primordial medium ("energy") of "the void" has come across the next relatively less dense "hollow" and has given rise here (at the core of this one particular lesser density "hollow") to the "next" universe of visible matter... ours, namely.

I know of no requirement that "a" given universe "has to be" of any specific (purely arbitrary) size: Here, in this one "cosmic hollow" at whose core our visible universe resides, it is only necessary that its volume be "large enough" to produce the observed effects (the requirements of other universes can be entirely different, larger or smaller). So we might as well forget about trying to impose any purely arbitrary limits upon the "size" of our universe on that account. And since now we know that there are no "gravitational limitations," about the only thing we may say for sure is that our visible universe is many orders of magnitude larger than what we can "see" of it (or, that the "size ratio" of our "hollow" to that of its "universe of matter" was already hinted at by Einstein's infamous [E=MC^2] approximation).

In any case: Into a "large-enough" lower density volume (our "relatively empty" cosmic hollow) "falls" (in quite a "shockwave") a thermodynamic "current" not all that different in essence from that of a lightning bolt: More slowly at first and then faster and faster (an acceleration destined never to end) as it "falls" in a 3-dimensional direction towards the center of our cosmic hollow like some unimaginably rarefied molasses.

It is when we can speak of "matter" as "energy" (or "motion") that we can finally define existence as "not either/or" (matter/energy); since obviously anything "flowing" can only be described in terms of "a" higher or "a" lower flow, and never as "not flowing."

Even at this our level of matter-organization (so many & many orders of magnitude removed from that of "energy"), this in a very real sense "reduction" of matter to "motion" (i.e. the acceptance of matter as energy) is what makes it possible to think of "matter" in almost exactly the same way that we've popularly come to think of "electric energy" as a "current" or "flow." Thus it is just as possible to speak of matter as only a "thermodynamic" current/flow... whose seemingly permanent "structures" (shaped by the interactions of the EM/weak and strong "nuclear forces") are, every last one them, from top to bottom, really only temporary "eddies" within what is essentially also only a thermodynamic "current" or "flow" and, consequently, never can be fundamental, indivisible (unqueezeable) objects and/or singularities.

We mortals, understandably ever in love with just about any ideal of permanence, will undoubtedly be emotionally anguished to have to acknowledge that every last bit of matter (yes, to the very last one) in our universe is destined to "fade away" without the least hope of there surviving even the most forlorn memory of "our having been." But that's the way it is (and, frankly, I think it rather poetic... this "so very human" tragedy): The process I am explaining in this text does describe the eventual "dissipation" of all the universe's "matter" (if matter is but "motion" it must eventually, as it were, "come to a stop").

If this continuing process (this eternal evolution) of matter-organization can be described as "winding up" (larger/slower forms forever "imploding" into smaller/faster ones)... what else can its ultimate consequence be--if not its winding down at last (T.S. Eliot's "whimper").

And what would the end of a universe in which its forms of matter had completely "wound up" to the full extent of their "energy potential" (to do so) be like?

Well, we might consider the one factor which is evidently "increasing" even as the other two are "decreasing" in the process described above: The "matter-making machine" (larger/slower forms of matter evolving or "winding up" into smaller/faster ones) "is" of course THE mechanism by which the finite amount of energy (of the original shockwave) which has "fallen" into our cosmic hollow conserves its density (or "energy value") literally into the forms of matter (and their whatever discrete bits).

So, conversely, this same process by which "the universe of matter" travels toward the center of the cosmic hollow (its "singular body" imploding like a shrinking baseball in front of our eyes) can also be described as one in which at every step of that journey "a" volume of space is also growing (out of it) from a smaller/denser energy/pressure into a larger/sparser one (or, volume of space) as if the imploding universe of matter were a pressure wave after the passage of which the lower density of "our" hollow of lesser density will be left with a pressure --an energy value-- equal to the rest of "the void" surrounding it... thereby also making our cosmic hollow indistinguishable from/in it:

It will be as if our lower density "hollow" had never existed at all: So in a very real sense there is a (thermodynamic) "purpose" to (in) the reason for all that "space" which is continuously being "created" inside matter itself: to finally defeat the instability created by there being such a "lower density" hollow "out there" to being with:

It remains axiomatic that all motion takes (uses up) energy. So it is inevitable that "the forms of matter" should literally consume themselves right up (even unto nothingness): It obviously takes energy for the forms of matter to "wind up" into "being" in the first place--and energy/motion is what matter is "made of."

Although it may appear that (in its journey towards the center of the cosmic hollow) the higher density "shockwave" that has fallen into our hollow of lesser density (to become the universe of visible matter)... though it may appear that the higher density "shockwave" is racing against distances, the fact is that in reality its "forms of matter" are really racing against time (racing toward their own dissolution) as they "implode" (or "wind themselves up")... literally "shrinking" themselves "right out of existence" with all the irony of the runner in the so-called paradox who, although running a finite length, nevertheless can never finish his run because he keeps switching to running half as fast every time he gets half way to the finish line: Our universe is also "speeding up" even as it "shrinks" (so that, like the runner above, it too finds himself eternally just as far away from its "finish line" as it ever is). Even though very few of us until now have ever even suspected that "we" were either "shrinking" or "speeding up."

But this is why only when observed from outside itself (from outside the universe itself) does the universe implode in a "brief" and "finite" length of time right down to "nothingness" (as "timed" by clocks which being outside the universe never vary during the implosion from its "slower" beginning to its "faster" ending).

Observed from inside the universe itself (that is: "timed" by clocks which "in here" are forever adjusting as "time" itself is changing, i.e. "speeding up")... the implosion of the universe (like the "run" of the "eternally running" runner) is about as close as something can come to seeming to be eternal without actually being so.

As our clocks here inside the universe "speed up" it makes the universe appear to us to be "lasting longer" ("longer lasting"). So that, almost nearly as perversely as is the case with the "eternal runner" of the story above, although the universe may also always be running faster & faster, it is also always growing smaller and smaller... in a quite fiendishly proportional agreement that forever cancels out what would otherwise be an all too obvious ever increasing requirement for more & more energy, for example, just to feed its same unchanging appearance (speed). Absent which "missing energy," the universe would very unambiguously be seen to be "slowing down" ("imploding" more and more slowly with time --or, since for years we've misinterpreted the universe as "expanding," we would have interpreted that misinterpreted "expansion" as slowing down with time).

Instead the universe (its misinterpreted expansion only as of very recently now correctly interpreted as "speeding up") will forever be perceived to always be "speeding up" (from our more recently well-informed perspective, as over astronomical distances, the farther away we look the farther back in time we're seeing)... The universe, in reality imploding faster and faster with time (as measured also by the Hubble Constant), will "forever" continue to do so... until the moment of dissolution when matter runs out of matter, and "its forms" can no longer "hold their forms."

Note that this is not the same phenomenon of relativistic time-dilation described by Einstein in the "twins paradox" where (clocks inside the universe not being synchronized) the faster any given bit of matter (the twin riding his rocket) "moves" the slower his clock (its inner motions) "runs" and therefore the faster the clocks of the "slower moving" universe (of the twin left behind) will run. This being caused by the disruption which velocity imparts to matter's "inner motions."

Until matter's moment of dissolution, as with the "eternal" runner (above) who will seem to keep running almost forever: the universe also will be able to continue its own "run" seemingly long, long after the "discernible" limits of its "fuel tank" (almost as if by magic)... as our unsuspectingly accelerating clocks continue to unsuspectingly lengthen the "same" stretch of time they measure.

That is to say: from our perspective, here within it, the universe's continuing "implosion" will "seem" to defy definition itself, appearing "never" to reach that theoretical "smallest-possible size" beyond which anything must "vanish" completely out of existence--because, trapped here inside it as we are, we can not so easily detect either the quickening of "absolute time" (kept only by clocks outside the universe itself), or our own dwindling "size" alongside the ceaseless lessening of everything about us... the eternal speeding up of the clocks here within it making it appear to us as if it is the time that the universe has left that is lengthening, as we "time" the brief instant left to the universe with our unimaginably accelerated and eternally accelerating clocks:

And so "forever" is really only relative to the clock against which it is being timed, and not an absolute term: Our "forever" is someone else's brief instant in time, just as our own "brief instant in time" can be someone else's "forever." [And so no one need put himself in place of someone outside the universe and, from that position, think that all we amount to in here is but a brief few seconds. Rather, it's far closer to our reality to think that "clocks" outside our universe run so slowly that they but measure a few brief seconds during our billions of years.]

Our sole real triumph perhaps being that power of the intellect to hurdle even the dissolution of all being itself: here, taking in the entirely of the universe's lifespan (and knowing how it is only when we set it against the brief span of our own mortality that the universe seems "almost eternal")... we can marvel at last how even the span of the universe is something not all that different from the so abrupt lifespan of even the least "virtual particle" in it.

If nothing else: still one more vindication of the proposition that existence does consistently work by "one single simple principle" evolving all the subsequent complexity... after which all such boundlessly evolved complexities eventually must decay back to the same "one single simple principle" from which all came. That is to say: This is yet one more hint that the laws of physics work everywhere exactly as they do anywhere.

What is obvious is that to understand the structure of their cosmos human beings have to divorce themselves from their however cherished (so exclusively human) prejudices. And that science really begins with the quest to identify all such prejudices... because the human perspective obviously is NOT the most universal but one produced strictly by the requirements of/for our existence (required solely for us to survive here where we happen to live... within the bosom of the "artificial nature" which is the human condition we've conspired with the universe to construct for ourselves). Something which is true for all scientific considerations (human endeavors), as we continue to "make" our entire planet into a larger and that much more fatal a version of what we made of Easter Island.

What all this means is that, for example, the "speed of light" is NOT "fast" (an absolute term, from our perspective)... and is only/merely "faster" (or "slower") in absolutely relativistic terms: In relation to the size of a man, the speed of light may indeed be quite "fast." But in relation to the size of the universe, that same speed is so monstrously slow as to almost escape the very description of motion!

While considered from here inside it our "virtual particle" universe may give all the appearance of being something almost approaching the eternal (and thereby making it so difficult for some of us to "understand" how an "object" can shrink "forever" unless they first understand that it is their "sense of time" that is quickening with the ever quickening universe about them--giving them the mistaken "feeling" that the measured span of time that is in reality forever growing shorter & shorter nevertheless always remains exactly as "long" as it has ever been), considered from without: the lifespan of our visible universe may "pop" in/out of existence before even perception itself may be able to take note of it (were there "someone" outside the visible universe to "see" it, of course--and capable of noticing it).

Yet it is only once we grasp such things as how truly slow "our" speed of light is in "astronomical" terms, that we might permit ourselves to imagine timing the orbits even of electrons in terms of our hours, years, and centuries. And then might we countenance the idea of all those "material" structures about us (which have all of our lives convinced us of their unchanging solidity across untold ages) possibly really being as "fluid" as is the "flow" of electrons coursing within the "bolt of lightning."

Then might we grasp how, in the same way that a brief sweep of sixteenth notes might seem, to some level of consciousness outside the human, to outlast even the lengthiest passage of "their" whatever centuries... even those motions which seem to us to be "the fastest possible" may to some other level of consciousness outside the human also seem to outlast the lengthiest passage of "their" whatever centuries: The quick wave of one of our hands may "really" seem so "slow" to them that to their quicker consciousness all of its "motion" ceases to be motion at all... and turns into the same "notion" of solidness a bar of iron suggests to us. Then might we divine "the frozen monsters" that are all living things in our human perception (including us, yes)... and recognize at last exactly how truly solid even our greatest notion of fluidity really is & fluid even our most unyielding solidness.

In this thermodynamic analogy, then, there is no real distinction between the thermodynamic current that is a bolt of lightning and the thermodynamic current that is our visible universe's "matter." [Matter is energy and energy is motion, reducing matter to pure motion.]

Keep this in mind (in light of our human notions and prejudices about the nature of time). By "our human clocks" the bolt of lightning happens "very quickly," while the universe seems to be almost eternal. But this is strictly a "real" distinction only in our own minds--stemming from our historically mistaken idea that "fast" and "slow" are absolute values. They are not. And in the universe there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow" or "big" or "small" (only "faster than..." or "slower than..." or "bigger than..." or "smaller than...").

Living as we are inside the universe, a given rock's whatever odd shape may seem to us to be almost immutable to change... even if in reality that rock's shape (as well as the shape of every other "form" in which matter happens to exist "at the moment" here inside our universe) is merely describing the passing (momentary) state in which "its flow of matter" finds itself... the ongoing, never-ceasing change through which it is passing, one shape/form to the next one --something indeed very much analogous to a current's eddies as the sum total of the universe of matter "flows" (not 3-dimensionally, but) in the direction of implosion.

This is the reason all 3-dimensional acceleration results in an increase in mass... as matter is "forced" to move "against" its own singularly natural direction of motion: the direction of motion in which it is already moving (or, "implosion").

Note that it's possible for an object to accelerate while moving at a constant speed... since "speed" refers only to the magnitude of the velocity, and not to the direction in which it's moving. So that an object can also accelerate solely by changing its direction (even as it maintains a constant speed).

So: Matter's "singularly natural direction of motion" is "the direction of motion in which all matter in the universe is already moving." And in which it has been moving ever since the instant at which "our cosmic hollow of lesser density" became fully saturated with the higher density material that had fallen into it from "the void" ... at which instant the "energy" of that "shockwave" began to "conserve" itself (its "energy") into/by its implosion ("larger but slower forms forever evolving into smaller but faster ones").

"Mass" being a description of the "unwillingness" of any discrete bit of matter to be "unnaturally" moved in any 3-dimensional direction (against a direction of motion in which it already finds itself moving even absent all 3-dimensional motion ... since all the matter in the universe is already and always will be "moving in the direction of implosion"). Which is the explanation for inertia.

Also: all subsequently even greater (proportional to its 3-dimensional velocity... since it's now compounded: 3-dimensional + implosive motion) "unwillingness" of any object/body moving 3-dimensionally to be moved "against" its "additional to implosion" direction of motion being the explanation for all additional force (proportional to how fast the object/body is moving 3-dimensionally, of course) required to "move" an object which is "already" moving 3-dimensionally.

And note that Newton's laws of motion do not explain the cause of inertia (now explained here) and only use inertia as a point of departure--That is: Newton confines his famous laws of motion to 3-dimensional motion alone... since he could not have known that everything in the universe is "already" (eternally) moving in the direction of implosion (leaving inertia an unexplained mystery).

The One Particle That Reveals It All.

At our topmost level of matter-organization (that of atoms, stars, and galaxies) the photon is a rather peculiar discrete bit ("unit of mass") whose most salient characteristic is precisely that its "mass" is so minuscule that it has even inspired a heated debate over whether it actually has any mass at all. It has:

"Mass" as a measure of "the inertia of a given unit of matter" means that there is no practical distinction between a unit of matter and "an equivalent" unit of mass--since the force needed to accelerate an equivalent unit of either is one and the same [historically "matter" really only being a dim reflection of how "the structure of its mass" is "packaged" in a greater/lesser volume].

Therein the above explanation for inertia (since by definition: all motion NOT in "the direction of implosion" is 3-dimensional): All 3-dimensional motion is therefore "against" the direction in which all matter is already moving--explaining the "reluctance" of any unit of matter to be moved 3-dimensionally in direct proportion to its "mass."

No matter what the "mass" of the photon is finally determined to be... its "acceleration" is prodigious. Therefore its "mass," or "inertia," is correspondingly prodigiously tiny--although never non-existent, or (to put it in the conventional lingo)... or photons would be absolutely immune to "supermassive gravitational fields" (to which they are obviously not immune).

The structure (or "package") of the photon is very obviously substantially oversized and, compared to the other particles, relatively "unstable." That is: it is "visible" out of all proportion to its mass, and its "material" is closer to the edge of annihilation than even that of the far more massive/stable electron's, for example--though neither electrons nor photons have the legacy of a long enough evolution--long enough to have brought to them, as it has to other particles of matter, enough mass in a "stable enough" structure (neutrinos too are unstable, changing their "flavor").

The crucial thing at this point is that because of its infinitesimal mass the photon is able to free itself almost entirely from one of the two Basic Motions of Matter.

Matter's "two basic motions" as the universe moves in the direction of implosion... one being an "absolute" motion (which we interpret as gravity), the other a strictly "relativistic" motion (which we interpret as the Hubble Constant).

Photons (and other likewise extremely low-mass particles) do "move" exactly like every other form of matter that exists here at our topmost level of matter-organization in one way: They also "shrink" (thereby seeming to remain the "same size as ever" relative to the size of all the other objects in the universe which are also "shrinking" at the same rate). However, as the entirety of the universe "implodes" towards the absolute center of its cosmic hollow of lesser density: the photon seems to be able to escape the "absolute motion" of all the matter in the universe (which we interpret as "gravity")... even if it is true that it does not escape all of that motion and only just most of it. Self-evidently: the photon does not fully obey the absolute law of gravity most of the other forms of matter obey.

Because all matter is everywhere moving in the direction of implosion but there are no fundamental objects/bodies anywhere in the universe to "implode" toward their own "singular" geometric centers as if they were perfect singularities... all the objects/bodies in the universe (with the possible exception of the discrete bits of the theoretical "first generation" of discrete bits ever to evolve from the primordial cloud that "saturated" our hollow of lesser density)... all the objects/bodies (all the forms of matter) in the universe are imploding NOT towards their own geometrical centers but at/toward every and all the smallest-possible coordinate(s) in/of their matter.

Again: the overall effect of "gravity" is that (at every smallest-possible coordinate of the matter of every object/body in the universe)... all matter is forever (imploding) moving in the direction of the center of every smallest-possible coordinate of/in its matter.

The result is that what we see at our topmost level of matter-organization is a relativistically "frozen" solid geometry with no easily discernible directionality in which the imploding Planet Earth, for example, does not "implode" ONLY towards its own "singular geometric center" but toward the "geometric center" of every and all possible coordinate(s) of its matter... forever giving us a picture of the eternally always same-sized and same-shaped unchanging sphere we've always known.

But make no mistake about this: the entire universe of matter is absolutely imploding at the level of its every smallest-possible coordinate(s). And, for example, this means that the Earth is "falling" into the Sun and that the Moon is "falling" into the Earth in an absolute sense (exactly as described by Galileo). Even though, relativistically, the Earth is also moving away from the Sun, and the Moon is moving away from the Earth (as described by the Hubble Constant).

To better understand exactly what the photon is up to, let's imagine what a photon (which is after all just one more "form of matter" among those of our level of matter-organization)... what a photon would "look like" if instead of "shrinking" along with all the other "shrinking" forms of matter, a photon were to somehow manage to always retain its size even as the rest of the universe in which it found itself continued "shrinking" all around it (and, further, let's imagine this theoretical photon of ours as a perfectly spherical hollow ball):

From "our" perspective now (unsuspecting as "we" are that it is the universe that is "shrinking") we would undoubtedly interpret this "miraculous spherical photon" as "growing in size" at a quite prodigious speed (really exactly proportional to the speed at which the universe is "shrinking")... so that, for example, in just over eight minutes our spherical photon would be as big around as is the earth's orbit around the Sun; and in a mere 50,000 years or so more it would be the same size as is our entire Milky Way Galaxy (90,000-100,000 light years across). So that if the universe really is [for the purposes of this thought experiment] just under 14 billion light years across, in slightly over 7 billion years our theoretical spherical photon would hold within its "hollow" the entire universe itself).

It is its mass that "drags" matter along (making it "move in the direction of implosion"). Any "form of matter" that lacks sufficient mass is able to (proportional to its mass--or, lack thereof), is able to "resist" being dragged along into engaging in the Second Basic Motion of Matter... the one we interpret as the "pull" of gravity here inside the universe, but from outside the universe would interpret as the entire universe imploding like any other conventional single body might implode (and it is this absolute aspect of the photon's motion which makes it look to us as if it's "moving" so oddly). It is the fact that the photon does not move, or moves very little, that permits it to "behave" both as particle "package" (in isolation) and as wave (when it interacts or is "measured").

As I said, the photon still participates in the First Basic Motion of Matter (implosion at the level of every discrete bit or unit of mass) because while the Second Basic Motion of Matter "seems to an observer" to take place only at "a" fully-constituted (or "finished") level of matter-organization (its well-defined "bodies" literally "appearing to be" interacting among themselves... as with atoms, stars, or galaxies)... the First Basic Motion of Matter is taking place at the level of every "least possible" discrete unit of mass [that is: at the level of the theoretical "first generation" of such discrete bits which were the first ever to "tear themselves" from the "single solid homogeneous cloud" that had fully saturated the center of the cosmic hollow into which "fell" the shockwave of "higher density primordial material" from "the void" surrounding it]. So please note that, regardless how one might arbitrarily define such a primordial "unit" ... we say that the universe is "imploding at every possible coordinate of its matter," rather than only at the level of any given "particulate" (or "finished" level of matter- organization). Therefore the photon, being as much one of the forms of matter at our level of matter- organization as atoms, stars, and galaxies... the photon is also "shrinking" exactly as are all the other forms of matter here.

But if the photon does not retain its size (appearing to grow ever larger), and has as little mass as it does (therefore not being a form of matter which "moves" along with all the other forms of matter that are moving in the Second Basic Motion of Matter) and thereby appearing to us to always remain "where it is" (appearing forever unmoved amid the flow of "everything moving together"), what exactly determines in which direction it will go (or "appear" to go)...?

Well: That "direction" in which a given photon "moves" is determined only by its orientation to its "source" at the moment of its "onset" (creation). And this is a "direction" which can have a completely 3-dimensional orientation with regard to its source because (disengaging as it does from the Second Basic Motion of Matter) the photon's direction of motion instantly becomes 3-dimensional while that of its source forever remains (as it has been) a motion "in the direction of implosion" ... and these are two quite separate and independent from each other directions of motion.

In this matter the spherical photon analogy above can serve an important illustrative purpose: Even if, unlike our theoretical spherical photon, the real photon is not growing in size... its position at any given point in time after its "creation" (i.e. after its "separation" from its source) would always still fall exactly where the surface of that growing theoretical spherical photon would fall, given the passage of equal amounts of time... in any direction (which, as I said, is determined solely by the orientation of the photon to its source). Therefore there really is no practical limitation either to which 3-dimensional direction a photon can take... or to its traveling from any point in the universe to any other point within it--or to points outside the universe, for that matter... considering that a photon can move across the universe to (be at) exactly any point in the spherical surface of the theoretical photon which is capable of swallowing the entire universe in our thought experiment.

Think now of the geometrical center of our theoretical spherical photon: If there were an "ether" at absolute rest behind the imploding (and therefore "moving") visible universe... and its "geometrical center" were fixed on that "ether," then our ever growing spherical photon would appear to us to "drift" (as the visible universe imploded towards its absolute center, leaving behind all things, photons included, without enough mass to be dragged along)... so that if, say, the geometrical center of our theoretical spherical photon (where its source was at the instant of its creation) were in the Milky Way Galaxy--our entire spherical photon would seem to us to "take off" now, as it grew, drifting away from the Milky Way Galaxy. And some portions of our galaxy could then travel across two opposing surfaces of this growing spherical photon.

But as there is no "ether" in the real world to which such a theoretical spherical photon might "fix" its geometric center... that geometric center must remain forever fixed to more or less the place where the photon's source was at the time the photon came into existence--Meaning that if its source was somewhere inside the Milky Way Galaxy, our galaxy would always remain inside the growing soap bubble hollow... and no portion of the Milky Way Galaxy would ever be able to cross two of the spherical photon's opposing surfaces --every point in the galaxy will cross one surface of our "growing" sphere, but never more than one.

This is something we must grasp in order to understand why it is that there is no "directionality" to "the speed of light." Our "growing" theoretical spherical photon is in a very real absolute sense "moving" along exactly like (with) the rest of "the entire body" of the universe as it implodes as a whole)... thereby effectively frustrating any attempt we here inside the universe might try to make to establish a directionality for the "speed of light" since no matter in which direction a photon may be traveling it must always "fall" (be) exactly where, in that whatever direction, the surface of our theoretical growing (and "drifting") spherical photon would be. For, remember: the geometric center of our theoretical "expanding" spherical photon is "fixed" not to some background ("ether" or whatever) but to "all the other matter" of the visible universe that is absolutely imploding towards center (fixed to its "point of origin" or "source").

So the "explanation" by G. F. Fitzgerald that matter "contracts in the direction of its motion" [to account for the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment which first established that there was no directionality to "the speed of light"] is now forever exposed as the misinterpretation it is--As well as is the subsequent arbitrary limitation on anything being able to travel faster than the speed of light "because matter can only contract to zero, obviously, and not beyond.

My special objection to the general relativity notion that as space "stretches" between galaxies light's wavelengths "resting on the medium of space-time" are also stretched into a red-shift (or maybe even blue-shifted as they are compressed along with the space-time which is compressing between {galaxies} rushing towards each other)... is made obvious by one fact alone: A lot of times we may be talking about the same "piece of space" here stretching AND compressing at the same time as the light from the {bits of a galaxy} which are moving away from us AND those from it which are moving towards us necessarily travel across the same regions of space-time, say... or perhaps the gravitational lensing of a red-shifted galaxy by a blue-shifted one. Are pieces of space-time stretching AND contracting at the same time? Is the universe expanding AND shrinking at the same time, getting all bent out-of-shape? Now THAT's space-warping! (Or, mind-warping, at any rate.)

Is it really reasonable to imagine that general relativity's new-minted "space-time ether" is both stretching AND compressing at once without one action nullifying the reverse action?

The annoying (im)practical illustration of space-time stretching and compressing light waves traveling through it [using a Slinky] as if light required a medium (an "ether") to propagate... illustrates the very logical flaw of it: Simply ask the illustrator to "create" long (red-shifted) light waves and short (blue-shifted) light waves WITHOUT moving his two hands toward & from each other!

What is the true cause of the red-shift then?

Well, it absolutely does NOT have anything to do with the imagined "bending" of space. And everything to do with "actual objects" moving towards/away from each other (as unwittingly illustrated by the Slinky illustrator mentioned above).

Why is the speed of light always measured as constant with regard to every "bit of matter" regardless of the velocity of that particular "bit of matter?"

Essentially because:

1) the velocity of every "bit of matter" varies only when measured against one or other "bit/bits of matter" ... "motion" (as well as "speed") is something we have always recognized only as a measure of how much/how fast one "bit of matter" moves (3-dimensionally) with regard to some other "bit or bits of matter" only [measuring the "motion" or "speed" of any or all "bits of matter" against the implosion of the universe will always necessarily yield the same identical "speed" regardless of the "speed/motion" at which "our bit of matter" is moving 3-dimensionally [versus "the other bits of matter"] because the implosion of the universe is "headed" towards "the center of every bit of matter" rather than toward some 3-dimensionally-recognized direction]

2) the photon "moves" mostly only in the direction of implosion [although it is "the implosion" which is really "moving," not the photon]... and that "motion" is therefore necessarily identical for every distinct "bit of matter" in the universe regardless of how "fast" or "in which direction" it/they may be travelling with regard to each other (or, in the common parlance, 3-dimensionally).

Note that from the point of view of the "bits of matter" (the 3-dimensional point of view) the universe is behaving like an explosion [it is only with regard to its sum total that the universe is behaving like an implosion--something which the "bits of matter" can not easily "see"]. Therefore, no matter from which "bit of matter" you look, your "speed" versus "the implosion of the universe" will seem identical, and it will be a waste of time/effort to try to add or subtract the "speeds" of any other bit/bits of the universe's matter to that fundatmental "velocity" [remember: our notion of measurement is "one bit of matter" against "another bit of matter"].

Historically we have accepted the "universal truth" that "velocities" are measurements ONLY between "bits of matter moving 3-dimensionally;" thereby making a fundamental error when we used this human form of measuring to measure something which is not moving 3-dimensionally [or measuring the photon's velocities in 3-dimensional terms]... giving us counter-intuitive results that have since unfortunately produced rather misleading ideas about the nature of reality.

Lesser or greater "speeds" are the result of measuring "one bit of matter" against "whatever other/s," while the photon's speed, regardless of which "bit of matter" it is measured against/from will always result in the same value: C

Matter may indeed not travel "faster" than C, but only in the sense that it is rather hard to imagine the universe imploding faster than at the speed at which it is imploding!

REVIEW: Every photon "moves" with regard to the implosion of the universe, while every "bit of matter" "moves" with regard to/against every other "bit of matter" in the universe: You can't use the "measuring mechanism" of the one reality on the other reality without producing nonsensical results--in which the photon appears to move with the same "speed" no matter which "bit of matter" it is measured from/against... and all photons appear to "move" at the same "speed" with regard to each other no matter which "bit of matter" it is measured from/against!  Now,

The speed of light may indeed be independent of its source, but its red-shift is "a result of" & "a marker of" an observer's acceleration away from the light source: It is a measure not of "distance between source & observer" but of "the relative acceleration at which the observer is moving away from the light source" (distance can be brought into the equation because of the Hubble Constant, and is only coincidental).

Red-shift increases as the speed of the observer increases away from a light source because this increasing (relative) acceleration cancels out an increasing equivalent portion of the photon's frequency--resulting in the red-shifting ("decay") of its light waves. [It is but reasonable to suppose that the relativistic acceleration between light source and observer exacts a cost on the photon--and since the universe cannot exact this "cost" from the photon's "speed" or "mass" there is very little place it can impose it outside the red-shifting of its waves' frequency. Conversely then, blue-shift reflects the photon exacting a "cost" from the universe, as it were.]

This is no different than what happens with Einstein's Twins [except that, as the speed of light always remains constant with respect to observer, it is not the photon & us, of course, but the photon's source that appears to us (as to the photon) to be the "faster-moving" Twin, as it were]. Therefore, on the sliding scale of cosmic distances (because "our" photon's unmoving "c" connection to "us") as the photon's source's velocity relative to "us" increases: our photon's "aging" (its frequency--the connection between the two "twins") slows [exactly as the "aging" of the faster moving Einstein Twin "slows" with respect to the Twin that remained where he too originates]. Thereby, by the magic of relativistic connections, producing the "increasing" red-shift we observe.

An interesting factor is: What happens when an observer's speed away from the light source matches the speed of light? Will the red-shift "decay" all the way down to black... never "reaching" an observer moving away from the source at the speed of light --or, forever stranding the observer between two peaks of now (for him) theoretically infinite waves?

What the photon is telling us is that [because of the constancy of the speed of light] "its source" is "the younger twin that is in greater motion" while it itself is "the more rapidly aging twin that stayedbehind" [therefore the faster its source is moving (away) the "older" is our photon].

The farthest "fuzz" of cosmological concentrations should "fall down" to an almost infinitesimally faint glow [about 2.76 K~?] before it drops off entirely into invisibility--Our local concentrations can be as chaotically lumpy (galaxy clusters/local groups & regions) as they like, but all will "mesh" into a blur at the cosmologically greatest distance [the CBR "horizon problem"]. So that regardless of how chaotically lumpy the immediate universe is, the most distant concentrations "look" homogenous & isotropic (a reflection of the unimaginable immensity of the universe beyond the stars/galaxies/gas clouds we can "clearly see" across these few 14 or so billion "light years"). And this is exactly what one would expect the imploding universe to be: infinitely bigger/vaster than anything we poor humans can ever even imagine.


The reason why any suggestion that anything might be discovered traveling faster than the speed of light is so upsetting to physicists is that in Einstein's special theory of relativity essentially "gravity travels at the speed of light." And if anything can can travel faster than light, why not then "gravity" too? And then perhaps gravity even travels instantaneously, as everyone believed it did (before Einstein). And then today's quest for "gravity waves" is all loused up real good.

But, not to take anything away from Newton, who along with Darwin, was probably the greatest scientist {mathematician} of all time, of course: The truth is that there is no such stuff as "gravity." And that Newton, being more of a mathematician than a scientist, was "talking gibberish" when he proposed that there was "a force" which was "pulling down" his apple, just as it was "pulling" on all the heavenly bodies [and no matter how reasonable this gibberish may be].

Had Newton been more of a scientist than a mathematician perhaps then he might have said that "the effect which seems to be making the apple move towards the earth may be the same effect which connects all heavenly bodies," instead of stating, as he did, that "the FORCE which pulls the apple towards the earth is the same FORCE that also pulls on heavenly bodies" (or some such): The point is that the first statement is ALL Newton really knew about what he was observing, while in the statement which he did make Newton makes the unfounded assumption that "a force" MUST EXIST which he obviously knows absolutely nothing about (nor would anybody else know anything about "it" for the next 300 years... until this present text which you are now reading).

Because mathematicians deal almost exclusively in the absolute certainties of their math, they have an almost pathological inclination to assume that they can just as easily make equally absolute statements with regards to a reality which more often than not has proven time & time again to share only the most tenuous of connections to/with their math.

In reality there is no "force" either pushing or pulling on Newton's apple: It is much closer to the truth to say that the apple itself IS the "force."

"Acceleration is the same as gravity." --Einstein

Unfortunately, because Einstein [nor Newton for that matter] did not know (and could not have known) the real reason for this universal acceleration (gravity), he simply went off on a tangent insisting that space (and time) are "somehow bent" by bodies of mass... Still retaining the same old superstition that gravity involves "quantities of mass pulling on one another" (even if now basing it on a brazen bit of irrational absurdity.) Why not, indeed!

It should not be called "gravity" but "acceleration."

Gravity is the acceleration of quantities of mass toward one another: The closer two quantities of mass are to each other the faster they will accelerate towards each other [Newton's "32 feet per second squared" at earth's surface.] Therefore any given quantities of mass in a neutron star will obviously always be a lot closer than those same quantities of mass here on planet Earth (resulting in a much greater "acceleration toward one another" there in the neutron star than here on earth).

And the reason they are accelerating towards one another is because our entire universe is "the mother of all implosions." [Accelerating against the direction of "gravity" effectively cancels it--equally gravity & the acceleration].

To call this universal acceleration "gravity" is a confusing misnomer. It should not be called "gravity" but simply "acceleration." (Unless you wish to classify this "universal acceleration" ever by the vulgar term of "gravity" of course.)

"You will go farther by crashing a wall than by driving away into the distance" may at first seem counter-intuitive (albeit Heaven IS quite distant), and there's a very good reason why 'tis so: The human brain has evolved over the millennia to become very upset at the slightest odor of the irrational.

What Galileo discovered by playing with his balls at the Tower of Pizza (and with all those pendulums & inclines) was NOT "gravity" [or, the Equivalence Principle of Gravity], but inertia's counter-effects against gravity-like conditions. --Even if like Columbus, who never knew he had discovered a new continent, Galileo also never quite understood what it was he had discovered... that, regardless of their mass ("weight"), objects tend to "fall" at the same rate because their different inertia cancels out "gravity" [their "Newtonian acceleration" due to the universe's implosion IS as much "an outside force acting on them as any other push"].

... In the case of Newton's arrogant assumption that "gravity" IS "a force" acting upon masses: it has resulted in 300 years of wasted brilliant minds and unimaginable resources pursuing the idle fantasies of nothing more than pure science fiction. [You might wonder whether I have misgivings about overturning (turning into utter waste, really) such staggering human efforts. --As, perhaps considering the great distress his findings would have on his fellows, Copernicus forswore their publication until after his death--as well perhaps aware that there would be many who would feel distressed enough by his findings to seek his murder.-- But I am like the first in a planet of blind creatures who, gaining sight, observes that the Sun is a very shiny thing: Soon enough everybody else will see this for themselves, and then mine will no longer be considered such an original observation: Ruling out once & for all any notion that God had any role whatever in the unfolding of the universe (as thoroughly as any notion that He might have created the bicycle) overturns not hundreds of years of human thought but ... the ancient impression people have had almost since our ancestors came down off the trees and reasoned to the best of their knowledge that the world itself MUST also have been created [by some primordial God?] exactly like they could see all things "created" in the world around them: Does this mean I advocate demolishing the world's cathedrals? Of course not! [It wouldn't hurt to see the Pope get a real job, though... along with a few theoretical physicists.] But all these wastes of great resources which no doubt would bring much greater benefits to man (from costly churches to exorbitant departments of theoretical physics) are nothing less than monuments to our great quest to unlock the meaning of life from the nonesuch of existence.

But, of course, the biggest red flag you can have that your "truth" may not be "all there" is that it offends no one. And perhaps the day is not so far off when we will finally realize that life (the personality of a man), is not unlike the roar of a runing motor: When the motor is turned off, its roar does not go on to a different plane of existence--With the only difference between the brain & a motor being that after the brain is turned off for but a brief three minutes you can dump it in the nearest ditch.]

Yet I believe in God: To me God is the universe & the universe is God--We are therefore the essence of God, all of us. [All it takes is a little bit of wisdom to understand this.]

To continue:

In the infamous mind experiment: Yes, light takes nearly 8 minutes to reach the earth from the Sun, but because there is no such "a force" as gravity... if the Sun were to vanish, the earth and all the planets would indeed "instantaneously" lose their "connection" with/to the vanished star, and what we would then experience from this our planet is that suddenly (and for 8 very weird minutes, before we at last "saw" the Sun vanish) the Sun would appear to "drift" out of its expected path (as would all the other planets)... maybe traveling from north to south now instead of from east to west.

This has Quantum Mechanics implications because it shows that in our universe so- called instantaneous (faster-then-light) "spooky action at a distance" *5 is just as viable on the large-scale world as it is on the small-scale one---Even across ALL of the universe: In other words, imagine two stars each on the opposite sides of the entirety of the universe (obviously, we can know they share a relationship because otherwise they would wander off into the void away from each other). Now imagine that the universe between these two stars suddenly vanishes... and, instantly, the relationship between them would "change" even across all of that distance ... from one seemingly having absolutely nothing to do with each other to one having everything to do ONLY with each other: There would appear to have been a change which had not really occurred at all!

[This is because the relationship between those two stars has nothing to do with distances and everything to do with themselves... they were both "entangled" even before any "measurement" is done---Thereby justifying Einstein's faith in the ultimate "certainty" of reality: There is no uncertainty in our reality--Only "our" incomplete understanding of it.]

The Michelson-Morley experiment, an attempt to determine the absolute motion of the Earth against an "ether" which was supposed to fill all space and to be at rest was really an attempt to discover in the universe a state at absolute rest (by having it be the result of subtracting all possible motion in every direction).

What Michelson and Morley discovered in fact was the universe's absolute motion in the direction of implosion by discovering that the photon always travels in every 3-dimensional direction at the same speed:

It was an experiment doomed to failure by the fact that it only encompassed 3-dimensional motion in a universe where 3-dimensional motion is essentially motion in an aberrant direction (the normal direction of all matter in our universe being in the direction of implosion). [If one considers that motion in the direction of implosion is the same everywhere then you realize that there is no objection to defining such a "motion" as the one state in the universe at absolute rest (since all 3-dimensional motion is motion with reference to it).

Inspired by Fitzgerald's "uninformed explanation," and knowing that the ratio of an electron's mass to its charge can be determined from its deflection by a magnetic field (as there is no reason to think that as an electron's velocity increases its charge also will increase), H. A. Lorentz suggested that the mass of a particle should increase as the charge of a charged particle is compressed into a smaller volume. And W. Kauffman discovered that, exactly as predicted by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, an electron's mass did indeed increase as its velocity increased (an agreement which improved measurements showed to be just about perfect)... strengthening everyone's confidence in the accuracy of Fitzgerald's gross misinterpretation for why the speed of light lacked directionality--and, by the way, lending confidence to one Albert Einstein, for whom this could only mean that "therefore" there could be no states at absolute rest in the universe (a thought which eventually gave birth to some of his relativity explanations). [Never mind that the "absolute" constancy of the speed of light, no less than its "absolute" lack of directionality, should have told Einstein that there "had" to be some state at absolute rest in "the equation of the universe" against which such constancy was being kept constant!

But there it is, of course: the speed itself at which the universe of matter is imploding is absolute across the entire universe (or, I should really say: "is of an equal value where equal conditions (of "pressure") exist")... since one can also state it as everything other than that which is moving as "moving" with respect to it (just as in the description where someone in a passing train is able to imagine it's the train station that's passing by instead).

What is this "pressure" in the absence of particle interaction/mediation (gravitons)...? Well, certainly NOT the "push" of one absolute body (billiard ball?) against another physically. Or, from the geometrically opposing viewpoint: The fact that all the bodies/balls are (and have always been) moving in the same direction is enough--Obviously no individual body/ball moving in such an avalanche of them could possibly suddenly come up with the impetuous impatience to speed up (or with any spontaneous sloth, for that matter).

Naturally, once the reason for inertia (given above) is made clear, it's obvious that all 3-dimensional acceleration of matter produces pressures ("g-forces" as it were, or a very real "stress") against its own inertia (its motion in the direction of implosion)... these "g-forces stress" increasing with acceleration make it clear just how massive a force would be required to "move" even such a trivial "mass" as that of a photon's across the entire universe in, say, a fraction of a second--and the "stress" that photon would consequently be under.

It is this proportional (to 3-dimensional velocity) "stress" which interferes with the regular/normal inner motions of matter (matter itself really being reducible to "motion," which is itself merely another definition of "energy")... causing the very real rise in mass of ALL accelerated matter (not just of charged particles, as Einstein himself showed)... as well as the "slowing of time" for matter traveling at higher 3-dimensional speed, obviously. [Thereby providing the real reason for the also very real "twin" paradox (which like all paradoxes exists only in the human mind, and never in nature)... while separating this very real "relativity of time with respect to 3-dimensional velocity" from any notion that time itself might have accelerated for the twin remaining "at rest" behind in any "real" sense... outside a misinterpretation by the "accelerated" twin, from whose perspective (to whom) the clock in "the passing train station" (the twin remaining behind) will appear to be "moving faster") because the matter of which he (the accelerated twin) himself is made is being "slowed" by the stresses of its acceleration. But "the universe's time" (or, the absolute speed at which the universe is imploding) remains "the time" for the "unmoving" twin left behind--as long as he keeps still (and doesn't try to race across the entire universe in, say, a fraction of a second... because, if he could find the power to do so, it might be a fraction of a second to him, but he may find the rest of the universe aged 14 or more billion years).

S D Rodrian

- 30 -

Absolute Relativity, An Essay On The Nature of The Universe / S D Rodrian


ADDENDUMS ANSWERS from GOOGLE posts by S D Rodrian ...

> maybe you could help Bill out with an answer to the > question: What the heck causes gravity?


ALL the effects we ascribe to the "pull of gravity" are really caused by/because of the fact that the universe is (and has always been) imploding (yes, since its origin ... in fact, THAT is its origin).

However, don't try to disprove this by tossing a coin up "against the pull of gravity" because the "speed" at which the coin travels "against the direction of implosion" will be of no consequence whatsoever (you'd have to throw the coin OUT of the universe to counter its implosion)...

... Instead of believing that ours is a universe as described in the inflationary models (a universe of immutable forms of matter forever "expanding" from some primordial magic bean), imagine that we live in a universe where all the forms of matter are just that ("forms" composed of other "forms of matter" which are themselves composed of lesser/smaller "forms" of matter ad infinitum) in a universe that is/has always been in implosion...

Yes, use the metaphor of a black hole imploding. But: How long does a black hole take to implode? Well, viewed from outside it, almost no "time" at all. But if the entire universe were imploding, we, of course, would be inside that implosion. If such an implosion lasted only our "seconds" or even "minutes" or "hours" or even "days, months, years, et al" it would cause our "matter" to burst! But, on the other hand, if such an implosion "lasted" (for us here inside it, "timing" the whole thing by our "hours, years, centuries," or even "billions of years"), if such an implosion lasted for as long as the entire lifetime of our universe... then "our forms of matter" would have "enough time" to bend/twist/evolve/adapt to whatever changes were taking place--And it really wouldn't matter "how long" our imploding universe took as "timed" by "somebody" watching its implosion from outside it. The only "time" that mattered to us... would be the one we ourselves "timed" by whatever methods we devised.

There is no such thing as an absolute speed (time), and "the laws of physics" which govern the movement of "our speed" (time) depend entirely on what the "mass about us" allows.

As the universe implodes, ever accelerating as it does, our "sense" of time (of how "fast" the speed of general motions about us) is also increasing because "there is no absolute time (speed)" and instead the "speed" (and therefore the "timing") of everything (its timing by us) is "absolutely" relative to "the mass" about it (about us). Therefore: No matter how "fast" the universe implodes to "someone" viewing its implosion from outside it, to us, here inside it, the implosion of the universe must necessarily seem to last "for as long as the universe lasts."

The hardest obstacle to realizing that ours is a universe in implosion may be that, being INSIDE this implosion, we imagine it's exactly like what happens in a black hole collapse (destroying all forms of matter in it & around it in milliseconds ... the sort of milliseconds measured by our clocks AND the impossible clock of someone INSIDE the black hole we're observing... which clocks we assume to be forever absolutely synchronized).

Rather, think of one of those films of street crowds which are sped-up and you see streams of cars & people rushing "through" each other without a single one of them running into anything... Well, that film is "sped-up" from our point of view (by us), where we exist at {what?} speed watching the film--but for anyone "in" that sped-up scene we're watching "existence" was unfolding at "normal" speed, and any idea that they were going so blindingly "fast" that it may be impossible for them to crash into everything would seem almost insulting. [ By {what absolute standard?} do we believe that "our speed" is the "normal speed" of existence itself?!? ]

... Rather, the speed of light is "fast" because we imagine it is (measured against our walking speed). While the speed of one set of atoms decaying into another element is "slow" because, again, we measure it against our walking speed, or the speed it takes us to eat a bowl of cherries, or to live out our whole lives, or even the lives of all the generations of man, for that matter. We find it hard to imagine that all the generations of man, or all the generations of all the organisms that ever lived on this planet, or all the generations of stars, et al, might fly by in the "time" it takes "someone standing outside our universe" to glance to one side and notice that it (our universe, unsuspected by him) has imploded (in milliseconds, as measured by his watch). But that is EXACTLY what has happened, will happen, and is happening: The relativity of time is absolute (and that relativity extends to outside our universe): The relativity of "speed" ABSOLUTELY has everything to do with what the mass around your "watch" is doing (its "speed" ... in effect, its "time").

I have said it before and I will repeat it endlessly: "Everything that is now described as "the pull of gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of velocity." It doesn't mean that "rocket scientists" will have to find some other way to "sling-shoot" their space vehicles (than by gravitational orbits) --rather, they must eventually come to realize that what they're doing is the same thing that happens to a leaf that's sucked into the eye-wall of a hurricane: The closer to any "point of implosion" anything comes the greater the velocity it must experience (and those "points of implosion" exactly coincide with what we now call "centers of gravity") ... which is identical to saying now "the greater pull of gravity they must experience."

WHERE are these "points of implosion" located inside the universe? Well, self-evidently they cannot be located in the middle of space (space with more space around them) because space can neither implode or explode. Therefore, they ONLY exist where the matter of the universe is imploding (its material substance) and that boils down to mass, mass, and more mass: This makes "a" point of implosion absolutely relative to the mass around it. So that any mass which is added or subtracted from any "imploding system" (which is any congregation of matter sufficiently separated from the rest of the universe to exhibit independent motion towards its own unique point of implosion, whether it be the earth-moon system, or the Solar System, or the Milky Way system, or even the earth-Newton's Apple system)... any mass which is added to or subtracted from any "imploding system" has an immediate effect upon the "location" of its "point of implosion (making ALL such "points of implosion" then absolutely relative to the mass about them). [And I certainly don't want to get any "the speed of gravity" nonsense here--suffice it to say that if the Sun were to vanish by some magical miracle, what's to prevent a magical miracle from being instantaneous across the entire universe?] However: Since all the mass (matter) of the universe is moving towards such "points of implosion" (BECAUSE such "points of implosion" exist in isolation --from the rest of the universe--NOTICE the "space" between them) they are all entirely relativistic: That is, while the moon and earth are "trying" to "roll down their own mutual/common point of implosion" they are also, as ONE system/mass vying with the Sun to "roll down their own mutual/common point of implosion" and so on: so that NONE of this invalidates Galileo's marvelous description of "gravitational" trajectories (loss of momentum) nor Newton's laws of gravitation, or Einstein's geometrical perfecting of them: If two bodies approach each other with just the right amount of momentum away from their "common point of implosion" they will go into a mutual orbit; and if they are both aimed straight at their "common point of "implosion" they must surely collide. And if two immense bags of those styrofoam packing beans pass close enough to one another, surely a lot of those styrofoam beans will not have/or will not be able to maintain enough momentum away from their "common point of implosion" to prevent a pileup too.

The point is that the entirety of the universe is ONE geometric unit. And that the existence (and position) of every last bit of mass in the universe affects its entire configuration--which is the same as saying that the "effect of gravity" extends "infinitely" across the entirety of the universe. Which is just another way of saying that the entire mass (matter) of the entire universe also has its own definite/absolute "point of implosion" towards which everything in the universe is "moving" [not because of the mythical "pull of gravity" but because that is the geometric center towards which its "body" was "pushed" from its origin].

And because the mass of the universe does not "ride" upon some inflexible/rigid aether, naturally the closer two "bits" of mass are to each other the greater the acceleration they must experience toward their common "point of implosion" (the effect is indistinguishable in practice from the effect described up to now as gravity, except that for many hundreds of years scientists used a cosmological system in which the universe revolved around the earth to predict with great accuracy the motions of the heavens... until a simpler, more straightforward solution was found--a solution which also embodied the explanation everyone was searching for). And so it is at this writing, when the inflationary/gravitational point of view can be used to predict the motions of the heavens with great accuracy BUT it is only the implosion model that at last offers the simpler, more straightforward solution (and also embodies the answer) everyone is searching for.

Now you know how all that is possible WITHOUT there being some magical mediating particle (the mythical graviton) to cross the full length of the universe: The mass of Newton's apple and the mass of the earth are "seeking" their common center/point of implosion (since they do not ride any mythical rigid matrix/aether)... and they are both "moving" towards the "center of the universe" both as a system while being such an infinitesimal portion of that system that I seriously doubt we will ever definitely ascertain its orientation. [So you observe Newton's apple moving towards the earth with a greater acceleration than the moon is moving towards the earth, or the earth-moon system are moving toward the Sun, and the Solar System is moving toward the "center" of the Milky Way, etc.]

Simply assume that our universe IS imploding... and begin to re-examine all the observations which have for the last 100 years (and longer) "argued" for so many counter-intuitive, and self-contradictory, and just plain illogical/crazy explanations for/of why/how the photon "knows" at what speed it should travel and in which direction? How is it possible for the effect of gravity to extend infinitely (and WITHOUT any mediating particle WHATSOEVER--because the proposition of the graviton's existence is just a guess exactly like the proposition of "dark matter")? How spiral galaxies can do what they're doing with only the mass of their stars! And, indeed, why/how the so-called "expansion" of the universe can itself be forever accelerating with no visible expenditure of the tremendous amounts of energies such an acceleration obviously requires or we are all mad!

I'm sorry, but, doesn't "gravitational lensing" SEE dark matter everywhere it "looks" throughout all the universe? Well, I'm going to give you a simple analogy, and, hopefully, you will then SEE for yourself that it's not "gravitational lensing" but human eyeballs that are "seeing" all that dark matter:

Imagine the photon as two fellows who are forever traveling on stairs... on two completely (of course diametrically opposite in nature) stair universes: The fellow in "the Big Bang universe" is forever traveling up stairs while the fellow in "the imploding universe" is forever traveling down stairs. And now you too must understand that when an [imploding universe] observer sees a fellow forever going down stairs but is convinced he is watching him going up the stairs... he just might come to "the inevitable conclusion" that our stairs-sliding fellow MUST HAVE a lot more energy than he really does (and it's going to be hard as dickens to convince him he's wrong in his assumption).

That is mostly what is happening here: According to the wrong model [of which universe they're really in] restricting the thoughts of our observant astronomers... they are erroneously being led to believe that they are watching photons [which in our imploding universe are "really forever going down stairs"] forever going up stairs. The fault, Horatio, is not in our photons but in ourselves.

And everything else, to boot: Imagine what some being riding upon one of these independent systems (say, a planet), what such a being must think when he looks out into space and observes all the other systems "draining" down into their whatever "points of implosion" ... without suspecting the true nature of what he is looking at: Let's call such a being Edwin Hubble, and he notices that there is a "constant" relationship between the distance from us of "an object" and the speed at which it looks like it's receding away from us: Not suspecting that the universe is in implosion, and therefore that all its "independent systems" (galaxies, say) are (as it were) "shrinking into themselves" wherever they happen to be--that is, not knowing that it's really his ruler that's "shrinking" Hubble assumed that it is the distance between all the systems that's "growing" [and necessarily, the farther a galaxy is from ours the "faster" Hubble assumed it was receding away from us).

REMEMBER: The closer something is to something else the "faster" it is imploding. Therefore the universe is imploding fastest at the quantum level --if for no other reason than that is the smallest" (and therefore "closest") level of which we know.

The inflationary models cannot even explain the most basic phenomena we observe in our universe, such as WHY/HOW radiation propagates except by gibberish/ nonsense. While in an imploding model the "disconnect" between massive and nearly-massless matter perfectly explains why one "moves" and the other does not: If you are riding the "moving" part of it and you do no suspect that you are the one moving, you tend to imagine that the part you are passing by is the thing doing the moving--

And now you also know why no matter how much the photon is slowed it must "regain" its full velocity once it is freed from whatever was slowing it down: The velocity at which the "more massive" matter of the universe is imploding must certainly hold very steadily across a very large swath of the universe --since it is all governed by the mass (matter) about it. But, thereby the reason why the speed of light is fixed.] But I imagine that at some point most thinking persons will eventually realize that while the Big Bang (inflationary) models of the universe are forever drowning in self-contradictions and utter and hilariously zany science fiction... there is not one serious challenge to the implosion model that has ever gone adequately unanswered (even as you can read in this very text).

But, if photons are not affected by gravity (no such thing) what about a black hole "grabs" them? Well, you have to remember that mass is imploding, and "the more mass there is the greater the imploding" (and since the greatest amount of mass in the universe is in a black hole, there will you find the greatest implosion velocities): A photon may escape implosion outside the black hole's event horizon (where the universe is imploding slowly enough for it to escape implosion), but inside the event horizon the velocity of implosion is so much greater (i.e. "faster") than c, that even the photon too must "move" in the direction of implosion (there: towards the black hole's "singularity").

Again: ONCE you consider the universe from that point of view, then ALL the puzzles and conundrums which plague and baffle us now (causing us to propose near-or-just-plain-ole magical solutions) to mysteries such as "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement), *6 how a single photon can interact with itself, and the impossibility of making sense of relativity and QM existing in the same world ... all of them and more will finally begin to "argue" their own solutions, as "you" say, despite all our most cherished prejudices.

= Everything that is now described as "the pull of gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of velocity. This includes so-called lesser/greater massive gravitational fields as described by\in relativity theory. OR: If you are "a mile" from a neutron star you are obviously a LOT closer to the "point of implosion" of a greater amount of mass than if you were even an inch from, say, the moon. The implosion model in no way invalidates relativity; but, on the contrary it is clear just how remarkable an achievement Einstein managed while never even suspecting that the universe is imploding--that he should be able to describe it with such purely geometrical perfection... at last putting an end to the ancient myth of the aether. And without realizing exactly why it should be that the universe acts rather more like a geometrical structure than a purely gravitational one (as previously described by Newton).

If gravity were ANY KIND OF "force" then it would, by the laws of physics (QM) blow up the universe to smithereens.

It would ALSO create stars and watery planets with hollowed-out centers BECAUSE there would be little or no "gravity" at their centers: Yet, the theories we have about how our Sun works calls for most of its nuclear reactions to be taking place precisely AT ITS CENTER, under the greatest "pressures" therein! And no one that I know of has EVER proposed hollow planets (except some laughable comic book I read as a child, as I recall). Oy! But people don't think.

What then are orbits, galaxies? Use the simplest of all analogies: In an imploding universe EVERYTHING is (perhaps not so figuratively) going down the drain:

Look at the whirlpool that forms as water tries to go down your kitchen drain pipe (the same thing is taking place in tornadoes and hurricanes, where pressure in the eye-wall forces air to "drain" up, sucking in air from the area surrounding the "funnel"). Why does a whirlpool form at the mouth of your drainpipe? Because some water drops, unfortunately for them, have just enough momentum toward one side to avoid going directly down the drain. And the more water, the more likelihood there is of a whirlpool forming...

And whether it's the earth/moon system, or the Solar System, or galaxies we're talking about... what we're looking at is "bodies" (the water drops here) which, unfortunately for them, have just enough momentum away from the exact/absolute point of implosion (what we now call their common center of gravity). [And, such "absolute points of implosion" are completely relativistic (i.e. created by the very presence of the mass around them that creates them).] And just as not every time you open the faucet does a whirlpool form at the mouth of the drain (it usually has to do with the volume of water), not every galaxy develops into a spiral one like the supermassive Milky Way (something which also seems to have a correlation with whether it's a massive or smaller galaxy, surprise, surprise).

And NONE of it has anything whatever to do with any "dark matter" or other nonsense like it, I assure you.

Recently enough evidence has come up to prove beyond anybody's ability to doubt it that the "dark matter" proposal is nonsense; something which you can Google yourself HERE.

Imagine that the photon is a car and that gravity is a hill it's traveling up on:

The bigger the gravity hill then the more energy the photon car needs to go up on it, right? [When we see the photon car struggling to move we might think that the gravity hill is very very steep.] BUT:

If the gravity hill were very very tiny (or not even there at all) and we were watching the photon car struggling to move ... we might still imagine that the gravity hill was very very steep even if there isn't really even a hill there at all...!

The key is knowing why it is that the photon car is struggling (not simply "imagining" a gravity hill is the only possible reason for it)...

[Although I have no direct evidence of this, it's more than likely that the implosion of the universe is NOT happening everywhere at the same velocity. Therefore it's conceivable that the topography of the imploding universe is everywhere "pockmarked" with currents, eddies, and even counter-currents which might mimic the presence of "unattached (to visible matter) "massive gravitational fields." And this might be one, even if not the only one, possible explanation for all that dark matter "seen" by gravitational lensing across the universe.]

> But why things are imploding and where they came from remains unanswered.

No they do not: It is all an inevitable consequence of the laws of thermodynamics... Think (!) of "the void" as so immense/vast that at some point or other its "body" hiccups a wave and presto: thermodynamic currents/waves back & forth. Is it so impossible from there to think that somewhere a bubble of "lesser pressure" arose which then burst, as higher pressures poured into it--the "concentration" at "its center" being our "visible" universe...? And there you have our imploding universe, and without having to have a single graviton in it for it to work EXACTLY as we can observe it working all around us.

GO backwards from our universe, and it is a prick-point in some vaster/more diffuse universe, which is itself but another prickpoint in some vaster/more diffuse universe, ad infinitum, and you can see where it all comes from: All you really need is "something so very close to nothingness" as to make the difference negligible indeed. But then, eventually here we are. Think! That describes the raison d'etre for the implosion model of the universe, except that any notion of "time" is moot: ALL time is relative, just as Einstein began to understand, and while the implosion of our universe, as viewed (timed) from outside it, may look like (and take about as long as) the collapse of a massive star into a black hole seems to us... we here inside it (because our SENSE of time is so humongously "fast" ... AND FOREVER SPEEDING UP) we here inside the universe will "experience" it like some "unending" amount of time (or, equal to the entire length of the part of the lifetime of our universe in which we exist).

It may be a fact that as we go on there is "less and less time" of the universe left--because, inevitably, as the universe continues its implosion (or, concentration into less and less volume) it must undergo a general acceleration... but because "our sense of time" is literally accelerating ahead of the universe... what is left of the universe will always be, at least for us, quite a lot (and perhaps even growing as "we" go on--if I may be so bold as to include us with the rocks & hydrogen atoms out there).

What will our universe end up as? I certainly don't have enough information to theorize about it with any real authority. Although I'd like to think it will all dissolve into plain ole nothingness. It's still possible it will also be some massive pile-up of black holes... or a single one, which may well be another universe-of-sorts ad infinitum. Who knows. Who cares! The whole human race will certainly be dead long, long before then. And all that will certainly be a long, long, long time in our future, of course.

S D Rodrian

Other Bits & Pieces, Here & There ...

"Immortalist" wrote: "sdr" wrote:

>> Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
>> Cosmological Constant (i.e. "Dark Energy") is BOGUS

Google Link To Threads

>If the available evidence argues that most of the matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected from the light which it emits or fails to emit, the question arises about how this stuff which cannot be seen directly exists at all unless its presence is inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical objects, specifically stellar, galactic, and galaxy cluster/supercluster observations

"Available evidence" (observations) do not "argue" anything: It is men, such as you and I, who look at "something" and "see" in it our prejudices: The "evidence" of a plane flying overhead "argues" one set of conclusions from a guy in Philadelphia and quite another from a stone age hunter (as it did for New Guinea tribesmen, who in the 40s, thought the American airmen who were landing there to prepare for battle against the Japanese HAD TO BE gods and worshipped them as such).

For many years now MANY different forms of matter (since all matter MUST needs come in some form) have been proposed and searched for as candidates for "dark matter." Either none has been found or contradictory evidence have suggested that the forms proposed could not exist where they have been proposed (as required) or in such forms at all.

We have a specific observation (namely, that some galaxies behave in a way they should not, given the mass of their visible stars). It is a puzzle. And it demands theories/guesses. But until we find the specific reason/cause for this observation ALL our best theories are mere guesses:

There is NO argument FOR or requirement of any such stuff as "dark matter." It is simply ONE guess. Further, it is a guess which has FOR MANY MANY years been thoroughly explored and which remains unproved. Perhaps if we had extended but 1/100th the effort in some other line of inquiry... we'd know the answer now.

As a matter of principle, I am against killing ANY line of inquiry until such time as the solution has been found. But I myself am of the strong opinion that the search for some/any/all form(s) of dark matter are a dead end. Why? SEE:

>... or in order to enable gravity to amplify the small fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background enough to form the large-scale structures that we see in the universe today,

The answer to this mirrors the large-scale structures of the material universe itself, and the solution is to be found in the same identical causes which have given rise to the universe's other large-scale structures. Namely, the sheer vagaries of matter- distribution over large scales of time: It is not a true "random" process, simply one whose dynamics we have not yet computed (and perhaps never will).

* The Not-So-Strange Matter of "Dark Energy."

There is, of course, a monstrous stumbling block in the rationale for any "dark energy" requirement (a notion which only arose from the discovery that the universe is "expanding" at an ever-accelerating rate)...

1) the mistaken notion that the universe is "expanding" arose out of the observation that the galaxies are receding from each other at a faster rate (the farther they are from each other)

2) the mistaken notion of a "big bang" arose from "the only possible explanation" that the universe's expansion had to be due to some primordial explosion

3) the mistaken notion that "the universe's expansion must be slowing down" developed from fact that all explosions are slowed down by [Newton's laws of motion --in this particular case... the mistaken notion of particle-based gravity]

4) the mistaken notion of "dark energy" arose to account for the discovery that the universe's "expansion" is actually accelerating, not slowing down, and thereby proving that all the above sequence of mistaken notions were... mistakes

Only, of course, it's hard for people to admit they're whopping morons (don't know why). All they had to do was realize that (just as with their mistaken notion of a "big bang") ANY AND ALL sources of energy powering the universe's "expansion" (be it dynamite, or "dark energy") MUST BE FINITE. What this means is that BEFORE they can be named as the source of ANY acceleration, it must first be explained how THEY could possibly be increasing. [And by the way, instead of expecting the whopping morons to now admit they were wrong all along, expect them to propose next an injection of "mystic energy from the twilight zone," or some other such quantum dimension: If you know human nature, you know this is coming--Oops, already here. SDR]

--If, like every other form of "matter" IN the universe, "dark energy" is finite [E=MC^2], then, as the universe expands, it too is getting thinned out (diminished, reduced, weakened). And, again, this negates any possibility that "dark energy" accounts for the ever-increasing acceleration of the universe's expansion. But, can whopping morons ever be expected to see this? [I for one have my doubts.]

The mental confusion of modern physicists (mathematicians) is so stunningly self-evident that EVEN while they are convinced that Einstein's theories of relativity invalidated any idea of gravity being a particle-based effect, they are still proposing "the pull of gravity" as an effect being "countered" by their current "dark energy" pet notion. [It's hard to imagine "dark energy" as a stiffening agent "tempering" spacetime back to its original flat shape, I imagine. Though I'm sure somebody eventually will.]

The "proposal" for "dark energy" is not as a result of any particular requirement in the Big Bang model; rather, the real world (the universe) was unexpectedly discovered to be working in the exact opposite manner that model says it ought to be working... but rather than acknowledge the observed facts have invalidated the model, BB theorists merely now said they thought some "dark energy" MUST exist which is making the model work in the exact opposite way the BB model should work.

The original requirement for a "Big Bang" were effectively nullified by the discovery that the universe is "expanding" NOT from some primordial "explosion" (Big Bang) but due to some "other" reason NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. (The proposal that it MUST BE some "dark force" is somewhat like people who do not understand how/why planes fly suggesting that it MUST BE because of some "dark force" invisibly holding planes up in the air: It is nonsense which not everyone has yet realized the utter nonsense it is. And it is utter nonsense because it violates any number of physical laws, not least of which is that its WORKING needs LOADS of energy consumption/conversion which no one has either observed or proposed how it is taking place. The proposal of a pushing force acting in the same place and at the same time as the "pull" of gravity simply insults logic.)

Where did the Big Bang model come from? Einstein asked: "If there is gravity, why hasn't the universe collapsed?" He thought "there MUST be" some force keeping the universe from collapsing (i.e. counter-balancing the "pull" of gravity). He called his "MUST-BE pushing force" the Cosmological Constant. But then Hubble discovered that the galaxies "appeared" to be moving away from each other, and Einstein immediately realized the folly of his Cosmological Constant proposal. Instead another down- to-earth bit of nonsense was proposed: Wasn't it the case here on earth that whenever things expanded from a common point there had been an explosion at that point? Ergo, since the universe' galaxies were seen to be moving away from each other... they MUST be moving away from some super-ancient explosion (some really Big Bang).

Never mind that all "explosions" require energy. Never mind that the creation of matter/energy from nothingness revives the ancient paradox of a First Cause Uncaused (God). Never mind thinking/reasoning at all. The Big Bang model satisfied men's thirst for a quick, slick answer. And since people are lazy at everything, but especially about exercising their brains... the nonsense's stuck (it's easier to shout down objections than to think them through seriously).

One can always come up with a rationalization for every insanity. But the best thing is to always try to come up with a plan, observation, or solution to which it is hardest to find any objection.

This explains why the flat-earth idea, and the earth-centered universe notion, lasted as long as they did (and today we have the case of the Big Bang Theory... every objection to which is dismissed by ever nuttier & nuttier rationalizations). These things are not new in the world but have been practiced by us talking apes for millennia.

Now try to find a worthwhile objection to the Imploding Universe model (visit Even the incredible notion of entanglement *7 which can only be explained as "akin to magic" under the Big Bang universe model suddenly becomes worthy of a true scientific consideration when there is no obvious objection to the idea that the universe (as described by the Imploding Universe model) may be "latticed" into some pressure-cooker "quantum force" quality across "space" that has not yet been fully described (outside of the density/energy explanation I gave above).

>Yesterday, [January 12, 2006] Louisiana State University astronomer Bradley E. Schaefer tossed a grenade into this debate, ["dark energy" or, Cosmological Constant] presenting new research to suggest that the force dark energy exerts may have varied over time. That casts new doubt on the validity of Albert Einstein's "cosmological constant" only a few years after astronomers rescued the concept from scientific oblivion. "I'm not pushing this as a proof," Schaefer said in an interview at this week's meeting of the American Astronomical Society in the District, where he presented his research. "It's pointing against the cosmological constant, but it's a first result describing how dark energy changes with time. We need more people to test the results and get more information."

Well, I for one am glad that it's so darn hard for so many to let go of their most cherished prejudices (they were taught to us all by the fools we love so much, after all), and to actually see what's right in front of their eyes ... because that way the joy of being able to keep telling people that I told them so is multiplied by the number of dense brains there are out there.

>Mr. Schaefer based his findings on analysis of ultra-bright cosmic explosions called gamma-ray bursts, detected as far as 12.8 billion light-years away. He found that the most distant explosions appeared brighter than they should have been if the universe were accelerating at a constant rate. "As you go back in time, the universe is pushing [outward] less and less," he said. "At some point, the pressure of dark energy is zero and is exerting no force on the universe. There is no explanation for it."

NOT in the Big Bang model, certainly. But consider what the case would be in an imploding universe: The further back in time you go, the larger the universe is (i.e. the slower it is imploding). Now the observation makes sense. And we can remove all the nonsense about "dark matter."

What "pushing [outward] less and less," in the paragraph above means is that the acceleration of the universe's expansion is "less and less" as we go "more and more" back in time. At "zero point" there is no "dark force" at all, and ONLY the pull of gravity is acting on the universe (so we are effectively back at the point where Hubble discovered the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other AGAINST the pull of gravity ... devoid of any reason why/how). However, now any quick/slick "Big Bang" suggestion becomes more problematic because most explosions tend to make things move faster at first and then slower with time... NOT the other way around, certainly!

>Schaefer's findings, the first attempt to use gamma-ray bursts to study dark energy, produced a result that disagreed with accumulating evidence gleaned from observing a different kind of blast -- the exploding stars called supernovae. That work suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating in accordance with Einstein's cosmological constant. "The idea of using a gamma-ray burst as a distance indicator is a very exciting one," said California Institute of Technology astronomer Richard Ellis, a supernova cosmologist. "The trouble is there are no ways to check the techniques. I'm not saying it's no good, but I can't believe it's as precise as supernovae." The concept of dark energy emerged in 1999 as a way to explain the fact that the expansion of the universe, once thought to be slowing ever since the big bang about 13.7 billion years ago, was accelerating. That resurrected the idea of a cosmological constant, introduced by Einstein more than 80 years ago as a "fudge factor" to explain why the universe then appeared to be in equilibrium, rather than being pulled together by gravity. A few years later, however, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was not in stasis, after all, but was expanding. There was no "constant." Einstein condemned his own idea as "my greatest blunder."

Actually, what Hubble discovered was that the galaxies "appeared" to be moving away from each other.

The idea that this discovery suggested that the universe is expanding is both reasonable and idiotic, since while in a very simple way it resembles the way an explosion here on earth works... it also presents impossible hurdles to explaining where all that energy came from. [Recently someone who must have gotten the idea from watching bedsheets hung out for drying in a yard fluttering in the wind... suggested the nonsense of "branes" flapping in the Mind of God or something, which when they touch create a rupture through which pour all the energy in the Big Bang--I must say I had to laugh like a mule when I read it. But that's me, other people actually take this non- sense quite seriously, I swear to God. Naturally, people who suggest a God as The Origin "forget" to tell us about the origin of God, and it's no different here, where they are happy to explain the origin of our "dimensions" from some other "dimensions" but they never ever quite get around to explaining the origins of those other dimensions --which I assume did not originate from ours.]

>That led to the 1999 discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating rather than slowing. There had to be some "repulsive force"

THERE JUST HAD TO BE, right? It just couldn't be something OTHER THAN what they were imagining/proposing!

>overcoming the gravity that should have been causing the universe to come together. Astronomers called the force dark energy, and "it mimics the cosmological constant," said Michigan Technological University astronomer Robert J. Nemiroff. Einstein may have been right after all.

>Astronomers estimate that dark energy makes up 70 percent of the universe, but they do not know what it is.

>Solving the mystery is as all-consuming as any passion in physics. "It's so spooky," said Astronomical Society President Robert B. Kirshner, a cosmology expert at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "Everybody is looking for ways to get at it."

If all the seekers are searching down the wrong path the chances of any one of them discovering the truth are nil, and no matter how many seekers. One lone seeker searching down the true path is worth all the seekers in infinity searching down the wrong one.


> Janika Rifley wrote: I see gravity as a point of balance between magnetic fields, not as a force.

Explain to me what purpose/point there would be for gravity AT ALL in an imploding universe ... if the implosion were the result of a "push" given it at its very beginning by the "greater pressures' surrounding the hollow into which those "pressures" cascaded? (Literally, "by their very weight.")

Read thou:

Being a hollow, bubble-like, the outside pressures which "fell" into it must be "speeding up" as they concentrate nearer & nearer its geographic center. We don't notice this acceleration in the normal course of events, except back around 1998 when two different groups of astronomers noticed an "inexplicable" acceleration in a universe which they do not yet understand is imploding ... and, of course, by one S D Rodrian, who when years earlier realized that the universe was indeed imploding deduced that that implosion therefore had to be accelerating. And, presto, so it was found to be. Nice. But I don't drink Champagne (as Dracula once said).

"Dr Nanduri" - wrote:

> This new modelling of reality brings physics very much into accord with the general concepts of Process Philosophy.

That must have been what was missing in physics: Less study of physical phenomena & junk like that, and more tightening up on abstract thinking about all sorts of crazy things!

Sir, the nature of science is to make as unbiased a set of observations of physical phenomena as possible ... in the hope they one day lead to some sort of unprejudiced interpretation of reality.

Don't be misled by the fact that people like to guess where the solution will be found before the solution is actually found ... don't be misled by this into believing that science and philosophy mix very well at all: The history of physics the last century is the sorry proof they do not (being the result of guessers, so-called theorists, who will blurt out just about any guess that pops into their flirty heads, proclaiming it "the only possible solution in the universe").

A good theorist does not merely propose any ole elephant as the only possible solution, but FIRST goes through at least the trouble to see whether there is room in the room into which he wants to fit his/her theoretical elephant for it to actually fit in there:

In other words, somebody tells you there is an elephant in the matchbox he carried around in his pocket ... don't waste time arguing the physics of his claim (how/why there is an elephants in...), just don't.

I tell thee this: There are an awful lot of people nowadays looking at the universe while convinced that they are looking at something else entirely, and growing puzzled/confused/baffled (not by the observations, but by the nonsense theorists are constantly proposing): Ya can't look at a mule and believe you're looking at a tornado & not remain puzzled/confused and baffled by what you "see."

> If it may be true that the universe is imploding perhaps even faster than the speed of light, why don't we notice this?

We notice it in a number of ways: 1) the effect of gravity, 2) the Hubble Constant, 3) the speeding up of the so-called "universe's expansion," 4) the constancy of the speed of light, & 5) the unrelenting inescapability of inertia... etc. In sum: everywhere you look you find endless objections to the Big Bang model, but nowhere can you find even one objection to the Imploding Model--because you are looking at the universe as it actually is.

What you have to understand is that the lifetime of the Solar System is like tossing a bucket of water into your wash basin: In a moment it's all gone down the drain and nothing remains but a memory of it (a drying moisture, if you will). And therein lie all our own lives & realities.

It may seem to you as if the few dozen or so billion years this brief episode represents is a long time, but this is merely because the human (animal) perception of the passage of time is horrifically sped up with regards to the implosion of the universe... which is itself really only a "pop" in the never-ending continuum of existence.

Once you understand this, you understand everything & then you can go die in peace.

S D Rodrian

S D Rodrian Photo Gallery

Now think on this: Under the current theory of gravity, if one were to place a ping-pong ball at the exact center of the earth (in some impossible hollowed-out center, of course): all the "forces" of gravity would cancel out and the ping-pong ball would "float" outside any & all "effects of gravity." AND, were we to slowly draw that ping-pong ball from there up to the surface of the earth (through some impossible pipe): the farther it moved from the earth's center the more it would "feel" the force of gravity!

What this means is that the closer anything moves to the center of any celestial body, the less it will be subjected to gravity. [There's no other possibility under the current model for the theories of how gravity works. Period]

But consider this: The only explanation we have for how stars are able to produce fusion is that THE CLOSER ANYTHING MOVES TO THE CENTER OF A STAR THE MORE IT WILL BE SUBJECTED TO THE EFFECTS ("pressures produced by") OF GRAVITY.

These two theories self-evidently absolutely nullify each other--Either the current understanding of how gravity works is right (in which case no star can produce fusion), or the current understanding of how stars produce fusion is right (in which case they must be doing it by some other means than gravity).


NOTE: Unfortunately, what Isaac Newton did in fact was to observe "the acceleration due to the universe's implosion" and THEN he ascribed to that very real effect (which he personally witnessed) his imagined notion of some mystical "force of gravity" to account for it. And this, of course, made/makes it nearly impossible to ascertain a value for one without it being the exact equivalency for the other. It is not absolutely impossible, however: In 1933, Fritz Zwicky, and and later Vera Rubin & Kent Ford observed that the universe wasn't behaving as the "imagined" rules of gravity said it should when ["Rubin and Ford began making Doppler observations of the orbital speeds in spiral galaxies... they immediately discovered something entirely unexpected: The stars far from the centers of galaxies, in the sparsely populated outer regions, were moving just as fast as those closer in."] Of course, instead of questioning the standard theory (of gravity), assuming that the only thing which causes the rotation of matter in a spiral galaxy is "the pull of" gravity: they simply ascribed their unexpected find to there being 10 times as much "invisible" mass in those galaxies--something hard to hide in the real universe, although apparently much more easily so in men's unfettered imagination!

This effect, of course, is no different than what happens in the spiral of water going down your faucet (even though the volume of water closest to the drain may appear to be moving out of your sink faster than the volume of water furthest from the sink (is moving towards it): the volume of drainage (outside of an overall increase) must self-evidently remain uniform--or we would see a wave (splash against the drain) instead of a spiral. [Of course, unlike the stars in the outer bands of galaxies, droplets of water in your drain are not "going down little individual drains" themselves just to complicate the math of the simpler drain analogy... where ALL the water is going out just your one central drain. Still, note that, in spite of this (or maybe because of it), we also do not see a wave "splash" against the centers of spiral galaxies either.]

Assuming it stays an apple, the farther into a 'black hole" Newton's apple falls the denser it becomes (therefore the smaller), and therefore "the more distance" ("space") it must travel [to get to the black hole's singularity]. At what point does the "shrinking" trump the "travelling" [the acceleration] and slows it down? In an absolute sense then: Newton's apple would not have as much acceleration over the first few feet it traveled (dropped) from Newton's hand as it would were Newton to "drop it" from a hundred light years away (in a mind experiment) even with the "rules of gravity" in charge of the equation--because the implosion of the universe is more evenly distributed across the universe than any "local" so-called "force of gravity" would be... were it the sole cause of the efffect.

As Einstein surmised in his theory of relativity (masses of matter warp/shrink space about them). He was mostly correct about the rate of this warping or shrinking, although not about what is really happening (what is causing the "space" to "shrink" increasingly with proximity to greater and greater masses):

It is the masses themselves which are shrinking, naturally "carrying away" the space around them with them (into that shrinkage). Remember that "space" is ONLY the distance between bodies of matter (masses).

However, even though the closer any two bodies (of mass) are in the universe, the "faster" the "space" will be closing between them... in "closer distances" such as those between the outer planets and the Sun it is horrifically difficult to see any significant "dark matter effect" difference which, once you start talking about 50,000 light years of so (distances), then do start to become increasingly unavoidable. [In no small measure, no pun intended, because all the masses in the Solar system are "shrinking" at incredibly similar "speeds."] NOTE: The Hubble Constant does give you an idea of just how "fast" masses are shrinking in the universe (as we see how "slowly" the distances between the galaxies are increasing, considering the vastness of the distances we're talking about).

CONTINUED HERE ... ALSO SEE: Superman and The Sun Experiment.


Higgs field math explains it all quite neatly, except that what the math explains is HOW it all happens, not WHY: In other words, why is there a Higgs field at all (not why it's required ONLY if you find a Higgs boson, but why it's there for the Higgs boson to latch on to when the Higgs boson comes into existence--or, what if the Higgs boson is NOT required for particles to have mass after all). Or: in the absence of the Higgs boson, what created the Higgs field itself to begin with--for, if the Higgs boson preceeds the Higgs field, well, now we've really got a problem!

Higgs field theory is, of course, the mathematical underpinnings for the Big Bang theory; and, as such, shares its flaws & frailties:

Foremostly it requires the "Higgs field" to be permeating the entire scalar pre-universe... exactly like the "ether" which Einstein killed long, long ago. [The Higgs boson is a quantum excitation of one of the four components of the Higgs field.] It makes sense (in Big Bang theory) that the universe should "begin" as an infinitely dense (infinitely massive, therefore un-moveable/un-moving) "spot" which then [because of Higgs field ("decay") changes, or "instability"] starts to fizz out (like an Alka Seltzer tablet struck by water) due to some as yet unidentified catalyst [such as the "inflaton" ... a hypothetical field suggested as the explanation for "the expansion of space" during the first fraction of a second of the universe].

Therefore: Higgs theory (like BB theory) violates the fundamental principle of origin which tells us that everything starts out from its simplest state AND THEN proceeds to add complexity: The complexity of the Big Bang "infinite mass" is absolute (by comparison its resulting universe is as simple as a bucket of marbles being rolled out onto the floor): A stable "original" Higgs "Big Bang Ball" would require the existence "there" of its every last bit of Higgs complexity already assembled into its "infinite unmoving mass" already possessed of a Higgs fields) & accompanying Higgs mechanisms! [Even now Higgs theorists are proposing 3 more Higgs bosons to resolve some inconsistencies in their math, and perhaps will require many, many more... as more inconsistences arise in future in their math.] Otherwise the "Higgs Big Bang" would NOT be stable and begin to lose its particulates at the speed of light, of course, resulting in the Big Bang.) Higgs field theory therefore describes the universe NOT so much as a "creation" but as a "de-creation" from there. [You can already see its contradictions with the Big Bang theory it attempts to elucidate mathematically.] And the "Higgs theory Big Bang" requires not only all this pre-existing Higgs "equipment" but also that certain unknowable catalyst which triggered its downfall (or Higgs field "instability") into "the resulting universe", of course. That's a lot to ask. [Einstein's objection to an origin for existence requiring "a magical agreement" of multiple individual values.]

Now, if someone searching for the ultimate origin of everything believes that God "created" the universe, then focusing on the origin of any one aspect of the universe itself would be as irrelevant in the matter as the origin of the Model-T Ford, and the proper focus of his inquiry would have to be the origin of God himself--Likewise, as Higgs field theory posits it preceeds the universe (and, in fact, "creates" it). And this smells to High Heaven: It implies that there may be a biological inclination in us to want to see in Nature a universe resulting NOT from an inevitable evolution but from a "fluctuant" (even whimsical) "special creation." A man's math can "create anything in his mind", and make it all sound "mathematically inevitable." However, if a man's math is predicated upon some flaw or error, then all subsequent "mirrors of reality" become merely a "house of mirrors."

BTW: The "fog" theory sounds very sound when talking about why "a quantity of light" grows fainter with distance (according to the inverse square law). But it fails to note that individual photons never grow fainter [only fewer] as we necessarily add space along with distance (as when a bucket of marbles is emptied onto the floor... the marbles will get more & more distant from each other the further away they roll from where they were first dropped onto the floor): The source of light grows fainter because fewer photons are reaching us, and not because they are getting stuck in a "fog" permeating the distance between the source and us. [The more the distance grows between the light source and the observer... the fewer photons travel between the two points.]

Even a laser, concentrating its stream of photons, will obey this law, and "grow fainter" with distance because its stream of photons will "spread out" (therefore fewer and fewer of them reaching any given point) and not because the photons themselves will grow fainter with distance because they have to traverse some "intervening fog," cosmic dust & atmospheric interference aside.

Magnetic field strength* also obeys this (inverse square dispersal law). While the strong and the weak forces are "trapped" (captured/held) in their realms, and not punched into "there" by some supposed "fog force" outside their realm. That's where one should look for the explanations.

* In theory, as magnets come in dipoles: their strength would still decrease according to the inverse square dispersal law if they came in monopoles, of course.

Higgs field math is very neat and very compelling (as "the math" always is). But I am not convinced; least of all when there's an even neater & more compelling, simpler & more straightforward natural explanation. Read on.

Frankly (when it was first "discovered") I may have greatly overestimated just how long all this nonsense about the Higgs boson would last: Here are some recent press releases on the Higgs (as well as on so-called "gravity waves") you will find of interest...

The Higgs Boson “God” Particle May Still Be Undiscovered

Shocking! CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs Boson particle after all

Scientists Raise Doubts About Higgs Boson Discovery, Say It Could Be Another Particle

Minuscule mistake? Discovered Higgs boson may appear to be a techni-higgs, scientists say

Our universe is impossible and we shouldn't exist, Higgs-boson scientist says

Researchers claiming evidence of Big Bang foiled by dust problem

Big Bang evidence now being doubted by scientists

Hadron Collider ‘did NOT find Higgs Boson – but something else’

Researchers claim Higgs boson still elusive: What did CERN discover then?

‘CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs Boson’

Particles smaller than Higgs boson?

Higgs Boson Particle Scientist: Universe Should Have Collapsed After Big Bang

Bicep2: Discovery of Primordial Gravitational Waves from Big Bang Questioned by Scientist

Also for your amusement:

LATEST: Dark Matter Signal May Have Been Found In Mysterious X-Ray Data

LATER: Dark Matter -- Still Dark

Big Bang Theory Busted: Universe Created 'When Star Fell into Black Hole in 4D Bulk Universe'

Collapse of Universe 'More Likely Than Ever And May Have Already Started'

"The Big Bang theory also does not explain why temperatures across the universe are almost uniform - there would not be enough time since the Big Bang for the universe to reach a consistent temperature."

However, if the condition everywhere in the universe were the same (the universe was everywhere experiencing the same state, i.e. implosion) we WOULD expect it to display the uniformity it does, wouldn't we!

Fear not: I'm sure that the scientists & other participating mathematicians will add any number of other utterly wild complexities and eventually balance up the Doctor Zeus model (for a while more)...

As I myself have been stating since the last century:

              The Solution Is This



"Entanglement" or "Spooky Action At A Distance"

If two "particles" within the imploding universe "fix" ALL OF THEIR INNER-MOTIONS upon each other (in the absolute direction of motion towards THE CENTER of that implosion)... in somewhat the same way that the earth/moon system is fixed upon their "common center of gravity" (NOT the non-existing totally mythological Gravity but) the FACT that like everything else inside our universe: they too are always "moving towards the closest-available CENTER of that implosion" [or, the sum total of all earth's mass is always moving towards "their" closest CENTER and form a sphere, as does the sum total of the moon's mass, while the two spheres are always moving toward their "common" CENTER and form the earth/moon system]... which they can never coalesce into one sphere because their blessed orbital velocities forever keeps them apart]... then WE might conceive of OUR interpreting their "matching" (or "mirroring") each other's "paths" towards that CENTER as a "connection at a distance" between them (or "entanglement"). Or course, the earth/moon "action at a distance" is rather a simple one to grasp, which is hardly true of the nature of "particle entanglement," something which might be due to an unimaginably complex matching of their quark movements, or even of the substructures which make up those quarks... in which case it will be even harder to figure it all out.

My supposition has to do with the idea that such two constructs probably coincide with some unknown third factor, thereby making it "appear" as if there is some kind of "indirect" connection between themselves, or: "If A=C and B=C then A=B" (and I suspect that in this case C "is" the implosion of the universe, as that is the basic nature of everything here).

The reason the earth's presence has made the moon always show the same face to the earth is NOT because they are "physically connected" by some material Gravity but because they have both been "falling" towards "a common center of gravity" for so long. The earth is also affected by the moon's presence just as the moon is affected by the earth's presence (just each in its own different way according to their different relative sizes), and all without "a physical connection." Were both of identical sizes they might mirror each other exactly, and changing the vectors of one might then change the vectors of the other--All without any true physical connection between them. It would appear (to someone who is not looking for a sane explanation) like magic; and the reason it does not so appear so to us now is that we have made up the superstition (myth) that there IS a physical connection between them (a non-existent "force" for which we have made up the term "Gravity").

Thus we might imagine the earth and moon as having become "entangled" (but for the illusion we have invented for ourselves that they really ARE physically connected by our mythological Gravity... and so we do not recognize them as displaying the notion of "spooky action at a distance" or "entanglement").

Why doesn't intervening matter affect the entanglement between particles...!? Could be that it is because they are essentially "electromagnetic constructs" and the interplay of their infinitely complex inner "forces" (or, "motions") overwhelms the "unimaginably weak force" of Gravity (as you might imagine) for any but a more direct (material) "touch." [It is possible to disrupt their "states" ... but only by/with an electromagnetic push.]

Lastly: Is there a "distance" at which entanglement (or "spooky action at a distance") no longer works? Maybe. However, as the speed of light is but a measurement of how "fast" the universe is imploding, and the speed of light makes the distance, say, between the earth's poles almost insignificant, it could be that the "distance" at which entanglement no longer "works" is itself very, very significant. S D Rodrian

RETURN to 5  RETURN to 6  RETURN to 7


Final Additions, from LATTER-DAY MUSINGS...

              What Is Man?

Consider the high school experiment with a living sponge, a bucket of water, and a mesh sieve:

As you know, each sponge is "an animal" exactly as we ourselves are individual animals. But if one slowly and gently forces a living sponge through the mesh sieve (over a bucket with some water at the bottom) until all the sponge's individual cells separate and the bucket ends up with a kind of soup of sponge cells... the curious thing is that you will not have killed the sponge cells by separating the animal (the sponge) completely into its individual component cells--and neither will you have killed "the animal" (the sponge itself). Leave that bucket with its soup of sponge cells overnight and you will wake up to find that the sponge has re-assembled itself into the animal it was before you forced it through the mesh sieve. This is because the sponge's cells are, essentially, almost identical one and all.

In essence that is what all animals (and plants) are: colonies of living individual cells... in many stages and degrees of association, depending on the animal. The sponge just happens to be the oldest animal form, with all subsequent animal forms evolving from that one (including us).

Therefore it is always problematic to think/speak of such cell colonies as "one" individual (and this also includes us), given that "a single" individual animal is more accurately a description of "one" of the many individual cells in the colony. [The one-cell ameba is more accurately "a single individual animal" than a sponge, or a man for that matter.] Since we, exactly like the sponge, are merely/only complex colonies of cells--and they (our individual cells) not us, are the true "single individual animals" one can describe that way without any further qualifications.

As you might imagine, were one of us humans to be, like a sponge, to be forced through such a mesh sieve and end up as a bucket-full of separate individual cells... we would literally kick the bucket because there would be no way on earth that our separated cells could ever re-assemble themselves into the "individual" we were before our trek through the sieve. This is of course because unlike the cells of the sponge our cells are so highly specialized that none of them can survive very long apart from the others even if they were otherwise undamaged by the process of separation.

The proper description of a human being is therefore not as "an" individual animal but, more accurately, as a "predatory colony of highly specialized cells" (of cells so highly specialized, in fact, that they can not survive apart from all the other cells that make up the colony). And you must always add that we are "predatory colonies of highly-specialized cells," because, like all other animals, we do not manufacture our own food but must hunt down & devour other lower (less-fortunate) colonies of cells, such as plants and other animals--themselves predatory cell colonies).

What does this do to our self-appointed "sanctity of human life" if we are not much more than colonies of predatory highly-differentiated cells ... or to "the divinity of the individual" if, obviously, we are not really individuals at all?

              What is consciousness?

Lower animals have a kind of consciousness too... although we cannot say with absolute accuracy that it's in any way, shape, or form exactly like our human consciousness: Dogs may "see" the world (reality) as something quite unrecognizable to the [our] human consciousness. Even chimps, so closely related to us, may be served by a "consciousness" which would be extremely hard for us to understand/fathom--If we would suddenly to "get into a chimp's consciousness" it is more likely than not that what we would experience would be total & complete insanity, and that very little if anything of such a consciousness would make sense to us (viewed from the human consciousness, you see).

But our own consciousness makes sense to us: Its foundation is already hard-wired into our brains when our brains are being formed in the womb. By the time we are born everything about the human world (the human consciousness if you will) makes perfect sense to us, and we are ready to learn the behaviors which will make us successful predatory cell colonies like our parent cell colonies, including the methods by which our species' cell colonies communicate among themselves. So, in the end, consciousness is nothing other than a strategy for survival: some cell colonies "grew" a consciousness like other cell colonies grew wings, legs, lungs, or eyes: The human conscience is a self-defense strategy (possibly replacing a stinger).

This confluence of sensations is what we perceive as the world we note and feel and grasp, and time, love, and make sense of: Consciousness creates our personality. And in the end that is the real miracle of human existence... albeit dogs & rats also have personalities (make what you will of that).

The purpose of "consciousness" (or "the brain") is to create a map of the world in which we find ourselves so that we may find our way through it (this world) with the least number of obstructions/impediments. And so it makes sense that the human consciousness should be very different from that of every other species (as every species has its own very specific way of getting around the world and therefore each requires its own specific map). It would make little sense for our human brains to create a consciousness in which we would run around in packs like dogs, or slither about the ground like snakes or snails, or even depended on trees as much as our chimp cousins still do. But it makes perfect sense for us to develop "talents" with which we may earn our living, as it were. [And now you know where poets and pianists come from, & others with as unavailing talents.]

But, isn't this obvious? Yes, everything is obvious once somebody's pointed it out.

The side-effects of this marvelous creation (survival strategy) are manageable: We "believe" many things about the world which are not true, of course. And we do have a perilous propensity to make up the first thing that pops in our minds to "explain" new or rather unusual phenomena [try to talk somebody who's just become convinced you're guilty that you are not]... things which may prove unfortunate or even fatal, yes, and still: most of the time the miraculous map of our consciousness guides us about the world with a great measure of success [or we die and our story is then told by the archeologists of the successful colonies of cells whose "maps" have guided them to long-term success]. But, as I said, most of the side-effects are manageable (even if, always, some better than others).

Thus, if you are rubbing a couple of sticks together and manage to produce a flame, it's pretty hard to reason with someone who suddenly comes along and claims the flame is some holy manifestation of God. Even if you blow out the flame it's far too easy for such a self-persuaded person to just say that the flame has "returned to God." So imagine how much harder still [even when you know that consciousness is but the metaphorical "resulting flame" of millions & millions of "sticks rubbing together" in the human brain] to try to argue someone out of the similarly deluded notion that a consciousness is one of God's "souls."

Knowledge is communicable, but not to those who absolutely refuse to communicate, of course. And the human species is replete with individuals who will pretend to listen to the knowledge, but who in reality have utterly & completely closed their minds even to the remotest possibility that it may be the facts.

And, for those who will insist that religion is needed to comfort us, I say: If you are having trouble with the problems of life & death you are always better off going to a mental health doctor rather than to a witch- doctor. Every time, my friend. Trust me on that one.


As I have described it elsewhere, the mechanism by which species maintain their integrity is an extremely simple one (it would have to be, of course, otherwise its appearance & persistence in nature would be too complex for it to become/remain "inevitable"). It is essentially expressed in this simple principle: "Males choose first AND ONLY THEN do females choose from among the males which have chosen them." [This doesn't mean, of course that there aren't females here & there which take it upon themselves to choose first, but this aberration usually ends up either unfortunately for the precipitous females or for all of their species.]

The attraction exerted by a Black Widow female on the males of her species could never be claimed to be "physical beauty" or anything of the like. Rather, it comes down almost entirely to her patience, for she can rely on the fact that there will always be some males of her own species which will have been hard- wired by nature (by the simple principle I have described above) to come to her, regardless all else.

And the result of their "union" will be to produce females exactly like herself PLUS males which, like their father, will also eventually be just as unable to resist the "attraction" of her female progeny.

[Various mechanisms exist in the different species to prevent inbreeding, too numerous to go into here, all of which work against incestuous relationships which would result in the genetic degradation of their species.]

But, whichever species you choose to observe, the same simple principle holds--whether it is the queen bee's frenzied "fleeing flight" from the drones programmed to chase after her, or some woman walking into a bar with a dozen men on the lookout: some of these males will show no interest in her, others perhaps a little bit of interest (although probably not enough), but a few will be unable to keep themselves away from her [exactly like the Black Widow males]. And from among those few males who make "the always risky trek" to "buy her a drink" she will then pick the one she prefers [and hopefully take a long time killing him]. And by this simple mechanism the next generation of humans (and other critters in this wildly teeming earth) will be peopled by females like their patient mothers and males like their engaging fathers. So you see: beauty is not even in "the eye" of the beholder. Sorry.


              What is Time?

Time is a human definition: A measurement from here to there, and no matter the length from here to there, the measurement is always a human definition only.

Minutes, hours, years have no absolute value in nature (apart from our notion of them, all strictly only in our heads): Nature is composed only of motions, some faster than others, others slower than the rest. But none of them defines by itself anything except some arbitrary idea we have thought up--Even the "speed of light" defines only "a motion in nature" which bears no relation to any other of nature's motions except that, if I am right [in my head], it is related to the speed at which the universe is imploding. However, because there are no absolute motions we can't "time" them by any other motions against any of it: All different atoms "vibrate" with timings specific to their kinds, and the human sense of the "normal" speed of life is timed by motions which are picked arbitrarily by us. In this sense, all our existence, even the very existence of the universe itself, takes place in a brief flash: The universe is an unimaginably brief implosion, and our "sense" of its great, long age... only a human notion here inside it created by even faster-moving thoughts.

If there were no humans to define its length(s), the length of time would have no subdivisions whatever and therefore the entirety of existence would be an indivisible One: Undivided by us into whatever sub- measurements, time would only "measure" (be the equivalent of) the singular length of its entirety. In other words, time (as strictly/only/exclusively our human definition, the notion of) time would be utterly without any meaning whatsoever. Because of this, time is without meaning in reality (it only "exists" in our minds). If time is a singularity its measurement is pointless, the direction of its degrees meaningless. This is why all our human measurements of time are arbitrary & always tied to other arbitrary measurements such as the arbitrary movements of heavenly bodies or the vibrations of this or that whatever atom, etc.

When we start imagining time as "occurring" moment to moment (or whatever other definition we wish to give "our" imaginary degrees of time's purely human measure) we can drive ourselves crazy trying to "explain" just how it could possibly be that each "degree of time" [to which we are giving independent existence in our imagination] how each such "degree of time" could possibly connect with/to every other such measurement of time "around it." Something truly crazy, if you think about it: "time" pausing between every such "occurrence" and then "starting up" again by some miraculous motor/imaginary mechanism].

To reiterate: The "past" & the "future" are "measured" only by/as "the sum total of existence," and NOT by us:

           It is ONE THING alone & only.

Therefore "we" are forever bound by whatever point along that sum total length at which existence places us. [In effect, for "us" there exists no "past" and/or "future"]: In our minds we may remember "our" past (NOT existence's past, that is) and imagine our future (NOT existence's future, of course). But that's about it: Even when we remember ourselves in our past and/or imagine ourselves in our future... in reality, there is no past and there is no future for us. Ha! Sorry. We are forever trapped where we are/were/will be. Although we may well ask, "What time is it?" And still get a polite even if not reasonable reply. [Either from a watch or--]

Yes, you can not teach physics to dogs: They're just not dense enough.

Einstein's General Relativity is NOT wrong: Einstein describes with greater accuracy than Newton the geometry of the universe. [In other words, "where everything is."] Using General Relativity you can pinpoint "something in the universe" (and therefore also describe its motions) more accurately than simply using Newton's laws.

But this does NOT mean that Einstein has explained THE REASON that things are the way they are--Einstein's theories on gravity do not explain "what gravity IS," only how it works. And to imagine that "knowing how something works" is to know "what it is" can all too easily give us the mistaken opinion that a man is nothing more/other than the job he happens to have.

     On the famous clocks experiment:

WHY does the clock at the top of the mountain run faster than the clock at the base of the mountain?

Because of acceleration (which as Einstein hinted at in general relativity, IS the same thing as gravity):

The closer something is to a greater amount of mass the more acceleration it experiences:

It is no different than you and I standing next to each other and I point to my watch while you press your fingertip down upon the hands of your watch: Your watch will run slower than mine. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with The Dimension of Time (which does not exist), and everything to do with you and I manipulating the speeds at which our watches run.

In the exact same way, the clock which is closer to the greater mass of the earth has that mass "pressing on its little hands," (as it were)... while the clock that is experiencing less mass can obviously run faster (free of the pressure of the extra mass) than the other clock.

And, again, it has nothing to do with The Dimension of Time (which does not exist, apologies to Rod Serling), and everything to do ONLY with the clocks themselves.


In A brief history of gravity, gravitational waves and LIGO Joel Achenbach writes:

"In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein finally came up with an explanation, and it's rather astonishing. First he grasped that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. His General Theory of Relativity, formulated in 1915, describes gravity as a consequence of the way mass curves "spacetime," the fabric of the universe."

Well, "Things fall on account of they fall" is NOT an explanation. And neither is "this is how they fall" (the geometry they trace in their falling): What Einstein did was what Galileo did before him: they described the way "gravity" moves stuff (that's all).

It's all geometry,' Achenbach continues: "Objects in motion will move through space and time on the path of least resistance. A planet will orbit a star not because it is connected to the star by some kind of invisible tether, but because the space is warped around the star."

To say "there is a wall there" is NOT the same as describing the material of which the wall is composed.

“Gravity, according to Einstein, is the warping of space and time,” Brian Greene wrote in his book “The Elegant Universe.”

"The warping of space and time,” is like saying "stuff moves." And exactly what understanding does that give anyone about "the nature of the stuff moving about?"

"The physicist John Wheeler had a famous saying: 'Mass grips space by telling it how to curve, space grips mass by telling it how to move.'”

This sounds a lot like God's "Gospel Word" doing stuff out there. And that's never a good thing in science: It would have been a much nicer saying had it included even so much as a hint on what the tentacles by which mass grips space are composed OR pointed out the rope which space uses to swing mass about. AND, of course, given an explanation of the ways in which a "curve" is distinct from a "move."

"One of the predictions of Einstein’s equations (though Einstein himself wasn’t ready to buy in fully) was the existence of gravitational waves – ripples in the spacetime fabric."

Well, let me assure you: "gravitational waves" do NOT exist anymore than gravity itself exists. As Newton said: "It is inconceivable that inanimate brute Matter should without the Mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon, and affect other Matter without mutual Contact." Well, then ("spacetime"):

1) What is "space" if it can be "grabbed" by "mass"? 2) What is "time" if it can be "warped" by "mass"

"Gravity is so great an Absurdity," concluded Newton, "that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Facility of thinking can ever fall into it."

The Standard Model is essentially a description of the interaction between particles, and because gravity is not produced or mediated by particles, the Standard Model of particle physics bears no relationship with it whatever, nor does gravity fit in it, nor can it. And if "spacetime" has no material existence, how then do gravitational waves "do" it?

The correct interpretation of what they are popularly vulgarly calling "gravitational waves" is they simply are "energy pressure waves" inside the imploding universe--where everything is always moving towards the center (all the time towards all centers everywhere). In such a universe a powerful explosion is bound to produce a powerful "counter wave" (exactly as all explosions will produce pressure waves, regardless of the power of the explosion): Here on the earth an explosion causes energy waves in air, water, soil--Out there, even where there is manifestedly infinitely lesser/lesser material (but still some)... the manifestation of an energy power wave can only be caused by some stupendous explosion [as, however thin the consistency of space may be, there's still some consistency to it]. It's the energy of the explosion we are measuring. Therefore it makes more sense to describe them as energy pressure waves than as waves produced by mass-ejection (when there is no "mass" anywhere near the earth from which they can be produced): Distant black holes should NOT produce gravitational waves (according to their own theories) but on the contrary should simply cease to produce the space-time distortions which the missing mass would otherwise be "producing." Describing "gravitational waves" in terms of a couple of corks atop different wave peaks moving by turns closer/farther to & from each other just makes my point for me ["density is compressed in one direction, and expanded in the orthogonal directions"] that: energy was pushed out from this black hole collision, and this "energy wave" is what was measured--about 3 solar masses worth!

"According to the equations physicists have settled on, gravitational waves would compress space in one direction and stretch it in another as they traveled outward."

Which is pretty much how an "energy wave" (or, "an energy-conveying wave") would be expected to behave in its medium: In other words, NOT causing its medium to be itself modified (or "permanently shifted out of the way") but only "passing along the wave's energy" [the 2 floating corks moving closer/back apart above]. On a "surface" the two corks would bob up and down, of course, as the wave (energy) passes, which is not the case where there is no "surface" for the corks to "bob" upon as the two waves pass the energy along.

The fact that such a pressure energy wave "moves" at the speed of light is additional proof that it is moving "against" the implosion of the universe [i.e. it is the universe's implosion that defines C, or the speed of light, as its uniquely singular constant].

"Since they pass through matter without interacting with it, gravitational waves would come to Earth carrying undistorted information about their origin. They could also improve methods for estimating the distances to other galaxies."

Obviously this new "pressure energy waves" tool will be useful to astronomy, just like the "light spectrum tool" has been. But gravitational waves they are not.


The belief in dark matter (and it is only a belief) comes about something like this: You are looking at a field and suddenly a house in the distance falls down, so you say "Oh, look, that house just fell down! It MUST have been because an invisible giant was striding by and stept on it." And the proof of this is: "Well, HOW ELSE could that house have just fallen down like that?" Case closed. That's it: The proof of dark matter is the inability of its proponents to come up with an alternate explanation for the phenomena which they "believe" are being caused by dark matter.

I have the solution, of course. But word hasn't gotten to them yet:

No matter what the objections to its existence may be, proponents of dark matter ignore them all (just like every other proponent of the supernatural). And there are certainly many such objections--chief of which may be that if dark matter interacts "gravitationally" not only with regular matter, but) with itself: Where are all the dark matter-only galaxies? [What "separates" dark matter from regular matter?] There are regular-matter galaxies which even dark matter proponents have to admit have no discernible dark matter in them. So, as "they" have proposed that there is substantially a lot more dark then regular matter in the universe, surely then there HAS to be that many more dark matter-only galaxies here than ordinary-matter-only galaxies. But there "are" none. Surely even one "invisible" dark matter galaxy might have already been found to be "interacting" with something/somewhere by now!

And if their mythical dark matter does not interact with itself the same way it interacts with regular (or real) matter, why the hell not? Why does dark matter cloud and real matter lump? It would be nice to know. Even if dark matter is exempt from forming "stars" there should be all sorts of dark matter "black holes" bumping into things out there, and trillions of dark matter-only galaxies (if maybe made up only of black matter black holes) gumming up the universe...

No matter what they tell you... the requirement for how dark matter interacts with itself cannot be in any way shape or form different from the requirement for how it interacts with regular matter IF the one and ONLY such requirement is "gravity." It's ok if a dark matter particle repulses every other dark matter particle at the electro-magnetic level & keeps it all from forming stars, but how would that prevent the gravitational formation of "spheres" of dark matter? Exactly as with regular matter: A "cloud" of dark matter [obeying the same rules of gravity as a cloud of regular matter] should still create spheres, not remain a cloud. We should "see" spirals of dark matter just like the Milky Way spiral. Shouldn't we? Yes!

But dark matter only seems to "exist" where one of its proponents requires its "existence" to avoid having to explain [a previously unexplained observation] by good ole fashioned persistent perceptive productive hard work. Therefore, ye blind: Beware of obvious cons!

This is a very old story. We have had this cheap con played on us a million times before. Its effectiveness therefore (this far along in the game) might have something to do with the fact that when it's told to us by someone whom we otherwise trust or admire, a friend or some flashy celebrity, we always find it hard to laugh at it, time & time again, & dismiss it.


In trying to answer the question of how an EmDrive works, Benjamin T. Solomon also half-hints at a conventional solution to the question of how it is that "quantities of matter" might be forced to move towards each other in the absence of gravity [also: "Prof. Gerardus 't Hooft had brought up something interesting in his 2008 paper 'A locally finite model for gravity' ... that 'absence of matter now no longer guarantees local flatness...' meaning that accelerations can be present in spacetime without the presence of mass"] (--which is the state in which I describe our universe--), [yes, accelerations of what?!] this way:

"In my 2012 book An Introduction to Gravity Modification, I had explained the importance of asymmetrical fields and designs for creating propellantless engines. For example, given a particle in a gravitational field and with respect to this field's planetary mass source, this particle will observe an asymmetrical gravitational field. The near side of this particle will experience a stronger field than the far side, and thus the motion towards the planetary mass. Granted that this difference is tiny, it is not zero..." [Benjamin T. Solomon]

He explains the observation in terms of gravitational fields, whereas I am convinced the solution is that [in a universe which is undergoing implosion] every "quantity of mass" [in the universe] is moving towards every other "quantity of mass" in it ... and therefore the greater the "quantities" the bigger the observed acceleration they will experience towards each other.

This will invariably always produce "quantities of mass" which in the absence of any other like-/such "quantities of mass" will tend to become spherical; which at closer proximities with tend to elongate towards each other; and which at greater/greater distances will seem merely to "become mutually attracted" to each other by the degrees of distances at which they lie. [Thereby: the greater the "quantity of mass" ... the greater the attraction--in effect, the "acceleration" towards each other.] As is always everywhere the case seen with our material universe.


Any notion of so-called Dark Energy being behind the acceleration of the universe's expansion runs headlong into an utterly unavoidable physical impossibility. That is: There is no way for increasing "distance" ["the ever-increasing space between galaxies as the universe expands"] to be increasing "pressure" ["the eternally-increasing amount of energy that would be required for such an unending acceleration"].

At most, the best that Dark Energy proponents can ever look forward to proposing is that... "if" there really were Dark Energy between the galaxies, then yes: the farther any two galaxies are from each other, the more Dark Energy there must necessarily be in the space between them (there being more space there). The critical problem [in an expanding universe, in which galaxies are always flying away from each other] is self-evident, of course: Even if their proposed Dark Energy is NOT decreasing at every point of/in space (because of conservation of energy) it also cannot be increasing [never-mind how it was created in the first place because quantum mechanics can explain anything]. BUT: Therefore the increasing amount of Dark Energy at every point of/in space always remains constant--And that is not much different than saying that at sea-level pressure on a fish is the same whether it's swimming in a puddle or out in the middle of the greatest ocean.

--Better go to sea: --- [sic.]

It [that "energy pressure"] cannot be increasing there without it also increasing here [which see]... just as it cannot be decreasing there without also decreasing here.


Creating a "map" of Dark Matter is like creating a "map" of where cars are by noting the way "their" passing moves the wind about: I think I might be better inclined to assume that there are probably much better explanations for the movements of the wind than the moving about of passing invisible cars. But that's just me: For some people the only possible explanation for the moving wind can "only" be unseen passing cars.


All talk about singularities is like discussions over whether Woody Woodpecker is mentally competent:

Size is the greatest, most instant annihilator of any imagined possible/virtual/theoretical Singularity ... for if a so-called singularity has ANY size (at all) then it cannot possibly be a singularity, as it would of necessity require it to have dimension(s). [If the Original Singularity exploded into the Big Bang, then it couldn't have possibly been anything remotely like a singularity of course, because such an "explosion" could only have been triggered by the nature of its inner architectures.] And if any proposed singularity has dimensions it has sides, and everything that has sides has different/opposing reasons for one side being here up against its opposite side, etc., etc., etc... [Then again: it's pretty hard to imagine how something with absolutely no size whatsoever could possibly exist.]


NOTE: Because this document is so important to all mankind, you are encouraged to set up a mirror of it wherever you like: Simply unzip this file & upload the directory to your website: TheSolutionIsThisMirror.rar