From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What exactly is gravity
Date: 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <84qh8f$cdj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38a139f2.19008f05@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<38708EDC.805AB952@cyberx.com> <
06284168.2917c6cd@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com> <84q578$l7f$1@gxsn.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.139
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 03 16:03:36 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.electromag
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <84q578$l7f$1@gxsn.com>,
"John Thornley" <john@remove.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I believe the person concerned is striving for a meaning and a reason
> for
> gravity. He will have the same problem with electromagnetism and
the
> strong
> and weak nuclear force. At the root of this is the question.. "what
> do you
> expect from science? what is it?" If you feel that science should
be
> involved with "modelling the observable" through the usual process
of
> hypothesis/test/theory/refute etc then the current "model" of gravity
> is
> fairly useful. The model doesn't tell you WHAT some thing is, only
> HOW it
> behaves. If you want science to tell you the WHAT rather than the
> HOW, then
> you, and everyone on earth is in for a BIG disappointment.
>
> Think about electrons, for example, it's easy to describe an electron
> as a
> particle in certain situations. the trap is thinking that an electron
> IS a
> particle. It isn't, but it BEHAVES like one on certain situations.
>
> Wayne. I think may be you are missing something.
>
> best wishes
>
> - --
> John Thornley
> john_Thornley@remove.bigfoot.com
Wayne, all of the above is basically accurate:
Current "conventional" physics has no idea WHATEVER
what gravity is or why it should work at all
(translation: "Maybe Aristotles was correct and
little gods and goddessess are doing that work
without us seeing them," or "action at a distance,"
or "spacetime" ... which is their current cunjuring
word and basically says that matter creates holes
and curves in space into which smaller bits of matter
fall and veer in their own good time as they travel
world lines). I only exaggerate a little, really.
However, if you would like to read an explanation
that doesn't resort to magic, you can try:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
Hope this helps,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
RE:
> Wayne <wayneNOwaSPAM@wr.com.au.invalid> wrote in message
> news:06284168.2917c6cd@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
>> Your joking....so science has no explanation for how two
>> objects pull each other together other than to say it's gravity
?
>> I mean what do they think is going on here...two objects
>> just fall towards each other for no other reason than they have
>> a mass and they are a certain distant apart.
>>
>> Am I missing something ?
>>
>> Wayne
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What exactly is gravity
Date: 04 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <84tc5s$dp5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38a139f2.19008f05@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<38708EDC.805AB952@cyberx.com>
<06284168.2917c6cd@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com> <84q578$l7f$1@gxsn.com>
<84qh8f$cdj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3871672C.214A7B6E@flash.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.232
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 04 17:55:15 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3871672C.214A7B6E@flash.net>,
"George J. Bugh" <gbugh@flash.net> wrote:
> Well scientists do have SOME ideas about what gravity is don't they?
I'm afraid I must disenchant you here: Scientists (Newton/calculus/
Einstein/etc.) can calculate orbits pretty neatly, but they know
absolutely nothing of what gravity might be. This is the equivalent
of not knowing how the magician does his tricks but being familiar
enough with his programme. Brave (or foolhardly) physicists have
posited a particle (the graviton) as the mediator of gravity; but
their graviton is much too much a late-comer in the history of the
universe to satisfy my own view that gravity must always have been
present in the universe--In fact, I believe it is the only force acting
in the universe (so my graviton is not so much a particle as the
"personification" --the face-- of that force).
> I've read that gravity is not really a force but rather an effect
of a
> warp in space-time.
What you have read is the equivalent of primitives observing
a helicopter taking off and describing it as, "a monstrous puff of
dust accompanied by horrific sounds of chopping amid cyclones
which then caused the little house with the glass bubble to
vanish into the sky... we all prayed for the poor devils inside it."
Again: Saying spacetime is a rubber surface which produces holes
wherever on it one drops a bowling ball is not saying very much.
> Objects tend to remain in the same place unless
> acted upon by an outside force. In warped space-time, that "same
> place"
> is on the move for some reason and so obects move to actually remain
>
> in the same place.
I wish you'd simply read Newton's laws of motion (he puts it
very much more elegantly/succinctly).
> Then the question is how does matter with mass cause a warp in
> space-time?
There are no lack of theories, believe me: From suggestions that
attractive gravity is an illusion and what we really have is a
universal repulsive force, to more ordinary notions of particle
physics nuclear interaction... The problem with most of these
ideas is that they seldom take into consideration that the
pre-Big Bang universe (singularity) had to have been put-
together somehow/someway, and that gravity is the only force
we know of which might have been capable of doing just that
(absent some more primordial force we can never know of;
personally I cannot imagine a more primordial force than
the attract/repel one of the graviton/oppositon, but's that's
just me).
> If there is ever to be found a link between gravity and any
> of the other fundamental forces then it may be possible that in some
> way
> or another the others forces also have something to do with
> space-time getting warped.
This is the holy grail of the unified field theories: My own
religion is that gravity is the only force and that
weak\electromagnetism and the strong force are merely gravity's
behavior under sets of circumstances different from the conventional
view of gravity as the force holding firm galaxies and orbiting bodies.
> If this is true then it is possible that not just gravity but all
> fundamental forces are really not forces at all but rather effects
of
> warps or distortions in space-time causing objects to move.
It's much more probable that our magician (above) really does
work real magic. However, if that is YOUR religion, I'll respect it.
> The
> electric
> force for example could be another form of distortion in space-time.
As fas as this discussion... apples & oranges.
> Charged particles that move due to an electric field are really just
> trying to stay in the same place in a distorted space-time.
EM has its own (very simple to understand, actually) rules. But
keep trucking: Never know where it may take you,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What exactly is gravity
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <855kmb$ava$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38a139f2.19008f05@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<84qh8f$cdj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3871672C.214A7B6E@flash.net>
<84tc5s$dp5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <85412h$lje@charity.ucr.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.15
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 21:09:43 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <85412h$lje@charity.ucr.edu>,
baez@charity.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> In article <84tc5s$dp5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>>In article <3871672C.214A7B6E@flash.net>,
>> "George J. Bugh" <gbugh@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well scientists do have SOME ideas about what gravity is don't
>>> they?
>>
>>I'm afraid I must disenchant you here: Scientists (Newton/calculus/
>>Einstein/etc.) can calculate orbits pretty neatly, but they know
>>absolutely nothing of what gravity might be.
> Baloney. They do - and it ain't "gravitons" as you suggest.
"It isn't." In any case, if you had bothered to actually
read the text you wouldn't have to make an "ass" of
yourself by ass-u-ming some preposterous notion which
only lives in your own head: Don't guess. Read the text.
[In the only usage I put the word to here, your statement
above translates: "Gravity is not gravity." Which see.]
In the text you will see that I use the word "gravitons"
to help in the understanding of gravity (and not to point
to anything remotely resembling a particle):
BEGIN QUOTE:
> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.
Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.
>
> Is that it?
It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(simply = "gravity is more powerful where more matter" )
(And by the way, it's not "would seem" but "are" receding.)
The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the
center of the universe" ... this is not what's happening!
1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes
& forms."
3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
will not accumulate at the center of the universe.
(How
could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
because they merely represent the force of gravity,
and
are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!
--PLEASE NOTE THIS for future reference.--
4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely
represent
attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will
unravel
and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will
take over
and, "Yara, yara, yara..." eventually recreate the
gravitons
and then we will have another universe. (But don't
guess:
read my text--And, by the way, if you can express
all this
better than I have there, then I'll consider myself
your
student and take up working with needles and cloth.)
You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.
QUOTE continued:
> Lets say a person is standing at the center of a football field
> holding a
> torch. Two other people are on the field, one at each end.
Both see
> the
> torch light "hit them" at the same time.
> Assumption 1 - We are actually shrinking (at the speed of light?)
Read my Text: That would be wrong. Understand the
following four fundamental "speeds" ...
1) absolute rest (or, x-space) --please, no quibbling--
2) the photon's speed with respect to "absolute rest"
3) "our" (the) speed (of ordinary matter wrt absolute rest)
4) the photon's speed with respect to "us"
"Absolute rest" is the place from which we are moving.
I have no idea what "our" speed is with respect to absolute rest
(but it is a lot "faster" than the photon's speed with respect to it).
I have no idea how fast the photon's speed is with respect to
absolute rest, but it is a lot slower than "ours."
I know the photon is "moving" at 186,282 miles per second
SLOWER than "we" with respect to absolute rest; but I know not
either how fast the photon is moving with respect to absolute rest
nor how fast "we" are moving wrt absolute rest. [Obviously,
knowing one is to to know the other.] But it is therefore possible
to move at a speed slower than the photon's. It is also possible
to travel faster than the photon: "We" do it all the time. What
I cannot imagine is that it's possible to travel faster than "we"
(ordinary matter) are already "traveling." [Although, think: Some
portions of our universe MUST be "traveling" faster than other
portions. And, as the universe ages, the "speed" at which ordinary
matter travels will slow--because gravity is becoming less powerful:
The "expansion" of the universe will slow down, but not for the
reasons proposed by the Big Bang theorists. It will slow down
because we will eventually run out of gravitons = gravity.]
> Assumption 2 - Light is at or near absolute rest and is not
> shrinking.
"Light" is not a force but a particle just as all other particles of
ordinary matter are particles: Every particle of matter (made of
gravitons) is a "shrinking form" (construct)... including the photon.
> Since we are shrinkin (including the torch) and I suppose moving
> towards each
> other so that we can't tell we are shrinking (?), and since light
is
> not
> shrinking, we are actually "hitting" the "space" that the light
> occupies and
> where the torch was once big.
In the context of x-space, this is most convoluted reasoning. PLEASE
reason this out so it makes enough sense for me to bother telling where
"it" is in error!
> This is why (according to SDRodrian I think) light appears to be
> radiating when
> in fact we are moving towards it and occupying the 'space' where
the
> torch
> once was. As we shrink, light appears to radiate and occupy more
> space.
The above text makes no sense in any frame of thought imaginable.
Don't guess: Read the text! (And please also use your brain
in addition to your eyes: It's written so even a teenager making out
on the back of his parents' car can understand it without missing a
beat.)
> Am I on the right track to understanding what you are trying to say?
Yes! Absolutely: In spite of your present incomprehensibility (I just
can't make heads or tails of what you think my thoughts are), one will
ALWAYS eventually understand what one WANTS to understand. It's just
a matter of going about it with an open mind and unstinting effort.
> Maybe you could clarify using a similar example? Without the
> gravitons for
> the moment?
My gravitons are not particles: They are the force
of gravity--If you don't need to find the "strength" of
the universe's gravity (assign it a value) you will never
need to count my gravitons whatSOever. Cease thinking
about them. There! See: They're gone. Only gravity remains.
> And if this is the case, then why does the rest of the universe
> appear to be expanding while nothing appears to be expanding locally?
Look at the Big-Banger's explanation for this, it also applies here.
O, the sting-k
END QUOTE
> Yes we do. [know what gravity is] It's spacetime curvature.
Personally I think "abracadabra" is a much better conjuring word
than "spacetime curvature."
> This is probably not the
> last word, but it's definitely something worth knowing about.
Yes, it might not be the last word indeed.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What exactly is gravity
Date: 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8501h1$7re$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38a139f2.19008f05@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<38708EDC.805AB952@cyberx.com>
<06284168.2917c6cd@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com> <84q578$l7f$1@gxsn.com>
<84qh8f$cdj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3871E17F.A78A8BC@scee.sony.co.uk>
<84tr7r$h4e$1@gxsn.com> <Pine.BSD/.3.91.1000105142315.3391C-100000@saba.kuentos.guam.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.164
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 05 18:11:58 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.electromag
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.1000105142315.3391C-100000@saba.kuentos.guam.net>,
Mathew <mjp@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
> Anyone care to explain if Anti_Gravity is possible?
Sure:
If you can put aside all conventional notions of
the graviton as a subparticle mediating gravity
in today's universe (and instead consider gravity
as the fundamental force in nature)... then
to balance out gravity you must have a/the oppositon
(which is anti-gravity by another name). And
my own view of it all can be found at my WWW site:
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
RE:
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, John Thornley wrote:
>
>> --
>> John Thornley
>> john_Thornley@remove.bigfoot.com
>>
>> !!! Remove "remove" to reply
>> Mike Philbin <Mike_Philbin@scee.sony.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3871E17F.A78A8BC@scee.sony.co.uk...
>>> isn't it true that the separate atoms themselves 'understand'
nothing of
>>> the force of gravity? theirs being the world of the
electromagnetic....
>>
>> No, this isn't true. If it were, many constructs, such as the
derivation of
>> moment of inertia of a body would fall over.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> where do they cunningly get this macroscopic knowledge about
gravity
>>> from?
***************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What exactly is gravity
Date: 06 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <852rpg$at0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38a139f2.19008f05@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<38708EDC.805AB952@cyberx.com>
<06284168.2917c6cd@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<84q578$l7f$1@gxsn.com> <84qh8f$cdj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<yMyc4.4498$Vj3.94132@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca> <l0Ac4.4826$G55.58498@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.162
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 19:52:22 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.electromag
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <l0Ac4.4826$G55.58498@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
"Mark Hodgson" <mhodgson@home.com> wrote:
> Wow. Not only are we very small, but we're shrinking!
>
> A humbling thought indeed.
>
> Paul Thomas wrote in message ...
>>What is gravity?
>>My wacky theory is that all matter is shrinking at a constant
>>percentage
>>and
>>gravity is the "flow" of space into the area once occupied by matter.
>>A
>>consequence of our shrinking is that the universe appears to be
>>expanding.
>>
>>Paul
Although it does bring a tear to me eyes
(to see you boys headed in the right direction:
ever smaller and smaller), I must point out that
the universe "appears" to us to be expanding
not because the universe is "shrinking in place"
but because it's stretching out in the direction
it's headed (namely: imploding towards its center).
You can use the same usual analogy of the Big Bang
balloon with the dots, etc. except that instead of
saying that the farthest away a galaxy is from us the
faster it's receeding from us, you must instead
turn that around and say that the closer a galaxy is
to us the slower it's receeding from us... because
the galaxies ARE receeding from each other, it's
just that they're doing this in a Big Crunch universe
(instead of in a Big Bang one).
The obstacle in your sight is that the universe is
just all "forms & shapes." And it is those "forms
& shapes" that are "shrinking" (i.e. the entire
universe maintains its "form and shape" as it shrinks
except for the inevitable "stretching in the direction
of its center" which all imploding cosmic bodies
experience while collapsing into their center... and so
we do not notice we are shrinking but we do notice
that the bits of the universe furthest from center
are not travelling towards the center as fast as
the bits of the universe closest to the center (and this
we commonly misinterpret as an expansion/explosion).
Hope this helps, although I doubt it.
But you can try to see the light at:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: What exactly is gravity
Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <854oqn$l0n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38a139f2.19008f05@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
<38708EDC.805AB952@cyberx.com> <
06284168.2917c6cd@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com> <84q578$l7f$1@gxsn.com>
<84qh8f$cdj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yMyc4.4498$Vj3.94132@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca>
<l0Ac4.4826$G55.58498@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>
<852rsb$atv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <0b03c4823010710CPIMSSMTPE01@msn.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.211
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 07 13:14:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <0b03c4823010710CPIMSSMTPE01@msn.com>,
"ddaayy" <ddaayy@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:852rsb$atv$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <l0Ac4.4826$G55.58498@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
>> "Mark Hodgson" <mhodgson@home.com> wrote:
>>> Wow. Not only are we very small, but we're shrinking!
>>>
>>> A humbling thought indeed.
>>>
>>> Paul Thomas wrote in message ...
>>>>What is gravity?
>>>>My wacky theory is that all matter is shrinking at a constant
>>>>percentage
>>>>and
>>>>gravity is the "flow" of space into the area once occupied by
>>>>matter.
>>>>A
>>>>consequence of our shrinking is that the universe appears to
be
>>>>expanding.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>
>>
>> Although it does bring a tear to me eyes
>> (to see you boys headed in the right direction:
>> ever smaller and smaller), I must point out that
>> the universe "appears" to us to be expanding
>> not because the universe is "shrinking in place"
>> but because it's stretching out in the direction
>> it's headed (namely: imploding towards its center).
>>
>> You can use the same usual analogy of the Big Bang
>> balloon with the dots, etc. except that instead of
>> saying that the farthest away a galaxy is from us the
>> faster it's receeding from us, you must instead
>> turn that around and say that the closer a galaxy is
>> to us the slower it's receeding from us... because
>> the galaxies ARE receeding from each other, it's
>> just that they're doing this in a Big Crunch universe
>> (instead of in a Big Bang one).
>>
>> The obstacle in your sight is that the universe is
>> just all "forms & shapes." And it is those "forms
>> & shapes" that are "shrinking" (i.e. the entire
>> universe maintains its "form and shape" as it shrinks
>> except for the inevitable "stretching in the direction
>> of its center" which all imploding cosmic bodies
>> experience while collapsing into their center... and so
>> we do not notice we are shrinking but we do notice
>> that the bits of the universe furthest from center
>> are not travelling towards the center as fast as
>> the bits of the universe closest to the center (and this
>> we commonly misinterpret as an expansion/explosion).
>>
>> Hope this helps, although I doubt it.
>> But you can try to see the light at:
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>
>>Otherwise one can use the same usual analogy of the Big Bang
>>balloon with the dots, etc. except that instead of saying that
>>the farthest away a galaxy is from us the faster it's receeding
>>from us, one must instead turn that around and say that the
>>closer a galaxy is to us the slower it's receeding from us...
>>because the galaxies ARE receeding from each other, it's just
>>that they're doing this in a Big Crunch universe (instead of
>>in a Big Bang one). --DON'T GUESS: READ my text at AOL.--
>
> Ok, so what you're saying is that the universe is collapsing and
that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.
Yes. Now, doesn't that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe... which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?
> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.
>
> Is that it?
It's not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(And by the way, it's not "would seem" but "are.")
The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the
center of the universe" ... this is not what's happening!
1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes
& forms."
3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
will not accumulate at the center of the universe.
(How
could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
because they merely represent the force of gravity,
and
are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!
4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely
represent
attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will
unravel
and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will
take over
and, "Yara, yara, yara..." eventually recreate the
gravitons
and then we will have another universe. (But don't
guess:
read my text--And, by the way, if you can express
all this
better than I have there, then I'll consider myself
your
student and take up working with needles and cloth.)
You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.
Hope this helps, but I'll always be here for you
(because, while a lie must strike when the iron's hot,
the truth can wait until all the lies are undone).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
********************