In article <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>,
"assassin" <asasin@mpx.com.au> wrote:
> Hi, I'm just a simple little boy, with a simple question and I hope
> I've
> posted in the right group, so here goes;
>
> The universe is constantly expanding right, in which case it's
> expanding at
> a certain speed right, so what if you traveled faster than it was
> expanding,
> eventually caught up to it and went through the end of the universe.
> Is it
> hypotheticaly possible? What would happen?
>
> please post repies to asasin@mpx.com.au
> thanx in advance for any replies
>
> -assassin
The universe (and I assume you mean
just simply ordinary matter) is NOT expanding.
The pre-Big Bang Singularity was not something
the size of a flea which then (in some magical
way) was made to explode (by God, or whatever other
force causes something the size of fleas to explode
into universes).
Rather... that pre-Big Bang Singularity
was already the "size" of that "room" into which
our universe "will expand."
What really happened is that its gravitons
(the manifestation of gravity) caused that Singularity
to implode. And THAT is what is still going on
today: The misinterpretation of the universe as "expanding"
is due entirely to the fact that those parts of the universe
closest to the "center" are moving towards it
faster than those parts of the universe furthest away.
It's a simple optical illusion (but one which eventually
we will all see through).
Now you are one of the first human beings ever
to have been priviledged to be shown this reality
(although it's still up to you to see it).
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.75
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 03 00:39:43 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.alt.life.the-universe.and-everything,alt.life.universe.everything,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>,
"John Hudson" <greyness@flash.net> wrote:
> So basically what you are saying is that we are
> in the decaying period of
> the entropy theory, your "singularity" sounds a
> lot like a "big Bang" theory
> in the late stages of falling back upon itself.
1) Forget about the conventional Big Bang "explosion" notion:
It never took place. All that took place, all that
is taking
place, all that will ever take place is the implosion
of the
gravitons: That is our universe, period. If you
want to read
my "notion" of where these gravitons came from then
go to:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
I derive them from Newton's 1st Law of Motion (because
you cannot have gravitons without their opposite
number
... the oppositons, basically).
2) "in the decaying period" assumes you know where, along
the lifetime of the universe, "we" are at this point.
I have my
doubts you do, but anything's possible--except the
proposition
that "something" came into existence out of "nothing"
(There I draw the line.) But everything does move
towards
enthropy eventually.
3) If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct and
simple one, and the other one a very complex and indirect
one...
chances are the simple and most direct answer will also
be
the correct one.
S D Rodrian
RE:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message
> <84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>,
>> "assassin" <asasin@mpx.com.au> wrote:
>>> Hi, I'm just a simple little boy, with a
>>> simple question and I hope
>>> I've
>>> posted in the right group, so here goes;
>>>
>>> The universe is constantly expanding right,
>>> in which case it's
>>> expanding at
>>> a certain speed right, so what if you
>>> traveled faster than it was
>>> expanding,
>>> eventually caught up to it and went through
>>> the end of the universe.
>>> Is it
>>> hypotheticaly possible? What would happen?
>>>
>>> please post repies to asasin@mpx.com.au
>>> thanx in advance for any replies
>>>
>>> -assassin
>>
>>The universe (and I assume you mean
>>just simply ordinary matter) is NOT expanding.
>>
>>The pre-Big Bang Singularity was not something
>>the size of a flea which then (in some magical
>>way) was made to explode (by God, or whatever
>>other
>>force causes something the size of fleas to
>>explode
>>into universes).
>>
>>Rather... that pre-Big Bang Singularity
>>was already the "size" of that "room" into
>>which
>>our universe "will expand."
>>
>>What really happened is that its gravitons
>>(the manifestation of gravity) caused that
>>Singularity
>>to implode. And THAT is what is still going on
>>today: The misinterpretation of the universe as
>>"expanding"
>>is due entirely to the fact that those parts of
>>the universe
>>closest to the "center" are moving towards it
>>faster than those parts of the universe
>>furthest away.
>>It's a simple optical illusion (but one which
>>eventually
>>we will all see through).
>>
>>Now you are one of the first human beings ever
>>to have been priviledged to be shown this
>>reality
>>(although it's still up to you to see it).
>>
>>Kindly,
>>
>>S D Rodrian
>>sdr@t-three.com
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <84qgav$bkv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
<84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <zrRWKYApdAc4EwcX@microser.demon.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.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 15:47:48 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <zrRWKYApdAc4EwcX@microser.demon.co.uk>,
"B.E.Newsam" <ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Deja.com - Before you buy. writes:
>>1) Forget about the conventional Big Bang "explosion" notion:
>> It never took place. All that took place, all
that is taking
>> place, all that will ever take place is the implosion
of the
>> gravitons: That is our universe, period. If you
want to read
>> my "notion" of where these gravitons came from
then go to:
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>> I derive them from Newton's 1st Law of Motion
(because
>> you cannot have gravitons without their opposite
number
>> ... the oppositons, basically).
>>
>>2) "in the decaying period" assumes you know where, along
>> the lifetime of the universe, "we" are at this
point. I have my
>> doubts you do, but anything's possible--except
the proposition
>> that "something" came into existence out of "nothing"
>> (There I draw the line.) But everything does
move towards
>> enthropy eventually.
>>
>>
>>3) If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct
and
>> simple one, and the other one a very complex and indirect
one...
>> chances are the simple and most direct answer will
also be
>> the correct one.
>
> Ummm, yes, I'll go along with that[1]. The trouble with classic "Big
> Bang" theory is that there is a postulated "moment" when "Time began",
> but at the same time (as it were), Time itself is supposed to have
> been
> expanding, which is all very self-contradictory, IYSWIM.
>
> [1] Except for the gravitrons bit.
> --
> Ben
All one really has to do is to ask oneself:
Does it really make sense that gravitons in
the pre-Big Bang Singularity explode?
It goes against the nature of gravitons to explode
(we are not talking here about nuclear processes).
Put a few gravitons together and what do they tend to do
... move towards each other. Therefore, if our universe
is composed of gravitons, these gravitons are moving
towards each other and not away from each other: Implosion,
not explosion.
The only "theoretical" portion of my article
(http://members.aol.com/prebigbang) deals with
my contention that the existence of gravitons
is demanded by Newton's 1st Law of Motion (and
consequently the existence of "oppositons;" as
a force can not exist unless it was so balanced out).
Otherwise, the observed facts tend to support
my proposition that our universe is a continuing
implosion (and those same observed facts work against
the notion that it is any kind of an expansion)...
Even if one were to deny that the universe exerts ANY
gravitational influence at all, one would expect
the so-called expansion of the universe to remain
at the very least a steady one. But observations do not
support it being a steady expansion.
Add to it that gravity must be exerting its influence
and how can one not conclude that the so-called expansion of
the universe has to be slowing down? But, again, observations
do not support the notion that it is at all slowing down.
In fact, observations support the proposition that
the so-called expansion of the universe is, if anything,
actually accelerating! And the only reasonable assumption
one can make from that is that gravity is driving the
so-called expansion of our universe (and the only way
gravity works if through attraction, not repulsion).
This really should end the discussion right here (unless
one want to further contend that we are not observing
the facts correctly); but I suspect it won't (even today
you have people who want to prove mathematically & by
other devious methods... that the earth is flat after all).
Add to this that in a true expanding universe, space
would be constantly created (which would render "space"
meaningless)... while in an imploding universe
"space" would remain a "memory" (as the gravitons would
"remember" where they were/came from)... and now you have
the reason why x-space (expanding space) exerts a
real/physical influence in our universe (say, on the photon
... which see my article).
Once one understands even these few basic principles
about how the universe works, the rest must follow
inevitably. And I must say, I have been waiting
patiently for the scientific community to finally make
these simple observations... for a number of years now
but have had to publish them myself (this past Christmas)
if only so that "my" Twentieth Century would not go by
without some acknowledgement that we 'oldsters' knew
something of the universe in which we live after all).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
*************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 09 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <858vaa$ict$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
<84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.242
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 09 03:29:25 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.alt.life.the-universe.and-everything,alt.life.universe.everything,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>,
jdw27_42@SPAMONLY.xoommail.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>3) If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct
and
>> simple one, and the other one a very complex and indirect
one...
>> chances are the simple and most direct answer will
also be
>> the correct one.
>
> I think the history of science shows exactly the opposite: simpler
> theories being replaced by more complex ones. In chemistry,
the four
> elements of earth, air, water, and fire were replaced by over 100
and
> counting.
Apples & oranges: It's a far more complex affair to try to explain
the
world by the former than by knowing its true elements 100 or 1000.
> Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.
I believe you'll find that Newtonian mechanics has not been replaced
after all. Relativity is only required to "explain" phenomena, many
of
which are more easily/correctly explained by other means, including
mine, by the way.
> Ptolemy's
> universe was much easier for the unaccustomed mind to understand
than
> Copernicus's.
Funny you should mention that, because there is in it an analogy with
the present situation here, being no different now than it was with
all those Einstein-like astronomers/mathematicians who, before
Copernicus, were absolutely certain that the Sun and all the other
planets orbited the earth:
Ptolemy's Einstein-like Rube Goldberg construct involving
uniformly revolving, off-center circles (called eccentrics); epicycles
(little circles whose centers moved uniformly on the circumference
of circles of larger radius--deferents); and equants... was a concept
[not that far removed analoguously from the weird Einstein explanation
for c constancy] in which "a planet viewed from the center of its orbit
would appear to move sometimes faster, sometimes slower--as seen from
the earth, removed a distance e from center, the planet would also
appear to move nonuniformly ... and only from the equant, an imaginary
point at distance 2e from the earth, would the planet appear to move
uniformly. A planet-bearing sphere revolving around an equant point
will
wobble; situate one sphere within another, and the two will collide,
disrupting the heavenly order. In the 13th century a group of Persian
mathematicians at Maragheh discovered that, by combining two uniformly
revolving epicycles to generate an oscillating point that would account
for variations in distance, they could devise a model that produced
the
equalized motion without referring to an equant point." Therefore,
as
with SR/GR today, the conventional scientific community was satisfied
that their model, in which "the Moon and Sun encircled the motionless
Earth and that Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were situated beyond the Sun
in that order" worked rather neatly and all their equations could be
used without much bother to predict everything under the Heavens you'd
care to predict with them, thank you very much.
AND, to accept Copernicus's theory, scientists had to abandon much of
Aristotelian natural philosophy and develop a new explanation for why
heavy bodies fall to a moving Earth: Totally ridiculous thing to do!!!
And yet Copernicus felt compelled, as all "kooks" seem compelled, to
insist on a model in which the earth and all the other planets orbited
the Sun! And now you have an inkling why I am compelled to point out
that the universe is an implosion and not an explosion: One day, armed
with a greater truth, science will achieve yet greater victories.
Believe this if nothing else: It's as certain that the universe is an
imploding one as that the earth orbits the Sun. It's simply THAT
self-evident regardless what all the equations on earth today may
predict (incl. toast & coffee). [By the way, Copernicus himself
had so
little confidence in his own conclusions that he did not publish them
for 36 years. I only waited 10.]
An imploding universe answers all the questions; an exploding one
does nothing but raise puzzles and require Rube Goldberg constructs
everywhere to explain even the simplest observed phenomena. But, all
things being equal, I can wait until you decide to consider both sides
without prejudice ... because eventually, sooner or later, everyone
(or,
at least, most) will accept that the earth indeed revolves around the
Sun and not the other way around & that it's a Big Crunch &
not a BB.
> The last example points out the usefulness of Occam's
> razor, which you clumsily tried to explain above. The two theories
> must explain the observation EQUALLY WELL.
My imploding universe explains the observations SO MUCH WELL
(better) that I am sometimes left as amused at "your" inability to
see this as a kid looking into the monkeys' cage at the zoo.
> As the centuries passed
> after Ptolemy, more and more errors were observed, and complexity
was
> added to the geocentric theory to explain them.
I think you need not only a course on human nature but also
many a lesson in the history of astrology/astronomy/mathematics
before Copernicus (and into the analogous history of the last
century's physics/relativity/mathematics). TRUER: As the Ptolemic
system became less and less satisfactory what happened was
that the great mathematicians simply constructed wilder and wilder
Rube Goldberg equations to make it all work again (just as, today,
as Einstein's relativity raises more and more problems the "great"
mathematicians of today simply construct wilder and wilder Rube
Goldberg equations to try to make it all work again). It will fail:
Copernicus was a historical aberration (somebody who could not
understand that the best minds in the world had already resolved
the problem and were only... perfecting it). You may accuse me of being
like that, too. (I'm just not as "understanding" as Copernicus.)
> It was this large
> body of accumulated errors which allowed Kepler and Copernicus to
come
> up with a new theory.
Again, it was in spite of--read Copernicus' biography, do not guess.
> Thus, Occam's razor is useful, not in deciding
> which theory is more correct, but rather in showing where to find
the
> errors which can be used to show one theory to be less accurate than
> another.
Your eyeballs beat Occam's razor every time: Put the razor down
and look with your own eyes (and... using your brain for something
other than to remember all the stuff you've stuffed into it by rote
wouldn't hurt, either).
> On a related note, *other than the simplicity of the math*, is there
> any evidence that the speed of light is not slowly changing, rather
> than space expanding or contracting?
The "current" speed of light is a factor of the age of the universe:
Do not guess--Read the text. But know this: Radiation is possible
only in a collapsing universe. I just don't see how it could be
possible in an exploding one (and in this, at least, everybody
agrees: NO ONE who assumes an exploding universe can easily
explain why the photon behaves the way it does--least of all Einstein,
who based all his equations on the only thing he believed absolute
in the universe... the speed of light. Because of this, my friend,
if ever anywhere somebody discovers a greater speed than c
then all the foundations of SR/GR must topple; while such a find
would only be an "interesting" discovery for Absolute Relativity
and would be of no significance whatever one way or the other.
Perhaps you're one of those chaps who will have to wait this out.
Regards,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> John D. Wheeler (no relation to the great physicist John Archibald
> Wheeler)
> ---
> ROT-13 the following if you want me to read your email:
> wqj27_42@vanzr.pbz
> ---
>
> *"Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"*
Agn... It's was "ok."
***************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85i1vn$aa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
<
84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>
<858vaa$ict$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <gani7s47km73bji63m299fvp4142q5knuq@4ax.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.211
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 12 14:10:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.alt.life.the-universe.and-everything,alt.life.universe.everything,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <gani7s47km73bji63m299fvp4142q5knuq@4ax.com>,
jdw27_42@SPAMONLY.xoommail.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>,
>> jdw27_42@SPAMONLY.xoommail.com wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>3) If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct
>>>> and
>>>> simple one, and the other one a very complex and
indirect
>>>> one...
>>>> chances are the simple and most direct answer will
also be
>>>> the correct one.
>>>
>>> I think the history of science shows exactly the opposite: simpler
>>> theories being replaced by more complex ones. In chemistry,
the
>>> four
>>> elements of earth, air, water, and fire were replaced by over
100
>>> and
>>> counting.
>>
>>Apples & oranges: It's a far more complex affair to try to explain
>>the
>>world by the former than by knowing its true elements 100 or 1000.
>
> It's a far more complex affair to try to ACCURATELY explain the world
> by 4 elements than by knowing its true elements 100 or 1000, but
for
> well over a millennium the former was sufficiently accurate for their
> purposes.
Well, accurately or inaccurately, it's still harder to explain
everything with four words than with a comprehensive vocabulary.
I am right--You are wrong. Ain't I a bitch!
>>> Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.
>>
>>I believe you'll find that Newtonian mechanics has not been replaced
>>after all. Relativity is only required to "explain" phenomena, many
>>of
>>which are more easily/correctly explained by other means, including
>>mine, by the way.
>
> The point is that as v/c approaches 0, the equations of special
> relativity become the equations of Newtonian mechanics.
I believe that's what I said in other words.
>>> Ptolemy's
>>> universe was much easier for the unaccustomed mind to understand
>>> than
>>> Copernicus's.
>>
>>Funny you should mention that, because there is in it an analogy
with
>>the present situation here, being no different now than it was with
>>all those Einstein-like astronomers/mathematicians who, before
>>Copernicus, were absolutely certain that the Sun and all the other
>>planets orbited the earth:
>>
>>[snipped lengthy but otherwise fine explanation of development of
>>heliocentricism]
I, on the other hand, would never snip your best stuff.
>>Believe this if nothing else: It's as certain that the universe is
an
>>imploding one as that the earth orbits the Sun. It's simply THAT
>>self-evident regardless what all the equations on earth today may
>>predict (incl. toast & coffee). [By the way, Copernicus himself
had
>>so
>>little confidence in his own conclusions that he did not publish
them
>>for 36 years. I only waited 10.]
>
> I've never been satisfied with the Big Bang Theory, and quite frankly
> have been leaning towards a universe imploding faster than the speed
> of light (so that the implosion is apparently running backwards in
> time, which then appears as an explosion running forward in time).
You've been on the right track, my friend. But you've been
sidetracked by injecting a fantasy into your calculations: Time
exists ONLY in the human mind. Period. Get rid of the superstition
and you might get somewhere.
You know, strength is not so much a matter of acquisition as
of ridding yourself ... of all those pesky human weaknesses and
superstitions.
> I
> believe that's what occurs inside the event horizon when a black
hole
> is formed.
And I believe that galaxies "decay" to black holes... so that
even as we are now living in the age of galaxies, the universe
will eventually pass into its age of black holes. And then
black hole scientists of the black hole universe will collide
black holes to see what comes out... and, since their lifetimes
will be billions of years, the stars that are produced will
flare for what seems to them a few brief nanoseconds and
they will cheer... and collide all other sorts of things together
to see what comes out... cars... ":One baby, and a dog."
> But I'm gathering more evidence before springing it lose
> on the public. I only mention here because I figure most people
have
> already killed this thread.
Don't worry there: It can always be resurrected in the future
(resurrecting it in the past is only possible using those weird
multi-dimensional Star Trek New Age Mathematical dreams
today's physicists & mathematicians are currently working on).
> Also, there is the possibility that the
> universe we can observe is only a tiny fraction of the entire universe
> with waves of contraction and expansion running through it.
If the
> Hubble Space Telescope is able to "see the edge of the universe",
then
> that possibility can be discounted.
>
>>[snipped verbiage about imploding universe]
Darn, that was some of my best verbiage!
>>> As the centuries passed
>>> after Ptolemy, more and more errors were observed, and complexity
>>> was
>>> added to the geocentric theory to explain them.
>>
>>I think you need not only a course on human nature but also
>>many a lesson in the history of astrology/astronomy/mathematics
>>before Copernicus (and into the analogous history of the last
>>century's physics/relativity/mathematics).
>
> I am amazed at your arrogance.
Me too. But, that's me all over. Whatcha gonna do?
> Just because I try to simplify my
> explanations as much as possible so that they can be understood by
the
> widest possible audience (a skill which seems to completely elude
> you), does not mean I am uneducated. I've taken courses in
the
> history of mathematics, epistemology, metaphysics, quantum mechanics,
> special relativity and the philosophy of science.
Yes, but I was talking about being familiar with the historical
record up to and including Copernicus's life, not the whole
college experience (you left out football, you played any?).
>>TRUER: As the Ptolemic
>>system became less and less satisfactory what happened was
>>that the great mathematicians simply constructed wilder and wilder
>>Rube Goldberg equations to make it all work again (just as, today,
>>as Einstein's relativity raises more and more problems the "great"
>>mathematicians of today simply construct wilder and wilder Rube
>>Goldberg equations to try to make it all work again). It will fail:
>>[snip]
>
> I see no substantive difference between this and what I said, just
> more question-begging epithets.
In that case, might I beg you to go on to something else?
>>> It was this large
>>> body of accumulated errors which allowed Kepler and Copernicus
to
>>> come
>>> up with a new theory.
>> Again, it was in spite of--read Copernicus' biography, do not guess.
>
> If no additional observations had been made from Ptolemy to
> Copernicus, he would have had no evidence to support his theory.
He
> might have come up with the theory, but it would have been dismissed.
He might have been dismissed, but eventually people would
have come around to seeing it's the earth orbits the Sun:
I have that much faith on people. (See my site.) But...
Then you acknowledge that somebody could have simply looked
at the world and seen it as it really is (instead of as mathematicians
worked it out to be). This is a beginning! Someday you might
even progress to the realization that mathematics can model ANY
universe/reality quite neatly... all the equations will balance and
all the math will be correct--with only the slight little problem that
the universe the equations modeled is a total fantasy, of course.
This is what the pre-Copernicus mathematicians did, this is what
the Einsteinian mathematicians have done, and this is what
good little mathematicians are doing even now all over the world:
If in order to make their equations come out perfect they need to
toss in two or three additional dimensions, why not?! (After all,
Einstein's equations were all sexually-intercoursed... until he
threw in a fouth dimension. Why not keep up a grand tradition?)
>>> Thus, Occam's razor is useful, not in deciding
>>> which theory is more correct, but rather in showing where to find
>>> the
>>> errors which can be used to show one theory to be less accurate
>>> than
>>> another.
>>
>>Your eyeballs beat Occam's razor every time: Put the razor down
>>and look with your own eyes (and... using your brain for something
>>other than to remember all the stuff you've stuffed into it by rote
>>wouldn't hurt, either).
>
> Let me put it another way: in every successful scientific revolution,
> the new theory explains not only new phenomena which the old theory
> doesn't explain but also most if not all of the phenomena the old
> theory does explain.
And let me put it to you this way: SR/GR do not explain
why the speed of light is constant (mine does). SR/GR
does not explain why the "expansion" of the universe is
accelerating (mine does). This is a quantum hop over &
above explaining it just as well.
> In particular, I saw nothing about the
> Michelson-Morley experiment in the web page you cited.
It's not required. You saw nothing about sunrise/sunset
in my page either (it's also not required): Egads, man!
The damn page is already 120,000 bytes and its sole
purpose was to say that SR/GR has a couple of flaws in it!
> That is
> critical if you are going to convince anyone but laymen.
I don't really think my job is to convince anyone. I did
my job by pointing out the obvious. My job is finished.
It's actually YOUR job now to determine whether the facts
fall on the side of the Big-Banger or of the Big-Crunchers:
I'm only a casual observer on the sidelines in all this... Look:
I am already in the bleachers munching on my popcorn and
waiting for all of you to take the field... Just remember this:
I always root for the underdog. At the start of the game
those are the Big-Crushers: Go, man, go! (Mango?!)
>>> On a related note, *other than the simplicity of the math*, is
>>> there
>>> any evidence that the speed of light is not slowly changing, rather
>>> than space expanding or contracting?
>>
>>The "current" speed of light is a factor of the age of the universe:
>>Do not guess--Read the text. But know this: Radiation is possible
>>only in a collapsing universe. I just don't see how it could be
>>possible in an exploding one (and in this, at least, everybody
>>agrees: NO ONE who assumes an exploding universe can easily
>>explain why the photon behaves the way it does--least of all
>>Einstein,
>>who based all his equations on the only thing he believed absolute
>>in the universe... the speed of light. Because of this, my friend,
>>if ever anywhere somebody discovers a greater speed than c
>>then all the foundations of SR/GR must topple; while such a find
>>would only be an "interesting" discovery for Absolute Relativity
>>and would be of no significance whatever one way or the other.
>>Perhaps you're one of those chaps who will have to wait this out.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>S D Rodrian
>>sdr@t-three.com
>>http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> About this web page: your analogy with a cork and a ship works fine
> with a single photon, but doesn't explain how a light bulb can send
> photons in all directions.
Please note: It works for all photons everywhere! Read it again
(I only used one photon for simplification): Every photon has
its source (even if one source is the father of all photons).
This is why I specifically spoke about space expanding (and
therefore making the photon's source de facto the center of
the universe), instead of speaking there of matter as shrinking.
> You'll need to explain at least four
> photons tetrahedrally oriented (i.e., along the directions of the
> hydrogens in a methane molecule) to convince me that your theory
could
> work.
Again: Oriented or rowing.... the only quality SOURCE can
impart a photon is orientation relative to itself. Period. (And
because SOURCE will always be at the center of the x-space
universe... every photon will "shoot" out away from SOURCE
with an orientation.) Now all you need do is realize that all
SOURCE(s) have an absolute orientation with respect to each
other in our universe... to then follow the photon as it "shoots"
through our universe in an apparently linear direction. Oh, by
the way, did I mention that all "forms" of matter are shrinking?
Simple, no?
>
>>> *"Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"*
>>
>>Agn... It's was "ok."
>
> I think you didn't get that the above was a punchline to a joke:
Actually I did--I am a Lincoln enthusiast from long long ago!
I just added my own punchline. (I thought about, "Third act
could've used some work....." But vetoed it as undignified.)
> After
> President Lincoln was assassinated, a newspaper reporter came up
to
> the First Lady and asked her how she felt. She replied, "How
do you
> think I feel? My husband's just been shot!" The reporter then
asked,
> "Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
>
> The point of the joke is refers to when I said "*other than the
> simplicity of the math* is there any evidence that the speed of light
> is not slowly changing, rather than space expanding or contracting?"
Yes, I also caught your analogy. Very nice, actually.
> If a theory results in equations that are impossible to solve,
> scientists will never accept that theory.
>
> John D. Wheeler
If a theory results in equations that are impossible to solve,
mathematicians will simply crunch the numbers into any shape
until they accept its elegant distortions as proof of its truth.
-- S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
And, by the way, I am still trying to make the above
article even more easy to read and understand.
********************************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 09 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85akif$kpf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
<
84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>
<858vjs$ifu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3878A6B3.BE79BEEF@deleteme.math.kth.se>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.136
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 09 18:38:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.logic,sci.astro.amateur,alt.wisdom
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3878A6B3.BE79BEEF@deleteme.math.kth.se>,
Harald Lang <lang@deleteme.math.kth.se> wrote:
> The really big difference is that the
theory of general
> relativity explains many observations made _after_ the theory
> was presented, or, as in the case of the perihelion shift of
> Mercury, was found to do so afterwards. Other "theories" make
> ad-hoc "explanations" of phenomena when they have already been
> observed, which is quite easy to do, but they are therefore
> unverified.
>
> Cheers -- Harald
Dear Harald,
Where to begin? You might wish to skim a few posts
on the "physics" newsgroups (use Deja.com to find them)
on "mercury AND perihelion AND Einstein" et cetera...
such as:
Theories Equivalent to SR"
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=551473726&search=thread&CONTEXT=9474422
26.74579998&HIT_CONTEXT=947442226.74579998&HIT_NUM=12&hitnum=0
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=564729825&search=thread&CONTEXT=9474401
37.228327456&HIT_CONTEXT=947440137.228327456&hitnum=1
and endless others...
As a mathematician you probably understand completely
that you're working "with numbers" (and numbers are
representational); so when one equation doesn't balance out
you do not throw it away but instead try ADDING bits
more until it all balances out: This is what happened
in physics one day when equations trying to describe the world
wouldn't balance out... one just added another dimension
(mathematically) to existance and Bingo! It all added up
right~~I believe we're up to eleven or more dimensions now
but it could be thousands... what difference does it make,
REAL-ly?
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> S D Rodrian <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <<
> Relativity is only required to "explain" phenomena, many of
> which are more easily/correctly explained by other means,
> including mine, by the way.
>>>
*****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85bqms$fac$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au> <84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net> <84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com> <858vjs$ifu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3878A6B3.BE79BEEF@deleteme.math.kth.se> <85akif$kpf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3878E994.F016034C@deleteme.math.kth.se>
<3878F8AD.439A3DFF@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu> <387904DF.3AD709AB@deleteme.math.kth.se>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.239
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 10 05:29:13 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
Well, Harald, perhaps before you go you might
consider the following concerning a well-known
theory which has seemed "proved" ... SDR
In article <QDYd4.2154$UL1.43809@nnrp4.clara.net>,
"DS" <darrens@clara.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <853roa$12r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <3874A03B.6F861788@nortelnetworks.com>,
>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <387375AE.97C54741@nortelnetworks.com>,
>>>> Jack King <jackking@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>> 2. Constant microwave background
>>
>>While in an expanding universe the existence of radiation
>>has to be explained almost in terms of magic, in an imploding
>>universe is it explained straightforward (don't guess: read
>>my text). I would go even further and say that I do not think
>>the photon can exist in a true expanding universe in its form.
>
> That's a poor answer to an interesting question. In your theory,
where
> does
> the 3k background radiation come from? (and please don't refer me
to
> "the
> text", answer it here)
I fail to see exactly what it is you'd like me to say, DS.
Wilson & Penzias's find of a uniform microwave radiation of
"about 3 K" was indeed interpreted by those Big-Bangers who
were expecting a residual thermal energy throughout
the universe "stemming from the primordial Big Bang explosion"
to be proof of just such an explosion. This is their hope & merely
their interpretation.
CMB may yet indeed reveal, in their words, "the density of the
universe, for instance, the speed at which the universe is
expanding, and whether it will continue its present expansion
forever or eventually slow to a stop and begin to collapse in
on itself. The CMB should disclose how much of the universe
is made of ordinary matter and how much of a mysterious
substance known as dark matter, which has manifested its
presence in the gravitational attraction between galaxies but
does not appear to emit light. And the CMB is likely to help
reveal what that dark matter is. It should help us learn when
the stars first turned on, how and why the galaxies formed,
and how they clustered together to form the structures we see
when we look out into space" and all kinds of goodies--hopefully.
Let's see what happens when the Microwave Anisotropy Probe
is (scheduled for) launched August 2000.
The notion of the Big-Bangers that these CMB microwaves are
"the afterglow of the Big Bang" stems from the fact that the
radiation is of very nearly equal intensity throughout the
universe (it matters not in what direction one turns one's
antenna, one hears the identical signal at the identical
frequency): But think for a minute, DS: What possible difference
would it make whether it's an exploding or an imploding universe
to this effect? It will make no difference whatever whether the
universe is cooling from being baked or from being blow-torched.
I say the assumption that it is the Big Bang's explosion causing it
is an error. DS, one of these days we shall discover exactly what
it is causing it, and then you and I shall know too, I imagine, if
they
bother to tell us. Although, frankly, I rather hope that instead of
trying to find proofs of their pet assumptions, the MAP folks yet try
to objectively gather all facts which subsequently might be querried
for what truths they might reveal to us... regardless of which side's
hopes those objectively revealed truths fulfill.
My original statement stands: Although I do not like to say
anything is impossible, radiation would be highly unlikely in
an exploding universe. I don't know how to put the matter in
a simple enough language for you, but, maybe this would help: "In an
exploding universe the photon would find it very difficult to not only
get off the ground, but if it ever managed to do so it couldn't travel
linearly without its trajectory describing some off-course curve as
the
stars/galaxies of the exploding universe changed the background through
which it traveled. The only reason the photon can travel in a "straight"
line through our universe is because like the rest of the universe's
"forms" of ordinary matter, the photon is itself a "form" of matter
which is also "shrinking" in nearly perfect agreement with the rest
of
the universe as a unit." This is a mere simplification, of course,
but
perhaps it gets you going in the direction of understanding all this.
This is the colossal error Einstein made (along with everybody
of his age): He assumed that "forms" of matter were fundamental
(even though he does not make this assumption explicit, of course)
instead of simply "forms" (because it just never occurred to any of
them that the universe was an implosion instead of an explosion).
I do not blame them for this error... just as I would never blame all
those otherwise intelligent persons throughout history to whom
it never would have occurred that the earth was not the center of
the universe. Now we know better; let's move on.
By the way, DS: Just because I've told you why c is constant, and
that the universe is an imploding one instead of an exploding one,
you don't really expect me to explain everything else in the world
do you? I mean, God help me when you ask me wherefore there's gunk
under your fingernails--I'm already biting my own fingernails hoping
you do not ask me that.
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> DS
>
>
Now, do I get Robert Wilson's & Arno Penzias's Nobel?
But, do read the text and... do not guess!
RE: et al
In article <387904DF.3AD709AB@deleteme.math.kth.se>,
Harald Lang <lang@deleteme.math.kth.se> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> We mean the same thing. A physical
theory can only be falsified,
> never proven (as in mathematics). But at least where I work we often
say
> "verify" when we mean "put to test" or some such, i.e., when we bring
> data to the theory (in my case it's economics) to see if/how well
they
fit.
>
> Thanks for clarifying!
>
> Cheers -- Harald
>
> "David H. Roberts" <dhr@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu> wrote:
>
> <<
> Harald is mostly correct. However, no physical theory can be
"confirmed"
> or "verified" by any experiment or experiments; the most that can
ever
>>> [snip]
>
**************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 15 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85op98$41$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au> <84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net> <84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com> <858vjs$ifu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3878A6B3.BE79BEEF@deleteme.math.kth.se> <85akif$kpf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3878E994.F016034C@deleteme.math.kth.se>
<3878F8AD.439A3DFF@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu>
<387904DF.3AD709AB@deleteme.math.kth.se> <85bqms$fac$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<387f3738.15245861@news.madasafish.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.200
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 15 03:24:38 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <387f3738.15245861@news.madasafish.com>,
pm.davis@breathemail.net (Paul Davis) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 05:29:13 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> >which it traveled. The only reason the photon can travel in
a
> >"straight"
> >line through our universe is because like the rest of the
universe's
> >"forms" of ordinary matter, the photon is itself a "form"
of matter
> >which is also "shrinking" in nearly perfect agreement with
the rest
> >of
> >the universe as a unit." This is a mere simplification, of
course,
> >but
> >perhaps it gets you going in the direction of understanding
all
> >this.
>
> Far too simplistic IMO. It tells me absolutely nothing.
Unfortunately, that's why the essay at my site runs a few
words more than this. This is the pertinent paragraph:
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.
> >This is the colossal error Einstein made (along with everybody
> >of his age): He assumed that "forms" of matter were fundamental
>
> Excuse me? E=mc^2 does not say that at all. It states that matter
is
> just another form of energy. ie. all there is, is energy.
Well, "whatever" Einstein meant when he "borrowed" E=mc^2 ...
his equations led him to believe that the universe was expanding.
When Hubble discovered that the galaxies were receding from
each other... SR/GR gained almost holy grail status. However,
no one bothered to consider the distinct possibility that while
the galaxies themselves might indeed be receding from each other
the universe itself might not be expanding after all. How could
they think such a thing!? Einstein, Hubble & everybody & his
cat
thought the matter settled without giving it a second thought.
Oh, sure, a Big Bang universe was more proof of A Cause Uncaused
and a Creator than an explanation of the whys & wherefores of
existence. But Einstein was content to let God play His dice.
And everybody was content to remain mystified why the so-called
"speed of light" always remained a constant. And so what if
the so-called expansion of the universe was accelerating even
though the gravitational sum total of the universe itself ought to
be at least slowing it down! So what, so what, so what???!!!!
So what if the Big Bang Singularity explodes for no reason at all
(or even exists for no reason at all)? So what if "for
every action
there is a reaction" and so what if gravity apparently didn't exist
either in the pre Big Bang singularity nor apparently during the
few "seconds" after the Big Bang--since, obviously, only a most
"explosive" force existed then! So what? So what if nothing
makes sense in an universe that's exploding. So what if the idea
of an exploding universe explains nothing (after all, why should
the essential nature of this universe come though to annoy us
on any level of our experience of it at all?)?
Well, if you are not a scientist but only one of those worms
that tows the line of this or that philosophy, then indeed so what!
But if you seek to answer the pertinent questions, you say to
yourself: The principal force in this universe is gravity, so why
shouldn't it have been the nature of this universe since its
beginning? And then you realize WHY it is the universe's so-called
"expansion" appears to be accelerating instead of slowing down:
Because, guess what, gravity is STILL hard at work in the
present day universe just as it has been from its very beginning.
And that means that the answer MUST be that matter is being
drawn together faster and faster somehow... And HOW on earth
could such a thing be? Well, the answer is right there in front of
your eyes: The instant one understand that all "forms" of matter
in this universe are just that... "forms" of matter, one understands
that this universe can shrink "shapes & forms" at will without
giving us the slightest hint it's doing this. But if you're one of
those "forms" of matter who just doesn't rest until all is as plain
as day, then you keep at it under you have put it all together.
And everone can read the whole explanation of how this universe
works at my web site. It's ALL there--And I'll answer any
questions you might have missed the answers to there... here
in as many different ways, shapes, forms, and matters as I can
(and all I ask in return is that you forgive me if I occasionally
have fun with those who ask the same question over and over
and over again regardless how many times & ways I answer it).
> >(even though he does not make this assumption explicit, of
course)
> >instead of simply "forms" (because it just never occurred
to any of
> >them that the universe was an implosion instead of an explosion).
> >I do not blame them for this error... just as I would never
blame
> >all
> >those otherwise intelligent persons throughout history to
whom
> >it never would have occurred that the earth was not the center
of
> >the universe. Now we know better; let's move
>
> If the Universe is contracting rather than expanding, as you maintain,
> then what was it`s initial condition?
Existence is what exists. It is all that exists. If to exist
existence would have had to have a beginning
then it could not exist. It does. And this means that
it's trapped in Newton's First Law of Motion.
I could not put it simpler nor will anyone else either,
whether they work in words or numbers.
>and, what caused the contraction
> to begin?
I give my own view on this at my site. It's too lengthy
to quote here, but let it be sufficient to say that the pre-
Big Bang Singularity was not something the size of a
magic jelly bean which then blew up into existence. Rather
that pre-Big Bang Singularity (or, really, pre-Big Crunch
Singularity, but for quicker understanding I'll speak of it
in the conventional vocabulary)... that pre-Big Bang Singularity
was the result of the conclusion of the process which is now
taking place (again & which will always be repeated):
Gravity will dissipate (is dissipating) and it will take with it
what we now know as the "forms" of ordinary matter (our
beloved particles & subparticles) until the universe is quite
devoid of gravity... at which point (Newton) its nature
will "shift" from gravity's attraction to one of repulsion.
This creates the "infinite mass" (spatial) universe which, at
its extreme, will result in the "space" which will be taken up
by the pre-Big Bang Singularity. At that point (Newton)
there will be a "shift" from the universe's nature being
one of repulsion to becoming one of attraction again:
Gravity will again manifest itself and that manifestation
will cause the subsequent implosion which is still taking
place NOW and will continue until there is no more gravity
to power it in the universe. Then it'll all shift back again and
again and again by the Laws of Newton (and not of God).
> Secondly, in your contracting universe model, how does star formation
> come about?
Quite naturally, actually. The Big Bang theorists have a pretty
nifty idea about this, actually (in their mapping out the history
of our universe after BB). The point they can't quite square is
the existence of "prehistoric" galaxies (because Big Bang must have
been in their view too chaotic to have given rise to them). However
in an imploding universe... the formation (organization) of "forms"
of complex forms of matter does not present this problem because
while in an exploding universe things would be moving towards
calmer times/waters, so to speak, in an imploding universe (one
in which things are speeding up from a stand still) the first few
aeons (not nanoseconds) after The Beginning must have been
"taking place" in such slow motion as to seem nearly eternal (while
in The Beginning of a real Big Bang... it must have been taking
place faster than it's even possible for the human mind to
imagine "speed"). Think of a stick of dynamite exploding and
then think of the infinite mass (spatial) universe where
gravity is slowly, gently beginning to manifest itself over
perhaps aeons and aeons. [By the way, since time doesn't really
exist outside the human mind, this painting is only for comparing
these two opposite theories only... in "reality" no matter how
"slowly" the imploding universe began, it's the same as an instant
in our human understanding.]
> If matter, as you maintain, "shrinks", then how do you
> compress matter to the densitites needed in order to cause fusion?
Why
> doesn`t it just shrink away from that point?
Thank, man! If all "forms" of matter are ONLY "forms"
"forms" of matter are NOT compressed. Pertinent paragraph:
Use this clumsy 2-D analogy: Imagine a sphere-volume filled with
millions of balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two
"huge
beings" (a triangle and a square): Both are pretty much the same "body"
size and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of the world). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons start
bursting throughout the sphere-volume at an even ratio. (Our two beings
do not know this.) To us it will seem as if these two beings are
shrinking, but the two beings themselves will look at each other and
still see that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect"
triangle and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length). An
agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left to maintain their "existence," no matter how
"small" they become in our God-like eyes. Well, likewise, only much
more complexly, all forms and shapes (of gravitons) in our universe
are "shrinking" ("in place," so to speak) as our universe continues
to
collapse inwardly... without our being aware of it. And, make no mistake
about this: At our level of matter, all we are... are forms & shapes.
I am also trying to add to my site the explanations
I have sprinkled all over Usenet. "Watch this space!"
> Thirdly, why is the CMB red-shifted by such a large factor (z=1000
or
> more IIRC)? The red-shift is caused by the expansion of the Universe
> since those photons were relased in BB models. What causes this
> enormous red-shift in your contracting universe?
The universe is a lot vaster than we can imagine it. And galaxies
REALLY are receding from each other exactly as Hubble determined
--it's just that instead of looking at it from the standpoint of
their receding "faster the farther they are from us" you must
instead think of it as their receding "slower the closer they are
to us." They are receding exactly BECAUSE it is an imploding
universe, and gravity nearer the center is accelerating (pulling)
matter neared the center "faster" than matter further from it.
This is WHY the "apparently" expanding universe is accelerating
instead of slowing down! I cannot put it simpler then this.
But I dare say I shall be challenged to do so, and, knowing me-
self: I shall not let a challenge go by ignored. It's a character
flaw (but a dear one to which I owe many, many achievements
realized in all the different fields of endeavor I have toiled).
> Fourthly, how does your model account for the flatness of the
> Universe? Or its near homogeneity?
You will only have to picture the entirety of our universe
(something the mind can do so amazingly well) to understand
not only its past, but its future (and I foresee that ours is
an age of galaxies which will pretty much pass away one day
into one of black holes). What problem could an imploding
universe model present to a foamy distribution of galaxies
or any other you'd care to propose? It is the Big Bang universe
that's running out of time--This, our imploding universe not
only has all the time in the world before it... but it has always had
all the time in the world. And sometimes I think I do too.
> From where I stand, your shrinking universe model has more than a
few
> flaws in it.
I wish you would point them out! I have pointed out (above)
enough completely impossible to resolve problems with an
exploding universe. Further, I have shown you that an imploding
universe model answers all the pertinent questions elegantly.
Believe this: If I am wrong, the sooner you can show me
that I am wrong the better it will be for me. And if I am wrong
there the matter will end once and for all. However, if
I am anywheres near correct in my view that ours is an
imploding universe... then the matter will NEVER rest
until the last agnostic is brought to heel on this.
> Flaws that can be explained within the confines of the
> Inflationary Big Bang model.
I wish you all the luck in the world attempting to explain
them, my friend--I really do: The Big Bang model has been
with us going on 80 years now... and it seems to raise new
questions & puzzles every day. And, frankly, this thing has
been weighing on me well over ten years now: I would love
nothing better than to let go of it at last once & for all and
to then concentrate on my one true love... music!
Bach & Beethoven wait for me,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterealtivity
To say nothing of Mozart, Schubert, Chopin
and so many, many others (see:
http://members.aol.com/sdrodrian
>
> >> Paul M. Davis
>
*******************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 16 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85rdf6$n4r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
<84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>
<858vjs$ifu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3878A6B3.BE79BEEF@deleteme.math.kth.se>
<85akif$kpf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3878E994.F016034C@deleteme.math.kth.se>
<3878F8AD.439A3DFF@quasar.astro.brandeis.edu>
<387904DF.3AD709AB@deleteme.math.kth.se> <85bqms$fac$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<387f3738.15245861@news.madasafish.com> <85opei$6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<150120001055386666%pww@spacsun.rice.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.245
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 16 03:21:20 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <150120001055386666%pww@spacsun.rice.edu>,
Peter Walker <pww@spacsun.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <387f3738.15245861@news.madasafish.com>,
>> pm.davis@breathemail.net (Paul Davis) wrote:
>
>>> Excuse me? E=mc^2 does not say that at all. It states that matter
>>> is
>>> just another form of energy. ie. all there is, is energy.
>>
>>Well, "whatever" Einstein meant when he "borrowed" E=mc^2 ...
>
> Borrowed, only in the sense that the equation (as is all SR) is
> implicit in Maxwell's equations. But IIRC, Einstein was the first
to
> make this relation explicit.
Over and above that, Einstein had a knack for publicizing
other men's work as his own under the pretext of incorporating
their conclusions into more expansive ones. And it's not merely
that Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903.
>>his equations led him to believe that the universe was expanding.
>
> Odd. I seem to recall Einstein positing and setting the particular
> value of the cosmological constant to prevent the universe from
> expanding or contracting, a decision he would later come to regret.
Perhaps you are old enough that your memory's become a little sketchy
here: "In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter proposed that the cosmological
constant should be set equal to zero, and they derived a homogeneous
and isotropic model that provides the separating case between the closed
and open Friedmann models; i.e., Einstein and de Sitter assumed that
the
spatial curvature of the universe is neither positive nor negative
but
rather zero. The spatial geometry of the Einstein-de Sitter universe
is
Euclidean (infinite total volume), but space-time is not globally flat
(i.e., not exactly the space-time of special relativity). Time again
commences with a big bang and the galaxies recede forever, but the
recession rate (Hubble's "constant")asymptotically coasts to zero as
time advances to infinity."
>>When Hubble discovered that the galaxies were receding from
>>each other... SR/GR gained almost holy grail status.
>
> SR received grail status long before this, as did GR.
Many mistaken interpretations of observed facts indeed
strengthened the superstition of an exploding universe (just
as, with the passage of time, many mistaken interpretations
of observed facts have strengthened religious superstitions
as well as beliefs in little green men and alien abductions....
> The shining
> moment of GR was its prediction (and the first - albeit marginal
-
> observation) of gravitational lensing.
That superstition [that the photon's "trajectory" being altered
by a strong gravitational field should be proof of GR] is typical
of the sort of pseudoscience which instead of objectively
interpreting observed facts... seeks in every new discovery
proof of whatever "holy truth" it is seeking to substantiate.
If one considers the photon a magical particle then indeed
any time it responds to gravity it will strike "one" as magical.
> Just as important, SR and GR
> combined to predict the precession of Mercury's perhelion, which
no
> classical theory has been able to reproduce.
No classical theory takes into account the fact that a stronger
gravitational field creates a drag on "objects" traveling through
them. Just for sport look at LARSONIAN Relativity!... at:
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/mcelwaine/relative.html
> All this confirmation took
> place before Hubble's discovery.
And continues to this day: I'm certain somebody will cut
him/herself shaving one of these days and claim it as further
verification of EINSTENIAN Relativity!
> Furthermore, GR and SR are accepted among that marginal cadre of
> scientists who hold out against BB cosmology (Hoyle, etc.).
And if you read my article, somewhere in it I actually say
something to the effect that SR/GR work at many levels!!!!!!
Do Not Guess--Read The Text! My objections to the Big Bang
model are quite humble and few: I have found that there never was
a Big Bang, that's all. And that once one eliminates that
superstition and considers our universe an imploding one
it answers all the questions which can only be answered
with Rube Goldberg constructs if one's belief is The BB.
>>However,
>>no one bothered to consider the distinct possibility that while
>>the galaxies themselves might indeed be receding from each other
>>the universe itself might not be expanding after all. How could
>>they think such a thing!?
>
> On the contrary, this was (and continues) to be discussed.
Ah! You noticed that we are discussing it here! Damn (thought
I'd gotten this bit past you).
> Either the
> universe is expanding, or all the galaxies are receeding away from
> *us*, in precisely the manner we would expect if the universe were
> expanding. The second probability involves special pleading on
> cosmological scales, and is rightly ignored.
Your reaction is precisely the one predicted in my paragraph:
If you merely realize a few fundamental (indisputable) facts
you too would see it as I do. Facts:
1) All "forms" of matter are just that: "Forms" of matter.
If this were not true the FBI and Interpol would
be
after all those particle accelerator folks.
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! AGAIN:
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.)
PLEASE NOTE: Fundamentally, "gravity" is all that exists.
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.
>>Oh, sure, a Big Bang universe was more proof of A Cause Uncaused
>>and a Creator than an explanation of the whys & wherefores of
>>existence. But Einstein was content to let God play His dice.
>
> This is a rather peculiar charge, considering that the theological
> implications (or lack thereof) play no role whatever in the history
of
> the BB model.
Nonsense: The BB model is the scientific description of
how God creates the universe (it's just that you're too faithful
to peer through the political dogmas of your religion all the way
deep down into the falsity of its "truths," dear Cardinal).
> Furthermore, Einstein differentiated himself from the
> atheist only insofar as he perceived atheism to be activist. Why
he
> would search for a model of the universe that provided an uncaused
> cause - especially when he tinkered with GR to try to remove the
> implicit scale evolution of the universe, is quite beyond imagining.
He did not do that. He misinterpreted the true nature of reality
the same way the theist philosophers misinterpreted the true
nature of reality... and, guess what, both arrived at the same
dead end solution: "Something eternally unfathomable created..."
>>And everybody was content to remain mystified why the so-called
>>"speed of light" always remained a constant.
>
> No one's mystified; it's quite implicit in GR why it is a constant.
Do
> some reading up on it. I recommend Stefani's rather short little
text
> on the subject.
Let's not waste a good two bucks: "Einstein's theory of special
relativity, which he developed in 1905, had as its basic premises (1)
the notion (also dating back to Galileo) that the laws of physics are
the same for all inertial observers and (2) the constancy of the speed
of light in a vacuum--namely, that the speed of light has the same
value
(3 1010 cm/sec) for all inertial observers independent of their
motion
relative to the source of the light."
"Implicit" indeed! This translates: "I have no idea whatever why it's
so, but I know it's so, ergo, if I tell you what I know, all I know,
the
answer/reason is bound to be in there somewhere..." Lawd! Grant me
people who can think!
>>So what if the Big Bang Singularity explodes for no reason at all
>>(or even exists for no reason at all)?
>
> And here you reveal your complete ignorance of BB cosmology.
Well, I'm always eager to acquire knowledge (even if it's
knowledge of my ignorance... which usually encompasses
far more knowledge than your vast storehouse of instructions).
> It's been known for quite some time that the "singularity", a naive
> extropolation of the cosmological expansion back to t=0, is not
> physical.
Amen. I KNEW you'd eventually reduce your argument to some
prayer or other! Lawd! And I betcha can't see it even now, can you?
[ Hint: God maketh something out of nothing. Rodrian 14:7 ]
> It's been known for a long time that some other physics must
> take over prior to the nucleosynthetic epoch.
Translation: "We have absolutely no idea how God created
the universe, but He probably didn't use picks and shovels."
Most incisive and perceptive of you, ole boy! (I was going to ask
you how one makes an omelet, but now I'll ask someone else.)
> The most popular model for the universe these days, inflation, *has*
> no
> singularity.
Are you of the dotted balloon... or the loaf of bread full of raisins
denomination? Pray tell.
>>So what if "for every action
>>there is a reaction" and so what if gravity apparently didn't exist
>>neither in the pre Big Bang singularity nor apparently during the
>>few "seconds" after the Big Bang
>
> Again, your massive ignorance is showing.
It's all those damn snacks I've been chasing down lately
(lately they haven't been running from me as quickly as before).
> The BB model is completely
> consistent with gravity;
Except that the explosion seems to be accelerating, of course.
But, as I said before: Who cares, right? Say, maybe if we
rework all those SR/GR equations we can "find" (wink, wink)
that gravity is actually "pushing" the BB universe... maybe
from some parallel dimension nobody has yet heard of but which
we can discover cam into existence right in the nick'o time
the instant we found out we needed it to explain why SR/GR
is still all right!... a dimension "not only of sight & sound but
of mind, a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that
of imagination, your next stop: The Twilight Zone!" THEME MUSIC.
> indeed, since it is formulated in GR (the
> Friedmann-Lemaitre model), it must *necessarily* take gravity into
> account. The model does not ignore gravity - it was in gravity's
> mathematical formalism.
Say, I like that approach: One doesn't ignore gravity, one
simply ignores its effect, that's all. (Knowing how easily
Big Bangers accept any Rube Goldberg constructs that
"provides further proof" of the truth of their religion... I think
this bull will fly too! Look out below--O wait: "Who cares?")
> Furthermore, when one gets to quantum theories of the epoch before
the
> Friedmann-Lemaitre expansion, such as inflation, gravity becomes
an
> important factor in the universe's energy budget. See also: flat
> universe.
Let's see: "The space-time structure of SR is often called "flat"
because, among other things, the propagation of photons is easily
represented on a flat sheet of graph paper with equal-sized squares."
Wow! Most intellectually satisfying, ole boy! I hope you have some
more
of these goodies for us in future!
> And that's just about as much crackpottery I can deal with at one
> sitting...
Too cheap to call a plumber, are you? I say! O well, I suppose
we can understand that. As long as the "sausages" can't filter
through your cracks... I imagine you "can" always mop up
the "liquids" back into your cracked pottery and the whole
thing'll dry out before your next "sitting." But I'd start saving
me pennies if I were you: These things tend to crack wide open
when one least expects them to--such as just before guests
show up for a little "take & give."
Let me know if you could use a couple-o-bucks. Or neurons.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Peter Wykoff Walker II
| WWW:
http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
> BAAWA Squire-in-training
| alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer
Division)
> --------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON
SCRIBANTUR
---------
SOLUM UT INTER ISTA VEL CERTUM SIT NIHIL ESSE CERTI NEC
QUICQUAM MISERIUS HOMINE AUT SUPERBIUS.
******************************
Note: My quotation above is from Pliny the Elder, and translates:
"One thing alone is certain: There is nothing certain (except perhaps
that nothing's more worthy of pity or more presumptious than Man)."
******************************************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Speed at which the universe expands
Date: 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85vnbp$l1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <841d4a$pkn$1@news1.mpx.com.au>
<84kn30$s1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yxub4.2670$r6.385989@news.flash.net>
<84or4d$7hj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>
<858vgm$if9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3879e54a@newsgate.hknet.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.105
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 17 18:34:34 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3879e54a@newsgate.hknet.com>,
"Steve O'Hagan" <sgohagan@hknet.com> wrote:
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:858vgm$if9$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <ovs57s46conteg927amlhjed69m2fsvhjg@4ax.com>,
>> jdw27_42@SPAMONLY.xoommail.com wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>3) If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct
>>>>and
>>>> simple one, and the other one a very complex and
indirect
>>>> one...
>>>> chances are the simple and most direct answer will
also be
>>>> the correct one.
>>>
>>> I think the history of science shows exactly the opposite: simpler
>>> theories being replaced by more complex ones. In chemistry,
the
>>> four
>>> elements of earth, air, water, and fire were replaced by over
100
>>> and
>>> counting.
>>
>> Apples & oranges: It's a far more complex affair to try to
explain
>> the
>> world by the former than by knowing its true elements 100 or 1000.
>>
> Agree with this.
>
>>> Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.
>>
>> I believe you'll find that Newtonian mechanics has not been replaced
>> after all. Relativity is only required to "explain" phenomena,
many
>> of
>> which are more easily/correctly explained by other means, including
>> mine, by the way.
>>
> Relativity (and quantum mechanics) reduces to Newtonian mechanics
at
> 'normal' masses / speeds / dimensions. One could think of Newton's
> theory
> being a subset of both relativity and QM. Both GR and QM are more
> complex
> theories because thay take in a wider range of phenomena.
>
>>> Ptolemy's
>>> universe was much easier for the unaccustomed mind to understand
>>> than
>>> Copernicus's.
>>
>> Funny you should mention that, because there is in it an analogy
>> with
>> the present situation here, being no different now than it was
with
>> all those Einstein-like astronomers/mathematicians who, before
>> Copernicus, were absolutely certain that the Sun and all the other
>> planets orbited the earth:
>>
> Unfortunately, Copernicus's detailed theory was just as clumsy as
> Ptolemy's
> since he
> stuck to the 'circular motion is perfect' dogma. For example, he
still
> needed to resort to such 'fudges' as the construction of epicycles.
>
> Thus, Copernicus's prediction of the positions of the planets was
only
> a
> little better than those produced by the Ptolemaic method - and this
> was at
> a time when the importance of prediction / observation in science
was
> not as
> critical to scientific thinking as it is today. (This is why Galileo's
> experimental method of conducting science was of such value in showing
> the
> way science was going).
>
> It wasn't until Kepler that the difference between the sun centred
and
> the
> Earth centred theories became really convincing.
>
> I would say that it's a bit of a shame that you cite the rejection
of
> an
> imperfect theory, at a time when the scientific method was still
in
> it's
> infancy as a valid criticism of the current state of science -
> especially as
> it just comes across as a bit of spite because few if anybody aggress
> with
> *your* theory.
Your reply is as impressive for its historical accuracy as it is
for how easily you stated it, I must say. However, in my defense,
I must point out that I am more in a Copernicus-like position
than in a Kepler-like situation: By the time Kepler came around
it was all just a matter of resolving the accepted facts (whether
mathematically or by direct observation). While, the situation
at this moment in our history remains that it is extremely hard
for "the world" to accept the notion of an imploding universe
and to even consider letting go the superstition of the Big Bang.
But, I do tend to take a sort of perverse pleasure in dealing with
persons who have irked me in some way or other... It's a character
flaw indeed: My wit's ego is a monstrously irrepressible creature.
> Stick to the facts and we're more likely to listen to your ideas.
. .
> if
> your ideas have merit they'll catch on - eventually.
Ah! Would that I were persuasive enough to make people
close their eyes to reality and to believe they see what I tell them
to see instead of what's really there! (It's been done many, many
times before, you know.) But that's not my situation in the least:
My "crusade" is strictly about making people see with their eyes
instead of with their memories... or other parts of their anatomies.
To be honest with you, it matters not what the world believes
(I shall be dead before babies being born these days are out of
their teens). However... It is my duty to convey my observations
to my fellow men; & let the chips fall where they may. If they
inspect them and find that they agree with reality, fine; and if,
after inspecting them, they find I was quite mistaken... then that
is fine too, for, either way, I shall have fulfilled my duty.
[Marvelously ambiguous "theys & thems," don't you agree?]
> OK science isn't perfect - new ideas always need to overcome a certain
> 'dogmatic over-potential' before they are accepted. Remember, we're
> all
> basically just educated cave men, what else do you expect?
Well. I must admit I am (and always have been) rather overly-
optimistic. (I lie when I claim I expect the worst from people.)
So I tend to expect my fellow cavemen to see the thing I show
them--unfortunately, I much too often also tend to forget that
the brain is as much involved with "seeing" as are the eyes.
Best,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Regards,
>
> Steve.
>
************