From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Date: 07 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8hmh3f$m3p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x62.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.169
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jun 07 22:07:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics,alt.sci.time-travel
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <16127-393BC4D1-15@storefull-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
oldcoot@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard), knowing S D Rodrian, wrote:

> The Nightbat wrote. re, SDR...
>
>   >You have some facts, but in disarray.
>
> SDR has some stunning insights not commonly
> broached by
> astrophysicists or cosmologists,

That's because they are not in the business of
making insights but of substantiating the many
pillars of their profession--For them it is heresy
to propose anything which might topple any pillar
upon which people's careers and livelihoods depend.

> namely
> the primacy of gravity,

Well, if anyone can propose anything more fundamental
than gravity, that person will have to explain the
nature of a force and exactly what energy is!

> and the
> fact that there has to be an 'implosion' or
> contraction phase to the
> grand cycle of the  universe.

Actually, what I propose is rather simple and
modest: If all there is in the universe is energy
(e=mc2) and if the manifestation of that energy takes
the form of gravity, then the universe ought to
everywhere obey the force of gravity. Radical, no!
The idea of an imploding universe is not very original
either--I prefer to think of my contributions as
helping to elucidate the methods by which the universe
works. It is as inevitable that people discover that
the universe is an imploding one as it is that they
discover they walk on their feet & sit on their asses!

> But with all due respect to SDR,

After one's lived a goodly number of years, Bill,
one grows to accept the fact that it usually costs one
more to try to collect what others owe one than
whatever's owed one is worth. And, frankly, respect
goes very cheaply in this life (right there with "flattery"
and "fear").

> he
> builds a wildly fantastic and

Bill, it's impossible to explain an automobile
to stone age people without sounding insane.
I consider myself lucky they don't just burnt me
as a stake (sic: I frequent very bad restaurants).

> speculative cosmology based upon matter
> "shrinking in place" in order to
> "fuel gravity".

Actually, it is not I who demands that matter
exist in a state of "shrinking" but the 1st law of
thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy):
"the total energy of a closed system is constant."

[In a closed system "heat" does flow from a hot region
to a cold region, say, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics
might give the impression that gravitational systems
(particles, the "forms" of matter) can exist as closed
systems (or really be fundamental -indivisible- at some
level)... "permitting" atoms to have internal motions NOT
powered by an "external" source of energy/fuel. Thereby
giving credence to the superstition that matter exists
NOT as a result of an evolutionary process, but that it
results from some instantaneous magical "creation."]

The fact is, however, that all forms of matter are great
sieves of energy at least on two distinct levels: at the
level of the weak/electromagnetic forces, and at the level
of gravity. So matter (in all its "forms") exists nowhere
as a "closed system" (or, as some sort of "fundamental"
"particle"). Any one particular/given atom, considered
in isolation, may appear to be constantly freely (paying
nothing for) exchanging EM particles, say, as the need
arises (in order to maintain its internal equilibrium of
energy). But all this exchanging of EM "particles" MUST
come at a "moving" price (which if it is not being paid
by the individual atom, absolutely must be being paid by
the sum total of all atoms), otherwise the only other
possible explanation is magic. One needs to ask oneself
where is the sum total of all the atoms getting the
energy to compensate for the loss of energy which must
be going to pay for the work they are all doing (even
if it's just only in the exchange of those EM particles
--and that is not the only work matter is carrying out)?

Consider gravity: Here you have a constant "flow" (or
"exchange") of energy between every isolated atom, say,
and every other atom outside it--If the "exchange" of
gravity were equal both ways then gravity would not (nor
could it) behave the way it does (gravity would neither
be attracting nor repelling). So it is possible to speak
of gravity then as a kind of suction by/of energy. The
"internal motions" of gravitational systems (particles, or
the "forms" of matter), is therefore made possible ONLY
by the flow (or "leaking") of energy away from them. [If
you wish to say that this "flow/leaking/suction... creates
the effect of gravity, I would have no way of objecting.]
We can assume that energy is not "being fed into" the
gravitational systems (or, forms of matter) because this
would most counter-intuitively require that energy be
created "in" the voids between them... and so the only
logical alternative is that once the forms of matter (those
everywhere localized gravitational systems) come into
focus/existence energy flows out of the forms of matter
rather than into them.

Electricity (which is "matter," of course) works extremely
well as an analogy of energy: Gravity then is an "unfair"
exchange of energy (in other words: a "leak" or an "outward
flow" of energy from a gravitational system). The point
being that NO FORM OF MATTER IS A REALLY
TRUE CLOSED SYSTEM, and so just merely in order
to exist... every form of matter MUST be paying back
to the universe a measure of energy.

Even if you yet prefer to think of it merely in terms of a
"fair" exchange of energy... in most exchanges of energy
there is still some net loss (due to friction, et al), and
if energy is all that exists in the universe (E=MC2)... that
net loss of energy is then enough to explain why it is that
the effect of gravity appears to be a "consumption" of space
(or, of sheer, raw "existence")... which, semantically, is
just another way of saying that gravity acts to bring things
together. Energy existing without a well-defined "polarity"
literally "merely fills up space" (the voids--there is no
perfect vacuum); but once it displays a "polarity" (or, better,
a vector), energy must interact (with itself, naturally, if
it's the only thing that exists) to create extremely localized
gravitational systems FIRST, and then these gravitational
systems must interact with each other... forming more and more
complex super-gravitational systems ad infinitum... or, until
such time as all the available energy has been "neutralized"
and the universe again consists only of an equilibrium where
energy no longer displays a "polarity" (or vector). Conversely,
if you use the analogy of magnetism, then you speak of the
universe as going from being an almost perfectly homogeneous
"singularity" (with no "flows" of energy anywhere) to being a
universe where space/matter have become two distinct "poles"
with energy flowing unimpeded from space into matter and then
from matter into space (the universe may be a true closed
system... but "the universe of matter" is only half of it,
while "the universe of energy" is its other half).

[Most exchanges of energy seek/long/work to enhance the flow
of that/their "exchange" (to always take the path of least
resistance)... and one begins to get a hint why it is that
a FORCE --if gravity is indeed the only real force which
exists in the universe-- why a force continuously-applied
must always produce momentum. Since a force (gravity) is
a "flow" of energy, use then the analogy of electricity to
explain why it is that its strength decreases according *
to "the square of distance" ... Distance is gravity's great
"insulator" (or, the lesser the distance the least resistance
offered to the "flow" of gravity). The practical effect of
this is that at the subatomic level of "nearness" (or, the
closest imaginable distances), the "flow" of gravity is quite
monstrous (or, the strong force). And now you know most of
what I know about the nature of gravity and, consequently,
of a force.] Perhaps now you might also see as well:

In the beginning the universe consisted only of energy
(the primordial singularity). [It could never EVER have
consisted of absolute nothingness because the jump from
absolute nothingness to something can only be breached
by magic.] At that point in the history of the universe
energy did not "flow" in any direction (it is therefore
possible to speak of the sum total of the universe then
as "one" infinite scalar mass and therefore also possible
to speak of the universe then as "one" single homogeneous
form of "special" matter). And it's also possible to speak
of the universe then as being free of any force (as we
understand a force, or gravity) since it was also free of
the 2nd law of thermodynamic--Therefore it's only an ideal
universe and not one which likely could have existed for
any appreciable length of time, considering how unimaginable
it is that all its far-flung regions would have had the ability
to agree among themselves on a "mean" value (or "thermo-
value") for all its parts.

The advent of gravity in the universe results from its
energy breaking into a "flow" (in a closed system, 2nd law
of thermodynamics). And so we may with some confidence
posit that the natural state of our universe is, for the
most part, one in which matter is forced to exist. The
"orientation" of that "flow" (determined by the 2nd law
of thermodynamics) is to be the "thermal" equivalent of
convection currents whose "work" is to equalize the
distribution of ("energy" in this case) across the entirety
of the universe: In this sense, the advent of gravity can
be thought of as a "wave" which "runs" across the universe
(towards its center) bringing order/equilibrium to the
totality of energy in existence. As it travels throughout
the universe it creates eddies and horrific tornados (the
various "forms" of matter which then immediately AND quite
instantly begin to "unwind away" back into equilibrium/energy).
The result is that ALL the "forms" of matter are temporary
and absolutely certainly NONE whatever are fundamental in
nature. [This not only suggests the real possibility of the
gravitational constant (Newton) changing values over time
but over different volumes of the universe as well.]

Because they are but "forms" ... regardless of which form
they take and which "size" they might be... we shall always
continue to recognize their "forms" (shapes, et al). And if
all the "forms" in our universe are shrinking (or enlarging
for that matter) uniformly around us--all of them, including
even us poor human forms as well--then it's nearly impossible
to notice to what extent they are doing this, or whether they
are even doing it or not.

In the closed system universe we can assume a "polarity"
moving from space to matter and then from matter to space
because energy "flows into" the creation of matter (which
results in the "organization" of gravitational systems)
and then energy "flows out" of matter... necessarily
resulting in matter (those gravitational systems) shrinking.

The result is also cataclysmic (and absolutely chaotic,
given the fact that the "flow" of gravity, like the flow
of electricity, always seeks the path of least resistance):
In practice fact that the "strength" of gravity always
diminishes inversely-proportionally to the square of
distance* (distance being its insulation) means that the
"energy flows" quickly turned into localized "swirls" and
that then, during all the eons since the birth of the forms
of matter... those "gravitational systems" swirled into more
and more complex interactions (ever tightening even as they
interacted with each other)... having necessarily started
from "immense volumes" and then "shrunk" throughout their
subsequent existence... as the very gravity of which they were
made was literally almost immediately "sucked" out of them.

[Notice that this history of the universe is the exact
opposite of the histories proposed from a Big Bang: In an
imploding universe the "primordial singularity" would have
encompassed the greatest possible volume and then slowly
(most gently of all at first, almost imperceptibly at first)
.. it slowly accelerates and ever will accelerate (exactly
as observations now tell us the Hubble Constant measures).
To propose, as Big Bang inflationary theories propose that
the universe "accelerated" instantaneously at any point in
its history is to propose that it can go against the laws of
physics. Period.]

    * In solid geometry, the surface area of
      a sphere is "directly proportional to the
      square of its radius" (that is, if one
      sphere has three times the radius of another,
      then it has nine times more surface area).
      I usually shorten Newton's gravitational
      constant ("the gravitational force between
      two bodies is inversely-proportional to the
      square of the distance between them") to
      just simply a mention of the fact that "the
      strength of gravity diminishes proportionally
      to the square of distance" or some such (it's
      incorrectly expressed this way, of course,
      but for the sake of exactness.. now you know
      "exactly" what this refers to).

> (Well, if gravity is primal
> to all else, how can it be
> 'fueled' by what isn't there yet?)

Gravity is not fueled: Gravity is the fuel.
Gravity IS energy & energy is not created or
destroyed: Energy is ALL that exists...

Gravity (energy) creates (goes into) matter.
Matter is, for all practical purposes, motion.
Motion must be "fueled" or it's done by magic.

If all the forms of matter are made of energy
(gravity, or E=MC2), then as their motions (or
existence) are fueled by the energy IN THEM,
either they (the forms of matter) MUST "shrink"
or the whole thing's being done by magic. I can
find no reason to suppose that it's done by magic,
unlike many other physicists & cosmologists.

> He makes the universal error of
> assuming gravity to be an "attraction",

Einstein's proposal that the universe obeys the
laws of geometry rather than the laws of physics
is a cop-out: It stems from Einstein's unnecessary
attempt to "repair" the notion that in Newton's
theory of gravitation accelerated masses transmit
information (action at a distance) which travels
at infinite speed. The very fact that while in our
universe the only thing which has existence at the
most fundamental level IS a "force" (gravity) and
that "forces" are excluded in Einstein's relativity
.. is enough to raise all available red flags.

> and that it needs to be
> 'fueled'.

Gravity, I repeat, is really the only "force" that
exists. It is therefore the only anything that exists
(i.e. energy). It is illogical to say that energy
requires energy to fuel itself! Please use brain.

> He also makes the error of assuming
> the universe to be an
> 'oscillating' system.. rather than a continuously-
> running, closed loop
> in which all phases - Expansion, Contraction/ implosion,
> Creation-dissolution, are occurring perpetually
> and simultaneously, and
> interchanging through a central 'Engine'.

On the contrary, I say energy is all that exists
(it is Existence). I say that in our closed system
universe the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that
chaos occasionally requires the universe to regulate
(bring into equilibrium) its many parts... which it
does simply and efficiently by means of "currents" or
"flows" of energy (positive-to-negative or negative-
to-positive, until, in the electricity analogy... its
energy isn't "grounded" any more and existence can
safely therefore perch upon itself like a crow...
without fear of electrocuting itself). The benefit
to us (of electrocuting crows) is, of course, that
"electrocuting crows" creates matter in its many
"forms" ... giving us a chance to go to the beach
(which I suggest you take advantage of, Bill, so
you can clear your head of a lot of seaweed, if
you've been out to sea too long, along with all the
baggage & other barnacles one gathers in too-long
a life): Always keep in mind that, as hard as it is
to explain oneself... it's right down perilous to try
to explain others.

> He assumes we (our Local
> Group of galaxies and the observable universe)
> are in the Implosion
> phase.

Once the universe manifests gravity ONLY an
implosion is possible. Period. And since matter
only "exists" during this implosion (and is the
imploding matter, of course)... it is matter which
is imploding. Energy is NOT imploding, it's only
merely the "forms" of matter which are doing this.

> And to explain the Hubble Constant
> and its APPARENT acceleration,
> he invokes the "shrinking in place" idea.

The Hubble Constant is measuring a very, very REAL
phenomenon, Bill: The galaxies ARE receding from
each other. This very real observation, however, has
been misinterpreted to mean that the universe itself
is exploding (or expanding): A physical impossibility
revealed AT EVERY POINT one considers it with even
the least modicum of common sense to be the physical
impossibility it is: The fact that the speed of light
is always measured as a constant in identical mediums
is telling us that it is matter which is in motion
past the photon and not the other way around. The fact
that you'd need five times more mass in a galaxy than
a galaxy has is telling us that the universe CAN NOT
possibly be exploding/expanding. But, Bill, one does
need SOME common sense. And, by the way, the fact that
the (misapprehended) so-called expansion of the universe
is accelerating should tell anyone with even two cents'
worth of brains that the universe is a body being acted
on continuously by a force and NOT the remnants of some
mystical/magical primordial Big Bang.

Think this way of the universe (of matter) from its
earliest instants to today: Energy coalesces into
ever-tightening gravitational systems (the forms of
matter). These forms of matter then combine into ever
more complex interactions (so-called "subparticles"
combine into more complex particles). And we end up
with the universe as it is now: A place where ALL the
forms of matter are experiencing a constant, uniform
loss of energy (E=MC2)... they are all "shrinking in
place." But even as they are shrinking in place they
are still attracting each other: they are ever rushing
toward each other faster and faster with time, and have
been, of course, engaging in this acceleration since
the beginning of the universe [the force of gravity
would have never ceased affecting the universe, duh]
.. yet this "second motion" (of the forms of matter
rushing towards each other) can never catch up with
the "first motion" (of their "shrinking in place"):
Newton's gravitational constant ever will forbid it.

The result that the "second motion" will always
"lag behind" the "first motion" infinitesimally
(yes, only on the human scale, but, on the scale
of astronomical distances... that infinitesimal
"lag" between the two motions is magnified with
distance into the effect we know of as the Hubble
Constant): This is why when we look out into the
Cosmos we STILL "see" the galaxies receding from
each other IN AN IMPLODING universe: They
REALLY ARE receding from each other! [The
First Motion of Matter creates space between
the forms of matter BUT the Second Motion
of Matter can never fill that space (or "gap) faster
than it's being created--nor even "perfectly exactly,"
for that matter.

And now you know how the universe (of matter) works
--And why the quest for all that "missing" dark matter
which the priests of The Expanding Universe religion
have deemed "necessary" to prevent the individual stars
in galaxies (living in an universe which they think is
exploding/expanding) from flying out every whichway
into the voids... is the same as trying to find the legs
of my hand-puppet "WIMPy" ... If ever a team of
Italian physicists claims to have found them legs...
I think they might want to take a second look at'em
legs, 'cause they might have Jimmy Hoffa's legs there
but never the legs of my hand-puppet WIMPy.

> If 'shrinking in place' were a fact,
> it would have to be
> observable in distant galaxies as a red-blue
> differential between a
> galaxy's near and far edges.. but isn't,
> even at highest resolutions.
> Yet the red-blue difference between the
> two SIDES due to rotation is
> clearly visible and measurable.. yielding
> the surprizing revelation the
> galaxy is rotating more as a unit than
> 'fastest at the center and
> slowest at the rim' as had been expected.

Bill: the length of a galaxy is too narrow for the
astronomical distances required to "see" the effect
of the Hubble Constant between them: You are making
the same mistake most people make when they are
asked to visualize the near-perfect uniformity of this
shrinking: They just can't seem to grasp that it's
EVERYTHING that's shrinking (photons and empty
space including). As it traverses the universe, the
photon is also shrinking (and so too is the "space" it's
traversing "closing" ... as in "closing in on itself")
in near-perfect proportion right along with all the
other forms of matter in the universe: The only clue
that escapes the near-perfection of this near-perfectly
uniform shrinking is, as I've said, that infinitesimal
"lag" between the First Motion of shrinking and the
Second Motion of closing the "gaps" created by the
First Motion... but so infinitesimal is this gap that
it is only with the magnification of great astronomical
distances that it becomes observable. The Andromeda
Galaxy is also "shrinking away from us" but because
it's also linearly moving towards the Milky Way very
quickly (it'll be here in about a couple of billion years,
so get ready)... its astronomical distance from us is
too minuscule to cut much into Andromeda's headlong
plunge in our direction (if Andromeda were moving in
our direction as it now is BUT it were enough billion
light-years farther from us... it would be impossible
for us to tell that it was thus moving toward us and
all we would be able to tell is that it was moving away
from us less quickly than the other galaxies around it).

> So in this 'open letter' to SDR,
> take your basic facts, the
> primacy of gravity and the existance of
> an Implosion/ contraction phase,
> and look for the larger holism.

Bill, you can't go beyond the whole!
And the only thing in this universe
the sum of whose parts adds up to
something "more" than its whole is Man.

> And then speculate where we (our Local
> Group) actually fit in the grand cycle.

It wouldn't surprise me if, were the universe
the "size" of the planet Earth, the most we could
see of it were no bigger than a flea's width.

> And to explain the apparent
> acceleration of the Hubble Constant, keep
> 'Light Cone Lag' and 'Phase
> Lag' as operative words. Think big, man.

If I thought any bigger I'd find it very hard
to remain as humble a fellow as I am now.

> Only an ISOLATED UNIT within
> the universe sees a 'beginning' and an 'end'.

I've ALWAYS spoken of the "process" of matter
being created and ceasing to exist (that, if
you never noticed it, is something which is
but part of the holistic whole).

> Remember the "jet engine"
> analogy: A jet engine is running on a test stand
> at full throttle. You
> hear the shrill whine of the compressors
> and the roar of the exhaust,
> and understand the combustion of air and
> hydrocarbons that's powering
> the whole process. That's the 'holism'.

Bill, that's just the pilot's afraid of flying.

> Now there's a dust mote
> floating in the air (a dust mote has very
> limited perception compared to
> us).

If you're comparing the to us, Bill, never
underestimate dust specks... I've known many folks
whose perceptiveness couldn't hold a candle to
that of even the dumbest of dusk specks'.

> The dust mote gets sucked into
> the jet engine, undergoes
> combustion, and is instantly shot out the
> tailpipe as a particle of
> carbon. It felt a 'bang', a BIG bang as
> it went through. The limited
> perception of the dust mote had no concept
> of the larger PROCESS going
> on. The same is true of our concept of
> the universe.. we are like the
> dust mote, seeing only the 'Bang' or
> the Implosion but not the eternal
> Process.

As I said: We are even less perceptive than
your dusk motes: We never even felt the Big Bang
AT ALL but only just imagined it.

> Expand your horizon of seeing. And
> by golly there's just another horizon
> to ponder.

I do very little by golly: I much rather
do things by actually doing them. But, good
luck, Bill: I've never been one to tell
others how to do their stuff (only how to do
my stuff, a long as they insist doing them).

By golly,

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
Or just say, "sdrodrian" to your Internet Explorer.

> oc
>

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Date: 09 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8hpc38$qre$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <NyB%4.1793$z.25569@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x52.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.240
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jun 09 00:00:47 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <NyB%4.1793$z.25569@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
"Ben" <ben@lazydog.co.uk> wrote:

> There is something I do not understand about
> your theory. Could you please
> explain to me if *everything* in the universe,
> ("photons and empty space
> included") is shrinking then what reference frame
> are you using to
> measure/observe/compare/theorize this phenomena?

A huge number of them (which practically encompass
all your specific requirements above, in fact).

Theorize this phenomena?

However it all starts out from trying to square the
conventional relativistic explanations of the nature
of the universe: They just don't square. And it's not
that one of them doesn't square (with reality) but that
practically none of them do! [This is why it's always
a source of never-ending wonder to me that SR/GR
sometimes can predict anything at all with accuracy.]

I won't go over all the obvious objections to the
conventional descriptions (usually inflationary) of
the universe... just let me point out that IF the
universe is imploding, then ANY explanation of how
it's working which assumes it is exploding will be
a perplexing/paradoxical Rube Goldberg construct:

In the explanations of an "expanding" universe it's
inexplicable that galaxies can form relatively early
after the Big Bang (it's the same as saying that you
can find the "clump designs" of stuff which spread out
over a wide area after any explosion within the first
few nanoseconds of the explosion): the universe TODAY
if explained through inflationary theories does not
permit the existence of galaxies (they just do not have
enough mass in them for them to keep their stars from
flying off into space)... so can you imagine how then
they could exist as "early" after the Big Bang as they
have been "observed?" Theorists therefore must speculate
that as much as 80% of the mass of the universe MUST
be in the form of an "odd" sort of "dark matter" which,
added to galaxies in a cloud of invisible dust we cannot
detect, then "bulks up" the mass of galaxies enough for
them to exist as they do: This comes not from a real
requirement for "dark matter" by the universe but from
the mistaken assumption that the universe requires it
because it is exploding/expanding: A totally unnecessary
Rube Goldberg explanation to make the universe square
with reality where we have an insane idea of how the
universe REALLY works. [Reality is the laws of physics.]

Observe this phenomena?

The first real "hint" of the true nature of the universe
came to me after realizing that conventional explanations
of the constancy of the speed of light were all artificially
reverse-engineered from the number provided by the
speed of light itself! The so-called contraction of matter
in the direction of its motion therefore results in an
artificial limit to the speed of light. The real answer
MUST lie elsewhere then; and it was only after I asked
myself a rather simple question that it became possible
at last to actually "see" why it was that the speed of
light was always reported as a constant in identical
mediums (and NEVER as a universal constant regardless
of media): What would happen if instead of a photon
traveling through the universe... the photon were just
standing still and it was "the rest of the universe" which
was traveling "past" it? What sort of sense, reason or
logic might come out of such a consideration? (Since
it's possible to construct a mental experiment with
parameters not necessarily bounded by reality as we
imagine it to be... in other words: You do not FIRST
have to account for how the universe is imploding to
set up mental experiments in an imploding universe.)

But the results were quite startling: It was instantly
obvious that the photon would NOT always be "perceived
to be traveling" at the same speed but rather that, as
different densities of matter "pushed" past it (where
it "stood"), the photon would respond to their "different
densities of gravity" and APPEAR either to be moving
faster or slower depending on the strength of the
gravitational field it was traversing! [This means that
a photon traversing a weak gravitational field will
appear to be moving faster than when it afterwards is
made to traverse a stronger gravitational field AND then
appears to be traveling faster AGAIN if it is THEN
made to traverse yet another weak gravitational field
or "medium" --and this is EXACTLY what is always reported
it does: The speed of light has already been reported
as "low" as 38 miles per hour when it is made to traverse
the super-cold Bose-Einstein condensate.]

The question of WHY this should happen (how in the world
one could work out a scenario where "matter" were the
thing moving past the photon ... and not the other way
around) is a neat description in & of itself of why it
then becomes inescapable to think that the universe just
might be working in a manner which does not square with
how it's been described to be working up to now.

Compare this phenomena?

[It's really just a matter of working out the solid
geometry required for a shrinking/imploding universe
... to account for its observed behavior--the simplest,
most direct methodology being to think of it as a
shrinking "towards" every possible coordinate, with no
preferred "direction," thereby making every coordinate
in the universe the effective center "towards which
the universe is shrinking" ... given the fact that if
every "thing" throughout the universe is shrinking at
a near-perfect uniform rate, it is then very "nearly"
impossible to "notice" it with respect to any linear
orientation: At that level, if you "stand" at the "location
" of any given shrinking "form" of matter you will
experience a perspective identical to the one you
would experience from any other such shrinking "form"
of matter in the universe, regardless where in the
universe it is you are "standing" as you "take in"
your view). It is ONLY when we can look upon
something shrinking faster than the rest of the
universe (say, an imploding star) that we can
"describe/ascribe" a linear "orientation" (velocity)
to every one of its things/atoms/whatever...]

And once you start down that road... the "discoveries"
are inevitable, one from the other & the other to the
next: it took me no more time than the hour-long walk
I was on at the time to pretty much "work it all out"
before I got home that afternoon. I took that walk back
in 1995 and then I waited five more years for somebody
to take the same walk. It never happened (at least, to
my knowledge). Everybody seemed quite satisfied to
accept --purely on faith, apparently-- that the reason
why the speed of light reports as a constant (never
mind that it only does so in an identical medium) is that
"matter contracts in the direction of its motion." Then
I realized something else one day: The 20th Century was
going to come to an end without the riddle of c constancy
being answered, so I posted it myself here on the last
Christmas Day of the last century for the sheer heck of it
--so that it could not be said that the 20th Century had
passed without the true explanation of c constancy having
been proposed.

Measure this phenomena?

To measure the exact rate at which the universe is
imploding/shrinking you'd have to know parameters which
are unlikely ever to be found (the exact age of the
universe and its exact "size"). We therefore can only
hazard informed approximations from our observations
(which really translates as assumptions from assumptions)
... for example, if we observe that the galaxies are
receding from each other, we can assume from this that
the universe must be expanding [in isolation it's a very
reasonable assumption; but in light of a great many other
observations... it becomes more and more doubtful that
we are interpreting that one otherwise quite reasonable
observation correctly: That's the risk we must run, I'm
afraid. But it's still a risk which can always be lowered
by piling up many observations "demanding" the same
assumption. The one thing we must never become is dogmatic
in our confidence that any one (or even more than just one)
observation can reveal "all there is to it."

In the rather special case of inflationary (Big Bang) theories
... practically every assumption made from observations has
been made either by twisting logic itself or by proposing that
there is some "missing factor" which, when found, will finally
"make sense" of the senselessness it makes out of our
assumptions about what we are observing! [And we can
always discuss case by case & at leisure -later- as many
of the illogical assumptions which have been made by twisting
reason itself all out of shape in order to make observations
fit into our assumption, instead of allowing our assumptions
to be shaped by our observations regardless whether they
run counter to even our most cherished assumptions].

In the case of the idea that the universe is shrinking/imploding,
on the other hand (at least so far)... I have never run across
even one reasonable/logical objection [and, of course, we can
always discuss any and all objections anyone might care to
propose... also individually and at leisure... later].

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://web.sdrodrian.com

>
> Thanks
>
> Ben
>

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

BenAndAnna wrote:

>
> Sorry, you've lost me. Can you explain to
> me, in a short simple answer, what
> frame of reference is there that exists that enables you to say that
> *everything* in the universe is shrinking? By definition this frame of
> reference would have to exist 'outside' the universe.

Ben, nothing "exists" outside the universe. However
some things DO elude the motions of the universe towards
shrinking: The photon is the most obvious one! It is
"shrinking in place" BUT it is NOT then, like every other
form of matter... engaging in the 2nd motion of rushing
in to fill the gaps being opened by the first motion
(of shrinking in place). It's true that the "essay" at
my web site is confusing because it was not designed to
be read by those who are already familiar with the idea
of an imploding universe. But, still, the description of
why the speed of light is reported as a constant in an
imploding universe is still elucidating; you can go there
and read it from the beginning, or this is an excerpt...
(One of these days I shall modify it.) You can see this:

BEGIN QUOTE

Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relation to
x-space [and so "moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in which it
was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it
originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains constant
regardless of its source/origin/direction because "about" the only
connection a photon has with its source is "orientation" [x-space is
expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the only quality the
photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an orientation
relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you" create the photon to the west of
"you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your west side, and
if you create a photon to the north of you... it will then "seem" to
shoot out away from your north side, since x-space will always take
"you" to be the exact center of its universe]... Add the proviso that if
"enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational field) passes close
enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly display a new "linear"
orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will naturally be
"observable" by the rest of our universe because in our universe
the "orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter with respect to
any & all other bits of ordinary matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are other concerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding all other linear motions of
our universe... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this one simple
"absolute law" you really have to understand to avoid having to delve
into synonymous but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
orientation with respect to the rest of the universe is absolute... so
once the photon "adopts" an orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same ("your") orientation with respect to
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.

Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN NOT be added to or subtracted
from the so-called "speed of light" because obviously the direction of
our "real" motion (x-space = absolute rest) is never "really" linear at
all but always everywhere "towards shrinking." [And therefore one is
hard put to imagine any bit of ordinary matter in our universe achieving
any true/real "greater velocity" than the one it already has when it is
at its "greatest rest" ... with respect to the rest of the universe of
ordinary matter taken as a unit, of course.]

A simple analogy may help visualize this: Imagine two side-by-side
photons "traveling" towards a man standing next to a woman (neither of
whom have yet been enlightened by me that it is they who are "moving
towards" the photons and not the reverse--further, I have also never
mentioned to them that the only "real" change in velocity they are
capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS of anything they might attempt
in this reality)...

Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman that he can catch his photon
before she can catch hers and rushes his "approaching" photon at 10 mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks the bet childish and tells the
man she can wait for her photon right where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the woman catches hers; but then
something odd happens: [for the sake of simplicity, here] the man
reports to the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph and the woman
reports to the man that she also caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!

Why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph
PLUS his 10 mph acceleration? --Although you already know the answer...
it is, of course, that he "really" wasn't accelerating at all (because
it is impossible to "really" accelerate in his reality) and what he was
really doing was decelerating (with respect to the photon's "position").
But then why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photon at
90 mph? And the answer is that if the only two things that existed were
he and the photon they might indeed agree (between photon & man) on that
90 mph; but it is the woman he must agree with on the speed of the
photon... and that is where the mystery of x-space forever will confound
them both because even though (in "Paradise") he and the photon indeed
"hit" at 90 mph... in this world he can never report this to the woman
without factoring in his acceleration of 10 mph with respect to her!

Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man "takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops (he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have no problem understanding that they
will both report catching their photons at 100 mph). The same is true if
he "takes the time" to step back a few paces as well: he will catch his
photon after she catches hers, but you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both report catching their photons at 100
mph. The matter is not one of time, but of acceleration/deceleration:
The paradox 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.]

END QUOTE

> Without such an 'external' frame, surely it makes sense to only talk in
> terms relative to an, arbitrarily, fixed 'frame' of the universe. If this is
> the case, which 'frame' are you talking about, ie what is the "shrinking of
> matter, space and energy" measured against? Sorry if you've explained this
> before but I can't see it.

By the way, it is measured by the laws of physics: In effect, IF
matter consists of energy, and that energy is flowing away from it
(since no form of matter is a true closed system), then the forms
of matter MUST be shrinking. We know the forms of matter are connected
to the outside by gravity. We know the flow MUST be away from them
because if it were into them matter would grow in place and the
universe then would consist of one super-hyper-dense singularity of
matter.

We can never become God and stand outside the universe and look down
on it. But we can still use our heads and think about what the things
we are seeing here MEAN. Nature offers us many hints of how it works.

> By the way, I'm not trying to catch you out or prove you're wrong etc, I'm
> just curious about your ideas.

Ben, before long my 15 minutes will be up and then everybody and his dog
will know it's an imploding universe like they now know it's the earth
orbits the Sun. And then: who pays any attention to anyone says the
earth is orbiting the Sun? I'm already getting more people telling me
they agree with me than I ever imagined possible at this stage.

I'm enjoying my controvertial stand--I really have to, you know: It's
not as if after everybody realizes the universe is imploding I'll
propose next that people are really crickets! Maybe we are, but, at
least, so far... I can't see even the slightest hint we are.

Dan

>
> Ben

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Date: 11 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8i0e3o$kff$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <NyB%4.1793$z.25569@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> <8hpc51$qru$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <394035f4.1640249@news.mindspring.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x54.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.20
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jun 11 16:18:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <394035f4.1640249@news.mindspring.com>,
  xiaoding@mindspring.com (xiaoding) wrote:
> Hmm.....
>
> Wouldn't we be able to tell by looking at other galaxies and
> seeing if they are getting closer?  They seem to moving farther away
> at the moment.

You looking at what magician tell you he doing
instead of at what he really doing.

START QUOTE:     When two bodies shrink in place the
absolute distance between their centers remains absolutely
the same if you use an absolute ruler, but if you use a ruler
which is shrinking along with the bodies then the distance
will always be measured as increasing: Is the distance really
increasing or remaining the same? God would say it's remaining
the same, and we poor shrinking souls would say it's increasing.
But suppose the two bodies were moving toward each other at
such a speed that it would always compensate for the shrinking:
Now the distance between them as measured by God's ruler is
shrinking, while the distance as measured by our mortal rulers is
always the same! (Thank God we never speak with God anymore
or we'd both go crazy, men and God--how on earth would we agree
to anything!) Perhaps now you can understand something else:
IF the two bodies were moving towards each other FASTER than
they are shrinking... this would mean they'd crash. [I think
it's not unimaginable that in the earliest moments of the
universe after the formation of matter many such crashes must
have taken place (Andromeda is racing towards us, after all)...
However, most of the forms of matter on "the grand scale average"
cannot crash together because they are not moving towards each
other faster than each is "shrinking in place."] When we look
at the moon we can't see this effect (and not even when we look
at the other stars in the Milky Way)... but with enough distance
we do "see" it: Very distant galaxies ARE receding away from us:
Does this mean the universe is expanding as we poor souls here
would measure it to be, or that it's imploding as God would
measure it to be doing? It pretty much depends on whose ruler
you're measuring the thing with--Though it really doesn't matter
(to most human purposes). It only matter if you are trying to
understand the universe on some grand scale (whether the macro
of micro scale): If you assume the universe is expanding
you will never understand how galaxies can keep their stars,
nor will you ever understand why the speed of light is always
reported as a constant in identical mediums... such a thing
will seem so mystical that the only thing you will be able to
assume is that God set the speed of light as a constant in order
to permit his most faithful true believers to "figure out" His
Infinite Design from the number (and Einstein did exactly this).

END QUOTE

> I've never heard that objects can't go faster than light because
> they contract in the direction of motion.  I have ususally read of the
> "infinite mass" objection, which is, of course, demonstrably bogus.
> How does the Lorentz-(some other guy) contraction prevent an object
> from FTL?

Since your paragraph doesn't make sense (parts of it
contradict other parts) I consider myself absolved
from having to answer to it. Thank you much!

> Thnx,   Xiaodingaling
>
> You make the poor richer by making the rich poorer

Translation: "You make the dead live by making
those alive dead."

Either way: Don't work as efficiently as democracy.
Trust me on this one.

S D Rodrian
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

>
> We Can Stop All Crime:  http://my.treeway.com/Xiaoding

It would be a crime to stop all crime: ALL ANIMALS
ARE PARASITES (with no exception). So life is unjust
at almost every level you consider it: Let us,
therefore, be less considerate and enjoy life more.
It's useless and counterproductive to demand absolute
justice in this life--If you are wise, if you are
truly wise, you will learn to forgive.

S D Rodrian
http://WISDOM.findhere.com
Of just say "sdrodrian" to your Microsoft Explorer.

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Date: 11 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8i0j9m$ntq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <NyB%4.1793$z.25569@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com> <8hpc5q$qs4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <0ba904020010a60CPIMSSMTPE01@msn.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x62.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.63
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jun 11 17:46:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <0ba904020010a60CPIMSSMTPE01@msn.com>,
"Michael Scott Brown" <The_Zephyr@msn.com> was on his way
to the beach, when he had a flat, sat down by the side of the road
and wrote:

> "S D Rodrian" <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:8hpc5q$qs4$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> <snickers>

No, thank you. I'm diabetic.

> Amazing, the amount of work you put into pure bullshit.

Well, any bull can do it standing on his head,
but... have you ever tried to produce bullshit
--never mind that it be pure!?!?!

> Let's see . . today's abject lies:

Well, at least we won't have to go into
yesterday's lies (I lay around most of the day
yesterday). Besides: I object, sir! My lies
are all regal, noble lies, not base and cowering lies!

>> However it all starts out from trying to square the
>> conventional relativistic explanations of the nature
>> of the universe: They just don't square.
>
>     Here's one!

Well, your lie is pretty flimsy! I mean,
couldn't you at least've said you were handsome!

>> In the explanations of an "expanding" universe it's
>> inexplicable that galaxies can form relatively early
>> after the Big Bang
>
>     Here's another!

Sir, your enumeration does not quality as lies!
Specify something! Say, "I can think" or something!

>> few nanoseconds of the explosion): the universe TODAY
>> if explained through inflationary theories does not
>> permit the existence of galaxies (they just do not have
>> enough mass in them for them to keep their stars from
>> flying off into space)...
>
>     And another!

This is getting boring. Let me know
when you've finished.

>> be in the form of an "odd" sort of "dark matter" which,
>> added to galaxies in a cloud of invisible dust we cannot
>> detect, then "bulks up" the mass of galaxies enough for
>> them to exist as they do: This comes not from a real
>> requirement for "dark matter" by the universe but from
>> the mistaken assumption that the universe requires it
>> because it is exploding/expanding:
>
>     And another!

Keep going--Please.

> The presence of dark -ie; as yet
> undectected because it isn't
> *luminous* - matter is implied through the
> very motions of stars in those
> galaxies.

Translation: We cannot explain them happening
unless we invent "dark matter" to account for it.
The alternative is for them to admit that they
have no clue how the universe really works
--and you know how that would look in their
resumes!

> To move as they do,

... in an expanding universe (if we remove
that assumption then "dark matter" is no longer
required ... this, for those who cannot follow
the logic, means that "dark matter" is only required
to validate an assumption and NOT a reality.

> there must be
> a gravitational field of larger
> extent than just that of the stars we can see.

One resulting from approximately 80% more mass
than most galaxies are SEEN to have (ergo "invisible"
or "dark matter") ... And "dark matter" shall be found,
so I predict (for "a figment of the imagination"
is very easy to find "in" imaginative brains): That
is basically the story in physics & cosmology
these past 80 years or so.

> Further, the nature of dark
> matter halos has been explored; anyone
> reading that might, actually, buy
> Rodian's shit should look up the "MACHO project",
> which is a highly
> successful ongoing search for compact objects
> orbiting the milky way that
> can only be seen through gravitational lensing.

Translation: In an expanding universe they MUST
be there, otherwise the heavenly bodies are
behaving as if the universe weren't expanding/exploding
at al! Good lord! And we all know that's only Rodrian's
explanation. [By the by, will we find many & many
exotic forms of stars & bodies as yet undiscovered? Yep.
Will we yet find many & many exotic forms of subparticles
as yet undiscovered? Yep. Will we find that the universe
can be completely, fully, and very simply explained
via the assumption that it's expanding? Nope! Sorry:
The thing has not been done to this day and the thing
will never be done even unto the ends of days
because the universe is imploding: Look INTO it.]

>> The first real "hint" of the true nature of the universe
>> came to me after realizing that conventional explanations
>> of the constancy of the speed of light were all artificially
>> reverse-engineered from the number provided by the
>> speed of light itself!
>
> Another lie!  The constancy of light's velocity
> from various reference
> frames is an observation; any model of How Things
> Work must reflect this
> property.  It has nothing to do with
> it's value in particular.

Thank you, Rube Goldberg! I especially loved
that huge mechanism (with the 67,987 moving parts)
you created to crack open an egg shell!

>> appears to be traveling faster AGAIN if it is THEN
>> made to traverse yet another weak gravitational field
>> or "medium" --and this is EXACTLY what is always reported
>> it does: The speed of light has already been reported
>> as "low" as 38 miles per hour when it is made to traverse
>> the super-cold Bose-Einstein condensate.]
>
>  Yet another . . well, not quite lie,

Ah! Do I see yer legs trembling a might, me bucko?

> but very naughty implication.

I ams a naughty chap.

> Lab-created Bose-Einstein condensates do
> not have strong gravitational
> fields.  They slow down light due to the funkiness
> of quantum effects on the
> material's interaction with an electromagnetic wave.

Translation of gibberish fudge: Thickness! Density!
Meaning: Closeness! (Unless what's really happening
is being done with mirrors--e.g. the photon is being
made to bounce between very many very tiny mirrors--
what is happening is that at near absolute zero
the densities of matter force "matter" closer together
and this, according to Newton's gravitational constant
law, must subjects the photon to them.) Think of a
pin-pricked "sized" black hole: Something "about a few
inches" from it barely knows it's there, but does this
means that there are not strong gravitational fields
operating in it (or "nearer" it)? Think, me bucko: There
are no fudge factors in Nature, only in mathematics.
Think at all, if you can. It's a marvelous experience.
But first get all'em numbers outta yer head before
ya end up like that poor Ted Kazincski mathematician.

>> And once you start down that road... the "discoveries"
>> are inevitable, one from the other & the other to the
>> next: it took me no more time than the hour-long walk
>> I was on at the time to pretty much "work it all out"
>> before I got home that afternoon. I took that walk back
>> in 1995 and then I waited five more years for somebody
>> to take the same walk. It never happened (at least, to
>> my knowledge).
>
> <laughter> Amazing, that you would complain
> about this, when you haven't
> a shred of information that supports your case
> and numerous examples of a
> complete misunderstanding of existing knowledge.

Well... it's easy to laugh. We all laugh at perceived
paradoxes (when there really aren't any in nature
--I said nature, not mathematics), and we laugh at
things we don't understand (which many other people
easily understand). I wish that instead of saying that
I don't understand you'd specify which thing it is
I have misunderstood (not by pointing it out with
your tongue, but by explaining the misunderstanding
in your tongue... a number of which I can understand).

>> Everybody seemed quite satisfied to
>> accept --purely on faith, apparently--
>
> Another lie!  Experiments do not exist, eh?

What?! Lies do not exist either?! And what be
a misinterpretation of an experiment
if not a lie by a more politically correct term?

>> Measure this phenomena?
>>
>> To measure the exact rate at which the universe is
>> imploding/shrinking you'd have to know parameters which
>> are unlikely ever to be found
>
> Another lie! The error bars are down to
> what, 15%? How exact does the
> age have to be before you can put in some
> test parameters to your
> "equations", twinkletoes?

Thank you! However, you'd have to dance
a lot closer than ANY approximation before
I'd conceded you did it exactly! (In my day
a dancer was expected to achieve a perfect 10
in order to have achieved a perfect 10.)
You kids there days! Permissive parenting.

> Exact size, is, by all available data, infinite.

There are no infinities in nature. They only
look that way to people with limited sight and
unlimited gullibility (the belief they can see
farther than their noses).

> So get to it!

Why not, say I.

>> In the case of the idea that the universe is shrinking/imploding,
>> on the other hand (at least so far)... I have never run across
>> even one reasonable/logical objection
>
> Now here, here is the charmer.
> Never run across a reasonable objection,
> indeed.

Indeed, indeed!

> Someone's already reminded you about
> the doppler effect.

Endlessly, numberlessly, numbingly... which
also describes my replies to them: Why don't you
visit: web.sdrodrian.com ... The main essay there
was designed some months ago for quicker understanding
by those who have never run across the notion of
the imploding nature of the universe (and thus
it's a little confusing to old hands) but there are
links there to many megabytes of answers I have
been giving in these newsgroups... and there you're
bound to find ALL THE ANSWERS you seek. Promise.

Dear Mike: The photon is shrinking just like all
the other forms of matter. The distances it "travels"
are also shrinking (so that, to the photon, the
distances remain absolute and immutable): TRY
to think what this means for how the photon sees
things. O vain hope!

> Tsk, tsk.
>     <ROFL>
> -Michael

Most meaningful thing you're said so far!
I agree 100%

S D Rodrian
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Date: 10 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8hse2t$2u2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <01bfd0ea$10b53920$e4b3869f@bartc.tinet.ie>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x52.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.209
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 10 03:53:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <01bfd0ea$10b53920$e4b3869f@bartc.tinet.ie>,
"Bart Connolly" <open.mind@oceanfree.net> had a few centuries
to spare & wrote:

>
> S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com> wrote in article
> <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> In article <16127-393BC4D1-15@storefull-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> oldcoot@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard), knowing S D Rodrian, wrote:
>>
>>> The Nightbat wrote. re, SDR...
>>>
>>>   >You have some facts, but in disarray.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>> and the
>>> fact that there has to be an 'implosion' or
>>> contraction phase to the
>>> grand cycle of the  universe.
>>
>> Actually, what I propose is rather simple and
>> modest: If all there is in the universe is energy
>
> This is closer to Wittenstien than Einstien
> i.e. "The universe is everything that is the case"

Well, there are hot dogs in the universe, and hairs,
but the case (of getting to the bottom of it) is
somewhat of a more fundamental than that. --SDR

>> (e=mc2)
> This equation as statred is an approximation of
> what Einstien said and it
> is derived from relativistic physics
> It is not saying all is energy but is a
> representation of the equivalence
> of energy and Mass

Very nifty political speech! However, as it applies
to what we're discussing here, the equation means
that energy is to be found in matter (NOT in its
pockets, but in its very self).

> So now we have particles (or states) as well as interactions

Ah! Perhaps now we'll get to those hot dogs--And
hairs... damn thee hot dog vendor!

>>and if the manifestation of that energy takes
>> the form of gravity, then the universe ought to
>> everywhere obey the force of gravity. Radical, no!
>
> Despite the difficulty I have with "manifestation"

Not me: me believe in democracy.

> and some subset of
> everything (what you call energy) being gravity,
> it is not really to assume
> that gravity is a cosmological all pervasive force.

Don't you just hate these geometry freaks!
Well, no, sir: The universe does not follow
invisible lines in space: Gravity REALLY does exist!
And I am unanimous in that, Mrs. Slocum!

> Its is rather
> conservative actually.

Gravity is the only "force" that exists in
the universe (the other "forces" are localized
manifestations of it... the universe is yet a
very democratic place).

> [snip]
>> It is as inevitable that people discover that
>> the universe is an imploding one as it is that they
>> discover they walk on their feet & sit on their asses!
>
> Scientific knowledge  is not in my opinion
> suddenly re discovered by every
> generation.

You're lucky you never heard of The Fall
of The Roman Empire then (not the movie).

> Nor do I believe is it  socially negotiated

Then you're even luckier, never having heard of
an evil conspiracy called, "peer-review."

>>> But with all due respect to SDR,
>>
> [snip]
>> And, frankly, respect
>> goes very cheaply in this life (right there with "flattery"
>> and "fear").
>
> I respectfully disagree

See! Confirms by favorite fears.

> [snip]
>>
>> Bill, it's impossible to explain an automobile
>> to stone age people without sounding insane.
>
> That is a technology not a rational theory.

When I lived back in the stone age I HAD the
very rational theory that we were living in
the stone age. But when I advanced my theory
at a meeting of the clan (monthly helt to rid ourselves of
a few parasites) they all concluded that I was
irretrivable insane (due to the fact that it was
impossible for people living in the stone age
to know they were living in the stone age... as
they had nothing to compare the stones to). Said I
this be a stone, and sez they: that's everything (and
so I was elected a parasite & evicted). Blimey!  I had
to wait until it rained 40 days/40 nights 'much later'
(bringing about The Age of Mud) before I could
explain the difference between mud and stones to folks
(although it was too late by then and the mud
people could only look back on The Stone Age as
Paradise... because that's when we were first forced into
an arms race, by the way, as it was no longer
possible to just pick up a bit of mud and kill
somebody with it... except under exceptional
circumstances).

> Assuming language and reason I
> see no reason why a stone age boy
> brought forward into the 20th century
> could not be brought up to understand
> how technologies work.

Sir, go thou to present day Iran and explain to
them how democracy works (and see if you're
crazy or not).

> We are no
> better than stone age people.

I lived in the stone age: Even the best people
back then thought nothing of killing you (while
now they think a great deal... how to do it
without it getting back to them).

> One might separate the ability to reason
> from social context.

People have NO ability to reason: If they had
ANY ability to reason who'd watch TV?!?!?!
Who'd fill the football stadiums? Would women
admit they can cook?

> That way also lies the genetic fallacy of confusing
> origin of an idea and the validity of an idea.

True: The validity of an idea is always who has it:
Donald Trump thinks he's smart EVERYBODY thinks he's
smart. Some nameless bum thinks he deserves to live
and he's gotta prove it every day of his life and
to everybody crosses his path.

>> [snip]
>>> speculative cosmology based upon matter
>> [snip]
>>
>> [In a closed system "heat" does flow from a hot region
>>to a cold region, say,
>
> actually it must flow

Big deal!

>> so the 2nd law of thermodynamics
>> might give the impression that gravitational systems
>> (particles, the "forms" of matter) can exist as closed
>> systems
>
> I thought energy was all there was above?

In Heaven? There is no energy in Heaven, only in Hell:
People in Heaven sit around looking at the clouds, while
people in Hell are always to be found constantly jumping about
(it's so universal a law there that the policeman there
carry pitchforks with which they encourage you to do this).
Yes, I've also been in Heaven and in Hell. (Bus ride
either way.)

>  (or really be fundamental -indivisible- at some
> level)...
>
> what has this to do with the macro point about
> systems and things flowing
> to a less useable state.

"The workforce can be conquered by dividing it."
                    ---John "The" Rockerfeller.

> "permitting" atoms to have internal motions NOT
> powered by an "external" source of energy/fuel.
>
> External to the atoms not external to the system.

Can't think of anything to the exclusion of everything else, eh?
Do your voices speak very negatively? Or do they
just tell you to do things?

> And why do atoms have to
> be "powered" anyway

Because when they get gummed up with too much grass
their motors conk-out and you have to re-start
the damn things 4 or 5 times before'll run again.

> Energy is now being redefined as "fuel"
> and "power" has turned up

So I hear, but I've already worked out a plan to take
a raft to Cuba.

>>  Thereby
>> giving credence to the superstition that matter exists
>> NOT as a result of an evolutionary process, but that it
>> results from some instantaneous magical "creation."]
>>
> Lets rephrase: In a closed system heat
> flowing to a less useable state
> MIGHT make you thing matter comes into existence
> instantaneously, but
> matter really "evolves" ????

Not just this: Think about the implication of
lemons coming into this as well! But, if life
hands me broken eggs I still beat them into lemonade
even though it's not really all that palatable on
a hot Summer's day.

> Look we have already looked at matter coming into existence by its
> instantaneous creation because of its equivalence with energy.

And what did we see there? I saw Pee-Wee Herman
engaging in an energy experiment with himself.

>> The fact is, however, that all forms of matter are great
>> sieves of energy at least on two distinct levels: at the
>> level of the weak/electromagnetic forces, and at the level
>> of gravity.
>
> A while ago gravity was all there was. Now
> you have EM force.

That might explain why I feel so invigorated!

> And what
> does "at least" mean.

Not as mean as you'd like, but mean enough.

> I suppose the Strong and weak nuclear forces may
> arrive later on.

How long ago did you order them--And did you
remember to use "second-day" delivery?

>> So matter (in all its "forms") exists nowhere
>> as a "closed system" (or, as some sort of "fundamental"
>> "particle").
>
> How can you have several "forms" and fundamental particles as well

When you went out to refresh yourself in the can
I simply requested them from the dealer.

>> Any one particular/given atom, considered
>> in isolation, may appear to be constantly freely (paying
>> nothing for) exchanging EM particles,
>
> Exchanging with what?

With ebay, mostly.

>>  say, as the need
>
> Ok. Need for what.

I don't know: What'd you need?

> "Need" is now a causal effect on particles.

Damn! I knew I should've read the paper
before it put me to sleep this morning!
Now the dog's got it and damn if I'm reading it
after he's through with it.

>> arises (in order to maintain its internal equilibrium of
>> energy).
>
> Oh I think I see where you are coming from.

Darn! And I was coming at you from another
direction (guess the big mirror gave me away).
Maybe it was the faces i was making....

> You see thermal equilibrium of
> a closed system and equate it with
> isolated particles. But thermodynamics
> is a macro theory based on the random behaviour
> of large populations not on
> individual particles.

Oh, I see where you're coming from now:
You don't know that there's a large population
of atoms in the universe!Well there is.

>> But all this exchanging of EM "particles" MUST
>> come at a "moving" price (which if it is not being paid
>> by the individual atom, absolutely must be being paid by
>> the sum total of all atoms), otherwise the only other
>> possible explanation is magic.
>
> Here is another possible explaination.
> Energy is conserved. If an electron
> is promoted and then drops back down the
> emitted photon (or wave) has an
> energy of a discreet amount exactly equal to
> the amount it acquired to get
> promoted i.e. it is quantised. There is no
> energy "going to waste" in this.

Nor do people require energy to move either
(or maybe you're just not visiting their houses
when they're eating). Otherwise ONLY the universe
conserves its energy... everything else in it
only does so for a time.

> The 2nd law just says that (don't forget
> for macro systems) energy flows to
> a less useable state i.e. entropy increases

You're talking the District of Columbia here
and that's not a state!

>> One needs to ask oneself
>> where is the sum total of all the atoms getting the
>> energy to compensate for the loss of energy which must
>> be going to pay for the work they are all doing (even
>> if it's just only in the exchange of those EM particles
>> --and that is not the only work matter is carrying out)?

> Now we have "work" and "pay"
> What work are they doing?

Depends, if they're working at the post office
they're fanning themselves with my letters.

>> Consider gravity: Here you have a constant "flow" (or
>> "exchange") of energy between every isolated atom, say,
>> and every other atom outside it--
>
> How is this "flow " of gravity happen. By magic?

No, by hiways AND byways. And it's all
being paid for by our tax dollars--Now
you understand?

>> If the "exchange" of
>> gravity were equal both ways then gravity would not (nor
>> could it) behave the way it does (gravity would neither
>> be attracting nor repelling).
>
> What is the mechanism of this one way "flow"
> of gravity.

A big pump with a hose attachment.

> Explain "gravity
> flow" please.

Sure: When you see a gravity AND it's flowing.

> So it is possible to speak
> of gravity then as a kind of suction by/of energy.
>
> I do not believe in suction

Then your girl-friend is friendless.

>> The
>> "internal motions" of gravitational systems (particles, or
>> the "forms" of matter), is therefore made possible ONLY
>> by the flow (or "leaking") of energy away from them. [If
>> you wish to say that this "flow/leaking/suction... creates
>> the effect of gravity, I would have no way of objecting.]
>
> Rephrase: Particles eventually lose energy
> because gravity sucks it from
> them.  I propose this can be disproved by
> measuring the thermodynamic
> properties of matter near differing gravity sources.

Sir, you exemplify the reason I no longer permit others
to set up the parameters of any experiment to prove (or
disprove) theories they do not at least grasp first: Try
to understand at least the basics about gravity: "Any
two bodies in the universe attract each other with a
force that is drectly proportional to the product of
their masses, and inversely proportional to the square
of the distance between them." (Newton) What this means
is that the ONLY thing which concerns Gravity is how far
away/close are the masses interacting gravitationally
and how much their masses add up to. And what this means
is that Gravity cares not one whit what the masses are
doing (they can be dancing the Macarena, or they can be
shape-shifting for all Gravity cares). In practice
this means that one mass can be racing wildly about
inside the Sun while another identical mass can be out
in the voids of space resting on its laurels and still
the hydrogen atom inside the Sun will remain almost
perfectly exactly the same as the hydrogen atom out in
space (nothing is perfect). If this is still not quite
meaningful enough for you: Read on! Read on! Read on!
Read on! There is much meaning to be found in words.

> Say a baloon of gas 1
> million miles from the earth and 1 million
> from the sun. I mean an
> insulated black body baloon. If your theory is
> correct the gas in the one
> near the sun should
> Have a lower total energy than the one near Earth.

Even though (believe it or not) I agree that
particles in a greater gravitational field do
loose their energy at a faster rate than those
in weaker gravitational fields... the difference
is so utterly minuscule as to be meaningless.
One does not require a balloon to know what the
results of your experiment would be if it obeyed
your assumptions: We would see the Sun flittering
itself away to practically nothing right in front
of our eyes... while the moon would grow as the
earth shrank, until the earth would be a mere peeble
orbiting the moon. This does not happen in the
real world because the loss of energy via gravity
by matter is not the same as the loss of mass via
nuclear interactions (it is never that one would
eventually ends up with 90 atoms where there were
previously a 100 but that the 100 atoms forever
shrink--AND not even most fundamentally so at the
level of the atom, but perhaps even at the level
of those gravitational systens which are to us as
if a "Plank length" in "size").

> I think you would be
> proved wrong.

Sweet thought in the morning
(and sweet dreams at night).
It could happen, but not here.

> Why is the gas plasma in the
> corona of the sun millions of
> degrees hotter than the higher gravity
> and only several thousand degree
> surface?

Because the particles in the Sun's corona
are excited and running about sweating
and clumsily slapping each other silly...
while the particles on the moon are
seating around losing weight by not eating.
(Personally I prefer to pig out and then
run like mad, but that's just me: I enjoy
slapping myself silly.)

Heat comes from friction. Didn't they ever
teach you ANYTHING? In a thermonuclear reaction
the heat comes from collisions between particles
(friction). Gravity is true cold fusion without
exciting any particles (sexless). In an electric
stove the heat comes from resistence to the
electrons by the heating element (friction).
It is only at near absolute zero that this
resistence nearly vanishes (sex).

>> We can assume that energy is not "being fed into" the
>> gravitational systems (or, forms of matter) because this
>> would most counter-intuitively require that energy be
>> created "in" the voids between them...
>
> Both Fred Hoyle and uncle Albert E
> had theories saying this i.e. the stable
> balanced universe
> Hoyles required constant creation of matter.

Matter is energy and energy cannot be created or
destroyed (only conserved & moved about). But
you will find that Fred and your uncle were
trying to understand why the universe didn't
collapse as the laws of physics demand it does.
The problem with any theory which proposes
that energy ONLY flows into matter is that it
results in ONLY matter--while our universe
obviously consists of matter AND energy. Not
to mention space (which is never empty). Any
proposal that accounts for one must account for
the other (energy must flow in/out of matter
seamlessly: if you need a machine to do it
it can't be done: machines break down, its
operators organize labor strikes, it's a mess).

>> and so the only
>> logical alternative is that once the forms of matter (those
>> everywhere localized gravitational systems) come into
>> focus/existence energy flows out of the forms of matter
> rather than into them.
>
> Another logical alternative is the GUT
> another is what we have now,another
> quantum gravity no I said that already -the GUT

No Grand Unification Theory will ever result from
the assumption that the universe works completely
opposite of the way it really works. Truism # Uno.

>> Electricity (which is "matter," of course) works extremely
> well as an analogy of energy:
>
> Actually it is a force or interaction not a particle
> so how can it be and
> analogy of energy?

How can your feet be an analogy of thoughts, yet
there stand your thoughts going nowhere: The "force"
is not matter, electricity is matter!

> It is a bit like saying "bicycles are great analogies
> of bicycles."

The best.

>> Gravity then is an "unfair"
>
> Particles "needed" now the universe is "unfair"

If they eat, they need to eat, and if
the bill is rather steep... the need to
go wash dishes at the back of the restaurant.
Life & everything else is very unfair.

>> exchange of energy (in other words: a "leak" or an "outward
>> flow" of energy from a gravitational system). The point
>> being that NO FORM OF MATTER IS A REALLY
>> TRUE CLOSED SYSTEM, and so just merely in order
>> to exist... every form of matter MUST be paying back
>> to the universe a measure of energy.
>>
> On the other hand the particles just might be
> quantised and unable to have
> arbitrary bits of energy chipped off them.

I repeat: It does not matter to gravity what
the particles are up to, they can be quantized
or quintized and doing the Peppermint Twist.

> If we did an experiment to show
> particles were quantised and that there was
> no such thing as 23% of an
> electron or a 79% neutron particles would you
> then say you have been
> falsified?.

I will repeat: It does not matter to Gravity
what a particle is doing: You can crack a proton,
fry two quarks and put the other one in the
Fridge for later... if you're strong enought to
do it: All forms of matter are just that: forms!
This means that an electron will ALWAYS remain
an electron regardless of its "absolute" size:
the reason you can't find big/small electrons
is that all the electrons in the universe are
the same "size" (just'bout, leastwise most of
the ones I've measured personally).

> [snip] that
>> Energy existing without a well-defined "polarity"
>> literally "merely fills up space" (the voids--there is no
> perfect vacuum);
>
> now charge arrives

Touch a live wire--please.

>> but once it displays a "polarity" (or, better,
>> a vector), energy must interact (with itself, naturally, if
>> it's the [snip] Conversely,
>> if you use the analogy of magnetism, then you speak of the
>> universe as going from being an almost perfectly homogeneous
>> "singularity" (with no "flows" of energy anywhere) to being a
>> universe where space/matter have become two distinct "poles"
>> with energy flowing unimpeded from space into matter and then
>> from matter into space (the universe may be a true closed
>> system... but "the universe of matter" is only half of it,
>> while "the universe of energy" is its other half).
>>
>
> Rephrased: The universe is like a magnet with matter
> at one pole and energy
> at the other.
> This does not help me at all.

How about an ambulace? Ten bucks? Name it.

>> [Most exchanges of energy seek/long/work to enhance the flow
>> of that/their "exchange" (to always take the path of least
>> resistance)... and one begins to get a hint why it is that
>> a FORCE --if gravity is indeed the only real force which
>> exists in the universe-- why a force continuously-applied
>> must always produce momentum. Since a force (gravity) is
>> a "flow" of energy, use then the analogy of electricity to
>> explain why it is that its strength decreases according *
>> to "the square of distance"
>
> Now all the other things are dropped and we are
> back to there only being
> the gravitational interaction. At the same time charge
> and em force though
> dropped reappear as an analogy.

Have you ever considered just trying to make
sense of the individual words? I mean, it's
obvious you're trying to make sense of
out-of-context bits of phrases, so why not
just go all the way and cut your reading text
into individual words, dump them into a hat, and
then try to make sense of the writer's meaning
by drawing out one word at a time... everywhichway

> ... Distance is gravity's great "insulator"
>
> Now this is a phrase I really like.

Now we are-a getting soma-place!

> But for poetical not scientific
> reasons. What does it mean.

Hat, sissors, word at a time.

> If insulators prevent electromagnetic
> interactions does distance prevent
> gravatitional interactions.  What
> happened to the all pervasive force then?

It weakens proportionally to the square of
the distance between masses--sissors, hat....

> (or, the lesser the distance the least resistance
> offered to the "flow" of gravity).
>
> Unlike Newtonian mechanics you are assuming force
> is inversely proportional
> to distance (not distance squared).

If you say so it must be so, since you
obviously must guess what I am assuming
while I only know it.

>> The practical effect of
>> this is that at the subatomic level of "nearness" (or, the
>> closest imaginable distances), the "flow" of gravity is quite
>> monstrous (or, the strong force). And now you know most of
>> what I know about the nature of gravity and, consequently,
>> of a force.] Perhaps now you might also see as well:
>>
>
> Why then are there no chargeless particles in
> orbitals around nuclei.  I
> would suggest that electromagnetic interactions
> are of a level much greater
> than gravitational attraction even
> at distances of atomic radius size.

It is foolish to suggest the atom is a miniature
planetary system!

> This too can be measured.  Why do the positive
> charges in the nucleus not
> fly apart then if this electomagnetic
> force is so strong.

Charged particles do not behave like atoms
any more than atoms behave like planets. I say,
boy: they're just organized differently as matter.
And you can not talk about quarks and neutrons
as moons and planets the way you're proposing!
Interactions between quarks & protons are not
mediated by quarks or protons but by other
(charged) particles; which is not the case between
galaxies and stars. The "distances" are wrong.

> I suggest an
> even stronger force which comes about because
> matter changes into energy to
> keep particles of like charge together and
> this too can be measured.

At every level at which a range of subparticles
exists... they interact at that level AND their interaction
then go on to build up the next higher level of matter:
Quarks interact with quarks to create another
level of subparticles. Stars interact with stars to
create galaxies, and if the universe is imploding
instead of exploding NOT ONLY do galaxies
form but likely as not there'll be so much mass
in them their stars'll fall right to their centers of gravity and
maybe even create super-massive black holes in there (so
if ever you see a galaxy has one'a'em sonsofbitches
at its center... this MUST mean the universe's
imploding).

> The
> equations though similar are not the same
> and the gravitational constant is
> of several degrees of magnitude lower
> than the electromagnetic one.

This is only so if one assumes that gravity
only responds to quantities of masses: Every
charged particle and every subparticle is a
complex system of interactions unique to/inside
that gravitational system you call a charged particle,
and this means
that the relationship between electron and
nucleus is not the same as that between a planet
and its star. Sorry.

> so
> much so that you cannot feel the gravitational
> of your body pulling at your
> fingers but you will easily feel the
> magnetic attraction of a magnet that
> yu sould wrap a stamp around.

It must be tough on you walking through
all those metal detectors with that plate
in your head!

>> In the beginning the universe consisted only of energy
>> (the primordial singularity). [It could never EVER have
>> consisted of absolute nothingness because the jump from
>> absolute nothingness to something can only be breached
>> by magic.
>
> Or an alternate philosophy to these two.
> How about God for instance?

Unfortunately, like the Big Bang theory, the
God theory also doesn't explain where matter
comes from (by not explaing where God
comes from, just as BB theories don't explain
where the BB came from).

> [snip]
>
> Ill come bak to the rest later.
>
> You have put a deal of thought into this
> but it is not scientific.
> I would suggest you propose practical experiments
> which could disprove your
> theory if successful.

On the other hand, you have put very little thought
into your reply to my post--I suppose that's more
scientific, in a perverse sort of sarcastic way.

Good luck until tomorrow!

SDR
http://web.sdrodrian.com

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: What is Gravity? What is a Force? Part 2 of reply
Date: 10 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8htkca$rm5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <01bfd14b$b4830120$56b0869f@bartc.tinet.ie>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x66.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.98
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 10 14:46:37 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <01bfd14b$b4830120$56b0869f@bartc.tinet.ie>,
"Bart Connolly" <open.mind@oceanfree.net> finding that
he had an infinite eternity to write wrote PART ONE:
>
> S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com> wrote in article
> <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> In article <16127-393BC4D1-15@storefull-174.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> oldcoot@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard), knowing S D Rodrian, wrote:
>>
>>> The Nightbat wrote. re, SDR...
>>>
>>>   >You have some facts, but in disarray.
>>>
>>>
>
>> The advent of gravity in the universe results from its
>> energy breaking into a "flow" (in a closed system, 2nd law
>> of thermodynamics). And so we may with some confidence
>> posit that the natural state of our universe is, for the
>> most part, one in which matter is forced to exist. The
>> "orientation" of that "flow" (determined by the 2nd law
>> of thermodynamics) is to be the "thermal" equivalent of
>> convection currents whose "work" is to equalize the
>> distribution of ("energy" in this case) across the entirety
>> of the universe: In this sense, the advent of gravity can
>> be thought of as a "wave" which "runs" across the universe
>> (towards its center) bringing order/equilibrium to the
>> totality of energy in existence. As it travels throughout
>> the universe it creates eddies and horrific tornados (the
>> various "forms" of matter which then immediately AND quite
>> instantly begin to "unwind away" back into equilibrium/energy).
>> The result is that ALL the "forms" of matter are temporary
>> and absolutely certainly NONE whatever are fundamental in
>> nature. [This not only suggests the real possibility of the
>> gravitational constant (Newton) changing values over time
>> but over different volumes of the universe as well.]
>
> You cannot come up with E=m c squared or Newtons
> big G without accepting
> what Einstein and Newton said.

There are historical truths in the bible which
I am forced to accept, without being forced
to accept the whole kit'n'kaboodle.

> If you depart from them show where.

Read on! Read on! Read on! Eventually you too
will read something.

> The
> above puts in mind Decartes "theory or vortices."
> You might be interested
> in that.  But ut to is disproved.

All Big Bang theories "puts in mind" also
the idea from the Dark Ages of a First Cause Uncaused
(the Greek Golden Dark Ages as well).

>> Because they are but "forms" ... regardless of which form
>> they take and which "size" they might be... we shall always
>> continue to recognize their "forms" (shapes, et al). And if
>> all the "forms" in our universe are shrinking (or enlarging
>> for that matter) uniformly around us--all of them, including
>> even us poor human forms as well--then it's nearly impossible
>> to notice to what extent they are doing this, or whether they
>> are even doing it or not.
>
> I notice the word "nearly".

You mean after I repeated it 800 times? Boy, you
ARE a perceptive little rascal, aren't you!

> So it is possible to measure them?

Not directly, but the current speed of light
is a hint (as well as the fact that the speed of
light must change with the age of the universe).
The Hubble Constant is also a hint. The universe
hints at its true nature throughout, and once we
finally get used to walking on our legs after
so many eons up in the trees... we'll get to them.

> Rephrased: Everything is now "form" which is
> defined by "size" etc…by us
> If everything is changing at a constant rate
> it is hard to measure.
>
> You do not say it is impossible.

Nothing is impossible (it may take some time,
but eventually people will be born ducks if
they so wish, and be able to wish before they are
born).

>> In the closed system universe we can assume a "polarity"
>> moving from space to matter and then from matter to space
>> because energy "flows into" the creation of matter (which
>> results in the "organization" of gravitational systems)
>> and then energy "flows out" of matter... necessarily
>> resulting in matter (those gravitational systems) shrinking.
>
> "Polarity" not defined.

= velocity (you can add something later
picked from whatever analogy you're using at the time)

> Again the concept
> (I think but "energy flows" and
> "organisation" complicate this - are you
> saying thermodynamic systems tend
> to maximum order or minimum chaos- that is
> actually against the 2nd Law)_
> that matter is not quantised because bits of it
> turn into energy causing
> the matter to shrink.
> By the way there is an assumption in
> this that all
> matter is made of the same thing and
> that more of it takes up more space.

Get rid of the notion that there is ANY
fundamental form of matter: Only gravity/energy
is fundamental. All the forms of matter are
"formed" of gravity/energy. A planet is not
the same as a star, nor a black hole the same
as an electron... but they are only "forms" of
matter (you may wish to think of them as
different forms of matter, but they are just
"forms"). E=MC2 is but a hint of how much
gravity/energy is in the forms of matter:
It is a humble hint. The universe of matter
may be able to shrink for billions and billions
of years more without there appearing any
signs anywhere that it's running out of energy.
You can't judge how much energy's left in
matter from how much space there is inside
an atom (apples & oranges).

> Do you believe several (say 4) nucleons
> take up 4 times as much space as
> one?  Actually your "shrinking" concept
> could be related to binding energy
> per nucleon causing "missing mass"
> In Alpha particles for example. But
> matter did not shrink in this case.

Look (literally): Look at your hand: It's
shrinking. But you will NEVER notice it's
shrinking... and yet the atoms of which your
hand is composed are forever taking up less
and less volume. But nothing changes, meanwhile:
Heat doesn't come off your hand and the
stored plutonium cores in nuclear bombs do
not explode spontaneously. Think (your brain
is shrinking at a phenomenal rate... many,
many times faster than the speed of light).
So hurry. You haven't got a lot of time left, old boy.

>> The result is also cataclysmic (and absolutely chaotic,
>> given the fact that the "flow" of gravity, like the flow
>> of electricity, always seeks the path of least resistance):
>
> Or you could say instead that gravitons will
> follow the path of geodesics
> in space-time.

You could say that, but I've never met
a graviton yet that could read a map.
I prefer to think that they do it by smell.

>> In practice
>> fact that the "strength" of gravity always
>> diminishes inversely-proportionally to the square of
>> distance* (distance being its insulation) means that the
>
> This is totally different of gravity being a
> consequence of geometry as in
> my last statement.  The problem with Newtonian
> GMm/rsquared is what is r?
> Distance between two points?  Each point can
> be considered as an event in
> spacetime and the r becomes a none absolute.

Well, think of it as a constant that is constantly
shifting at a constant rate then. Whatever works 4 U.

>> "energy flows" quickly turned into localized "swirls" and
>> that then, during all the eons since the birth of the forms
>> of matter... those "gravitational systems" swirled into more
>> and more complex interactions (ever tightening even as they
>> interacted with each other)... having necessarily started
>> from "immense volumes" and then "shrunk" throughout their
>> subsequent existence... as the very gravity of which they were
>> made was literally almost immediately "sucked" out of them.
>
> C.F Decartes

When Descartes agrees with me I agree with him.

>> [Notice that this history of the universe is the exact
>> opposite of the histories proposed from a Big Bang: In an
>
> What is an exact Big Bang.  How is it measured?
> Opposite in what sense?
> Negative?  Or just changing in a negative sence?
> Are you not just saying that implosion is
> the opposite of explosion?

By George, I think he's got it! [Tango here.]

>> imploding universe the "primordial singularity" would have
>> encompassed the greatest possible volume and then slowly
>
> A singularity has no volume by definition

That's easy enough to fix: I so define it
from this moment on! (Also if it's all the volume
there is and all there is is that volume... how
would you define "volume?")

>> (most gently of all at first, almost imperceptibly at first)
>> .. it slowly accelerates and ever will accelerate (exactly
>> as observations now tell us the Hubble Constant measures).
>
> But you are saying there is a gradually accelerating
> implosion.  Yet the
> universe has been measured as expanding.

Look into the eyes of the guys who measured it
as such: You see how blood-shot they are (the eyes):
Would you really trust them to have seen things clearly
enough to have measured it correctly? [the guys]

>> To propose, as Big Bang inflationary theories propose that
>> the universe "accelerated" instantaneously at any point in
>> its history is to propose that it can go against the laws of
>> physics. Period.]
>
> If you throw out the laws of physics what do you
> replace them with?

The laws of supply and demand (you understand these laws
you understand instantly why the drug problem can't be solved
by attacking the supply side only, or even mostly: the demand is
the roots of it).

> Well
> with this above it seems. Therefore your
> theory is not a scientific theory.

Naturalment! It's a supply-side economic theory
(I've made a few bucks with it).

>  As I have already said you cannot then
> use "Energy" "matter" "work"
> "force" "charge" "acceleration" in the
> common scientifically understood
> sense if you throw out the laws of physics.

What if I just toss them gently? In any case, if
I can throw out the laws of physics you'd better
be scared of me! I is strong!

> I think the Big Bang cosmology
> actually talks of an expanding not
> an "accelerated" universe.  Maybe you
> refer to the inflationary model which
> is one type of Big Bang.

Maybe the "expansion" has been reported
to be accelerating--Who knows! Check it out.

> If the universe is expanding one of
> the two principles of cosmology says
> that we do not have different Laws of
> physics in some parts.  Do you wish
> to throw out isotropism and homogeneity
> as well?

If the universe were expanding/exploding
you wouldn't be able to have a hole in your
head because matter could not clump and would
forever bleed like a hemophilic Godhead.

>>     * In solid geometry, the surface area of
>>       a sphere is "directly proportional to the
>>       square of its radius" (that is, if one
>>       sphere has three times the radius of another,
>>       then it has nine times more surface area).
>>       I usually shorten Newton's gravitational
>>       constant ("the gravitational force between
>>       two bodies is inversely-proportional to the
>>       square of the distance between them") to
>>       just simply a mention of the fact that "the
>>       strength of gravity diminishes proportionally
>>       to the square of distance" or some such (it's
>>       incorrectly expressed this way, of course,
>>       but for the sake of exactness.. now you know
>>       "exactly" what this refers to).
>
> Now we are back to Newtonian mechanics.
> But Einsteinian spacetime is not exactly follow
> this, but in most cases we
> are used to on earth it is so close as not
> to notice the difference and
> accept the approximation.  A bit Like
> accepting the approximation of
> E=mc^2.

I'm a member of the Quantum Theory Church
and in there we all pray by approximations.
We also donate by approximations, which
is why our priest is only approximately good
part of the time.

> I don't know exactly what "shortening a
> constant" refers to.

You know when a baby's throwing a fit at the
movie house... well, "shortening a constant"
means the movie's bound to end sometime and
then we can all finally go home!

>>> (Well, if gravity is primal
>>> to all else, how can it be
>>> 'fueled' by what isn't there yet?)
>>
>> Gravity is not fueled: Gravity is the fuel.
>> Gravity IS energy & energy is not created or
>> destroyed: Energy is ALL that exists...
>
> Are you saying that space is a consequence
> of the mass/energy in it?

I don't know WHAT I was saying: I think I might've
been drinking rootbeer at the time. But, in any case:
There is energy here and nothing there. This tells me
that we're here and not there. Ask yourself there
where you are! See! You are there and NOT here. That's
the principle behind being there (a branch of Zen
Physics). How do you define "space?"

>> Gravity (energy) creates (goes into) matter.
>> Matter is, for all practical purposes, motion.
>> Motion must be "fueled" or it's done by magic.
>
> Really?  I thought bodies at rest or constant
> motion stay that way forever
> according to Newtons First Law.

There are no infinities. Sorry: They only stay
"that way" until somebody kicks'em outta the way.
And this universe is teeming with bigfooted people
waiting to kick something (or some "body").

> Is this his first Law or magic.

Well, since Clinton can't be counted on
to enforce the law... I guess we must count
on magic then (at least until Bush gets in).

> Ironically Newton was into this type of
> stuff but never let in interfere
> with his scientific writings.

He didn't inhale too?!?!

>> If all the forms of matter are made of energy
>> (gravity, or E=MC2), then as their motions (or
>> existence) are fueled by the energy IN THEM,
>> either they (the forms of matter) MUST "shrink"
>> or the whole thing's being done by magic. I can
>> find no reason to suppose that it's done by magic,
>> unlike many other physicists & cosmologists.
>>
>>> He makes the universal error of
>>> assuming gravity to be an "attraction",
>>
>> Einstein's proposal that the universe obeys the
>> laws of geometry rather than the laws of physics
>> is a cop-out: It stems from Einstein's unnecessary
>> attempt to "repair" the notion that in Newton's
>> theory of gravitation accelerated masses transmit
>> information (action at a distance) which travels
>> at infinite speed. The very fact that while in our
>> universe the only thing which has existence at the
>> most fundamental level IS a "force" (gravity) and
>> that "forces" are excluded in Einstein's relativity
>> .. is enough to raise all available red flags.
>
> So how do you explain the precession of
> the perihelion of Mercury

I never explain anything that's already been
explained to my satisfaction. Nor do I join in
when the "wave" rings the stadium either.

> or
> gravitational lensing which you can readily see
> in Hubble Space telescope
> pictures.

Bifocals (or it could just be that the photon
obeys most of the laws of physics other particles
obey... albeit it's still a rogue particle and
should be given a speeding ticket).

>>> and that it needs to be
>>> 'fueled'.
>>
>> Gravity, I repeat, is really the only "force" that
>> exists. It is therefore the only anything that exists
>> (i.e. energy). It is illogical to say that energy
>> requires energy to fuel itself! Please use brain.
>
> It is nonsensical but not illogical.

How do you know it's not "illogical but not nonsensical?"
This is not science but I'll take 2 cupcakes and a brownie.

> You are still using "force" "energy"
> etc. in a non scientific way.

I have the energy to use the force,
and so I force the energy.

>>> He also makes the error of assuming
>>> the universe to be an
>>> 'oscillating' system.. rather than a continuously-
>>> running, closed loop
>>> in which all phases - Expansion, Contraction/ implosion,
>>> Creation-dissolution, are occurring perpetually
>>> and simultaneously, and
>>> interchanging through a central 'Engine'.
>>
>> On the contrary, I say energy is all that exists
>> (it is Existence). I say that in our closed system
>
> So you assume the universe is closed

24 hours (Not on the same day, duh!)

> ie

You hurt yourself (I could've told him
he would, but I prefer to reply to posts
like these than to those I have to reply
with my head: It's murder typing through
my beard.)

> finite in size? Or are you saying
> that it is finite in the amount
> or mass/energy in it?

"Size" is relative: It only exists in the human brain.
If the universe were the size of a grape, would it
be small or big?

The universe has to be a closed system, otherwise
it would behave monstrously different than the way
it behaves for us: FLAT as that little dog I ran over
the other day... and which then forced me to run flat
out like a dog from its HUGE owner... this tells me
that our universe is flat (and deflating even more).

>> universe the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that
>> chaos occasionally requires the universe to regulate
>> (bring into equilibrium) its many parts... which it
>> does simply and efficiently by
>
> by what mechanism?

You know, I wrestled with just that for over 10,000
words or more over at my web site ( web.sdrodrian.com )
and the least you can do is wrestle your way through
all'em words as well.

Clue: Existence (the Singularity of energy) shifts
like a brand new (newly) fertalized egg and turns itself
inside out... then it develops legs and runs for it
(which Mother Nature interprets as somebody kicking
in her womb). Later come chickens, pigs, and cockroaches
(without which no civilized existence is possible).

> How is this efficiency measured?

By God! (No, that's really the answer: God can stand
outside the universe and measure everything about it.
While we, in here, and this includes you there, we
can only glimpse what dim hints great minds like
mine may light for you before we short-the-hell-out
and spend the rest of our lives talking about trout
and catfish... I remember the biggest catfish I ever--

> How is this mechanism chaotic?

Do you see it clearly? Well, ok, I'll wait until you
get your glasses. Still can't understand it clearly?
Ok, I'll wait until you fetch your granddaughter. There
ya go: You see: It's a mess! Man, I mean, you could
kill a whole buncha people here on this planet alone
and do you think the universe'd notice it? No! Chaos.
Entropy. More money for police. It all fits in.

>> means of "currents" or
>> "flows" of energy (positive-to-negative or negative-
>
> What is "negative energy"?

You know when you first sit down to supper at your
girlfriend's parents' house... and they know you
know about their little girl's mole what looks like
the Virgin Mary... well, THAT's negative energy
right there (just in the looks them people give'ya).

>> to-positive, until, in the electricity analogy... its
>> energy isn't "grounded" any more and existence can
>> safely therefore perch upon itself like a crow...
>> without fear of electrocuting itself). The benefit
>> to us (of electrocuting crows) is, of course, that
>> "electrocuting crows" creates matter in its many
>> "forms" ... giving us a chance to go to the beach
>> (which I suggest you take advantage of, Bill, so
>> you can clear your head of a lot of seaweed, if
>> you've been out to sea too long, along with all the
>> baggage & other barnacles one gathers in too-long
>> a life): Always keep in mind that, as hard as it is
>> to explain oneself... it's right down perilous to try
>> to explain others.
>>
>>> He assumes we (our Local
>>> Group of galaxies and the observable universe)
>>> are in the Implosion
>>> phase.
>>
>> Once the universe manifests gravity ONLY an
>> implosion is possible. Period. And since matter
>> only "exists" during this implosion (and is the
>> imploding matter, of course)... it is matter which
>> is imploding. Energy is NOT imploding, it's only
>> merely the "forms" of matter which are doing this.
>
> How is only implosion possible?

Fetch me a fundamental force in this universe
that pushes matter apart. (I said "force"
not "after-dinner gas.") A true expanding
universe is only possible if the forms of matter
are fundamental (e.g. if ONLY space is
expanding)--this goes against the laws of
physics AND the Code of The West.

> Show how expansion is impossible?

Think I just did. But, at any rate, here's another
one: In a true expanding universe galaxies can NOT
form even at this stage (after the mythical Big Bang):
You'd have to wait until the universe was practically
about to stop expanding (the current estimate is that
galaxies would need about 80% more mass than they
currently have to keep their parts (stars) from just
flying off in all directions). And yet astronomers
claim to find galaxies almost immediately after the
Big Bang should have occurred (albeit it never occurrs
to very many of them to think ... that perhaps an
inflationary explanation of the universe cannot explain
what they ARE SEEING... and instead they propose that
that missing 80% of the matter that should be there
is in the form of some inexplicable form of exotic
matter--which has weight like regular matter but does
not register OR produce regular matter... like regular
matter does). Did you follow that? [This is merely
rhetorical: If it's a point against me you understood
it perfectly clearly; and if it's a point in my favor
then it was total nonsense: I've been here before
and I always see you there.] And now that they've
found that the so-called expansion of the universe
is accelerating, heck: now they gotta come up with
a mechanism to explain how this "dark matter" must
be constantly being added to the mass of galaxies
as well! --Otherwise, as the universe expands faster
and faster galaxies will require that more and more "dark matter"
be added to them, otherwise they'll "blow up" with
time instead of falling into their black holes like we's
see'en'm doing now! It's just too much insanity on
top of insanity to try to keep the notion of an expanding
universe going! Give it up! The power of SDR
commands you! The power of SDR commands you!
The power of SDR commands you!...

> Are you saying that gravity is always attractive
> therefore the universe is
> contracting?
> Take the sum of the series 1+1/2+1/4+1/8
> It is always getting bigger but
> never reaches 2.  The sum is always expanding
> but has a limit.

You mean that if I start walking towards a wall
and every time I get half-way there I start walking
a bit slower... I will never run into the wall?
Say, just how big a midget do you take me for!

PS. Why don't you, instead of playing with
your numbers to no end at all, why don't you
create a system to beat the lottery odds?

> In any case we measure it expanding.

Sir: Nobody measures anything expanding
who can't swing a measuring tape around the thing!
What you are doing is misinterpreting an
observation, that's all.

> Suppose it was contracting?

As long as the forms of matter are NEVER
fundamental... we're OK. However, if you
live in an universe made up of fundamental
forms of matter (and no matter at WHICH level)
then you're inside an imploding star there, pardner,
and you're very likely to get squished.

> So what did it start out from?

"IF, in order to exist, Existence
would have had to have a Beginning:
it could not exist." It does, ergo
whatever "exists" has ALWAYS existed:
There is nothing beyond it. And since,
at its most fundamental, existence
can only be described as energy, then
energy it must be that "exists" and
has always "existed" and will always
"exist" (even though I hate to predict
the future--too many unsuspected
variables).

The "volume" of existence can never be
described as having a size, but it was ALL
that existed. There is NO possibility
whatsoever that such a volume would have
in ANY sense of the word... exploded.
However, if the volume of existence was
not (or just ceased to be) homogeneous
then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says
a vector (flow) there must have arisen
within it: Gravity... matter... and little
green apples. Lawd! So that's how the world starts:
not with a fart but with a gentle whiff.

>>> And to explain the Hubble Constant
>>> and its APPARENT acceleration,
>
>>> he invokes the "shrinking in place" idea.
>>
>> The Hubble Constant is measuring a very, very REAL
>> phenomenon, Bill: The galaxies ARE receding from
>> each other. This very real observation, however, has
>> been misinterpreted to mean that the universe itself
>> is exploding (or expanding): A physical impossibility
>> revealed AT EVERY POINT one considers it with even
>> the least modicum of common sense
>
> the observation is actually that the further
> away you go the faster
> galaxies are moving away from us.

Hurrah for you! (At least you understand
something!) Now see if you can understand
this: The latest data suggest that the rate
(speed) at which the galaxies are receding
from each other is growing faster with time!
1) In an "expanding" universe where only
   the force of gravity applies throughout,
   this is a physical impossibility.
2) The only "body" which can exhibit an
   acceleration is one to which a force is
   continuously applied.
3) 2 plus 2 still equals 4 (maybe)

> I particular this is linear i.e twice
> the distance away twice the rate of
> recession. Now how do you explain that?

The forms of matter FIRST shrink and THEN
they all move towards each other to fill in
the gaps created by their shrinking in the
first place: This has been going on since
the beginning of the universe of matter (and
this means that, regardless which is the most
fundamental level at which this shrinking is
taking place, it is by now probably the most
constant constant "in" the universe). Moreover
you can see (vain hope) that the 2nd "motion"
can never catch up with the 1st "motion" (and
in fact it MUST forever lag behind even if
only so infinitessimally. At the human level
this gap is seamless, but it's magnified by
astronomical distances (which "magnification"
we interpret as the Hubble Constant).

[Side note: Yes, the imploding universe HAS
an absolute vector of implosion just like an
imploding star! However, at the human scale
it's astronomically difficult to perceive that
it has any at all! Imagine it this way: Suppose
you were standing on an atom in an imploding
star: What would you "see" if not the other atoms
around you uniformly moving towards your atom?
Yet we know that gravity creates an "elongation"
towards the center as those atoms nearest the
center of the star move faster than those nearest
the surface of the star. So too with the imploding
universe: Inevitably... those "forms" of matter
nearest the center will also "move" faster than
those farthest away (or, in the case of the universe
"shrink" faster, as, unlike atoms in an imploding
star, the implosion of the universe only concerns
"forms"). So big is the universe that this
difference in the "speeds" of the items imploding
is irrelevant on the human scale--though perhaps
the cosmic background radiation can finally tell
us whether or not we can "see" any orientation
out there... or, "which way to" the "center."]

> How do you explain that space is contracting
> but the matter in it is moving
> away from other matter.

Think I just did. But, at any rate, the forms of
matter are not shrinking at the level of you and
your car ONLY... so you don't have to fear that it'll
rush away from you as you try to give it a bath
on a rainy day. The universe has been "shrinking"
(imploding) since the FIRST instances of matter in
it--this means that all the "forms" built upon
those earliest "forms" of matter have had enough
time to agree to the cosmic ballet with ALMOST
absolute perfection (at least at the human scale).

> Science is not about common sense

Science is about commen sense (it's only
the occasional scientist that is senseless).

> it is about unnaturally uncommon sense.

Ah! Psychic intrusions! I like it: I "see"
many misunderstandings in your future...

> In any case common sense in my
> experience is not very common.

You've been hanging around with very common
folk, haven't you! Common sense is very common
among the priviledged few (especially the 1%).

>> to be the physical
>> impossibility it is: The fact that the speed of light
>> is always measured as a constant in identical mediums
>> is telling us that it is matter which is in motion
>> past the photon and not the other way around. The fact
>> that you'd need five times more mass in a galaxy than
>> a galaxy has is telling us that the universe CAN NOT
>> possibly be exploding/expanding.
>
> Now we are back to light in a ether.
> Check out Michelson Moreley
> experiment 1905 I think.

Oops, I came back too early! Wait a sec...

Hang on, let me fire up my time machine.
Ok, I'm back (however, the only novel thing
I can report is that deodorants were not
in common use back then... nor baths).

S D Rodrian
http://answer.findhere.com

continued on Part Two...

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: What is Gravity? What is a Force? Part 2 of reply
Date: 10 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8htlp4$spn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8hmh1a$m3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <01bfd14b$b4830120$56b0869f@bartc.tinet.ie> <8htkca$rm5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x71.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.62.73.212
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 10 15:10:37 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <01bfd14b$b4830120$56b0869f@bartc.tinet.ie>,
"Bart Connolly" <open.mind@oceanfree.net> finding that
he had an infinite eternity to write wrote PART TWO:
 

> What has that to do with dark matter.

To repeat: In a true expanding universe galaxies can NOT
form even at this stage (after the mythical Big Bang):
You'd have to wait until the universe was practically
about to stop expanding (the current estimate is that
galaxies would need about 80% more mass than they
currently have to keep their parts (stars) from just
flying off in all directions). And yet astronomers
claim to find galaxies almost immediately after the
Big Bang should have occurred (albeit it never occurrs
to very many of them to think ... that perhaps an
inflationary explanation of the universe cannot explain
what they ARE SEEING... and instead they propose that
that missing 80% of the matter that should be there
is in the form of some inexplicable form of exotic
matter--which has weight like regular matter but does
not register OR produce