X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Mikmtn@webtv.net (Mountain Dweller) wrote:
> There is a good article in Parade magazine - January 9, 2000 issue.
> In
> the column "Ask Marilyn" by Marilyn Vos Savant the lady with the
> world`s
> highest IQ... the question is asked: "As a nonscientist,how
can I
> accept current scientific theories (for example, the wave natureof
> light) when so many theories of the past later proved to be
> incorrect?"-- Mike Berman, Fort Lee, N.J.
> Marilyn answers: "But if youwere
a scientist, I think you
> should
> ask yourself that same question. Not long ago, I wrote aboutthe
> Kansas
> State Board of Education`s decision to delete evolution fromthe
> state`s science standards. I added that evolution iseasy
for both
> scientists and nonscientists to support but that the Big Bang theory
> is
> different: "The theory holds that billions of years ago, everything
> in
> the universe was contained in an area smaller than the head of apin
> and
> that this minuscule speck of unbelievably dense and incredibly hot
> matter suddenly exploded violently. That sounds just plainnuts,
> right?
> But do you believe it ? IF so, how do you support yourbelief
that
> the
> entire cosmos was once smaller than a polka dot? With a strongline
> of
> reasoning? Solid evidence? ANYthing at all? Ifyou
cannot, welcome
> to
> the world of faith: You`re accepting what you`ve been toldby
those
> you
> respect." In response,I
(Marilyn) received mail from furious
> scientists who proceeded to cite every known argument in favor ofthe
> Big Bang theory Except the one to which I specifically referred:
the
> argument in favor of the entire cosmos once being smaller than apolka
> dot. That was why I chose it, and its absence from thoseletters
> supports my point. Lots of science-- far too much -- is acceptedon
> faith. I think it is wrong to teach creationism in schools,but
I
> also
> think we must be careful not to teach theories as fact.
It slows
> scientific progress immeasurably." from Marilyn vos Savant`s
column
> in Parade magazine......
Although I've never tested Marilyn's IQ (three simple
questions ought to do it), she sounds as it she has
a lot of common sense. [Hard to con them folks outta
their money!]
She is also quite correct that the Big Bang is hard
to swallow. And I know it's just as big a fable as
any other fable you'd care to name. Never happened.
If you wish to know what really happened, visit:
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ksb0$pvr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com>
<86iut1$c0b$1@news.junction.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.58
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 25 19:08:20 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86iut1$c0b$1@news.junction.net>,
"Bill Jackson" <bjackson@nospamnisano.net> wrote:
> I can't tell whether SDR is an intelligent nutbar or a brilliant
> put-on
> artist.
Actually, Bill, I always thought I was rather dense
and this is why I was the most surprised fellow of all
when (what 10 years since now?) the realization that
our universe was as much a result of an evolutionary
process as anything in Darwin first dawned on me.
First thing I said was: This thing must have occurred
to countless much more intelligent fellows that I by now!
After all. the Big Bang alternative is nothing but
a reworking of, "God did it!" in techno-babble. Well,
imagine my surprise when I discovered that no matter
how close all those brilliant minds skirted the idea
that our universe had to be in a process of imploding
they just couldn't seem to push themselves far enough
to go over the edge (as in the sense that such a move
would've made them seem rather crazy to their peers).
However, try to explain a helicopter taking off to a
band of stone age people and see if you can escape
their thinking you're quite nuts. Eventually I did
realize that it is impossible to visualize reality
in an imploding universe without FIRST realizing
that all forms of matter are forms--period. Once you
realize that, then you can understand how "forms" can
literally "forever" go on shrinking (literally until
the material which "forms them" completely runs out).
That material, it turns out, is the one thing which
is and has always been fundamental in all of existence;
namely, the "force" of attraction which, in its local
manifestations (in the interactions of particles & galaxies)
we term gravity. Gravity is our universe; as long as
there is gravity there shall be "forms" of ordinary matter
"painted" upon it... and they ("us/we") shall "exist"
without realizing that as gravity unravels (as the universe
implodes) we "shrink" without the slightest hint that
we are shrinking--Except, of course, that, when we look
at the galaxies, which, because they are so far away from
each other... will be observed receding from each other
in the standard Hubble constant model (since, as the
universe implodes... those galaxies closer to the center
will be "pulled" with greater strength than the galaxies
farther away from the center of the implosion. (How could
a universe of gravity NOT be an imploding one?!?!?!)
But, as I've said again and again: It's so very seldom
a matter of intelligence (neither Einstein nor Newton
would have ever been able to imagine shoelaces had they lived
in the stone age--it just never would have crossed their
great minds). It's almost always a matter of knowledge,
and neither Einstein nor Newton knew that the universe
is imploding, nor that all forms of matter are just forms.
If they had known this... the argument would have been
over & done with long before their deaths. They simply did
not know this. But you and I now know this. And all that
remains is for us to use our own brains and put 2 and 2
together. My answer is 4. What do you get?
> Either way he's provokative and amusing.
It has always been my philosophy that if "my theory"
had to be accepted because I myself was acceptable
then I wanted nothing to do with it. No. If my theory
is yet found true in spite of me, then it's worth something
indeed! So let it stand or fall on its own merits. The
most it can expect from me is a clarification here or there
as I perceive someone has not understood it accurately.
(And if I can do this half-decently entertainingly, so much
the better for me--I get bored all too easily.)
>I only with I had
> the
> time to read his stuff more fully.
Eventually you might--And if it proves as true as I
believe it is, eventually everybody will have to.
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86q02m$hjg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com> <86iut1$c0b$1@news.junction.net>
<86ksrl$qf2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <XSGj4.19$F3.377@uchinews>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.206
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 17:42:47 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 <XSGj4.19$F3.377@uchinews>,
jjbezair@midway.uchicago.edu (jeffery joel bezaire) wrote:
> In article <86ksrl$qf2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>wrote:
>>In article <86iut1$c0b$1@news.junction.net>,
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>That material, it turns out, is the one thing which
>>is and has always been fundamental in all of existence;
>>namely, the "force" of attraction which, in its local
>>manifestations (in the interactions of particles & galaxies)
>>we term gravity. Gravity is our universe; as long as
>>there is gravity there shall be "forms" of ordinary matter
>>"painted" upon it... and they ("us/we") shall "exist"
>>without realizing that as gravity unravels (as the universe
>>implodes) we "shrink" without the slightest hint that
>>we are shrinking--Except, of course, that, when we look
>>at the galaxies, which, because they are so far away from
>>each other... will be observed receding from each other
>>in the standard Hubble constant model (since, as the
>>universe implodes... those galaxies closer to the center
>>will be "pulled" with greater strength than the galaxies
>>farther away from the center of the implosion. (How could
>>a universe of gravity NOT be an imploding one?!?!?!)
>>
>
> This disagrees with observations.
The above directly comes FROM the observations.
> A non-uniform implosion would be
> able to
> generate redshifts for galaxies toward the center and for galaxies
> away
> from the center (the observed redshifts would even constrain the
> dynamics
> of the implosion), but galaxies along directions perpendicular tothe
> implosion center would not appear redshifted. We should observe a
> highly
> nonisotropic redshift-distance relationship. The one we observe seems
> very
> isotropic.
You are confusing the implosion of the universe with the implosion
of a star, Jeff:
START QUOTE
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.
} Mind you of course, gravitons have yet to be detected.
Those gravitons being sought are modern-day particles and
have nothing to do with the fundamental "particles" of gravity
(my gravitons are not particles at all--I just coopted the word).
} And what
} exactly
} are oppositions?
Exactly the opposite of gravitons. Simple, no? All you need
remember is that when I speak of "gravitons" and/or
"oppositons" I am merely using particle physics terms
(to set up statistics studies): These terms never refer to
any real particles and are merely/purely my nicknames
for the attracting/repelling forces which 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."
All this means is that once the force of gravity reaches the
center of the universe... it has nowhere to go (it dissipates,
or, if you follow my description... the attracting force
eventually shifts into the repelling force).
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!
--And 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.
} I always thought myself a grave man but that this is taking it to
} extremes.
Finally you know: God did not set up "57 different parameters"
(four distinct forces) after all when He dreamt up existence, but
just the one: Gravity. (Newton set up the repelling force.)
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.
} Sounds like the same thing stated a different way. Stillsee
no
} reason to
} reject Big Bang/inflationary cosmology for your model.
You will. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow....
but somewhere down the road you're going to regret not
having gotten on that plane, and then it'll be the start o
a beautiful friendship--or some such. Remember & remember:
Galaxies 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. Ask any Big-Banger you know.
There are two sides or processes to the universe: On the side
which we have left behind the universe can best be described
as being pure infinite mass (there are many ways to describe
this stage of the universe; perhaps the easiest to grasp is that
at this stage the universe is as "large" as the Big Bang universe
would be if it continued to expand to its most extreme size). This
scalar universe does not contain "matter" (or, not much of it, in
any case), and so it is one whose nature is a repelling force. But,
as anyone familiar with Newton's concept of a force knows, this
repelling force can exist only because it is in balance with its
opposite... and eventually this scalar universe is "pushed" into
that opposite (or, attracting) force.
This is the beginning of "our" side of the universe (the manifestation
of gravity). What is the nature of gravity? (Rhetorical question only.)
What happens when gravity becomes the nature of the universe?
(Not a rhetorical question.) You already know, don't you: In a process
which must be almost infinitely protracted... the force of gravity
slowly builds more and more compounded and complex "islands" or "pools"
or "eddies" of locally self-focused gravity... even as the entire
universe as a unit begins to implode: This is the beginning of whatwe
call "particles" (which, as you can see from this vantage point, are
simply, merely, and only just the "forms" which gravity is taking
locally --for the same reason that somebody standing on the moon will
feel the moon's gravity much more than the earth's, or the Sun's, orthe
Milky Way's, or that or the rest of the entire universe). As the
universe whose nature is now gripped by this attracting force continues
its history... more and more complex "forms" of matter (particles)build
up from/upon the previous generations of particles... until we getthe
supra-particles we know as quarks, elemental atoms, stars, and galaxies
of today.
But one thing remains true & unchanging across the entire process:
There are NO fundamental particles: ALL of THEM, without a single
exception, are just "forms & shapes" which the force of gravityhas
taken locally. And now imagine the history of our universe (of this
protracted process of building generation after generation of these
"forms of matter" on top of each other... and realize that we really
have no idea just how many generations there may have gone before ours.
Remember when "philosophers & theists" thought the universe
was 6000 years old? Well, what if today's "physicists" are but only
the modern-day equivalent of those "philosophers & theists" when
it comes to "imagining" how many generations of subparticles have
gone before the present one?
>Haha common sense really.
Indeed. It doesn't take a super-abundance of intelligence and/or
even a super-abundance of knowledge to eventually realize that
our universe must be the result of a protracted process of evolution.
SO next time you hear someone --ANYONE-- spouting about how
the universe "suddenly burst into existence out of an exploding
magic bean" please remind that person that the age of myths & magic
hath come and is all but gone... gone into a time of scientific inquiry
and, indeed (finally) into the beginnings of an age of common sense.
END QUOTE
Regards,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> regards,
>
> Jeff Bezaire
> --
>
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87aoel$f43$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com> <86iut1$c0b$1@news.junction.net>
<86ksrl$qf2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <XSGj4.19$F3.377@uchinews>
<38927EBF.51F2BF75@icsi.not.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.246
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 02:16:56 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38927EBF.51F2BF75@icsi.not.net>,
Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>
>
> jeffery joel bezaire wrote:
>>
>> In article <86ksrl$qf2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>>In article <86iut1$c0b$1@news.junction.net>,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>>That material, it turns out, is the one thing which
>>>is and has always been fundamental in all of existence;
>>>namely, the "force" of attraction which, in its local
>>>manifestations (in the interactions of particles & galaxies)
>>>we term gravity. Gravity is our universe; as long as
>>>there is gravity there shall be "forms" of ordinary matter
>>>"painted" upon it... and they ("us/we") shall "exist"
>>>without realizing that as gravity unravels (as the universe
>>>implodes) we "shrink" without the slightest hint that
>>>we are shrinking--Except, of course, that, when we look
>>>at the galaxies, which, because they are so far away from
>>>each other... will be observed receding from each other
>>>in the standard Hubble constant model (since, as the
>>>universe implodes... those galaxies closer to the center
>>>will be "pulled" with greater strength than the galaxies
>>>farther away from the center of the implosion. (How could
>>>a universe of gravity NOT be an imploding one?!?!?!)
>>>
>>
>> This disagrees with observations.
Only if your observations are very limited in scope.
>> A non-uniform implosion would be
>> able to
>> generate redshifts for galaxies toward the center and for galaxies
>> away
>> from the center (the observed redshifts would even constrain the
>> dynamics
>> of the implosion), but galaxies along directions perpendicularto
>> the
>> implosion center would not appear redshifted. We should observea
>> highly
>> nonisotropic redshift-distance relationship. The one we observe
>> seems very
>> isotropic.
This would only be so if galaxies in an imploding universe behaved
differently than the way the galaxies of THIS our imploding universe
behaved.
If, on the other hand, our imploding universe were so huge that the
only portion of it we could see were unimaginable tiny, and that portion
of the universe were rather close to its outer rim... then the Hubble
constant would apply as it currently does. And about the only hintthat
it is an imploding universe (when we looked out into the cosmos) would
be that the Hubble constant would be accelerating because of gravity.
(In an exploding universe... gravity would of necessity work to reignin
and slow the Hubble constant or to reverse it altogether.)
> There you go, cluttering up a perfectly good theory withreality
> again! :)
Always glad to jank out the rug from under anyone who's
been standing out in the Sun too long to realize his/her
uncluttered thoughts are just plain ole heat stroke, Jeff.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
>> regards,
>>
>> Jeff Bezaire
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ktip$r0p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com>
<3894668f.43075663@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.58
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 25 19:29:37 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 <3894668f.43075663@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
23skidooooo@my-deja.com wrote:
> Some person using the handle -ngear@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren)
> pretended they
> were sane long enough to type this on Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:00:32 GMT,
> which I
> will now be replying to:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:51:55 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>She is also quite correct that the Big Bang is hard
>>>to swallow. And I know it's just as big a fable as
>>>any other fable you'd care to name. Never happened.
>>>If you wish to know what really happened, visit:
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>
>>Nuts to that. If we are shrinking, we must also be losingmass
or
>>else apparent gravity would be increasing. You could say thatlocal
>>space and distances are shrinking along with us, but how is that
>>different from saying space is expanding overall? How doesthis
>>explain or simplify anything?
>>
>>I hear there are still some die hard steady-state theorists looking
>>for a mechanism by which a tiny amount of matter could be trickling
>>into our universe (I think the rate needed for equilibrium wouldbe
>>about a gram of matter in an earth-sized region of space every
>>hundred
>>billion years), so the Big Bang isn't quite the only game in town,
>>but
>>the notion that the universe is expanding is going to be extremely
>>difficult to overturn. I'd sooner expect to discover the Earth
>>really
>>is flat.
>
> String theory actually opened up a whole can of worms against
> classical
> post-classical physics. It has shown two different and equally viable
> ways
> of measuring the universe, one shows us very small and shrinking,the
> other
> very large and expanding. When it gets down to a certain very small
> (Planck)
> size, however, the measurements become indistinguishable and any
> attempt to
> measure down further just swaps the results. It means that there'sa
> smallest possible size that below which cannot be measured. Thisin
>
> turn
> overthrows all thought of a singularity or pin-point Big Bang, and
> instead
> would have all matter coalesce into a sort of rubber band ball (the
> particles that make it up are actually very small strings which are
> wrapped
> around the tiny rolled up dimensions, whose radii are equal to the
> smallest
> possible size. So instead matter does this Big Bounce mechanism where
> it
> flops the expansion and contraction for however long it wants/hasto.
> An
> oscillating universal envelope where time does not stop in between
> successive bounces, but all dimensions shrink down to the same size,
> and all
> the forces are indistinguishable from everything else at its smallest
> most
> dense point.
>
> -----
> Pope Skidoo
Superstring & supersymmetry (and other) theories have
indeed skirted/flirted with the realization that ours
is an imploding universe (to explain observed phenomena)
but they just never have seen the matter clearly enough.
Probably all the math's gotten them too drunk to permit
them to do this--O well,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> "The only difference between an insane person
> and myself is that I am not insane."
>
- Salvador Dali
Does an artist HAVE to be sane? Who know, it might even help
if he/she were able to look upon the human condition from
the vantage standpoint of some off-centered attitude.
--S D Rodrian
***********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86oitd$huh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com>
<3894668f.43075663@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
<86ktip$r0p$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86lihh$avt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.23
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 04:51:59 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86lihh$avt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Joe_SixPack <nschindler@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <86ktip$r0p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <3894668f.43075663@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>> 23skidooooo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> Some person using the handle -ngear@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren)
>>> pretended they
>>> were sane long enough to type this on Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:00:32
>>> GMT,
>>> which I
>>> will now be replying to:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:51:55 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>She is also quite correct that the Big Bang is hard
>>>>>to swallow. And I know it's just as big a fable as
>>>>>any other fable you'd care to name. Never happened.
>>>>>If you wish to know what really happened, visit:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>>>
>>>>Nuts to that. If we are shrinking, we must also be losingmass
>>>>or
>>>>else apparent gravity would be increasing. You could saythat
>>>>local
>>>>space and distances are shrinking along with us, but how isthat
>>>>different from saying space is expanding overall? Howdoes
this
>>>>explain or simplify anything?
>>>>
>>>>I hear there are still some die hard steady-state theorists
>>>>looking
>>>>for a mechanism by which a tiny amount of matter could be
>>>>trickling
>>>>into our universe (I think the rate needed for equilibrium would
>>>>be about a gram of matter in an earth-sized region of spaceevery
>>>>hundred
>>>>billion years), so the Big Bang isn't quite the only game in
>>>>town, but
>>>>the notion that the universe is expanding is going to be
>>>>extremely
>>>>difficult to overturn. I'd sooner expect to discover theEarth
>>>>really
>>>>is flat.
>>>
>>> String theory actually opened up a whole can of worms against
>>> classical
>>> post-classical physics. It has shown two different and equally
>>> viable
>>> ways
>>> of measuring the universe, one shows us very small and shrinking,
>>> the
>>> other
>>> very large and expanding. When it gets down to a certain very
>>> small (Planck)
>>> size, however, the measurements become indistinguishable andany
>>> attempt to
>>> measure down further just swaps the results. It means that there's
>>> a
>>> smallest possible size that below which cannot be measured. This
>>> in
>>> turn
>>> overthrows all thought of a singularity or pin-point Big Bang,and
>>> instead
>>> would have all matter coalesce into a sort of rubber band ball
>>> (the
>>> particles that make it up are actually very small strings which
>>> are wrapped
>>> around the tiny rolled up dimensions, whose radii are equal tothe
>>> smallest
>>> possible size. So instead matter does this Big Bounce mechanism
>>> where
>>> it
>>> flops the expansion and contraction for however long it wants/has
>>> to.
>>> An
>>> oscillating universal envelope where time does not stop in between
>>> successive bounces, but all dimensions shrink down to the same
>>> size,
>>> and all
>>> the forces are indistinguishable from everything else at its
>>> smallest
>>> most
>>> dense point.
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Pope Skidoo
>>
>> Superstring & supersymmetry (and other) theories have
>> indeed skirted/flirted with the realization that ours
>> is an imploding universe (to explain observed phenomena)
>> but they just never have seen the matter clearly enough.
>> Probably all the math's gotten them too drunk to permit
>> them to do this--O well,
>
> Hi, read your page and several of your posts.
>
> Your theory is amusing, but they haven't yet come up with a Nobel
> Prize
> for comedy yet, so I guess you'll just have to just keep at it
> unrecognized.
Well, as long as some people are smiling
the world is a better place for having hosted me.
> By the way, why do you reply five times with the same post?
If you've seen the same post by me twice in the same
newsgroup do let me know! However, I do post my replies to
whichever group(s) I believe might appreciate them.
Sometimes I get a note of appreciation; and other times
I get an irate citizen who can't understand why the Hell
I posted the damn thing where he could read it. (It's all
been he(s) so far. Women might have more brains after all.)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
Keep smiling (you might never need to see a doctor).
--A phychiatrist maybe, if you don't frown in between
the smiles every so often... folks who are always happy
unnerve people (personal experience).
> Cheers
>
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>
>>> "The only difference between an insane person
>>> and myself is that I am not insane."
>>>
- Salvador Dali
>>
>> Does an artist HAVE to be sane? Who know, it might even help
>> if he/she were able to look upon the human condition from
>> the vantage standpoint of some off-centered attitude.
>>
>>
--S D Rodrian
>>
************************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86thjb$5k1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com>
<3894668f.43075663@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
<86ktip$r0p$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86lihh$avt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86oitd$huh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86qrmm$70v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.188
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 29 02:00:12 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 <86qrmm$70v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Joe_SixPack <nschindler@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <86oitd$huh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Well, as long as some people are smiling
>> the world is a better place for having hosted me.
>
> Well, I don't think you can confused the general public any morethan
> they already are when it comes to modern physics, so I guess thereis
> no harm.
>
>>
>>> By the way, why do you reply five times with the same post?
>>
>> If you've seen the same post by me twice in the same
>> newsgroup do let me know!
>
> I am reading this from alt.atheism. Every message you posted is
> repeated multiple times - often as many as eight or nine times. I
> don't
> know what type of news reader you are using, but it has a nasty habit
> of creating spam.
Sorry to correct you, but you are definitely NOT
reading this from alt.atheism, Joe. You are reading
the complete thread from DejaNews. (Since you are posting
from DejaNews, it would be nearly inconceivable that you
would be reading from one reader and posting from another
one.)
When you read ONE newsgroup you will (should) only see the
message (one) posted to that group. When you read from the Dejanews
thread you will see all the copies (only one of each was)
set to whatever number of different newsgroups.
You are not reading just alt.atheism if you read alt.atheism
from DejaNews by searching for alt.atheism and then reading
off the threads listed on the alt.atheism search results:
NOTICE that when you go to the alt.atheism newsgroup at
DejaNews you do not get individual messages but entire
threads. These threads are complete AND so include all
the messages associated with each thread regardless of
which newgroups the individual messages may have been posted 2
Hope this cleared that up,
but there's a small part of my heart
that will eternally doubt it,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86krkb$pet$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.58
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 25 18:56:13 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388cf158.1020497@news.gvtc.com>,
-ngear@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:51:55 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>She is also quite correct that the Big Bang is hard
>>to swallow. And I know it's just as big a fable as
>>any other fable you'd care to name. Never happened.
>>If you wish to know what really happened, visit:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> Nuts to that. If we are shrinking, we must also be losing massor
> else apparent gravity would be increasing.
Consider it from this angle: There are no fundamental particles.
And only gravity "exists" at the fundamental level. Everything
else (all forms of matter) are just forms "painted" upon gravity:
1) As gravity gets closer and closer to the center of the universe
one would expect it not to increase but to lessen (just as once you
get to the actual center of the earth you would expect to feel no
gravity at all--if you could escape being crushed).
2) Before getting to the center of the universe you would expect
that those "structures" closer to the center would be "pulled" on
with greater force than those "structures" farther from center
(with the result that the so-called Hubble constant "expansion"
we see when we look into the cosmos would seem to always be
accelerating (since the force of gravity is forever/always applied
to this "expansion." And there are hints that is precisely the case.
3) Because all forms of matter retain their forms as the gravity
upon which they are "painted" vanishes (and please do check out
the 2D analogy at my web site on this--in which I use a world
composed of bursting balloons)... they/we "shrink" while yet
forever retaining their/our every perceived perspective (e.g.
they/we never realize they/we are shrinking). This shrinking can
continue until there is no more gravity upon which "our" existence
can be "painted" (or, supported by it). However, once all gravity
vanishes from our universe... the entire wonderful process will
begin all over again because (Newton's 1st Law of Motion): "A
body remains at rest," (this body was our universe before it
manifested gravity), "or, if already in motion," (after it manifested
gravity), "remains in uniform motion with constant speed in a
straight line," (imploding if gravity universe, or at absolute rest
if gravity-less universe), "unless it is acted on by an unbalanced
external force" (in the case of the universe at absolute rest
gravity is the force which unbalances it, while in the case of the
universe of gravity... it is this ultimate approach to THE center
which unbalances gravity and once again produces a universe
which is one of infinite scalar mass (without any "matter" in it
until gravity again NECESSARILY manifests itself and the cycle
repeats again and again and again). This still remains an unitary
theory (where "information" is preserved from the universe of
gravity to the scalar one and vice/versa throughout an eternity
in which existence merely exists and does not have to come into
existence out of some magical First Cause Uncaused).
> You could say that local
> space and distances are shrinking along with us, but how is that
> different from saying space is expanding overall? How doesthis
> explain or simplify anything?
Actually, visit my site, as there I try to simplify understanding
by getting you to view it from the point of view of space
expanding rather than matter shrinking--Who knows, it may be
easier for you to visualize it that way. It is for me.
> I hear there are still some die hard steady-state theorists looking
> for a mechanism by which a tiny amount of matter could be trickling
> into our universe (I think the rate needed for equilibrium wouldbe
> about a gram of matter in an earth-sized region of space every hundred
> billion years), so the Big Bang isn't quite the only game in town,but
> the notion that the universe is expanding is going to be extremely
> difficult to overturn. I'd sooner expect to discover the Earthreally
> is flat.
>
> Nick
Imagine how difficult it was to overturn the Aristotelian notion
of gravity: The only place things ever fell "down" to was the earth;
so when ANYONE proposed that the earth might be in motion...
what insanity indeed! If the earth were to be in motion how to explain
things falling down?!?!?! No one ever saw anything fall down to
any place other than the earth... ergo the earth HAD to be at rest
AND, consequently, it HAD to be the universe that was in motion
and orbiting the earth. Right? LOTS of time it's very difficult
to persuade those possessed of an irrational conviction to
let go of it. (This is why I won't kill myself trying to
persuade anybody--let the chips fall where they will, I saw.)
Well, eventually, as the history of man continues.... eventually
we do come upon greater and more profound insights. We may be
at just such a point now (at a point when a greater and more
profound insight is about to supplant the previous one)...
Stay tuned.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.58
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 25 18:38:09 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
23skidooooo@my-deja.com wrote:
[cut to the case...]
>
>>Some people try to use the big bang as proof of God.
It is the near perfect proof of God: Something
comes out of nothing (better yet: everything
comes out of nothingness).
>>If the details
>>of the
>>big bang are murky in my mind, then it can't be used to prove
>>anything.
Try: They're murky because there are blessedly few
details--It's all: "Puff! And here we are then..."
> It couldn't prove God anyway. Science can't answer the "why"
> questions, only
> the "how's."
This is because science is the endeavor to explain
the working of nature (outside the works of man);
and only the works of man have a "why" attached to them.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86q133$ia7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <388e8f11.34019474@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.206
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 18:00:07 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 <388e8f11.34019474@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
23skid5*o@my-deja.com wrote:
> Some person using the handle "Carole Holt"
<carole@cholt.greatxscape.net>
> pretended they were sane long enough to type this on Tue, 25 Jan2000
> 22:14:18 -0000, which I will now be replying to:
>
>>I do wish I was a bright young thing and not a grandma, but I do
>>believe
>>even a grandma can learn. So here goes: In very simple terms,weare
>>not
>>expanding but contracting and as we are all getting smaller we donot
>>notice
>>it. At the same time the ones near the centre are travelling faster
>>than the
>>ones at a greater distance from the centre.
>>
>>Now I am ok with that, but what happens at the centre when theyall
>>meet do
>>they destabilize themselves and turn into something else that goes
>>back out
>>again? I am not very sure on that one.
>>Please could you explain in very simple terms
>>thank you
>>Carole Holt
>
> Yes, when all comes together, energy builds up to a maximum
> threshhold-- the
> size gets smaller and smaller-- until the energy is too much andthen
> it
> expands once again... to be repeated over and over perhaps.
>
> -----
> Pope Skidoo
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
The scalar universe (the one just at the "magical" instant
Big Bangers call the pre-Big Bang Singularity) embodied
all the energy that ever was/ever will be in the universe.
The universe of gravity (the present one) is "using"
that energy (not destroying it, but merely transferring it
from its potential before Big Bang (Big Crunch really)
into matter--where it is held a while... until it is again
transferred into infinite mass (the scalar universe).
This eternal conservation of energy by transferring it
between infinite mass and all the matter in the universe
and back & forth and back & forth
will continue forever, of course. Unless the universe, our
universe is "open" to some other universe or thing
which can add or subtract energy from ours.... I explore
all these things & more at my web site, which is at:
http://www.geocities.com.absoluterelativity
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
************************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86q3h2$kef$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <388E63A3.6102DD27@inforamp.net>
<86n420$a1r$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.49
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 18:41:39 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86n420$a1r$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
"genein" <genein@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Jack Gibney <gibney@inforamp.net> wrote in message
> news:388E63A3.6102DD27@inforamp.net...
>> If the universe is expanding or becoming smaller it must be finite.
>> This
>> raises
>> the questions: What is outside of it? How do we nothat
there is
>> not some
>> other matter outside the area we can perceive that is absorbingour
>> expansions
>> and contractions? In the absence of evidence to the contraryis
it
>> not best
>> to
>> consider this equally likely? The universe could just aswell,
>> therefore be
>> infinite and therefore fixed in size.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> how can a universe be considered infinite and be *fixed* in size?
Although strictly as a mind game: If you acknowledge that
you can only "measure" it against some finite ruler inside it
then it becomes impossible for you to tell whether your ruler
is shrinking/expanding or it is the universe itself which is
shrinking/expanding--And, you could actually waste the better
part of an afternoon trying to measure the universe from inside
it, with your uncertainty rule... before you finally come to your
senses and realize there's a decent movie playing at the corner
movie house.
See you there!*
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*My, look: We have the theater all to ourselves!
>
> g.
>>
>> Jack Gibney
>
>
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86q2so$jo6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <388E63A3.6102DD27@inforamp.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.49
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 18:30:47 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 <388E63A3.6102DD27@inforamp.net>,
Jack Gibney <gibney@inforamp.net> wrote:
> If the universe is expanding or becoming smaller it must be finite.
What you describe is one process only. It is never
existence itself. You can inflate a balloon and deflate it
without existence much having to pay attention to this.
So too with the process of the universe's implosion (one day,
hopefully sooner than later, you too will come to realize that
there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the universe could be expanding
at the fundamental level... even though the galaxies definitely
ARE receding from each other as described by the Hubble
Constant): THE ONLY "force" that we know of... which
could possibly be behind the "motions" of our universe
HAS to be the force of gravity--There just ain't not'n else
"out there." Although I can certainly wait a couple of eternities
(or 3) until somebody finds something else. This means that
our universe is, of necessity, an imploding one
because just there is no other way gravity works
except by attraction! Period.
> This raises
> the questions: What is outside of it?
I touch upon this at my web site (speculating only about
whether ours may be just one of an endless number of
universes like ours--I cannot, of course, imagine a universe
NOT like ours).
> How do we no that there is not
> some
> other matter outside the area we can perceive that is absorbing our
> expansions
> and contractions?
There are many things in this world we can NEVER
look into directly... but about which we can make some
reasonably educated "guesses." (Your better-half's "true"
intentions... come to mind.)
> In the absence of evidence to the contrary is it
> not best to
> consider this equally likely?
"In the absence of evidence to the contrary"
people have been hanged & burned at the stake
(so I'd wait... and never give up the quest for knowledge).
> The universe could just as well,
> therefore be
> infinite and therefore fixed in size.
>
> Comments?
Sure: As far as we know, "energy cannot be
created or destroyed." But... of course, we do not know
how much we know (only that it is seldom enough).
Except perhaps for St. Augustine, who wrote:
"Nemo ergo ex me scine quaerant quod me nescire
scio nisi forte utnescire discat..." *
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
* "Therefore, none should seek to learn from me, for
I only know I know not ..." --City of God
> Jack Gibney
> Carole Holt wrote:
>
>> I do wish I was a bright young thing and not a grandma, but I do
>> believe
>> even a grandma can learn. So here goes: In very simple terms,weare
>> not
>> expanding but contracting and as we are all getting smaller wedo
>> not notice
>> it. At the same time the ones near the centre are travelling faster
>> than the
>> ones at a greater distance from the centre.
>>
>> Now I am ok with that, but what happens at the centre when theyall
>> meet do
>> they destabilize themselves and turn into something else that goes
>> back out
>> again? I am not very sure on that one.
>> Please could you explain in very simple terms
>> thank you
>> Carole Holt
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 30 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <872a6g$9u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <388E63A3.6102DD27@inforamp.net>
<86q378$k40$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <JXLk4.575$yw.20611@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.94
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 30 21:24:37 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: humanities.misc,rec.org.mensa,alt.writing,alt.prose
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <JXLk4.575$yw.20611@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Keith Snyder" <keith@woollymammoth.com> wrote:
> I'm coming in late, so I'm taking all this stuff out of context. That
> said...
>
>> THE ONLY "force" that we know of... which
>> could possibly be behind the "motions" of our universe
>> HAS to be the force of gravity--There just ain't not'n else
>> "out there."
>
> That may not be the case. In addition to the strong nuclearforce
and
> the
> weak nuclear force --
The problem with the other three forces is that they, unlike gravity,
require modern-day particles to do what they do. SO if you are going
to speak about how the universe originated and how it got to where
& how it is today, you can't use atoms and quarks and cars in your
explanation. Only gravity is fundamental enough to have predated
everything else you'd care to propose.
And then there is that "other" matter: If a problem has a simple
solution... UNLESS that simple solution is unsatisfactory for somevalid
reason, it's simpler to just use that solution. There is no simpler
solution to the problem of the universe's existence (its every aspect)
than gravity.
> neither of which, admittedly, may have any
> bearing on
> the expansion of the universe -- there may be a repellent force that
> acts
> only at great distances, just as gravity acts only at small distances
> and
> the nuclear forces act only at subatomic distances. That'sthe
news
> as of a
> year or two ago, when last I paid attention.
The "findings" you refer to go this way: Preliminary findings that
the so-called expansion of the universe is accelerating where the
Big Bang model predicts it should either be static or actually slowing
down (ergo the theory about some repelling force making gravity
weaker). As is too often the case... the findings are very likelyreal
and true, and the interpretation of what it means very likely in error.
If the universe is considered to be an explosion the notion of its
expansion accelerating is a puzzle (to be resolved either by determining
the reason why it's accelerating, or by sneaking in some theory about
some heretofore unsuspected thing or other which when inserted into
the equation makes everything perfectly well again and allows to keep
practicing the good ole-time religion we have been practicing all this
time). I, on the other hand, prefer the simple and self-evident, the
obvious solution every time. Namely: The universe is NOT an expanding
explosion but an implosion (a model which does not require Rube Goldberg
explanations, only very simple and straightforward ones):
What is the most apparent nature of our universe? Gravity. Does
gravity work by attracting or by repelling? By attracting. Consequently,
what is the most likely universe to result from an attracting nature?
An imploding one.
>> because just there is no other way gravity works
>> except by attraction! Period.
>
> Uh... that's so vague as to be meaningless. Gravitational attration
> doesn't
> "work by attraction." And, in fact, if you want to get semantically
> persnickety about it... if you're using the relativistic model, the
> curvature of spacetime near massive bodies causes other massive bodies
> to
> fall along the curve, just like a ball rolling down a hill.
Why do you insist on injecting something (time) which only "exists"
in the human mind into the universe as some sort of real aspect?
Forget time: There is NO fourth, fifth or et al dimension(s). The notion
of spacetime is a vain attempt by man to pinpoint the motions of the
universe to an exactness which only has meaning to himself. Every one
of the motions of the universe is independent of each & every other
motion in/of the universe... and every motion in/of the universe isnot
only "running" at its own rate but each one of those rates is also
steadily running down at its own individual/independent rates. The
spacetime map only works for a very short time and for a very local
space; it is like all our other watches... we can synchronize its
workings to some outside motion or motions, but we then find ourselves
forever needing to insert leap seconds, nanos or lords. Leave the world
as it is: a 3-dimensional one.
Instead of what you said above, say that planets orbit stars, and moons
orbit planets. Then, if the perihelion of Mercury doesn't add up, find
how & where the magnetic field of the Sun is throwing off yournumbers!
But please don't start bending space all over the place just so youcan
aim your shots through it.
> What's
> the ball
> attracted to? Well, you could say it's attracted to the pointat
the
> center
> of the earth, and in the classic model, you'd be right. Butin
the
> relativistic model, it might be as accurate to say it's not exactly
> attracted to anything; it's just rolling because the plane is
> declined.
Yes, I believe, if I am not mistaken that all this has been worked out
to near-perfection during the last 500(?) years.
> That's all semantic nitpicking, but my point is that "gravity worksby
> attraction" is as meaningless a statement as "prettiness works by
> attractiveness." They're about the same thing.
If ever I need to point out the obvious again and again... I'm afraid
I shall have to keep repeating that the, "only way gravity works is
by attraction." At least, until that statement ceases to be the grand
mystic enigma it seems to be to some and becomes something much
more obvious.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> Keith
>
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <877j4r$3t5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <388E63A3.6102DD27@inforamp.net>
<86q378$k40$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <JXLk4.575$yw.20611@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<872a6g$9u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <JCSWOOeW4lkq1IyT4JhXDSEai=XD@4ax.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.236
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 01 21:28:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: humanities.misc,rec.org.mensa,alt.writing,alt.prose
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <JCSWOOeW4lkq1IyT4JhXDSEai=XD@4ax.com>,
j <nospam@null.net> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>If the universe is considered to be an explosion the notion of its
>>expansion accelerating is a puzzle (to be resolved either by
>>determining
>>the reason why it's accelerating, or by sneaking in some theoryabout
>>some heretofore unsuspected thing or other which when inserted into
>>the equation makes everything perfectly well again and allows tokeep
>>practicing the good ole-time religion we have been practicing all
>>this
>>time). I, on the other hand, prefer the simple and self-evident,the
>>obvious solution every time. Namely: The universe is NOT an expanding
>>explosion but an implosion (a model which does not require Rube
>>Goldberg
>>explanations, only very simple and straightforward ones):
>
> Um ... in an "explosion", things become less dense,suffer
> entropy and occupy progressively more and morespace.
This
> would seem to describe our universe pretty wellexcept
for
> the (apparent) acceleration of the expansion rate.For
an
> "implosive" model, you can explain the acceleratingrate,
> but not the other aspects.
Take thee to my web site: It's all explained there in the most
perfectly simple language. You missed the crucial point: In
an exploding universe a number of facts we observe in ours
would be utterly inexplicable (c constancy being just one).
Which c constancy is not simply easily explained in an imploding
universe... it is absolutely required that it is as it is.
> Maybe it *is* an "explosion", but the 4D "boundary"of
our
> space is somehow attractive to matter, thus causingit
> to accelerate as it moves "outwards" ?
Perhaps it's the makeup of such regions (pun: women's makeup).
> Or maybe the acceleration is "apparent" only ...caused
by
> being immersed deeply within the gravitationalfields
from
> all matter ... while material nearer the outsideis
less
> affected - like the time-dialation issue wherewe,
being
> nearer a gravity well, would observe events nearerthe
> periphery as happening faster. I mean, in a way,a
universe
> *is* a black hole wherein all energy is trappedwithin
a
> 4th dimensional boundary (an "event horizon" ?),unable
to
> break free.
It was apparent to me that our universe COULD NOT BE an explosion
before I was 12 years old. And it was self-evident to me that it
HAD TO BE an implosion more than 10 years ago. The findings
that the Hubble constant is actually accelerating merely supports
the proposition of an imploding universe (even if those findings
are rather preliminary even today). The more important point is
that, along with many other observed facts, these findings tend
to outright disprove that our universe could be an explosion
(whether one prefers to call it an "expansion" or anything else).
> Or if a universe is a temporary rupture in a higher-dimensional
> negative-energy matrix ... then an implosion mightlook
like an
> explosion and positive energy would be a relativelack
of negative
> energy or .... aaugh! ... not enough data ... notenough
IQ ...
> maddening, just maddening ......
Reality is simple, if you consider it... in and of itself, to the
exclusion of our prejudice to believe that those things we have yetto
understand we have yet to understand because they are overly complex:
Rather, approach it for what it is... something new to you. And thenyou
cannot but marvel, once you understand it, how easy it was to understand
after all.
> Maybe there *was* something to be said for simplyoffering
up
> a burnt goat to the sun twice a year ........
I think not. I think primitive cultures are forever steeped in horrors
(from the uncertainties surrounding the human condition there).
The advancement of human civilization is fueled, if nothing else, by
an instinctive desire in us to eventually achieve a measure of peace
of mind... that peace of mind which comes when we know enough to
vanquish all our horrors.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> -j
>
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86q0gm$hqj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
<86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.206
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 17:50:16 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.wisdom
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Carole Holt" <carole@cholt.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> I do wish I was a bright young thing and not a grandma, but I do
> believe
> even a grandma can learn. So here goes: In very simple terms,we are
> not
> expanding but contracting and as we are all getting smaller we donot
> notice
> it. At the same time the ones near the centre are travelling faster
> than the
> ones at a greater distance from the centre.
>
> Now I am ok with that, but what happens at the centre when they all
> meet do
> they destabilize themselves and turn into something else that goes
> back out
> again? I am not very sure on that one.
> Please could you explain in very simple terms
> thank you
> Carole Holt
I have tried the in past & will try in future
for as many times as my fingertips hold out:
START QUOTE
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.
} Mind you of course, gravitons have yet to be detected.
Those gravitons being sought are modern-day particles and
have nothing to do with the fundamental "particles" of gravity
(my gravitons are not particles at all--I just coopted the word).
} And what
} exactly
} are oppositions?
Exactly the opposite of gravitons. Simple, no? All you need
remember is that when I speak of "gravitons" and/or
"oppositons" I am merely using particle physics terms
(to set up statistics studies): These terms never refer to
any real particles and are merely/purely my nicknames
for the attracting/repelling forces which 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."
All this means is that once the force of gravity reaches the
center of the universe... it has nowhere to go (it dissipates,
or, if you follow my description... the attracting force
eventually shifts into the repelling force).
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!
--And 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.
} I always thought myself a grave man but that this is taking it to
} extremes.
Finally you know: God did not set up "57 different parameters"
(four distinct forces) after all when He dreamt up existence, but
just the one: Gravity. (Newton set up the repelling force.)
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.
} Sounds like the same thing stated a different way. Stillsee
no
} reason to
} reject Big Bang/inflationary cosmology for your model.
You will. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow....
but somewhere down the road you're going to regret not
having gotten on that plane, and then it'll be the start o
a beautiful friendship--or some such. Remember & remember:
Galaxies 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. Ask any Big-Banger you know.
There are two sides or processes to the universe: On the side
which we have left behind the universe can best be described
as being pure infinite mass (there are many ways to describe
this stage of the universe; perhaps the easiest to grasp is that
at this stage the universe is as "large" as the Big Bang universe
would be if it continued to expand to its most extreme size). This
scalar universe does not contain "matter" (or, not much of it, in
any case), and so it is one whose nature is a repelling force. But,
as anyone familiar with Newton's concept of a force knows, this
repelling force can exist only because it is in balance with its
opposite... and eventually this scalar universe is "pushed" into
that opposite (or, attracting) force.
This is the beginning of "our" side of the universe (the manifestation
of gravity). What is the nature of gravity? (Rhetorical question only.)
What happens when gravity becomes the nature of the universe?
(Not a rhetorical question.) You already know, don't you: In a process
which must be almost infinitely protracted... the force of gravity
slowly
builds more and more compounded and complex "islands" or "pools"
or "eddies" of locally self-focused gravity... even as the entire
universe
as a unit begins to implode: This is the beginning of what we call
"particles" (which, as you can see from this vantage point, are simply,
merely, and only just the "forms" which gravity is taking locally--for
the same reason that somebody standing on the moon will feel the
moon's gravity much more than the earth's, or the Sun's, or the Milky
Way's, or that or the rest of the entire universe). As the universe
whose
nature is now gripped by this attracting force continues its history...
more and more complex "forms" of matter (particles) build up from/upon
the previous generations of particles... until we get the
supra-particles
we know as quarks, elemental atoms, stars, and galaxies of today.
But one thing remains true & unchanging across the entire process:
There are NO fundamental particles: ALL of THEM, without a single
exception, are just "forms & shapes" which the force of gravityhas
taken locally. And now imagine the history of our universe (of this
protracted process of building generation after generation of these
"forms of matter" on top of each other... and realize that we really
have
no idea just how many generations there may have gone before ours.
Remember when "philosophers & theists" thought the universe
was 6000 years old? Well, what if today's "physicists" are but only
the modern-day equivalent of those "philosophers & theists" when
it comes to "imagining" how many generations of subparticles have
gone before the present one?
>Haha common sense really.
Indeed. It doesn't take a super-abundance of intelligence and/or
even a super-abundance of knowledge to eventually realize that
our universe must be the result of a protracted process of evolution.
SO next time you hear someone --ANYONE-- spouting about how
the universe "suddenly burst into existence out of an exploding
magic bean" please remind that person that the age of myths & magic
hath come and is all but gone... gone into a time of scientific inquiry
and, indeed (finally) into the beginnings of an age of common sense.
END QUOTE
(Thank God for cut & paste!)
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>> 23skidooooo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> [cut to the case...]
>>
>>>
>>>>Some people try to use the big bang as proof of God.
>>
>> It is the near perfect proof of God: Something
>> comes out of nothing (better yet: everything
>> comes out of nothingness).
>>
>>>>If the details
>>>>of the
>>>>big bang are murky in my mind, then it can't be used to prove
>>>>anything.
>>
>> Try: They're murky because there are blessedly few
>> details--It's all: "Puff! And here we are then..."
>>
>>> It couldn't prove God anyway. Science can't answer the "why"
>>> questions, only
>>> the "how's."
>>
>> This is because science is the endeavor to explain
>> the working of nature (outside the works of man);
>> and only the works of man have a "why" attached to them.
>>
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
***********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ti3l$5tq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <86q0mo$i3v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38912CC8.B1@direct.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.188
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 29 02:08:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38912CC8.B1@direct.ca>,
Anthony Buckland <buckland@direct.ca> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>> ...
>> 1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" madeup
>> of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
>> ...
>
> "Oppositons"? I must have missed that episode of
> Star Trek: Voyager.
>
Don't worry, with the dearth of original ideas
in TV series writing you'll probably see a lot of
the Oppositons in future episodes (they were really
nifty critters: their ears were where their noses
should be and their feet came out the side of their heads
--which came in handy for them because that way
they could tap their feet & swing their heads to the rhythm
of life at the same time, saving them enough energy for them
to be able to ALSO hear the snacks they were munching).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
**********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86vo4r$k1r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jb0n$hgo$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
<389568cc.43649333@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu> <86kqig$oja$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86l7e4$gbo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> <86q0sr$i6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<222f71f6.db75296a@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.181
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 29 22:04:13 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness,alt.philosophy.onjectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <222f71f6.db75296a@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com>,
Eagle753 <Eagle753NOEaSPAM@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> "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 incapableof
> accumulating because they merely represent the force of gravity,and
> are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!"
>
> How can it be determined where or even that the universe has a
> "center," if we don't know what the outer perimeter of the universe
> is?
Once we acknowledge that the universe is imploding, we can
pretty much leave behind all concerns about what the universe
is leaving behind (the universe itself is doing just that). About
the only thing we must acknowledge is that "the place" where
the universe originated (where there was no matter/gravity)...
that place was/in/at absolute rest--and THAT is "where" we are
moving away from (so any acceleration is away from there/that).
> And if it has an outer perimeter, what's beyond it that this outer
> perimeter is differentiating the universe from?
Speculate to your heart's contentment about this. What's outside
our universe is a question that probably can be answered as much
by philosophy as by science. So I'll use the former discipline
here and answer (as guesses are more acceptable in philosophy), and
say: "Probably more of the same." (In other words: Probably other
universes like ours... and probably universes more like ours than
less like ours.)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86tja1$6n4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38916AD2.2067E99E@domain.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.188
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 29 02:29:25 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 <38916AD2.2067E99E@domain.com>,
mak <default@domain.com> wrote:
> Have you considered the possibility that the Universe is neither
> expanding
> nor imploding?
Yep. The problem is the constancy of the speed of light.
It's a puzzle if the universe is an explosion. It remains
a puzzle if the universe is an in-place steady state. But
if it's an imploding universe, then the speed of light
CANNOT HELP but be constant (in identical mediums--and
the identical mediums bit?... that's The Clincher).
Please see my web site why this is so (if you like,
or wait a few years or decades and ask your kids).
> Are we not putting too much emphasis on the so called flight of the
> galaxies?
The Hubble constant IS a partial measurement (but so is
the observation that people have heads on their shoulders
--sure, the couple of people you've met have heads on their
shoulders, but what if most people, whom you could NEVER
have met personally, what if most people have their heads
under their armpits somewhere... it could be the case).
> Furthermore, why is gravity given priority over the electromagnetic
> force?
Because gravity was there BEFORE the particles which
engage in EM. In fact, all particles are made of gravity
quite literally. And gravity exists inside black holes
And gravity will exist in the universe as long as
the least bit of "matter" (whatever form/shape) exists
therein. Bet somebody money on this if you wanna win
an easy bet.
> I remember reading some promising works by Swedish astrophysicist
> Alfven
> regarding cosmological electrodynamics. Where did that go? Down the
> toilet?
Haven't looked in there with all that passionate
a curiosity lately. But, who knows? If it's in there,
though... it's probably under the rim. (That's where
most of the things you're not looking forward to
finding in a toilet are apt to be found.)
> Looking forward to your comments.
Looking backwards on having given them to you.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>
> mak
>
>
*************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86vpba$ks6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86tjil$6pg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000129030347.02075.00000156@ng-fd1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.181
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 29 22:24:46 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 <20000129030347.02075.00000156@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
NPGreeley <npgreeley@aol.com> wrote:
>>Please see my web site
>
>>http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>
>
> Checked it out. Rodrian's theory, if I understand it, and I'm sureI
> don't, is
> this: The universe is imploding at the speed of light.
Checking out the web site is a marvelous first step, Bill. However
the above understanding is incomplete:
1) The universe is absolutely imploding. This is almost a certainty.
Certainly: All the evidence point to this; mone points against this.
2) The "speed" at which any given bit of matter is "moving
towards center" pretty much depends on where in the universe
it is. However. it's almost certain that, regardless of where in
the universe this "bit of matter" is, the speed at which it is moving
towards center is the highest speed of anything moving in that portion
of the universe.
3) The above explanation must be understood in terms of the
following:
a) All "forms" of matter are "forms" only, and not fundamental.
b) Only the force of attraction (which we know by its local name
of gravity) is fundamental:
This basically means that it is better to speak of all the "forms" of
matter that exist "painted" upon the force of gravity as "moving
towards shirking" rather than as "moving towards the center of
the universe" (the two destinations may indeed be reached by
traveling in the same direction, but once you get "there" you will
definitely end up at two different "ends" depending on whether
you took the route of gravity or the route of a "form" of matter:
If you took "the form of gravity route" you will end in a slow
dissolution along the way there and vanish from a force of attraction
into a repelling force (these are the same thing at once, but, for
our purposes here think of it as happening sequentially)... long
before you get anywhere nears a true "center" to the universe
And if, on the other hand, you took the route of some "form" of
matter... your "form" will forever shrink as you continue on your
way "there" (with almost absolutely no hint being given to you
that this is happening)... until there just isn't enough gravity to
hold/maintain your "form" together any more and atoms decay into their
more basic components, and those components into their components,
and so on, & so on, ad infinitum... even unto nothingness itself.
> The only things
> not
> moving at the speed of light are photons, which are almost still.
The motion of ordinary "forms" of matter is of necessity "towards
shrinking" (this is because the fundamental "stuff" they are ALL
ultimately "formed" of (gravity) is not a particle but a force(a
vector quantity in the case of gravity... a quantity which has bothsize
and direction, as opposed to the scalar quantity of the universe when
it was at absolute rest). You can think of this in terms of gravity
spending its energy in moving towards center; or you can just
simply think of it in terms of what happens when you travel to the
center of the earth... the closer you get to center the less you'll
feel the effect of earth's gravity, until, once you get to THE center
of the earth you will feel none of the earth's gravity (and then you'll
be free to feel the Sun's gravity, and the moon's gravity all you like).
Or if you'd like to go all the way with your "feelings," you may there
feel the gravity of the earth around you pushing you (in the "opposite"
direction which the earth's gravity usually pulls at you when you
are somewhere on earth NOT its absolute center)... from all aroundyou.
This universal "direction of motion" is one which the entire universe
is taking as a unit (more or less). Now, if we are shrinking, we are
shrinking away from where we "fit"/were before. That place is
absolute rest; and the speed at which we are "shrinking"/moving
from there (different as it may be depending on where in the universe
you are, will, regardless of where you are, will of necessity be the
"fastest" speed anything in your part of the universe is undergoing).
It is not currently possible to know how fast that speed is. The ONLY
thing we know about it is that it is 186,282 mph faster than that of
photons: Unlike the rest of the "forms" of ordinary matter, the photon
appears to be moving away from absolute rest at a much slower
rate/speed. We do not know what the photon's speed is with regard to
absolute rest, of course (if we did then that would instantly tellus
how fast we ourselves are moving with regard to absolute rest); we
ONLY know that its speed is 186,282 mph SLOWER than "our" own speed
with regard to absolute rest.
BECAUSE the universe is an implosion, this difference of speeds
"towards shrinking" BUT away from absolute rest can ONLY be
measured at constant in identical mediums BECAUSE any given
medium will add a "push" to the photon as the photon travels
through it (the "thicker" the medium the greater the "push") and
the instant that whatever "push" is removed... the photon will
instantly move down to its normally slower speed than that of
the rest of the universe's ordinary "forms" of matter. AND this
ability of ordinary matter to "push" the photon is because the
photon responds to gravity (perhaps infinitely less so than other
forms of matter, yes, but, even so)... the photon responds to
gravity: Burn this truth into your mental treasury of truisms!
WHY does the photon construct (itself just as much a "form"
of matter as the rest of us, after all) move at 186,282 mph slower
than us?... That is unknown to me and to everybody else, as far as
I know. Perhaps one of these days researchers will develop a
medium in which the photon can only "move back & forth" in
a space not much larger than itself (effectively freezing it in place)
and then we can "photograph" it, and finally answer all these very
pesky questions regarding its pesky nature. Least, I'm hoping so.
> When we see
> light, it is our eyes moving at c that crash into the almost perfectly
> still
> photons.
There you are most perfectly correct.
> The theory strikes this layman as hard to reconcile with the evidence
> of the
> senses. When I shine a flashlight on the wall, it's obvious thatthe
> photons
> move from the flashlight to the wall. If everything but lightis
> moving at c,
> then when I turn a flashlight on, shouldn't the photons be 186,000
> miles from
> me after a second?
They most certainly are--UNLESS you direct them into a wall: Then
they can only travel to the wall (unless the wall is made of glassor
some such transparent stuff and they can get through it).
> Seems to me, according to this theory, that light
> should be
> the one thing we can't see.
Well, it's obvious that some people can see things which many
others can never see no matter how hard they may try. But try,
try, try again! And, by the way: Think about this... what is the
difference between shining a flashlight into a mirror and shining it
into a wall--After all, both surfaces are "bouncing" photons
back towards your eyes! Why does your wall absorb some photons
and bounces others back to you? Answer: 300 years ago?... 90
years ago,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> Bill Greeley
>
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 30 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <871ort$tpn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86vp9s$krv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000129184525.21976.00000275@ng-fq1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x29.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.252
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 30 16:28:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <20000129184525.21976.00000275@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
Gregory Weston <gregweston@aol.comm> wrote:
> sdrodrian writes:
>
> <<186,282 mph>>
>
> If you're talking about the speed of light you mean 186,282 milesper
> second.
You have a keen eye, Gregory.
I didn't see that and I wrote the damn thing!
I stand humbly corrected.
S D Rodrian
>
> Gregory Weston
> http://members.aol.com/gregweston
>
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 30 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8700id$po4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38916AD2.2067E99E@domain.com>
<86tjil$6pg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3893225A.9BEBB59F@home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.87
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 30 00:28:01 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3893225A.9BEBB59F@home.com>,
Swartzwelder@home.com wrote:
> NPGreeley has exactly my same question regarding the implosion andthe
> "stillness" of the photon. How do you reconcile the fact thatphotons
> can change direction through reflection if they are still and don't
> move?
The only thing a source imparts upon a photon (aside what sort of
photon, x-ray or orange light, of course) is an orientation with regards
to itself. Because its source's orientation with respect to the restof
the universe is (for all practical purposes) absolute (in other words:
if you throw a baseball at the catcher it will go there and not to
Cleveland)... the photon's orientation with respect to the universe
will remain the same as whatever orientation its source gave it.
However, if you bounce a photon off a mirror, say, that mirror
will become --de facto-- the bounced photon's new source.
And it really does not matter whether it's the same photon
bouncing off (as one may bounce a baseball off a wal)l, or the
photon is absorbed and the mirror's atoms then return another
photon in order to conserve energy, or the first photon knocks
a second identical photon off the mirror's atom--you name the
theoretical or factual scenario... the point is that the mirror
becomes the de facto source of the "bounced" photon... which
photon has now taken/assumed the mirror's absolute orientation
with respect to the rest of the universe as described before.)
>And then how do you explain that even after reflection they
> still
> move at the same speed as before?
Go thou to my web site and read all about it (it is written there
in the simplest possible manner).
The short answer to your question is that BECAUSE our
universe is an implosion, the speed of light will ALWAYS
be measured to be a constant in identical mediums. It is
BECAUSE ours is an imploding universe that this HAS to be
thus. If it were not an imploding universe (never mind whether
radiation would even be possible in a non-imploding universe),
then the speed of light would/could not be measured as a
constant. It's as simple as that. (Which see.)
> Also, you seem to shift between
> using
> a single point of reference of gravity and using an infinite pointsof
> reference of gravity. If all points in the sphere are "shrinking"
> then
> positions relative to each other are always going to be the same.
> However you mention in you dissertation that the objects closer tothe
> center would seem to be going faster or accelerating away from the
> objects further from the center toward this center point.
The crucial error in distinction you make is revealed by your
using the term "object" for both cases. This is the correction:
1) Gravity is driving the implosion. Gravity is the only
fundamental "thing" that exists.
2) Gravity manifests itself not only in the implosion of the
universe but locally in the "forms" of particles (from quarks
to galaxies). These "forms" are the ones "shrinking." None
of the particles/subparticles are fundamental (all particles are
shrinking). As they shrink they retain an overall perspective
of universal unity (the entire universe of "forms" of matter
seems to remain the same "size"). However, because galaxies
are so distant from one another... even though we can only
see a very tiny portion of the entire universe, that tiny portion
we do see yet exhibits/reflects the fact that gravity is driving
the implosion of the universe when we "see" that the farther
galaxies are from each other the faster they appear to be receding
from each other. This is because those galaxies nearer the
center of the universe will tend to be pulled toward it with
ever slightly greater velocity than those further way from center.
However, don't expect to notice which way that center is
because, as I've said: We see such a tiny little portion of the
entire universe that that's about the only effect we are ever likely
to notice of the fact that the universe is imploding. Frankly
I'd hate to see more because then that would mean that our
universe is a lot smaller than I believe it is. I think if it's "huge!"
> Maybe I'm
> not
> understanding what you are postulating but it seems you are usingtwo
> incongruent systems for the mechanics of the implosion.
The journey of understanding ALWAYS begins at that point
when one acknowledges one needs to understand (how can
one learn if one thinks one already knows it all): I commend your
acknowledging that you do not fully understand me, Ben, this,
in fact, gives me hope you may yet do so in future.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Ben
> "If less is more...just think how much more more would be"
>
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 30 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <872am7$aak$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38916AD2.2067E99E@domain.com>
<86tjil$6pg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3893225A.9BEBB59F@home.com>
<8700lf$pol$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.94
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 30 21:32:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>,
dedi@earthlink.net wrote:
> SD,
>
> Did you come up with the shrinking universe or has it been discussed
> before. I have to admit I haven't been keeping up on the latest
> theorys.
> Are there any other references?
Long, long ago, when I was 12 or so, I began my journey into Cosmology
and had to chose between the Big Bang and the Steady State theories.
Observations favored the Big Bang theory. But there was something inthe
back of my head (no, not where my dad used to wallop me for almost
burning down the house & such)... I could not get past the ideathat,
"If, in order to exist, existence would have had to have a beginning,
then it could not exist." This is because ours is an existence of
cause/effect WITHOUT anywhere even ONE single exception. And so, why
should this cause/effect existence of ours NEED so huge an exceptionit
its nature at the very moment when it was defining itself? It was an
impossibly high hurdle for me to leap, and so, throughout most of my
teen years, I tried very hard to find justifications for the Steady
State universe.
There were some beautiful Steady State solutions, of course, but
none of them dealt with the crucial question of origin: In other words,
their "injection" of matter into our universe required that our universe
already have in it enough matter to "suck/pull" matter into it. This
was obviously a dead end; as it clashes against the notion that energy
cannot be created or destroyed: I had to return to the Big Bang
postulate.
The BB theory, of course, dealt with how the universe might have
evolved into its present form thru a primordial process. Unfortunately
I quickly hit the same wall everybody who considers the BB theory
quickly runs into: Namely, the BB theory posits that "something"
exploded into our universe (something which, whatever it was, had
to logically be "smaller" than what has resulted from the explosion).
This, as it turns out, is really nothing more than a more focused
version of the Steady State idea of matter coming into our universe
without any explanation... while the correct answer HAD to be that
matter was ever & always (remains) part & parcel of our universe.
The BB theory merely says "whatever" exploded was super hot and super
dense (like, duh); so that the current laws of physics did not apply
then; and the first few generations of subparticles were short-lived
(as the "blast" cooled down very fast); and then we have our universe
as it exists today. "What caused "it" to explode?" Well, since the
laws of physics didn't work then, there's no use thinking about that.
"Ah!" In other words: all thought stops at the instant of the Big Bang
and dogma takes over: "The Big Bang "singularity" is a real but
unknowable GOD whose terrible name we must not even imagine! Let alone
utter." (The mystic in me actually liked that, but the realist, the
scientist in me turned like a worm.) And I've been turned on ever since.
And so while everybody else got on their knees and prayed in the
direction of the Big Bang 10 times a day, to: "Biiiiiii... iiiiiigggg
Baaaaa...nnnnnnggg!" I was out in the park somewhere feeding the pigeons
& writing poems.
I can't really pinpoint when or why I began to think in terms of...
what if the pre-Big Bang singularity did not really explode but instead
imploded? And it's not easy to travel this route when all the Big-
Bangers keep telling you the BB singularity was the "size" of a pin
head, believe you me! However, the task is greatly alleviated by the
realization that "size" is only a mental construct... it is, in fact,
like the human idea of time, merely a convenient way we human haveof
measuring this thing vs that thing. And if the only thing inexistence
is that pre-BB singularity... then it was NOT the size of a melon,or
any other such idiocy, but it was de facto ALL THERE WAS!!!
Once you realize that, it's as if the entire scenario flashes before
your
eyes: If the primordial Singularity equaled infinite scalar mass (say
it was as infinite in its unbounded scope and breadth as the "largest"
amount of space the Big Bang universe could have "expanded" into
and then some... to the nth degree), if it was as "big" as "big" could
get, then it could implode at leisure for trillions of years and more
(depending only on a number of considerations). All one need do is
find a reason why an infinite scalar mass universe should manifest
gravity. And the answer to that resides with the man who practically
defined gravity as we understand it today, namely Newton: The same
force that "pushes" outwardly in a universe of infinite scalar mass
is the same force that "pulls" inwardly against that pushing force:
It is the same one & only force that is fundamental in our universe.
Once the universe manifests one it de facto manifests its opposite.
None of this seemed to me to be of great social moment years ago.
The quest that led to it was the ancient one of, "Why am I here?"
And so, once I reached a reasonable solution to my quest, it really
seldom crossed my mind that my solution might apply to thatof others.
Years ago about the only thing that really seemed to me of great
social importance was the question of whether the primordial (what,
for the sake of an easy understanding by others, I've kept callingthe
pre-Big Bang) Singularity... was homogeneous or not: Consider it
this way: If the Singularity was perfectly homogeneous, then that
might mean that every time it "explodes" (implodes, really) it willmost
probably do so EXACTLY THE SAME WAY every single time!
This means that every last detail of our universe will be repeated
EXACTLY every time! You & I will live our lives exactly/identically
time after time after time without end. This notion pushed me into
trying to warn people to try to find better ways to live their lives
because, obviously, even a minute of pain in one's life will occasion
an eternity of pain (if that one minute repeats eternally). However,
don't despair if your life hasn't been as filled with eternal minutesof
happiness & joy as you'd like: The primordial Singularity is very
likely NOT at all homogeneous but rather very chaotic... and gravity
in all probability manifests itself over aeons slowly, and more so
here than there.... and, as long as we're here, let me add that gravity
manifesting itself instantaneously in every coordinate of the
universe is rather as unlikely as the Big Bang itself ever was.
From there, ten years or so ago, it's simply a matter of keeping in
touch with the latest findings in physics & cosmology/astronomy
to determine whether some new bit of information crops up which
may tend to throw a monkey wrench into the theory of an imploding
universe. I can't really say whether I'm happy or not to report this,
but so far all the evidence that's crossed my desk tends to support
the proposition of an imploding universe. In fact, the constancy of
the speed of light (in identical mediums) is an absolute requirement
in an imploding universe. And in a BB model, c constancy is a
total puzzle with no easy solution at all (only Rube Goldberg ones;
and one can come up with Rube Goldberg solutions to anything
otherwise quite simple and easy to do/explain).
> I believe read recently that gravity's force is much less than it
> should be
> and there's a gap in some energy "ladder." Do you =possibly= knowwhat
> I'm
> talking about and how does it fit your hypothesis?
When researchers stumbled upon partial evidence that the "expansion"
of the universe might be accelerating (first time I ever heard of thisI
allowed myself one raised fist of victory): It's one more puzzle which
makes observed facts irreconcilable with the Big Bang model (because
if the universe is expanding due to it being the result of a primordial
explosion... the gravity of the universe should either be refrainingthe
expansion from accelerating or even stopping it and reversing it--this
is the reason why cosmologists have been very eager to find enough
"dark matter" to determine whether the expansion will continue or
reverse). A finding that the universe's expansion may actually be
accelerating can only be squared with the big Bang model if one
concocts some unknown reason for the effect of gravity being somehow
neutralized. I myself am a big fan of human beings resorting to anything
they have to, no matter how zany, if it helps them to hold on to their
cherished beliefs (and the belief in the Big Bang theory is a most
cherished one, so look for mathematicians to rework their equations
and come up with new perfectly balanced equations which "prove"
that there IS some heretofore unsuspected cosmological constant or
other such Rube Goldberg god which, suddenly appearing before us,
commands Reality to again square everything with the ole BB theory).
> While I was looking on the web for the above, obviously didn't find
> it, I
> found this:
>
> http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1998/split/pnu361-1.htm
>
> It says, among other things:
>
> A REPULSIVE FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE seems to be at work on a cosmic
> scale, at
> least partly neutralizing the attractive force of gravity. Astronomers
> have
> arrived at this conclusion after a series of observations of distant
> supernovas showed that the expansion of the universe has not onlynot
> slowed (through the mutual attraction of galaxies) but seems to be
> accelerating.
Yes, that "repulsive" force is human nature at its nasty ole worst.
However, this I promise you: Truth, like Justice, may take time...but
once it triumphs, its victory belongs to eternity.
Thanks for the post,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> This is from the American institute of physics. There are similar
> announcements from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and
> Harvard-Smithsonian.
> They're dated Dec 19, 1998.
>
> They say they're surprised. I guess so! The universe isn't expanding
> slower
> as they would expect in an expanding universe. It's =apparently=
> expanding
> faster as it would in a shrinking universe as we get closer to the
> center.
>
> --
> Charlie Dilks
> Newark, DE USA
>
>
***************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 31 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <874rbo$3nu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38916AD2.2067E99E@domain.com>
<86tjil$6pg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3893225A.9BEBB59F@home.com>
<8700lf$pol$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>
<872as2$ajt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3894C431.E25D3297@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.105
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 31 20:29:53 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3894C431.E25D3297@louisville.edu>,
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>,
>> dedi@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> SD,
>>>
>>> Did you come up with the shrinking universe or has it been
>>> discussed
>>> before. I have to admit I haven't been keeping up on the latest
>>> theorys.
>>> Are there any other references?
>>
>
>> The BB theory, of course, dealt with how the universe might have
>> evolved into its present form thru a primordial process.
>> Unfortunately
>> I quickly hit the same wall everybody who considers the BB theory
>> quickly runs into: Namely, the BB theory posits that "something"
>> exploded into our universe (something which, whatever it was, had
>> to logically be "smaller" than what has resulted from the
>> explosion).
>> This, as it turns out, is really nothing more than a more focused
>> version of the Steady State idea of matter coming into our universe
>> without any explanation... while the correct answer HAD to be that
>> matter was ever & always (remains) part & parcel of ouruniverse.
>
> Nowhere do the big bang models imply an explosion took place. Only
in
> the
> nonscientific realm is such a claim made.
It's very late in the game to be trying to slip this unsubtle subterfuge
through, Mr. Miller (it's really only valid to say such a thing ifyou
are not a believer of the Big Bang cosmology, of which I assume youare
a true believer).
> In addition, the big bang models do not deal with the origins of the
> universe.
That, in fact, is the principal knock against a BB model: It's merely
the result of "running the Hubble constant film" backwards. Doesn't
explain anything. It's just sheer, utter, waste of brain hours (except
if one's setting up a marvelous exhibit in some planetarium, of course).
I wish you luck & good works, as I kinda like those shows myself.
> They attempt to explain the expansion of the universe and have
> predicted the
> cosmic background radiation and the ratios of helium to hydrogen,two
> predictions that have since been verified.
The cosmic background radiation is predicted from the following
brainstorm: "If the Big Bang was really, really hot, there must remain
some heat from it (which would be constant throughout the universe)."
Wow! What power of deduction! Now, suddenly two famous guys
find that the universe indeed seems to exhibit a tiny amount of "heat"
distributed evenly throughout, and THAT is confirmation of the BB?
Did the people who did the "confirming" spend, say, 6 or 8 minutes,
wondering whether there might be some other reason for the uniform
background radiation? (The ratio of helium to hydrogen, Mr. Miller,
may or may not reflect upon the age of galaxies in the lifespan ofour
universe, especially since there is a controversy brewing as to whether
it's possible such a "modern" atom might be occurring naturally even
today... but it's irrelevant when considering the origins of the
universe exactly because all our modern atoms can only exist in our
present-day universe.)
> General relativity itself predicts a changing universe, either
> expanding or
> contracting. The consensus in astronomical circles is thatexpansion
> is what
> is observed, simply because the conditions that would exist in the
> time
> necessary to get to a contracting universe would not be conduciveto
> life
> existing to speculate on whether it is expanding or contracting.
The above is only true in the human mind, Mr. Miller, where, regardless
how expansive the mind may be, it would be possible to fit such a small
universe. (No sane person would consider for long the possibilitythat
stars and galaxies would long exist side by side without engaging in
some sort of gravitational interaction.) And Einstein did commit sucha
gaffe--which he later corrected to reflect your statement above. (Smart
of him, wasn't it! And sane, too.) The idea that a collapsing universe
would look "about the same" as any other rather large star collapsing
(which is the impression left by your scenario about there not possibly
being time for even planet earth to form in a collapsing universe)stems
from a myopic view of the full & real, true extent of our universe:
Allow me to enlighten you this once on this... it's big. It's bigger
than big. And then it's bigger than that by a really big factor, really
big. And that factor itself is big. And bigness continues for the next
2-hundred-1000 posts to follow, Mr. Miller. Already my fingers ache.
> I strongly suggest you read Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial and FAQ.
I strongly suggest you get Ned to my web site, so he can be broughtup
to date. It's all written there in very simple to understand English
(only).
> For one
> thing it is more mathematically rigorous than what you have put forth
> so far,
In that case, Mr. Miller, I shall skip it. I wish to understand reality,
not how equations get balanced in spite of all reality: It has always
been my experience that mathematicians will not accept reality until
and unless they can find an equal number of numbers to equal it
(and that they will keep adding numbers to their equations until they
do... regardless whether, in the end, the reality their numbers balance
is real or as infinitely fanciful as all their finite numbers). Theend.
> and may clear up some of your misconceptions of what the big bang
> models
> actually say (or don't say)
If you believe it is a misconception to assume that Big Bangers
propose that if one runs time backwards in an expanding universe
one gets to a "time" when everything was located in a more compact
volume... please say so. To most thinking persons this implies the
proposition of some sort of explosion which then gets the stuff inside
that compact volume "expanding" into an ever greater and greater
volume. Perhaps it means something else to you. I wish you'd please
state exactly what it means to you. That way we can continue this
discussion from the standpoint of my understanding you (instead of
our present dilemma where neither one of us understanding the other).
Hope to hear from you sooner or later,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <877jmd$4b7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihho$3sh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38916AD2.2067E99E@domain.com>
<86tjil$6pg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3893225A.9BEBB59F@home.com>
<8700lf$pol$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>
<872as2$ajt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3894C431.E25D3297@louisville.edu>
<874rbo$3nu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-rmz9QupYvcdj@localhost>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.236
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 01 21:37:17 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,alt.cynicism,alt.philosophy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-rmz9QupYvcdj@localhost>,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:29:53 sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> Nowhere do the big bang models imply an explos