In article <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
George Bajszar <gyuri@usa.net> wrote:
> Time and Stuff
>
> To get more answers on what time really is, we would have to know
what
> happened before the big bang and what caused the big bang.
Wonder no more. It's all at:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> We don't
> really know what time is other than that we clearly sense time passing
Only if you're a Shaman and can also sense
the spiritual world passing.
> and we have done a few experiments on observed time to categorize
its
> properties.
Every once in a while we look at a clock.
> We currently cannot know what is the mechanism causing Universal time
> to
> tick.
Yes we do: Tock.
> Time is very hard to explain, as we do not associate any form of
> energy behind it.
That's because time does not exist outside the human mind.
All that exists are forms changing shapes & shapes
changing form independently of every other shape & form
changing, ad infinitum... and every once in a while
we synchoronize our watches to some form and/or shape
changing shape and/or form and pretend we can thereby tell
what time it is all over the universe: What'd we know!?
> It seems to be just there, ticking from one moment
> to
> the next and we take it granted.
"It?" And you taking Eastern Pacific or Central?
> Though some sort of logic tells me
> that
> there must be some sort of mechanism behind it, one that needs some
> sort
> of energy as how can something just happen by itself for no reason?
Huge numbers of things happen in the minds
of those without reason... without reason.
> Everything we know in our Universe seems to follow rules that show
> reason behind them, thus most probably there is a reason behind time.
If there is a reason in the universe, then
you can bet it's reasoned the thing wrongly
somewhere: That's the only reasonable thing
in this entire universe makes any sense.
> I view time as the energy source for the Universe.
That could be why there's a minimum wage in this country.
> But this energy is
> either taken from within our Universe or come from somewhere outside
> of
> our Universe from other dimensions of existence. If there are other
> dimensions of existence, there would be time there too.
Not if they're travelling at the speed of light, effectively,
of falling into a black hole: Time seems to stops there.
> An example, I as a computer programmer could create a simulation
> program
> for a virtual Universe in a computer, the time in that computer would
> be
> ticking with a speed depending on our computer processors speed but
> the
> time in the simulation is actually being passed on from our time.
As long as you're God, give everyone
in your simulation more time--That's
the one thing people want more than
love or money. (Especially when it's runing out
on them.)
> Lets
> assume that I can program intelligent simulated creatures into this
> simulation.
Don't be too sure: God tried it here
and this world's teeming with the clever and
their victims (the intelligent are few
and far between, I assure you).
> They would sense their time and apply philosophical
> discussions on trying to define what their time is, which would
> actually
> be ours. But ours may be derived from another source of existence.
If that's what they'd do I'd pull the plug
on them: My creatures had better be happy and
full of fun if they want me to foot the electric bill
for keeping the computer on!
> "Time and stuff" based on rules is the essence of existence as we
know
> it.
Happiness (and others' more than ours) is the essence
of human life in this reality. All else is drudge.
> If there was a big bang, there was never a true nothingness before
> it.
You said it brother. In my pre-teen years
I was a militant atheist, and my motto was:
"If, in order to exist, existence would have had
to have a beginning... then it could not exist."
(That's before I understood that knowledge of
God's existence is incompatible with Faith.)
> Something initiated it.
In a reality completely cause/effect, there is no
First Cause Uncaused (that's religion, as well as
the current Big Bang view of the universe).
> Somewhere there must have been always
> something and for that "time" must be an eternal mechanism.
see: http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> No
> experiments can be applied to find proof of what time really is today
> as
> there are no scientific theories possible in this level today.
And no experiments will ever determine whether
Santa Claus is hyper on Christmas and depressed
the rest of the year.
> We currently have probably no provable indications that could explain
> time.
The chimp needs none, either. All his appointments
are que sara sara...
> Our imagination is limited to be based on available knowledge.
That's why all the monsters in fiction are
composites of other monsters (real ones
like tigers, crocs, and the praying mantis).
> Perhaps in the future as technology advances and our knowledge grows
> we
> might.
As long as we never discover how to wipe out
life on this planet in one neat fell swoop.
> I am not a person of religious beliefs, but if there was a good, I
> think
> he is a computer programmer and might look like Bill Gates.
>
> George Bajszar
I believe if there is a God, He is
hoping we'll find a way to our own sort of happiness;
and that He probably looks more like Jesus of Nazareth
than some clever tech geek or slick & unforgiving
businessman.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <84qrbd$k1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38711311.2A3A6923@nortelnetworks.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.46
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 04 01:03:52 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.philosophy,talk.origins
In article <38711311.2A3A6923@nortelnetworks.com>,
Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Time is very hard to explain, as we do not associate any form
of
>>> energy behind it.
>>
>> That's because time does not exist outside the human mind.
>> All that exists are forms changing shapes & shapes
>> changing form independently of every other shape & form
>> changing, ad infinitum... and every once in a while
>> we synchoronize our watches to some form and/or shape
>> changing shape and/or form and pretend we can thereby tell
>> what time it is all over the universe: What'd we know!?
>
> This is incorrect. Einstein described the Universe as consisting
of
> space/time. Time is a very real dimension. Time moves
at different
> rates at different parts of the Universe. As we approach the
speed of
> light, for example, time slows down. Etc, etc, etc.....
Dear Jack,
1) Time IS the rate of movement, period: Any movement.
2) If time moves at different rates everywhere
(or, if all movements move at different rates
everywhere, or if all clocks keep their own time
and refuse to agree with all other clocks)... then
time is totally, utterly meaningless. [And that
is the reality in our universe ... outside a few
clocks man keeps synchonized so he can sack
a handful of poor bastards who come to work late.]
3) I understand that, "Einstein says..." has replaced,
"Simon says..." as an honored and respected way to
make all things illogical perfectly sound. But
I prefer not to play the argument from authority game.
Einstein did not understand the way our universe works
and therefore he was forced to improvise convoluted
and oftentimes paradoxical explanations to account for
things which someone who does understand the way our
universe works could explain in a much more straightforward
manner. This does not mean Einstein was stupid; it merely
point out the fact that Einstein had to work with the
tools
he had on hand, and those tools were not good enough to
allow
him to construct the proper framework for all time: It
doomed
to failure from the start all attempts to work out a correct
Unified Field Theory by him (and by those who still follow
too
closely after him).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
>
>
Jack King
*************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.77
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 05 00:49:34 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.philosophy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
jdguil@aol.com (Jdguil) wrote:
> sdrodrian wrote:
>
>>In article <38711311.2A3A6923@nortelnetworks.com>,
>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Time is very hard to explain, as we do not associate any form
>>>>> of
>>>>> energy behind it.
>>>>
>>>> That's because time does not exist outside the human mind.
>>>> All that exists are forms changing shapes & shapes
>>>> changing form independently of every other shape & form
>>>> changing, ad infinitum... and every once in a while
>>>> we synchronize our watches to some form and/or shape
>>>> changing shape and/or form and pretend we can thereby tell
>>>> what time it is all over the universe: What'd we know!?
>>>
>>> This is incorrect. Einstein described the Universe as consisting
>>> of
>>> space/time. Time is a very real dimension. Time moves
at >>>
>>> different
>>> rates at different parts of the Universe. As we approach
the speed
>>> of
>>> light, for example, time slows down. Etc, etc, etc.....
>>
>>Dear Jack,
>>
>>1) Time IS the rate of movement, period: Any movement.
>
> Rate of movement is the definition of speed in physics.
Ah, the beginnings of an understanding!... {doubts:
"Expect the worst from others and you'll seldom be
disappointed by them."} Ahem, Jim... Can thou speak
of "a" speed (except the instantaneous variety)
without speaking of "how much" time? Jim, this is why
you can't just memorize a few glib quips & equations
and expect to make sense of the entirety of existence
by them. Rather, "Live and learn." But, for you, here
are a few glib techno quips on the matter. Pick one:
a) All "motions" are "timed" at their "speed."
b) All "times" are the "speeds" of "motions."
c) All "speeds" are "timed" "motions." And so it goes.
>>2) If time moves at different rates everywhere
>> (or, if all movements move at different rates
>> everywhere, or if all clocks keep their own time
>> and refuse to agree with all other clocks)... then
>> time is totally, utterly meaningless. [And that
>> is the reality in our universe ... outside a few
>> clocks man keeps synchronized so he can sack
>> a handful of poor bastards who come to work late.]
>
> This is really a warped view of the relativity of time. Time can
vary
> between
> observers because of two reasons:
1) One of them has a bad clock
2) Both their clocks don't work.
> 1) in special relativity
Oh-oh, methinks we're not in Kansas anymore....
> the acceleration of one object with respect
> to an
> inertial reference frame will cause clocks to run slower for the
> moving object
Although it is true that a clock moving with greater linear
velocity in this universe will slow down (as will also an atom),
this is entirely due to "the fact" that all linear accelerations in
our universe are "in reality" decelerations (towards absolute rest:
and you know what happens to processes at absolute rest, I hope).
The SR/GR "explication" above translates into English as
follows: "You two guys' clocks can't keep the same time, and
that's because one of youse guys is moving faster'n the other
guy." (It is true! But it doesn't explain why, it just says
"that's how it is, bub." This is meaningless.)
> 2) in general relativity the proximity of an observer to a large
> gravitational
> source will cause that observers clocks to run slower than an observer
> farther
> from the gravitational source.
This does not explain why my watch runs slower when I'm
dancing with a heavy-set gal than when I'm dancing with a
slim & trim one. (But, when I place my watch near a large
source of magnetism my watch stops completely! There is
definite magic afoot here!)
> These differences are quite easy to calculate using Einstein's
> theories, and
> thus it is not terribly difficult to synchronize timepieces in
> inertial
> references frames,
Are you saying that if you know by how much two clocks
tend to become unsynchronized you can compensate for it?!?!?!
Wow! Kudos to Einstein's genius!
> or to recognize when time dilation must be applied.
Time does not dilate (because time doesn't exist, ole
friend)... When "matter" moves toward absolute rest
its processes slow down. It's the equivalent of sticking
an ice cube in the frigde--its defrosting slows down (it
has nothing whatever to do with time)... once you bring
the ice cube out of the fridge it will melt at the usual rate
again. And once you bring back the astronaut (that's been
traveling at near the speed of light) he too will begin to
defrost at the normal rate at which we are all defrosting.
It had NOTHING to do with time! Comprendee now? [doubts.]
> Time is
> not 'totally, utterly meaningless.'
True: But I don't think I have the time
to convert you to my religion (it's really up
to you to see The Light): Pray, Jim. Just pray.
>>
>>3) I understand that, "Einstein says..." has replaced,
>> "Simon says..." as an honored and respected way to
>> make all things illogical perfectly sound.
> Einstein's theories are very logical.
"Were." And so too were those of the great and mighty thinkers
who proved beyond all doubt that the earth is flat and
that God exists, what "race" He is (a number of whom are still
slinking abouts, as I read in the papers)...
> But they take a bit of study to
> understand. Usually about 3 courses in college physics should prepare
> you to
> understand the basics. :-)
Since you and I have read the same books (I for sheer love of
their reading; and you because otherwise Teach would've crewed
your ass?...), you must be speaking from personal experience--And
so I say to thee: This time around date the dumb blondes! (Those
intellectual-type talkative young girls turn into very bossy big-
mouth bitches ... with time.)
>
>> But
>> I prefer not to play the argument from
>> authority game.
>
> instead you play the game of argument from ignorance.
Well, Jim, one man's religion is another man's heresy; and
one man's knowledge is another man's ignorance:
The difference is whether we respect each other or not
(that --always-- will tell you who the better man might be).
[Remind me not to tell you, "The sky is blue!" Lest you
snap back at me: "What do you know!"]
>> Einstein did not understand the way our universe works
>> and therefore he was forced to improvise convoluted
>> and oftentimes paradoxical explanations to account
for
>> things which someone who does understand the way our
>> universe works could explain in a much more straightforward
>> manner. This does not mean Einstein was stupid; it
merely
>> point out the fact that Einstein had to work with the
tools
>> he had on hand, and those tools were not good enough
to allow
>> him to construct the proper framework for all time:
It doomed
>> to failure from the start all attempts to work out
a correct
>> Unified Field Theory by him (and by those who still
follow too
>> closely after him).
>>
>
> That's real kind of you Rodrian...
Thank you, Jim.
> someone who doesn't even
> understand the
> definitions taught in freshman physics excuses Einstein
for his
> failure to
> complete the Unified Field Theory.
I also never "fully" understood 1+1=2 (but at least, unlike
Bertrand Russell, I never did believe it worth the bother to
work myself up into a nervous breakdown trying to
understand it over and above "just enough"). But Russell
was a marvelous mathematician, and 1=1+2 is simply much
to simple for great mathematicians to understand, Jim. [hint]
Sometimes, Jim, sometimes ignorance of error IS bliss.
But, good luck, Jim (I think you'll need it more
than most, considering your religion),
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
>
> Regards,
> Jim
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <850acu$f2i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.164
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 05 20:43:14 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.philosophy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>,
Dale Firmin <daf02@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Although it is true that a clock moving with greater linear
>> velocity in this universe will slow down (as will also an atom),
>
> Also any acceleration and any non-linear motion (which is an
> acceleration
> since the direction of the vector changes) and also any gravity field
> (which
> is indistinguishable from an acceleration and therefore is an
> acceleration).
Your statement simply points out the sad state of your lack of knowledge
cencerning the universe you inhabit. I will try to bring some knowledge
your way; although I fear you are not ready for it (nevertheless...
perhaps someone else reading this is ready for it, and it will not
be a
wasted effort):
If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct and simple
one, and the other one a very complex and indirect one... chances are
the simple and most direct answer will also be the correct one.
Look out into the cosmos and it seems as if our universe is expanding
(and the first explanation that comes to mind is that it's the result
of
an explosion). We have now concluded the 20th Century holding
this
belief. But is it the correct belief? It certainly doesn't explain
anything: Science has no explanation why the pre-Big Bang singularity
(which some posit the size of a basketball and others posit as a
pinprick) should exploded. No one dares propose where "matter" (it
all)
came from, let alone why it should explode... It's all magical somehow.
(And is it any wonder all the religions and religious-minded persons
in
the world have embraced the conventional Big Bang theory as evidence
of the existence of a Creator behind the "creation" of the universe?)
But let's consider another alternative (preferably one which is more
consistent with the observed facts): All one really has to do is to
ask
oneself: Does it really make sense that gravitons in the pre-Big Bang
Singularity should explode? [It goes against the nature of gravitons
to explode--we are not talking here about nuclear processes.] Put a
few
gravitons together and what do they tend to do... move towards each
other. Therefore, if our universe is composed of gravitons, these
gravitons are moving towards each other and not away from each other:
Implosion, not explosion.
All you need do to understand why this implosion "looks" to us like
an explosion is to realize that those gravitons closest to the "center"
are acceletating (towards it) faster than the gravitons furthest from
"center." (The feet of the guy falling into the black hole will
experience a greater pull than his head and he will be
all-stretched-out.) And therefore it will always seem to us as if the
"expansion" of our universe is "actually" accelerating. [Yes, just...
think it through.]
Would it not be more reasonable to deduce that in a reality where
one would "suddenly" have a manifestation of gravity... the gravitons
would implode rather than explode? Of course, we're talking about
a rather huge universe vs a graviton so small that it amounts to
not much more than every imaginable coordinate possible. And so
the implosion of such a universe would be a rather protracted one...
Add to it that as the implosion continued over time, gravitons which
escaped annihilation (not in the conventional nuclear-decay process
but, for our purposes, just say they were turned inside out and became
oppositons)... would combine into constructs we call subparticles of
matter (really not fundamental particles, because only the gravitons
are absolutely fundamental--rather "forms" constructed of gravitons).
These first generation "constructs" of matter would themselves then
construct other generations of particles... until you have stars and
galaxies (and black holes in future). And now we come to the fun part
because even though at the level of the graviton/oppositon the
universe's implosion is a linear one (towards a center), at the level
of all the "constructs" (forms & shapes) of matter built of gravitons
it suddenly ceases to be a simple straightforward linear implosion...
Use this clumsy 2-D analogy: Imagine a sphere-volume filled with
millions of balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two
"huge
beings" (a triangle and a square): Both are pretty much the same "body"
size and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of the world). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons start
bursting throughout the sphere-volume at an even ratio. (Our two beings
do not know this.) To us it will seem as if these two beings are
shrinking, but the two beings themselves will look at each other and
still see that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect"
triangle and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length). An
agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left to maintain their "existence," no matter how
"small" they become in our God-like eyes.
Likewise, only much more complexly, all forms and shapes (of gravitons)
in our universe are "shrinking" ("in place," so to speak) as our
universe continues to collapse inwardly... without our being aware
of
it. And, make no mistake about this: At our level of matter, all we
are... are forms & shapes.
According to Newton's 1st Law of Motion the ordinary matter of our
universe would be at rest were it not being acted on by an "unbalanced
external force" (i.e. the four forces): Consequently, "absolute rest"
is
not "with" the sum of all the ordinary matter in the universe (which
=
our universe acting/considered as a unit) but with the sum of every
"position" of x-space (given the proposition that space is everywhere
expanding equally "in all possible directions" at the same rate). View
it from this perspective so the following will be easier to grasp.
In relation to x-space, therefore, ordinary matter itself is what is
"in
motion" [this is not a linear motion, remember, but a motion "towards"
a
"shrinking" which only x-space "recognizes"]; considering which ought
to
make it instantly obvious that any & all "ordinary-matter objects"
in
our universe which "appear" to be linearly accelerating (up towards
the
so-called "speed of light")are "in reality" [in x-space's reality]
decelerating (down towards absolute rest)... and the faster an object
made of ordinary matter travels linearly in our universe the closer
it
moves to absolute rest. [Why we need to accelerate objects in our
universe to increase the force with which they clash linearly is,
of course, made obvious by picturing a group of men playing baseball
inside a moving train: the train's "speed" is irrelevant to their game.]
The observed facts tend to support my proposition that our universe
is a
continuing implosion of the gravitons (and those same observed facts
work against the notion that it is any kind of an expansion of the
gravitons)... Even if one were to deny that the universe exerts ANY
gravitational influence at all, one would expect the so-called expansion
of the universe to remain at the very least a steady one. But
observations do not support it being a steady expansion. Add to it
that gravity must be exerting its influence and how can one then not
conclude that the so-called expansion of the universe has to be slowing
down? But, again, observations do not support the notion that it is
at
all slowing down. In fact, observations support the proposition that
the
so-called expansion of the universe is, if anything, actually
accelerating! And the only reasonable assumption one can make from
that
is that gravity is driving the so-called expansion of our universe
(and
the only way gravity works is through attraction, not repulsion). This
really should end the discussion right here (unless one want to further
contend that we are not observing the facts correctly); but I suspect
it
won't (even today you have people who want to prove mathematically
& by other devious methods... that the earth is flat after all).
Add to
this that in a true expanding universe, space would be constantly
created (which would render "space" meaningless)... while in an
imploding universe "space" would remain a "memory" (as the gravitons
would "remember" where they were/came from)... and now you have the
reason why x-space (expanding space) exerts a real/physical influence
in
our universe--say, on the photon:
One may begin here: A bullet traveling (say, through a perfect vacuum)
"knows" why it travels at the speed it does: The amount of gun powder
in
the bullet casing tells it (+/- the gun's velocity). But how do all
photons know why they must, every last one of them, travel at the
"speed" they do when no photon can be given less or more impetus by
its
source/creator? The most immediate ("only") possible answer is that
the
photon is not traveling (moving) at all! [And when you come up with
a
more elegant solution, do tell.]
Posit that "space" is expanding (x-space), and that were it not for
gravity & the strong force ordinary matter would ride x-space (expanding
space) into nonexistence (or, "explode," by our ordinary common
understanding). {Albeit you will understand that "space" = "absolute
rest" ... therefore matter would really "stay put" = "explode" in this
analogy.} However, as we all know, ordinary matter is being kept from
"exploding" by the combined energy-conservation tactics of the four
forces with the net effect that, for all practical intents & purposes,
the universe of ordinary matter is "shrinking" (approximately) at the
same rate space is expanding. [Keep in mind, however, that the universe
itself is not shrinking towards its center, like some collapsing
star--Such a linear implosion would, of course, make it impossible
for a
photon "shot" across the center of the universe to ever cross over
to
the other side of the universe!--Rather, space is expanding "from"
every imaginable/conceivable coordinate.] This means that, as far as
we're concerned, the so-called "speed of light" is {in my opinion "only
approximately," as I shall tell you later} the rate at which space
is
expanding [albeit, as I said, I believe this is only a very clumsy
approximation].
According to Newton's 1st Law of Motion the ordinary matter of our
universe would be at rest were it not being acted on by an "unbalanced
external force" (i.e. the four forces): Consequently, "absolute rest"
is
not "with" the sum of all the ordinary matter in the universe (which
=
our universe acting/considered as a unit) but with the sum of every
"position" of x-space (given the proposition that space is everywhere
expanding equally "in all possible directions" at the same rate).
{Believe me, it'll be easier to understand this way.]
In relation to x-space, therefore, ordinary matter itself is what is
"in
motion" [this is not a linear motion, remember, but a motion "towards"
a
"shrinking" which only x-space "recognizes"]; considering which ought
to
make it instantly obvious that any & all "ordinary-matter objects"
in
our universe which "appear" to be linearly accelerating (up towards
the
so-called "speed of light") are "in reality" [in x-space's reality]
decelerating (down towards absolute rest)... and the faster an object
made of ordinary matter travels linearly in our universe the closer
it
moves to absolute rest. [Why we need to accelerate objects in our
universe to increase the force with which they clash linearly is,
of course, made obvious by picturing a group of men playing baseball
inside a moving train: the train's "speed" is irrelevant to their game.]
The photon is still part of the ordinary matter of our universe, of
course; it's only that the photon is a matter-construct that exists
almost infinitely free from the common everyday effects of gravity
[it's
just a matter of expressing out the proper equation.] Unlike "most"
other constructs of ordinary matter, the photon "appears" (to "us")
to
ride x-space (i. e. achieve "nearly" infinite rest "as soon as" it
comes
into existence).
One hint that this is the correct model comes from the fact that there
is no absolute/perfect vacuum (one even devoid of gravitons)... and
yet
the apparent speed of light is always constant in whatever identical
medium. [To posit such a perfect vacuum theoreticians must say that
the
graviton simply does not exist, and that therefore gravity acts purely
by magic at a distance! Of course, they use the term "spacetime" to
escape straitjackets.] In any case... such an universally constant
"speed" might be understandable inside a perfect vacuum perhaps, but
outside a perfect vacuum a moving photon MUST experience a permanent
drag, however infinitesimal [and since c is really a very, very slow
speed in cosmological terms... that drag should become appreciable
at
some point]: The same "moving" photons traveling first through a vacuum
A, then through air, and then through another vacuum B... when measured
at vacuum B ought to reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when passing
through air (and not "return" to the same "higher speed" they had in
vacuum A). The only possible explanation is that while air adds a slight
"push" to the photon (remember that this "air" is the one "moving by"
the photon)... once the "push" of air is no longer there, the photon
"returns" to the same (greater) degree of rest it had when passing
through vacuum A. Any other explanation would require a Rube Goldberg
construct--And many a permeability/permittivity Rube Goldberg construct
have I waded through indeed, or... eternally tireless Tarzan-like
photons swinging frictionlessly from out on one limb to the next! [I
also enjoyed Neil Bates's recent usenet posts on, "the problematical
nature of photon spin" < to be found at:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=555136364&fmt=text
>
and his correspondents' replies; all which marvelously hint at the
truth, but all which was not unlike watching a room full of blind men
trying to find a fly with their canes.] But, to continue...
Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relation to
x-space [and so "moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in which
it
was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it
originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains constant
regardless of its source/origin/direction because "about" the only
connection a photon has with its source is "orientation" [x-space is
expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the only quality the
photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an orientation
relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you" create the photon to the west
of
"you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your west side,
and
if you create a photon to the north of you... it will then "seem" to
shoot out away from your north side, since x-space will always take
"you" to be the exact center of its universe]... Add the proviso that
if
"enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational field) passes close
enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly display a new "linear"
orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will naturally be
"observable" by the rest of our universe because in our universe
the "orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter with respect
to
any & all other bits of ordinary matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are other
concerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding all other linear motions
of
our universe... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this one simple
"absolute law" you really have to understand to avoid having to delve
into synonymous but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
orientation with respect to the rest of the universe is absolute...
so
once the photon "adopts" an orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same ("your") orientation with respect
to
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter. Now...
Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN NOT be added to or subtracted
from the so-called "speed of light" because obviously the direction
of
our "real" motion (x-space = absolute rest) is never "really" linear
at
all but always everywhere "towards shrinking." [And therefore one is
hard put to imagine any bit of ordinary matter in our universe achieving
any true/real "greater velocity" than the one it already has when it
is
at its "greatest rest" ... with respect to the rest of the universe
of
ordinary matter taken as a unit, of course.]
A simple analogy may help visualize this: Imagine two side-by-side
photons "traveling" towards a man standing next to a woman (neither
of
whom have yet been enlightened by me that it is they who are "moving
towards" the photons and not the reverse--further, I have also never
mentioned to them that the only "real" change in velocity they are
capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS of anything they might attempt
in this reality)...
Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman that he can catch his photon
before she can catch hers and rushes his "approaching" photon at 10
mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks the bet childish and tells the
man she can wait for her photon right where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the woman catches hers; but then
something odd happens: [for the sake of simplicity, here] the man
reports to the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph and the woman
reports to the man that she also caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!
Why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photon at 100
mph
PLUS his 10 mph acceleration? --Although you already know the answer...
it is, of course, that he "really" wasn't accelerating at all (because
it is impossible to "really" accelerate in his reality) and what he
was
really doing was decelerating (with respect to the photon's "position").
But then why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photon
at
90 mph? And the answer is that if the only two things that existed
were
he and the photon they might indeed agree (between photon & man)
on that
90 mph; but it is the woman he must agree with on the speed of the
photon... and that is where the mystery of x-space forever will confound
them both because even though (in "Paradise") he and the photon indeed
"hit" at 90 mph... in this world he can never report this to the woman
without factoring in his acceleration of 10 mph with respect to her!
Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man "takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops (he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have no problem understanding that
they
will both report catching their photons at 100 mph). The same is true
if
he "takes the time" to step back a few paces as well: he will catch
his
photon after she catches hers, but you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both report catching their photons at
100
mph. The matter is not one of time, but of acceleration/deceleration:
The paradox will always rest with what they will interpret as
acceleration vs what the photon will interpret as deceleration... and
in that "misinterpretation" lies their eternal impossibility to agree
between them that the speed at which a photon has been caught is
anything except constant regardless of their relative velocities with
respect to the photon!
And there the matter forever rests in our reality: As far as ordinary
matter in our universe goes... the so-called "speed of light" will
always be measured in this perfectly inversely proportional manner
to be
identical (in identical mediums) by all moving observers regardless
of
their velocities (linear) relative to each other: It is an absolute
set
value (agreed to) between the man and the woman (that whichever one
of
them "hits" a photon at a "true/real" slower speed will always report
to
the other one that he/she hit it exactly that much faster, thereby
canceling out all differences between them). They have no choice in
this
agreement, of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them by the
nature of this reality/existence... and thus too, along with the man
and
the woman, every bit of ordinary matter in our universe has also
"signed" this Absolute Relativity covenant with every other bit of
ordinary matter in our universe. [And absent a profounder truth the
constancy of c is all the evidence required for/of the reality of
x-space.]
>
>>
>> this is entirely due to "the fact" that all linear accelerations
in
>> our universe are "in reality" decelerations (towards absolute rest:
>> and you know what happens to processes at absolute rest, I hope).
>
> Einstein put to rest the notion of "absolute rest", it simply doesn't
> exist.
Einstein was wrong. If you cannot accept that Einstein could have
been wrong, then you are his Mohammed, and all discussion is moot.
[snipped nonsense]
> Prior to GS, it was believed that only time was an absolute.
Einstein
> proved that only the speed of light is absolute. Everything
else is a
> consequence of that.
Truer: Einstein found the speed of light to be constant and
made-up (guessed) it must be a profound mystical truth about
the universe... which he could not explain.
[snipped childish reasoning]
> Rudeness and vulgarities can only lead one to believe that you cannot
> support yourself intelligently and have to rely on intimidation.
He
> was
> very professional in his post and it is undeserved.
My apologies if I appear rude and/or vulgar: I am trying to
make you see things so obvious it more often than not puts
me into doubt whether you can see anything at all. (Although
I do acknowledge that it's not that you're stupid, Jim, Dale: Really.
I understand that it's simply that you will not see what you will
not see. And I truly hope someday you will have an open mind.]
>> Sometimes, Jim, sometimes ignorance of error IS bliss.
> Be nice. Because someone doesn't believe the way you do does
not make
> him
> ignorant.
In my post included a simple error before this
to discourage any idea that I was calling anybody
names. Sorry if you missed this.
> GR and SR and QM have survived every
> single experiment ever thrown at them.
Not every; and, in some cases, other methods have
even produced more correct results. (Including
orbital computations. Which see.)
Yours truly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 06 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <852823$qmi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>
<850acu$f2i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.145
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 14:15:42 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.philosophy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>,
Greg Neill <ynecgan@oops.inka.de> wrote:
> You keep posting the same nonsensical crapola over and over again
> under
> different topics and different newsgroups. So what gives?
Merely following up on other folks' topics, old boy.
All you had to do to find this out was to (use the head
God gave you to) follow the threads. [hint.]
> You think
> that if you keep farting, people will start to like the smell?
Well, if you'd wake up and smell it (take it in
by rote if you like) I wouldn't have to stick it
under your nose as often, old boy. Albeit you certainly
come off like you're rather attracted by it already,
I dare say!
>
> Here's a hint: No.
Awww. Might I suggest you simply debunk me (if
it's within your abilities to do something other
than whimper and whine at me so pathetically, of course):
If I am wrong it'll be exceedingly easy to do so
(if not for you, then for somebody else).
But, on the other hand, if I am right, the job
might prove a bit more problematical; and,
in that case, I'll understand if you merely persist
sticking out your tongue at me & such...
Here's the stuff you find so deliciously
"inspiring" to your olfactory senses:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
Read it. Perhaps even... understand it. Then, if
you can, simply point out my errors: That, and not
any childish attempts at intimidation through
absurd insults (or censorship) should shut me up.
Keep up the good work,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
> Greg Neill,
********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <853kuo$t2t$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>
<850acu$f2i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>
<852823$qmi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <VY4d4.412$L25.6353@wagner.videotron.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.72
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 03:01:50 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.philosophy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <VY4d4.412$L25.6353@wagner.videotron.net>,
Greg Neill <ynecgan@oops.inka.de> wrote:
> In alt.astronomy sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> : In article <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>,
> : Greg Neill <ynecgan@oops.inka.de> wrote:
>
> :> You keep posting the same nonsensical crapola over and over again
> :> under
> :> different topics and different newsgroups. So what gives?
>
> : Merely following up on other folks' topics, old boy.
> : All you had to do to find this out was to (use the head
> : God gave you to) follow the threads. [hint.]
>
> You are co-opting other threads to advertise your spam. This
is poor
> netiquette, and rude by any standards.
>
> If your technobabble cannot stand on its own in a single thread,
you
> insist on throwing it at everyone like some disturbed monkey flinging
> its feces at passers-by for attention.
> Greg Neill,
My apologies, Greg.
Swear to God, man: You look like a monkey to me
and I can't help myself getting all worked up
by a fellow simian out there free in the world.
From the zoo,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
One man's spam is another man's peanut butter.
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <853pmc$vqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>
<850acu$f2i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>
<8528eq$r2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874c5fa.269859197@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.189
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 04:22:39 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3874c5fa.269859197@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
cates@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates) wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2000 09:23:09 -0500, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> [big snip]
>
>>Here's the stuff you find so deliciously
>>"inspiring" to your olfactory senses:
>>
>>http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>
>>Read it. Perhaps even... understand it. Then, if
>>you can, simply point out my errors: That, and not
>>any childish attempts at intimidation through
>>absurd insults (or censorship) should shut me up.
>
> [snip]
>
> Ugh. I took a look. It goes from error and ignorance (the BB is an
> expansion of spacetime, not an explosion of 'gravitons' or anything
> else;
If your contention is that the BB does not involve "matter"
then, as a representative of this "matter" I protest, sir!
> a singularity has no size, basketball or otherwise;
It wasn't "smaller" than the universe is now?!?!?!
Your argument is not with me but with conventional physics.
> there is no
> matter anywhere in the early stages of the BB;
Your contention that there was Nothing in the early stages of
the BB is "odd" to say the least. Conventional BB theory posits
more primordial subparticles the closer one gets to the BB --If
you don't know this, what can you know?!
> 10 mph is not an
> acceleration;
It is "speed" enough for a simple analogy.
> etc) to the bizarre.
You said it, brother!
> ('gravitons' turning iside out to
> become 'oppositons';
When an attraction turns inside out I am more likely to
think it turns into some form of repellant force, than, say,
into ducks.
> photons at some absolute rest in the universe;
Sorry you didn't understand, Don: Photons closer to
absolute rest than "us" not "at" absolute rest.
> the
> universe imploding toward some absolute centre; etc.)
I doubt it would implode to one side (although I cannot imagine
what you might propose for an implosion).
> If there is an absolute centre to the universe then you can arrange
> things to look like an expansion when looking directly towards the
> centre and directly away. But what about looking 'sideways'? How
could
> that look like an expansion (what we actually observe)? Here's a
> little
> experiment for you to explain. We're on a football field. You stand
at
> centre field with your handy-dandy Acme speed-of-light measurer.
My
> buddy and I stand in opposite end zones and shine flashlight beams
on
> and past you. You will measure streams of photons going past you
in
> opposite directions, both travelling at the speed of light. Explain
> this
> observation using your scenario.
Easy: In this context.... You're babbling. Let me explain it
so even you might understand.... Ah... Well... err... Do you
have a two-year-old in your house (and absent that, could you
peek out your front door and see if there's a two-year-old
passing by)? ... Now, please bring him/her to the computer:
I will explain it to him/her and then he/she can explain it
to you at your leisure...
Now, darling, we're going to explain to Daddy (?)
the difference between things moving towards/away from
each other AND things shrinking:
Tell Daddy to imagine a planet which consists of nothing but
balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two "huge beings"
(a triangle and a square): The balloons are the gravitons and
the two "shapes" will represent all "forms" of matter in this, our
pretty little 2D analogy.
Now: Both those "beings" are pretty much the same "body" size
and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of their "planet"). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons
start bursting throughout the "planet" at an even ratio. (Our two
beings do not know this, remember. That's right, just like Daddy.)
Notice: Only the balloons will move toward each other (as space
becomes available where balloons burst).
Only the "shapes" will shrink (although they will never understand
they're shrinking).
Yes, darling: to us it will seem as if these two beings are shrinking,
but the two beings themselves will look at each other and still see
that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect" triangle
and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length).
An agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left for their "planet" to maintain their "existence,"
no matter how "small" they become in our God-like eyes.
And the same is true with all "us" "shapes & forms" of ordinary
matter
in our universe (only with slightly much more complexity, of course).
Like the balloons, the gravitons do not shrink (all they do is move
toward each other). Like the balloons, gravitons do not engage in
nuclear processes (they merely cease to be gravitons, become
oppositons, cancel out each other, "pop off," or, otherwise... as
our imploding universe lives out its existence gravity becomes
lessened throughout the entirety of our universe ).
Like the triangle/square "shapes," our universe's "forms of matter"
do not really ever move towards each other (all they do is "shrink"
in an "almost" perfect agreement with the rest of the "also shrinking"
universe. [About the only hint that ever filters down to us that all
this "shrinking" is taking place is when we look out into our 3D
cosmos and notice that those "shapes & forms" of matter furthest
away from "us" appear to be moving away from us "faster" than
those "shapes & forms" of matter closest to us. Do you know why?
Tell Daddy to ask the Big Bang people: They have it all written out
and it works the same way for a Big Crunch, pretty much.] But:
1) Yes, the universe has "a" center: It's just that it's "a" center
only the gravitons recognize.
2) Ordinary matter (all us "forms and shapes" built (painted/drawn)
upon the gravitons) can only move towards "shrinking"
(with
that singular exception which results in the optical illusion
of an expanding universe when we look out into the cosmos).
Tell Daddy to please remember that the "stars" ar really
moving
away from each other, it's just our interpretation's upside-down.
3) Because the gravitons of which all the "shapes & forms" of matter
are composed do not engage in nuclear processes but "become
oppositons" instead, "we" shall continue "shrinking" until
"we"
exhaust those little darlings the gravitons "which hold
our shapes."
But tell Daddy not to worry... our universe has
enough gravitons
still left in it to last billions and billion of years more, thank
you.
And now... did you understand all this, darling? Good! Now go on
and explain it to Daddy. Nite, nite, darling! Be patient. Kiss, kiss!...
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
> Don Cates
> cates@cc.umanitoba.ca
>
***********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <855lvh$bv4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>
<850acu$f2i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>
<8528eq$r2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874c5fa.269859197@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>
<853pmc$vqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ckkd4.345$%I5.55440@news.bctel.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.155
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 21:31:29 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <853pmc$vqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, sdrodrian@aol.com
says...
>
>In article <3874c5fa.269859197@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> cates@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates) wrote:
>> If there is an absolute centre to the universe then you can
arrange
>> things to look like an expansion when looking directly towards
the
>> centre and directly away. But what about looking 'sideways'?
How
>> could
>> that look like an expansion (what we actually observe)? Here's
a
>> little
>> experiment for you to explain. We're on a football field.
You stand
>> at
>> centre field with your handy-dandy Acme speed-of-light measurer.
My
>> buddy and I stand in opposite end zones and shine flashlight
beams
>> on
>> and past you. You will measure streams of photons going past
you in
>> opposite directions, both travelling at the speed of light.
Explain
>> this
>> observation using your scenario.
<Big Snip of God Awful Writing...>
>Is this what you're trying to say SDRodrian? Am I on the right
track
>to understanding you?
Nope. I believe somebody else was trying to say that (above).
>>Otherwise one can use the same usual analogy of the Big Bang
>>balloon with the dots, etc. except that instead of saying that
>>the farthest away a galaxy is from us the faster it's receeding
>>from us, one must instead turn that around and say that the
>>closer a galaxy is to us the slower it's receeding from us...
>>because the galaxies ARE receeding from each other, it's just
>>that they're doing this in a Big Crunch universe (instead of
>>in a Big Bang one). --DON'T GUESS: READ my text at AOL.--
BEGIN QUOTE
In article <85412h$lje@charity.ucr.edu>,
baez@charity.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> In article <84tc5s$dp5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3871672C.214A7B6E@flash.net>,
>> "George J. Bugh" <gbugh@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well scientists do have SOME ideas about what gravity is don't
>>> they?
>>
>>I'm afraid I must disenchant you here: Scientists (Newton/calculus/
>>Einstein/etc.) can calculate orbits pretty neatly, but they know
>>absolutely nothing of what gravity might be.
> Baloney. They do - and it ain't "gravitons" as you suggest.
"It isn't." In any case, if you had bothered to actually
read the text you wouldn't have to make an "ass" of
yourself by ass-u-ming some preposterous notion which
only lives in your own head: Don't guess. Read the text.
[In the only usage I put the word to here your statement
above translates: "Gravity is not gravity." Which see.]
In the text you will see that I use the word "gravitons"
to help in the understanding of gravity (and not to point
to anything remotely resembling a particle):
END QUOTE
> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.
Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.
>
> Is that it?
It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(simply = "gravity is more powerful where more matter" )
(And by the way, it's not "would seem" but "are" receding.)
The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the
center of the universe" ... this is not what's happening!
1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes
& forms."
3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
will not accumulate at the center of the universe.
(How
could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
because they merely represent the force of gravity,
and
are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!
--PLEASE NOTE THIS for future reference.--
4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely
represent
attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will
unravel
and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will
take over
and, "Yara, yara, yara..." eventually recreate the
gravitons
and then we will have another universe. (But don't
guess:
read my text--And, by the way, if you can express
all this
better than I have there, then I'll consider myself
your
student and take up working with needles and cloth.)
You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.
Somebody's QUOTE continued:
> Lets say a person is standing at the center of a football field
> holding a
> torch. Two other people are on the field, one at each end.
Both see
> the
> torch light "hit them" at the same time.
> Assumption 1 - We are actually shrinking (at the speed of light?)
Read my Text: That would be wrong. Understand the
following four fundamental "speeds" ...
1) absolute rest (or, x-space) --please, no quibbling--
2) the photon's speed with respect to "absolute rest"
3) "our" (the) speed (of ordinary matter wrt absolute rest)
4) the photon's speed with respect to "us"
"Absolute rest" is the place from which we are moving.
I have no idea what "our" speed is with respect to absolute rest
(but it is a lot "faster" than the photon's speed with respect to it).
I have no idea how fast the photon's speed is with respect to
absolute rest, but it is a lot slower than "ours."
I know the photon is "moving" at 186,282 miles per second
SLOWER than "we" with respect to absolute rest; but I know not
neither how fast the photon is moving with respect to absolute rest
nor how fast "we" are moving wrt absolute rest. [Obviously,
knowing one is to know the other.] But it is therefore possible
to move at a speed slower than the photon's. It is also possible
to travel faster than the photon: "We" do it all the time. What
I cannot imagine is that it's possible to travel faster than "we"
(ordinary matter) are already "traveling." [Although, think: Some
portions of our universe MUST be "traveling" faster than other
portions. And, as the universe ages, the "speed" at which ordinary
matter travels will slow--because gravity is becoming less powerful:
The "expansion" of the universe will slow down, but not for the
reasons proposed by the Big Bang theorists. It will slow down
because we will eventually run out of gravitons = gravity.]
> Assumption 2 - Light is at or near absolute rest and is not
> shrinking.
"Light" is not a force but a particle just as all other particles of
ordinary matter are particles: Every particle of matter (made of
gravitons) is a "shrinking form" (construct)... including the photon.
> Since we are shrinkin (including the torch) and I suppose moving
> towards each
> other so that we can't tell we are shrinking (?), and since light
is
> not
> shrinking, we are actually "hitting" the "space" that the light
> occupies and
> where the torch was once big.
In the context of x-space, this is most convoluted reasoning. PLEASE
reason this out so it makes enough sense for me to bother telling where
"it" is in error!
> This is why (according to SDRodrian I think) light appears to be
> radiating when
> in fact we are moving towards it and occupying the 'space' where
the
> torch
> once was. As we shrink, light appears to radiate and occupy more
> space.
The above text makes no sense in any frame of thought imaginable.
Don't guess: Read the text! (And please also use your brain
in addition to your eyes: It's written so even a teenager making out
on the back of his parents' car can understand it without missing a
beat.)
> Am I on the right track to understanding what you are trying to say?
Yes! Absolutely: In spite of your present incomprehensibility (I just
can't make heads or tails of what you think my thoughts are), one will
ALWAYS eventually understand what one WANTS to understand. It's just
a matter of going about it with an open mind and unstinting effort.
I'll try to understand you if you try to understand me. How'bout it?
> Maybe you could clarify using a similar example? Without the
> gravitons for
> the moment?
My gravitons are not particles: They are the force
of gravity--If you don't need to find the "strength" of
the universe's gravity (assign it a value) you will never
need to count my gravitons whatSOever. Cease thinking
about them. There! See: They're gone. Only gravity remains.
> And if this is the case, then why does the rest of the universe
> appear to be expanding while nothing appears to be expanding locally?
Look at the Big-Banger's explanation for this, it also applies here.
O, the sting-k
> Thanks
> James
Thanks
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 08 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8568ps$pab$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u4ep$raf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387306A2.6AB239A4@bellsouth.net>
<850acu$f2i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ryOc4.2463$Bu1.76531@wagner.videotron.net>
<8528eq$r2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874c5fa.269859197@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>
<853pk7$vqj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38760a23.352846135@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.36
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 02:52:48 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electromag
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38760a23.352846135@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
cates@cc.UManitoba.CA (Don Cates) wrote:
>>> a singularity has no size, basketball or otherwise;
>>
>>It wasn't "smaller" than the universe is now?!?!?!
>>Your argument is not with me but with conventional physics.
>
> Look up the definition of "singularity", you might learn something.
Rather: Read its definition by me and you'll learn
all there is to know about singularities; and perhaps even
all that can ever be known.
> The
> available evidence indicates that you will fail but I am an optimist.
The available evidence indicates you will fail
but I am also an optimist (and since, perhaps unlike you,
I am an eternal optimist, I shall remain hopeful about you long,
long after you've murdered all your hopes over me).
>>> there is no
>>> matter anywhere in the early stages of the BB;
>>
>>Your contention that there was Nothing in the early stages of
>>the BB is "odd" to say the least. Conventional BB theory posits
>>more primordial subparticles the closer one gets to the BB --If
>>you don't know this, what can you know?!
>
> OK. We've established that you believe matter is the only thing in
the
> universe
I posited the real influence of x-space as well, remember?
What have you done for the universe lately?
> or that energy can't be converted into matter.
Energy is the "work potential" in matter (really: energy and matter
cannot be sundered because in our universe "matter" is the only thing
that works). Look, Ma, I made a funny!
>Ignorance can
>be
>fixed, stupidity is forever.
I never dispute anything anyone claims
from his or her own experience (especially
if it's stupidity and/or insanity).
>>> 10 mph is not an
>>> acceleration;
>>
>>It is "speed" enough for a simple analogy.
>
> speed; velocity; acceleration. They are not the same thing. You could
> look it up.
ghost; specter; spook; phantom; apparition. They are alzo not
the same thing. You could look it up.
{sic}
>>> etc) to the bizarre.
>>
>>You said it, brother!
[there should be an echo somewhere around here]
>>> ('gravitons' turning iside out to
>>> become 'oppositons';
>>
>>When an attraction turns inside out I am more likely to
>>think it turns into some form of repellent force, than, say,
>>into ducks.
>
> ??Inside out?? That *is* bizarre.
Caterpillar turning into a moth: Now THAT's
inside-out bizarre. It happens none the less.
>>> photons at some absolute rest in the universe;
>>
>>Sorry you didn't understand, Don: Photons closer to
>>absolute rest than "us" not "at" absolute rest.
>
> But, IIANM, close to and rapidly approaching 'absolute rest.
Correction please: Not "us" but "we." Ok, continue rant.
>>> the
>>> universe imploding toward some absolute centre; etc.)
>>
>>I doubt it would implode to one side (although I cannot imagine
>>what you might propose for an implosion).
>
> The conventional 'Big Crunch'. Space itself contracting.
Sure... Yes... I can see that, "space contracting" (since
it's empty, you can probably stuff a lot more space
into it than there already is in there, sure--This is
sarcasm, by the way... it's a morsel so few can taste).
> 2D analog:
> the
> surface of a deflating balloon, everything getting closer to
> everything
> else. Blue shifts everywhere. No centre
You seeing blue lights now? You seeing any deja vu as well?
In this context.... You're babbling. Let me explain it so even
you might understand.... Ah... Well... err... Do you happen to
have a two-year-old in your house (and absent that, could you
peek out your front door and see if there's a two-year-old
passing by)? ... Now, please bring him/her to the computer:
I will explain it to him/her and then he/she can explain it
to you at your leisure...
Now, darling, we're going to explain to Daddy (?)
the difference between things moving towards/away from
each other AND things shrinking:
Tell Daddy to imagine a planet which consists of nothing but
balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two "huge beings"
(a triangle and a square): The balloons are the gravitons and
the two "shapes" will represent all "forms" of matter in this, our
pretty little 2D analogy.
Now: Both those "beings" are pretty much the same "body" size
and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of their "planet"). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons
start bursting throughout the "planet" at an even ratio. (Our two
beings do not know this, remember. That's right, just like Daddy.)
Notice: Only the balloons will move toward each other (as space
becomes available where balloons burst).
Only the "shapes" will shrink (although they will never understand
they're shrinking).
Yes, darling: to us it will seem as if these two beings are shrinking,
but the two beings themselves will look at each other and still see
that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect" triangle
and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length).
An agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left for their "planet" to maintain their "existence,"
no matter how "small" they become in our God-like eyes.
And the same is true with all "us" "shapes & forms" of ordinary
matter
in our universe (only with slightly much more complexity, of course).
Like the balloons, the gravitons do not shrink (all they do is move
toward each other). Like the balloons, gravitons do not engage in
nuclear processes (they merely cease to be gravitons, become
oppositons, cancel out each other, "pop off," or, otherwise... as
our imploding universe lives out its existence gravity becomes
lessened throughout the entirety of our universe ).
Like the triangle/square "shapes," our universe's "forms of matter"
do not really ever move towards each other (all they do is "shrink"
in an "almost" perfect agreement with the rest of the "also shrinking"
universe. [About the only hint that ever filters down to us that all
this "shrinking" is taking place is when we look out into our 3D
cosmos and notice that those "shapes & forms" of matter furthest
away from "us" appear to be moving away from us "faster" than
those "shapes & forms" of matter closest to us. Do you know why?
Tell Daddy to ask the Big Bang people: They have it all written out
and it works the same way for a Big Crunch, pretty much.] But:
1) Yes, the universe has "a" center: It's just that it's "a" center
only the gravitons recognize.
2) Ordinary matter (all us "forms and shapes" built (painted/drawn)
upon the gravitons) can only move towards "shrinking"
(with
that singular exception which results in the optical illusion
of an expanding universe when we look out into the cosmos).
Tell Daddy to please remember that the "stars" ar really
moving
away from each other, it's just our interpretation's upside-down.
3) Because the gravitons of which all the "shapes & forms" of matter
are composed do not engage in nuclear processes but "become
oppositons" instead, "we" shall continue "shrinking" until
"we"
exhaust those little darlings the gravitons "which hold
our shapes."
But tell Daddy not to worry... our universe has
enough gravitons
still left in it to last billions and billion of years more, thank
you.
And now... did you understand all this, darling? Good! Now go on
and explain it to Daddy. Nite, nite, darling! Be patient. Kiss, kiss!...
But, deja vu over: Back to our exciting story...
>>> If there is an absolute centre to the universe then you can arrange
>>> things to look like an expansion when looking directly towards
the
>>> centre and directly away. But what about looking 'sideways'? How
>>> could
>>> that look like an expansion (what we actually observe)? Here's
a
>>> little
>>> experiment for you to explain. We're on a football field. You
stand
>>> at
>>> centre field with your handy-dandy Acme speed-of-light measurer.
My
>>> buddy and I stand in opposite end zones and shine flashlight beams
>>> on
>>> and past you. You will measure streams of photons going past you
in
>>> opposite directions, both travelling at the speed of light. Explain
>>> this
>>> observation using your scenario.
>
> [snip bizarre drivel from web site interspirsed with insults trying
to
> explain observed expantion 'really' being contraction]
Your scissors failed you: Your drivel is still up there (see);
perhaps your sputtering messed up your aim. Put the scissors down.
> I see you couldn't explain the results of my little experiment.
Please notice that I also cannot explain the results of your parent's
little experiment (manufacturing you)... and I wouldn't wish to try
to
either.
Hope this helps (although reading the text
with your brain instead of just with your eyes
would help a LOT more).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
> Don Cates
> cates@cc.umanitoba.ca
>
*******************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 06 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <852abq$shh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <850ah1$f5u$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000105175938.02766.00000931@ng-fe1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.145
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 14:54:58 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,uk.sci.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <20000105175938.02766.00000931@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
jdguil@aol.com (Jdguil) wrote:
> Sdrodrian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>Look out into the cosmos and it seems as if our universe is expanding
>>(and the first explanation that comes to mind is that it's the result
>>of
>>an explosion). We have now concluded the 20th Century holding
this
>>belief. But is it the correct belief? It certainly doesn't explain
>>anything: Science has no explanation why the pre-Big Bang singularity
>>(which some posit the size of a basketball and others posit as a
>>pinprick) should exploded. No one dares propose where "matter" (it
>>all)
>>came from, let alone why it should explode... It's all magical
>>somehow.
>>(And is it any wonder all the religions and religious-minded persons
>>in
>>the world have embraced the conventional Big Bang theory as evidence
>>of the existence of a Creator behind the "creation" of the universe?)
>>
>>But let's consider another alternative (preferably one which is
more
>>consistent with the observed facts): All one really has to do is
to
>>ask
>>oneself: Does it really make sense that gravitons in the pre-Big
Bang
>>Singularity should explode? [It goes against the nature of gravitons
>>to explode--we are not talking here about nuclear processes.] Put
a
>>few
>>gravitons together and what do they tend to do... move towards each
>>other. Therefore, if our universe is composed of gravitons, these
>>gravitons are moving towards each other and not away from each other:
>>
>> Implosion,
not explosion.
>>
>
> There is a problem with your conclusion. The reason we believe the
> universe is
> expanding is because of the measurement of the Doppler shift of light
> of
> distant galaxies. Its called the 'Red Shift' because the shift is
> towards
> 'redder' ie, lower frequency. Lower frequencies result only when
the
> light
> source is moving away from the observer. If your explanation were
true
> then we
> would be observing 'Blue Shift'.
Only if galaxies were moving towards each other:
They are not. Only the gravitons are "really" moving
(linearly) towards each other. You have to understand
that all forms of matter other than the gravitons are
"forms" of matter... and they, those "shapes & forms"
are the thing that is "shrinking" in our imploding
universe... only those "forms" of matter: But because
"matter" closest to the "center" of the universe is
moving towards it faster than "matter" furthest from
the center... it all has the same identical effect
as if it were as the Big Bang proponents see it:
The "farther" from us an object is... the faster it will
be receeding from us (it will not negate the conventional
Doppler interpretation if for no other reason--think--
than that Doppler does not touch the gravitons).
>>All you need do to understand why this implosion "looks" to us like
>>an explosion is to realize that those gravitons closest to the
>>"center"
>>are acceletating (towards it) faster than the gravitons furthest
from
>>"center." (The feet of the guy falling into the black hole will
>>experience a greater pull than his head and he will be
>>all-stretched-out.) And therefore it will always seem to us as if
the
>>"expansion" of our universe is "actually" accelerating. [Yes, just...
>>think it through.]
>>
>
> If this were true we would see an even greater 'blue shift' for
> nearby
> galaxies. The the shift is however in the opposite direction. The
> experimental
> evidence directly contradicts your theory.
That would only be true if galaxies were the
fundamental particles of the implosion: They are not!
Galaxies are "forms and shapes" only (just like
you and I and every atom alive are merely "forms & shapes"
made of gravitons... Gravitons do not shrink,
gravitons cannot shrink, they can only move towards
each other. "Forms and shapes" made of gravitons
are the thing "shrinking" (as the gravitons "pop out
of existence," or become oppositons, or are cancelled out
(however you want to interpret it)... as long as you
don't interpret the imploding universe of the gravitons
in terms of nuclear processes (fission and fusion are
processes which take place only between present-day
atomic particles--read about it in the newspapers).
That present-day "laws of physics" does not apply to the
gravitons I speak of (really, not particles at all but
merely a way of getting a handle on the "force" of gravity).
> <snip>
>
>>According to Newton's 1st Law of Motion the ordinary matter of our
>>universe would be at rest were it not being acted on by an
>>"unbalanced
>>external force" (i.e. the four forces):
>
> Newton's first law says objects remain in motion at a constant
> velocity unless
> acted upon by an unbalanced external force. Being at rest is only
a
> special
> case of constant velocity. This invalidates the rest of your argument.
You are ignoring the basic fact that the universe
is not a Big Bang but a Big Crunch: Einstein never
knew this, so he could not posit "the space left behind
by the implosion of the gravitons" as the home of
"absolute rest." Whether you wish to say that the motion
of gravity is the force or that the motion against gravity
is the "force," it remains that the most fundamental aspect
of existence "must be" a simple attraction/repulsion. And
that pretty much explains the rest of existence from there.
The Big Bang Theory posits an unbalance force
(in effect, only the repulsion side as the pre-Big Bang
"singularity" exploded), so it cannot explain why
it should have exploded... or, of course, why "later on"
gravity should have "arisen" in the universe: This is
clearly a horrific lapse in thinking on the part of
the exploding universe proponents. And I am merely
pointing this out.
> <snip>
>
> Regards,
> Jim
Anytime, Jim.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <854kmp$ia1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <850ah1$f5u$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000105175938.02766.00000931@ng-fe1.aol.com>
<852abq$shh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ZL6d4.934$UL1.16877@nnrp4.clara.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.211
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 12:03:43 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,uk.sci.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <ZL6d4.934$UL1.16877@nnrp4.clara.net>,
"DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <852abq$shh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <20000105175938.02766.00000931@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
>> jdguil@aol.com (Jdguil) wrote:
>>> Sdrodrian wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>But because
>>"matter" closest to the "center" of the universe is
>>moving towards it faster than "matter" furthest from
>>the center... it all has the same identical effect
>>as if it were as the Big Bang proponents see it:
>>The "farther" from us an object is... the faster it will
>>be receeding from us (it will not negate the conventional
>>Doppler interpretation if for no other reason--think--
>>than that Doppler does not touch the gravitons).
>
> What evidence is there that the doppler effect doesn't apply to
> gravitons?
It depends on which graviton you're talking about:
If you're talking about the conventional quantum
proposed as the mediator of gravity, this is a
particle which is a newcomer in our universe. It is
a posited massless, electrically uncharged particle
(traveling at the speed of light) which would be emitted
only by highly accelerating, extremely massive celestial
objects; and whether Doppler would interact with such
a particle is no concern of mine (it's irrelevant, at
least until it is overwhelmingly proved, and I doubt
its existence, as my contention is that gravity is
the fundamental force... attraction/repulsion).
This is my graviton then: Merely a "face" to put upon
that fundamental force (just so mathmatical-minded
physicists can play with their... numbers). Since
my graviton is, strictly speak, no particle at all
I hardly think it will go around dribbling Doppler photons.
> Is it just your convenient explanation? What tests are you going to
> use to
> prove it?
The proposition that the universe is an expansion
raises nothing but questions. The view of it as
an implosion "appears" to answer all the questions.
All you need do is go through a few of them carefully
and consider them in both scenarios...
> As a matter of interest, what background or qualifications in
> theoretical
> cosmology do you have that allows you to claim that you know better
> than the
> likes of Einstein and Hawking?
What background or qualification would you want me to have:
What I have proposed is the equivalent of saying, "The sun
is hotter than the moon." Or, "The sky is blue." (I don't
suppose if you're drowning and somebody offers you a rope
you will ask that person what qualifications he/she has
in rescues--people do study it too, you know--Or maybe...
> Just curious.
This should be enough to satisfy you: I am
effectively retired (and so I don't have to dread
professional backlash for proposing daring new
ideas. (And, believe me, if I weren't having such fun
I'd be working on my music right now.)
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
>
> Darren Swindells
>
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.164
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 05 20:50:28 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.wisdom,de.sci.physik,uk.sci.astronomy
In article <20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
jdguil@aol.com (Jdguil) wrote:
> sdrodrian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Dear Jack,
>>>>
>>>>1) Time IS the rate of movement, period: Any movement.
>>>
>>> Rate of movement is the definition of speed in physics.
>>
>>Ah, the beginnings of an understanding!... {doubts:
>>"Expect the worst from others and you'll seldom be
>>disappointed by them."} Ahem, Jim... Can thou speak
>>of "a" speed (except the instantaneous variety)
>>without speaking of "how much" time? Jim, this is why
>>you can't just memorize a few glib quips & equations
>>and expect to make sense of the entirety of existence
>>by them.
>
> True. It is obvious that you have successfully avoided learning any
> equations,
> definitions, concepts or theories related to physics. The remainder
of
> your
> post reflects your total absence of knowledge.
Dear Jim, just because someone has not learned by rote
the mantras of your religion... that does not mean he/she
can not speak with some knowledge about the same things
the "truths" of your religion have addressed. Believe me.
>>a) All "motions" are "timed" at their "speed."
>>b) All "times" are the "speeds" of "motions."
>>c) All "speeds" are "timed" "motions." And so it goes.
>
>>Sometimes, Jim, sometimes ignorance of error IS bliss.
>
> lol, I couldn't state your position better if I tried.
I wouldn't try if I were you, Jim: It's hard enough to express oneself
--Trying to be a ventriloquist for any living person is really, really
hard (although my wife does a pretty nifty job with me, now I think
about it). However...
> Have good evening Rodrian.
>
> Jim
Have a good evening, Jim.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
***********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 06 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8536a0$j2v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.251
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 22:51:49 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>,
"DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>> Implosion,
not explosion.
>>
>>All you need do to understand why this implosion "looks" to us like
>>an explosion is to realize that those gravitons closest to the
>>"center"
>>are accelerating (towards it) faster than the gravitons furthest
from
>>"center." (The feet of the guy falling into the black hole will
>>experience a greater pull than his head and he will be
>>all-stretched-out.) And therefore it will always seem to us as if
the
>>"expansion" of our universe is "actually" accelerating. [Yes, just...
>>think it through.]
>>
>
> Er, What happens if you look in the other direction, away from the
> centre?
It will make no difference whether it's a Big Bang or Big Crunch.
> In your example, we would be accelerating toward the centre of the
> universe.
> The objects closer to it than us would be accelerating faster, the
> objects
> further out accelerating slower. Each would show recession (observed)
> but
> the recession of the objects closer to the centre would surely have
a
> higher
> recessional velocity/distance ratio. We would therefore see differing
> velocity/distance ratio (Hubble constant) for different sides of
the
> sky,
> this is not the case.
The only thing one would "see" is that the "expansion"
itself is accelerating. This would be most puzzling to "see"
in a true expanding universe (and there are any number of
puzzling explanations currently being floated for this).
But in an imploding universe this acceleration would, in
fact, be expected because of reasons you and I have given.
Otherwise one can use the same usual analogy of the Big Bang
balloon with the dots, etc. except that instead of saying that
the farthest away a galaxy is from us the faster it's receeding
from us, one must instead turn that around and say that the
closer a galaxy is to us the slower it's receeding from us...
because the galaxies ARE receeding from each other, it's just
that they're doing this in a Big Crunch universe (instead of
in a Big Bang one). --DON'T GUESS: READ my text at AOL.--
The obstacle in your sight is that the universe is just all
"forms & shapes." And it is those "forms & shapes" that are
"shrinking" (i.e. overall the entire universe maintains its "form
and shape" as it shrinks except for the inevitable "stretching
in the direction of its center" which all imploding cosmic bodies
experience while collapsing into their center... and so we do not
notice we are shrinking but we do notice that the bits of the
universe furthest from center are not travelling towards the center
as fast as the bits of the universe closest to the center (and this
we commonly misinterpret as an expansion/explosion).
Hope this helps, although I doubt it.
However, you can always try to see the light at:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> If you can tell me I'm wrong in words of less than three syllables
I'd
> be
> greatly appreciative and I'm sure Dr Stephen Hawking would too.
Sure: "Read my text." (3 words/syllables) However, I wouldn't bother
Stephen if I were you... On top of all his problems, imagine somebody
coming along and showing that he has based his entire life's work on
some stupidly mistaken premise a child should have seen through! (I'd
think he'd kill somebody before he'd acknowledge this, be it true,
false, or whatever--And you will see that same attitude from every
other
human being (after all) whose rice bowl depends on it being a Big Bang
and not a Big Crunch, regardless what the Hell it "really" is ... "Wait
til I retire, damn you!" --writes the very securely-tenured Prof. Frop)
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> Darren Swindells
>
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <854mip$jfu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.211
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 12:35:36 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>,
"DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>,
>> "DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>given.
>>
>>Otherwise one can use the same usual analogy of the Big Bang
>>balloon with the dots, etc. except that instead of saying that
>>the farthest away a galaxy is from us the faster it's receeding
>>from us, one must instead turn that around and say that the
>>closer a galaxy is to us the slower it's receeding from us...
>>because the galaxies ARE receeding from each other, it's just
>>that they're doing this in a Big Crunch universe (instead of
>>in a Big Bang one). --DON'T GUESS: READ my text at AOL.--
>
> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and
that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.
Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.
>
> Is that it?
It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(And by the way, it's not "would seem" but "are.")
You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.
Hope this helps, but I'll always be here for you
(because, while a lie must strike when the iron's hot,
the truth can wait until all the lies are undone).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*******************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8569db$pnh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000107075927.14159.00000338@ng-ff1.aol.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.36
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 03:03:13 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.wisdom,alt.philosophy,sci.physics,talk.origins
In article <20000107075927.14159.00000338@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
mariat3@aol.commonsense (Maria T3) wrote:
>>(because, while a lie must strike when the iron's hot,
>>the truth can wait until all the lies are undone).
>
> Good quote. How true.
>
> *~* Maria *~*
Very generous of you, Maria.
But, in case you missed it: I was
the Twentieth's Century greatest poet,
after all.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/bookspine
***********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85cpmk$4nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>
<854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ylYd4.2150$UL1.43515@nnrp4.clara.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.146
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 14:18:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <ylYd4.2150$UL1.43515@nnrp4.clara.net>,
"DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>,
>
>> "DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>>> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and
>>> that
>>> the
>>> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
>>> further
>>> away.
>>
>>Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
>>proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
>>universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
>>
>
> Well that's ok in one dimension (ie. along one line toward the centre
> of the
> universe going through our observing position) but how can it work
in
> three
> dimensions?
>
> If two galaxies are at 30 degrees radial separation as viewed from
the
> centre of the galaxy, surely as they moved towards the centre they
> would see
> each other approaching not receding.
>
> DS
BEGIN DEJA VU:
>>> Well scientists do have SOME ideas about what gravity is don't
>>> they?
>>
>>I'm afraid I must disenchant you here: Scientists (Newton/calculus/
>>Einstein/etc.) can calculate orbits pretty neatly, but they know
>>absolutely nothing of what gravity might be.
> Baloney. They do - and it ain't "gravitons" as you suggest.
"It isn't." In any case, if you had bothered to actually
read the text you wouldn't have to make an "ass" of
yourself by ass-u-ming some preposterous notion which
only lives in your own head: Don't guess. Read the text.
[In the only usage I put the word to here, your statement
above translates: "Gravity is not gravity." Which see.]
In the text you will see that I use the word "gravitons"
to help in the understanding of gravity (and not to point
to anything remotely resembling a particle):
BEGIN QUOTE:
> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.
Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.
>
> Is that it?
It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(simply = "gravity is more powerful where more matter" )
(And by the way, it's not "would seem" but "are" receding.)
The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the
center of the universe" ... this is not what's happening!
1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes
& forms."
3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
will not accumulate at the center of the universe.
(How
could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
because they merely represent the force of gravity,
and
are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!
--PLEASE NOTE THIS for future reference.--
4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely
represent
attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will
unravel
and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will
take over
and, "Yara, yara, yara..." eventually recreate the
gravitons
and then we will have another universe. (But don't
guess:
read my text--And, by the way, if you can express
all this
better than I have there, then I'll consider myself
your
student and take up working with needles and cloth.)
You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.
QUOTE continued:
> Lets say a person is standing at the center of a football field
> holding a
> torch. Two other people are on the field, one at each end.
Both see
> the
> torch light "hit them" at the same time.
> Assumption 1 - We are actually shrinking (at the speed of light?)
Read my Text: That would be wrong. Understand the
following four fundamental "speeds" ...
1) absolute rest (or, x-space) --please, no quibbling--
2) the photon's speed with respect to "absolute rest"
3) "our" (the) speed (of ordinary matter wrt absolute rest)
4) the photon's speed with respect to "us"
"Absolute rest" is the place from which we are moving.
I have no idea what "our" speed is with respect to absolute rest
(but it is a lot "faster" than the photon's speed with respect to it).
I have no idea how fast the photon's speed is with respect to
absolute rest, but it is a lot slower than "ours."
I know the photon is "moving" at 186,282 miles per second
SLOWER than "we" with respect to absolute rest; but I know not
either how fast the photon is moving with respect to absolute rest
nor how fast "we" are moving wrt absolute rest. [Obviously,
knowing one is to to know the other.] But it is therefore possible
to move at a speed slower than the photon's. It is also possible
to travel faster than the photon: "We" do it all the time. What
I cannot imagine is that it's possible to travel faster than "we"
(ordinary matter) are already "traveling." [Although, think: Some
portions of our universe MUST be "traveling" faster than other
portions. And, as the universe ages, the "speed" at which ordinary
matter travels will slow--because gravity is becoming less powerful:
The "expansion" of the universe will slow down, but not for the
reasons proposed by the Big Bang theorists. It will slow down
because we will eventually run out of gravitons = gravity.]
> Assumption 2 - Light is at or near absolute rest and is not
> shrinking.
"Light" is not a force but a particle just as all other particles of
ordinary matter are particles: Every particle of matter (made of
gravitons) is a "shrinking form" (construct)... including the photon.
> Am I on the right track to understanding what you are trying to say?
Yes! Absolutely: In spite of your present incomprehensibility (I just
can't make heads or tails of what you think my thoughts are), one will
ALWAYS eventually understand what one WANTS to understand. It's just
a matter of going about it with an open mind and unstinting effort.
> Maybe you could clarify using a similar example? Without the
> gravitons for
> the moment?
My gravitons are not particles: They are the force
of gravity--If you don't need to find the "strength" of
the universe's gravity (assign it a value) you will never
need to count my gravitons whatSOever. Cease thinking
about them. There! See: They're gone. Only gravity remains.
PLEASE NOTE: In my text I use gravitons and oppositon
to propose an origin for gravity BEFORE the universe
(i.e. I propose that gravity is the reason why there is
a universe--and not the other way around, as the
Big-Bangers like to think of it... postulating then
that the uinverse was created by magic or some such).
> And if this is the case, then why does the rest of the universe
> appear to be expanding while nothing appears to be expanding locally?
Look at the Big-Banger's explanation for this, it also applies here.
O, the sting-k
END QUOTE
> Yes we do. [know what gravity is] It's spacetime curvature.
Personally I think "abracadabra" is a much better conjuring word
than "spacetime curvature."
> This is probably not the
> last word, but it's definitely something worth knowing about.
Yes, it might not be the last word indeed.
END DEJA VU
Ha! Vain hope.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 06 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85123h$po$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.165
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 03:27:58 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.electromag
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>,
Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <38711311.2A3A6923@nortelnetworks.com>,
>>>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Rate of movement is the definition of speed in physics.
>>
>> Ah, the beginnings of an understanding!... {doubts:
>> "Expect the worst from others and you'll seldom be
>> disappointed by them."} Ahem, Jim... Can thou speak
>> of "a" speed (except the instantaneous variety)
>> without speaking of "how much" time? Jim, this is why
>> you can't just memorize a few glib quips & equations
>> and expect to make sense of the entirety of existence
>> by them. Rather, "Live and learn." But, for you, here
>> are a few glib techno quips on the matter. Pick one:
>> a) All "motions" are "timed" at their "speed."
>> b) All "times" are the "speeds" of "motions."
>> c) All "speeds" are "timed" "motions." And so it goes.
>
> Not sure what you're point is, but let me make an educated guess.
> According to relativity, we know it is impossible in an expanding
> universe to describe the elapsed time experienced during a
> sequence of events occurring in one part of the universe in a
> way that will be equal to the elapsed time for those same events
> when viewed from another part of the universe. In short, the
> passage of time is a very local affair. Billions of cosmic
> clocks are ticking, all at their own locally correct rate.
> They all started at the same time, at the Big Bang singularity,
> but they have been accumulating time at different rates ever
> since. As such, there is no one correct age of the earth.
> Until the observer and the observed are joined in a single
> space-time frame, there is no one-to-one correlation.
At its most basic, the human idea of time
is nothing more than the synchronization of
one motion with/to another motion: The problem
is that ALL motions of our universe move at
their own individual/independent rates (if one
takes into account that all identical atoms
share identical vibrations). This is because
our universe is a closed system in which chaos
has broken out and everything is moving
independently... And so, for example,
if we synchronize our watches with/to the
revolutions of the earth we soon discover that
while we can keep the motion of our watches
at a "steady" rate, the motion of the earth's
revolutions keeps a rate all its own and the two
quickly begin to unsynchronize (so we must
constantly add leap seconds to our watches
to keep this illusion of these two motions
agreeing). Multiply this times every motion
in the universe, and you soon see that the universe
itself does not acknowledge our sentimental
attempts to synchronize one motion with others.
>>
>>> This is really a warped view of the relativity of time. Time
can
>>> vary
>>> between
>>> observers because of two reasons:
>>
>> 1) One of them has a bad clock
>> 2) Both their clocks don't work.
>>
>>> 1) in special relativity
>>
>> Oh-oh, methinks we're not in Kansas anymore....
>>
>>> the acceleration of one object with respect
>>> to an
>>> inertial reference frame will cause clocks to run slower for
the
>>> moving object
>>
>> Although it is true that a clock moving with greater linear
>> velocity in this universe will slow down (as will also an atom),
>> this is entirely due to "the fact" that all linear accelerations
in
>> our universe are "in reality" decelerations (towards absolute rest:
>> and you know what happens to processes at absolute rest, I hope).
>>
>
> Can you name any object in the heavens that is at rest?
I think my whole point IS that the universe of ordinary matter
is in motion. What Einstein did not know was that the universe
is an implosion (in which space itself is "the thing at rest" ...
"from which all motion is moving"); therefore it never entered
Einstein's mind that there could be anywhere anything "absolute
rest." (How could it?... If one does not know of the existence of ,
say, a given person, one would never have any reason
to try to imagine what such a person might be thinking/doing.)
> Don't think
> so. Some are accelerating (as they approach large proximate
bodies),
> some deaccelarating (as they move away from large proximate bodies).
> But all are in motion.
All this motion's making my inner ear dizzy.
>> The SR/GR "explication" above translates into English as
>> follows: "You two guys' clocks can't keep the same time, and
>> that's because one of youse guys is moving faster'n the other
>> guy." (It is true! But it doesn't explain why, it just says
>> "that's how it is, bub." This is meaningless.)
>
> Meaningless? Don't think so. What it does say is that
time is a very
> real concept. It is experimentally measurable. For example,
one of
> the
> many elementary particles produced in physics labs is the mu-meson.
> It decays with a 1.5 microsecond half-period. They also exist near
the
> top of trhe Earth's atmosphere as Cosmic rays slam into atmospheric
> gases.
> These collisions are so great that the mu-mesons formed are
> accelerated to
> almost the speed of light. At such speeds, they experience
> measureable
> time dilation. 200 microseconds are required to travel the
60
> kilometers to
> the earth's surface. Because the mu-meson has a uses 133 of
its
> half-periods.
> After that many periods, virtually none of them should reach the
> earth's surface.
> Yet 1/8 of all the ones produced, do reach earth. The explanation
is
> that
> to the mu-meson traveling at close to the speed of light, its
> relative time has
> only been 4.5 microseconds, even though 200 microseconds has gone
by
> for
> the earth-bound observer.
Lordly, lordly Lord! The phenomena is real--your interpretation of why
is cockeyed. The following post should answer all your questions:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=568792441&fmt=text
>> Time does not dilate (because time doesn't exist, ole
>> friend)... When "matter" moves toward absolute rest
>> its processes slow down.
>
> Well, if you want to use some other term than "dilate" (the name
> physicists
> prefer), then so be it. But it is very real, and emperically
> demonstrated.
Ay, ya, ya, ya, yaiii! The effect is real, the effect
is real... Einstein's explanation of it is wrong.
But, always glad to repeat myself,
S D Rodrian
SDR@t-three.com
> Jack King
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <853roa$12r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>
<85120m$pa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874A03B.6F861788@nortelnetworks.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.189
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 04:57:51 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: uk.sci.astronomy,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3874A03B.6F861788@nortelnetworks.com>,
Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>,
>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> Can you name any object in the heavens that is at rest?
>>
>> I think my whole point IS that the universe of ordinary matter
>> is in motion. What Einstein did not know was that the universe
>> is an implosion (in which space itself is "the thing at rest" ...
>> "from which all motion is moving"); therefore it never entered
>> Einstein's mind that there could be anywhere anything "absolute
>> rest." (How could it?... If one does not know of the existence
of ,
>> say, a given person, one would never have any reason
>> to try to imagine what such a person might be thinking/doing.)
>
> I'm having great difficulty following your logic, but one thing jumps
out
> which belies your credibility. If you think the universe is
"imploding",
> you are simply flat wrong based on the following evidence:
>
> 1. Galaxies in red shift
If you read my text carefully, you will understand that even in
an imploding universe galaxies would still be receding from
each other in the same way the BB expansion describes this.
The notion that this is due to universal expansion is what is
a misinterpretation.
> 2. Constant microwave background
While in an expanding universe the existence of radiation
has to be explained almost in terms of magic, in an imploding
universe is it explained straightforward (don't guess: read
my text). I would go even further and say that I do not think
the photon can exist in a true expanding universe in its form.
> 3. Uniform distribution of helium
Helium is too "modern" an atom. Rather, try to explain the
evidence of "modern" galaxies very close to the Big Bang.
> 4. Isotropic background radiation.
ditto #2.
> All of these point clearly to an exploding, not imploding, Universe.
If you believe so, then you have not carefully considered
both sides of the matter. Please try to do so. You sound
like a person who might be serious about this subject.
>> Lordly, lordly Lord! The phenomena is real--your interpretation
of
why
>> is cockeyed. The following post should answer all your questions:
>> http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=568792441&fmt=text
>
> In the above URL you state:
>
>>But let's consider another alternative (preferably one which is
more
>>consistent with the observed facts): All one really has to do is
to
ask
>>oneself: Does it really make sense that gravitons in the pre-Big
Bang
>>Singularity should explode? [It goes against the nature of gravitons
>>to explode--we are not talking here about nuclear processes.]
>
> Yes it does make sense since the standard laws of physics break down
in a
> singularity.
What you mean when you say "that" is that all we have learned
about nuclear processes is encapsulated by "the laws of physics."
No one outside myself (through the Absolute Relativity theory)
has ever proposed that we can peek into the other side of the Big
Bang (translation: No one can say which "laws of physics" apply
back there... so I don't know how something "no one can possibly
know" can make sense to you! But the facts remain as I stated them:
1) the only thing we can know about the most primordial force is
that it was a repelling/attracting one (Newton's 1st Law of motion).
2) unfortunately, Big Bang theories posit that there was only a
repelling force (explosion) and that gravity "eventually" (somewhere
along the ensuing history of the universe) simply "showed up."
This is a most unreasonable view for anyone to ask me to adopt.
Sorry.
>> Implosion,
not explosion.
>
>>All you need do to understand why this implosion "looks" to us like
>>an explosion is to realize that those gravitons closest to the
"center"
>>are acceletating (towards it) faster than the gravitons furthest
from
>>"center."
>>(The feet of the guy falling into the black hole will
>>experience a greater pull than his head and he will be
>>all-stretched-out.) And therefore it will always seem to us as if
the
>>"expansion" of our universe is "actually" accelerating. [Yes, just...
>>think it through.]
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Does any of this giberish appear in some peer review journal?
Yes it does, in fact: The guy falling into the black hole is
as well-known a cliché as the expanding BB balloon with the
dots.
(I'm sorry you're not as serious about intellectual inquiry
as I previously assumed--Shows you one must never expect
the best from people unless one wants to be disappointed.)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
>
>
Jack King
**********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85bpov$eqr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>
<85120m$pa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874A03B.6F861788@nortelnetworks.com>
<853roa$12r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <QDYd4.2154$UL1.43809@nnrp4.clara.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.239
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 05:13:12 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: uk.sci.astronomy,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <QDYd4.2154$UL1.43809@nnrp4.clara.net>,
"DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <853roa$12r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <3874A03B.6F861788@nortelnetworks.com>,
>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>,
>>>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>> 2. Constant microwave background
>>
>>While in an expanding universe the existence of radiation
>>has to be explained almost in terms of magic, in an imploding
>>universe is it explained straightforward (don't guess: read
>>my text). I would go even further and say that I do not think
>>the photon can exist in a true expanding universe in its form.
>
> That's a poor answer to an interesting question. In your theory,
where
> does
> the 3k background radiation come from? (and please don't refer me
to
> "the
> text", answer it here)
I fail to see exactly what it is you'd like me to say, DS.
Wilson & Penzias's find of a uniform microwave radiation of
"about 3 K" was indeed interpreted by those Big-Bangers who
were expecting a residual thermal energy throughout
the universe "stemming from the primordial Big Bang explosion"
to be proof of just such an explosion. This is their hope & merely
their interpretation.
CMB may yet indeed reveal, in their words, "the density of the
universe, for instance, the speed at which the universe is
expanding, and whether it will continue its present expansion
forever or eventually slow to a stop and begin to collapse in
on itself. The CMB should disclose how much of the universe
is made of ordinary matter and how much of a mysterious
substance known as dark matter, which has manifested its
presence in the gravitational attraction between galaxies but
does not appear to emit light. And the CMB is likely to help
reveal what that dark matter is. It should help us learn when
the stars first turned on, how and why the galaxies formed,
and how they clustered together to form the structures we see
when we look out into space" and all kinds of goodies--hopefully.
Let's see what happens when the Microwave Anisotropy Probe
is (scheduled for) launched August 2000.
The notion of the Big-Bangers that these CMB microwaves are
"the afterglow of the Big Bang" stems from the fact that the
radiation is of very nearly equal intensity throughout the
universe (it matters not in what direction one turns one's
antenna, one hears the identical signal at the identical
frequency): But think for a minute, DS: What possible difference
would it make whether it's an exploding or an imploding universe
to this effect? It will make no difference whatever whether the
universe is cooling from being baked or from being blow-torched.
I say the assumption that it is the Big Bang's explosion causing it
is an error. DS, one of these days we shall discover exactly what
it is causing it, and then you and I shall know too, I imagine, if
they
bother to tell us. Although, frankly, I rather hope that instead of
trying to find proofs of their pet assumptions, the MAP folks yet try
to objectively gather all facts which subsequently might be querried
for what truths they might reveal to us... regardless of which side's
hopes those objectively revealed truths fulfill.
My original statement stands: Although I do not like to say
anything is impossible, radiation would be highly unlikely in
an exploding universe. I don't know how to put the matter in
a simple enough language for you, but, maybe this would help: "In an
exploding universe the photon would find it very difficult to not only
get off the ground, but if it ever managed to do so it couldn't travel
linearly without its trajectory describing some off-course curve as
the
stars/galaxies of the exploding universe changed the background through
which it traveled. The only reason the photon can travel in a "straight"
line through our universe is because like the rest of the universe's
"forms" of ordinary matter, the photon is itself a "form" of matter
which is also "shrinking" in nearly perfect agreement with the rest
of
the universe as a unit." This is a mere simplification, of course,
but
perhaps it gets you going in the direction of understanding all this.
This is the colossal error Einstein made (along with everybody
of his age): He assumed that "forms" of matter were fundamental
(even though he does not make this assumption explicit, of course)
instead of simply "forms" (because it just never occurred to any of
them that the universe was an implosion instead of an explosion).
I do not blame them for this error... just as I would never blame all
those otherwise intelligent persons throughout history to whom
it never would have occurred that the earth was not the center of
the universe. Now we know better; let's move on.
By the way, DS: Just because I've told you why c is constant, and
that the universe is an imploding one instead of an exploding one,
you don't really expect me to explain everything else in the world
do you? I mean, God help me when you ask me wherefore there's gunk
under your fingernails--I'm already biting my own fingernails hoping
you do not ask me that.
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> DS
>
>
Now, do I get Robert Wilson's & Arno Penzias's Nobel?
But, do read the text and... do not guess!
*************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 08 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <856jds$as$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000103210208.00984.00000142@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>
<85120m$pa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3874A03B.6F861788@nortelnetworks.com>
<853rlu$12i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3876056C.8DEAA246@nortelnetworks.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.187
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 05:54:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3876056C.8DEAA246@nortelnetworks.com>,
Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>> Does any of this giberish appear in some peer review journal?
>>
>> Yes it does, in fact: The guy falling into the black hole is
>> as well-known a cliché as the expanding BB balloon with
the dots.
>> (I'm sorry you're not as serious about intellectual inquiry
>> as I previously assumed--Shows you one must never expect
>> the best from people unless one wants to be disappointed.)
>
> I'm not talking about the guy falling into a black hole. I'm
talking
> about
> this thesis that the universe is imploding. Virtually every
> Cosmologist
> buys into the Big Bang. Please cite the peer review journal
which
> posits the imploding Universe thesis. Also cite following up
journals
> in which peers respond. If you can't do this, you have lost
your
> credability,
> and you might as well phase out of this thread.
Dear Jack,
The first you (and everybody else, to my knowledge) heard
of my conclusion (that the universe is a Big Crunch one and not
a Big Bang one) was last Christmas Day. Be patient, you're
going to be hearing about this for the rest of your life. (By the
way... I did not originate the "Big Crunch" phrase.)
Further: I have no peers; nor do I feel I need anyone to agree
with me on whether the self-evident is true or otherwise.
As for my credibility: Those who love me trust me; and you'll
never catch me trying to burrow cab fare from those who
love me not, trust me. (heh)
And then (not "virtually" but absolutely) every serious and respected
scientist in the world was certain that it was the Sun that orbited
the earth until some "Polack or other" in the early 1500s pointed out
the self-evident to them. [And by the way... you should really go
over Copernicus's history... you'll laugh & laugh how cleverly
all the
best mathematicians till Copernicus's day could very convolutedly
"demonstrate" the soundness of an earth-centered universe: Good
Gravy, I mean: all their equations proved it, and they could all of
them be used to make marvelously accurate predictions (based on the
"fact" all the Cosmologists had bought into that the Sun orbited the
earth). In fact, they could almost do it as convolutedly as our own
super-wise mathematicians today can prove to their own satisfaction
that it's an exploding universe AND how c is constant because SR/GR
& all the rest of all those fads you've bought into.] Sorry, Jack.
And SO, dear Jack, I will not be dropping out of anything
anytime soon---Nor dare I hope you will? Just READ THE TEXT:
DO NOT GUESS:
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
>
>
Jack King
**********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 08 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <857q8m$pdf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <853rlu$12i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3876056C.8DEAA246@nortelnetworks.com> <856j8a$2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<856s9l$1c4@charity.ucr.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.130
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 16:57:01 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <856s9l$1c4@charity.ucr.edu>,
baez@charity.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> In article <856j8a$2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>>The first you (and everybody else, to my knowledge) heard
>>of my conclusion (that the universe is a Big Crunch one and not
>>a Big Bang one) was last Christmas Day. Be patient, you're
>>going to be hearing about this for the rest of your life.
>
> Some of us have kill files.
Self-evidently... you are not
among those "some of us." But, there's
always hope for the future, of course.
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*************************
From: sdr_i@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 08 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <857uuu$sn1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <853rlu$12i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3876056C.8DEAA246@nortelnetworks.com> <
856j8a$2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <856s9l$1c4@charity.ucr.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.254
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 18:17:13 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdr_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <856s9l$1c4@charity.ucr.edu>,
baez@charity.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> In article <856j8a$2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>>The first you (and everybody else, to my knowledge) heard
>>of my conclusion (that the universe is a Big Crunch one and not
>>a Big Bang one) was last Christmas Day. Be patient, you're
>>going to be hearing about this for the rest of your life.
>
> Some of us have kill files.
Some of us also know how to resurrect ourselves
after we've been "killed" in yerterday's filed-away files.
Good luck!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 09 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <859092$ita$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84rgti$43q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <856j8a$2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<856s9l$1c4@charity.ucr.edu> <857uuu$sn1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8580g2$mqs$1@crib.corepower.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.242
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 09 03:45:40 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <8580g2$mqs$1@crib.corepower.com>,
nurban@vt.edu wrote:
> In article <857uuu$sn1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, sdr_i@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Some of us also know how to resurrect ourselves
>> after we've been "killed" in yerterday's filed-away files.
>
> How juvenile. In any case, such tactics take no more than one
> modification to deal with.
How childish. In any case, such modifications take no more than one
tactic to deal with. (Now... sentence construction!)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85002j$6o7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <84qrbd$k1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8EB0E50F5doldridgoceancoastal@209.167.141.21> <84td1b$efr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38728CA5.C90319F5@cam.org> <947053875.791085@news.hartingdale.com.au>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.164
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 05 17:47:03 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <947053875.791085@news.hartingdale.com.au>,
"Skuta" <dzerv@hartingdale.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> To get more answers on what time really is, we would have
to
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> happened before the big bang and what caused the big bang.
>>
>>
>>Right before the big bang there was a very loud OOPS!
>>
>>
>>George
>
> the big bang theory itself proves that its imoral. I refuse to beleive
> it
> ever hapened. and i am
> not taking this from a religions point of view, religion is
> rediculous.
>
> how can something come from nothing? and if there was a big bang
then
> in
> what space was the
> big bang blaster in?
>
> I beleive that Reality is a sideffect for defining different velocity
> and
> motion. Time is the tool it uses
> and we are dilated through it
>
> skuta
> Im 16 and im dumb, so please dont reply saying "your stupid"
Dear Skuta, I would never dare to question
anyone's intelligence. However, your misuse of contractions
may confuse your readers (it's "don't" and "you're").
Moreover, your intuitive reasoning that a magic jelly bean
could not have "exploded" and formed our universe shows
your mind is working just fine enough for you to get through
the text at: http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
through which you will get closer to what is really happening
with our universe than you would if you became valedictorian
at Princeton (which is very near where I live).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85cof2$3pl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <84qrbd$k1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8EB0E50F5doldridgoceancoastal@209.167.141.21> <84td1b$efr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38728CA5.C90319F5@cam.org> <947053875.791085@news.hartingdale.com.au>
<
85002j$6o7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38796BC2.E4B2E034@bellsouth.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x29.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.146
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 13:56:58 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38796BC2.E4B2E034@bellsouth.net>,
Dale Firmin <daf02@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Dear Skuta, I would never dare to question
>> anyone's intelligence. However, your misuse of contractions
>> may confuse your readers (it's "don't" and "you're").
>
> So you are politely flaming him instead by pointing out his grammar
> errors.
Dear Sir, please stop reading my posts with your sinister mind.
>> Moreover, your intuitive reasoning that a magic jelly bean
>> could not have "exploded" and formed our universe shows
>> your mind is working just fine enough for you to get through
>> the text at: http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>> through which you will get closer to what is really happening
>> with our universe than you would if you became valedictorian
>> at Princeton (which is very near where I live).
>
> I don't know if you are claiming valedictorian status from Princeton
> or you
> are claiming osmotic knowledge absorption from a distance because
you
> live
> so near there.
Substitute Oxford if that will cure your spasms. Please.
> If your "theory" has merit then it can stand up to
> criticism.
I posted it to see if it could be debunked.
Hasn't been so far. Believe me: If you can do it
you'd be doing me a great favor--Who wants to
be the advocate of a false theory?!?!?!
> I have seen your site and it is the exact same as your post
over
> and over flooding multiple newsgroups. Again, I ask, beg, implore
you
> for
> the mathematical or experimental proof and, if it is so sound, to
take
> it to
> Princeton for evaluation and criticism and to publish it in a
> reputable
> physics journal and claim your Nobel Prize.
Is the Nobel a right? I could've sworn it was like... an Oscar.
My "conclusion" is as if you had claimed "the sky is blue" or that
"it gets dark after the sun falls." Anyone seeking mathematical
proofs of that has got to be a mathematician indeed (and anybody
seeking experimental proof of that must've been born yesterday
--err, this morning): If you had bothered to read my text with
your brain you'd seen that it explains results of observations
and does not claim unusual observation no one has seen "before."
> If it is only a "thought
> problem", then tell us that too. Insulting people is no way
to make
> people
> take you serious.
I believe that's "seriously." Sorry, it's a habit: I really
meant nothing by it. I respect folk's right to be illiterate
> Posting to USENET or WWW is not scientific publication. I can
easily
> make a
> post saying the world is flat, but that doesn't make it correct.
> Writing a
> book doesn't either.
Gee, do you have mathematical or experimental proof
that before there were scientific journals people never
took each other seriously?
> Only publications to scientific journals can be taken
> seriously.
Seriosuly: I don't want to be taken seriously (in truth, I have
a rather playful personality). My duty is to point out
there's doggy-duty on your... shoe. Even if you're the world's
most unsavory character, I just can't let you walk around
like that. It's a character flaw (I don't get paid for this).
> And that is only because it is open to review and criticism
by
> respectable scientists and can stand up to it.
One of these days I am going to submit to them
this marvelous equation I've been nurturing for years
now: 1+1=2
You know: See if it can stand up to peer review. (Just
make sure Bertrand Russell isn't among the peers, otherwise
we might need to chop all the redwoods for paper.)
Hope this helps, though I have me doubts,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
Helped me. (Oh, not doubts ABOUT YOU. No!))
>
> Dale
>
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 06 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8510gd$vig$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.165
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 03:00:36 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
>Evidence suggesting you might be (partially at least) wrong?
James, if I am wrong, I am wrong
and the matter ends there. But if I am right
the matter will not rest until I am proved right.
I can wait. The truth is not a democratic belief
but an acknowledgement of the facts as they are.
> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:17:46 PST
> To: sdrodrian@aol.com
>
> How do you incorporate the following?
>
> 1. The speed of light barrier has been broken.
Has not happened. (There are "suggestions" there might be
celestial manifestations of it. But let's wait until we get definite
proof one way or the other.)
> I think the process was
> referred to as quantum burrowing.
Sorry: Magic don't count. Let's wait until somebody
gets in a taxi and the cop writes down how fast he was
exceeding the posted speed.
> What they did was to send an
> electromagnetic signal through a certain kind of dense matter.
It got
> to
> the other side faster than if it had been sent through the air.
> (Sorry, no
> ref's for this one.)
Wait for the trail, son. That taxi driver might yet prove
the cop's radar gun was used once too many times to
scratch something...
> 2. Observations that the expansion of the universe is speeding
up.
> One
> theory which explains this is the Mills Theory
> (www.blacklightpower.com) and
> he claims there was no big bang. Instead, as matter turns into
energy
> (ie
> the sun burning) the universe is heating up and hence expanding.
Yes, I read that. Unfortunately it's like trying to explain away
the "missing matter" in the universe by counting (including) all
the heavy ideas of all the sentient beings living in the universe:
It certainly sounds plausible, but let's wait until somebody can
sew it all up without it flaying at the edges so much. [But... don't
hold your breath, because there is a more straightforward
answer: The universe is NOT expanding but imploding (which
very simply and straightforwardly explains why the so-called
"expansion" of the universe seems to be accelerating). See:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=568686838&fmt=text
> This would
> explain observations of stars that appear to be older than the
> universe
> itself.
Simpler explanation: Universe is older than the stars in it after all
but the age of the "oldest star" has not gotten around yet to the folks
who officially peg its age in the Imperial Archives.
> He also has an explanation for the supposed "dark matter" of the
> universe.
Everybody does. It's the one hypothesis that requires the theorist
to posit only... "anything under the Sun."
> He claims that it's hydrogen with a lower electron orbit than the
> ground state. (Thought to be impossible.)
It's foolhardy to say that anything is impossible (personally, I know
that as soon as I've said "such a thing" is impossible
straightaway somebody walks in the door smoking it.)
> He calls these atoms hydrinos.
His prerogative as their discoverer.
> He also claims to have made some of this stuff.
It's not only possible but even probable.
> It's currently being
> studied by at least twenty labs around the world, so far without
> explanation. Village Voice article on Mills:
> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9951/baard.shtml
>
> Sincerely,
>
> James.
It is indeed all very interesting. However, as I have said many times,
many ways: If you find an elephant in your house, chances are
it walked in there... and no matter WHO tells you it poured in
through the water pipes.
Merry Christmas, to you!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 08 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <856ebn$sro$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8510gd$vig$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8533iv$q9e$1@news.fsu.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.36
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 04:27:45 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.phylosophy.alt.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <8533iv$q9e$1@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
> ... note appropriate followups have been set ...
>
> someone posted (or mailed, it is unclear which) from deja.com that:
> }
> } How do you incorporate the following?
> }
> } 1. The speed of light barrier has been broken.
> ...
> } I think the process was referred to as quantum burrowing.
>
> In article <8510gd$vig$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>
>>Sorry: Magic don't count.
>
> The heck with magic, quantum tunneling as demonstrated experimentally
> (and quantum teleportation, etc) does not contradict SR.
"Teleportation?" But, seriously...
don't take all this too seriously: The notion that
the speed of light cannot be exceeded is strictly
Einsteinian. I have so often repeated that in my
model of an imploding universe the "speed of light"
is only an intermediate "speed" between that of
ordinary matter and absolute rest... that
I was just trying to make light of it all here.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>
> --
> James A. Carr
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 08 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <856kiv$13b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8510ig$vis$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.187
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 08 06:13:59 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in <8510ig$vis$1@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=568686838&fmt=text
>I took a look at the model you describe here
The full model (did you understand it? can you
explain it back to me?)???????
> and sort of ran it up to see what it predicts in the way of a sky.
> What we should see, if this model is correct is a polarized red shift
> in the direction of the "center" and opposite it (somewhat
higher
> in the direction of it than away). It is the rest of the sky
that
> gets weird,
> though. There SHOULD, if you model is correct,
My full model (did you understand it? can you
explain it back to me?)???????
> be a band of blue-shifted material marking a plane slightly forward
> of our own centerward motion, fading to no-shift, then red shift
at
> the "poles" of the penomenon.
My full model (did you understand it? can you
explain it back to me?)???????
What you describe sounds like something predicted from
the model of a collapsing star as seen from the atoms!?!?!?!?!
> I don't know which universe you are from,
I'm from the logical universe. And, frankly,
I'll be glad when I can finally get back home!
> but this does not describe the sky I am seeing at night.
In my universe the sky is black and full of stars at night:
You'd love it! Anybody would. Your universe is weird, man!
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> --
> Dave Oldridge
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85d6du$f5v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8510ig$vis$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38796E9D.68C160AA@bellsouth.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.71
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 17:55:19 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,uk.sci.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38796E9D.68C160AA@bellsouth.net>,
Dale Firmin <daf02@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> I think the process was
>>> referred to as quantum burrowing.
>>
>> Sorry: Magic don't count. Let's wait until somebody
>> gets in a taxi and the cop writes down how fast he was
>> exceeding the posted speed.
>
> I don't agree with the rest of his stuff but quantum "tunneling"
is
> real and
> observed. Give credit where credit is due. Examples of
this include
> the
> escape of alpha particles from atomic nuclei in radioactive decay,
the
> "umbrella inversion" of pyramidal molecules like NH3 (which I had
to
> calculate for a homework assignment when I took Molecular Orbital
> Theory as
> a graduate student) and the tunnel diode (in which the barrier is
the
> interface between the two semiconductors) without which we would
not
> have
> this computer to be having this discussion. Tunneling also
affects
> the
> rates of some chemical reactions.
>
> Dale
Dear Dale, my apologies:
I didn't mean anything by it, believe me!
The point was that you seemed to propose
that evidence of speeds greater than c
somehow invalidated my imploding universe
theory: This is a complete misapprehension!
It would invalidate much of SR/GR only.
REPEAT AGAIN: In my model the so-called
"speed of light" is only an intermediate
"speed" between that one at which "we"
(all ordinary matter" are "moving" towards
"shrinking" and absolute rest (which is
the "unmoving" space left behind when "we"
move from it...
Hope this helps,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
***************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85d8d2$gp7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8510ig$vis$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<856kg6$rm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.71
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 18:29:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: talk.atheism,sci.astro.amateur,umich.physics.hep-ph,alt.fan.rawilson
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In message
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=5&mhitnum=157&CON
TEXT=947520734.592314408
Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=568686838&fmt=text
>>
>>>I took a look at the model you describe here
>>
>>The full model (did you understand it? can you
>>explain it back to me?)???????
>You are telling me the universe is contracting, not expanding.
Imploding not exploding, but, yep, that's about it.
> And that everything in it is accellerating toward some center.
Only gravitons ("gravity") is doing that: This is because
all "forms" of matter are "forms" of matter and NOT
fundamental. "Forms & shapes" are "shrinking." Gravity
is lessening (gravitons are becoming fewer), the universe
is growing colder, we are all growing older (some of us
are growing wiser)....
>To me, this implies that our sky should be polarized,
To you it would, I doubt it not.
>with fully one half of it occupied by redshifted galaxies,
>while the other half shows a distinct pattern of red and
>blue shifts. This is not happening. Can you state why?
That is not happening. Here's why (and excuse me
if I quote one of my previous replies to some
previously equally unwilling to understand fellow):
BEGIN QUOTE:
... Let me explain it
so even you might understand.... Ah... Well... err... Do you
have a two-year-old in your house (and absent that, could you
peek out your front door and see if there's a two-year-old
passing by)? ... Now, please bring him/her to the computer:
I will explain it to him/her and then he/she can explain it
to you at your leisure...
Now, darling, we're going to explain to Daddy (?)
the difference between things moving towards/away from
each other AND things shrinking:
Tell Daddy to imagine a planet which consists of nothing but
balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two "huge beings"
(a triangle and a square): The balloons are the gravitons and
the two "shapes" will represent all "forms" of matter in this, our
pretty little 2D analogy.
Now: Both those "beings" are pretty much the same "body" size
and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of their "planet"). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons
start bursting throughout the "planet" at an even ratio. (Our two
beings do not know this, remember. That's right, just like Daddy.)
Notice: Only the balloons will move toward each other (as space
becomes available where balloons burst).
Only the "shapes" will shrink (although they will never understand
they're shrinking).
Yes, darling: to us it will seem as if these two beings are shrinking,
but the two beings themselves will look at each other and still see
that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect" triangle
and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length).
An agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left for their "planet" to maintain their "existence,"
no matter how "small" they become in our God-like eyes.
And the same is true with all "us" "shapes & forms" of ordinary
matter
in our universe (only with slightly much more complexity, of course).
Like the balloons, the gravitons do not shrink (all they do is move
toward each other). Like the balloons, gravitons do not engage in
nuclear processes (they merely cease to be gravitons, become
oppositons, cancel out each other, "pop off," or, otherwise... as
our imploding universe lives out its existence gravity becomes
lessened throughout the entirety of our universe ).
Like the triangle/square "shapes," our universe's "forms of matter"
do not really ever move towards each other (all they do is "shrink"
in an "almost" perfect agreement with the rest of the "also shrinking"
universe. [About the only hint that ever filters down to us that all
this "shrinking" is taking place is when we look out into our 3D
cosmos and notice that those "shapes & forms" of matter furthest
away from "us" appear to be moving away from us "faster" than
those "shapes & forms" of matter closest to us. Do you know why?
Tell Daddy to ask the Big Bang people: They have it all written out
and it works the same way for a Big Crunch, pretty much.] But:
1) Yes, the universe has "a" center: It's just that it's "a" center
only the gravitons recognize.
2) Ordinary matter (all us "forms and shapes" built (painted/drawn)
upon the gravitons) can only move towards "shrinking"
(with
that singular exception which results in the optical illusion
of an expanding universe when we look out into the cosmos).
Tell Daddy to please remember that the "stars" ar really
moving
away from each other, it's just our interpretation's upside-down.
3) Because the gravitons of which all the "shapes & forms" of matter
are composed do not engage in nuclear processes but "become
oppositons" instead, "we" shall continue "shrinking" until
"we"
exhaust those little darlings the gravitons "which hold
our shapes."
But tell Daddy not to worry... our universe has
enough gravitons
still left in it to last billions and billion of years more, thank
you.
And now... did you understand all this, darling? Good! Now go on
and explain it to Daddy. Nite, nite, darling! Be patient. Kiss, kiss!...
> Or is the above nonsense all your whole answer to the problem?
Oh no, I have a lot more nonsense to answer the problem.
> Basically, I think you have tunnel vision.
That's what my optometrist told me. And so I told him:
"Let's see your bill." [insert skit here]
> And no, I don't understand your model.
The first step towards understanding something
is admitting one does not understand it: Congratulations!
>It isn't logical in view of the data.
Excuse me while I regain my seat (I fell off it laughing).
> I doubt if YOU understand it either.
There is indeed a LOT I do not understand; Buttons
and bows, to name just two....
>Some models are just not understandable.
Some models are intended only for flying outdoors.
>They also don't model anything real.
Ah, I see you are familiar with the magic of mathematics!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
REMEMBER: If you want to see it... you will~!
> Dave Oldridge
ALSO (just in case--to avoid even more posts):
> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.
Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.
>
> Is that it?
It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(simply = "gravity is more powerful where more matter" )
(And by the way, it's not "would seem" but "are" receding.)
The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the
center of the universe" ... this is not what's happening!
1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes
& forms."
3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
will not accumulate at the center of the universe.
(How
could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
because they merely represent the force of gravity,
and
are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!
--PLEASE NOTE THIS for future reference.--
4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely
represent
attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will
unravel
and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will
take over
and, "Yara, yara, yara..." eventually recreate the
gravitons
and then we will have another universe. (But don't
guess:
read my text--And, by the way, if you can express
all this
better than I have there, then I'll consider myself
your
student and take up working with needles and cloth.)
You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.
> Assumption 1 - We are actually shrinking (at the speed of light?)
Read my Text: That would be wrong. Understand the
following four fundamental "speeds" ...
1) absolute rest (or, x-space) --please, no quibbling--
2) the photon's speed with respect to "absolute rest"
3) "our" (the) speed (of ordinary matter wrt absolute rest)
4) the photon's speed with respect to "us"
"Absolute rest" is the place from which we are moving.
I have no idea what "our" speed is with respect to absolute rest
(but it is a lot "faster" than the photon's speed with respect to it).
I have no idea how fast the photon's speed is with respect to
absolute rest, but it is a lot slower than "ours."
I know the photon is "moving" at 186,282 miles per second
SLOWER than "we" with respect to absolute rest; but I know not
neither how fast the photon is moving with respect to absolute rest
nor how fast "we" are moving wrt absolute rest. [Obviously,
knowing one is to know the other.] But it is therefore possible
to move at a speed slower than the photon's. It is also possible
to travel faster than the photon: "We" do it all the time. What
I cannot imagine is that it's possible to travel faster than "we"
(ordinary matter) are already "traveling." [Although, think: Some
portions of our universe MUST be "traveling" faster than other
portions. And, as the universe ages, the "speed" at which ordinary
matter travels will slow--because gravity is becoming less powerful:
The "expansion" of the universe will slow down, but not for the
reasons proposed by the Big Bang theorists. It will slow down
because we will eventually run out of gravitons = gravity.]
> Assumption 2 - Light is at or near absolute rest and is not
> shrinking.
"Light" is not a force but a particle just as all other particles of
ordinary matter are particles: Every particle of matter (made of
gravitons) is a "shrinking form" (construct)... including the photon.
ET AL
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 11 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85g47n$ko1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84mqr5$63m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <84qrbd$k1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8EB0E50F5doldridgoceancoastal@209.167.141.21> <84td1b$efr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38728CA5.C90319F5@cam.org> <947053875.791085@news.hartingdale.com.au>
<85002j$6o7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38796BC2.E4B2E034@bellsouth.net>
<85cof2$3pl$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387ADFDB.5DA82FFF@bellsouth.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.229
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 11 20:36:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <387ADFDB.5DA82FFF@bellsouth.net>,
Dale Firmin <daf02@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Substitute Oxford if that will cure your spasms. Please.
>
> So now you claim a degree from Oxford? Please make up your
mind.
Sorry: My mind make-up was left in a park bench
overnight & got all wet: I need to purchase another kit.
>>> If your "theory" has merit then it can stand up to
>>> criticism.
>>
>> I posted it to see if it could be debunked.
>> Hasn't been so far. Believe me: If you can do it
>> you'd be doing me a great favor--Who wants to
>> be the advocate of a false theory?!?!?!
>
> Excuse me but you proved nothing.
You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make him
sip your martinis.
> You only occupied bandwidth.
Dick Clark forgives me.
> I'm
> challenging you to prove your theory.
You got some money between your teeth
or is this just and idle challenge, like: "I counter-
challenge you to jump over a cliff!"
> In case you don't realize, I am
> trying to have an open mind in the presence of you insults.
Shut it: You're letting the flies in.
> GR, SR and QM
> has survived every single thought problem and experimental test ever
> given
> to them.
Where have you been the past 80 years? Say, you're
not one of those guys just came back from being
abducted by aliens for the past 80 years... although
you think it's only been 15 minutes--?
> I am repeating that again.
I hear you: Let's see how many times you can do this.
> They have been proven mathematically
> and empirically.
I recently proved mathematically Einstein's a monkey:
"Einstein=simian, simian=monkey, Einstein=monkey."
(I suppose by "empirically" you mean that you have
a film documentary of the pre-Big Bang singularity
exploding. What's your theatre charging for admission?)
> You just toss them in the garbage and say only you are
> correct yet you still have not contrasted yourself to them, gave
any
> mathematical proof or experimental proof whatsoever. If it
is so
> great,
> publish it. You have not done this either. And you theory
is not
> standing
> up to criticism and neither are you.
What criticism? Yours?!?! Is there one single challenge to
my proposal of the universe as imploding rather than exploding
from you or from anybody else which I have not answered
many, many, many times....? And which I shall answer many
many times more---!
> You can only counter with flames and
> insults to anyone who questions you.
I've never insulted anyone, not even you: I have
exhibited the greatest patience with you. More patience
than one may show an infant. But you are repeating
yourself meaninglessly... and I really ought to get
something from our continuing relationship, even if
it's just a bit of harmless fun. But, one thing's true:
You moon me... and your ass is mine. [It's only fair!]
> You claim that there is experimental proof to show that GR, SR and
> especially QM are wrong.
How did QM get into this private brawl? And, am I the
ONLY human being on this planet who claims SR/GR is
"imperfect" ... ? Could've fooled me! [Now, find the persons
who have specific objections to it being an imploding universe.]
> I challenged you to reference this for me to look
> up myself and you totally ignored it.
Read AND read. You're eventually bound to find
what you're looking to read. Never give up reading!
>>> I have seen your site and it is the exact same as your post
over
>>> and over flooding multiple newsgroups. Again, I ask, beg,
implore
>>> you
>>> for
>>> the mathematical or experimental proof and, if it is so sound,
to
>>> take
>>> it to
>>> Princeton for evaluation and criticism and to publish it in a
>>> reputable
>>> physics journal and claim your Nobel Prize.
>>
>> Is the Nobel a right? I could've sworn it was like... an Oscar.
>> My "conclusion" is as if you had claimed "the sky is blue" or that
>> "it gets dark after the sun falls."
>
> No it isn't.
Yes it is! (Your turn.)
> In fact it is so incredibly far from it as to be absurd.
An absurd mind will never fail to see absurdity wherever it looks.
> Don't want the Nobel Prize? It's free money. Have you
presented a
> seminar
> to Princeton (so close to your house) or Oxford?
Sorry. I'm retired. I do this for fun, not love or money.
>> Anyone seeking mathematical
>> proofs of that has got to be a mathematician indeed (and anybody
>> seeking experimental proof of that must've been born yesterday
>> --err, this morning):
>
> Trust me. I can handle your math.
All right! Here goes: 1+1=2, 1+2=3...
(eventually you're bound to catch on).
> Your refusal to show me only proves that
> you cannot show me anything.
As I must be God, then? I pity your blindness! There's
bluebirds singing to your right--Canst thou see that?
> I've solved Schrodenger equations. Have you?
Bully for you! I once bathed a baby (and, by the by,
I've solved the riddle of existence). Have you?
> You don't have experimental proof ?
That the shy is blue? Sure: Look up! What? You STILL
don't see it? Do you have your eyes shut or opened?
> Then in the absence of mathematical
> proof or experimental proof, your "theory" is totally useless and
not
> worth
> the bandwidth.
deja vu (You definitely have a deja vu brain.
I'd see a doctor if I were you. No, really.)
> You claim GR, SR and QM are all wrong and that you are
> correct.
deja vu again?!?! Say, who got QM into this...?
> They have held up to "all" experiments. Show me your experimental
> proof proving them wrong. Anyone who claims that someone seeking
> experimental proof is "born yesterday" is certainly no scientist.
>
>> If you had bothered to read my text with
>> your brain you'd seen that it explains results of observations
>> and does not claim unusual observation no one has seen "before."
>
> Again, insults is your only defense and only supports the image of
> your
> weakness.
I also have photographs that show me leaning against the wall
for support.
> Your post proves nothing.
Yours do. [hint: You are too "obvious." You
need lessons in dissembling and hypocrisy.]
> Have you noticed that absolutely no
> one is defending you?
You are, for one: Every time you bury your head in the sand
when my explanation of why it is so self-evident that it's not
a Big Bang but an imploding universe parades in front of your
face... you are de facto admitting it is truly self-evident and that
you have no evidence to counter it. Same with everybody else
along the road my parade is taking. READ THE TEXT. (And
understand it.. explain it back to me and then we can
discuss it seriously instead of in this flippant manner: And
I mean discuss the theory, not which one of us's nuttier.)
>>> If it is only a "thought
>>> problem", then tell us that too. Insulting people is no
way to
>>> make
>>> people
>>> take you serious.
>>
>> I believe that's "seriously." Sorry, it's a habit: I really
>> meant nothing by it. I respect folk's right to be illiterate
>
> Even your "apology" is an insult (calling everyone illiterate).
I only call the illiterate... no, make that, I only call the dumb
dumb whenever it's an act of kindness and not meanness.
Lord, you are so dumb!
> What is
> your education level?
I knows what I knows. Apparently yours is
only up to, "I knows not what I knows, but I think
I should knows more."
> You at first claim "osmotic knowledge absorption"
> from Princeton
Did I do that or were you practicing your ventriloquism on me?
> to be superior to a valedictorian there, then change that and
> claim some type of "osmotic knowledge absorption" from Oxford in
this
> post.
You're a damn good ventriloquist, I must say!
> Please enlighten us
Where did I leave my flashlight?....
> why you are so much more incredibly intelligent then the
> greatest minds of the world and all the Nobel laureates.
Lord, what misapprehension! No, dear one, it is NEVER
a matter of intelligence... it is always a matter of knowledge:
Copernicus wasn't more intelligent that "the greatest minds
of the world" (and all its laureates) when he rid them of the
superstition that the earth was at the center of the universe.
He simply put two and two together at the precise moment
in human history when that information became available
to him. Anybody with the information could have done it:
It was the equivalent of saying, "The sky is blue!"
If Einstein would have KNOWN that the universe is an implosion
instead of an explosion he would have created Absolute
Relativity on the spot: But he never knew it; so the reason
why the speed of light is constant eluded him; and the reason
why the "expansion" of the universe is accelerating would have
eluded him too... just as it remains a puzzle to everyone today
who still believes in the Big Bang Religion. Read my text:
Learn The New Knowledge! Be The First In Your Neighborhood
To Become A Big-Cruncher! Amaze Your Friends! Be The Center
of attention at the Party--Heck, you can even be The Center of
The Universe! And it's all FREE of Charge! (Postage & handling
extra. Taxes where they apply.)
Once you do... you too will look back and say to yourself:
"Geepers! How could I possibly have failed to see that!?!?!"
Just as everybody did ... after Copernicus.
> I don't believe
> that formal education is required for a profound discovery but I'm
> just
> curious about your claims of superior intellect that you keep
> implying.
Although I have always tested very high in IQ tests....
I am an ordinary fellow, just an ordinary fellow, I assure you:
Sometimes I leave my brain behind when I step into the other
room (and then I have to go back to fetch it)... It's not brains
but knowledge: Einstein could not have imagined bowties if
he'd lived in the stone age! (Not even Newton, and he was
a more intelligent AND elegant fellow than Einstein.)
>> Gee, do you have mathematical or experimental proof
>> that before there were scientific journals people never
>> took each other seriously?
>
> We now have scientific journals for hundreds of years. It is
full of
> mathematical proofs and experimental proofs of GR, SR and QM and
you
> claim
> they are all wrong.
deja vu: Read the text: I even state categorically that SR/GR
aren't so much "wrong" as misguided! But look at history, by
Copernicus's age the world had hundreds of years of
scientific publications proving the universe orbited the earth
--there wasn't one single shred of evidence that falling bodies
fell anywhere but down... down to the earth here---AND
the world also had thousands of equations which also proved this
and could be used every day to predict the motion of heavenly
bodies ABOUT the earth! Do not guess--Read the text!!!!! (And
by the way: You have helped me, although you do not know:
Because of you and others like yourself.... I will soon try to
add
a few additional clarifications at my site during the next week or
so
(since it appears that I may not have expressed myself as clearly
as I had thought--and I am a very clear thinker, by the way).
> Now let me see your mathematical and / or experimental
> proofs.
Sure: Open your eyes, look at the sky. Now, quick!
Tell me what you see--No, don't tell me what your old books
say you should see.. tell me what YOU see! You do have
a brain (this, I admit, is an assumption... and likely to make
an ass of me, but, I can only hope). [Is this an insult, or
simply the expression of what I see when I look at you?]
> If you were a real scientist, you would be publishing.
This idea that I have to be somebody in particular
before you take seriously what I may tell you is called
The Argument From Authority, ole boy: It's why people
ask their doctors whom they should vote for next election:
It's flawed. It only produces confusions and mortifications.
Take it from Voltaire, if you cannot take it from me:
"Every human being, even the least of them, knows
something I do not... and in that he is my Master."
> And, before
> you ask, yes I am published several times. Now the challenge
is for
> you to
> submit mathematical and / or experimental proofs.
There is no challenge on my head, ole boy: The burden of proof
is always on the person who proposes something: That's
Einstein. The only thing I have done is point out that SR/GR
do not answer why c is constant (by pointing out why it's so).
The only thing I have done is to debunk the Big Bang
superstition by giving the reason why the observed "expansion"
of the universe is accelerating. There have been suggestions
of phenomena exceeding the "speed of light" --this is TOTALLY
impossible in Einstein's theories-- I am gracious, I say: Let's
wait and see if those phenomena are real or not. But if they are
then Einstein goes down the tubes (with you or without you)...
while it makes no difference whatever in my AR model.
>>
>>> Only publications to scientific journals can be taken
>>> seriously.
>>
>> Seriously: I don't want to be taken seriously (in truth, I have
>> a rather playful personality). My duty is to point out
>> there's doggy-duty on your... shoe. Even if you're the world's
>> most unsavory character, I just can't let you walk around
>> like that. It's a character flaw (I don't get paid for this).
>
> Again with the insults.
Charming, am I not! And unfaltering too...
> When you can't defend yourself intelligently, so
> you result to insults.
I believe you might have been seeking a "resort." But,
that's okay--I know what you mean even when you cannot
express it. You, on the other have, can't seem to grasp what
I express in almost child-like ways over & over again. But,
again, that's all right. I love children. And I have all the
patience in the world to deal with children...
Want to help yourself? Begin by understanding WHY & HOW
the imploding universe works (it's all at my site), why/how it
works better than an exploding one. It's really fun and incredibly
simple to look at the world the way it really is AND to see it
the way it really is (without having to make up all sorts of
crazy visions & images to warp the seeing).
> Don't worry though, no one is taking your
> seriously.
Well, as long as I'm having fun, it's worth it. (It's not
as if the nature of the universe is going to change tomorrow:
It'll be there for you to see it the way it is... when you
finally decide to get around to it..)
> You have no duty to propose such exaggerated claims and
> incredibly far fetched, unrealistic suggestions.
That the universe does not orbit the earth after all, or
that the universe is not an explosion but an implosion
after all? If you only have Aristotle's idea of gravity
it will never enter your mind that anything can fall
in any direction except down... to the earth here. And if
you only have the view that the universe is exploding
it will never enter your mind why such an explosion
should be accelerating. "It's a puzzlement!" Says the King.
> I cannot call it a theory
> because you, and your proposal do not have merit and cannot stand
up
> to
> criticism.
I can sit down to criticism: Does that ease your mind?
>>> And that is only because it is open to review and criticism
by
>>> respectable scientists and can stand up to it.
>>
>> One of these days I am going to submit to them
>> this marvelous equation I've been nurturing for years
>> now: 1+1=2
>
> Ah, make light of the situation.
"Many a truth is said in jest." --Shakespeare
> So you are telling me that your proposal
> cannot stand up to criticism and review by respectable scientist.
> Then it
> is not worth the bandwidth.
deja vu (again from U): Give me one objection at a time
and I will deal with it--Or, just one will do, really.
>> You know: See if it can stand up to peer review.
>
> You are NOT standing up to peer review. Can't you see this?
Not one
> single
> person in this multiposted newsgroup is taking you serious or agreeing
> with
> you and all that you can do is insult the entire public.
Well, I gave the world my conclusions only this past Christmas Day.
My advice to any serious scientist who may wish to express any
support for them remains: Hold off a while. This is not the time
to be "taking sides" but to be trying to come up with facts which
might support my findings AND facts which may debunk them. Once
the matter rests most heavily with my conclusions... everyone can
be told it's the truth afte all & we'll all live happily ever after.
I myself have no vested interest either way: If I am wrong I would
like
to be proven wrong so I can go fly a kite. And if I am right... somebody
else will prove it right and... all the mathematicians in the world
will
feed you as many equations as you can swallow pro Big Crunch.
>> Hope this helps, though I have me doubts,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>
>> Helped me. (Oh, not doubts ABOUT YOU. No!))
>
> More insults. If you and your proposal can't handle criticism,
then
> stop
> posting.
deja vu (Sorry: You cannot censor me.
But you can debunk
me: If I am wrong
it shouldn't be all
that difficult.)
I will answer all questions (which I can answer).
Your analyst will answer the rest of them.
> You don't seem to get it. No one, absolutely no one will ever
> possibly take
> you serious until you show us some kind of mathematical or
> experimental
> proof supporting you or, at the very least, disproving GR, SR and
QM
> which
> you are claiming are all wrong and you are correct.
deja vu
The established fact that the "speed" of light is constant
is that proof--DO NOT GUESS... READ THE TEXT.
The evidence that the "expansion" of the universe is
accelerating is that proof--But I dare predict: You will
fail to see this. I challenge you to prove me wrong!
> Since you don't mind being so incredibly belligerent, then I won't
> mind
> using a "not so etiquette" phrase as PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
>
> Dale
deja vu to U 2,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 16 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85s86i$8p0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>
<854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ylYd4.2150$UL1.43515@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85cpmk$4nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387AE4BF.72FEFC53@bellsouth.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.48
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 16 10:57:24 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <387AE4BF.72FEFC53@bellsouth.net>,
Dale Firmin <daf02@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> "It isn't." In any case, if you had bothered to actually
>> read the text you wouldn't have to make an "ass" of
>> yourself by ass-u-ming some preposterous notion which
>> only lives in your own head: Don't guess. Read the text.
>> [In the only usage I put the word to here, your statement
snipped obviously because it read: "gravitons are not gravity"
>> above translates: "Gravity is not gravity." Which see.]
>
> That's the problem. EVERYONE has read your post.
And now... shouldn't you, Dale? Be a good boy & do so
(and this time, please use your actualy brain, not just your eyes).
> It's just that no one
> agrees with you and you have no proof.
If you would read the text you would understand
at least two fun-damental facts:
1) It is ALL proofs (with the exception of my
personal speculations as to where and how gravity
arose--WHICH I derive from Newton's 1st Law of Motion
(if you want proof for that, take it up with Newton).
2) It is ALL about (merely) pointing out the undisputed
fact that a Big Bang universe makes no sense and
answers no questions--It is I who ask for proofs that
it do!!!! Do not guess--Read the text, Dale, read my
objections to an exploding universe view and then
provide the proofs that the Big Bang is correct!!!!!!
> Your claim is no more valid than
> anyone else's, actually less so because REFUSE to show proof.
Do not guess--Read the text!
> No one is
> making an ass out of themselves.
No matter how many times I've led you to water
you still refuse to drink--May I offer you a sugar cube?
> Again you insult the community. You,
> however, are making an ass of yourself
I am a diabetic, I can afford to insult the community
as I have to refuse all sugar cubes!
>> In the text you will see that I use the word "gravitons"
>> to help in the understanding of gravity (and not to point
>> to anything remotely resembling a particle):
>>
>> BEGIN QUOTE:
>>
>>> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing
>>> and that
>>> the
>>> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
>>> further
>>> away.
>>
>> Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
>> proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
>> universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
>
> No it doesn't. Your implosion implies observations that simply
are
> not
> observed.
>
>> It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
>> particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
>> what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
>> (simply = "gravity is more powerful where more matter" )
>
> Didn't you just say that you only used the term "graviton" to help
in
> the
> understanding of gravity and not to point to anything remotely
> resembling a
> particle? See, that's exactly what you wrote above. Now
you claim
> that
> only the gravitons are fundamental particles. You just contradicted
> yourself, and in the same post only paragraphs apart, no less.
And
> gravitons, if they exists, are certainly not the only fundamental
> particle.
> Not by a long shot.
>
> <snip the rest because all it is is just your same post that we
have
> all
> seen over and over and over...>
Getting snippy in your old age, Dale? The above
only provides more proof that no matter how many times
someone holds something in front of your face
you will always close your eyes & mind to it
if it doesn't fit into your provincial scripture.
>>> Yes we do. [know what gravity is] It's spacetime curvature.
Why don't you just say it's a stretched sheet of rubber
potmarked with lighter & heavier balls throughout? Because
"spacetime curvature" sounds more sexy? I get it. Sure.
Well, here's news for you, ole boy: Sexy or not, your
mapping says absolutely nothing about the nature of gravity
only that "it exists, and acts as it does." But you will
never grasp even this simple little bit of information. Nevah!
>> Personally I think "abracadabra" is a much better conjuring word
>> than "spacetime curvature."
>
> Einstein gave a mathematical proof.
Funny you should mention that, because there is in it an analogy with
the present situation here, being no different now than it was with
all those Einstein-like astronomers/mathematicians who, before
Copernicus, were absolutely certain that the Sun and all the other
planets orbited the earth:
Ptolemy's Einstein-like Rube Goldberg construct involving
uniformly revolving, off-center circles (called eccentrics); epicycles
(little circles whose centers moved uniformly on the circumference
of circles of larger radius--deferents); and equants... was a concept
[not that far removed analogously from the weird Einstein explanation
for c constancy] in which "a planet viewed from the center of its orbit
would appear to move sometimes faster, sometimes slower--as seen from
the earth, removed a distance e from center, the planet would also
appear to move nonuniformly ... and only from the equant, an imaginary
point at distance 2e from the earth, would the planet appear to move
uniformly. A planet-bearing sphere revolving around an equant point
will
wobble; situate one sphere within another, and the two will collide,
disrupting the heavenly order. In the 13th century a group of Persian
mathematicians at Maragheh discovered that, by combining two uniformly
revolving epicycles to generate an oscillating point that would account
for variations in distance, they could devise a model that produced
the
equalized motion without referring to an equant point." Therefore,
as
with SR/GR today, the conventional scientific community was satisfied
that their model, in which "the Moon and Sun encircled the motionless
Earth and that Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were situated beyond the Sun
in that order" worked rather neatly and all their equations could be
used without much bother to predict everything under the Heavens you'd
care to predict with them, thank you very much.
AND, to accept Copernicus's theory, scientists had to abandon much of
Aristotelian natural philosophy and develop a new explanation for why
heavy bodies fall to a moving Earth: Totally ridiculous thing to do!!!
And yet Copernicus felt compelled, as all "kooks" seem compelled, to
insist on a model in which the earth and all the other planets orbited
the Sun! And now you have an inkling why I am compelled to point out
that the universe is an implosion and not an explosion: One day, armed
with a greater truth, science will achieve yet greater victories.
Believe this if nothing else: It's as certain that the universe is an
imploding one as that the earth orbits the Sun. It's simply THAT
self-evident regardless what all the equations on earth today may
predict (incl. toast & coffee). [By the way, Copernicus himself
had so
little confidence in his own conclusions that he did not publish them
for 36 years. I only waited 10.]
An imploding universe answers all the questions; an exploding one
does nothing but raise puzzles and require Rube Goldberg constructs
everywhere to explain even the simplest observed phenomena. But, all
things being equal, I can wait until you decide to consider both sides
without prejudice ... because eventually, sooner or later, everyone
(or,
at least, most) will accept that the earth indeed revolves around the
Sun and not the other way around & that it's a Big Crunch &
not a BB.
> Give me yours or else otherwise prove
> him wrong.
Dale, mathematics can model ANY universe/reality quite neatly:
Make up one with Santas & elves instead of stars & planets
and put mathematicians to work on it... eventually all the equations
will balance and all the math will be correct & you'll be able
to
predict anything under the Sun you'd care to with'em--With only the
slight little problem that the Elves & Santa Universe the equations
modeled is a total fantasy, of course. But the Math will be sound!
This is what the pre-Copernicus mathematicians did, this is what
the Einsteinian mathematicians have done, and this is what
good little mathematicians are doing even now all over the world:
If in order to make their equations come out perfect they need to
toss in two or three additional dimensions, why not?! (After all,
Einstein's equations were all sexually-intercoursed... until he
threw in a fourth dimension. Why not keep up a grand tradition?)
>>> This is probably not the
>>> last word, but it's definitely something worth knowing about.
>>
>> Yes, it might not be the last word indeed.
>
> Oh, God. Please let it be over.
Sorry, Dale: The world isn't flat, nor does the Sun orbit the earth,
nor was there ever any Big Bang--You will be hearing more about
these thing in future. And if not from me, then from someone else
whom you respect so much that even if he says, "Bob's your aunt!"
you'll believe it on sheer faith alone. And... again & again &
again
until you either take the time to understand what is being said
to you, or you cut off your ears et al: It's your choice, really.
> You can convince no one because you refuse
> to show proof and only support yourself by insulting others.
Actually I'm independently wealthy. But I have
always dreamt of being the second coming of Don Rickles
now you mention it, hockey puck.
> My mind was
> open to your proofs
Do you realize you're lying, or is this something else
you're going to have to work out with your psychiatrists?
I will err on your side and say you are sincerely sick.
> but you are insulting me too and quickly slamming that
> door shut
Nay, Dale, nay! I will camp in your garden all day
and all night if I have to... until we have tea together
and embrace in eternal brotherhood, neighbor!
> because you refuse to give me proofs and you are nailing the
door
> shut with your insults.
That's just me way of knocking: I have very
very hard fists and thin fingers (so every door
I knock on I usually nail something, one way or the other).
Tell you what, in future I shall knock on your door
with me buns,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> Dale
>
>
**********
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 16 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85tkqb$61f$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>
<854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ylYd4.2150$UL1.43515@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85cpmk$4nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387AE4BF.72FEFC53@bellsouth.net>
<85s86i$8p0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <85sps0$jgl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.162
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 16 23:38:53 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <85sps0$jgl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
saulbradford@my-deja.com wrote:
> Does your collapsing universe look homogenous (at scales over 200Mpc)
> and isotropic?
>
> (sorry if you´ve already answered this in another post)
>
> Saul
It is your universe as much as anyone else's.
Mine is not a theoretical universe but THE universe
I am talking about here (our much-studied
universe)... It is what it is found to be. So
if it has been found, I believe, to be so (with
a soapy foam-like distribution of its galaxies)
then that's just the way it is. Period.
My objection has always been to theories
which do not reflect observed facts. The notion
of a Big Bang universe is strictly a theory
developed from running backwards the "film" of
"time" once it was established that the galaxies
were receding from each other in the Hubble
constant. This was a leap (guess) beyond what
we knew. And it forced Einstein's followers
to invent all sorts of Rube Goldberg constructs
to explain phenomena which, had they waited until
a clearer understanding of what the Hubble constant
meant.. would have indicated to all what the true
nature of our universe is, namely an imploding one.
(They are still doing it to this day--what are we
up to now... eleven, a thousand dimensions?)
The INSTANT one understands that this is an
imploding universe... everything becomes as
clear as a bell: Most notably WHY c is constant
and WHY the "apparent expansion" of the universe is
accelerating. And from this all else must follow
"as the day follows the night" & all other such
marvelous cliches.
But it seems as if it is, I'll admit, not as easy
as I had imagined it... for people to understand
something utterly novel--regardless of how self-evident
it may be. (How many centuries did it take for people
to finally admit that the earth "may not be" flat?)
However, I have patience: Time is ALL on my
side (because if the universe is as I propose, an
imploding one... it is inevitable that this realization
will spread as more and more people slowly realize that
there are no objections of any note against it--unlike
the Big Bang model, which is not only totally mystic
but which since its conception has done nothing BUT raise
an ever-increasing chorus of objections and regrets).
And if I am wrong, one day there shall be found
a much more simple and elegant reason why c is constant
(as well as why the universe's so-called "expansion"
is accelerating). And I say again: A "much more simple
and elegant" reason (not one more Rube Goldberg device).
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86548q$k12$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com> <850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net> <85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net> <854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<
ylYd4.2150$UL1.43515@nnrp4.clara.net> <85cpmk$4nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<387AE4BF.72FEFC53@bellsouth.net> <85s86i$8p0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882AC41.33EA5BD2@bellsouth.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.180
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 19:45:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3882AC41.33EA5BD2@bellsouth.net>,
Dale Firmin <daf02@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The notion of absolute rest implies that the speed of light is not
> constant.
You must be using the same logic which leads to neutrinos
making the best pie-filling from the fact that when ya wears
shoes a couple of sizes too small yer toes get squished.
> If absolute rest existed
It does: Before the manifestation of gravity
the universe was one at absolute rest. And after
the manifestation of gravity... the universe of ordinary
matter was one at motion away from absolute rest
(a state, by the way, which ordinary matter "remembers"
in an imploding universe, but which is impossible to
even conceive of in an exploding universe). Think!
> and light was at absolute rest,
Anything & everything at absolute rest
would have to be absolutely devoid of any
trace of gravity. (Think!... If there is anything "there,"
however slight a thing, it will NOT be at absolute rest.)
> then
> when you are also at absolute rest, you would measure the speed of
> light
> as zero.
Repeat: Nothing exists at absolute rest. It is FROM
absolute rest that gravity MOVETH the universe.
Think! (This message is not intended for Dale Perse.)
> Now travel ever so slightly away from absolute rest and you
> measure an ever so slight speed of light. Travel at 10 mph
and
> measure
> the speed of light at 10 mph, etc, etc. Since all experimental
proof
> shows that the speed of light is a constant for all reference frames
> both accelerated and inertial, then absolute rest does not exist.
The fact that the "speed of light" is a constant does not
therefore mean that its speed has always been/will always be
what it is at this moment: The value changed/will change with
the history of the universe--It's just that we can't tell WHERE
along that history we NOW are. The best we can say is that
because the so-called "speed of light" is so slow... the universe
itself must be very, very old. And this doesn't even take into
consideration the fact that the "speed of light" is not one "towards"
"motion" but one "towards" "rest" --so that it is really an intermediate
"speed" between that of ordinary matter and that of absolute rest.
Read the text--Do not guess!
> Second, absolute rest implies that time is constant, since all
> experimental proof shows that time is variant, absolute rest does
not
> exist.
To say that "time is variant" is the same as saying "motion
is variant." Every motion in existence has its own speed, and the
same with time (because "motion" = "time"). Where there is
absolute rest there is no motion (ergo = no time). True, our universe
is "one thing" at one level (and there time has meaning);
unfortunately we cannot know the age of our universe except as
a guess. On the other hand, our universe is the sum total of all
the things in it (and there time is meaningless because every
last thing in our universe keeps its own time regardless of what
time every other thing in it keeps--i.e. our universe is made up of
independent motions and each & every one of those motions
moves at its own rate). Man's notion of time is to synchronize
one motion to one or more other motions... and this only works
in his head because the universe does not recognize that any
of its motions is synchronous with any of its other motions. (Man
can perform the illusion "for a time" by constantly adding and/or
substracting leap seconds and leap days... but as soon as man
becomes extinct the notion that the individual/independent motions
of our universe can be synchronized will become extinct with him.)
Think! Or, at any rate: try to. Ha! (This "ha" intended only for Dale.)
> Bottom line. You simple are utterly and completely and irrefutably
> wrong.
Actually, you do not understand English: I may be incorrect,
but I can never be wrong (no matter how incorrect I may be).
Ergo: When you say I am wrong, you are merely name-calling.
> Dead wrong.
There you are incorrect: I am still kicking. (I post,
therefore I kick. How can I be wrong?)
> All of your name calling, insulting and other
> antisocial behavior
Let's see if your diagnosis agrees with that of my other
97 psychologists...
> only makes you much less believable.
Ha! Theis concensus was that it was
likelier to earn me a bitch-slapping.
> It simply
> doesn't work the way you describe it.
Dale, if there's ONE thing I know about you
at this juncture in our "relationship" ... it is that
there's no way in Hell you could possibly understand
my description of how I peel a banana (so any hope of
your ever understanding any description beyond that one
is, at this moment, beyond all reasonable expectations). And
I am a most reasonable creature, as is your experience.
>I understand
You misuse the language when you use that phrase.
Might I suggest: "I recken..."
> that for whatever
> reason, you cannot ever admit that you are wrong and that is fine.
Quite the contrary, Dale:
Show me where I am incorrect
and I shall be eternally grateful!
(But I do not expect you to understand
the logic of even this simple truism. And,
I'm REALLY sorry to say this, believe me.)
> Please realize that no one here agrees with you ---
I am not trying to found a new religion, Dale!
It is irrelevant whether the whole world agrees or
disagrees WITH me. I but bring you "these" facts:
It is "these" facts I brought you which you must
prove or disprove. Thus far, you have attacked me
with marvelous fury & frustration. And I have
patiently tried to explain where your refutations
of my facts fall short of being "utterly and completely
and irrefutably" correct. Read even this post again.
> everyone believes
> that you are wrong,
Everyone believed the world was flat. Did their
belief make the world flat? No. Eventually all the
believers had to contend with "the fact" the world
is not flat... regardless of who said what on this.
> therefore your time is best spent trying to
> convince
> someone else or for you to go and write a book or something.
May I get next Christmas' cards going? (I'm the sort
of fellow likes to plan ahead of time.) Pretty please!
> If you
> want to believe that we are all ignorant fools who refuse to see
what
> is
> in front of our faces (as you have claimed already), then so be it.
You trying to hide yourself in the mob, Dale? Usually
I am very specific with my name-calling. Are you sure
I didn't put the bullet through just... you? Check for blood.
> We
> wish to remain the ignorant fools that you believe we are.
The girl you've got wrapped around your chest is starting to
get angry, Dale--I think that's her Daddy coming your way.
I'd put'er down if'n I was you.
> Us
> ignorant
> fools don't believe you and never will.
"Us?" I certainly hope you don't mean "we," Dale!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Dale
>
>
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Time and Stuff
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86bcu2$7d1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <84u49t$r25$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000104220835.00963.00000652@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<850aqe$f9f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <I4Qc4.626$UL1.11775@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85365o$j0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7iad4.2866$lN.67248@nnrp3.clara.net>
<854mf5$je5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ylYd4.2150$UL1.43515@nnrp4.clara.net>
<85cpmk$4nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <387AE4BF.72FEFC53@bellsouth.net>
<85s86i$8p0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3882AC41.33EA5BD2@bellsouth.net>
<8654bm$k1k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8698r5$5hr$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au>
<869fg2$png$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: backdraft.briar.org: smap set
sender to <news@dejanews.com> using -f
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.138
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 04:50:13 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.philosophy,talk.origins
In article <869fg2$png$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
George Bajszar <gyuri@usa.net> wrote:
> In article <8698r5$5hr$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au>,
> "Alex Van Starrex" <avanstar@tig.com.au> wrote:
>> If time/space/etc/whatever was at absolute rest prior to the
>> universe
>> forming, how could it ever have formed?
>>
>> Then we'd all be looking for the outside "incendiary force".
Not if the universe reached absolute rest AFTER it formed
(and this means that SOMETHING pushed it into that state):
I propose Newton's First Law of Motion did EXACTLY that...
All particles are but "forms" of matter and only gravity
has any fundamental reality. (Now consider Newton's
law of motion: the force of attraction could not exist
without its opposite, repelling force.) Put these two
together and we have the explanation of what our
universe is up to at its most fundamental:
Once the condition of the universe is one of gravity
it implodes until gravity is no more; at which point
(Newton) it goes the other way and we have (scalar)
infinite mass. At which point (Newton) it manifests
its gravity nature all over again and we have implosion
again. This is the eternal fundamental condition of
our universe (one which I personally do not expect it
ever to escape).
You will find this further elucidated at my web site:
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
And once you understand the basic principle yourself
what can stop you explaining all this in your own
words!
> If spacetime had a beginning, an outside force must have initiated
it.
> If spacetime had no beginning, and big bangs occured indefinetely,
is
> also a paradox, and an outside force may have created the Universe
> with
> an infinite past predefined. Either way, logic says that an outside
> force must have existed either way. But what initiated the outside
> force? Everything is a paradox. The answer must be in some nature
that
> is absolutely not known to us. We know space, time and matter to
be
> the
> main ingredients of our existence.
Not every paradox remains one for all time. And
there are vistas which no human eyes will ever gaze upon
but which every last one of us may yet contemplate with
delightful clarity & spectacular detail... with our mind's eye.
> The answer must be that there is something else other than time as
we
> know it behind all. Logic says that everything that exists must have
> had a beginning.
On the contrary: If to exist, existence would have had to have
a beginning, then it could not exist. (Something cannot come
from nothing.) Common experience inexorably demonstrates
this is an unforgivingly cause/effect existence, and that everything
we imagine new is only something old turned recently new.
The history of great achievements in one of the great achievers
only reaching as high as they did because they stood upon the
shoulders of those who went before them. And there is nothing
in this world that was not fathered, bastardized or otherwise, by
something which preceded it.
> That logic and all logic of this sort includes the
> ingredient of our time. Creation itself includes time. Time and stuff
> seems to be the most important ingredients. Without it there is no
> energy or action or motion or existance in the laws of our Universe.
The universe is composed of an almost infinite number of
independent motions... none of which keeps time with any
other motion (so the universe knows nothing of that strictly
peculiar notion of man's that he ought to time one motion by
some other motion or motions).
> The answer is that there must be something completely different than
> time behind all.
You sair it!
>And one can only imagine something based on available
> knowledge.
Is this your lucky day--or what! Go thou to:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
and LEARN!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.xoom.com/oppositon/
****************