Writes Mr. Rodrian:

No: It is not my AR model of an imploding universe's
prediction (that the Hubble constant will be found to be
accelerating)... that has already been pretty much "found"
--if not yet fully "proved." Rather...

Exactly as I have been predicting in these newsgroups
Big Bangers are even as early as right now attempting to
concoct ANY imaginary causes they can come up with
to accommodate the apparent acceleration of the Hubble
constant within their BB theory (instead of doing what they
ought to do immediately & give the poor dead thing a decent
timely burial): Here are just two of their craziest concoctions:

1) The cosmological constant ... "an unusual form of energy
that distributes itself uniformly throughout the cosmos rather
than breaking into galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, or
other clumps" ...  Nobody knows what it is, where it might come
from, or whether it even exists or not... but it has the grace
of having been proposed by Einstein... so there probably has
to be something to it in spite of the fact that Einstein himself
called it his greatest mistake--What'd he know, right?

2) Funny Energy (I mean, REALLY funny energy): "In general
relativity, the strength of gravity depends on pressure, energy,
and matter. Funny energy," ("related to the quantum nature of
gravity," no less)...  "acts as a negative pressure, pushing on the
fabric of space-time. If the universe contains a large enough
component of this exotic energy, the net effect of gravity becomes
repulsive rather than attractive. Cosmic expansion speeds up
instead of slowing down." (Which translates: "Sure, gravity acts
like an attracting force, but maybe sometimes it has gas and
repels rather than attracts." Yeah, sure! Like, THAT makes sense!

ANYTHING as long as the Big Bang theory is retained (and this
apparently includes inventing a new definition for gravity as
a repulsive force... or, adding exotic matter to space which instead
of intensifying gravity, actually cancels of out).

But fear not, all ye sane persons out there... eventually reasonable
persons exhaust all crazy notions and go back to the simplest, most
straightforward and logical solution (that the universe is imploding
and NOT exploding). It's just that human history is replete with brief
episodes of chaos and revolution preceding the return of civilization.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

RE:

Week of Feb. 12, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 7
Revved-Up Universe
Astronomers check out an expansive finding

By R. Cowen

Next week, the venerable American
Museum of Natural History in New York
City will unveil an exhibit on the history
of the universe. Descending a spiral
ramp, visitors will journey through the
cosmos beginning at its fiery birth
some 13 billion years ago.

Few will notice the small metal plaque
at the entrance to the gallery, let alone
the mathematical symbols engraved
upon it. But these symbols speak
volumes about the size and fate of the
cosmos—and the rapidity with which
astronomers have come to embrace
one of the most bizarre discoveries
ever made.

Just 2 short years ago, two teams of astronomers
presented the first evidence that we live in a runaway
universe, driven to expand at a faster and faster rate.

That finding is in direct conflict with the simplest version
of the Big Bang. According to that theory, the universe
has expanded ever since its explosive birth, but gravity
has gradually slowed the expansion. Even if the universe
grows forever, the theory predicts that it should do so at a
steadily decreasing rate.

Recent observations of exploded stars, however, suggest
that the universe's rate of expansion is in fact increasing.
Over the past year, new data appear to corroborate those findings.

To be sure, no one is yet claiming that the notion has been
proved. "I don't think it's yet definitive, but it's certainly our
current best model," says cosmologist David N. Spergel of
Princeton University. It was good enough for Spergel, along
with several other eminent astronomers, to recommend
that the museum inscribe the parameter for an accelerating
universe on its plaque.

Although the model may not be cast in concrete, it's now
been engraved in bronze.

So far, astronomers have found no serious objections to
the acceleration model. Nonetheless, "it's a big puzzle,"
says Scott Dodelson of the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. Typically, he notes, theory
leaps ahead of observations in cosmology. In this case,
however, "people are struggling to understand the data.
It's a crazy time," he says.  << You said it, baby!  SDR

Several studies promise to tie up loose ends—or overturn
the idea—over the next 2 years. Many of the tests have
their roots in 1998 findings on the exploded stars called
type 1a supernovas.

To determine whether or not the universe is revving up its
rate of expansion, astronomers several years ago began
comparing type 1a supernovas in distant regions of the
universe with those nearby. Not only can these brilliant
beacons be seen from far away—more than halfway to
the edge of the observable universe—they also appear
to have the same intrinsic brightness in both nearby and
distant galaxies, like light bulbs of the same wattage.

Because light from a distant galaxy takes several billion years
to reach Earth, astronomers observe that galaxy as it appeared
when the universe was several billion years younger. If gravity
were steadily slowing cosmic expansion, the distance between
Earth and that remote galaxy would be less, and the galaxy
would thus appear brighter, than if the expansion had proceeded
at a constant rate. By the same token, a supernova in a remote
galaxy would look brighter in a decelerating universe than it would
in a universe where expansion has been constant.

In early 1998, two teams startled astronomers by finding
exactly the opposite effect. Distant supernovas appeared
20 percent dimmer than expected for constant expansion,
indicating that over the past few billion years, the
universe's growth has sped up (SN: 12/19&26/98, p. 392).

Cosmologists have come to attribute the acceleration
to an unusual form of energy that distributes itself
uniformly throughout the cosmos rather
than breaking into galaxies, galaxy clusters,
superclusters, or other clumps. At present, this energy
has a higher density than matter, and its
gravitational influence dominates the cosmos.

Some call this energy the cosmological constant, a term first
invoked by Albert Einstein in 1917 when he realized that his theory of
gravity predicted a universe that was either expanding or contracting.
Because standard wisdom at the time held that the universe is static,
Einstein added the cosmological constant so that his equations would
allow a stationary solution. He later abandoned the idea, calling it "my
greatest blunder."

To explain the new observations, cosmologists have resurrected the
cosmological constant. Many associate its energy with the sea of
particles and antiparticles that, according to quantum mechanics,
populates empty space. Others call it "funny energy" and propose that it
relates to the quantum nature of gravity. In either case, it's exotic
stuff and poorly understood.

In general relativity, the strength of gravity depends on pressure,
energy,
and matter. Funny energy acts as a negative pressure, pushing on the
fabric of space-time. If the universe contains a large enough component
of
this exotic energy, the net effect of gravity becomes repulsive rather
than
attractive. Cosmic expansion speeds up instead of slowing down.

But are the supernova studies correct? "The cosmological constant is
such an exotic and strange idea . . . there's no really good conceptual
understanding of what it is," says Adam G. Riess, a member of the High-Z
Supernova discovery team at the Space Telescope Science Institute in
Baltimore.

"I think it really requires extraordinary proof to convince people that
there's
this whole other kind of energy that makes up most of the energy in the
universe. The only way to give that extra proof is to really exhaust
every
other possibility," he says.

Among the confounding effects that might muddy the issue, two have
taken center stage. Cosmic dust could make the supernovas look dimmer,
or the more distant ones might have a composition different from the
nearby ones, making them look fainter.

The first explanation calls for a special type of dust. If the culprit
had been
the ordinary form, researchers would already have detected it, says
Riess.

Ordinary dust, composed of particles smaller than 0.1 micrometer,
preferentially absorbs blue wavelengths of light, allowing red
wavelengths
to pass through relatively unimpeded. Observing the same supernovas at
slightly different wavelengths—some redder, some bluer—astronomers
have found no evidence that such dust significantly blocks the light.

That doesn't rule out a hypothetical type of intergalactic dust composed
of
particles 0.1 µm or larger in size. Dubbed gray dust by theorist Anthony
N.
Aguirre of Harvard University, such material would absorb red light
almost
as well as it does blue.

Gray dust would only betray its subtle presence through observation of a
single supernova at two widely separated wavelengths, a test Riess and
his colleagues performed last year. They found no difference in
brightness
when they observed a supernova at 400 nanometers, or blue light, with
the
Hubble Space Telescope, and at 900 nm, or near-infrared light, with the
Keck I Telescope atop Hawaii's Mauna Kea.

"We don't see any evidence for gray dust," Riess says. Without similar
studies of other supernovas, "we can't say categorically that it isn't
out
there, but this kind of observation disfavors it at a 95 to 98 percent
confidence level," he notes. Riess reported the finding last month at a
meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Atlanta.

Nor have astronomers so far found any significant differences in
composition between nearby and distant supernovas. A new project is
looking for differences between old and young supernovas in nearby
galaxies.

Using telescopes with unusually large
fields of view, some of them designed
to hunt near-Earth asteroids, Saul
Perlmutter of Lawrence Berkeley
(Calif.) National Laboratory and his
colleagues have begun a program to
find large numbers of these
supernovas. The project won't swing
into full gear until next year.

To test the runaway-universe model
directly, astronomers need to find
supernovas at still greater distances
than they have so far observed. Theory
suggests that before cosmic
expansion sped up, it had slowed
down. That's because the youthful
cosmos was much smaller and denser
than it is today, and the gravitational
tug exerted by ordinary matter in the
universe's early days would have
dwarfed any repulsive force associated
with the cosmological constant (SN:
11/27/99, p. 341).

Measuring the brightness of extremely remote supernovas can reveal
whether the universe had indeed undergone a period of deceleration. If
expansion had slowed, supernovas from long ago would appear brighter
than would be expected if expansion were constant.

The transition between slowing down and speeding up would have occurred
when the universe was about one-third its current age, or about 9
billion
years ago, astronomers calculate. To date, the supernova teams have
examined two supernovas that hail from about this time. Over the next 2
years, Perlmutter says, researchers are likely to find enough of the
extremely distant supernovas to determine whether there was a
deceleration.

"This is a unique signature of a cosmological constant—namely that today
the universe is accelerating, yesterday it was decelerating," says
Riess.
Neither dust nor differences in composition could mimic such behavior,
he
says.

"Nature would be cruel if it came up with a [different mechanism] that
makes things look dimmer then brighter in just that way," says Spergel.
"If
we see both the slowing down and the speeding up, then it becomes a
really compelling case."

A flying observatory devoted to studying type 1a supernovas could gather
such data, Perlmutter says. Such a satellite, known as the Supernova
Acceleration Probe (SNAP), may be launched in 2006. It could make
measurements that would be precise enough to not only document funny
energy but also distinguish between different theories of its nature, he
says.

For instance, a theory known as quintessence suggests that the
cosmological constant is not a constant at all but varies over time (SN:
2/28/98, p. 139). In this model, cosmic expansion would not have sped up
as rapidly.

A completely independent line of evidence also leads to a runaway
universe and a mysterious form of energy.

Just as ancient explorers mapped the shape of Earth, cosmic
cartographers are charting the shape and density of the universe.
Listening
to the cosmic-microwave background, the whisper of radiation left over
from the Big Bang, researchers have confirmed a long-standing prediction
that the universe is flat. It has just enough matter and energy so that
the
fabric of space-time is not curved and parallel lines never meet.

A telescope perched high in the Chilean Andes and a balloon-borne
detector on a test flight over Palestine, Texas, have closely examined
subtle temperature variations—tiny hot spots and cold spots—in the
microwave background. These variations, the imprint left on the infant
universe from the Big Bang, were first glimpsed 8 years ago by a NASA
satellite.

That satellite, however, could only view the hot and cold spots as broad
brushstrokes, averaged over large chunks of the sky.

The newer experiments reveal the temperature variations in much finer
detail. Both have found that variations in temperature reach their peak
over
patches of sky that are 1° across. This size, twice the apparent
diameter
of the full moon, fits the model for a flat universe. Other experiments
had
hinted at the same finding, but these newer data are the most
convincing.

The temperature fluctuations recorded
by the Chilean telescope, known as the
Mobile Anisotropy Telescope (MAT),
and the balloon-borne detector,
BOOMERANG, correspond to
microscopic fluctuations in the density
of the universe when it was about
300,000 years old. At that time, the
cosmos had cooled to the temperature
where matter and light cease to
interact strongly and radiation could
stream freely into space.

Amber D. Miller of Princeton University
and her colleagues reported the MAT
results in the Oct. 10, 1999
Astrophysical Journal Letters. Brendan
P. Crill of the California Institute of
Technology in Pasadena, a member of
the Italian-U.S. BOOMERANG team,
presented the balloon findings last
month at the Atlanta meeting.

"These are hard measurements to get right, but I think now one can feel
some confidence that the fluctuations do really peak on the 1° scale,"
says Spergel.

In a flat universe, the total density of energy and matter must equal
the
so-called critical density. A slew of other studies shows, however, that
the
universe is seriously underweight. Analysis of the clustering of
galaxies
across the sky, for example, indicates that matter provides only about
one-third of the critical density.

To balance the cosmic ledger, some form of energy must make up the
missing 70 percent of the critical density. The amount of exotic energy
suggested by the supernova studies fills the bill.

"Taken together, the cosmic-microwave background and the supernova
data are very powerful because the two are completely unrelated to each
other," says Riess.

Although each set of experiments is susceptible to its own errors, "the
experiments don't have the same Achilles heel," he adds. "It's pretty
suggestive that [the microwave-background studies] fit together very
nicely
with the supernova data," adds Spergel.

After carefully combining the results of the supernova studies with
those of
the microwave background and other observations, two astronomers say
that the findings require a cosmological constant. Max Tegmark of the
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Matias Zaldarriaga of the
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton reported their analysis at
last
month's astronomy conference.

Spergel worries, however, that other cosmological models could be
consistent with the single peak observed in the microwave-background
fluctuations. Compelling proof that the universe is flat, he says, will
come if
researchers can detect a predicted second and third peak.

In the meantime, the American Museum of Natural History wants to make
sure it won't get caught flatfooted. "Our expectation is that we will
reevaluate the prevailing winds of cosmology every 5 years and adjust
both
the plaque and the exhibit accordingly," says curator Frank Summers. The
plaque, he notes, is attached by screws and can easily be replaced.

Some astronomers are confident, however, that definitive data may
already
be in hand. BOOMERANG's test flight in 1997 examined the microwave
background for just 4.5 hours. A year later, it logged 190 hours during
a
flight over Antarctica. BOOMERANG researcher Andrew E. Lange of
Caltech says that in theory, the 1998 experiment is capable of finding a
second peak if it's there.

Crill says the team hopes to announce the results of the 1998 flight in
a
month or two. Several astronomers told Science News that they have
heard rumors that the team has already found the second and third peaks.

Another satellite, the Microwave Anisotropy Probe, is set for launch
this
November. Much more sensitive than BOOMERANG and capable of
viewing the entire sky, it should find several peaks if they exist,
Spergel
says.

"For both the cosmic-microwave-background and the supernova studies,
there are data in the next 2 to 3 years that will make this go from a
very
suggestive case, a best-bet case, to a really compelling one," Spergel
predicts.

From Science News, Vol. 157, No. 7, February 12, 2000, p. 106.

***************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 20 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <88nfsu$hbd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.79
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 20 01:26:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
  "mountbatur" <mountbatur@beand.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Very interesting - but as I understood it redshift shows that Galaxies
> are
> moving away from each other.  Surely this would not be the case in an
> imploding universe.

Yes it would be the case. Always keep in mind one absolute truth:
It is OUR universe that is imploding (consequently EVERY ASPECT
OF ITS NATURE is that of an imploding universe). Nothing
could be simpler:

The galaxies ARE receding from each other (not equidistantly, of course:
individual galaxies crash and orbit each other)... on the whole.

BEGIN QUOTE:

> Why is there no directionality in the observed redshift?

Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
give us a clearer "sense of direction" than our current one.]

Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:

Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).

Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
"marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
their naked eyes.

If the people of these planets do not know that they have
just shrank, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
(and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
are moving away from each other extremely quickly.

This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
towards each other... and that very, very slight different
will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
then they move towards each other)... this means that
their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
the universe by the Hubble constant.

This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
tiny factor (so that we may yet  be able to tell which
way is the center of our universe).

Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
other galaxies...

The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
11, 1, and 2).  Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
"journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will tend
to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
-observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in fact,
there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]

Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous "glance"
at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).

> Or
> am
> I completely wacked in believing there HAS TO BE directionality? To
> repeat, in the direction of our line of travel, why in there not a
> high
> redshift ahead, a lesser redshift behind, and zero redshift (or
> perhaps
> a little blue shift) abeam?

A lot of questions, but basically... because our little "bit" of
the galaxy (that portions which includes all the galaxies we can
"see") is a minuscule percentage of the whole of the universe.
This little "bit" of our universe is very probably unimaginably
young (compared to the true age of the whole of the universe).
But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
"blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path. And since
many galaxies do crash and even combine, it's possible this
may yet happen as we go along on our merry Milk Way.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

***********************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <894vab$ul8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88ng25$hjh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<YHPs4.4699$2E1.112462@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 171.213.120.38
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 25 04:09:49 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <YHPs4.4699$2E1.112462@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
  "Phssthpok" <phssthpok@netzero.net> wrote:
> It's a clever idea, but I'm afraid your hypothesis doesn't make sense.

And that doesn't make sense to me (surely there must be some
half way betwen us). Let us explore the possibility.

> Consider your thought experiment again. What makes the atoms of one
> planet
> shrink together and away from those of the other planet?

In short: All the forms of matter are but forms. All matter
is build of gravity. Gravity is the fundamental form of energy
in the universe. If the universe would use energy it must
obtain it from matter. Matter is not fundamental but merely
"forms" ... and "forms" can shrink without losing their forms.
Consequently, as the universe siphons off the energy/gravity
of which the "forms" of matter are made... they shrink (and
they will continue to shrink until there is no more energy (or
gravity) to support their existence. Now...

Gravity will always exert a greater effect with proximity.
This means that where matter is "denser" it will shrink just
"faster enough" to stay ahead of the shrinkage where matter
is "less dense." In practice this means that atoms will shrink
before their planet; but it is a meaningless distinction within
the bigger picture: The forms of matter do not shrink just for
the Hell of shrinking... they shrink because E=MC^2 (in effect
because energy is IN the forms of matter) and the universe
fuels its every least motion with that energy... eternally leaving
an ever-decreasing energy supply behind (or... an eternally
shrinking/diminishing totality of ordinary matter): But, as I said,
this is really inconsequential to us BECAUSE "size" (like time) is
only an idea in the human mind... as so the universe will always
remain the same size in our ordinary human experience.

First you have to understand that the universe is imploding, then
you have to understand that such an implosion MUST be fueled
by a tremendous amount of energy (and you must also understand
that every motion in the universe also must be fueled by energy):
Then you have to understand where that energy is coming from.
And once you understand that... you understand WHY it is that ALL
the "forms" of matter in the universe are shrinking and WHERE
the "subtracted" matter is going.

> If the matter
> were,
> in fact, shrinking as you suggest, each atom would shrink in situ. The
> atoms
> of my hand would withdraw from each other and it would vaporize.

ONLY if it were just the atoms in your hand shrinking AND "shrinking
in place" were the ONLY motion occurring in the universe.  But, in
fact, the entire universe (of matter) is behaving exactly like every
atom
in it... And this means that its shrinking is nowhere linear: Remember
that there is no exception to the absolute rule: There are NO (none)
fundamental particles: ALL the "forms" of matter are just that...
"forms."

If only an atom in your thumb and an atom in your index finger were
shrinking they would indeed shrink away from each other. But every
atom in the universe is shrinking AND moving equidistantly towards
each other (this eternal universality to equidistantly cancel the "gaps"
created by the shrinking... in effect cancels out any & all linear
motions
in our universe). In our ordinary sensual perception nothing changes,
of course... since every last subparticle in the universe save one (the
photon, which although also shrinking, does not completely "join" in
that
secondary motion of ordinary matter "towards closing the "gaps" left
by the primary shrinking in place")... are all shrinking.

> Unless, of
> course, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces and their spheres
> of
> influence remained unaffected in which case the net effect of such a
> shrinkage would be unmeasurable (read: no redshift).

The mediating particle of light, the photon, is also shrinking.
Therefore
a "distance" of one light year will always remain a distance of one
light
year regardless how much the universe shrinks because it's an eternal
ratio rather than some ideal absolute distance.

> Otherwise, where would the energy come from to overcome inertia and
> propel
> the shrinking atoms towards some hypothetical center?

I don't know about propelling atoms towards "center" but the energy
of the universe is stored in matter [E=MC^2] and that matter exists
(not as the early Greeks believed... in fundamental atoms, but) in
"forms" of matter. If matter were fundamental, the universe would
find it extremely difficult to obtain its energy from it; but because
the energy of the universe is "conserved/locked up" only in "forms"
of matter... that energy can be easily accessed and put to use in
the "motions" of the universe. Think of it this way: Gravity suffuses
the universe outside the forms of ordinary matter, and it also suffuses
the insides of the forms of matter (therefore, there is no apparent
barrier
between gravity outside matter and gravity inside matter). The result,
of
course, is not the nuclear annihilation of matter in order for the
universe
to have access to the energy stored in matter but the most perfect form
of non-nuclear "cold fusion" one could possibly ever dream of: One
in which the "forms" of matter merely shrink as the energy locked in
them
is almost imperceptibly "extracted." [And this is obviously never a
violent or sudden extraction process, but a continuing, eternal one
which will continue until there just isn't any more energy (or, matter)
to fuel the work of gravity. Then the most marvelous solution of all:
That energy which was once gravity again becomes infinite (scalar) mass
and that gives rise to matter again in our universe.]

> What would
> define the
> center?

Think of it this way: In the movement of gravity (which is the only
fundamental thing in matter) "towards center" ... gravity is consumed.
The journey "towards center" (really, towards shrinking) is ONLY
for the lifetime of gravity. Therefore, once gravity is exhausted...
the forms of matter are no more, and even gravity is no more. So
what would you really expect to "find" at your imagined "center?"

> if it's gravity, why, then, wouldn't the planets/galaxies
> remain in
> the same relative positions due to their gravitational pull on each
> other?

In point of fact, they do: First comes the shrinking BECAUSE
that is caused by the subtraction of energy to fuel all the goings on
(shrinking is just a motion too). Then gravity bridges the gaps
left by the shrinkage--This is an important sequence to understand
because, given enough cosmological distance, this tiny effect is
magnified into the Hubble constant.  The Hubble constant is the
ONLY hint given us (aside of c constancy) of what the universe
is really up to. The fact that gravity "closest to center" will move
"towards center" (where most of the rest of gravity is) faster than
gravity located in more diffused regions away from center ONLY
comes into play when one notices that the Hubble constant is
accelerating. [And it becomes proof against a Big Bang model and
therefore supportive proof of an imploding model of the universe.]

> If it could preserve the local integrity of matter it should preserve
> the
> integrity of the whole system.

And it does... as close to perfectly as one could ever hope to imagine
perfection to get.

Kindly,

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

***********************************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 64.24.21.129
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 23 23:03:04 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.math,alt.math.recreational,soc.men
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net>,
  "faust" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> First, let me say that really admire your concept of an "imploding
> universe".... its very creative and for the moment I can not really
> think of
> any flaw in the basic logic.

Well, I don't know how creative it may be, but I myself have been
trying everything I can to debunk it for the past ten years or so
and so far I've been unable to do so. It's really personally annoying
to contemplate an existence which is literally "going down the drain"
(at least with the Big Bang Mythology one had the "comforting" thought
of being able to imagine "bits" of matter surviving for billions of
years
in some yet cold & darkened universe inside which some intelligent life
might survive on fusion or some other non-star energy).

> I do however take issue with your
> evidence,

Well, good luck to you! I've tried to take issue with the evidence
myself... without much luck.

> as
> the expansion of the universe is not necessarily dependent upon your
> hypothesis.

I've gone that route so many times my thoughts've developed
little itty bitty legs and a familiar groove!

> The expansion of the universe is non-directional because
> the
> whole universe is expanding and everything is moving at a consistent
> rate
> (excepting independent motion) from everything else.  The best way I
> have
> heard of visualizing it is to imagine that the galaxies are raisins in
> a
> loaf of bread.  When the bread is baked it expands.and each raisin
> will move
> with the expansion of the bread at a consistent rate away from each
> other
> raisin.  If you were placed onto a single raisin you would see every
> other
> raisin around you moving away at a constant rate.  It is not necessary
> to be
> in the center raisin to experience this consistent recession of the
> other
> raisins.

It all sounds so delicious and aromatic! Unfortunately there is a
nagging
wall beyond which we may not travel this route. And it is this: "Energy
can not be created or destroyed."

TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all over
the universe like balls on a pool table (which is basically the Big Bang
premise... in which the galaxies have been "cued" to break into an
"expansion"). It's nifty for cosmologists to say that the universe is
not
exploding but expanding, and that it's just "space stretching" between
the galaxies... but at SOME point one has to account for THE REASON
galaxies are moving about. It's as simple as that. But, BECAUSE no one
who has ever tried to account for this has ever been able to come up
with a good enough reason why the galaxies are receding from each
other... the original thinkers of the turn of the last century proposed
that
it HAD to have been that some primordial explosion GAVE the expansion
of the universe its energy.  It's simple and hard to dispute (if you
have
an objection, it says, then you tell us why the universe is expanding
without
any visible "means of support" ... as, NOWHERE is there ANY evidence
that the expansion is being fueled by any ongoing expenditure of
energy).
Even in the face of this there are astronomers who with a straight face
will tell you that the universe is expanding, "but there was really no
primordial explosion... located at the place from which the universe was
pushed into expanding." [It's all magic in their minds, and in the dark
&
marvelous shows they put on for us in their planetariums.] Obviously, if
some primordial explosion gave the expansion of the universe its energy
then we don't have to worry about the fact that the universe is
expanding
without using any energy whatsoever to do so!

Yes, by the way, I know a lot of theorists have proposed that the
expansion
of the universe may be fueled by bursting hydrogen atoms or the odd
electrons
that get sick of hanging around with ordinary matter.. and all sorts of
"energy"
particles that... ALL fail miserably in one respect: The amount of
energy required
to fuel the Hubble constant is so immense, so monstrously immense that
the
loss of the energy required to fuel it would have to be just as
monstrously
apparent... and NOT merely one or two electrons (spared by ordinary
matter)
and dropped here & there into the cosmic engine. [Move a galaxy a couple
of
inches, and then come back to us on this one.] It is for this reason,
and a couple
of others, that ALL Big Bang and ALL true expanding universe models are
based on magic and ONLY on magic--They cannot run in the real world.
Period.
They just don't have any gas in their tanks. [Nevermind that none of
them
even TRIES to account for the origin of matter or energy themselves.
But, then
again: Why should a system that works on magic alone bother with such
things?]

Only a imploding model for the universe can account for the origin of
energy
and of matter. Only an imploding model accounts for how and why every
last little bit of motion in it is able to move, where its energy/fuel
comes from,
how it uses it, and even how much it uses at every step of the way: NO
MAGIC.
Only an imploding model for the universe explains c constancy in
identical
mediums in a simple and straightforward manner (COMPLETELY in just three
very simple to understand paragraphs... so that any reasonable human
being
can "see" it as clearly as he/she can see a tree). Only an imploding
model explains
why the Hubble constant might be accelerating (Hell, it actually demands
that
the universe exhibit just such an acceleration). What more anyone would
ask for
of the imploding universe model... I do not know!

And yet, as posted here recently, cosmologists are still posting some
"funny
energy" or other fueling the "expansion" (hilarious, really)... an
"energy" which
is not only invisible, intangible,  and without a source, but which has
no conceivable
mechanism by which to do anything Big Bang cosmologists are trying to
convince
themselves it "might" be doing! The SOLE reason for this is that the Big
Bang model
of the universe cannot be supported by the evidence... and so its high
priests and
disciples must INVENT imaginary "justifications" for continuing to
believe in it.
And they will do so until, literally, "the tide turns," and they can
begin to take
seriously the evidence that's in front of their own eyes.

> Another important point to consider, is that the universe
> may not
> even have a center in a tradition sense.

This is an aside, but...

Before settling on my implosion model I myself leaned towards some
unconventional methods which might yet allow for a Big Bang model.
Twenty years ago the argument centered around whether the universe
had sufficient matter in it to halt and/or reverse its expansion or
whether
its expansion would continue forever. While I  tended to concentrate on
the amount of energy produced by the theoretical BB explosion itself:

I was always stumped by the idea that such an expenditure of energy
would have to have "converted" the primordial form of energy into the
"work" of pushing the expansion of the universe... and how (whatever
that pre-Big Bang energy form) had ended up as ordinary matter. But
the Big Bang furnace never proved very efficient--it had to have been
mediated by too many distinct parameters which did not "agree"
among themselves sufficiently: Meaning... unworkable complexities.
[You simply cannot have a Big Bang "singularity" which is as complex
as the modern day universe. Period.] Even if you took the view that
gravity was the fundamental force into which the primordial energy
of the universe had settled... it obviously worked against expansion!
Further, even if you assumed that none of the forms of matter were
themselves fundamental (and therefore allowed for a theoretical
continued expenditure of gravity/energy in the expansion of the
universe... fueled at the cost of all those forms of matter "shrinking"
(meaning... that the universe would remain the same "size" as the
original singularity ... and the expansion of the universe is merely a
misinterpretation of the fact that all the forms of matter are
shrinking):
you still do not end up with a true expanding universe but, in fact,
what
you inescapably end up with is... an imploding universe which only
appears to us to be expanding. So no matter how one tries to figure out
a way for the universe to escape implosion it always comes back to it.

> It is only with the Steady
> State
> model that space is flat.  In that model there is precisely enough
> matter
> for the universe to expand,

Unfortunately... the same stone wall: Where comes the energy
to fuel such an expansion? And, where comes matter (since it is
assumed that matter is ultimately fundamental--that there is some
"particle" which will never be found to be composed of other
more basic particles; and, consequently, that there is a limit to
how small a "something" can get).

> ... but after a certain amount of time gravity
> "brakes" the universe to a halt.  So the universe would have a
> traditional
> center with a sphere around it.

It is not possible to propose mass without a center (even donuts
are centered inwardly and extend out towards a finite edge away
from center). The mathematical dimensions man dreams up all come
from a children's toy: Take a strip of paper and glue its edges together
(only twist the paper once before gluing them): Now place a pencil
on the strip of paper and draw a line without ever lifting the pencil
off
the strip of paper: Voila! "You will eventually end up where you
started!"
(Ostensibly discovering that your strip of paper only has a single side,
or "dimension.") Does this mean you have created a piece of paper
that only has one single side to it? Nope. Sorry. This is obvious to you
because you can take the strip of paper in your hands and see that it
still
has two sides: Reality is hard to counterfeit. However... mathematical
models which twist/trick the mind into the illusion that reality is
multi-
dimensional... cannot be so easily disproved by reality because such
models cannot exist in it (you cannot hold them in your hand and see
EXACTLY where the "trick that glues it in place" lies... most of the
time).
Therefore it is possible to model (glue together) ANY milti-dimensional
"trick" mathematically and claim it as reality (magicians do it all the
time
... the real trick is getting other magicians to not find... or, at
least, to not
reveal how the trick's just a trick... so they can all profit from
wowing the
rubes--I mean... the customers--a while longer).

> The other two models are the Open and
> Closed model.  The Open model is a universe with inadequate mass to
> compensate for the force of the explosion of the Big Bang.  The
> universe
> slows, but expands to infinity.  The Closed model predicts a universe
> that
> will expand for some time but then gravity will overcome the force of
> the
> expansion and then reverse it.  The universe will collapse back unto
> itself.

Either way it's still the same impossibility of "something from
nothing."

> Both of these models are non-Euclidean models i.e. space would be
> curved
> (one in an ellipse, the other in a parabola).

And if one keeps curving space, of course, we can then eventually
drill a small "worm hole" between the curved halves of the universe
(where they almost bump against one another) and travel in time
billions of years into the past and billions of years into the future
and billions of light-years from here... and, isn't this Star Trek fun!
It almost seems as if space it the easiest thing to bend there is in
the universe--And, know what: it is!!!! (Italians seem especially
good at it, when they take it in their hands and say, "I'ma gonna
twist yo neck lika thisa!")

> It is possible with
> both of
> these models to imagine a universe with no conceivable center.

Yep: Ye olde sack-o-potatoes universe!

> The
> best way
> to think of this, would be trying a flat plane curved over a sphere,
> the
> earth's surface for example.  If one were to try to find the center or
> "edge
> of the earth", you would ultimately end up at the exact spot you
> started at.

Nice alternative to the strip of paper toy I mentioned before! (As are
all
"complex" mathematical models of mathematical models.) And it even has
the added grace that no one can pick it up and "spot" where the trick
lies.

> That is because there is no center.  Much the same way with the
> universe
> (except instead of a 2D structure curved into 3D space, it would be a
> 3D
> structure - a sphere curved into 4D space - maybe a hypersphere).

Of course... an object with a dimension of time could not have a "rest"
state except in the mind. And if an object has no "place" in which to
exist.. can it exist at all?!?!?! I doubt it. Such an object would have
to
FIRST drop "out" of the dimension of time before it could "exist" in
a given (necessarily... timeless) place. And so I prefer the notion that
there are only three dimensions; and that things exist in those three
dimensions alone Further... that if something or other moves in those
three dimensions... it moves from here to there (from one "rest state"
to the next). And, of course, this individual motion is independent of
all the other motions of the universe (each of which may be moving
or not moving, speeding up or slowing down, themselves independent
of all other motions in the universe). Rather wonder: is "motion" really
"smooth;" or does it "jump" in a manner already described by QM? ...

> If
> you
> were to start at Earth and try to find the edge or center of the
> universe,
> you would (after an extremely long period of time) end up back at
> earth.

Only as long as you did not lift the pencil off/from the universe. Yes.

> Last time I checked in 97,

My God, how often do you get your checks?!

> given the measured rate of expansion and
> the
> estimated age of the universe,

NONE of which we really know much about, by the way...

> the universe seemed to be borderline
> Steady
> State leaning to the Closed Model (This is still a Closed Model... in
> the
> Steady State Model the universe must be to the gram a certain mass).
> However, theorist could not come up with enough mass to justify this
> state
> of affairs.  Thus something has to wrong - the estimated age of the
> universe
> or the nature matter and mass as currently known.

In my experience... physicists, cosmologists, et al, are children
arguing at
the sandlot: My, what wonderful clever ideas they all come up with! What
colorful expressions & equations, and four-letter words! But, at the end
of the day they are all driven home by any quick Spring shower. None of
their words chiseling permanently a single truth upon the passing
clouds.
(I love the pun, "chiseling.") In any case, maybe that's the thing makes
me
so willing to consider a possibility not already toyed with by the
children
... or a possibility perhaps cast aside too quickly because it might not
have
been "childish" enough for them. In any case, I'm one of those folks
likes
to work with an open mind--You know: a serious scientist; not just some
player at the sandlot happy to construct the prettiest little castle of
the day.

> Of course nothing of what I have written directly contradicts your
> concept
> of an imploding universe. I am only trying to argue your supporting
> tenants.
> :-)

Well, if SOMEBODY doesn't come up with one single objection to
the model of an imploding universe THAT STICKS, and soon, I imagine
people will definitely start wondering WHY they're still sticking with a
Big Bang model... which is becoming practically invisible under all the
objections it's overrun with. Even the "dullest" of Big-Bangers today
make
sure people understand that "their" Big Bang universe is just
"expanding"
without ever having had anything whatever to do with any "actual" Big
Bang.

Go figure! But not physics or cosmology... go figure human nature.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
 

RE:

> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>>   "mountbatur" <mountbatur@beand.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Very interesting - but as I understood it redshift shows that
>>> Galaxies
>>> are
>>> moving away from each other.  Surely this would not be the case in
>>> an
>>> imploding universe.
>>
>> Yes it would be the case. Always keep in mind one absolute truth:
>> It is OUR universe that is imploding (consequently EVERY ASPECT
>> OF ITS NATURE is that of an imploding universe). Nothing
>> could be simpler:
>>
>> The galaxies ARE receding from each other (not equidistantly, of
>> course:
>> individual galaxies crash and orbit each other)... on the whole.
>>
>> BEGIN QUOTE:
>>
>>> Why is there no directionality in the observed redshift?
>>
>> Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
>> an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
>> very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
>> give us a clearer "sense of direction" than our current one.]
>>
>> Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
>> in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
>> is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
>> other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
>> imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
>> all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:
>>
>> Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
>> earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
>> they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
>> can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
>> its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).
>>
>> Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
>> to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
>> "marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
>> of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
>> of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
>> see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
>> their naked eyes.
>>
>> If the people of these planets do not know that they have
>> just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
>> away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
>> one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
>> (and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
>> report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
>> they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
>> And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
>> perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
>> are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
>>
>> This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
>> the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
>> shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
>> are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
>> towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
>> will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
>> absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
>> a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
>> planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
>> towards each other... and that very, very slight difference
>> will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
>> galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
>> constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
>> The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
>> over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
>> then they move towards each other)... this means that
>> their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
>> their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
>> the universe by the Hubble constant.
>>
>> This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
>> And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
>> closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
>> of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
>> center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
>> the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
>> acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
>> the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
>> will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
>> tiny factor (so that we may yet  be able to tell which
>> way is the center of our universe).
>>
>> Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
>> recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
>> seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
>> respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
>> a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
>> apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
>> universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
>> always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
>> other galaxies...
>>
>> The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
>> our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
>> up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
>> the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
>> 11, 1, and 2).  Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
>> at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
>> at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
>> at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
>> seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
>> "journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
>> the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will
>> tend
>> to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
>> than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
>> galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
>> behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
>> -observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
>> the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
>> seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
>> towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
>> more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
>> we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
>> due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
>> to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
>> proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
>> our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
>> obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
>> bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
>> absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
>> might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
>> it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
>> overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
>> there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
>> universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in
>> fact,
>> there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
>> universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]
>>
>> Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
>> occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
>> vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous
>> "glance"
>> at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
>> irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
>> to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).
>>
>>> Or
>>> am
>>> I completely wacked in believing there HAS TO BE directionality?
>>> To
>>> repeat, in the direction of our line of travel, why in there not a
>>> high
>>> redshift ahead, a lesser redshift behind, and zero redshift (or
>>> perhaps
>>> a little blue shift) abeam?
>>
>> A lot of questions, but basically... because our little "bit" of
>> the galaxy (that portions which includes all the galaxies we can
>> "see") is a minuscule percentage of the whole of the universe.
>> This little "bit" of our universe is very probably unimaginably
>> young (compared to the true age of the whole of the universe).
>> But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
>> "blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path. And since
>> many galaxies do crash and even combine, it's possible this
>> may yet happen as we go along on our merry Milk Way.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>
>>
***************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <894u93$tsu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 152.205.156.98
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 25 03:52:04 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics,umich.physics.astro-ph
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
  "Androcles" <androcles@home.com> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [snip]
> Since you have chosen to post this to alt.math, would you mind telling
> us
> what axioms you are basing your ideas upon?
> Androcles

The following one:

"Where is
the energy that gravity is using to do its work
coming from?"

e. g.

If gravity works strictly by magic, as some
conventional physicists posit, then the question is
not relevant.

However, if, on the other hand, one needs
to account for the energy which MUST be fueling
the work that gravity is doing in our universe
...  then, pray tell, where are the fuel tanks located,
how is gravity accessing its fuel, and (since energy
cannot be created or destroyed) how is the universe
conserving/converting that energy... and into what?

An imploding universe model perfectly accounts for all
these (as well as for c constancy in identical mediums
AND for an accelerating Hubble constant).  See:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-6.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-5.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-1.htm

Period.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

**********************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 27 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89bnrp$f5v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
<894uob$u9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <D9Ut4.123240$j63.2457389@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.254
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 27 17:45:29 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <D9Ut4.123240$j63.2457389@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
  "Androcles" <androcles.nospam@home.com> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:894uob$u9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> In article <i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
>>   "Androcles" <androcles@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>> [snip]
>>> Since you have chosen to post this to alt.math, would you mind
>>> telling
>>> us
>>> what axioms you are basing your ideas upon?
>>> Androcles
>>
>> The following one:
>>
>> "Where is
>> the energy that gravity is using to do its work
>> coming from?"

> That is a question, not an axiom.

Sorry, Androcles, but
[S D Rodrian's Axiom]...

What is the question (while
that may well be its answer).
 

>
>> e. g.
>>
>> If gravity works strictly by magic, as some
>> conventional physicists posit, then the question is
>> not relevant.
>>
>> However, if, on the other hand, one needs
>> to account for the energy which MUST be fueling
>> the work that gravity is doing in our universe

> You haven't yet established that work is being done.

Nor have I established that you are wearing underwear.
However, I venture to bet that it shall be many times easier
to prove that gravity is doing "some work" in the universe
than that you are wearing underwear.

>> ...  then, pray tell, where are the fuel tanks located,
>> how is gravity accessing its fuel, and (since energy
>> cannot be created or destroyed) how is the universe
>> conserving/converting that energy... and into what?
>>
>> An imploding universe model perfectly accounts for all
>> these (as well as for c constancy in identical mediums
>> AND for an accelerating Hubble constant).  See:

> No, you see. This is a math newsgroup.
> If you want to ask a question, then many here will be glad to answer.
> If you want to discuss your theory with mathematicians, you must play
> by the
> rules. First we want to know the basis of your theory, the axioms upon
> which
> it is built.
> One step at a time.
> What are the axioms you are basing your ideas upon?
> Androcles

Newton's. [Newton, Sir Isaac (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist.
Born at Woolsthorpe, near Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he attended
school,
he entered Cambridge University in 1661; he was elected a Fellow of
Trinity
College in 1667, and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669. He
remained
at the university, lecturing in most years, until 1696. Of these
Cambridge years,
in which Newton was at the height of his creative power, he singled out
1665-1666
(spent largely in Lincolnshire because of plague in Cambridge) as "the
prime of my
age for invention". During two to three years of intense mental effort
he prepared
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of
Natural
Philosophy) commonly known as the Principia, although this was not
published
until 1687.]

Now that we have danced step one, you may instruct
the orchestra that we are ready for step two.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/absoluterelativity

***************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <894v50$ud9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p0d$j9a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38B49337.97332839@nbnet.nb.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 171.213.120.38
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 25 04:06:57 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.cynicism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <38B49337.97332839@nbnet.nb.ca>,
  Michael Gauthier <jmgauth@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> I have been intruiged by comments on this shrinking universe idea
since I
> first noticed them here so I checked out the web page link. It left me
with
> 2 observations.
>
> The first is trivial, since I probably just didn't understand the full
> picture. The page gives the example of how contraction can look like
> expansion by suggesting a person being stretched as the person falls
toward
> a gravity source. That is valid if the person doesn't gaze very far,
but at
> a shallow enough angle toawrd the gravity source the person should see
some
> very big evidence of shrinkage, mainly all the matter rushing into the
> source from the far side. Like I said, that arguement is trivial.

Actually the idea above only applies toward an explanation of why
the Hubble constant is accelerating. But the "understanding" you give
in your paragraph is so removed from all understanding that I can only
regret that my page must be much harder to follow than I imagined!

Perhaps it might be better if you simply went over some of the
answers I have already given in previous Usenet threads. These
can be found at the following urls:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-1.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-5.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-6.htm
and others...

> The non-trivial arguement has to do with the strenuous arguements
against
> the existence of initial conditions for the big bang. Where did the
initial
> conditions for the shrinking universe come from?

Before the advent in our universe of the fundamental force we know
locally as gravity, existence consisted of infinite (scalar) mass. There
was no ordinary matter in the universe, but there was energy (we can
posit this as simply the result of something as simple as the entirely
of
existence not being homogeneous... and thereby giving rise to different
consistencies in different areas, or pressures): You don't have to have
different amounts of matter in a volume to create pressure (it is enough
to simply increase the volume itself, which you can do with a container
of gas, or a simple vacuum). In an earth-bound experiment such a vacuum
would be "mediated" by the matter in the surrounding container, of
course. But in the infinite voids of space... such a "vacuum" might be
mediated by the sheer fact that there is nothing to contain it: How "far
and wide" would infinite (scalar) mass extend in such a situation is
really
anybody's guess; but, although necessarily finite at some point, it must
be something quite monstrously immense to contemplate intellectually.

At this point it's as if you had an almost infinite rubber band
stretching
for aeons: The more it stretches, the more energy it builds up. And so
it
goes... almost forever. Until the pressure it has built up reaches its
critical
point. [And let me just say this: This model is the one & only true
expansion
the universe ever undergoes... an expansion into infinite (scalar)
mass.]
It is at this critical point, however defined, that the finite amount of
energy
the universe will ever have is set forver.

Here follows the story of our universe upon the advent of gravity (or,
in other words, once the accumulated energy of the universe is converted
into vector mass): And this point that expansion of infinite (scalar)
mass
will "reverse" and where once the universe lay in the grip of a
repulsive
force, it will now shift its nature into that of an attracting force.

Just as with the repulsive force it replaced, this new attracting force
will
characterize every last coordinate of the universe (it will not itself
be
linear). However, it will quickly become linear by its very nature and
immediately begin to establish local vectors). [You might say that the
instant just before the manifestation of gravity in the universe marked
that moment when the entire universe could have been described as
being in a stale equivalent to the pre-Big Bang singularity, except that
the universe's real Singularity does not explode, of course, and instead
implodes. If you understand gravity you understand why this is so.]

Therefore the highest moment of activity (and therefore the highest so-
called "temperature") now follows (although the term "temperature"
refers to nuclear processes which gravity does not engage in while
it exists outside particles). The nascent universe, remember, has
as its disposal at this moment the highest amount of energy it will ever
have (to put to the "work" of gravity, or motion). The one thing we do
understand about gravity is that its effect is strongest with proximity.
So it's very likely that a picture of the earliest moments of the
universe
would have shown NOT an overall "motion" towards universal implosion
but rather... innumerable instances of very localized interactions (or,
as
physics today might interpret such a picture... coalescences everywhere
into so-called subparticles). And because of the sheer vastness
(volumes)
which would have been necessary to give rise to even the most primordial
(simplest) subparticles... the universe at this time must have
experienced
its greatest linear velocities (therefore its greatest so-called
"temperatures"
... though  this could ONLY have happened after the universe had already
created its first subparticles, of course, because of the need for
mediating
subparticles). [Gravity itself does not engage in nuclear processes.]

It now becomes possible to quantify the strong force as gravity. In
other
words: Let's say the strength of gravity is X in "a given volume" (or,
there
is "so much" energy in that volume). By what factor must we reduce that
volume in order to make the strength of gravity equal that of the strong
force?

Provided there are no unsuspected variables, this should yield an
equation
which would say, "If one took the strength of gravity in a given
volume... one
would need to reduce that volume by "this factor" in order for that
"amount
of energy" to equal the energy/strength of the strong force" (provided
the
strength of gravity always remained perfectly concentrated in the
reduction).
This way you could slide up & down the "given volumes;" but the ratios
of
energy/strength between the strong force & gravity would always remain
the same (that's the equation). And this gives us absolute knowledge of
their
permanent relationship, just as envisioned in any Unified Field Theory.

But to continue: Once the universe has settled the question of exactly
which subparticles constitute its stablest "forms" of matter... those
particles
will themselves begin to engage in a true universe-wide implosion
(evenly
all across the entire universe). At this point energy (or gravity) will
be
concentrated (or stored, or conserved) in the "forms" of matter. But
once
those "forms" of matter put their energy to the "work" of motion
again...
something has to give: Either the universe CANNOT move (because it
doesn't have the energy available for it to do so), or it will move (in
which
case it must fuel its motion with energy siphoned from... somewhere).

This is the unavoidable wall against which crashes any notion that our
universe could be truly expanding/exploding: Ask yourself but this:

Where is the energy that gravity is using to do its work coming from?

This is not simply the energy posited to have been used by the
primordial
Big Bang explosion to create the so-called expansion of the universe:

Inertia may keep the moon racing about the earth, but the earth is using
gravity to keep the moon from flying off in a straight line: Where is
Earth
getting the energy to do the work it's putting its gravity to? I am sure
you
must understand that it's taking "quite a bit of energy" to hold on to
the
moon. Please show me where the earth keeps the gas tanks that fuel this
"little bit" of work! (In my opinion it ought to be so huge a train of
tanks,
given the huge work Earth is doing, that they should figuratively
"litter
the land.") And now think about the amount of gravity being expended to
keep entire galaxies together! --And, if you're one of those persons who
believe it's all being done by magic (without any accounting to/by the
real
world, or expenditure of energy)... then you are the acolyte of
conventional
physics and believe in invisible unpalpable channels in space through
which
roll all the heavenly bodies. [But, where is Newton's apple really
getting the
energy it is using to move itself towards the earth?... There are people
who
don't believe in gravity, of course; and I don't just mean those SR/GR
folks
who believe in magic... these others  believe that there's no such thing
as
"the pull of  gravity" and that instead the universe is afflicted with a
general
"pressure"  that "pushes" bodies together & such--Which ideas must have
occurred to their originators while recovering in great iron lungs after
having
surfaced  too quickly from too great a depth while scuba diving.]

If the forms of ordinary matter are fundamental, then it's truly beyond
our
comprehension exactly where this tremendous amount of energy which
gravity MUST be consuming is located, how it's being accessed, how
matter is
putting it to work, and (since energy cannot be created or destroyed)
how
is the universe conserving/converting that energy... and into what? So
too
if the universe is expanding/exploding. But only the first Greeks who
originally
proposed the atom believed it was fundamental... and we have long since
proved it is not.

No matter what form our acknowledgment of this truth takes... we know
today
that all "forms" of matter are just "forms" and not fundamental. The
only
fundamental thing in our universe is gravity/energy (and therefore it is
not
mediated by any subparticle). Further, today we know where the energy of
the universe is stored (E=MC^2)... in matter. And so, if the "forms" of
matter
were fundamental... the extraction of its energy could only take place
by one
method, and that would be the annihilation of matter. (This truth we see
in
effect inside every star in the cosmos and in nuclear reactors & bombs.)
Particles are excited (accelerated) and temperatures increase until a
critical
point is reached. But this is obviously not where gravity is getting its
energy
(remember that gravity does not engage in nuclear processes). The
modern-
day method of extracting energy from matter is a monstrously clumsy and
inefficient method. Instead the primal fueling system of the universe is
the most
perfect form of  non-nuclear "cold fusion" imaginable: There is an
eternal drain
of energy out of all the "forms" of matter in the universe... with the
result that
all the universe's forms of matter shrink, and motion is then made
possible by this.

That sequence is crucial in order to understand what the universe is
doing,
by the way: First one must get the energy, and only after this can one
put it
to work.  In practice this means that first the forms of matter shrink,
and then
they "move" (mostly to fill in the newly created "equidistant gaps"
between
themselves). Because there are NO fundamental forms of matter EVERY form
of matter (particle) is shrinking and then "moving in" to retain the
equidistance.
This means that most of the motion of the universe is NOT linear but
"towards
shrinking." [You can also visualize it this way: Think not of matter
"shrinking"
but of space expanding at/from every imaginable coordinate: Now you will
be
able to see that the universe remains as it has always been, but all
about it and
throughout it... space is expanding--It doesn't really have any effect
on us, but
every coordinate in our universe can now be thought of as being the
center of
the universe. Find a feather which will "float" in that expanding space,
and no
matter in which direction you "drop it" (in that expanding space) it
will "float"
away in that direction forever. [This is exactly what happens with the
photon,
which, although it still shrinks right along with us, will yet refuse to
rush in to
"fill the gaps" at the same velocity as the rest of the forms of
ordinary matter
are themselves "rushing in to fill the gaps." The difference in speeds
between
the speed at which ordinary forms of matter "rush in to fill the gaps"
and the
speed at which the photons "rush in to fill the gaps" is measured as c
constancy
in identical mediums--And this is because the photon will "slow down" in
relation
to us more in a vacuum than in a medium in which it is being pressured
by the
greater "velocities" of the ordinary forms of matter themselves "rushing
past it"
as they "rush in to fill the gaps" at their "normally" higher speeds...
and, naturally,
the "thicker" the medium... the greater the "pressure" exerted on the
photon.]

Thereby: 1) c constancy is one of the most powerful proofs that ours is
an imploding
universe. 2) It is indisputable that gravity can only WORK the way it
does in our
universe if ours is an imploding universe. And, finally: 3) The most
obvious hint the
universe gives us that it is indeed an imploding universe is,
ironically, the Hubble
constant (or, the very real recession of the galaxies from each other).

> Instead
> of an initial
> energy with no space or structure, this theory suggests an initial
> space
> and structure (with no energy or not?). I don't see any real bonus
> here.
> Personally, I think the big bang is just the easy answer to why we see
> an
> expanding universe. Inflation sounds like a terrible mathematical
> fudge to
> explain why the big bang theory fails so utterly to describe the
> flatness
> we see in space now. But your model is just 6 of one, a half dozen of
> the
> other. Yes objects drop. But how do they get up to drop in the first
> place
> (my complaint with your model)? And where do they get the energy to
> get up
> (your complaint with the big bang)?
>
> Your theory and the big bang are both interesting attempts to explain
> here
> two schools of thought think the universe "must" have come from. Would
> either group like to offer me any proof that their theory works? Could
> someone explode or shrink a nice little universe for me to give me
> experimental proof that either can be done, thank you very much?

Sure: By the same marvelous device by which you can be swallowed
by a lion and yet live... imagine the universe as I've described it and
enjoy!

> OK. That last was a little cheeky, but not half as arrogant as some of
> the
> self serving remarks splattered all over that web site.

No argument there.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
 

******************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89i2ft$rfd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.154
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 01 03:23:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
 
 

In article <eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>,
  "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
>> energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all
>> over
>> the universe like balls on a pool table
>
> Actually, they do exactly that.   Galaxies respond to gravity just
> like
> anything else and do, in fact, act like free (if diffuse) projectiles
 .

You've missed the point, Mikey: It is the energy to fuel gravity
we're talking about, and not how gravity is manipulating matter.

> Their motions in this regard, however, are on a much smaller scale
> than the
> apparent motion imparted by the expansion of the universe.  Study the
> motions of galaxies within clusters some time.

Mikey: The question is... where is gravity getting its energy, not
how gravity's distributed matter about the universe. I agree with you
that gravity acts locally (ergo, it will create "particles" and force
those
particles to react locally... long, long before they react to the entire
sum of the universe--This means that the universe will have atoms and
galaxies, and that galaxies will bounce about in response to the local
effects of gravity... the overall structure of galaxy distribution is
similar
to a soapy froth with the bubbles marking regions of space where
galaxies are not as abundant as they are on the "rims" of these
"voids").

>> (which is basically the Big Bang
>> premise... in which the galaxies have been "cued" to break into an
>> "expansion").
>
> That's not the Big Bang's premise.  A pool "break" takes place
> from a
> central point.  This doesn't match the evidence- the big bang occurred
> everywhere in the universe at once - hence the talk of expanding
> spacetime,

Since time only exists in the human mind.... any and all theories which
depend on the reality of time (outside the human mind) as null & void
(and fraudulent, if it can be proven in a court of law): And if you're
one of those latter-days Big Bangers who have repudiated the Big Bang
as the source of energy for your so-called "expansion" of the universe
then I bow to thy Lord god Abracadabra with great respect.

> _rather_ than an "explosion"; only the former description is accurate
> (though we see metaphorical reference to explosions fairly often when
> talking to laymen such as yourself).

Well, I am a man who likes to lay it on the line (if some softer place
is unavailable). However, you would be hard put to explain how
the "expansion" of the universe is powered without an explosion.
(This is only rhetorical, of course: Look at how many explanations
there are for every bit of nonsense in the Bible!)

>> It's nifty for cosmologists to say that the universe is
>> not exploding but expanding, and that it's just "space stretching"
>> between
>> the galaxies...
>
>     It's also accurate.

It's accurate that they say that, it's moronic for them to say it
because one must posit that the gravity of the entire universe
plays no role in mediating such an expansion & therefore the
expansion must be being fueled by magic (in some scientific
doublespeak or other--after all, we can't have scientists who
believe in magic actually admitting they believe in magic
in so many words).

>  If you measure the vectors of their motion,
> the
> presence of a volumetric expansion (as opposed to billiard-ball
> expansion
> from a point) becomes immediately apparent.

Precisely, old boy: That comes from ours being an imploding universe!
Mikey: The point is that billiard balls can be treated as fundamental
on the billiard table (therefore you can push them about with a well-
placed blow). If you believe that galaxies are fundamental in the
universe
then you must account for "the blows that's moving them." We all
agree on what is moving them (gravity). The dispute centers about
conventional cosmologists' claim that it was either a primordial "break"
(or Big bang explosion), or some "funny energy" which (suspiciously
like magic) has no apparent source or means of doing what it's claimed
it's doing... and my own humble claim that every last thing gravity
does in this universe it does because it has the energy to do it (and
that I know where that energy source is stored, and how it's being
fuel-lined into the engine that's moving everything about... no magic,
no Rube Goldberg mechanisms, just the plain honest facts, ma'am).

>> but at SOME point one has to account for THE REASON
>> galaxies are moving about.
>
> Cosmologists have a handle on the engines for this already

You might wish to check whether these cosmologists have happy faces
on'em (they might've got a hold of the wrong handle there).

> (look up
> inflationary theory, symmetry breaking, energy of false vacuum).

Wait! Wait... I gotta get back on my seat (after falling down laughing).
Okay. Mikey: The reason a car moves is because it has a tank filled
with energy; and because that energy is fuel-lined to the engine: No
fuel in the fuel tank, no motion. You CAN, I imagine, propose that
space is "inflating" and that explains the car moving about. But at some
point you will have to explain the car stopping at red lights and
taking off with the green. So too, you can create the delusion that
the so-called overall "expansion" of the universe is due to some
natural unexplained/inexplicable "inflation of space" or some such...
but
at some point you are going to have to explain why/how you're standing
on the earth with all the inflationary pressure of the universe pushing
only
on the soles of your shoes instead of bursting your bag of bones & blood
to smithereens.

Gravity is real, Mikey: Gravity is driving ALL the motions of/in our
universe, big & small. And you don't have to drive yourself nutty trying
to come up with irrational reasons why the work gravity is doing in the
universe ought to be being done by something else odd & exotic (when
it is so reasonably and straightforwardly explained by the work of
gravity
alone).

>> It's as simple as that. But, BECAUSE no one
>> who has ever tried to account for this has ever been able to come up
>> with a good enough reason why the galaxies are receding from each
>> other... the original thinkers of the turn of the last century
>> proposed
>> that it HAD to have been that some primordial explosion GAVE the
>> expansion
>> of the universe its energy.
>
>     This is not how the big bang theory was arrived at.

This is the reason behind all BB theories, regardless how they were
arrived at or when. The alternative is the positing of magic (in some
scientific doublespeak, of course... to disguise that what we're talking
about is really "magic") as the energy driving the so-called "expansion"
of the universe.

> It's not even
> _when_.  Big Bang theory arose from the recognition that if the
> observed
> expansion were to be run backwards in accordance with Einstein's
> theories,
> there would come a point where everything were rather compressed and
> hot.

... and "expanded," yes, I know!  I suppose the difference between
"expanded" and "exploded" here is that it "exploded in slow motion"
--which REALLY cooks the goose on "the primordial expansion" being
able to impart enough energy to the expansion of the universe for it to
continue
"expanding" to this day. Never mind that it's actually accelerating
now!!!!

> This condition would leave a distinct footprint on the universe
> (leftover
> radiation of a specific nature),

Translation: If the "oven" is cooling there ought to be
a residual temperature--Find it, and you have proof
that the oven was previously hot!!!!!! (Of course, if one had a brain
one might actually stop to consider whether the oven might indeed
be cooling down or heating up.... But, where're you gonna find
a Big Banger with actual brains? What Big Banger has ever
taken to the Yellow Brick Road? I ask thee.)

> whose existence was then
> independently
> confirmed.  This theory also predicted conditions that would lead from
> raw
> energy to matter to matter *undergoing fusion* - yielding a universal
> abundance of light elements (H to He) that matches remarkably well to
> that
> which has been measured.

I see, so you think that anyone in his/her right mind would have ever
proposed that the universe could have evolved from a universe of
heavier elements to one of lighter elements? (And therefore your
contention is that the "Big Bang evolutionists" are clever fellows
because
they have not modeled primordial protozoans descending from parrots?
Clever fellows these, indeed! I can see your lines of reasoning, Mikey.)

>> Yes, by the way, I know a lot of theorists have proposed that the
>> expansion of the universe may be fueled by bursting hydrogen atoms
>> or the
>> odd
>> electrons  that get sick of hanging around with ordinary matter..
>
> What theorists might that be? Oh, yes, crackpots.  Sorry for
> asking.

I'm sorry, I thought you were one of these very believers yourself!
(So I was hoping you'd tell us which particular subparticles are proving
the universe with the energy to carry on its expansion. Drats! And
please
don't just leave us with some cockamamie general notion of some
mystic "funny energy" or other causing an inflation of space--Please!)

>> It is for this reason, and a couple
>> of others, that ALL Big Bang and ALL true expanding universe models
>> are
>> based on magic and ONLY on magic--They cannot run in the real world.
>> Period.
>
>  What a fascinating load of hungus you've presented, here.

Isn't it though! I'm thinking of turning it over into a play (on words).

>> They just don't have any gas in their tanks. [Never mind that none
of
>> them even TRIES to account for the origin of matter or energy
>> themselves.
>
>  Why should they? The big bang theory describes what happens
> *after* the
> universe starts kicking; that's all we have to work with.  This is
> like
> complaining that evolution doesn't describe abiogensis.

Sorry, Mikey. It's like describing a car which doesn't use any fuel
going about its business for days & days after being given a push.
But say I: At some point the push is going to run out and either magic
is going to kick in, or somebody's gonna have get out and give it
another push, ole boy: There's just no alternative to this. None.

>> Only a imploding model for the universe can account for the origin
>> of
>> energy and of matter.
>
>     <laughter>
>     You're cute.

Thank you (it's grand to have one's happiest suspicions confined).

>> It is not possible to propose mass without a center
>
> Bah. I propose a block of cheese, with dimensions
> infinity*infinity*infinity.
>
>  Where's the center, tweedledee?

Humbug. Think about it all & presto! There it is, tweedledumb!
(Say, are you setting yourself up on purpose? Not every
sporting, you know. Fish-in-a-barrel & that rot.)

>> Either way it's still the same impossibility of "something from
>> nothing."
>
>   You make this claim of impossibility without foundation.

I never wear pants when I'm at the computer (it kills the crease).

However, I can understand how you could believe in "something
from nothing." And I respect all religions, let me assure you.

>> In my experience... physicists, cosmologists, et al, are children
>> arguing at  the sandlot: My, what wonderful clever ideas they all
>> come up
>> with!
>
>   My irony-meter is redlining.

I say! Where've you got it stuck, old boy?

>> Well, if SOMEBODY doesn't come up with one single objection to
>> the model of an imploding universe THAT STICKS, and soon, I imagine
>> people will definitely start wondering WHY they're still sticking
>> with a
>> Big Bang model... which is becoming practically invisible under all
>> the
>> objections it's overrun with.
>
>  Just what objections are those? Every probe of the BB and the
> nature of
> the expanding universe yields stronger confirmation.

No, Mikey: "Every search for proofs of one's prejudices
yields ever-stronger confirmations." An exploding universe model
cannot account for the energy our universe is using; an imploding
universe model accounts perfectly and satisfactorily for EVERY
last bit of energy our universe is using. An exploding universe model
cannot account for the constancy of the speed of light; an imploding
universe model actually demands that the speed of light be measured
as a constant in identical mediums. An exploding universe model
cannot account for the Hubble constant accelerating; an imploding
universe model actually demands that the Hubble constant be found
to be accelerating. And these are but just three of the most salient
objections to the Big Bang model (NOTICE that they are not merely
explained in the imploding universe model but actually required in it).
As for the cosmic background radiation, Mikey: If you just suspend
your prejudiced view that it is a residual from the primordial explosion
long enough to consider that it may actually have some other source
... perhaps you will yourself contribute some day to actually finding
its actual source. Who knows! Opportunity knocks everywhere.

> Your model isn't even worth consideration until you can show that
> it
> fits all known observations of the relationship between space and
> time; ie -

Forget about time, Mikey. You're just wasting it. Let it suffice that
the only "proof" for the Big Bang is the Hubble constant: Every other
observation is proof of an imploding universe. And, if you consider
the matter to some depth, the Hubble constant is itself explained
simply and straightforward with the imploding universe model, while
all attempts at explanation reduce to nonsense in a Big Bang model.

> obeys general relativity.   Your original post is unavailable.
> Perhaps you
> might enlighten us as to why your 'imploding' mechanism doesn't apply
> to the
> distance between the earth and the sun but does manifest as expansion
> of
> distant galaxies?

Oh, but it does apply, Mikey (it's just magnified with astronomical
distances into the Hubble constant). To put it simply: First the
mechanism
requires the energy it will need to do its work (this means that,
because
that energy [E=MC^2] is in the "forms" of matter... those forms shrink
--remember that if they were not forms but fundamental they would not
shrink but be annihilated by the extraction of their energy). And then,
and
only then do the forms of matter that have just shrunk "move in"
(obviously
equidistantly) to "fill in the gaps between them" left-over from the
original shrinking. BECAUSE of the order of this sequence... the
"filling
in of the gaps" always follows an infinitesimal instant BEHIND the
original
shrinking and therefore, amplified over astronomical distances, it will
produce the Hubble constant. (e.g. It will "appear" to us that the
universe
is expanding.) But there you have, 1) where the energy being used to
fuel the motions in/of our universe comes from. And,  2) you can
actually
see the "pools" of its energy quite literally "going down" as their
energy
is being used up. (Or,  you can  see WHY it's being used, and why it is
required that all the "forms" of matter shrink).

>>>> If the people of these planets do not know that they have
>>>> just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
>>>> away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
>>>> one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
>>>> (and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
>>>> report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
>>>> they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
>>>> And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
>>>> perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
>>>> are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
>
>     <laughs>
>     Hilarious.

Doctor: Do you understand why he's laughing?
Nurse: No, Doctor. He's been doing that since he got here.

> Your description of this scenario is not correct
> Hint #1: what does the acronym RADAR stand for? Once you
> understand
> that, you'll understand that the fact that something is shrinking and
> not
> moving away can be trivially determined.

"Really Astonishingly Distant Annoying Radios?" Perhaps it
has something to do with "radio detecting and ranging" ... But
what do you think "photon" stands for, old boy, and "microwaves?"
You must think your radar system is standing outside the universe!
No, it isn't. It's inside the universe. Hint: "Measurement" is only
valid
in the human mind." We always measure "this inside our universe"
against "that inside our universe." The photon is a "form" of matter in
our universe (it is shrinking along with all the other forms of matter
in our universe): Your radar gun will always "measure" linear distances
and NEVER the "motions towards shrinking."

> Hint #2: The more you shrink the sphere, the lower the relative
> velocity
> of the surface.

And how will you EVER tell, pray tell?  (By the way, we are not
"on any surface" but part & parcel of the substance.) And have you
even considered: What if as the sphere shrinks the shrinking speeds up?

> Hint #3: Different parts of a sphere "recede" at different
> velocities as
> it shrinks.  Extrapolate what doppler radar signature this would give
> all
> objects in the known universe.

In the universe, Mikey: Matter is composed of only ONE fundamental
stuff... and that is the force of gravity. Period. Now, understand this:
All the "forms" of matter in the universe are made of gravity, therefore
all the "forms" of matter "shrink" at the identical rate. Equidistantly.
The
only hint available to us is... that infinitesimal gap between the two
motions involved in its shrinking. But this is very difficult to
visualize
(believe me, I understand this); this is why it's better if you simply
stop thinking of matter shrinking and think instead of space expanding
at/from every possible coordinate. Now you can visualize the universe
of matter motionless and forever the same size & only think of space as
expanding throughout it with no effect whatever on you & yours
(except it might give you an insight as to the reason the speed of light
is always measured as a constant in identical brains... I mean mediums).

>>>> This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
>>>> the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
>>>> shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
>>>> are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
>>>> towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
>>>> will tend to almost cancel each other...
>
>     !!
>     More hilarious.
>     This cannot work.

This is obviously a union word~!

> The reasons why are related to Hint #2.

Mikey: Know thee this one truth, and then will thou know
everything: "Ours is an imploding universe." Therefore EVERY
aspect of the imploding universe model works. The thing's
already been built. Period. Describe ANY aspect of our universe
and you are describing an aspect of the imploding universe model.

> *Relative
> Size* differences impose differences in "apparent velocity from
> shrinking"
> for different objects and this shatters your contention that it's
> possible
> for everything to get closer together at 'just the right speed';
> nonuniformity is imposed and your whole model goes kaput.

Sorry, Mikey: The ONLY "flaw" in the system is the Hubble constant.
And this is a necessary flaw (say, gravity works locally first).
Your confusion stems from the superstition that some particles are
fundamental--But the shrinking is NOT taking place at the level
of fundamental particles... which then have to readjust their
fundamental relationships: The entire universe is shrinking as a unit
AND every last bit of it is also shrinking (it's not just this atom
and that black hole).

> You cannot
> achieve the distribution of velocities we measure in the universe
> under such
> a scheme.

Definitely NOT in a universe composed of fundamental particles. No.
But in our universe there are NO fundamental particles, therefore
the entire universe is itself ONE "form" of matter; the galaxies are
one form of matter; atoms are one form of matter; quarks are one form
of matter... and so on for God-knows how many levels down until
there are no more subparticles and we are left with the "raw" gravity
that is the form energy takes in our vector universe (it takes the form
of infinite mass in the scalar universe which is the other side of our
universe's conservation of energy from side to side of existence).
You are not moving asteroids and black holes relative to each other
here: What the universe is doing is fueling its inner motions by
shrinking
as a greater unit "form" ... until it run out of energy (gravity) and
it can no longer support any of the "forms" of matter (therefore, in
a very real sense, the implosion/shrinking of matter does not accumulate
anything anywhere AND it will continue as long as there is matter).

>>>> This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
>>>> And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
>>>> closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
>>>> of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
>>>> center.
>
> The what? The center? This will be news to everyone.  You are
> aware, are
> you not, that a universe with "edges" cannot look as ours does?

The observable universe looks as it does, Mikey. The theoretical
universes all stem from theories which may be true or false. When
you say you know the way the universe "looks" you are looking
at it through some theory or other, and not through your eyes.
In which case... one may posit Donald Duck as its center, and your
objection is that your theory posits Mickey Mouse there. So what!

>>>> Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
>>>> recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
>>>> seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
>>>> respect to us (our own galaxy).  And this tells me that in
>>>> a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
>>>> apparent:
>
>     <laughter>

I say, old boy, you're laughing too much: You sure you
wouldn't case for a psychiatrist?

> You uninformed buffoon,

I take this as your acknowledging that you have run out of
objections to my propositions (and therefore must now resort to
personal attacks, or objections to me). I accept this easy victory.

> there *is* a _Very_ apparent center to the
> universe's expansion.  Right here.  You. Me. Earth. Volumetric
> expansion
> motions are such that *wherever you are in the universe*, you appear
> to be
> at the center of that expansion.

I knew you'd eventually come over to my side, Mikey: Yes!
If you consider what is happening in terms of space expanding
from every imaginable coordinate, then one is indeed always at the
center of the universe--Isn't it grand!

> This is how we know there _isn't_
> any
> center.

What? Are you denying me my eccentricity that quickly? (Wait a
minute: That can't be right... my centricality, mt centrosymmetry...?)
In any case... Mikey: In an imploding universe matter will move
towards where there is more matter. Wherever that is... that is
center enough. If the universe is a perfect sphere so be it.
If it's a sack ot potatoes, so be it too. I do not aspire to dictate
the universe, Mikey, only to breathe in it. --S D Rodrian

>>>> The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
>>>> our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
>>>> up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
>>>> the center of the clock face towards the other numbers
>
>     This is an absolutely wrong description of galactic expansion.

Aha! So you DO agree with me that the so-called "expansion" of the
Big Bang universe is dead wrong. I dare say! Good for you. Mikey.

>>>> But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
>>>> "blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path. And
>>>> since
>>>> many galaxies do crash and even combine, it's possible this
>>>> may yet happen as we go along on our merry Milk Way.
>
> Possible? Certain.  If you knew any astronomy, the name Andromeda
> would
> have meaning. So would 'Magellanic Cloud'.

I'm sorry, Mikey: It was an understatement (given the fact that
that information ought to be so very readily available to readers
here). Dear me! Nobody understands sarcasm either these days.
But I do know any astronomy; and the name Andromeda means
something to me. (I think I dated her in high school or something
--I just hope my name doesn't mean anything to her: That would
definitely date me! Aghhhhh.)

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> -Michael
>
>

**************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 03 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2j6$rhi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.160
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 03 02:35:34 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics,umich.physics.astro-ph
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net>,
  Standeven <berry@worldinter.net> wrote:
>
>
> don_quixote@mindless.com wrote:
>
>> In article <eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>>   "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>
>>>> TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
>>>> energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all
>>>> over the universe like balls on a pool table
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, they do exactly that.   Galaxies respond to gravity just
>>> like anything else and do, in fact, act like free (if diffuse)
>> projectiles
>>
>> You've missed the point, Mikey: It is the energy to fuel gravity
>> we're talking about, and not how gravity is manipulating matter.
>
> Since gravity is a conservative force, it does not require fuel.

I believe the correct truism is, "Since he is a rich candidate
he does not require contributions" (conservative or liberal).

Everything else that moves in this universe requires a steady,
reliable of energy. EVERYTHING. So if somebody tells you
something which moves does not require fuel... take him/her
to the patents office: That goomer's invented The long-sought-after
Perpetual Motion Machine! (Just a word to the "wise" ... you
understand: DO NOT let him/her take YOU to the cleaners!.)

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

**************************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a5tku$no1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2j6$rhi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net> <89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<952083414.76203@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.172
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 08 16:03:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.math,alt.math.recreational,soc.men
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <952083414.76203@shelley.paradise.net.nz>,
"Victor Kemp" <vkemp@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> Everything else that moves in this universe requires a steady,
>> reliable of energy. EVERYTHING. So if somebody tells you
>> something which moves does not require fuel... take him/her
>> to the patents office: That goomer's invented The long-sought-after
>> Perpetual Motion Machine! (Just a word to the "wise" ... you
>> understand: DO NOT let him/her take YOU to the cleaners!.)
>
> Would you mind stating Newton's first law of motion?

Sure thing: "A body remains at rest, or, if already moving,
remains in uniform motion with constant speed in a straight line
unless it is acted on by an unbalanced external force."

Let's examine what this means in terms of "creation" (which is,
after all... the general topic of this discussion): First of all:
No bit of matter in our universe is "at rest." The only time in
the history of our universe anything was "at rest" was at the
instant just before the primordial singularity (which imploded
into our universe) imploded--or, before it manifested gravity.

That instant, when the primordial (infinite (scalar) mass)
singularity began imploding, also marks the moment at which
the universe began to expend energy in/by its motions. This
expenditure of energy means that there is no practical way for
us to make a distinction between the force of gravity and energy
itself (even IF there is such a distinction to be made by "a" God).

Therefore: gravity is the unbalanced external force which (unlike
infinite (scalar) mass --which is aimed "out" in every "direction")
is vectored "in" to one single "direction." This is not, however,
an implosion in the same sense as the collapse of a star, for example
... as there are no fundamental particles in the universe, this is
strictly an implosion in the (singular) direction of shrinking because
the force of gravity is vectored exclusively in that "direction." [In
practice, this means that immediately upon our universe manifesting
gravity EVERY IMAGINABLE COORDINATE becomes de facto
the center of the universe (from the viewpoint of gravity) and
thereupon... gravity is a localizing force (and NOT one which "pulls"
the entire universe towards some greater center). This localization
of gravity will continue until so much of the force is localized in
individual system (or particles... and thereby concentrated AND
separated from other gravity concentrations)... that most of the
gravity in such particles will no longer be able to interact with
gravity
outside them. From this moment on it is the particles themselves
which will interact. But these "outside" interactions will always
involve a tiny percentage of the total amount of gravity "conserved"
in these particles; and ONLY if/when two such particles come "close
enough" to each other will the strength of their interaction then be
increased enough to reflect anything near the great amount of
gravity/energy "concentrated" in them--And this is when the
electromagnetic and strong forces come into play.]

This shrinking will immediately begin to localize throughout
the general implosion into the coalescences we call particles.
Primordial particles will themselves coalesce into ever more
complex (and massive) particle until we end up with the
periodic table atoms & stars and galaxies... all of which, every
last one of which is/are merely the "forms" matter has taken.
As this differentiation of gravity into individual particles/forms
continues... Newton's 1st law of motion will (again) apply to
them (these, specifically, become the "bodies" Newton talks
about in his formulation of his rule)... in relation to each other.

Confusion may arise because as Newton's law speaks of "body"
it is necessary to understand that EVEN AFTER the advent
of gravity in the universe THE body in question IS STILL the
entire universe of infinite (scalar) mass... the motion of matter (in
its totality) is always away from there (infinite rest): Gravity is
absolutely fundamental (it is matter and energy in one single
"body"). It is the only thing in the universe that is both the body
in question AND the force acting on it (because it is the ONLY
"thing/ultimate form of matter" that exists). This is why when
any form of matter is in motion... gravity is the energy that fuels <