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 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 thingif
>> you
>> are not a believer of the Big Bang cosmology, of which I assumeyou
>> are
>> a true believer).
>>
> Nevertheless, it is true as Scott Miller says. An explosion takes
> place in something else, but the Big Bang created its own frame of
> reference as well.
Mr. Jansens, I've been a writer and poet. I can not only easily spot
tricks of semantics *instantly,* I have a nasty penchant to play
them (and play with them) myself. All your fudged rationalizations
resolve to one point: The Big-Bangers believe the universe
acknowledges the fourth dimension, and as such they "measure"
the present "size" of the universe as a given value (whatever
number that value is given). From there, by running the "expansion"
film backwards... the time value given to the universe MUST also
recede to some lesser value... so that whatever-billion years ago
the value of the size of the universe must have had to have been
a much lesser value than the present one: I have heard it "set" to
the size of a couple of minutes' worth of the speed of light across
and some such... But it's all the same: The Big Bang proponents
propose the universe results from some "small" thing exploding/expanding
into some "bigger" thing. That is inescapable no matter how it
may be fudged to hide the folly in such thinking.
> Sometimes, as an analogy, it is said that you
> should look upon the Big Bang as if you were inside an explosion.Like
> every analogy, it is flawed at some point.
Thinking of the universe as ANYTHING "like" an explosion/expansion
is absolute folly. And sooner or later, just as surely as everyone
has finally come to acknowledge that thinking of the earth as flat,
and thinking of the universe as orbiting the Earth are all folly,
sooner or later everyone will come to acknowledge that thinking
of the universe as "expanding" is also as much folly as all that.
>>> In addition, the big bang models do not deal with the originsof
>>> 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.
>>
> I don't see what's wrong with it. The Big Bang hypothesis says:
> "Something happened, which created time, space and energy. Her iswhat
> happened after that something". The value of a hypothesis lies inthe
> accuracy of its predictions. According to that, the Big Bang
> hypothesis has been pretty successful sofar.
The BB theory is less than a hundred years old. The notion that
the earth is flat lasted until well after Columbus sailed "around"it
in most circles. There was so much scientific proof that the Earth
was at the center of the universe before Copernicus that it took
massive amounts of self-evident & obvious arguments on the part
of some of the age's most brilliant persons to reverse what had
withstood the test of time since the age of Aristotle! I do not doubt
for a moment that it will take a great effort to overturn what has
withstood the test of time in the last 100 years too. But this toowill
pass.
> Knowledge, by definition, will always be limited. This just happensto
> be the limit we're looking at in our days.
But more important still: Knowledge, at its most fundamental
definition, is that which we acquire. This you may always trust
will be the case: New knowledge will correct the old; and sometimes
it will even altogether replace it.
And, since this is as far as you decided to extend your present
journey into a new knowledge, I will presently bid you adieu
& good luck to you,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>> 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 theBB?
>> 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 lifespanof
>> our
>> universe, especially since there is a controversy brewing as to
>> whether
>> it's possible such a "modern" atom might be occurring naturallyeven
>> today... but it's irrelevant when considering the origins of the
>> universe exactly because all our modern atoms can only exist inour
>> present-day universe.)
>>
> What?
>
>>> General relativity itself predicts a changing universe, either
>>> expanding or
>>> contracting. The consensus in astronomical circles is that
>>> expansion
>>> is what
>>> is observed, simply because the conditions that would exist inthe
>>> time
>>> necessary to get to a contracting universe would not be conducive
>>> to
>>> 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 sucha
>> small
>> universe. (No sane person would consider for long the possibility
>> that
>> stars and galaxies would long exist side by side without engagingin
>> some sort of gravitational interaction.) And Einstein did commit
>> such a
>> 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 fingersache.
>>
> Again: What?
>
> Oh, sod it.
> <snip the rest>
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
************************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87apg1$frf$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>
<877jmd$4b7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-Du8JOKf1utn9@localhost>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 02:34:41 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 <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-Du8JOKf1utn9@localhost>,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2000 21:37:17 sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Mr. Jansens, I've been a writer and poet. I can not only easilyspot
>> tricks of semantics *instantly,* I have a nasty penchant to play
>> them (and play with them) myself. All your fudged rationalizations
>> resolve to one point: The Big-Bangers believe the universe
>> acknowledges the fourth dimension, and as such they "measure"
>> the present "size" of the universe as a given value (whatever
>> number that value is given). From there, by running the "expansion"
>> film backwards... the time value given to the universe MUST also
>> recede to some lesser value... so that whatever-billion years ago
>> the value of the size of the universe must have had to have been
>> a much lesser value than the present one: I have heard it "set"to
>> the size of a couple of minutes' worth of the speed of light across
>> and some such... But it's all the same: The Big Bang proponents
>> propose the universe results from some "small" thing
>> exploding/expanding
>> into some "bigger" thing. That is inescapable no matter how it
>> may be fudged to hide the folly in such thinking.
>>
> Where do you get this "small thing expanding into a bigger thing"?The
> Big Bang hypothesis has _never_ said anything about a bigger thingthe
> universe should exist in.
This must be a new Big Bang (one without the bang but still big enough
for the buck).
> There is the universe - and that's it, as
> far as BB goes. BB merely gives an explanation for the evolutionof
> the universe:
I guess the Big Bangers are now evolving the universe from the
Big Bang into a small neat package you can take home to your wife!
> from very hot (because extremely compact)
"Compact" that must be their new term for "big, really big & large!"
> to pretty cold
> (because significantly bigger).
"Bigger" that must be their new term for "smaller."
> This theory is consistent with
> observations and has made accurate predictions, which makes it sofara
> valid theory.
Ah-Ha! That may be true--but ONLY for the last 90 or so years!
Aristotle's
theory did that for nearly two centuries before they finally discovered
that the universe didn't orbit the earth after all! Beat that, Mr.
Einstein!
> If you want to attack the Big Bang hypothesis, then you should pickon
> its weak points,
It has strong points?!?!
> like where the cosmological constants came from,
I knowest where they came from: From Mr. Einstein's ignorance.
> or
> why there apparently was a surplus of matter vs anti-matter,
Because anti-matter kept blowing up the shoppers; so, after
a while, those shoppers who remained alive tended to purchase
only matter.
> or why
> the other dimensions went away
Nobody appreciated them. And they are currently seeking love
on the other side of the 7,899th dimension... "a dimension notonly
of sight & sound but of mind, a journey into a wondrous land whose
boundaries are that of imagination, your next stop: The Twilight Zone!"
THEME MUSIC.
> <G>. Don't attack the theory on
> something it has never even claimed. (how's that for semantics, mate?)
No thank you: I don't like to mate with somebody I've just met. Maybe
you could take me out to dinner... take in a show first?
>>> Sometimes, as an analogy, it is said that you
>>> should look upon the Big Bang as if you were inside an explosion.
>>> Like
>>> every analogy, it is flawed at some point.
>>
>> Thinking of the universe as ANYTHING "like" an explosion/expansion
>> is absolute folly. And sooner or later, just as surely as everyone
>> has finally come to acknowledge that thinking of the earth as flat,
>> and thinking of the universe as orbiting the Earth are all folly,
>> sooner or later everyone will come to acknowledge that thinking
>> of the universe as "expanding" is also as much folly as all that.
>>
> I said "analogy" which means that BB _doesn't_ look at the universeas
> if it were exploding.
I know, I know, it's not "exploding" it's "expanding" ... it's not
"increasing" it's "spreading" ... it's not "stretching" it's "inflating"
... it's not "inflating" it's "swelling" ... it's not "swelling" it's
"extending" ... it's not "extending" it's "germinating" ... it's not
"germinating" it's "puffing" ... it's not "puffing" it's "bloating"...
it's not "bloating" it's "enlargefying" ... amplifying, or dilating,
broadening, or branching out, unfolding, or flaring, plumping up, or
distending, bulking, or sprawling, deploying, or waxing, mushrooming,or
simply putting on a little weight---ANYTHING except "exploding" (aslong
as it's called the Big Bang theory, you understand).
> It's used as an example to explain mathematics
> to simpler souls.
Yes, I think I know those simpler souls... I see them in line to buy
used car from practical mathematicians all the time--And those
practical mathematicians' numbers are upright and honest and don't
lie... 2.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> I don't see what's wrong with it. The Big Bang hypothesis says:
>>> "Something happened, which created time, space and energy. Heris
>>> what
>>> happened after that something". The value of a hypothesis liesin
>>> the accuracy of its predictions. According to that, the Big Bang
>>> hypothesis has been pretty successful sofar.
>>
>> The BB theory is less than a hundred years old. The notion that
>> the earth is flat lasted until well after Columbus sailed "around"
>> it
>> in most circles. There was so much scientific proof that the Earth
>> was at the center of the universe before Copernicus that it took
>> massive amounts of self-evident & obvious arguments on thepart
>> of some of the age's most brilliant persons to reverse what had
>> withstood the test of time since the age of Aristotle! I do not
>> doubt
>> for a moment that it will take a great effort to overturn whathas
>> withstood the test of time in the last 100 years too. But thistoo
>> will pass.
>>
> Look, if you want your theory to have at least some credit, giveus
a
> prediction. If you can't -or won't - your theory is scientifically
> worthless.
What? All or nothing? I either tell you what number's gonna hit
on your state lottery or the universe doesn't exist and the entire
human race has to commit suicide by eating themselves into obesity?!
Sir, I like those odds! So here's my prediction: It shall be found
that the Hubble constant is accelerating! Why, because, as it is
being driven by gravity (a force constantly being applied), it will
never tend to decelerate. [I know, I know that some preliminary
findings have already verified my prediction, but screw them: I spit
on them! They are false findings! They do not exist! So I can
predict the acceleration of the Hubble constant with a clear
conscience. Now we shall see who is right and who is left, sir
(as the BB theory predicts either a slowing down of the Hubble
constant or an insane scenario (actually Einstein's first prediction
about this, believe it or not--which should show you just how
absent-minded the old fellow could be) where celestial bodies can exist
next to each other without any gravitational interactions between them).
>>> Knowledge, by definition, will always be limited. This just
>>> happens to
>>> be the limit we're looking at in our days.
>>
>> But more important still: Knowledge, at its most fundamental
>> definition, is that which we acquire. This you may always trust
>> will be the case: New knowledge will correct the old; and sometimes
>> it will even altogether replace it.
>>
> Again: predict or perish.
I suspect you're merely trying to get me into your perish, Father.
However I further predict that because the universe is imploding
that the speed of light will always be measured as a constant in
identical mediums.
One may begin here: A bullet traveling (say, through a perfect vacuum)
"knows" why it travels at the speed it does: The amount of gun powderin
the bullet casing tells it (+/- the gun's velocity). But how do all
photons know why they must, every last one of them, travel at the
"speed" they do when no photon can be given less or more impetus byits
source/creator? The most immediate ("only") possible answer is thatthe
photon is not traveling (moving) at all! [And when you come up witha
more elegant solution, do tell.]
In any case... such an universally constant
"speed" might be understandable inside a perfect vacuum perhaps, but
outside a perfect vacuum a moving photon MUST experience a permanent
drag, however infinitesimal [and since c is really a very, very slow
speed in cosmological terms... that drag should become appreciableat
some point]: The same "moving" photons traveling first through a vacuum
A, then through air, and then through another vacuum B... when measured
at vacuum B ought to reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when passing
through air (and not "return" to the same "higher speed" they had in
vacuum A). The only possible explanation is that while air adds a slight
"push" to the photon (remember that this "air" is the one "moving by"
the photon)... once the "push" of air is no longer there, the photon
"returns" to the same (greater) degree of rest it had when passing
through vacuum A.
Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relation to
x-space [and so "moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in whichit
was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it
originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains constant
regardless of its source/origin/direction because "about" the only
connection a photon has with its source is "orientation" [x-space is
expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the only quality the
photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an orientation
relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you" create the photon to the westof
"you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your west side,and
if you create a photon to the north of you... it will then "seem" to
shoot out away from your north side, since x-space will always take
"you" to be the exact center of its universe]... Add the proviso thatif
"enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational field) passes close
enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly display a new "linear"
orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will naturally be
"observable" by the rest of our universe because in our universe
the "orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter with respectto
any & all other bits of ordinary matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are otherconcerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding all other linear motionsof
our universe... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this one simple
"absolute law" you really have to understand to avoid having to delve
into synonymous but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
orientation with respect to the rest of the universe is absolute...so
once the photon "adopts" an orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same ("your") orientation with respectto
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.
Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN NOT be added to or subtracted
from the so-called "speed of light" because obviously the directionof
our "real" motion (x-space = absolute rest) is never "really" linearat
all but always everywhere "towards shrinking." [And therefore one is
hard put to imagine any bit of ordinary matter in our universe achieving
any true/real "greater velocity" than the one it already has when itis
at its "greatest rest" ... with respect to the rest of the universeof
ordinary matter taken as a unit, of course.]
A simple analogy may help visualize this: Imagine two side-by-side
photons "traveling" towards a man standing next to a woman (neitherof
whom have yet been enlightened by me that it is they who are "moving
towards" the photons and not the reverse--further, I have also never
mentioned to them that the only "real" change in velocity they are
capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS of anything they might attempt
in this reality)...
Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman that he can catch his photon
before she can catch hers and rushes his "approaching" photon at 10mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks the bet childish and tells the
man she can wait for her photon right where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the woman catches hers; but then
something odd happens: [for the sake of simplicity, here] the man
reports to the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph and the woman
reports to the man that she also caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!
Why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photon at 100mph
PLUS his 10 mph acceleration? --Although you already know the answer...
it is, of course, that he "really" wasn't accelerating at all (because
it is impossible to "really" accelerate in his reality) and what hewas
really doing was decelerating (with respect to the photon's "position").
But then why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photonat
90 mph? And the answer is that if the only two things that existedwere
he and the photon they might indeed agree (between photon & man)on
that
90 mph; but it is the woman he must agree with on the speed of the
photon... and that is where the mystery of x-space forever will confound
them both because even though (in "Paradise") he and the photon indeed
"hit" at 90 mph... in this world he can never report this to the woman
without factoring in his acceleration of 10 mph with respect to her!
Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man "takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops (he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have no problem understanding thatthey
will both report catching their photons at 100 mph). The same is trueif
he "takes the time" to step back a few paces as well: he will catchhis
photon after she catches hers, but you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both report catching their photons at100
mph. The matter is not one of time, but of acceleration/deceleration:
The paradox will always rest with what they will interpret as
acceleration vs what the photon will interpret as deceleration... and
in that "misinterpretation" lies their eternal impossibility to agree
between them that the speed at which a photon has been caught is
anything except constant regardless of their relative velocities with
respect to the photon!
And there the matter forever rests in our reality: As far as ordinary
matter in our universe goes... the so-called "speed of light" will
always be measured in this perfectly inversely proportional mannerto
be
identical (in identical mediums) by all moving observers regardlessof
their velocities (linear) relative to each other: It is an absoluteset
value (agreed to) between the man and the woman (that whichever oneof
them "hits" a photon at a "true/real" slower speed will always reportto
the other one that he/she hit it exactly that much faster, thereby
canceling out all differences between them). They have no choice inthis
agreement, of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them by the
nature of this reality/existence... and thus too, along with the manand
the woman, every bit of ordinary matter in our universe has also
"signed" this Absolute Relativity covenant with every other bit of
ordinary matter in our universe. [And absent a profounder truth the
constancy of c is all the evidence required for/of the reality of
x-space.]
>> And, since this is as far as you decided to extend your present
>> journey into a new knowledge, I will presently bid you adieu
>>
> Oh, I'm always open to new knowledge. It's new crackpot theoriesI'm
> having trouble with.
I understand, believe me: I have often imagined what it would be like
trying to explain a helicopter taking off to stone age people. (What
must such primitive think of my sanity?) So I'm already quite
psychologically prepared to have my sanity questioned by a lot of
persons no unlike yourself.
> I'm not saying you're a crackpot, but as long as
> you only have your theory, without any link to the outside world,it
> is - by definition - not "new knowledge".
Ah, Karel... words, word, word! Read but this one post as many times
as it takes for you to see the connection between all I have told you
and reality and... who know, maybe you'll see the connection.
I'll make a note here for you: Notice the connection between the fact
that an accelerating Hubble constant debunks the Big Bang theories
and proves mine. Notice that conventional relativity theories cannot
account for c constancy and treat it as Revealed Truth, while Absolute
Relativity and an imploding universe REQUIRES that the speed of light
be a constant in identical mediums. I don't know if I should throwin
a dancing bear to clinch your putting 2 and 2 together and ending up
with 4... but if it'll help, please let me know and I'll see what Ican
do about that (I have a friend in the big-top business).
Very, very kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87aqt7$gnf$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>
<877jmd$4b7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389785C2.766CCB80@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 02:58:49 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 <389785C2.766CCB80@louisville.edu>,
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> The BB theory is less than a hundred years old. The notion that
>> the earth is flat lasted until well after Columbus sailed "around"
>> it
>> in most circles. There was so much scientific proof that the Earth
>> was at the center of the universe before Copernicus that it took
>> massive amounts of self-evident & obvious arguments on thepart
>> of some of the age's most brilliant persons to reverse what had
>> withstood the test of time since the age of Aristotle! I do not
>> doubt
>> for a moment that it will take a great effort to overturn whathas
>> withstood the test of time in the last 100 years too. But thistoo
>> will pass.
>
> Gee, history says that the Greeks, including Aristotle, knew thatthe
> Earth
> was round by simple observation - the shadow of the Earth on theMoon
> during a
> lunar eclipse was round no matter the time of evening it was observed.
Actually you have your history correct, it's just your interpretationof
what we were talking about that's got its wires crossed a might. But
don't worry: I shall straighten them out for you presently: I was
speaking about Aristotle's idea of gravity (which held until
Copernicus): Aristotle observed that everything fell down (down hereto
the earth), and so he assumed that the earth was at rest and that
everything else moving must be moving with respect to the earth (now,
would it really make sense to believe intelligent chaps like them Greeks
would assume that the earth was not "round" if they always spoke about
everything else orbiting the earth?)... really, Mr. Miller!
> The
> only object capable of projecting a round shadow from any directionof
> illumination is a sphere. Ergo, the Earth is a sphere.
You would have made a marvelous Greek, Mr. Miller (I hope you're
not one of those chaps goes about in a toga in your planetarium).
> Seems there is further writing that they measured its circumference.
Indeed. It was the bloody Romans lost all this by letting their
Empire collapse (I hear it might have been due to the fact that they
used earthware which leeched out brain contaminants when they
poured wine into them). Made them potty.
> But I guess messy facts get in the way of mindless diatribes, don't
> they.
Remember that the thought above came from your own head, Mr. Miller:
It is often the case that one's subconscious hints at its worst fears
by projecting them out towards other people. It may profit you somewhat
to talk out this possibility with a good professional--
> Pesky little buggers!
You needn't see a shrink who also happens to be a little person,
Mr. Miller: There are 6 & 7 foot psychiatrists in the world (ifthat
makes you feel more secure).
> Once again, because maybe you will get it eventually.
Well, a lot of people have been trying to give it to me but good
(it's just that I have a tendency to only take what is good from
people).
> Scientific models and theories are not etched in stone; they are not
> dogma.
Ah! Then you will openmindedly go to my web site, read AND
understand what is written there. Then come back here and explain
it all back to me that I may know you understand it all. Lord, butit's
good to work in such a broadminded community, amongst such
enlightened colleagues! I could almost burst a gut--I mean, into atear.
> They are fluid, changing as necessary to fit the observations.
Tell me about it: Every time I come up with a specific reason why
the BB theory is impossible... the BB proponents start claiming
the BB theory is not what it's been claimed to be for the last 90 years
but something else altogether (I don't doubt soon my imploding
universe proposition will be taken over by the Big-Bangers as the
BB theory after all). Watch for this, guys!
> They
> will
> change as our knowledge changes, giving us deeper insight in the
> process.
Here's news, Mr. Miller: There is new knowledge abroad in the world!
There is a deeper insight available at this moment in time! With it
you will be able to see a universe so much vaster and more magnificent
than you could have even imagined in your wilder dreams, Mr. Miller:
The AR universe is larger and broader than your conventional universe
by such a factor as The Milky Way Galaxy and your little head, Mr.
Miller! And this new knowledge is free just for the taking--You donot
need even to purchase a glitzy magazine dripping ad cards all overyour
livingroom: Simply visit the following web site:
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> The big bang models are no exception. They will change, evolve,maybe
> even be
> dropped altogether in favor of something that better fits all
> observations.
No maybes about it, Mr. Miller. And the better theory is here
already... either for you to ride it, or for you to bite its dust.
> And it will continue to be used as long as predictions made with it
> can be
> verified observationally. To date, it has been successful.
You can still make plenty of marvelous predictions with Aristotle's
theory of gravity, Mr. Miller.. it predicts that if you throw a pebble
at a passing place it will come back to haunt you. That's not the
point, Mr. Miller. The point is that there are new theories which can
predict
much, much more than the old theories were able to predict. Already
the AR theory predicts that the Hubble constant will be accelerating,
that our universe is more massive than we could have imagined, that
the speed of light MUST always be measured as a constant in identical
mediums, where in the universe we are (considering the universe as
imploding, there are just so many regions of it where the conditions
we see in our local cosmic view are possible)... and many, many more
which are impossible to predict with the conventional relativity
theories
(and, in fact, a number of the so-called predictions of those older
relativity theories can be shown to be nothing more than coincidences).
> That does not mean it is the end all theory. Far from it. But
it
> fits the
> criteria of a good theory in science.
All theories are only good for a time, Mr. Miller, because knowledge
is a living process and not some dead end depository of dead facts.
> Its successes give confidence
> in its
> utilization to further seek knowledge about the universe.
Great. I imagine that had I lived 100 years ago it would have been
as impossible for me as it was for those dead & gone persons to
have reached the conclusions I have been able to reach at this time
because I live in this time.
> You wrote off the other fellow with the following "And, since thisis
> as far
> as you decided to extend your present journey into a new knowledge,I
> will
> presently bid you adieu.",
That's where "the other fellow" wrote himself off (which see); all Idid
was stop answering him were he stopped inquiring of me. (Which see.)
> I would further claim that you stopped
> earlier than
> that, as you clearly demonstrate a lack of true knowledge in the
> working of
> science.
Perhaps you missed your call, Mr. Miller, and you might have
made a good judge of who was telling the truth and who was lying:
Think about the possibilities, Mr. Miller--All those malefactors
you could have sent up the river and even to the electric chair
(as they rowed up the river--I dare say the sparks would have flown).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> --
> 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: <877l98$5bu$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> <38963BB3.13C9814A@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.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 22:04:27 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 <38963BB3.13C9814A@louisville.edu>,
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> 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 mighthave
>>>> 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 tobe
>>>> that matter was ever & always (remains) part & parcelof
our
>>>> universe.
>>>
>>> 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 thingif
>> you
>> are not a believer of the Big Bang cosmology, of which I assumeyou
>> are a true believer).
>
> Incorrect. It is a true enough statement. Only thosenot
familiar
> with the
> theory make the claim that it is an explosion, possibly because of
> misleading
> portrayals they have seen on television programs.
Mr. Miller, I've been a writer and poet. I can not only easily spot
tricks of semantics *instantly,* I have a nasty penchant to play
them (and play with them) myself. All your fudged rationalizations
resolve to one point: The Big-Bangers believe the universe
acknowledges the fourth dimension; and as such they "measure"
the present "size" of the universe as a given value (whatever
number that value is given). From there, by running the "expansion"
film backwards... the time value given to the universe MUST also
recede to some lesser value... so that whatever-billion years ago
the value of the size of the universe must have had to have been
a much lesser value than the present one: I have heard it "set" to
the size of a couple of minutes' worth of the speed of light across
and some such... But it's all the same: The Big Bang proponents
propose the universe results from some "small" thing exploding/expanding
into some "bigger" thing. That is inescapable no matter how it
may be fudged to hide the folly in such thinking.
>>> In addition, the big bang models do not deal with the originsof
>>> 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.
>
> That is not a knock against the theory. It is completely consistent
> from a
> scientific standpoint, within the validity of experimental data.
And
> the
> validity of a theory is only as good as the limits within which itis
> valid.
Mr. Miller, this discussion concerns the nature of the universe:
To say that you have a theory which explains how it is possible
for people to ride bicycles (and that therefore your theory conforms
to reality, and that it's been proved to be able to accurately predict
many thing in the world) is, impressive as it may be, of little matter
to the present discussion. The BB theory is like your bicycle theory:
You can use it to predict many little things in the world, but you
cannot use it to describe the nature of our universe nor how our
universe might have come to be what it is. The reason this is the
case is because the BB theory does not arise from observations
but from guesses. And guesses will tend to result in errors more
often than will observations. Once the BB theory became dogma
every subsequent observation has been made to fit the theory;
until what we have today is a set of misinterpreted observations
supporting a false theory.
What should have happened from the early 20th century and even
before... was that the theorists should have held off their theorizing
until enough facts had accumulated to build a true theory upon them.
1) If you believe that SOME particles are fundamental, then you cannot
conceive of them accumulating at the center of the universe.
2) If you know the universe is an implosion, then you instantly know
why it is that the speed of light can only be measured as a constant
in identical mediums.
3) If you know the universe is an implosion and that all "forms" of
matter are but "forms" and not fundamental, you instantly know why
it is that the Hubble constant exists and why it is accelerating.
4) If you know all the above, you instantly know that our universe
cannot be as young or as unimaginably tiny as conventionally proposed.
The early Twentieth Century theorists did not know any of the above
and so the constancy of the speed of light was a mystical puzzle to
be solved with magical mirror tricks. They found "proof" that the
universe was expanding in the Hubble constant (even in the face of
the fact that there is no force in reality nor even proposed whichcan
be said to be driving such an "expansion" ... it's mystical, mythical,
magical). Worse... even in the face of ancient knowledge that gravity
is the only force that is seen to work throughout the universe (and
that THAT particular force would ALWAYS work against such an
irrational proposal as that our universe should be "expanding").
>>> 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)."
>
> Incorrect again. The nature of the cosmic background radiation,that
> it
> should be a blackbody with a peak radiation in the microwave partof
> the EM
> spectrum, that it should fit a blackbody curve corresponding to three
> Kelvin,
> is not just a brain storm. You don't predict a blackbody curvewith
a
> specific peak temperature just on a brain storm. Even if youhave
an
> idea of
> what it might be like, the value predicted for the peak, and
> specifically that
> the peak should be in the microwave, are the result of the theory
> itself.
Your convoluted language amazes (it is, of course, the correct
phraseology demanded by the BB dogma; but I rather hope you arenot
simply trying to be intentionally confusing): The cosmic background
radiation matter resolves to this: "There is a constant "residual"
temperature evenly spread throughout the universe." This is a proven
fact. However, the "residual" aspect of it is a guess, purely,
entirely... a guess and nothing other than than. The Big Bangers guess
that it's the temperature (so "cold" by now that by the present epoch
"the radiation temperature would have dropped to very low values, about
5º above absolute zero (0 K, or -273º C) according to theestimates
of
Alpher and Herman." (Better measurements by the Cosmic Background
Explorer (COBE) satellite determined the spectrum to be exactly
characteristic of a blackbody at 2.735 K.)" But, as was most
appropriately presented in a Sherlock Holmes episode (where Watson--no
relation--found a "residual" temperature in an oven):
HOLMES: And what does this tell you, Watson?
WATSON: Elementary, my dear Holmes: It tells me that this oven
was recently hotter and has cooled to this very low temperature.
HOLMES: Watson, did you bother to open the furnace at the bottom
of the oven? It appears as if somebody has only recently started
burning fuel down there...
WATSON: Oh dear. You mean.... this oven is not growing colder after
a huge passage of time but just now growing hotter instead?
HOLMES: Yes. That was my deduction as well, old boy! You're quite
a brilliant detective, Watson. And I mean that sincerely.
WATSON: Thank you, Holmes.
BAKER: Ere! What're you two doing playing with me oven?
HOLMES: Never mind, my good fellow. We were just leaving.
Come Watson!
WATSON: After you, Holmes! "Playing with me oven," indeed! Huh!
>> 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 theBB?
>
> But it isn't distributed evenly in wavelength. And the guysmaking
> the
> discovery were not even aware of the predictions of the big bang.
No, but as soon as they fell into the sinister hands of the Big-Bangers
the 2 poor innocent patsies were "convinced" that their finding was
indeed proof of the Big Bang. Lord, where's Holmes when you need him?
> They were
> engineers working for Bell labs on long-distance microwave
> communications.
Yes, we all know the history of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
> The interpretation of that accidental discovery fell to scientistsat
> Princeton who recognized what the signal was because they themselves
> were
> designing and building a device to detect just such a signal.
Notice the irony of this way of putting it! You are indeed correct
that they (these scientists) were searching for proof which their
theory predicted to be there: They were not searching for facts
to be thereupon interpreted. They were searching for pieces of the
puzzle they had in mind to piece together. This is bad science.
>> 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 lifespanof
>> our
>> universe, especially since there is a controversy brewing as to
>> whether
>> it's possible such a "modern" atom might be occurring naturallyeven
>> today... but it's irrelevant when considering the origins of the
>> universe exactly because all our modern atoms can only exist inour
>> present-day universe.)
>
> Define "modern atom". Do you have some proof that the atomsin
your
> body
> today, in particular those of hydrogen, have not been around sincethe
> early
> time of the big bang?
Absolutely: It's called "atomic decay." All the atoms in existence today
have a finite lifetime. Exactly like you and I. They had a birth and
they will have a death. Their birth must have been well after the BB
(even in your theory) because they are complex constructs--and, if
nothing else, it takes time to build up (to) complexity.
> And, if a theory predicts that something should be found and havea
> certain
> characteristic, then within the context of a good scientific theory,
> the
> interpretation would be valid until others show that interpretationin
> error.
And even I myself state in my web site that Einstein was not wrong
in what he said, merely... that he was not straightforward enough.
This comes from the fact that there are many, many things about the
nature of the universe which Einstein was simply not aware of. It'slike
a child who, with his limited knowledge, takes a car ride for the first
time and tells his father: "Look, the world is passing by!" He is not
wrong. It's just that there is a profounder truth which, once he
acquires more knowledge, the child will also come to understand ANDto
express in a more simple and straightforward manner.
> So far, neither the character of the background radiation nor itspeak
> corresponding to a 3K blackbody have been successfully challenged.
Reality is seldom disproved easily. But, and history bears this out
all too often, I'm afraid... It's a snap to convince people that Reality
MEANS something other than WHAT IT IS.
> You are simply making assertions without proof that you understandthe
> theory.
Need I say anything else about the BB theory to convince you I know
it inside-out? On the other hand, go to my web site, read & understand
my propositions concerning Absolute Relativity and the nature of our
universe... and then explain them back to me. Do that, and if you
explain them back to me so I know you understand them... then we can
discuss their merits with a measure of confidence on my part that those
objections you may propose to my theory of an imploding universe have
any merit.
>>
>>> General relativity itself predicts a changing universe, either
>>> expanding or contracting. The consensus in astronomicalcircles
>>> is that
>>> expansion is what is observed, simply because the conditionsthat
>>> would
>>> exist in the time necessary to get to a contracting universewould
>>> not be
>>> conducive to 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 sucha
>> small
>> universe.
> That, sir, is for you to prove. And so far, such proof is lacking.
Sir, I have proven that the constancy of the speed of light is not
only easily explained in an imploding universe BUT actually required.
The universe itself, by the finding that the Hubble constant is
actually accelerating, has proven that it cannot be an explosion
and MUST instead be an implosion. Reason itself cries out that
an exploding universe is impossible! If there were more proofs
supporting my hypothesis and/or more proofs disproving the Big Bang
theory... either set of proofs would by itself drown us like rats
... and then no one would be left to enjoy the truth any longer!
>> (No sane person would consider for long the possibility that
>> stars and galaxies would long exist side by side without engagingin
>> some sort of gravitational interaction.)
>
> And what this has to do with my statement above about the consensusof
> an expanding universe escapes me.
That, Mr. Miller, is your cross to bear.
>> And Einstein did commit such a 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 ina
>> collapsing
>> universe) stems from a myopic view of the full & real, trueextent
>> 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 fingersache.
>
> So, since its big, it must be contracting instead of expanding? Yep,
> makes
> since to me (and that is sarcasm, I might add).
Well, "since" it's sarcasm, I'll confess mine was a greater sarcasm.
>>> 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 brought
>> up
>> to date. It's all written there in very simple to understand English
>> (only).
>
> Up to date on what?
Up to date on what humanity knows of the nature of the
universe, Mr. Miller. You personally may wait as long as you
wish to understand what is currently understood. But most persons
will take the first opportunity offered them to remain up to date.
> Another demonstration of the inadequacies of a lay
> person
> to understand the true nature of the big bang models in today's
> cosmology? I
> think that would be a bit absurd, don't you?
It's easy to think thyself a lord, and therefore sneer upon the
peasantry beneath one. But, a peasant once wrote:
"Every person, even the least of them, knows SOMETHING which
I myself do not know--And in THAT he/she is my Master."
--Voltaire
>>> 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 realityuntil
>> 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).The
>> end.
>
> So, because you cannot understand the complexity of the mathematics,
> it must
> be wrong.
No, Mr. Miller: Because I understand all too well how easy it is
for mathematicians to find ANY solution to a problem.
> This is the weakest argument you have presented so far.
I an convinced it is one of my strongest, Mr. Miller: Mathematics
for thousands of years supported and PROVED every last one of
the nutty theories before the modern age. Certainly the equations
were not absolutely perfectly satisfactory, but they were
sufficiently satisfactory to predict everything under the Sun
with them (regardless how right-down wrong the view of the world
they supported & proved... later proved to be). Then again, the
equations supporting the BB theory are themselves not beyond
reproach, are they? I mean, you yourself find it increasingly
necessary to tell people that it was an "expansion" not an
"explosion" and all such other inarticulate distinctions--
> Could it be
> that you are wrong, simply because you choose not to take the timeto
> learn
> about what is actually said about the big bang models, other thanthe
> popular
> drivel one sees on programs on the Learning Channel or the Discovery
> Channel.
I have always considered that I could be wrong. I will entertain that
even now. And, in fact, I do nothing but ask, plea, and demand to be
debunked (so I can go fly a kite at my leisure). However, Mr. Miller,
have YOU seriously considered that you might be mistaken? "Could itbe
that you are wrong, simply because you choose not to take the timeto
learn about what is actually said about the big bang models, otherthan
the popular drivel one sees on programs on the Learning Channel orthe
Discovery Channel." Sometimes, Mr. Miller, it's more productive towake
up to where one may be wrong than to revel in what one dreams is right.
>>> 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 impliesthe
>> proposition of some sort of explosion which then gets the stuff
>> inside
>> that compact volume "expanding" into an ever greater and greater
>> volume.
>
> Actually, to a thinking person, the conclusion one would draw isnot
> an
> explosion. Reason? That is not what the big bang modelssay,
no
> matter how
> many times you might repeat it. Continued tact in this direction
> simply
> demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part, making this entire
> thread
> pointless in the extreme.
If you wish to hide behind the semantic tricks of your religion,
Mr. Miller, it simply points out how powerful is your religious royalty.
And what little appetite you have to take up any challenge to it.
>> 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 (insteadof
>> our present dilemma where neither one of us understanding the
>> other).
>
> When you have demonstrated that you have a grasp of relativity and
> modern
> cosmology, then there will be no further need to follow up on this
> thread.
I tapdance pretty well, Mr. Miller. Do I not get any consideration
because of that great talent?
> That you refuse to visit Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial and FAQ or
> pick up an
> mathematically-oriented text on modern cosmology and the big bang
> models in
> particular simply demonstrates you haven't the guts to admit thatand
> that you
> may be wrong because of that lack of understanding.
I have a lot of guts, Mr. Miller. My farts & my willingness to takeon
all comers here & elsewhere, I think, proves my guts enough.
On the other hand, please note that all my opponents have wilted
away without even a single one putting even into doubt a single
one of my proposals. In fact, a number of them never even so much as
touched upon my proposals and simply, nakedly, ofttimes hilariously
(and sometimes pathetically) threw a personal insult at me (with the
exception of a Mr. Carr, who went as far as to place his own
professional credibility in question to attempt to make it appear asI
had said some crazy things only too easily proved I had not said).If
he had searched with patience, I am convinced he could have some up
with countless crazy thing I've said & written: I'm just a crazysort
of guy, Mr. Miller (it's what keeps me sane in a world like ours).
> 'Nuff said.
And my thanks for it, Mr. Nuff! --I mean, Mr. Miller.
Still at the plate,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
> Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
*****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87as00$hgt$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> <38963BB3.13C9814A@louisville.edu>
<877l98$5bu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38978295.36BAC056@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 03:17:23 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 <38978295.36BAC056@louisville.edu>,
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <38963BB3.13C9814A@louisville.edu>,
>> "J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu>wrote:
>>>
>>> Incorrect. It is a true enough statement. Only thosenot
>>> familiar
>>> with the theory make the claim that it is an explosion, possibly
>>> because
>>> of misleading portrayals they have seen on television programs.
>>
>> Mr. Miller, I've been a writer and poet. I can not only easilyspot
>> tricks of semantics *instantly,* I have a nasty penchant to play
>> them (and play with them) myself. All your fudged rationalizations
>> resolve to one point: The Big-Bangers believe the universe
>> acknowledges the fourth dimension; and as such they "measure"
>> the present "size" of the universe as a given value (whatever
>> number that value is given). From there, by running the "expansion"
>> film backwards... the time value given to the universe MUST also
>> recede to some lesser value... so that whatever-billion years ago
>> the value of the size of the universe must have had to have been
>> a much lesser value than the present one: I have heard it "set"to
>> the size of a couple of minutes' worth of the speed of light across
>> and some such... But it's all the same: The Big Bang proponents
>> propose the universe results from some "small" thing
>> exploding/expanding
>> into some "bigger" thing. That is inescapable no matter how it
>> may be fudged to hide the folly in such thinking.
>
> The problem is that you want the god's eye view of the expansionthat
> started
> the whole thing.
If the universe itself knows, then I want to know too, yes!
> You want nothing to be filled with something and
> conclude
> that it must be an explosion. There is no semantics here, justa
> desire on
> your part to see it unfold from a ring-side seat and not from within
> the
> universe itself.
But, Mr. Miller, where were you when we had an all-out brawl over
whether it was a Steady State or a Big Bang universe?!?!?
> There is no outside to fill, no void. Therefore, in any definition
> you choose
> to use, there was no explosion.
Whatever you wish to call it, however you wish to think of it,
the definition remains: the expansion of anything can only be
defined in a very narrow manner. You either have implosion or
expansion--every other consideration is irrelevant (whether it's
a mass of dough exploding into a piece of bread or a collapsing
star gently withering down into some lesser and lesser volume... you
cannot describe something going in one direction as going in the
opposite direction, it's either one or the other). I'm sorry if I do
not wish to play your game, Mr. Miller. You can always play with
yourself.
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That is not a knock against the theory. It is completely
>>> consistent
>>> from a
>>> scientific standpoint, within the validity of experimental data.
>>> And the
>>> validity of a theory is only as good as the limits within whichit
>>> is valid.
>>
>> Mr. Miller, this discussion concerns the nature of the universe:
>> To say that you have a theory which explains how it is possible
>> for people to ride bicycles (and that therefore your theory conforms
>> to reality, and that it's been proved to be able to accurately
>> predict
>> many thing in the world) is, impressive as it may be, of little
>> matter
>> to the present discussion. The BB theory is like your bicycle
>> theory:
>> You can use it to predict many little things in the world, butyou
>> cannot use it to describe the nature of our universe nor how our
>> universe might have come to be what it is. The reason this is the
>> case is because the BB theory does not arise from observations
>> but from guesses. And guesses will tend to result in errors more
>> often than will observations. Once the BB theory became dogma
>> every subsequent observation has been made to fit the theory;
>> until what we have today is a set of misinterpreted observations
>> supporting a false theory.
>
> You continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of science and
> scientific
> processes. Because you don't understand the process of science,you
> write off
> the results of that process.
It would serve you better if instead of simply calling me "ignorant"you
would actually specify those things I seem to be ignorant of--Otherwise
I may begin to suspect you really have no idea what these may be and
you're merely hoping the "tag" of "ignorant" will stick to me somehowor
other, Mr. Miller. This is dirty pool any way one looks at it, Mr.
Miller.
Shame on you.
> There is no, repeat no, (and in big letters, so it might get in
> between your
> ears), NO astronomer today that claims the big bang is the end all
> theory of
> the creation of the universe.
Excellent then, Mr. Miller, as I have its replacement ready for you.
> But, the majority will tell you that as
> a
> scientific theory, a theory successful from the process of science-
> tested,
> validated against other scientific theories which have also been
> tested - that
> it currently fits the available data and in a limited sense can be
> used to
> describe what is observed in the universe today.
However, Mr. Miller. Consider where it is incontrovertibly wrong
(and deduce from this that it may yet prove to be wrong, and thus
very harmful to science, in many other of its aspects): The ONLY
force we know of to exist throughout the universe is the force of
gravity, and, once you understand AND accept this fact, it then
becomes impossible to explain how in an universe wherein the
ONLY force acting is one of attraction.... how could such universe
possibly be exhibiting/undergoing any kind of "expansion" of any
shape or form whatsoever (this, Mr. Miller, is where the primitives
who originally pondered this paradox proposed that the whole
shebang must have been the result of some primordial Big Bang
--the problem now becomes: If it HAD been the result of a BB
why isn't all the gravity in the universe acting to slow it down
or reserve it? A puzzlement, no, Mr. Miller? Don't fret, I'm sure
it must be that there isn't enough "dark matter" or some such...
"wink-wink").
> That, sir, is how science works.
Well, here's a more fundamental truism, Mr. Miller: That is how
human nature works. And so long as human beings are the ones
doing science or driving cars... that's the way science & traffic
will be going.
> Nothing is etched in stone. The
> success of
> a theory to both explain what is observed and to predict things that
> we did
> not know and then go out and observe builds confidence in the useof
> that
> theory for seeking further information.
In which case, Mr. Miller: Don't get overly excited about these
theories:
My AR postulation is but a month old in the world. Let it grow on you
for a few years & see what develops. (I hate itchy people.)
> If the predictions are made
> that are
> then not observed, or the opposite is observed, or observations are
> made that
> are incompatible with the model, it will be modified, or if necessary,
> dropped, and we will start all over again.
Here's news for you: The BB model is incompatible with recent
findings that the Hubble constant is accelerating. So I expect you'll
be dropping it now. Now here's further news for you: There is not
one single observed fact which is incompatible with my AR model.
So I will expect you to use it to replace your old discredited theories
(not forever, Mr. Miller... no, only until AR itself is discredited).
By the by, Mr. Miller: Just think of the shows you can put on in you
beloved planetarium about an imploding universe!!! Think how you'll
wow the little children with vistas of their entire lives going
down the drain! Believe me... kids just eat up this kind of stuff!
> So, you can harangue all you want in your ignorance of the scientific
> method
> and conclusions drawn from it.
That. Mr. Miller, is the privilege of any citizens of a free land
(isn't it a nuisance!). Kinda makes one long for the days when one
could take an ignorant crackpot like Galileo down to the Vaticano
dungeon and "show him" the instruments of torture, don't it,
Mr. Miller? Ah, those were the days! Will we ever see them more?
> But I challenge you to publish
> anything
> counter to current big bang models in a reputable physics/astrophysics
> journal, and clearly demonstrate the fallacies of the current model.
Oh, I'm sorry: Did I neglect to mention my web site? It's at:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> Of course, that means you are going to have to learn science first,
> including
> the mathematics that is the language of science and scientific
> theories.
> Until you can do that, you are simply blowing smoke.
Well, now, let's see the hurdles I must jump: Learn science,
including math (I don't suppose a calculator will suffice?...), and
that'll do it, Mr. Miller? Good Heavens, is that all? I can do that,
Mr. Miller. Hold off any final judgment on any of these theories
(never mind which are incompatible with reality and which are not):
I'll just go to the library, pick up a couple of books, kill'em, be
right back!
> [rest deleted as the blatherings of a wind bag!]
Thank you, Mr. Miller, at least I seem to be persuading you that my
theories will fly one day (now, if I can just get you to admit thatI
am
full of hot air... yes, it will be tough getting you to go that far,but
I've known many persons much more retarded than you go much farther).
Always hoping,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
> Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
*******************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87aso6$i6q$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> <38963BB3.13C9814A@louisville.edu>
<877l98$5bu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <aranders-0202000030360001@kok-04-99.netusa1.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 03:30:14 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physik.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <aranders-0202000030360001@kok-04-99.netusa1.net>,
aranders@netusa1.net (Alan Anderson) wrote:
> In article <877l98$5bu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>... But it's all the same: The Big Bang proponents
>> propose the universe results from some "small" thing
>> exploding/expanding
>> into some "bigger" thing. That is inescapable no matter how it
>> may be fudged to hide the folly in such thinking.
>
> The "Big Bang" theory says no such thing. It explicitly doesnot
say
> there is a "bigger" thing into which the universe is "exploding".
It
> says the universe is expanding, which is not at all the same thing.
Please read my paragraph again: It (admittedly not absolutely clearly)
says the universe is becoming something bigger than what it's been
(not that it's going into some bigger holding tank).
>>> The interpretation of that accidental discovery fell to scientists
>>> at Princeton who recognized what the signal was because they
>>> themselves were
>>> designing and building a device to detect just such a signal.
>>
>> Notice the irony of this way of putting it! You are indeed correct
>> that they (these scientists) were searching for proof which their
>> theory predicted to be there: They were not searching for facts
>> to be thereupon interpreted. They were searching for pieces ofthe
>> puzzle they had in mind to piece together. This is bad science.
>
> No, this is the *essence* of science. Theories must be testablein
> order to be useful. The Big Bang Theory predicts a uniformbackground
> microwave glow. Once it is predicted, the proper step is tolook
for
> (and hopefully find) it.
That is bad science. The proper step is to bring in all the evidence
and see where the evidence LEADS, and not to already have a path forit
to travel beforehand!
If you already have a prejudice where the evidence should lead,
then chances are you will MAKE IT point in that direction
regardless of all else.
I repeat: The above scientists should have tried to make sense of
the facts which Watson and Penzias brought to them. They did not:
What they did was to usurp the facts brought to them and prostitute
them (those facts) for the sake of their pet prejudices.
Had they remained truly impartial men of science, they would have
taken Watson's & Penzias's finding and tried to figure out what
could possibly account for them. They did not do that. What they did
was to instantly proclaim them to be the "remnants" of the primordial
Big Bang fireball... a claim which is becoming more and more
embarrassing as it becomes more and more apparent that there nevercould
have been such a thing as a primordial Big Bang fireball.
But those are the painful lessons that history teaches us, and from
which (but hopefully) scientists will learn to avoid making again and
again in future,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87at9j$ib9$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> <38963BB3.13C9814A@louisville.edu>
<389786DD.8DA04914@swales.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 03:39:31 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 <389786DD.8DA04914@swales.com>,
Stan Underwood <sunderwood@swales.com> wrote:
> "J. Scott Miller" wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>> 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 realityuntil
>> 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).The
>> end.
>
> So, because you cannot understand the complexity of the mathematics,
> it must
> be wrong. This is the weakest argument you have presented so far.
> Could it be
> that you are wrong, simply because you choose not to take the timeto
> learn
> about what is actually said about the big bang models, other thanthe
> popular
> drivel one sees on programs on the Learning Channel or the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> Excuse me Mr. Drodrian, but your assertions and proofs are using
> another symbology
> called language.
Stan, the paragraph you're railing against (above) was not written byme
but by a Mr. Miller. However, having said that (and you and he can
batter it out later to your hearts' content): I am not interested atall
in how a truth is put (this is of concern to others, I name no names).
My only interest is that a truth be true.
> If you really wanna go off the philosophical deep
> end, your
> English (only) reasoning is no better than Calculus or tensors.
> What's key to
> knowledge is understanding, and the precision of one symbology versus
> another
> requires different levels of mastery. Given all this, whatthe
hell
> is 'reality',
> anyway?
Reality is that which does not conflict with our 5 senses. (Notice
that it often conflicts with our opinions, by the way. And that
whereas our five senses know there is no magic in the universe,
we are often persuaded onto a false opinion about this by conmen.)
> I could assert that I see pi every time I look at a disc, but
> pi or the
> word disc each convey their own meaning. So what? Ifpeople
can
> understand
> something in a fundamental way and share the experience, I wouldsay
> that's more
> real than just posting stuff on a web site and saying that's the
> answer, and
> therefore it's reality.
My mantra has always been and remains: Think for yourself.
If I present something to you I will demand you understand it
in your own terms, and never because I presented it well enough:
My only claim is that I present my proposals in as simple a manner
and language as I can. Nothing is perfect in this world, though
(and notice that this is something I am aware of).
> Finally, I would just like to say that I intend in no way to diminsh
> your theory
> or anybody else's. If you wish to prove something wrong though,
> you're going to
> have to do so in the incumbent's line of reasoning, in order to
> establish
> consensus.
Well, to be honest, I have never believed one should put up
truths to a vote. In human history it has often been the case
where one man alone has taken up the case for the truth even
against the whole world... and won. (And it's not that it has been
an overwhelming man, but that it has been an overwhelming truth.)
I am convinced that this is the case here: I am completely confident
that once reasonable thinking people get over being as upset as
they are about being confronted with something startlingly new, and
collect themselves, and reason it all out themselves... that is willbe
as impossible for them to deny the truth that's staring them in theface
as it originally was the case with me when I first face these things.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
***********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87cj5q$njs$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.160
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 18:59:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>,
jkauffman <jkauffmanNOjkSPAM@indiciisalus.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> For one
>>> thing it is more mathematically rigorous than what
>> you have put forth
>>> so far,
>> In that case, Mr. Miller, I shall skip it. I wish to
>> understand reality,
>> not how equations get balanced in spite of all
>> reality: It has always
>> been my experience that mathematicians will not accept
>> reality until ... blah, blah, blah.
>
> Now we get to the crux of it. No maths, no argument. Do you
> honestly expect people to take this drivel seriously?
>
Of course I do not expect anyone to take your drivel seriously,
Mr. Kauffman! I expect people who are shown an elephant
to realize it's an elephant--and not to come back at me with:
"If you cannot prove mathematically that this so-called elephant
of yours is in fact an elephant, then it cannot possibly be
an elephant: No maths, no elephants! Good day, sir!"
From the real world,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
**************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8778ka$ra4$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$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>
<872av8$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <012072c6.1eef5f49@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.198
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 01 18:28:32 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <012072c6.1eef5f49@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com>,
John <jo10bi12NOjoSPAM@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> The physical universe, as we know it,contains
no
> infinities either large or small. In fact the universe
> itself appears to be finite in all regards. This obvious
> fact of existance must, of necessity, also extend to the
> actual creation of the universe itself. It could not have
> always existed.
Unfortunately, this is a theist proposition (and I mean
that it is the magician's claim that his/her trick
is authentic magic, and not just some deception of the
audience). The fact is that we live in a cause/effect reality;
and that there is no magic (forgive me if I will assume
from this that there has never been magic).
> Unless you consider an aspect of existance
> that lies outside the purely physical nature of the
> universe - you will never find a reasonable answer to the
> orgion of the universe.
Mine is a most reasonable answer: "If to exist
Existence would have had to have a beginning
then it could not exist." Therefore, because it exists,
it is reasonable to assume that it did not originate from
Nothingness... and that therefore it is some sort of
evolutionary shift from something which existed before.
> I would suggest that "thought" is
> the essence of all existance.
I would suggest that man is more closely related
to the chimp than to God.
> Without something, or
> someone, to think the universe would have no significance
> and therefore have no meaning.
Perhaps it would not be the subject of our thoughts; but
there is so much that escapes our minds already, John, that
what's a few eternities & infinities more?
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> Regards,
>
> John
>
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.20
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 24 21:50:58 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.bible,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
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
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86kl31$kal$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jth5$3a2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.198
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 25 17:04:37 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,gac.physics.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86jth5$3a2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Saul Bradford <saulbradford@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com posted the following twice over:
>
> <snip stuff about "the woman with the world´s highest IQ">
>
>> She is also quite correct that the Big Bang is hard
>> to swallow. And I know it's just as big a fable as
>> any other fable you'd care to name. Never happened.
>> If you wish to know what really happened, visit:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>
> Is a collapsing universe homogenous and isotropic (at large scales)?
>
> cheers, in advance, for the reply,
>
> Saul
The imploding universe is the one one sees
when one looks through any telescope: There is
no difference between an imploding universe
and the one described by conventional astronomy's
secured observations. The singular distinction
is that whereas the Big Bang universe view is
strictly the outcome of hurried guesswork, the
proposition that the universe is the result of
an evolved/evolving process of implosion is
the result of knowledge never taken into consideration
by the people who guess it was the result of a
magical-like Big Bang. See my web site:
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86q4hv$l2o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86jth5$3a2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86kl31$kal$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388E0AB7.6FCF7722@spamcop.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x29.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 18:59:14 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 <388E0AB7.6FCF7722@spamcop.net>,
Michael Edelman <mje@spamcop.net> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
> ....
>> The imploding universe is the one one sees
>> when one looks through any telescope: There is
>> no difference between an imploding universe
>> and the one described by conventional astronomy's
>> secured observations. The singular distinction
>> is that whereas the Big Bang universe view is
>> strictly the outcome of hurried guesswork, the
>> proposition that the universe is the result of
>> an evolved/evolving process of implosion
>
> In other words, the theoretical cosmology of thousands of researchers
> over fifty years is "hurried guesswork",
This is only your misapprehension. It's nearer the truth
to say that "one" or two original thinkers were a bit hasty
with their guesses. And that, ever since then, thousands of
researchers who have not seriously questioned the validity
of those guesses at the most fundamental of levels... have
tended to "avoid" stumbling into proofs of the errors in
those guesses. But there is good news, Mike: Finally, and
at long last, you are lucky enough to have run across me
and my "sickening" willingness to stare down all such errors
straight in the face (a number of which I have actually seen
through). Now, aren't you lucky!
> whereas the ignorant musings of
> one crackpot is an obvious work of genius ;-)
NEVER, Mike. Sometimes I get up in the morning and
walk about for a while before I realize my brain's still
sleeping in my bed. SO I go back for it, and, "Let's go!"
BRAIN: Let's go where? Drop dead!
ME: C'mon! C'mon, get up you lazy bastard! I gotta go
to work!
BRAIN: To where--? Sure, like you need a brain (what
you do): You spend the whole day in the park feed'n
the pigeons, forGod'sSake! Get outta here & let me
catch up on some shuteye!
ME: You think it's easy feed'n the pigeons? You know what
happened the last time I went to the park without you:
I ended up in that sleazy bar with the redhead and the
disposable bra.
BRAIN: Just remember not to wear any kind of bra, disposable
or otherwise... and you'll be all right. Now, get outta here!
A lot of days I lose those arguments with my brain and
"it" spends the rest of the day in bed while I plow through
all sorts of life's complexities without it.
But... it is almost NEVER a matter of brains, Mike: It's almost
always a matter of knowledge: ANY idiot running around the
streets today without his/her trainer KNOWS zillions of things
Einstein could never possibly have imagined ("rap" "music"
to name just one).
And as for thinking "me" a cracked pot, or a shattered tea cup:
Go and explain a helicopter taking off to stone age people and
see if they think you've got all your mammoths in a straight line!
> He writes, on his web page:
>
>> All you need do to understand why this implosion "looks" to uslike
>> an explosion is to realize that those gravitons closest to the
>> "center"
>> are accelerating (towards it) faster than the gravitons furthest
>> from
>> "center." (The feet of the guy falling into the black hole will
>> experience a greater pull than his head and he will be
>> all-stretched-out.) And therefore it will always seem to us asif
>> the
>> "expansion" of our universe is "actually" accelerating.
>
> Interestingly he's got gravitons being "pulled" in by...gravity?
What would gravity "pull" if not gravity? Think of it this way:
All "matter" is composed of gravity. All "matter" attracts all other
"matter." Now, follow this line of thinking (I said THINKING)...
> The rest is similarly nonsensical. He begs the question and intriduces
> all sorts of unjustified entities.
I told you you'd have to do some thinking, Mike! And here you are
giving up on it before you've even learned to spell properly! Sheech!
>> The notion that the universe is an explosion creates nothing but
>> puzzles;
>
> Yet another sign of the poster's ignorance. He still thinks the "big
> Bang" is an explosion, which of course is the popular press/naiive
> view.
> The term "big bang" was an insult Hoyle used to characterize the
> theory.
It is a very apt insult (as in... people with excessive flatulence often
undergo the experience of moderate to big bangs).
>> But, again, observations do not support the notion that it is at
>> all slowing down. In fact, observations support the propositionthat
>> the
>> so-called expansion of the universe is, if anything, actually
>> accelerating!
>
> Which is simply not true.
>
> He obviously doesn't understand modern cosmology. He appears to be
> completely ignorant of the math required to do physics.
Dear Mike, am I picking up a trend in your post, or do you have
an excessive habit of saying I am wrong, I'm a nut, I'm ignorant, I
can't add... et al, et al, et al WITHOUT OFFERING EVEN ONE SINGLE
ITTY BITTY REFUTATION OF ANY-THING AT ALL FROM THOSE I'VE PROPOSED?
Gee, Mike, I sure hope that's not the case: I was hoping to display
the full scope of my brilliant breadth of knowledge... and all I'm
left doing is just letting my feline wit toy with your mousy whines!
Better luck in future, Mike! "The strength of a great warrior
is measured by the strength of his enemies."
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: <86q6ka$mt3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.49
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 19:34:34 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
> In article <86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>wrote:
>
>>She is also quite correct that the Big Bang is hard
>>to swallow. And I know it's just as big a fable as
>>any other fable you'd care to name. Never happened.
>>If you wish to know what really happened, visit:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> Sheesh. Explain the uniformity of the red-shift.
Sheesh!!!!! The galaxies ARE receding from each other
exactly as in the Hubble constant!!!!! Any elementary text
on astronomy will explain this effect to you. The concept of
an imploding universe is one at a profounder level!!!! The
text at my web site will explain this to you!
> BTW, I love this quote: According to Newton's 1st Law of Motion the
> ordinary matter of our universe would be at rest were it not being
> acted on by an "unbalanced external force"
>
> Actually that's _Aristotle's 1st Law of Motion_. Newton tweakedit
> a little bit.
Actually it's GRRRKPT's 1st Law of Motion (he was the caveman
who actually originally formulated it after he married this chic by
bounding a rock off her skull). Aristotle just tweaked it from some
previous tweaker who tweaked it from somebody else ad infinitum
(almost--Uncle Al is still out there playfully salivating... ever since
he
got bit by that toy werewolf).
> Alan
" Only to make it agree with reality. BTW, the novel _Celestial
Matters_ is set in a world in which Aristotlean physics works.
Their equivalent of artillery is kind of neat; the shell is
fired, moves along a perfectly straight line at constant speed
until it has used up the initial force applied to it, and then
stops and falls straight down. -- Ken Cox "
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
--Oooops, almost wrote "absolutecreativity" again!
I'm taking a break now.
**************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86tpo1$b0r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.124
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 29 04:19:16 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 <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
> In article <86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>wrote:
>>In article <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>> In article <86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <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
>>>
>>> Sheesh. Explain the uniformity of the red-shift.
>>
>>Sheesh!!!!! The galaxies ARE receding from each other
>>exactly as in the Hubble constant!!!!! Any elementary text
>>on astronomy will explain this effect to you. The concept of
>>an imploding universe is one at a profounder level!!!! The
>>text at my web site will explain this to you!
>
> It didn't explain squat. If the universe is imploding I accept
> that some galaxies might be moving away from us (as if we are
> moving towards the center of implosion faster than they are). I
> don't not accept that all glaxies would be do that (some would
> be closer to the center than us.
Your conception (visualization) of the universe is apparently a very
narrow (restricted) and confined one with regard to its entire size:
1) Necessarily some galaxies are closer to center than others.
However, so HUGE is the universe that ALL (PLUS)the
galaxies
we are aware of whether directly (by actually seeing/hearingof)
them or guessing about them AND THEN SOME.... maybe
less
than some minuscule percentage of the universe--Forgetmost
of
what you may have heard/read about conventionalestimations
of its "size" ... it's bigger. Those estimationswere
mostly cooked
up with regard to how much matter it would takefor
the universe
to continue expanding forever vs how much matterit
would take
to halt the expansion and cause an inward collapse.
2) In which case... the galaxies we are seeing receding from each
other are (in the context of the entire universe)so
close to each
other that there may never be any way for us toEVER
even make
a reasonably educated guess which way it is to the"center."
In
which case, again... the galaxies closer to centerthan
us are not
8% away from center while we are 88% (rather theymay
just turn
out to be more like 88.888888888% away from centerwhile
we are
88.888888889). These numbers, by the way, are notsome
educated
estimates by any means... just handy 8s used strictlyfor
the sake
of this quick explanation.
> Some would be one the other
> side of the center). Where are those galaxies? IOW: Why isthe
> red shift so uniform?
No one can speak with finality on this, but... we can only "see" a
very tiny itty bitty weeny bit of the universe (and that's the only
"light" reaching us.... if we are on the "right" side of the universe,
say, galaxies on the "left" side ARE probably "seen" as coming towards
us... It's just that they're so far away we will never see them coming
(so to speak). And even if we were to burrow God's binoculars and
see them coming, they (and us) would become extinct LONG, LONG, LONG,
LONG, LONG and LONG before either one of us'd get ANYWHERE nears center:
I cannot say with absolute certainly exactly what is at the centerof
our universe, but chances are there is nothing there except a gathering
(and ever growing) force which is the exact opposite of the force of
gravity. This repelling force will eventually turn our universe of
"matter constructed out of gravity" into a universe of "infinite mass"
(devoid of matter)... which when it reaches its zenith will again shift
into its opposite (one which will manifest matter/gravity) and our
universe of gravity/matter will again implode... time without end,end
without beginning....
AGAIN: All we see of the universe is a tiny little radius of light.You
are free, of course, to speculate on WHY it is we can't see beyondthe
limits of where we see (just don't expect some future Super-duper Hubble
telescope to see a 100,000,000 times farther than the current version.
> BTW - Adding extra exlamation points doesn't make your argument seem
> more profound.
At least I never use those cute little smiling/frowning faces!
(I always like to take credit for anything.)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>> BTW, I love this quote: According to Newton's 1st Law of Motionthe
>>> ordinary matter of our universe would be at rest were it not being
>>> acted on by an "unbalanced external force"
>>>
>>> Actually that's _Aristotle's 1st Law of Motion_. Newtontweaked
it
>>> a little bit.
>>
>>Actually it's GRRRKPT's 1st Law of Motion (he was the caveman
>>who actually originally formulated it after he married this chicby
>>bounding a rock off her skull). Aristotle just tweaked it from some
>>previous tweaker who tweaked it from somebody else ad infinitum
>>(almost--Uncle Al is still out there playfully salivating... ever
>>since he
>>got bit by that toy werewolf).
>
> Are you conceeding that you misspoke when you said it was Newton's1st
> Law
> of Motion or are you still going to continue misrepresenting classical
> physics?
Nope: Whoever Newton might have stolen it from, Newton's
First Law of Motion remains the way he wrote it and we accepted it
as such either because he originated it, or because that's just the
name we've grown to know it by. Sorry--about the run-on sentence.
>
> Alan
>
>
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 29 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86vs3p$mro$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<86tpv3$b38$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389aa0cf.12404982@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.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 23:11:55 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 <389aa0cf.12404982@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
23skid5*o@my-deja.com wrote:
> Some person using the handle sdrodrian@aol.com pretended they were
> sane long
> enough to type this on Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:23:03 GMT, which I willnow
> be
> replying to:
Forgive me--It's just that if I don't pretend I'm sane while I'm
typing... my fingers get all mixed up and I end up writing one of
those notes threatening to wreak atomic destruction on my grocer
or somebody.
>>In article <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>> In article <86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>>>> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>>>> In article <86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <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
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh. Explain the uniformity of the red-shift.
>>>>
>>>>Sheesh!!!!! The galaxies ARE receding from each other
>>>>exactly as in the Hubble constant!!!!! Any elementary text
>>>>on astronomy will explain this effect to you. The concept of
>>>>an imploding universe is one at a profounder level!!!! The
>>>>text at my web site will explain this to you!
>>>
>>> It didn't explain squat. If the universe is imploding Iaccept
>>> that some galaxies might be moving away from us (as if we are
>>> moving towards the center of implosion faster than they are).
I
>>> don't not accept that all glaxies would be do that (some would
>>> be closer to the center than us.
>>
>>Your conception (visualization) of the universe is apparently avery
>>narrow (restricted) and confined one with regard to its entire size:
>>
>>1) Necessarily some galaxies are closer to center than others.
>
> What makes you think there's a center?
My brain. Also: IF the universe is in the grips of gravity. (And
please let me know if you discover it is not.) It is a brain's duty
to propose that something is imploding towards its gravitational center
rather than to left field, say.
>> However, so HUGE is the universe that ALL (PLUS)the
galaxies
>> we are aware of whether directly (by actuallyseeing/hearing
of)
>> them or guessing about them AND THEN SOME....may
be less
>> than some minuscule percentage of the universe--Forgetmost
of
>> what you may have heard/read about conventionalestimations
>> of its "size" ... it's bigger. Those estimationswere
mostly
>> cooked
>> up with regard to how much matter it would takefor
the universe
>> to continue expanding forever vs how much matterit
would take
>> to halt the expansion and cause an inward collapse.
>
> The estimations are actually pretty accurately based on observation
> and
> rigorous mathematical formulization.
According to "rigorous mathematical formulization" TRUTH
is always in the hands of the "formulizator." However, as per
all other estimations: The history of man's pushing the age of
the universe further & further back begins from (?) Xenophanes
of Colophon (560?-478? BC), who recognized that seashells
embedded in rocks were the remains of long-deceased lifeforms.
Unfortunately, the fall of the Roman World pretty much
pushed science back to scratch, so that until recently science
had to "fit" the history of the universe into the 6000 years or so
the Bible said were the "generations" of men "since God created
it." But after Niels Steensen and others began to realize that
geological formations on this planet had to have formed through
"geological" time, the age of the universe was slowly pushed back
100,000s of years, and them millions and millions of years into the
past... every time because of some phenomena science discovered
which could not be fitted into the age previously assumed to be
that of the universe,
In the September 1999 issue of Astronomy, Jim Herrnstein reports he
has found, "what he thinks is a significant flaw in an exhaustive eight-
year Hubble Space Telescope study. During a May news conference
in Washington, D.C., the Hubble team said that the age of theuniverse
is about 13.5 billion years, plus or minus 10 percent. However,
Herrnstein says the universe could be 15 percent younger than that.The
discrepancy is based on the way astronomers generate standard-distance
yardsticks to estimate the universe's age. The Hubble team, conducting
what it calls the Key Project, used the luminosities of variable stars
in ! 8 nearby galaxies -- an indirect method -- to generate its distance
yard-stick. Herrnstein, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatoryin
Socorro, New Mexico, used the Very Long Baseline Array, a system of
radio telescopes from Hawaii to the Virgin Islands, and a simple
trigonometry formula. He found that bright blobs of gas called water
masers traveling 2.4 million miles per hour moved by a tiny angle (0.1
milliarcsecond) from 1994 to 1997. He used the speed of the water masers
and the angle that they moved across the sky to compute the distance
from Earth of galaxy M106 (NGC 4258). The Hubble group reported the
galaxy is 26.7 to 29.0 light-years from Earth while Herrnstein estimated
that it was only 23.5 light-years, plus or minus 1 light-year.
Herrnstein, who announced his results at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in June, said there are uncertaintiesin
his method, but those uncertainties are less than those reported atthe
May news conference by Key Project leader, Wendy L. Freedman. "I am
skeptical that the Key Project has achieved its goal" he says. Freedman,
who attended an AAS news conference in June at which Herrnstein spoke,
was surprised by his results. She said that Herrnstein's findings are
"wonderful" calling them "a big step forward in distance
measurements"..."
In other words: We do not guess at the age of the universe; rather,we
determine how old items in it are, and then peg the age of the universe
as older than the things in it. This method, while it leaves us with
nearly irrefutable knowledge of the estimates we have, also leavesus
with a long ways to go before we have irrefutable knowledge of thetrue
age of the universe (once we know how old everything in it really is).
My own assumption is that we are probably as far from that ultimate
knowledge as the theists who believed its age to be 6000 years werefrom
today's estimate into the billions of years. But, as you can see: Any
assumption can eventually turn out to be in TOTAL/COMPLETE error.
>>2) In which case... the galaxies we are seeing receding from each
>> other are (in the context of the entire universe)so
close to
>> each
>> other that there may never be any way for usto
EVER even make
>> a reasonably educated guess which way it is tothe
"center."
>
> Or indeed if there's a center at all, which I don't believe.
That's a matter between what your brain tell you and what mine
tells me (my brain is a blabbermouth, by the way): Have you had
yours analyzed to see if it's suffering from shyness or such?
>I
> persaonlly
> believe in string theory which calculates our universe as several
> combined
> dimensions.
I adhere to the truism: "If you can walk into your house
through the door... don't jump in down the chimney!"
> These dimensions are "circular" and have no center.
Just curious, but.. was the fellow who thought up this
marvelous theory at Dunkin Donuts when the thought
struck him. (Could you please ask him about this?
I have a theory of my own about all such only-too-human
behaviors.)
> The
> only
> center of say a donut-shaped universe exists in the "out of bounds"
> region.
That must be the region that is created there so one can
fry a number of donuts in the same pan at the same time.
> A circumference has no center or starting point.
Nor does a triangle (since I never pay much attention
where I start when I draw either one). Wonder why we
don't have more triangulated dimensional theories! It's
so... Christian, don't you think?
>>In
>>which case, again... the galaxies closer to center than us are
>>not
>>8% away from center while we are 88% (rather they may just turn
>>out to be more like 88.888888888% away from center while we are
>>88.888888889). These numbers, by the way, are not some educated
>>estimates by any means... just handy 8s used strictly for the
>>sake
>>of this quick explanation.
>>
>>> Some would be one the other
>>> side of the center). Where are those galaxies? IOW: Whyis
the
>>> red shift so uniform?
>>
>>No one can speak with finality on this, but... we can only "see"a
>>very tiny itty bitty weeny bit of the universe (and that's the only
>>"light" reaching us.... if we are on the "right" side of the
>>universe,
>>say, galaxies on the "left" side ARE probably "seen" as coming
>>towards
>>us... It's just that they're so far away we will never see them
>>coming
>>(so to speak). And even if we were to burrow God's binoculars and
>>see them coming, they (and us) would become extinct LONG, LONG,LONG,
>>LONG, LONG and LONG before either one of us'd get ANYWHERE nears
>>center:
>
> The further we see the further back in time it is.
Well, I myself can see all the way clear to downtown, so it
must be, like, two days ago (judging from how slowly I walk).
> The only time there
> could
> possibly be a center would be at time = zero-- but at that time
> everything
> would be center.
That's only in an exploding universe (which is counterintuitive).
The only "evidence" that ours is an exploding universe is
Hubble's constant. ALL other evidence best fits an imploding
universe model... including the Hubble constant, by the way,
once you realize that an expansion resulting from an exploding
universe CANNOT be reconciled with that expansion accelerating.
> Think of a balloon
Again with the balloon!? My God, balloon-makers must
make fortunes on astronomers & physicists! I wonder whether
astronomers & physicists also have a low reproduction rate?
> that exists only as a point (you
> may, if
> you want, call that point the center). But when you blow up the
> balloon, the
> only center is inside the balloon-- something that is not insidethe
> universe.
You forget that your balloon is also full of hot air
at its center (and YOU put it there): Take him away, officer!
> Since all of space, in this analogy, is on the surface of
> the
> balloon, there would be no way to ascribe a "center of the universe".
If you'd ever studied explosions you'd quickly find that there
is plenty of areas in the their centers where all the forces cancel
each other... and a lot of stuff survives in there which would be
annihilated just a few centimeters away from their centers.
>>I cannot say with absolute certainly exactly what is at the centerof
>>our universe, but chances are there is nothing there except a
>>gathering
>>(and ever growing) force which is the exact opposite of the forceof
>>gravity.
>
> What lead you to that conclusion?
See my web page: The answer is after my email address: Where
I address how gravity might have manifested itself in an existence
without "matter." (Matter being the result of gravity, no less than
gravity resulting from matter.) It IS speculative, but logical. ItMAY
BE absolutely correct. Or it may be absolutely in error. Either way
that's what thinking beings do: Think about things these & those.
>>This repelling force will eventually turn our universe of
>>"matter constructed out of gravity" into a universe of "infinite
>>mass"
>>(devoid of matter)... which when it reaches its zenith will again
>>shift
>>into its opposite (one which will manifest matter/gravity) and our
>>universe of gravity/matter will again implode... time without end,
>>end
>>without beginning....
>
> Methinks you don't understand force and matter very well.
It never hurts to rethink one's thoughts, nor to ask what others
may know... before trying to guess what they do not know (what
you think others do not know... that is usually the very thing that
hurts you). Although the things I do not know take up so much room
in my luggage there's barely any room left for the things I do know!
(But God help the man who knows too much for his own good.) So never
fail to realize that I have to break down the classical idea of a
force into some sequential presentation or other which will make it
easier for the average person to follow... and that is always my first
concern: To make it as easy as I can for everyone to understand this.
>>AGAIN: All we see of the universe is a tiny little radius of light.
>>You
>>are free, of course, to speculate on WHY it is we can't see beyond
>>the
>>limits of where we see (just don't expect some future Super-duper
>>Hubble
>>telescope to see a 100,000,000 times farther than the current
>>version.
>
> The furthest object we've seen so far is from a time when the universe
> was
> only a billion years old.
Rather: If we "see" a galaxy 14 billion light years from us, and
we estimate that it takes about a billion years for such kinds of
galaxies to form, then 1+14 = "Gentlemen, the age of the universe
has been found to be 15 billion years! Hoorah, chaps! Bartender:
Champagne all around (we're ALL driving)...!"
> That is pretty damn close to the "edge" of
> the
> universe.
As well as damned dangerously close to any number of other
edges, I'd say. But, what makes you so sure you can see the edge
of the universe (from your assumption --above-- that it's there)?
And, if you were "an" true courageous man of science... you'd do
as I've done & go over the edge (then crawl back over to this
side to let the rest of us know what you've seen "over there").
Still (always) as little over the edge,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> -----
> Pope Skidoo
>
> "The only difference between an insane person
> and myself is that I am not insane."
>
- Salvador Dali
Sal might have been very original in his art; but he
definitely stole that quip off the bronze plaque they
solder to every shell of every nut squirreled away.
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 30 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <872bcv$ar4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<86tpv3$b38$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389aa0cf.12404982@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
<86vs3p$mro$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38a9b33e.48551315@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.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 21:45:05 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 <38a9b33e.48551315@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
23skid5*o@my-deja.com wrote:
> Thanks be to sdrodrian@aol.com for inspiring me to write this replyon
> Sat,
> 29 Jan 2000 23:11:55 GMT:
>
>>In article <389aa0cf.12404982@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>> 23skid5*o@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> Some person using the handle sdrodrian@aol.com pretended theywere
>>> sane long
>>> enough to type this on Sat, 29 Jan 2000 04:23:03 GMT, which Iwill
>>> now
>>> be
>>> replying to:
>>
>>Forgive me--It's just that if I don't pretend I'm sane while I'm
>>typing... my fingers get all mixed up and I end up writing one of
>>those notes threatening to wreak atomic destruction on my grocer
>>or somebody.
>
> What's not sane about that? :)
>
>>>>In article <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>>>> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>>>> In article <86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sdrodrian@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>>>>>> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sheesh. Explain the uniformity of the red-shift.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sheesh!!!!! The galaxies ARE receding from each other
>>>>>>exactly as in the Hubble constant!!!!! Any elementary text
>>>>>>on astronomy will explain this effect to you. The conceptof
>>>>>>an imploding universe is one at a profounder level!!!! The
>>>>>>text at my web site will explain this to you!
>>>>>
>>>>> It didn't explain squat. If the universe is implodingI
accept
>>>>> that some galaxies might be moving away from us (as if we are
>>>>> moving towards the center of implosion faster than they are).
I
>>>>> don't not accept that all glaxies would be do that (some would
>>>>> be closer to the center than us.
>>>>
>>>>Your conception (visualization) of the universe is apparentlya
>>>>very
>>>>narrow (restricted) and confined one with regard to its entire
>>>>size:
>>>>
>>>>1) Necessarily some galaxies are closer to center than others.
>>>
>>> What makes you think there's a center?
>>
>>My brain.
>
> Hopefully you've got more than that
I'm afraid my brain is only an approximation (hopefully 10%;
although mornings there are when this's a gross exaggeration).
>>Also: IF the universe is in the grips of gravity. (And
>>please let me know if you discover it is not.) It is a brain's duty
>>to propose that something is imploding towards its gravitational
>>center
>>rather than to left field, say.
>
> Why must there be a gravitational center? In fact, if everythingis
> expanding away from everything else, HOW can there be a gravitational
> center? Why not conclude that *we're* the gravitational center?
There is nothing in the universe expanding. Galaxies are receding
from each other, but this is an effect which can only result from/with
a measure of order in an imploding universe--In an exploding one
you'd "see" a hell of a lot more chaos in the cosmos! I seriously
doubt the formation of galaxies is even possible in an exploding
universe.
>>>> However, so HUGE is the universe that ALL (PLUS)the
galaxies
>>>> we are aware of whether directly (by actuallyseeing/hearing
>>>> of)
>>>> them or guessing about them AND THEN SOME....may
be less
>>>> than some minuscule percentage of the universe--Forgetmost
of
>>>> what you may have heard/read about conventionalestimations
>>>> of its "size" ... it's bigger. Those estimationswere
mostly
>>>> cooked
>>>> up with regard to how much matter it wouldtake
for the
>>>> universe
>>>> to continue expanding forever vs how muchmatter
it would take
>>>> to halt the expansion and cause an inwardcollapse.
>>>
>>> The estimations are actually pretty accurately based on observation
>>> and
>>> rigorous mathematical formulization.
>>
>>According to "rigorous mathematical formulization" TRUTH
>>is always in the hands of the "formulizator." However, as per
>>all other estimations: The history of man's pushing the age of
>>the universe further & further back begins from (?) Xenophanes
>>of Colophon (560?-478? BC), who recognized that seashells
>>embedded in rocks were the remains of long-deceased lifeforms.
>
> Yes, but we no longer live in the age of greeks or romans.
On this I beg to differ: I consider myself both Greek and Roman:
I'm a Roman Catholic and shake people's right hand (I also demand
a salary). I am Aristotle's heir (apparently) and I claim my heritage!
> Our tools
> are
> becoming more and more accurate everyday.
That could be why we're constantly discovering that
we seem to be growing more and more stupid (?)
> It's not like we determine
Correct, it's "as if" we determine
> the age
> of the universe by looking at the edge. Oh no. We measure the rateat
> which
> things are expanding-- alnog with a bunch of other accurate
> variables--
... how deep the Grand Canyon, how old the
model of the car you're driving...
> and
> simply "rewind the film" to its beginning.
Did that: My Lord, was that really me
chasing the dog for five minutes?!?
> Not too hard. But then of
> course
> new theories come along about the rate at which things were expanding
> in the
> past-- but all in all it's still a pretty accurate estimate.
>
>>Unfortunately, the fall of the Roman World pretty much
>>pushed science back to scratch, so that until recently science
>>had to "fit" the history of the universe into the 6000 years orso
>>the Bible said were the "generations" of men "since God created
>>it." But after Niels Steensen and others began to realize that
>>geological formations on this planet had to have formed through
>>"geological" time, the age of the universe was slowly pushed back
>>100,000s of years, and them millions and millions of years intothe
>>past... every time because of some phenomena science discovered
>>which could not be fitted into the age previously assumed to be
>>that of the universe,
>
> But they were not using MATH. They were using guesstimation thatwas
> biased
> by their early learnings.
I'm glad to see people are still using that phrase (it's first use was
documented in a cave wall painting, I believe, and it refers there
to some even more primitive primordial civilization which had apparently
vanished by the time of those primitive primordial cave wall painters).
>>In the September 1999 issue of Astronomy, Jim Herrnstein reportshe
>>has found, "what he thinks is a significant flaw in an exhaustive
>>eight-
>>year Hubble Space Telescope study. During a May news conference
>>in Washington, D.C., the Hubble team said that the age ofthe
>>universe
>>is about 13.5 billion years, plus or minus 10 percent. However,
>>Herrnstein says the universe could be 15 percent younger than that.
>>The
>>discrepancy is based on the way astronomers generate
>>standard-distance
>>yardsticks to estimate the universe's age. The Hubble team,
>>conducting
>>what it calls the Key Project, used the luminosities of variable
>>stars
>>in ! 8 nearby galaxies -- an indirect method -- to generate its
>>distance
>>yard-stick. Herrnstein, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
>>in
>>Socorro, New Mexico, used the Very Long Baseline Array, a systemof
>>radio telescopes from Hawaii to the Virgin Islands, and a simple
>>trigonometry formula. He found that bright blobs of gas called water
>>masers traveling 2.4 million miles per hour moved by a tiny angle
>>(0.1
>>milliarcsecond) from 1994 to 1997. He used the speed of the water
>>masers
>>and the angle that they moved across the sky to compute the distance
>>from Earth of galaxy M106 (NGC 4258). The Hubble group reportedthe
>>galaxy is 26.7 to 29.0 light-years from Earth while Herrnstein
>>estimated
>>that it was only 23.5 light-years, plus or minus 1 light-year.
>>Herrnstein, who announced his results at the annual meeting of the
>>American Astronomical Society in June, said there are uncertainties
>>in
>>his method, but those uncertainties are less than those reportedat
>>the
>>May news conference by Key Project leader, Wendy L. Freedman. "Iam
>>skeptical that the Key Project has achieved its goal" he says.
>>Freedman,
>>who attended an AAS news conference in June at which Herrnstein
>>spoke,
>>was surprised by his results. She said that Herrnstein's findingsare
>>"wonderful" calling them "a big step forward in distance
>>measurements"..."
>
> Yes, there are multiple methods to procaliming the ageof the universe.
> But
> what is -15% to +15% anyway? We're not that far off.
Well, if you know for sure--For Heaven's Sake tell the astronomers!
The poor lads/lassies are sweating the heavy drop trying to come up
with perfect percentages!
>>In other words: We do not guess at the age of the universe; rather,
>>we
>>determine how old items in it are, and then peg the age of the
>>universe
>>as older than the things in it. This method, while it leaves uswith
>>nearly irrefutable knowledge of the estimates we have, also leavesus
>>with a long ways to go before we have irrefutable knowledge of the
>>true
>>age of the universe (once we know how old everything in it really
>>is).
>
> What is the point of this anyway? So we don't know the age of the
> universe
> with certainty... and...?
--And it could be such a long time since we've celebrated its birthday
that by the time we do it'll hit us over the head with the cake!
>>My own assumption is that we are probably as far from that ultimate
>>knowledge as the theists who believed its age to be 6000 years were
>>from
>>today's estimate into the billions of years. But, as you can see:Any
>>assumption can eventually turn out to be in TOTAL/COMPLETE error.
>
> I don't believe science will ever achieve ultimate knowledge.
I don't know about ultimate knowledge, but it knows one thing
to an uncannily high degree of ultimity: If we do not seek to know
we sink from knowledge.
> But then
> again
> I'm agnostic. I could be wrong :)
I myself, on the other hand, know for a fact there is no God
yet I believe in Him. Now, know thee a man with greater Faith?
>>>>2) In which case... the galaxies we are seeing receding from each
>>>> other are (in the context of the entire universe)so
close to
>>>> each
>>>> other that there may never be any way forus
to EVER even make
>>>> a reasonably educated guess which way it isto
the "center."
>>>
>>> Or indeed if there's a center at all, which I don't believe.
>>
>>That's a matter between what your brain tell you and what mine
>>tells me (my brain is a blabbermouth, by the way): Have you had
>>yours analyzed to see if it's suffering from shyness or such?
>
> My brain tells me to go out and read as much on the topic as possible
> before
> making a conclusion.
My brain always likes to reach the conclusion of every book.
> I've been studying cosmology, QMs, Relativity,
> and
> physics/math since I was in junior high (10 years ago).
Here's a tip to make you a better human being: Include the
humanities, music, art, human history especially, and don't
forget philosophy and modern psychology too!
> Maybe that's
> not a
> long time, but I've certainly done a whole lot of reading. And nowI'm
> at
> the point where I'm actually learning the rigorous math behind itall,
If you ever achieve any degree of wisdom, over & above mere
knowledge, you will know then that all math is tautological. If you
have yet to achieve this nirvana, you then still must use numbers
to understand things human beings should understand through
their very humanity alone.
> and
> am able to more clearly determine what theories make more sense than
> others.
Curious. It has always been my experience that most disciples
of Any Guy tend to understand that guy's understanding as the truest
understanding of all. Notice how practically all Germans became
NAZIs, while practically all Russians became Communists, and
practically all Englishmen remained sane throughout the last century:
It couldn't all have been nationalist genetics, now!
> Of course, it is still all in my brain. Just for a little pointless
> bragging
> to toot my own horn, I did accidently derive the Einstein-Lorentz
> transformations while studying relativity :)
I learned to ride a tricycle before any of my other siblings
(of course, it helped that I was the first one to get a tricycle, but
even having said that--).
>>>I
>>> persaonlly
>>> believe in string theory which calculates our universe as several
>>> combined
>>> dimensions.
>>
>>I adhere to the truism: "If you can walk into your house
>>through the door... don't jump in down the chimney!"
>
> Hmm, okay.
What?! You're going to let pass a marvelous opportunity like the
one I gave you to stick me with some charred gluon? You'll
never get to write for some TV sitcom that way. And I love a zinger
even at my own expense--I have a wealthy soul that way.
>>> These dimensions are "circular" and have no center.
>>
>>Just curious, but.. was the fellow who thought up this
>>marvelous theory at Dunkin Donuts when the thought
>>struck him. (Could you please ask him about this?
>>I have a theory of my own about all such only-too-human
>>behaviors.)
>
> What happened was, someone recently stumbled across Euler's
> hundred-year-old-or-so equations of vibrating strings and noticedthat
> it
> seemed to explain the properties of particles much more clearly than
> the
> void that science had to explain them. Soon after teams of
> mathematicians
> and scientists derived from these equations string theory which could
> so
> perfectly explain the universe. Circular dimensions just fit the
> theory.
I wonder if you've ever considered the following: There are two ways
(let's just keep them at two) to get a cat off the roof of your house:
1) you slowly demolish your house brick by brick until the cat can
walk off the roof, or 2) you simply knock it off your roof with a brick.
> It
> sounds rather disingenuous,
Well, it does sound awful when the brick hits the cat; but that's
why if you're smart you ask somebody to stick his/her fingers in
your ears before asking him/her to pass you a brick. No, wait--
> but string theory math is so complex and
> accelerated that I really can't explain it much more than that. It's
> simply
> what the theories of QMs and GR had to lead to if they were to be
> unified.
I knew a kid one time could hold all this in his head at once. But,
to be honest with you, that was one of the most ignorant and ill-
informed human beings I have ever run across!
> And I believe they HAVE to be unified. For as they are currently
> formulated
> they can't both be right. I suggest getting a book on string theory,
> particularly "the elegant universe" by Brian Greene. It'll make much
> more
> sense than this abstract blathering of mine that seems to be leading
> credence away from circular dimensions :)
And I counter-suggest you pick up Shakespeare's works (read them
while listening to Beethoven's symphonies... they seem to go together).
And they will help you make such sense of life itself there's a pretty
decent chance you'll actually live the rest of your life happily.
>>> The
>>> only
>>> center of say a donut-shaped universe exists in the "out of bounds"
>>> region.
>>
>>That must be the region that is created there so one can
>>fry a number of donuts in the same pan at the same time.
>
> Yes. But what makes you so sure that your universe is flat?
It has a hole in it.
> What proof do you have that there's a center?
If everything else's centered around it... there's a center there.
> That there
> *must* be a center?
If that's where the center is... that *must* be a center.
> Well, the truth is many theories
Actually, the truth is what lasts, all lies fall
eventually.
>-- and not just
> string
> theory-- proclaim that there doesn't HAVE to be a center. In fact,a
> center
> is rather unlikely, IMO.
And, can you believe it?! In my own model of an imploding
universe... what is at its center is unlike what is centered
about it! I guess all great minds think alike (or their pay is cut
if they don't, or some such).
>>> A circumference has no center or starting point.
>>
>>Nor does a triangle (since I never pay much attention
>>where I start when I draw either one). Wonder why we
>>don't have more triangulated dimensional theories! It's
>>so... Christian, don't you think?
>
> A triangular universe wuld make no sense. A circular universe does.
I guess your universe also has gravity at its core (even if not
at its center)...! Welcome to the club!
>>>>In
>>>>which case, again... the galaxies closer to center than us are
>>>>not
>>>>8% away from center while we are 88% (rather they may just turn
>>>>out to be more like 88.888888888% away from center while we are
>>>>88.888888889). These numbers, by the way, are not some educated
>>>>estimates by any means... just handy 8s used strictly for the
>>>>sake
>>>>of this quick explanation.
>>>>
>>>>> Some would be one the other
>>>>> side of the center). Where are those galaxies? IOW: Whyis
the
>>>>> red shift so uniform?
>>>>
>>>>No one can speak with finality on this, but... we can only "see"a
>>>>very tiny itty bitty weeny bit of the universe (and that's the
>>>>only
>>>>"light" reaching us.... if we are on the "right" side of the
>>>>universe,
>>>>say, galaxies on the "left" side ARE probably "seen" as coming
>>>>towards
>>>>us... It's just that they're so far away we will never see them
>>>>coming
>>>>(so to speak). And even if we were to burrow God's binocularsand
>>>>see them coming, they (and us) would become extinct LONG, LONG,
>>>>LONG,
>>>>LONG, LONG and LONG before either one of us'd get ANYWHERE nears
>>>>center:
>>>
>>> The further we see the further back in time it is.
>>
>>Well, I myself can see all the way clear to downtown, so it
>>must be, like, two days ago (judging from how slowly I walk).
>
> I hope you're not sarcastically refuting relativity.
No. I am sarcastically refuting sarcasm itself.
>>> The only time there
>>> could
>>> possibly be a center would be at time = zero-- but at that time
>>> everything
>>> would be center.
>>
>>That's only in an exploding universe (which is counterintuitive).
>
> How is it counterintuitive?
Not enough nitroglycerine to match.
>>The only "evidence" that ours is an exploding universe is
>>Hubble's constant. ALL other evidence best fits an imploding
>>universe model... including the Hubble constant, by the way,
>>once you realize that an expansion resulting from an exploding
>>universe CANNOT be reconciled with that expansion accelerating.
>
> Which theory are you going by? Certainly not a popular one.
Absolutely NOT a popular one: The correct one!
One does not put the truth up to a vote--One puts insanities up
to a vote (that way if they're voted in, in spite of all sanity, one
can become Emperor of The Universe... and such). This is not
a joke against democracy, by the way: I firmly believe that most
people will tend to vote against insanities... most of the time.
>>> Think of a balloon
>>
>>Again with the balloon!? My God, balloon-makers must
>>make fortunes on astronomers & physicists! I wonder whether
>>astronomers & physicists also have a low reproduction rate?
>
> Analogy is the best way for scientists to share their comsological
> models
> with laymen.
Yeah, but not their "balloons." My God! And no, I will not say
a word on Scottish scientists, for Heaven's Sake! (I'm unpopular
enough as it is.)
>>> that exists only as a point (you
>>> may, if
>>> you want, call that point the center). But when you blow up the
>>> balloon, the
>>> only center is inside the balloon-- something that is not inside
>>> the
>>> universe.
>>
>>You forget that your balloon is also full of hot air
>>at its center (and YOU put it there): Take him away, officer!
>
> Okay this is jst getting ridiculous.
"Just?"
> an you give me a reason why I
> shouldn't
> think this way? It fits the data more so than your flat universedoes,
> IMO.
I repeat your judgment: It was ridiculous & so it remains.
Think as you like; think as you must;
think with your head, or your girlfriend's bust.
But.. think!
>>> Since all of space, in this analogy, is on the surface of
>>> the
>>> balloon, there would be no way to ascribe a "center of the
>>> universe".
>>
>>If you'd ever studied explosions you'd quickly find that there
>>is plenty of areas in the their centers where all the forces cancel
>>each other... and a lot of stuff survives in there which would be
>>annihilated just a few centimeters away from their centers.
>
> Yeah... ? The point is, what is inside the balloon is NOT in the
> universe.
O my lord! NOW I know where you'all get all those crazy notions
of extra-universal dimensions which are still inside our universe!
>>>>I cannot say with absolute certainly exactly what is at the center
>>>>of
>>>>our universe, but chances are there is nothing there except a
>>>>gathering
>>>>(and ever growing) force which is the exact opposite of the force
>>>>of
>>>>gravity.
>>>
>>> What lead you to that conclusion?
>>
>>See my web page: The answer is after my email address: Where
>>I address how gravity might have manifested itself in an existence
>>without "matter." (Matter being the result of gravity, no less than
>>gravity resulting from matter.)
>
> Sorry, I feel that gravity IS matter.
That's what I've been saying in many, many other words.
> All the other forces have
> messenger
> particles associated with them.
This is because only gravity is primordially fundamental.
All the other forces are modern day "local" manifestations
of gravity.
> Just because the graviton hasn't been
> discovered yet is no reason to discount it. Messenger particles
> REQUIRE
> matter to do the transmitting.
We will discover MANY subparticles in future, but we
will never discover a graviton.
>>It IS speculative, but logical.
>
> I'll see what you have to say on your page....
>
>>It MAY
>>BE absolutely correct. Or it may be absolutely in error. Eitherway
>>that's what thinking beings do: Think about things these & those.
>
> Exactly why I'm agnostic. I know I'm sending the impression thatI'm
> telling
> you exactly how it is, but that's not my intent. My intent is merely
> that I
> believe a circular dimension to be more probable than what you're
> considering.
I don't quite know what you think I'm considering. However, the
Antiques Roadshow is coming by my hometown soon and I'd like them
to appraise my George Washington condom (it may be worth a lot,
considering he was the "father" of our country, ha-ha). I also have
a Bill Clinton condom, but I suspect it's a fake--I've been warned
people from Bill's neck-o-the-woods ain't yet heard-ed of condoms.
We'll see. I hope the have some hot-shot condom-appraising lady there.
> If I suddenly see reason to believe what you're saying,
> I'll do
> just that.
I'm saying existence had to have arisen from something
fundamentally simple and uncomplicated without any complexity
in it at all... Complexity would've "fudged" the whole thing
somewhere along the way. I'm saying it all had to have been
inevitable & not cleverly contrived. Could I put it more simply?
(Question: rhetorical only.)
> As well as will I throw away string theory if something
> better
> comes along.
Just be careful where you throw the strings away: Granny
could get her feet all tangled up in'em & leap to Heaven
(if she's been good).
>>>>This repelling force will eventually turn our universe of
>>>>"matter constructed out of gravity" into a universe of "infinite
>>>>mass"
>>>>(devoid of matter)... which when it reaches its zenith will again
>>>>shift
>>>>into its opposite (one which will manifest matter/gravity) andour
>>>>universe of gravity/matter will again implode... time withoutend,
>>>>end
>>>>without beginning....
>>>
>>> Methinks you don't understand force and matter very well.
>>
>>It never hurts to rethink one's thoughts, nor to ask whatothers
>>may know... before trying to guess what they do not know (what
>>you think others do not know... that is usually the very thing that
>>hurts you). Although the things I do not know take up so much room
>>in my luggage there's barely any room left for the things I do know!
>>(But God help the man who knows too much for his own good.) So never
>>fail to realize that I have to break down the classical idea ofa
>>force into some sequential presentation or other which will makeit
>>easier for the average person to follow... and that is always my
>>first
>>concern: To make it as easy as I can for everyone to understandthis.
>
> But you can't deny that messenger particles have been discovered.
Nuclear processes are governed by messenger particles, but
nuclear processes are only carried out by modern-day particles.
>>>>AGAIN: All we see of the universe is a tiny little radius of
>>>>light.
>>>>You
>>>>are free, of course, to speculate on WHY it is we can't see beyond
>>>>the
>>>>limits of where we see (just don't expect some future Super-duper
>>>>Hubble
>>>>telescope to see a 100,000,000 times farther than the current
>>>>version.
>>>
>>> The furthest object we've seen so far is from a time when the
>>> universe
>>> was
>>> only a billion years old.
>>
>>Rather: If we "see" a galaxy 14 billion light years from us, and
>>we estimate that it takes about a billion years for such kinds of
>>galaxies to form, then 1+14 = "Gentlemen, the age of the universe
>>has been found to be 15 billion years! Hoorah, chaps! Bartender:
>>Champagne all around (we're ALL driving)...!"
>
> No. All wrong. We determine how far away it is based on paralax,then
> simply
> determine how long it takes light to travel that far.
Ok, we've got the 14.
> That gives us an
> accurat measure of how long ago it was formed.
Ok, if we've got 14... we still need to carry the 1, otherwise
we've got galaxies pooping into existence ten minutes after
the birth of the universe.
> But yes, I can't
> accurately
> say that it was from when the universe was a billion years old, butI
> believe that's a pretty good estimate considering the size of the
> numbers
> involved. (Similar to how 100 million miles isn't really that much
> different
> from 500 million miles, on the cosmological scale. )
Now you know what I mean when I say that the speed of light
is an extremely/extremely slow speed in cosmological terms.
>>> That is pretty damn close to the "edge" of
>>> the
>>> universe.
>>
>>As well as damned dangerously close to any number of other
>>edges, I'd say. But, what makes you so sure you can see the edge
>>of the universe (from your assumption --above-- that it's there)?
>
> I don't believe an edge exists.
Well, I always thought I had an edge (even though
I don't like to share what that edge is--makes for jealousy).
>>And, if you were "an" true courageous man of science... you'd do
>>as I've done & go over the edge (then crawl back over to this
>>side to let the rest of us know what you've seen "over there").
>
> Er okay. But if you travelled "there" you could just keep going
> straight and
> arrive back "here"-- if of course it's a circular universe.
My God! That's not what The Wizard of Oz told me (he had me fetch
him his slippers, and only after I'd done that did he conk me overthe
head with his wad --not that wad-- and, Bingo! back in Kansas did Ifind
myself, puppy & all).
Ever yours from Kansas,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>
> -----
> Pope Skidoo
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other LONG-WINDEDUNNECCESSARY
THREADS
Date: 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <877m83$68c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<86ihfv$3rq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86ldfk$oqg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU><
86q6mt$mv5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86q96t$1pg$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<86tpv3$b38$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389aa0cf.12404982@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
<86vs3p$mro$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38a9b33e.48551315@NNTP.service.ohio-state.edu>
<872bss$b6n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <KQil4.1470$fo.49066@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.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 22:20:57 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: misc.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,humanities.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <KQil4.1470$fo.49066@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"~* littleREDelf *~" <littleredelf@earthlink.net> wrote:
> i came here to find some exchange of writing,
> and oh yes --- there are indeed some lengthy bits of prose,
> but i cannot see to reading it . . .
Well, you can write or read.
> a greater part of it is embedded in far-out
> intellectual pissing contests.
Do you know of any human exchange
where the humans weren't trying to knock
each other off their feet? ESPECIALLY sexual.
> S D Rodrian ----
> what a fantastically fitting moniker!
> it even sounds sci-fi.
> (and i even attempted to spell it right.)
I misspell it often myself.
> you seem over-educated enough,
That's because I educated myself after
the educational system finished miseducating me.
> so i won't bore you with too much tiresome prattle.
That's what everybody who's out to bore me with
everything except tiresome prattle tells me.
> But i will throw out a few observations and questions.
> do you write in any fashion other than
> intimidating facts of the universe
> and quantum mechanics?
I never write intimidatingly--I always try to write
as simply as I can manage it (however, some subjects
are easier to carry this off with than others). And
a lot of people seem to be intimidated by simplicity
and the straightforward (preferring to hide amongst
real or imagined conplexities). Go figure!
> i think i got some really nice stuff from the poetry/prose on your
> site
I thank thee: I put some really nice stuff there
especially for you (the others can go to the devil).
> i'll have to shamefully admit that i skipped past your big-assessay.
Then you must be young (the elderly tend to shuffle
pass my big-ass essay). Elementary, Watson!
> i think you're quite good.
> truly.
I thank thee again (I hope you're not setting me up
--as I'm rather apt to double back on you: I've been hunted
so long now it's given me one of the best trainings
and education as a hunter which any hunter can get).
> i'm not here to ignore you.
I can see that.
> i'm not even here to throw barbs at you.
Then I'll remove my anti-velcro outfit.
> i'm just here,
> really.
Ah, a disciple of Descartes!
> i'm interested in all pursuits.
I prefer to lie about.
> "Were you the guy used to chase after me all the time helping me keep
> warm
> by working my heat pump?!?!?!
> I need you to teach my wife how to do it proper--And, let me tellme,
> my
> man, it becomes more and more important she learn how to do it proper
> the
> more years go by!"
>
> This makes me wonder about your thoughts on women. Please
> elaborate/allay my
> fears.
Fear, wonder no more: Was Shakespeare advising people that they
should listen to ghosts (in Hamlet)? NO. It was just a bit of plot
to keep the entertainment going. Don't take my jokes too seriously.
> "There are two ways (let's just keep them at two) to get a cat offthe
> roof
> of your house:
> 1) you slowly demolish your house brick by brick until the cat can
> walk off
> the roof,
> or
> 2) you simply knock it off your roof with a brick."
>
> i think i can glean from the above exactly how it is you feel about
> cats,
Methinks not: Many a jest is said in jest.
> which makes me afraid for my first wondering about your thoughts on
> women.
You can put as many women as you like on my roof:
I promise you I will not knock down a single one via a brick
(I make no promises about the married ones, though).
> i've always considered them a near-match in the way of species.
Good lord! That might explain why it is that whenever a woman
is out of the bag... somebody gets scratched!
> since i am hardly clever enough
> (or patient enough) to devise my own idioms,
> and especially since i refuse to quote myself to make a point,
> i shall invoke some passages from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
> I'm sure i don't need to mention the author, but i will,
> Robert A. Heinlein.
> Brilliant and human, but rather pedestrian in the way of technical
> writing
> insomuch as scientifically scary as other writers in his genre can
> get..
> i cut my teeth on the stuff though, and it got me into
> Astronomy, surface levels of higher math.
> But i'm still mostly a word grrrl.
>
> "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy---
> and
> dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."~LL
>
> and by far my favorite, whenever i think i am stuck in a
> learning/professing
> rut:
>
> "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
> butcher
> a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
> accounts,
> build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
> cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch
> manure,
> program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
> gallantly.
> Specialization is for insects." ~LL
My god, according to that... if it weren't for pitching manure,
I don't think I'd be all that great a human being!
> and now to quote you yourself on a few points:
>
> "A famous frog
> who loved to talk to death all whom he met
> a Monologue
> extended to the flies he ate
> with no regret
>
> until one day
> a clever fly engaged him in debate
>
> making him stay
> too long under the Sun to state
> his points of sweat
>
> And O the fly's sharp word
> challenged his Text with cutting Irony!"
>
> i don't like to have black, veiny, translucent wings,
> i don't like to call myself clever.
>
> but might i engage you?
Sorry, I'm already engaged (with you isn't it?).
In which case the quote above is apt, as the point
was the fly's escape... not the frog's inflating his ego.
> p.s. to hell with red shifting, that's only good for bodiesin
the
> heavens,
> the ones down here are scatologically different, i'd like to
> see you
> blue shift a bit more.
I've already shifted into he ultra-violet, so, having left
the blues behind (and passed the red district with a priest
leading me by the hand)... I had to fight off the damn priest
when he "turned" on me and insisted I accompany him up to his flat
to attend a late "private" mass! You've never seen a guy run
faster from religion, let me tell you!
> use whatever poetic interpretive synthesis you'd like on that one.
I used a stick--Thank god I still carried one (for
old times' sake). And ONLY for old times' sake.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/bookspine
********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 31 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <874tbq$5b2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.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 21:04:00 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)
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:15:02 -0600
> From: William <wmcalpin@ghgcorp.com>
> Organization: William
> To: "'sdrodrian@aol.com'" <sdrodrian@aol.com>
> Hello Rodrian, I'd like to remind you of the point of view manyfolks
> have
> on the origin of the universe, there is a word for it but Iforget,
> something like eggs-a-stencil.
There are many philosophies dealing with the origin of the universe,
William. Some are more religion than science, and others more science
than religion. And ofttimes it takes centuries before we can be all
that sure which way is their leaning. Presently, we can but try our
best.
> If the universe is contracting, the obvious question followsof
how
> did it
> get expanded in the first place?
The universe was/is/will be EVERYTHING THERE IS. Consequently it does
not get expanded or contracted: Say... there is nothing "there" wewould
recognize (because "it" doesn't qualify as some form of matter); andyou
can then consider "all that exists there" to be "infinite mass." Butit
exists, and is not simply a void, or nothingness, because --if nothing
else-- because of the very fact that it doesn't exhibit gravity (instead
"it all" exists as a "pressure" or "tendency" towards "up welling"or
to
"surge forth" ... it's as if you were trying to forever find some
nonexistent "edge" and so you simply continued outwardly throughout
eternity): In such a state, "size" is irrelevant; it is enough to say
that the infinite (scalar) mass universe exhibits enough of a repelling
force to manifest gravity (its opposite). This is explained at my web
site at greater leisure; but I'll try to sum it up here somewhat to
satisfy your philosophical bent: Aristotle proposed that there is a
natural place for everything, and that once something fell into its
natural place it would remain at rest there. Newton, on the other hand,
proposed that there is no natural place for anything, but, rather,that
"a body remains at rest, or, if already in motion, remains in uniform
motion with constant speed in a straight line, unless it is acted onby
an unbalanced external force." (This is Newton's 1st law or motion.)
What this "means" to the infinite (scalar) mass universe is that the
minute it manifests a repelling tendency... that repelling tendencyis
an unbalanced external force acting to "move" it away from the stateof
rest in which it existed before this repelling force began acting upon
it. And you could not ask for a more fundamental origin to this
repelling force than that it should arise from the very state of
"massive" emptiness which existence finds itself in before this. Youcan
rationalize this infinite (scalar) universe as a perfect vacuum whose
very nature of perfection must of necessity eventually translate into
pressures against its perfect nature... which at some point must
collapse into an attracting (rather than forever continuing as a
repelling) force. Consequently existence is forever defined/trappedin
"a volume" the nature of which is to manifest infinite (scalar) massAND
(to all practical purposes) infinite energy (when the perfection ofits
vacuum collapses). It is at this point, when the universe manifestsa
tendency towards a force of attraction that "our" side of the universe
begins: This is the "instant" of the Big Bang (only it's not an
explosion but an implosion, of course). The implosion is linear(as
it
is towards some center); however, along the way there... gravity will
have a tendency to interact with itself and create local interactionswe
shall call "forms" of matter (and which others may call particles of
matter): But the term "particle" implies a solidity which these "forms"
of matter being created really do not possess: They will always remain
strictly "forms" that the force of gravity is assuming along the way.
These forms are not simply a couple of generations but perhaps countless
generations (of subparticles coming together to "form" greater and
greater particles). So that by the time we come to the present-day
particles (atoms & galaxies), these present-day particles are almost
entire universes themselves. [Imagine a black hole "particle"that
has swallowed a half dozen galaxies.] The implosion of the universewill
continue as long as the universe manifests enough gravity to driveit
--But not eternally: The energy behind this "motion" of the universe
towards implosion is not created along the way, it is "converted,"from
a finite amount (present at the start), back into infinite (scalar)
mass. You can express this in any number of ways; but the closer one
gets to the center of the universe as opposed to remaining in its rim...
the more powerful will the force of attraction towards center become--To
a point, because once gravity gets into the actual center of the
universe gravity will be neutralized (and forever cease to manifesta
direction of motion). I have no idea how "big" this "center" is (what
percentage of the size of the universe); but I can say that "we" (this
particular part of the universe we are in) must be a long, long, long
distance from there... as it is very obviously apparent to us (as the
Hubble constant) that portions of our "local district" are still
accelerating towards center more than other portions of our "local
district." And don't ask me what percentage of the universe that "local
district" is because the only thing I can tell with any confidenceabout
that is that it must be a very, very, very tiny percentage indeed (since
we can "see" nothing of the universe's true nature except a dimly
perceived Hubble constant).
But to get back to your question: It is gravity that is imploding; while
the "forms" gravity has taken along the way manifest the expenditureof
energy (in this "motion" towards center) as a "shrinking" (or forever
returning "some" percentage of their (stored in/as their forms) energy
back into infinite (scalar) mass)... as, being "forms," they "dissolve"
not like a block of wood being splintered by an ax but by shrinkingas
the gravity upon which they are "painted" is "used up." Moreover, due
to the fact that the universe is an implosion... in our ordinary
perception, the entire universe of ordinary "forms" of matter tendsto
retain its unity of shape as it "moves/shrinks" towards center.
> And how did it get anywhere? I mean, where
> did it come from to start with? What was there before it was? What
> happened
> to whatever was before the universe was? What the hell is gravity?
Most of these (more philosophical than scientific) questions are
answered above. However, one thing is clear: Existence is all thereis,
all there ever was, and all there will ever be. The universe of
implosion and the universe of absolute rest (which is where "matter"
moves away from once gravity manifests itself), are the same universe
existing at once: Go thou to my web page and explore this in a more
leisurely manner. Only gravity (and its "forms" of matter) are imploding
(in motion)--Once all the energy in the universe (manifesting itself
through matter-in-motion) is spend and returned into infinite (scalar)
mass it will all be as before the manifestation of gravity (which will
then manifest itself again and again in never-ending cycles). Thisis
because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only momentarily
conserved and then "passed" from one state to another. Therefore, ina
very real sense, existence not only has energy but is energy... andonce
one understands this, one can understand why it is that existence isan
unceasing process which can never again return to non-existence. (AndI
certainly hope that this is philosophy enough for you.)
> When you go to the edge of the universe, what's further on?
Go thou to my web site. There I speculate whether ours is a unique
universe, existing in toto... or whether our universe is merely a
top-level or a bottom-level universe... or whether other "universes"
like ours exist beyond ours (and they are all UNIverses, unless itever
becomes possible for them to communicate between themselves).
> It's like the saturday morning cartoon where the vacum cleanersucks
> itself
> out of existance, where does it go?
It is not like that at all: It's more like the evolutionary processof
primordial species evolving into the present-day ones. If you ask
where all those now extinct species went... you are assuming they went
"right out of existence," when what they have done is evolved into
new ones (and so here they all still are, just in a different form).
And into different forms they will all evolve (provided some pebbleor
other doesn't plop into our little earth & end its "biological
infestation."
> It's a hopeless case.
There is but one dead end to the human quest for knowledge
and that is the extinction of all human beings. As long as there
remains a human being... that one human being will inquire into
the world in spite of him/herself. So it is never a hopeless case
regardless how many times & persons give up along the way. Sometimes
it is even enough that just one human being alone pursue the inquiry
all by him/herself: It will still be humanity's pursuit.
>You can pontificate on and on, some people may
> beleive you, hell, you might be right, but you'll never know.
If you mean will we ever know what God knows... no. But
we can be pretty reasonably confident of any number of things
along the way. Some more than others, sure. But that's what's
known as the human condition. It's an illness not worth the bother
complaining much about. And, in fact, it's better to just sit back
and enjoy as much of it as one can. (Hopefully the XL size can.)
> Don't worry about silly things like this, have fun while you can,
> you'll be
> an old fart first thing you know.
Ha! First thing I knew... that's exactly what I found I was!
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoleuterelativity
> -William
***************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87au10$j1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<874thg$5eh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38971635$0$19361@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 03:52:02 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 <38971635$0$19361@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
set@mit.edu () wrote:
> I'm just curious as to what your proof is that this theory is valid.
Visit my web site. There I provide a number of such proofs:
If my theory is correct, then the Hubble constant should be
accelerating; and there are findings that it is. If the theories
mine will replace are correct, then there can never be anywhere
anything traveling faster than the speed of light, and there
are preliminary findings some phenomena may be doing just
that. If my theory is correct, then the constancy of the speed
of light in identical mediums is a requirement (and so far there
have been no exceptions to this). If my theory is correct it
explains why the universe seems to be expanding. If the theories
mine will replace are correct, the expansion of the universe is
incomprehensible and is taking place against logic & reason. &so
on!
> From all I
> can read it seems as if you are just writing what could be a valid
> theory if you
> had some proof for it.
Actually, while the theories mine will replace originated from
intellectual guessing, every one of my propositions was worked
out strictly from observed facts ONLY. The only guessing I
engage in in my essay is 1) on the nature of the photon, which
may forever remain a mystery 2) on how a universe devoid of
matter might have given rise to gravity. (Which see.)
> Also, do you have any experiments that could
> possibly
> validate your theory?
Absolutely: The constancy of the speed of light in identical
mediums can only be explained by my theory. It has never
been previously explained by a theory, merely used as a basis
upon which to theorize (much of the other theories mine will
replace are based on the idea that c constancy is some fund-
amental constant not the result of the nature of our universe
but which itself instructs the nature of the universe, so mystical
and mystifying was its occurrence to the old 20th Century theorists).
> One thing I disliked was your criticism of
> physicists and
> mathematicians. Physicists are scientists. They comeup
with a
> theory, look at
> the experimental facts and if their theory does not conform withthe
> facts, then
> they discard the theory or try and make it conform to the data.
If that is true, then you will not have to wait long for Absolute
Relativity to displace the discredited theories. But, I do not have
your confidence that principles will weigh into it with as much
force as good ole human nature. And... it is human nature to protect
our personal domain iron rice bowl regardless who we hurt or how much
it costs others or how much it retards human civilization and/or
the neighbor's kid.
> Granted the
> former part is not the best science, but at least the physicistscan
> admit they
> are wrong.
I don't think people are looking for excuses to admit they're wrong.
Indeed, I'd be willing to bet it's probably quite the opposite.
> I also disliked your statement about mathematicians, it
> shows that
> you do not know much about this discipline, if you mistake them for
> physicists.
"Mathematics is the language of physics."
> Mathematics, and to a lesser degree mathematicians, is not concerned
> with how or
> why the universe works.
You may be true about this to a degree--only. Physicists are never
quite confident that reality can be ascertained by our 5 senses. Why
this should be is the history of physics itself. But so it is thattoday
physicists are more confident if an equation balances than if they
believe they saw that they think they saw.
> It is, and they are, concerned with the
> structure of
> a given logical system and how it behaves. It is completely
> objective.
>
Nothing human is objective. This is the first lesson
of history. If one has not learned this lesson, one has not
yet begun to understand human history.
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: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87aus8$jh9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 04:06:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics.humanities.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
TomGee <tomgee@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are many philosophies dealing with the origin of the universe,
>> William. Some are more religion than science, and others more
>> science
>> than religion. And ofttimes it takes centuries before we can beall
>> that sure which way is their leaning. Presently, we can but tryour
>> best.
>> The universe was/is/will be EVERYTHING THERE IS. Consequently it
>> does
>> not get expanded or contracted: Say... there is nothing "there"we
>> would
>> recognize (because "it" doesn't qualify as some form of matter);and
>> you
>> can then consider "all that exists there" to be "infinite mass."But
>> it
>> exists, and is not simply a void, or nothingness, because --if
>> nothing
>> else-- because of the very fact that it doesn't exhibit gravity
>> (instead
>> "it all" exists as a "pressure" or "tendency" towards "up welling"
>> or
>> to
>> "surge forth" ... it's as if you were trying to forever find some
>> nonexistent "edge" and so you simply continued outwardly throughout
>> eternity): In such a state, "size" is irrelevant; it is enoughto
>> say
>> that the infinite (scalar) mass universe exhibits enough of a
>> repelling
>> force to manifest gravity (its opposite). This is explained atmy
>> web
>> site at greater leisure; but I'll try to sum it up here somewhatto
>> satisfy your philosophical bent: Aristotle proposed that thereis
a
>> natural place for everything, and that once something fell intoits
>> natural place it would remain at rest there. Newton, on the other
>> hand,
>> proposed that there is no natural place for anything, but, rather,
>> that
>> "a body remains at rest, or, if already in motion, remains in
>> uniform
>> motion with constant speed in a straight line, unless it is actedon
>> by
>> an unbalanced external force." (This is Newton's 1st law or motion.)
>> What this "means" to the infinite (scalar) mass universe is thatthe
>> minute it manifests a repelling tendency... that repelling tendency
>> is
>> an unbalanced external force acting to "move" it away from thestate
>> of
>> rest in which it existed before this repelling force began acting
>> upon
>> it. And you could not ask for a more fundamental origin to this
>> repelling force than that it should arise from the very state of
>> "massive" emptiness which existence finds itself in before this.You
>> can
>> rationalize this infinite (scalar) universe as a perfect vacuum
>> whose
>> very nature of perfection must of necessity eventually translate
>> into
>> pressures against its perfect nature... which at some point must
>> collapse into an attracting (rather than forever continuing asa
>> repelling) force. Consequently existence is forever defined/trapped
>> in
>> "a volume" the nature of which is to manifest infinite (scalar)mass
>> AND
>> (to all practical purposes) infinite energy (when the perfectionof
>> its
>> vacuum collapses). It is at this point, when the universe manifests
>> a
>> tendency towards a force of attraction that "our" side of the
>> universe
>> begins: This is the "instant" of the Big Bang (only it's not an
>> explosion but an implosion, of course). The implosion islinear
(as
>> it
>> is towards some center); however, along the way there... gravity
>> will
>> have a tendency to interact with itself and create local
>> interactions
>> we
>> shall call "forms" of matter (and which others may call particlesof
>> matter): But the term "particle" implies a solidity which
>> these "forms"
>> of matter being created really do not possess: They will always
>> remain
>> strictly "forms" that the force of gravity is assuming along the
>> way.
>> These forms are not simply a couple of generations but perhaps
>> countless
>> generations (of subparticles coming together to "form" greaterand
>> greater particles). So that by the time we come to the present-day
>> particles (atoms & galaxies), these present-day particles arealmost
>> entire universes themselves. [Imagine a black hole "particle"that
>> has swallowed a half dozen galaxies.] The implosion of the universe
>> will
>> continue as long as the universe manifests enough gravity to drive
>> it
>> --But not eternally: The energy behind this "motion" of the universe
>> towards implosion is not created along the way, it is "converted,"
>> from
>> a finite amount (present at the start), back into infinite (scalar)
>> mass. You can express this in any number of ways; but the closerone
>> gets to the center of the universe as opposed to remaining in its
>> rim...
>> the more powerful will the force of attraction towards center
>> become--
>> To
>> a point, because once gravity gets into the actual center of the
>> universe gravity will be neutralized (and forever cease to manifest
>> a
>> direction of motion). I have no idea how "big" this "center" is
>> (what
>> percentage of the size of the universe); but I can say that "we"
>> (this
>> particular part of the universe we are in) must be a long, long,
>> long
>> distance from there... as it is very obviously apparent to us (as
>> the
>> Hubble constant) that portions of our "local district" are still
>> accelerating towards center more than other portions of our "local
>> district." And don't ask me what percentage of the universe
>> that "local
>> district" is because the only thing I can tell with any confidence
>> about
>> that is that it must be a very, very, very tiny percentage indeed
>> (since
>> we can "see" nothing of the universe's true nature except a dimly
>> perceived Hubble constant).
>>
>> But to get back to your question: It is gravity that is imploding;
>> while
>> the "forms" gravity has taken along the way manifest the expenditure
>> of
>> energy (in this "motion" towards center) as a "shrinking" (or
>> forever
>> returning "some" percentage of their (stored in/as their forms)
>> energy
>> back into infinite (scalar) mass)... as, being "forms,"
>> they "dissolve"
>> not like a block of wood being splintered by an ax but by shrinking
>> as
>> the gravity upon which they are "painted" is "used up." Moreover,
>> due
>> to the fact that the universe is an implosion... in our ordinary
>> perception, the entire universe of ordinary "forms" of matter tends
>> to
>> retain its unity of shape as it "moves/shrinks" towards center.
>>
>> Most of these (more philosophical than scientific) questions are
>> answered above. However, one thing is clear: Existence is all there
>> is,
>> all there ever was, and all there will ever be. The universe of
>> implosion and the universe of absolute rest (which is where "matter"
>> moves away from once gravity manifests itself), are the same
>> universe
>> existing at once: Go thou to my web page and explore this in amore
>> leisurely manner. Only gravity (and its "forms" of matter) are
>> imploding
>> (in motion)--Once all the energy in the universe (manifesting itself
>> through matter-in-motion) is spend and returned into infinite
>> (scalar)
>> mass it will all be as before the manifestation of gravity (which
>> will
>> then manifest itself again and again in never-ending cycles). This
>> is
>> because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only momentarily
>> conserved and then "passed" from one state to another. Therefore,in
>> a
>> very real sense, existence not only has energy but is energy...and
>> once
>> one understands this, one can understand why it is that existenceis
>> an
>> unceasing process which can never again return to non-existence.
>> (And
>> I
>> certainly hope that this is philosophy enough for you.)
>>
> SDR, I have read through some of your posts and I must say I likeyour
> slant of things. I am impressed by most of what you believe,although
> I am not sure of your meanings re: the repelling force.
That is the one thing which eludes most people, and, although I have
touched upon this in several posts as well as in my AR essay, I see
I will have to seek a clearer way of expressing it.
> I can go with
> your attracting force since we know about gravitation. Also,how
can
> an infinite massive universe that goes on forever and forever (asyou
> say) ever shrink?
This again touches upon what I like to term x-space (where the
repelling force lives): It's not the universe that shrinks (size is
strictly
a human idea). The universe is all that exists (this includes not only
matter but the space it "once" occupied--since all matter exists in
motion away from where it used to be).
There is the space which defines existence (or the universe). In
that space gravity manifests itself and, naturally, begins to attract
itself. Before the manifestation of gravity the very vacuum of existence
demands some sort of repulsing force if only to keep the vacuum
from collapsing. The attracting/repelling force(s) exist at the same
time
in the same place, but sometimes one overwhelms the other--And
the only way I can express this hurriedly here is to have you imagine
equidistant men holding hands... who in order to maintain their
equidistance either pull or push the man on their right or left side:
If a man is pushing against the man to his right he will also push
against the man on his left, and if he pulls against the man on hisleft
he will also pull against the man on his right: Now you realize that
in order for a man to maintain his equidistance he will have to keep
constantly pushing & pulling... and that is what the universe isalso
doing in order not to go all the way... out of existence: Sometimes
it pushes to its boundary & then it must push against its center,
and sometimes it pulls against its center and then it must pull
against its boundary.
When the universe is pushing it's in the grips of a repelling force
and there cannot be any matter in it. But when it's pulling... gravity
manifests itself and our side of the universe begins (gravity gathers
into local "pools" and these pools (or particles) begin a real motion
towards the center of the universe. It's just that it's not the universe
that's moving towards itself, just these particles of matter, that's
all. This is why it's clearer sometimes to think of space as expanding
rather than matter shrinking...
>I would think that it could shrink but it could
> never decrease in size.
Size is merely a measurement of one thing against another thing.
The first generations of particles which manifest themselves in
the early history of the universe are probably so "huge" as to be
inconceivably "big." They are also almost nothing at all. But
gravity will wind them up tighter and tighter, and as the universe
continues these first generations of particles will come together
with like-particles and build up more complex (and permanent)
particles--for God only knows--how many generations until we have
atoms and galaxies. But you can see that by the time we have atoms
and galaxies... they will be such massive particles built up of so
many generations of massive subparticles that when they begin
to shrink because ("energy cannot be created or destroyed") the
very gravity of which they are made must be used to move them
towards the center of the universe (this is the work their stored
energy is being put to). By the way, the process of subparticles
joining together to form more stable and massive particles has
not ceased in our portion of the universe (as you can see by
the black holes which are devouring the galaxies at whose center
they stand, including our own Milky Way).
> I agree with you in some of your posts about what relativity isn'tand
> about other things, but I have ideas of my own which may or may notbe
> the same as yours. I will try to respond to as many as I can,and
I
> hope we can find common ground between our ideas, as I think we are
> close in our views.
That is the human journey, after all. Let's hope for the best
and a nice warm hospitable inn along the way & perhaps a few good
stories among friends.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> TomGee
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 05 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87ib3q$nbd$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><877jmd$4b7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-Du8JOKf1utn9@localhost><87apg1$frf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-ZTIcSkt9q7Hr@localhost>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x29.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 05 23:18:21 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-ZTIcSkt9q7Hr@localhost>,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2000 02:34:41 sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>> Where do you get this "small thing expanding into a bigger thing"?
>>> The
>>> Big Bang hypothesis has _never_ said anything about a biggerthing
>>> the
>>> universe should exist in.
>>
>> This must be a new Big Bang (one without the bang but still big
>> enough
>> for the buck).
>>
>>> There is the universe - and that's it, as
>>> far as BB goes. BB merely gives an explanation for the evolution
>>> of the universe:
>>
>> I guess the Big Bangers are now evolving the universe from the
>> Big Bang into a small neat package you can take home to your wife!
>>
>>> from very hot (because extremely compact)
>>
>> "Compact" that must be their new term for "big, really big &large!"
>>
>>> to pretty cold
>>> (because significantly bigger).
>>
>> "Bigger" that must be their new term for "smaller."
>>
> It is probably too bold for me to suggest this to a writer and poetof
> fame, but going for this kind of non-sequitur attempts at humourin
a
> discussion might be a bad move credibility-wise.
It may be irrelevant for a writer and poet to fall into the trap
of believing that his credibility is held in very high regard, and
that therefore he should try to preserve something which does
not really exist at the cost of something which does; but, as for
me: Whenever good friends get together and one of them begins
to snicker behind someone's back... a good friend, if he really
is a good friend, should break out in some honest laughter (other-
wise it might all end up as some sort of cheap melodrama).
>>> This theory is consistent with
>>> observations and has made accurate predictions, which makes it
>>> sofar a
>>> valid theory.
>>
>> Ah-Ha! That may be true--but ONLY for the last 90 or so years!
>> Aristotle's
>> theory did that for nearly two centuries before they finally
>> discovered
>> that the universe didn't orbit the earth after all! Beat that,Mr.
>> Einstein!
>>
> Aristotle _was_ right - within his frame of observation; and so was
> Newton.
If we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, thenwe
must also give the lunatic his due (as he is unquestionably right as
well
within _his_ frame of observation). I don't like playing these games
in a serious manner--So if we're going to play these games, let's just
agree that you can play them soberly and I can play them playfully.
> The relativity theory corrected for those pesky,
> way-behind-the-decimal numbers Newtonian theory had problems with.
This is a misapprehension: The relativity theories of the last century
merely corrected for effects not taken into consideration by Newton
because Newton was not aware those effects caused any problems
(and these mostly involve the effects of massive gravitational fields);
otherwise, had he been aware of them, I am confident that Newton
would have been dealt quite competently with them (just as I am also
confident that if Einstein had known of the true implosive nature ofour
universe he too would have been competently able to avoid falling into
all the errors he fell into). It is folly to raise GR/SR's minor
corrections
to some equal level of importance with Newton's classical theories.
> If
> the superstring theory is ever proven to be right (they're still
> waiting for the right kind of maths to show up so they can solvetheir
> equations), it will do the same thing.
Sir, I predict that superstring theory will be proven right
mathematically
(and that it will describe a formidable amount of nonsense which some
additional mathematical equations will then supersede ad infinitum);
because what you are dealing with is an ever more and more complex
reality being expressed in ever more and more complex mathematics
which will then become an even more complex reality which will then
need to be expressed in more complex mathematics ad infinitum.
The real world does not work this way: The real world arises from
the fewest essential parameters... that is what makes reality
inevitable:
You mix a few basic compounds together & you have life! You could
not have life if it required even as simple a complexity as Kellogg's
Raisin
Bran. In this same way... only when the universe can arise from some
very elemental force like gravity could it do so, it if required 57,000
different dimensions... there is no way in Hell it would be able to.
>>> If you want to attack the Big Bang hypothesis, then you should
>>> pick on
>>> its weak points,
>>
>> It has strong points?!?!
>>
>>> like where the cosmological constants came from,
>>
>> I knowest where they came from: From Mr. Einstein's ignorance.
>>
> Again, silly remarks like that show that you're mixing up stuff.
> Einstein's "cosmic constant" was a term he introduced early in his
> equations so they could be solved for a static universe (which he
> favoured emotionally). After Lemaitre's and Hubble's discoverieshe
> dropped it and called it "his biggest mistake ever".
Do you doubt it was a big mistake?!?! It is an example of what happens
when you try to "get" reality from mathematics: Sheer lunacy (try to
imagine a universe where galaxies are forever lying next to each other
without ever engaging in gravitational interactions... and you havethe
sort of universe/reality that came out of Einstein's equations). Yes,at
some point either somebody must have pointed out the madness to
Einstein (as you suggest above) or he himself must have finally thought
about the real-world implications of his equations and hurried to fix
them. But it's too late: Einstein's "big" mistake remains forever a
moral
lesson and an embarrassing insight into the folly of believing that
mathematics can give us a greater insight into reality than can reality
itself.
> The cosmological constants are all those - apparently random - numbers
> that appear in many fundamental equations and make the difference
> between a universe with minds to solve those equations and a veryhot
> or cold place.
Cosmological constants there are... but very few of them: The universe
arises from a fundamental force. All "forms" of matter are but "forms."
The only way gravity works is by attraction. If there is matter inthe
universe, that matter will attract/collect itself. If the "forms"of
matter
are not fundamental, then they can remain whatever "forms" they are
whether they shrink or expand. But since energy can neither be created
nor destroyed... if the "forms" of matter are "moving" then they have
to be "shrinking" because "a force expends itself in its effort" andthe
only fundamental thing that exists is "the force of gravity" out of
which
every "form" of matter is made. And the faster the "forms" of matter
move... the faster they'll shrink (so that wherever the implosion ofour
universe is taking place very, very fast... the "forms" of matter are
also
shrinking very, very fast; and where the implosion of our universeis
moving very, very slow, the "forms" of matter are also shrinking very,
very slow).
If the universe is as massive as I think it is, then such "speeds" as
the speed of light are really very, very slow indeed (in relation tothe
size of the universe); and this means that "we" (our portion of the
universe) is "moving" very, very slow--and so "we" are shrinking
very, very slow. And this means "we" (our local portion of the
universe) must be quite young (in comparison to the entire universe)
and quite close to the outer edge of the universe. And this also
means that regions quite close to the center of the universe must
be experiencing unimaginably humongous gravitational stresses
(so powerful, in fact, that it's inconceivable that life can exist
outside
a very narrow ring towards the outer edge of the universe). And now
you also have my cosmology--which is far, far more encompassing
than anything heretofore, I dare say. [The BB cosmos is not much
more than a super-duper-large exploded supernova in comparison.]
>>> or
>>> why there apparently was a surplus of matter vs anti-matter,
>>
>> Because anti-matter kept blowing up the shoppers; so, after
>> a while, those shoppers who remained alive tended to purchase
>> only matter.
>>
>>> or why
>>> the other dimensions went away
>>
>> Nobody appreciated them. And they are currently seeking love
>> on the other side of the 7,899th dimension... "a dimensionnot
only
>> of sight & sound but of mind, a journey into a wondrous landwhose
>> boundaries are that of imagination, your next stop: The Twilight
>> Zone!"
>> THEME MUSIC.
>>
> I suggest you read Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace. A Scientific
> Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and The Tenth
> Dimension". It has nice and simple words, not too many math and leads
> you by the hand to the conclusion.
I suggest you stop reading science fiction and getting yourself
hypnotized... and instead look upon the world and learn from it.
>>> I said "analogy" which means that BB _doesn't_ look at the
>>> universe as
>>> if it were exploding.
>>
>> I know, I know, it's not "exploding" it's "expanding" ... it'snot
>> "increasing" it's "spreading" ... it's not "stretching" it's
>> "inflating"
>> .... it's not "inflating" it's "swelling" ... it's not "swelling"
>> it's
>> "extending" ... it's not "extending" it's "germinating" ... it'snot
>> "germinating" it's "puffing" ... it's not "puffing" it's "bloating"
>> ...
>> it's not "bloating" it's "enlargefying" ... amplifying, or dilating,
>> broadening, or branching out, unfolding, or flaring, plumping up,or
>> distending, bulking, or sprawling, deploying, or waxing,
>> mushrooming, or
>> simply putting on a little weight---ANYTHING except "exploding"(as
>> long
>> as it's called the Big Bang theory, you understand).
>>
> And our species is called "Homo Sapiens Sapiens". Are you seriously
> arguing that, because a theory received at a certain point in timea
> popular name that somehow it got stuck with, this name is all one
> should look at to evaluate that theory????
Whatever you wish to suggest I am suggesting, my suggestion
is simple: The universe cannot be expanding (or you had better
provide a REASON why it is). The universe is imploding [use
any other synonym that better strikes your fancy, "imploding"
is the naked truth about it & that's why I like it]: The universeis
imploding (and the REASON it is imploding is that THE ONLY
FORCE acting throughout the universe is gravity).
If you can ever reason out a more logical statement that the
paragraph above, I shall like to see it.
>>> It's used as an example to explain mathematics
>>> to simpler souls.
>>
>> Yes, I think I know those simpler souls... I see them in line tobuy
>> used car from practical mathematicians all the time--And those
>> practical mathematicians' numbers are upright and honest and don't
>> lie... 2.
>
> ?
See you at the showroom--Don't believe the odometers!
>>> Look, if you want your theory to have at least some credit, give
>>> us a
>>> prediction. If you can't -or won't - your theory is scientifically
>>> worthless.
>>
>> What? All or nothing? I either tell you what number's gonna hit
>> on your state lottery or the universe doesn't exist and the entire
>> human race has to commit suicide by eating themselves into obesity?!
>> Sir, I like those odds! So here's my prediction: It shall be found
>> that the Hubble constant is accelerating! Why, because, as it is
>> being driven by gravity (a force constantly being applied), itwill
>> never tend to decelerate. [I know, I know that some preliminary
>> findings have already verified my prediction, but screw them: Ispit
>> on them! They are false findings! They do not exist! So I can
>> predict the acceleration of the Hubble constant with a clear
>> conscience. Now we shall see who is right and who is left, sir
>> (as the BB theory predicts either a slowing down of the Hubble
>> constant or an insane scenario (actually Einstein's first prediction
>> about this, believe it or not--which should show you just how
>> absent-minded the old fellow could be) where celestial bodies can
>> exist
>> next to each other without any gravitational interactions between
>> them).
>>
> That would be the same as Einstein proving his theory by statingthat
> an apple will fall down to Earth. We already know what you "predict".
> It has been successfully predicted by the very theory you attack,if
> only you would bother to actually read anything about that theory.
I love it! Sir, you have been grossly misinformed if you're under the
delusion that BB theory predicts the Hubble constant to be found
to be accelerating (for the reason given in the "logical paragraph"
I wrote above: No BB theory predicts an imploding universe (the ONLY
sort of universe which can account for an acceleration of the Hubble
constant). My God, man, one REALLY must be brain-fogged to
believe otherwise! This is such a simple thing to reason and SEE, that
I am embarrassed to have to point it out to you. Believe me: I do not
think you a child incapable of reasoning... I understand the emotional
block that's keeping you from understanding something as simple asthis.
I am sure you will understand it when you can steady your emotional
compass.
>
> And again you're confusing: this time special with general relativity.
>
>>> Again: predict or perish.
>>
>> I suspect you're merely trying to get me into your perish, Father.
>> However I further predict that because the universe is imploding
>> that the speed of light will always be measured as a constant in
>> identical mediums.
>>
> Duh. I predict, because the Moon is made of green cheese, that the
> speed of light will always be measured as a constant in identical
> media.
Unlike the cause and effect relationship between the fact that the
universe is imploding and c constancy (which you can read about
at my web site). I'm afraid you are going to have to show some
connection between green cheese and the speed of light, old boy:
Have a web site which makes this connection? Or is all this simply
in somebody's "cheesy" mind only?
>> One may begin here: A bullet traveling (say, through a perfect
>> vacuum)
>> "knows" why it travels at the speed it does: The amount of gun
>> powder in
>> the bullet casing tells it (+/- the gun's velocity). But how doall
>> photons know why they must, every last one of them, travel at the
>> "speed" they do when no photon can be given less or more impetusby
>> its
>> source/creator? The most immediate ("only") possible answer isthat
>> the
>> photon is not traveling (moving) at all! [And when you come upwith
>> a
>> more elegant solution, do tell.]
>>
> Bullets "know"? Photons have "impetus"??
Bullets know why they must travel at the speed they do.
Photons have no impetus: Read above again and you will notice
that photons cannot be given any.
>> In any case... such an universally constant
>> "speed" might be understandable inside a perfect vacuum perhaps,but
>> outside a perfect vacuum a moving photon MUST experience a permanent
>> drag, however infinitesimal [and since c is really a very, veryslow
>> speed in cosmological terms... that drag should become appreciable
>> at
>> some point]: The same "moving" photons traveling first througha
>> vacuum
>> A, then through air, and then through another vacuum B... when
>> measured
>> at vacuum B ought to reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when passing
>> through air (and not "return" to the same "higher speed" they hadin
>> vacuum A). The only possible explanation is that while air addsa
>> slight
>> "push" to the photon (remember that this "air" is the one "moving
>> by"
>> the photon)... once the "push" of air is no longer there, the photon
>> "returns" to the same (greater) degree of rest it had when passing
>> through vacuum A.
>>
> Yep. I was right. This is the old impetus theory applied to quantum
> mechanics.
Remove impetus from your mind, old boy (and Santa's second elf
to the right, as long as you're vacuuming in there).
>> Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place,"in
>> our
>> experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relationto
>> x-space [and so "moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck
>> to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in which
>> it
>> was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly"
>> away
>> from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it
>> originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains constant
>> regardless of its source/origin/direction because "about" the only
>> connection a photon has with its source is "orientation" [x-spaceis
>> expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the only qualitythe
>> photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an
>> orientation
>> relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you" create the photon to the
>> west of
>> "you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your westside,
>> and
>> if you create a photon to the north of you... it will then "seem"to
>> shoot out away from your north side, since x-space will alwaystake
>> "you" to be the exact center of its universe]... Add the proviso
>> that if
>> "enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational field) passes close
>> enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly display a new
>> "linear"
>> orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will naturally be
>> "observable" by the rest of our universe because in our universe
>> the "orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter withrespect
>> to
>> any & all other bits of ordinary matter in the universe is
>> "recognized"
>> by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are other
>> concerns
>> not needed to be discussed here regarding all other linear motions
>> of
>> our universe... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this one
>> simple
>> "absolute law" you really have to understand to avoid having to
>> delve
>> into synonymous but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
>> orientation with respect to the rest of the universe is absolute...
>> so
>> once the photon "adopts" an orientation with respect to "you" ithas
>> also (de facto) adopted that same ("your") orientation with respect
>> to
>> the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.
>>
> I have but one question regarding your fixed photons in a shrinking
> universe: how can your theory explain the differences in the speedof
> light in different media?
Did you... read any of the above? Note again: It is the universe of
ordinary matter that is passing by the photon... IF the medium that
is passing by the photon has a pressure of 9 it will "push" the photon
to/with a pressure of 9, if the medium that is passing by the photonhas
a pressure of 7 it will "push" the photon to/with a pressure of 7...All
mediums with pressures of 9 will push the photon at 9, and all mediums
with a pressure of 7 will push the photon to/with a pressure of 7.Now
you understand, don't you! [This is purely rhetorical sarcasm... only.]
[I cut a quote from my web site]
>>
>> Ah, Karel... words, word, word! Read but this one post as manytimes
>> as it takes for you to see the connection between all I have told
>> you and reality and... who know, maybe you'll see the connection.
>>
> I have.
No, I said "read it."
> The only thing I can conclude is that you somehow postulate
> movement in a higher dimension (your so-called x-space),
Ah, Karel! NOTE: Ours is strictly a 3D reality. X-space does not
really exist: I use it merely to point to where matter is moving
away from. In order to simplify understanding I say: Speak not
of matter shrinking but, rather, speak of space as expanding from
every conceivable coordinate: Now you can think of the universe
as holding fast while it is space that is expanding: Behold! See itnow?
If ALL of the universe of ordinary matter is shrinking, what's it tous
whether matter is shrinking or space expanding? Think on it.
> and consider
> photons as particles from that higher dimension with a reflexionin
> normal space.
No, Karel: Consider photons are just not moving as fast as the
rest of the universe's ordinary matter... away from absolute rest.
Or consider them as somehow "stuck" in x-space and "shooting"
away from their source (not at the "speed" of absolute rest,
naturally, but)... think of them as slippery and, while still moving
away from absolute rest like the rest of us, just not moving away
as fast [remember what I told you above: "The faster matter moves
the more energy it expends..." Ergo... because the photon is not
moving as fast as the rest of ordinary matter, the photon does not
expend as much of its energy as "we" do--this may be why it is
such an efficient energy quantum! Comprendere?] And now you
have a deeper insight in particle physics than most anyone else.
It's entirely up to you to speculate on the true nature of the photon.
> This by itself is not as nutty as it might seem, but
Your "take" on my theory is... quite nutty, I must correct you there.
> your view is extremely limited and therefore flawed.
O well, that's always good to know. And now imagine how much more
narrow and --therefore?-- flawed is the view of conventional physics
when
I have opened panoramas and vistas so much wider in breadth & scopethan
anything heretofore seen or even imagined possible!
> If you want to
> include higher dimensions in a cosmology theory,
No, Karel: I want to get at the core of the truth, not to build up lies
upon lies upon lies... until they touch the skies.
> you need to
> incorporate everything else in it.
I suggest, Karel (and, by the way, you're not from Krypton?);
but... I suggest, Karel, that we clean the mind, not clutterit.
> Why would only a photon be a
> reflexion, and not any other elementary particles?
Why indeed! I do not know, Karel. Perhaps you may one day
find out and tell the world... And then I can watch from my hut
while they drag you away to burn you at the stake for a crackpot!
(I will come to your aid if I am still young, strong, and healthy
enough, Karel. But if your discovery comes too late and I am too
old & feeble to lend you a hand, I shall comfort thee with a cackle
from afar--And thou shall know 'twas me, Karel, supporting thee.)
> How about
> neutrinos: are they of the photon nature or not?
Jolly cousins they might be, Karel. But apparently not quite in
the same family. Least, not nearly enough so.
> How can your theory
> explain that matter can be completely turned into photons (by a simple
> matter-antimatter reaction)?
Through my marvelous machine, Karel: I call it The Unified Field Theory
(at last constructed by yours truly): I can put an amount of gravity
into
my marvelous mechanism, and, depending on how much gravity, I can
turn out photons, gluons, protons, quarks, machos, and elephant seals!
> My advice: if you really insist on developing theories at the edgeof
> what we (can) know, read up on superstring theory. They are waaayy
> more crazy than you, but a lot more consistent.
Karel, it's always a matter of exactly which madmen we pick as our
wise men. That is quite true. I myself prefer my wise men to be
straightforward men, with simple principles, and elegant ideas. (Ifyou
prefer your madmen speaking gibberish and trying to explain how
clever God had to be to fashion the world... that's your religion,and
I respect all men's religions, Karel... some less than others.)
>> I'll make a note here for you: Notice the connection between the
>> fact
>> that an accelerating Hubble constant debunks the Big Bang theories
>> and proves mine. Notice that conventional relativity theories cannot
>> account for c constancy and treat it as Revealed Truth, while
>> Absolute
>> Relativity and an imploding universe REQUIRES that the speed of
>> light
>> be a constant in identical mediums. I don't know if I should throw
>> in
>> a dancing bear to clinch your putting 2 and 2 together and endingup
>> with 4... but if it'll help, please let me know and I'll see whatI
>> can
>> do about that (I have a friend in the big-top business).
>>
> I still don't get how the increasing Hubble constant could disprove
> BB.
One day you just might, Karel. And then I shall be here for you:
I never take anything personal... with some humor, yes, but never
deadly seriously, Karel--That's my plan for survival.
> You still argue as if you actually believe that somehow those
> far-away galactic systems are actually flying away in space. It is
> _space itself_ that expands, in the process of which it drags along
> everything else.
No, Karel: The galaxies ARE receding from each other, exactly as
we "see" them do when we look at them. It's just that they'renot
fundamental particles (that's why Einstein and all but I could never
have seen into the true nature of our universe--not a one but I
ever realized that no particle is fundamental): It's only when one
finally realizes what that MEANS that one can "see" a universe
which can be imploding without its so-called "fundamental particles"
crashing into each other: Gravity, while yet attempting to crash
into itself, Karel, gravity cannot really do this... the only thingit
can
do, Karel, is to spend itself in the effort after all.
Good thoughts, Karel,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*******************
**********************
From: S D Rodrian <sdrodrian@aol.com>
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 08 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87nsam$iev$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>
<877jmd$4b7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-Du8JOKf1utn9@localhost>
<87apg1$frf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-ZTIcSkt9q7Hr@localhost>
<87ibbt$nlb$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <87lfd7$nmn$1@plutonium.btinternet.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.12
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 08 01:42:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <87lfd7$nmn$1@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
"Damian Surr" <damian.gingermagic@btinternet.com> wrote:
> This is a very basic
> question which must just come from not
> understanding
> the basic premise of your idea (I keep picking a bit more of it upthe
> more
> posts I read), but I'm trying to think about it. One of your posts
> said that
> you most enjoy replying to idiots,
I believe I define an idiot as one who does something
idiotic--And asking pertinent questions is NEVER an
idiotic thing (no matter how basic the questions may be).
> so have a laugh at this stupid
> question
> and then enlighten me.
>
> From what I can grasp from this ...
>
>>>> Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place,"
>>>> in our
>>>> experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relation
>>>> to
>>>> x-space [and so "moves through it"] while the photon remains
>>>> stuck
>>>> to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in
>>>> which
>>>> it
>>>> was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly"
>>>> away
>>>> from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where"it
>>>> originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains
>>>> constant
>>>> regardless of its source/origin/direction because "about" the
>>>> only
>>>> connection a photon has with its source is "orientation"
>>>> [x-space is
>>>> expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the only quality
>>>> the
>>>> photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an
>>>> orientation
>>>> relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you" create the photon tothe
>>>> west of
>>>> "you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your west
>>>> side,
>>>> and
>>>> if you create a photon to the north of you... it will then
>>>> "seem" to
>>>> shoot out away from your north side, since x-space will always
>>>> take
>>>> "you" to be the exact center of its universe]
>
> Am I right in saying that the 'apparent' movement of light (or 'the
> photon')
> is just caused by our shrinking and the photons staying still intheir
> own
> space? So as I shirk, it looks like the photons are shooting awayfrom
> me?
> That's what it sounds like you're saying, but I must have got it
> totally
> wrong, other wise light would always 'appear' to be travelling away
> from me.
> That can't be what you're saying otherwise I couldn't do somethingas
> simple
> as shine a torch at myself. Pointing the torch at my shirt wouldn't
> illuminate my shirt because would have 'shrunk' away from the photons
> ..
> they wouldn't be able to hit me.
>
> Ok, tell me how stupid I am and what I'm missing?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Damian
>
>
Dear Damian, if you're stupid then I'm just as stupid as you because
undestanding is only half the job: Properly explaining something
is the other half; and so you have my apologies. Try this & seeif
it helps:
Take a broomstick and tape a flashlight at one end pointing towards
the other end. Now put that other end against your chest (so that
the flashlight points at your chest) and turn the flashlight on:
The flashlight is the photon's (s') source: The photons will shoot
away from the flashlight--towards you!
Although you do not see it, the broomstick has shrunk pulling you
towards the "place" where the flashlight "deposited" its photons
and way pass there: Those photon which crashed against your chest
are no more, and those that shot over your shoulders are now long
long gone past where you are (speeding) shriking away from them.
Hope this helps. But if still does not, then consider it from this
angle: Don't think of matter as shrinking but rather think of it
in terms of space expanding FROM EVERY IMAGINABLE coordinate: This
means that for all practical effects YOU (the photon source) are
the center of the universe. And as soon as you "push" a photon out
into existence... the photon will "ride expanding space" away from
you: If it crashes against anything standing in its way... it's
the death of that photon. And if it continues on into the cosmos
it will live as long as it doesn't crash against anything else
out there--so it could actually "live" for billions of years!
And, by the way, the photons do not get stuck in "a" place (or
at absolute rest, they just don't shrink "as fast" as the other forms
of ordinary matter. Consequently they are "left a bit behind" by
the rest of the universe (that "bit" = the speed of light). At my web
site I speculate on what this might say about the nature of the photon.
(Which see.)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87f1ls$es4$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
<87cj8v$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.135
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 04 17:18:59 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 <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>,
jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>Of course I do not expect anyone to take your drivel seriously,
>>Mr. Kauffman! I expect people who are shown an elephant
>>to realize it's an elephant--and not to come back at me with:
>>"If you cannot prove mathematically that this so-called elephant
>>of yours is in fact an elephant, then it cannot possibly be
>>an elephant: No maths, no elephants! Good day, sir!"
>>
>>From the real world,
>
> In the real world, physicists have to deal with the imprecision and
> inherent ambiguities present in verbal language. Anyone whodenies
> the relevance of mathematics, properly implemented, in such endeavors
> is probably not being very realistic about the issues involved.
>
> JeffMo
>
When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
there is something to be said about judging precisely
how well a given value equals another given value
through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
(regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
If it's too much to ask of you to smell reality, to listen to
reality, if it's too much to ask of you to see and to touch it
... then I will ask it of somebody with more sense than you.
This matter then, concerns only those human beings who trust
their humanity. The rest of you can now go back to playing your
numbers game,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
*********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 07 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87lboo$n91$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
<87cj8v$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>
<87f1od$eu9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 07 02:47:53 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,humanities.misc,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>,
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>,
>> jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Of course I do not expect anyone to take your drivel seriously,
>>>>Mr. Kauffman! I expect people who are shown an elephant
>>>>to realize it's an elephant--and not to come back at me with:
>>>>"If you cannot prove mathematically that this so-called elephant
>>>>of yours is in fact an elephant, then it cannot possibly be
>>>>an elephant: No maths, no elephants! Good day, sir!"
>>>>
>>>>From the real world,
>>>
>>> In the real world, physicists have to deal with the imprecision
>>> and
>>> inherent ambiguities present in verbal language. Anyonewho
>>> denies
>>> the relevance of mathematics, properly implemented, in such
>>> endeavors
>>> is probably not being very realistic about the issues involved.
>>>
>>> JeffMo
>>>
>>
>> When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
>> there is something to be said about judging precisely
>> how well a given value equals another given value
>> through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
>>
>> However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
>> the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
>> (regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
>> and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
>>
>> This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
>> to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
>> to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
>> creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
>> madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
>> dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
>> really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
>> such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
>> numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
>> will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
>> the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
>> will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
>>
>
> But you cannot prove this in physics, only make the claim.
Which "this?" The "this" which the second paragraph refers to
the first paragraph? It so: There is more than ample proof
that "this" has indeed been the case with physics (and, as we
normally refer to it as modern physics, the historical record is
replete with mathematical models which however elegant and
balanced, nevertheless modeled unreal realities), yes:
" I think we already have a very substantial historical record of
the superiority of interpreting facts and results being far, far
superior to guessing from postulated beliefs: I have no objections
to modeling that reality which we have established as true
mathematically so that we may find shortcuts to some additional
ways reality works. But, just looking upon history, Jeff... Almost
every time we have attempted th'shortcut of mathematics to actually
establish reality itself... it has eventually proven to have givenus
a false reality. Aristotle did not wait for the telescope, and instead
went ahead and formulated a reality where gravity always pointed
down to the earth (nothing could ever fall elsewhere, and the earth
had to be at rest while the rest of the universe moved about it).
Einstein did not wait until astronomers had established that the
Hubble constant was accelerating, and instead went ahead and
formulated a reality where the universe could ignore gravity and
matter moved away from matter, where man's idea of time was not
only recognized by the universe but which actually ordered the
nature of the universe. Someone actually once said to me: "Wasn't
Einstein incredibly accurate to have predicted the universe was
expanding?" And I could only try to explain to this person that
Einstein's other choices had been 1) the universe is collapsing
(and, how would he have explained whyy the stars weren't crashing
together?). And, 2) the universe consisted of stars sitting side-by-
side in space without any gravitational interaction between them.
And you wanna know the really funny thing about this? Einstein,
with all his brains, actually opted for universe #2 for a time, untilhe
realized exactly what an insane reality his equations had modeled!"
> The claim
> doesn't
> make it true and you refuse to learn the math, let alone find the
> errors that
> you claim to be in it. Therefore, again, you fail in attemptingto
> show the
> BB theories as myth.
The BB theory originated from the following circumstances (never
mind that Einstein's "corrected" equations predicted an expanding
universe): The Hubble constant showed galaxies receding from
each other (and that the speed of recession increased with the
increase of distance between galaxies). This, of course, on the face
of it, clearly suggests that the universe is expanding. Why? Ours
is a universe where clearly only one force is acting across it (as
the strong & weak/electromagnetic forces are only acting in the
subatomic world), and that force is gravity. So it wouldn't make
any sense to propose that gravity was driving the universe's
expansion. Therefore the ONLY possible solution had to be that
the expansion was a result of some primordial explosion (and
therefrom the debate that went on until the last couple of years over
whether the universe's expansion would continue forever or stop
in its tracks and actually reverse itself... because we know of NO
repulsive force existing/acting in our universe which might be
driving its expansion). And it has to be a force (remember Newton)
because if a force is not constantly being applied to something
in motion while gravity is trying to bring its motion to a stop
it will stop. I know that today, as was the case when Einstein
realized that his original equations had predicted an insane reality,
that some modern proponents of the BB theory are rushing to
come up with such a repelling force--and they will, even if they
have to pull one out of their hats... in order to preserve the nutty
and mythical notion of a Big Bang. But whatever mathematics
they create out of the blue... they will have to erase into the blue.
> Claim all you want. Delude yourself that it is reality. But
do not
> claim
> your reality is the reality for the rest of the universe. Youcannot
> prove
> it.
What do I claim? That the universe is an ornament in God's
Christmas tree? That it's an illusion and exists only in our minds?
That would indeed be hard to prove. But I do not claim anything
really exclusively theoretical, now do I? Go to my web page and
you will discover not so much a theory but a simple number of
interpretations of observed facts. The ONLY speculation I engage
in is: 1) the nature of the photon, as I know nothing of its true
nature; and: 2) the method by which gravity was first manifested
in the infinite (scalar) mass universe. Everything else there follows
a simple process which leads me to whatever I conclude from
observed facts: I do not question the reality of those observed
facts (nor do I imagine you will either). I merely propose the simplest
explanation for them--And if you disagree with my explanations
for them, then I only ask that you let me know why it is thatyou
disagree with them. So far, no one has disagreed with a single
one of my interpretations of observed facts... all anyone has said
so far is that I must be wrong (God knows why).
> P.S. I have removed irrelevant newsgroups. I have heard personally
> from one
> that does not appreciate the line of this post because it is not
> relevant to
> the charter of that group. It is strongly suggested that youconfine
> the
> thread to groups relevant to the discussion of reality, such as
> sci.astro,
> alt.astronomy, or the relativity groups that sometime appear in these
> threads.
> (sci.astro.amateur is not one of them either, as it deals with
> equipment and
> observational strategies, for example, that amateurs are interested
> in).
I shall remove sci.astro.amateur in future.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
> Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
**************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 12 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8844u1$ahm$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
<87cj8v$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>
<87f1od$eu9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>
<87lbu7$nbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389F94E0.DA029CF7@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
171.217.234.17
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 12 17:23:16 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <389F94E0.DA029CF7@louisville.edu>,
Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>,
>> "J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu>wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
>>>> there is something to be said about judging precisely
>>>> how well a given value equals another given value
>>>> through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
>>>>
>>>> However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
>>>> the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
>>>> (regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
>>>> and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
>>>>
>>>> This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
>>>> to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
>>>> to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
>>>> creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
>>>> madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
>>>> dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
>>>> really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
>>>> such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
>>>> numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
>>>> will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
>>>> the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
>>>> will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you cannot prove this in physics, only make the claim.
>>
>> Which "this?" The "this" which the second paragraph refers to
>> the first paragraph?
>
> The "this" that the Big Bang is a myth.
Well (to be honest, I got the distinct impression you yourself
were trying to hot-potato it)... Big Bang is a myth, pure and
simple: It is a childish guess. It's on a par with Adam & Eve.
There are so many things self-evidently impossible with those
two myths that any thinking modern person KNOWS they
are myths without having to be given an enumeration of
the very good reasons why they are myths, yes.
> You continue to fail to find flaws in the physics that supports the
> theory of the Big Bang.
I know when it's possible there might be an elephant in the garage
and when it's impossible there can be an elephant in my pocket.
But, BEGIN QUOTE:
> Why is thereno directionality in the observed redshift?
Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
give us a clearer "sense of diretion" than our current one.]
Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:
Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).
Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
"marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
their naked eyes.
If the people of these planets do not know that they have
just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
(and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
towards each other... and that very, very slight difference
will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
then they move towards each other)... this means that
their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
the universe by the Hubble constant.
This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
tiny factor (so that we may yet be able to tell which
way is the center of our universe).
Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
other galaxies...
The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
11, 1, and 2). Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
"journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will tend
to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
-observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in fact,
there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]
Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous "glance"
at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).
END QUOTE.
> You continue to make the claim, but you set
> up
> the straw man of a astrophysicist working in a pure mathematical
> environment without reference to real-world observations.
On the contrary, my observations are all facts. Mathematics
have modeled but guesses (of course they work: whenever
they do not, one can simply revise the guesses--it's harder
to revise reality.. that's my material, Mr. Miller).
>The fact
> is,
> you have not demonstrated that 1) General relativity is mathematically
> inconsistent with reality in terms of its giving rise to the BB
> models,
Einstein did that for me better than I could have done it..
> and 2) that the interpretation of the redshift as that of expansionis
> mathematically incorrect.
If it's incorrect, it's incorrect every which way. Period.
> In fact, a visit to your site seems to indicate that you get moneyif
> you drive people to it.
Sorry. The companies hosting my sites are in the business of
hosting sites for commercial purposes--The only thing I get from
them is that my site may outlive me by any number of years
my site gets enough visitors.
> I would hypothesize that that is the sole
> purpose of your being here.
Then you see things through a dark mind, Mr. Miller: I myself
would never assign any ulterior motives to why you're here--and
I assume you're just too faithful to your own religion for your
own good. (You see, Mr. Miller, I not only own a huge ego
but also an even huger pride about being a better person.)
> You have proved nothing scientifically,
I have established why the speed of light is a constant
in identical mediums. There is no other solution but mine.
> other than you have no clue
> about the true nature of the BB models and the physics that supports
> it.
What causes people to guess, rightly or wrongly? No,
I have not a clue as to why that happens, Mr. Miller.
> If you can demonstrate, from a physics point of view, as scientific
> point of view, with the supporting math, that the mathematics leading
> to
> the conclusion of an expanding universe are flawed, then please
> elaborate in the news groups.
Are you mad?!?!? And you seriously expect anyone to comb
through a million guesses (written in mathematics, no less) and
come out sane--never mind finding the mistaken guesses that were
arrived at through silly methods as opposed to dishonest ones!
> For, if you cannot, and continue to
> point
> people to your web site, you simply are verifying my hypothesis.
Ah! A true example of the scientific method at last! (Sarcasm.)
> P.S. in scanning your latest group list, I doubt seriously if
> alt.atheism, talk.atheism, or alt.chaos are chartered for this
> discussion either. I have removed them in favor of more appropriate
> groups.
Actually there are any number of good people in those groups
interested in whether the universe originated through some
evolutionary logical process... or just Big Bang-ed into existence
quite by magic--as your religion's dogmas claim, Mr. Miller.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> University of Louisville
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
********************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: The Incredible Shrinking Universe
Date: 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <88d4ai$evg$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
<87cj8v$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>
<87f1od$eu9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>
<87lbu7$nbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389F94E0.DA029CF7@louisville.edu>
<8844u1$ahm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <01bf7664$2369b2c0$7f009696@paul>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.54
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 16 03:08:04 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.politics,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <01bf7664$2369b2c0$7f009696@paul>,
"Paul Yost" <SPAMcda@iea.com> wrote:
> don_quixote@mindless.com wrote in article
<8844u1$ahm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> In article <389F94E0.DA029CF7@louisville.edu>,
>> Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Well (to be honest, I got the distinct impression you yourself
>> were trying to hot-potato it)... Big Bang is a myth, pure and
>> simple: It is a childish guess. It's on a par with Adam & Eve.
>> There are so many things self-evidently impossible with those
>> two myths that any thinking modern person KNOWS they
>> are myths without having to be given an enumeration of
>> the very good reasons why they are myths, yes.
>
> The "big bang" is a childish myth, and the incredible shrinking
> universe is
> a superior explanation?
The universe is not shrinking, Paul! In fact, the universe is eternally
the whole of existence (at least, as far as our human knowledge goes).
Also: When I speak of x-space (expanding space) it's merely to makeit
easier for new-comers to the idea of an imploding universe to grasp
what is taking place--Think not of matter shrinking as of space
expanding
from/at every possible imaginable coordinate (but this does not mean
that space is really expanding, obviously).
Moreover, I speak of the "forms" of ordinary matter shrinking. But
in a very real sense matter isn't really shrinking at all--How can
matter
shrink if the entire universe's matter is shrinking at the same time?!?!
How would you know it? To understand "shrinking" you must have
something "A" shrink in comparison to something else "B" and
the entire universe is shrinking more or less as a unit. Therefore
when I speak of the "forms" of matter shrinking... the "forms"
themselves
may be shrinking, but, what's that to the "forms" that are shrinking?
" Use this clumsy 2-D analogy: Imagine a sphere-volume filled with
millions of balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two"huge
beings" (a triangle and a square): Both are pretty much the same "body"
size and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of the world). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons start
bursting throughout the sphere-volume at an even ratio. (Our two beings
do not know this.) To us it will seem as if these two beings are
shrinking, but the two beings themselves will look at each other and
still see that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect"
triangle and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length). An
agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left to maintain their "existence," no matter how
"small" they become in our God-like eyes. "
There ARE a few subtle effects which are pertinent to "us" (among
them c constancy); but once we achieve a simple basic understanding
of these, they need not worry us much... outside of people engaged
in experiments pushing against the limits of our physical reality.But,
Hell's Bells, even the photon seems to be shrinking right along with
the rest of "us" and only appears to be acting a little funny...!
> Is there a limiting factor? Can the universe keep shrinkingaway
> forever,
> like a wool sweater in a hot dryer, or will it eventually quit
> shrinking or
> cease to exist or something?
How can there EVER be a bottom to our shrinking, Paul?
"Forms" are not fundamental anythings. Our universe of matter
is not falling down a drain heading for the East River!
If your "forever" means "for as long as matter exists," then
the answer is pretty much: Yes!
1) the first thing that happens after the universe manifests
gravity is that gravity interacts with itself locally (that's where
the forms of ordinary matter begin to coalesce).
2) none of these "pools" of conserved gravity are fundamental
and all of them are mere "forms" gravity takes ("shapes" if you
will).
3) the only fundamental thing in our universe is the force of
attraction we know locally as gravity. Gravity only shrinks in
the very limited sense that it embodies the finite amount of energy
in our universe (the pre-Big Bang Singularity, really the pre-
Big Implosion Singularity converts infinite (scalar) mass into
gravity and gravity is the nature of the vector universe which is
"our" side of existence). Once gravity is given energy it uses
that energy to "collect itself" (or THAT is the "work" it puts energy
to). If energy is being used to do that work... it will be "used"
--energy cannot be created or destroyed. This means that it will
be converted back to infinite (scalar) mass during its use. [This
is why an expanding universe WITHOUT a Big Bang to power
it... is a logical impossibility, regardless what rumors you might
have heard to the contrary.]
4) All the "forms" of matter are storehouses of energy, but you
don't get something from nothing: Matter (the forms) need to
spend energy in "moving" (otherwise they wouldn't be able to
move). This means that energy/gravity is what fuels the implosion
of our universe... and that during that implosion gravity is being
converted from the fundamental stuff upon which all the "forms
and shapes" of ordinary matter are "painted" into infinite mass:
In effect: Gravity (the bursting balloons in the analogy above)
is disappearing (not from the universe, but) from its availability
to be used by the forms of matter... and so those forms are
of necessity... shrinking. But this is nothing that should concern
us: Size is strictly a human idea only (where something is smaller
or bigger than something else): The entire universe of matter is
de facto eternally always the same size (with the rather unimportant
proviso that because gravity has a stronger effect locally than at
greater distances... the smaller forms of matter shrink first and are
then followed by the shrinkage of the larger forms of matter (see
the analogy of the two side-by-side planets below)... and this
results in the Hubble constant BECAUSE this one effect is
naturally magnified by cosmic distances so that galaxies are
receding from each other with slightly greater velocities the farther
they are from each other.
But, BEGIN QUOTE:
>> Why is there no directionality in the observedredshift?
>
> Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
> an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
> very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
> give us a clearer "sense of direction" than our current one.]
>
> Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
> in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
> is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
> other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
> imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
> all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:
>
> Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
> earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
> they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
> can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
> its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).
>
> Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
> to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
> "marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
> of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
> of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
> see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
> their naked eyes.
>
> Is the mass shrinking also, or does the mass remain the same?
Everything that is a form of matter (made of it/really, gravity) is
shrinking--because the fundamental stuff they are made of is
being converted to infinite (scalar) mass (or used).
> Do you
> know
> what a quantum black hole is? Suppose you took a volume thesize
of
> the
> earth, and shrunk it down to the size of a marble. Escape velocity
> for
> this mass would now exceed the speed of light. The earth wouldbe
a
> black
> hole, and its neighbor would be a black hole, and you couldn't seethe
> alternate earth people no matter HOW big your telescope was.
I'll wait until a Quantum Black Hole falls near me, snatch it, and
(if it's big enough) take a look at it. Get back to you later on this.
> Has this shrinking been going on since the formation of the earth4.5
> billion years ago, or did it begin when the universe was created(with
> a
> contrived, artificial history) a mere 60 years ago?
The universe, Paul, is older and more massive than you can even
dare to imagine--That's the beauty of the imploding universe model:
It's as nearly infinite as the human mind can conceive of such a
thing (while the Big Bang models are always constrained by time
and/or size).
> If the people of these planets do not know that they have
> just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
> away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
> one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
> (and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
> report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
> they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
> And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
> perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
> are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
>
> This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
> the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
> shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
> are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
> towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
> will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
> absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
> a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
> planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
> towards each other... and that very, very slight difference
> will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
> galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
> constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
> The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
> over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
> then they move towards each other)... this means that
> their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
> their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
> the universe by the Hubble constant.
>
> And this theory is so much easier to swallow than the "childish"big
> bang?
Try it: You'll like it (I even poured it into a cherry flavored
drink for you).
> This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
> And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
> closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
> of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
> center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
> the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
> acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
> the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
> will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
> tiny factor (so that we may yet be able to tell which
> way is the center of our universe).
>
> Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
> recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
> seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
> respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
> a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
> apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
> universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
> always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
> other galaxies...
>
> The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
> our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
> up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
> the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
> 11, 1, and 2). Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
> at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
> at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
> at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
> seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
> "journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
> the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will
> tend
> to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
> than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
> galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
> behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
> -observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
> the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
> seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
> towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
> more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
> we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
> due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
> to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
> proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
> our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
> obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
> bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
> absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
> might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
> it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
> overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
> there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
> universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in
> fact,
> there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
> universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]
>
> Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
> occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
> vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous
> "glance"
> at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
> irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
> to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).
>
> END QUOTE.
>
> The very first test this theory fails is Occam's Razor. However,that
> doesn't nail it into a coffin by any means.
Put away Occam's Razor, Paul (either you'll do yourself a mischief
or Occam's gonna come looking for his razor--and Occam doesn't
go around with a razor for nothing). Which test did you try first?
Perhaps you set it up without all the necessary parameters.
Remember that the first rule is to understand as much of it
as it's humanly possible for you to understand. And... this is a
universal rule, by the way.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
******************************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 07 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87lbau$mtv$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
<87cj8v$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>
<87f1i8$eki$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389b3144.606664718@news.rica.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 07 02:40:30 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,soc.culture.indian
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <389b3144.606664718@news.rica.net>,
jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>,
>> jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Of course I do not expect anyone to take your drivel seriously,
>>>>Mr. Kauffman! I expect people who are shown an elephant
>>>>to realize it's an elephant--and not to come back at me with:
>>>>"If you cannot prove mathematically that this so-called elephant
>>>>of yours is in fact an elephant, then it cannot possibly be
>>>>an elephant: No maths, no elephants! Good day, sir!"
>>>>
>>>>From the real world,
>>>
>>> In the real world, physicists have to deal with the imprecisionand
>>> inherent ambiguities present in verbal language. Anyonewho
denies
>>> the relevance of mathematics, properly implemented, in such
>>> endeavors
>>> is probably not being very realistic about the issues involved.
>>
>>When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
>>there is something to be said about judging precisely
>>how well a given value equals another given value
>>through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
>
> The presence (or lack) of objections on your part matters very little,
> unless you have some rational basis for them.
Well, since I have no objections to it, I reserve the right to not
have any rational (or irrational) basis for my lack of objections!
>>However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
>>the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
>>(regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
>>and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
>
> It has been the sad history of trying to interpret the world through
> verbal language that such language is much more ambiguous and
> imprecise than mathematical modeling.
Then we are in agreement that we should let our senses five
interpret the world, and use our languages to build marvy dreams
we can awake after full of thrills & chills... and nary a doubt
they were but dreams!
> Thus, you get many of the same
> problems, to an even greater degree.
True. But at least we can scream at each other marvelous insults
with ordinary language. Hollering at each other: "Why you 2+2=57!"
"Oh! 67-3458=44!" "Sir, 44x3=5!" ... & other mathematical heresies
just doesn't seem to have quite the same punch. But that's just me.
> I'm frankly amazed that any sane
> person could read a.s.p.n-t (for example) and not be aware of this.
I'm often amazed that people can read, "You are reading this!" And
not be aware of this--As I have proven time after time (when, afterI
ask
them: "You didn't read that, did you?" And they claim they didn't
indeed!
> Please see some threads with posts by smart1234 if you need some good
> examples of sloppy use of verbal language. See also any goodwebsite
> on informal fallacies for more support that such usage problems are
> widespread, and that the existence of such is well-known and accepted.
I know what you speak of (and I quite accept it).
>>This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
>>to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
>>to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
>>creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
>>madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
>>dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
>>really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
>>such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
>>numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
>>will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
>>the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
>>will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
>
> There is a certain truth in what you say. However, you haven'tshown
> that verbal language is superior in any way, or that it is immuneto
> the same times of problems noted above.
That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm merely chatting up the mob
with, "Look everybody! The damn hath a leak!" If ever I got into
a discussion with the individual mob members on the best way to
grow leeks... I think I'd just got for a bit of onion & have agood
cry.
> And you have not addressed
> the issue of intelligent theorists devising mathematical models which
> apply very well to the reality they observe.
That's because anybody (even the really, really dumb theorists)
can devise mathematical models which apply very well to the reality
they've never seen in their lives! And if they can do that quite
wonderfully, I can't imagine them not being able to model anything
mathematically, I can tell you that!
> All you have said is that someone can perversely claim that a given
> mathematical model is working for them.
That's rather short-changing them! No: Look thee to history
on this: Any manner of someones have all throughout history
quite sincerely and honestly devised any given number (ho!) of
mathematical models that worked very well for the entire world
but which later on proved to be utterly nutty! Do I really have to
mention any of them here?!?!?! Was Aristotle a bad scientist?
Was Ptolemy a perverse cosmologist? Was Columbus, who actually
sailed "around the world" honest in his claim that he had indeed
"sailed around the world?" (He only got as far as Ohio.)
> So? There seems to be no
> great limitation on people making perverse assertions.
People who make perverse claims are soon found out, Jeff:
It's the people who take the time to establish some preliminary
consistency who cause the most trouble... they just don't
realize they are guessing (when they "rationalize" the existence
of results which do not really exist). Or they're simply fooling
themselves into believing they are good people who can judge
these matters impartially. It's human nature to fudge a few little
principles which might fudge the bigger picture. This is why
science must return to a stricter discipline! This is why we must
stop looking for confirmation of our pet theories and instead go
back to interpreting results with the strictest impartiality--evenif
this requires that scientists with strong opinions on a matter
remove themselves from the process of interpreting results which
touch upon those matters they hold strong opinions on exactly
in the same way judges and jurors do in the justice system.
> And they can
> do so just as well with verbal language. However, mathematicsallows
> us to detail specific and unambiguous quantitative predictions forour
> models, and I just don't see why THAT is a negative thing, in your
> view.
I think we already have a very substantial historical record of
the superiority of interpreting facts and results being far, far
superior to guessing from postulated beliefs: I have no objections
to modeling that reality which we have established as true
mathematically so that we may find shortcuts to some additional
ways reality works. But, just looking upon history, Jeff... Almost
every time we have attempted th'shortcut of mathematics to actually
establish reality itself... it has eventually proven to have givenus
a false reality. Aristotle did not wait for the telescope, and instead
went ahead and formulated a reality where gravity always pointed
down to the earth (nothing could ever fall elsewhere, and the earth
had to be at rest while the rest of the universe moved about it).
Einstein did not wait until astronomers had established that the
Hubble constant was accelerating, and instead went ahead and
formulated a reality where the universe could ignore gravity and
matter moved away from matter, where man's idea of time was not
only recognized by the universe but which actually ordered the
nature of the universe. Someone actually once said to me: "Wasn't
Einstein incredibly accurate to have predicted the universe was
expanding?" And I could only try to explain to this person that
Einstein's other choices had been 1) the universe is collapsing
(and, how would he have explained whyy the stars weren't crashing
together?). And, 2) the universe consisted of stars sitting side-by-
side in space without any gravitational interaction between them.
And you wanna know the really funny thing about this? Einstein,
with all his brains, actually opted for universe #2 for a time, untilhe
realized exactly what an insane reality his equations had modeled!
> Honest inquiry and communication are a requirement, in order to do
> science at all. We must deal with the smart1234's and George
> Hammond's of the world, no matter WHICH syntax we choose for
> communication.
I have a different spin on this: I think languages are quite adequate
enough for the human exchange of ideas... whether it be pig latin or
mathematics (and I even think the language of music may be the
best language of all). But we must never confuse the way we have
of saying something with what need be said. If you go to my web
site you will find its conclusions travel this method: "Because ofthis,
my conclusion is that." If there is no "this" then there is no "that."
>>If it's too much to ask of you to smell reality, to listen to
>>reality, if it's too much to ask of you to see and to touch it
>>... then I will ask it of somebody with more sense than you.
>
> Good luck finding someone with "more sense" than me who doesn't also
> understand the advantages of mathematical expression for quantitative
> modeling of reality. This last section of your reply seemsto
me to
> be more about ad hominem implications than considered argument.
I actually have a lot more faith about my fellow men than that: You
see, Jeff, I am not an exceptional fellow. There are four subspecies
of chimps in the world; there is but a single subspecies of humans
(unless Bigfoot turns out to be a cousin). And every one of those
chimp subspecies has a broader genetic pool than our single human
subspecies--this means we are, we humans, are more closely related
than any of the chimps in any of those four chimp subspecies. And
therefore I can say with great confidence that, knowing myself, I know
my fellows. They are a stubborn bunch, no doubt about that; and
they can be pretty tricky in trying to get their way... but, afterall
the
playfulness is out of the way, they will take a good look at what is
beautiful, and they will take a whiff of the new something in the air
(if
only to see whether it smells or not).
>>This matter then, concerns only those human beings who trust
>>their humanity. The rest of you can now go back to playing your
>>numbers game,
>
> You assume without evidence that I do not "trust [my] humanity,"and
> you assume without evidence that "we" would characterize the topicof
> this thread as a "numbers game." I certainly won't be tauntedinto
> playing THAT game.
I only have the evidence of these number of posts I've been exchanging
with a number of faceless persons out there... and some of them truly
seem hell-bent on ignoring any evidence placed in front of their faces
(but that's only to be expected; and, in fact, actually welcomed because
they force me to come up with better ways of presenting my ideas).
There are a couple of occasional persons out there who only post a
simple personal insult, or the net nannies who demand attention because
they represent some grander majority somewhere. And then there are
a number of posters who are actually participating in the quest for
knowledge! They may be quite against me, but that does not mean
they are willing to let something quite possibly worthwhile slip bythem
simply because of false pride or some other emotional hang-up. And
engaging those people is perhaps what I enjoy most (although I do
enjoy ridiculing the ridiculous a bit too much, I'll admit that).
However,
let's not forget where we came from. And, if we forget, let's takethe
gang
to the zoo and reminisce with our cousins.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absuluterelativity
> JeffMo
> "[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from topto
> bottom."
> -- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Churchof
the
> Philippines
It sounds awful, doesn't it! And yet we all know that he really
didn't mean to imply that unsafe sex is moral... now, don't we?
(It's just that we chimps' cousins like to have a little fun with our
fellows too.)
*******************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 12 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8845al$asi$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>
<874ri6$3s0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <109ec386.3746f21c@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>
<87cj8v$nlt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>
<87f1i8$eki$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389b3144.606664718@news.rica.net>
<87lb59$mk7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38a07fb5.24407240@news.rica.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
171.217.234.17
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 12 17:30:02 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38a07fb5.24407240@news.rica.net>,
jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>> jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>
>>> It has been the sad history of trying to interpret the world
through
>>> verbal language that such language is much more ambiguous and
>>> imprecise than mathematical modeling.
>>
>>Then we are in agreement that we should let our senses five
>>interpret the world, and use our languages to build marvy dreams
>>we can awake after full of thrills & chills... and nary a doubt
>>they were but dreams!
>
> Not so, but I don't expect you to understand why.
>
>>> And you have not addressed
>>> the issue of intelligent theorists devising mathematical models
which
>>> apply very well to the reality they observe.
>>
>>That's because anybody (even the really, really dumb theorists)
>>can devise mathematical models which apply very well to the reality
>>they've never seen in their lives! And if they can do that quite
>>wonderfully, I can't imagine them not being able to model anything
>>mathematically, I can tell you that!
>
> Pointing out that I cannot run a marathon in under 3 hours says very
> little about those who can.
O my God: Do you realize you've just said the same thing I did
only in other words? (Nope. I don't suppose you realize this, though
you now do, don't you!)
>>> All you have said is that someone can perversely claim that a given
>>> mathematical model is working for them.
>>
>>That's rather short-changing them! No: Look thee to history
>>on this: Any manner of someones have all throughout history
>>quite sincerely and honestly devised any given number (ho!) of
>>mathematical models that worked very well for the entire world
>>but which later on proved to be utterly nutty! Do I really haveto
>>mention any of them here?!?!?! Was Aristotle a bad scientist?
>>Was Ptolemy a perverse cosmologist? Was Columbus, who actually
>>sailed "around the world" honest in his claim that he had indeed
>>"sailed around the world?" (He only got as far as Ohio.)
>
> I wouldn't classify Newtonian physics as "utterly nutty," even by
> today's standards. Of course, in past times, scientists reliedmore
> upon written language than they do today....more ambiguity.
>
> One way to separate the real deal from the wannabes is to examine
> their attempts at rigor and disambiguation.
I adhere to a more rigorous standard: If thy mathematics leads
one to conclude Santa Claus created the universe, thy mathematics
is a fraud (as opposed to the BB proponents' contention that if
their mathematics leads one to conclude Santa Claus created the
universe, then Santa Claus must have created the universe in some
mystical/magical manner we can never know--since mathematics is
a higher reality than Reality).
>>> So? There seems to be no
>>> great limitation on people making perverse assertions.
>>
>>People who make perverse claims are soon found out, Jeff:
>>It's the people who take the time to establish some preliminary
>>consistency who cause the most trouble... they just don't
>>realize they are guessing (when they "rationalize" the existence
>>of results which do not really exist). Or they're simply fooling
>>themselves into believing they are good people who can judge
>>these matters impartially. It's human nature to fudge a few little
>>principles which might fudge the bigger picture. This is why
>>science must return to a stricter discipline! This is why we must
>>stop looking for confirmation of our pet theories and instead go
>>back to interpreting results with the strictest impartiality--evenif
>>this requires that scientists with strong opinions on a matter
>>remove themselves from the process of interpreting results which
>>touch upon those matters they hold strong opinions on exactly
>>in the same way judges and jurors do in the justice system.
>
> You won't see much in the way of peer review in this forum. Of
> course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't work "in real life."
I have no peer (so seeking one any place would be a waste of time).
> If you wish to change humanity as a whole, try changing smart1234
> first, just to experience a little of what you are up against.
I don't think I'd want to change humanity: It's worked quite well
for me. Oh, there are a couple of lunatics here and there, but
so damn few for the number of us!
>>I think we already have a very substantial historical record of
>>the superiority of interpreting facts and results being far, far
>>superior to guessing from postulated beliefs:
>
> This is an entirely different subject than the original one.
>
>> I have no objections
>>to modeling that reality which we have established as true
>>mathematically so that we may find shortcuts to some additional
>>ways reality works. But, just looking upon history, Jeff... Almost
>>every time we have attempted th'shortcut of mathematics to actually
>>establish reality itself... it has eventually proven to have givenus
>>a false reality.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean here. Very few credible
> scientists think that the mathematics dictates reality.
Unfortunately, there are more fools than scoundrels in there:
You know when you've been robbed, but it's a little harder
to understand when you've been fooled.
> Some think
> that mathematical elegance may suggest possible models. Most
> understand the need for empirical verification. Maybe you'vebeen
> reading wacko-nutjob posts in this forum for too long? ;-)
Nope: I've been studying mainstream physics--That's enough
right there to get the drift of the problem.
> The examples you did give supported the notion that we theorize tothe
> best of our ability, at the time, using the available data. And as
> long as we know that everything is subject to change, where's the
> harm?
If a good theory supplants reality with a fable, what harm is there
in that?!?!? My journey is the belief that there is a great amount
of harm done indeed.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> JeffMo
>
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
Date: 07 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87lctg$nsd$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$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38944189.66E339DB@earthlink.net>
<872av8$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <012072c6.1eef5f49@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com>
<8778ka$ra4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <022dacf6.2507227c@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 07 03:07:29 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,soc.culture.indian
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <022dacf6.2507227c@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com>,
John <jo10bi12NOjoSPAM@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sdrodrian,
> Any cursory examination of the universearound
us
> would lead one to the obvious conclusion that it is indeed
> a universe of cause and effect. Note that this
> observation, and resulting conclusion ( as are all
> observations and conclusions ), is restricted to sentient
> beings who, as a result of being sentient, are able to
> produce concepts outside the bounds of the physical
> universe.
Yes, almost without exception only thinking creatures
have thoughts. (However, I could cite a couple of...)
> In a "thought experiment" one could half the
> distance between yourself and a wall again and again and
> never reach the wall.
This can also be done in reality by constructing an exercise
tram (treadmill) whose "rolling carpet" would be lengthened
the faster one walked on it--so that no matter how much faster
one raced "towards the wall" one could never get there sooner
than when one was walking on it more slowly.
> Reality will not allow for this as
> the real world is absent of any infinities both large and
> small.
An infinity need not prove a true infinity to qualify as
an infinity in the real world... I tried to eat a finite cake
one time, and about half way through it the remaining portion
because absolutely infinite for all practical intents & purposes
--and then I couldn't have finished the bloody thing if I'd
tried to continue eating it for the rest of my life!
> In point of fact if time and / or distance were not
> restricted - nothing would ever happen.
You're obviously one of those philosophers who thinks
(can one find a philosopher who refrains from thinking?) that
everything is nothing, and only something is anything.
(With which I agree, by the way--O my God!)
> Thought alone is
> able to escape restrictions imposed by a decidedly finite
> universe.
When love with unconfined wings
Hovers within my gates;
And my divine ALTHEA brings
To whisper at the grates;
When I lye tangled in her haire
And fetterd to her eye,
The birds, that wanton in the aire,
Know no such liberty.
When flowing cups run swiftly round
With no allaying THAMES,
Our carelesse heads with roses bound,
Our hearts with loyal flames;
When thirsty griefe in wine we steepe,
When healths and draughts go free,
Fishes, that tipple in the deepe,
Know no such libertie.
When (like committed linnets I
With shriller throat shall sing
The sweetnes, mercy, majesty,
And glories of my King.
When I shall voyce aloud, how good
He is, how great should be,
Inlarged winds, that curle the flood,
Know no such liberty.
Stone walls doe not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage;
Mindes innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage;
If I have freedome in my love,
And in my soule am free,
Angels alone that sore above
Enjoy such liberty.
--Dickie Lovelace
> Imposing the concept of infinity on the physical
> universe is the real magic!
There are things that just simply never end (the
electric bill, to name just one).
> My thought processes would not
> lead me to believe that a boat by a lake was an accident of
> nature any more than a universe designed to contain
> sentient beings is an accident of nature.
Then you, sir, believe that you are a human being
responsible for ascertaining reality--And I congratulate you!
So many have I met here who defer their responsibility
to some clever theory or other!
> With the above in mind is it not reasonableto
assume
> that gravity itself is not somehow restricted in its
> reach?
But it is: I see gravity being born, living for a time, and ultimately
dying along the journey of its life.
> Perhaps gravity does not "fit" in with intractions
> at the nuclear level?
The strong force & its strategies for living & dying
(the weak/electromagnetic forces) are merely extremely
localized manifestations of gravity: All "forms" of matter
are constructed ONLY from the ONLY fundamental thing
that exists, and that is gravity...
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/bookspine
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 07 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87ldf0$o9e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <87aubd$j4r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000204194153.22481.00001382@ng-cq1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 07 03:16:51 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,humanities.misc,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <20000204194153.22481.00001382@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
ives100@aol.com (Ives100) wrote:
> I just went to your website and read your (ahem) theory.
I'm sorry, did you get a dry spot in your throat? Or did you
imagine my theory concerned ahems (whatever that are)?
> All I saw
> was a long
> run-on arguement.
I love run-on things... it gives the impression that one's got
a million things in one's mind without the time to offer them
all out at once!
> You offer absolutely NO PROOF of anything you
> wrote.
I'm sorry--Could you go back to my website and re-read the
text there? I could have sworn the text there went this way:
<"This" is what we see, and "this" is why we see it that way.>
If you'd like proof of what we see, you can always consult
your eyes (or other people's eyes... just ask them to tell you
what they see--and pretend you're some sort of blind man).
If, on the other hand, you'd like me to provide proof that the
way I see it is really the way I see it, we've going to end up
in some sort of asylum during our conversation, I can assure
you of this! If, on the third hand, you'd like me to give you
proof that the way I see it is the way you see it (or not see
it, depending on a number of clacking factors)... look yourself
and compare what you see against what I say I see: If, on
some fourth hand, you see something else than what I see, then
come back here and we shall argue about the different things
we see when we look upon the same thing. (And there is no
need to bring a fifth hand, a simple fifth will do nicely--Bloody
fifth hand will likely demand we share the fifth with him.)
> BTW,
> in science, it is really necessary to reasonably account for allthe
> available
> evidence at hand.
In my world it is reasonably expected that the evidence
will prove or disprove the case, regardless whether it's at hand
or apparently coming straight at us in such a manner that
it shall be at hand in time to take out the runner before he
reaches first base.
> You seem to ignore virtually all the findings of
> modern
> particle physics and astrophysics in your theory.
Which findings, virtual or actual, do I ignore? I thought I was
addressing those finds which have been misinterpreted, by
providing a simpler interpretation (but I hardly think I would be
providing any sort of interpretation of findings I've ignored).
> It is very unclear why every paragraph has numerous words with
> quotation marks
> around them.
Those paragraphs are very likely speculations only. Check
again! I'm the sort of fellow likes to admit I do not know when
I do not know (what I do not know): That's the only way I know of
to then proceed to some actual knowledge!
> Can't you clearly define terms in your arguement?
I own a dictionary, and oft consult it, in fact. But I am
as liable as any of my fellow human beings to err: Therefore
if I have employed a term outside the bounds delimited by
most dictionaries, please let me know (it's a grand thing
either to correct one's errors, or to coin a new usage).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> Tom Dougherty (Ives100@aol.com)
>
**************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 12 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8845i8$avj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <87ldgn$o9r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000207225721.00880.00000153@ng-co1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
171.217.234.17
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 12 17:34:00 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <20000207225721.00880.00000153@ng-co1.aol.com>,
ives100@aol.com (Ives100) wrote:
>>I'm sorry--Could you go back to my website and re-read the
>>text there?
>
> Once was enough-life is too short.
That's what we're trying to teach everybody in prison.
>Look, you want to construct alternate
> "theories" of the universe?
Nope. I want to construct banana-splits.
> Fine.
Just spit once, that's all.
> Again, keep in mind that modern science
> demands that your theories account for existing facts.
You're joking! You mean when I've been saying that
theories only arise from existing facts in about 100 posts
I've been agreeing with you?!?! Mamma mia!
> Your "theories" need to
> make some verifiable predictions that can be observed.
Here's just two: My theory that the universe is an implosion
rather than an explosion demands that the speed of light be
a constant in identical mediums--let's see if it is. And it also
demands that the Hubble constant should be found to be
accelerating (let's see if it is).
> Good by and good luck.
> Tom Dougherty (Ives100@aol.com)
Good bye, and I'll need it. "Every time a man tries to show
everybody the obvious he shall get blank stares." That's
what my current theory on human nature predicts, now
let's see if it's so.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
***********************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <88d4jg$f9j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <87ldgn$o9r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000207225721.00880.00000153@ng-co1.aol.com>
<8845i8$avj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <01bf7662$15ab8ca0$7f009696@paul>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.54
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 16 03:12:51 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <01bf7662$15ab8ca0$7f009696@paul>,
"Paul Yost" <SPAMcda@iea.com> wrote:
> don_quixote@mindless.com wrote in article
<8845i8$avj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> In article <20000207225721.00880.00000153@ng-co1.aol.com>,
>> ives100@aol.com (Ives100) wrote:
>> Here's just two: My theory that the universe is an implosion
>> rather than an explosion demands that the speed of light be
>> a constant in identical mediums--let's see if it is. And it also
>> demands that the Hubble constant should be found to be
>> accelerating (let's see if it is).
>
> I'll thread back to see if I can find it, but until I do could you
> explain
> again how your "imploding universe" theory explains the Doppler red
> shift?
> It appears the light of distant approaching galaxies is the wrong
> color...
Sure (I've only explained it 78... 887 times):
> Why is thereno directionality in the observed redshift?
Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
give us a clearer "sense of direction" than our current one.]
Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:
Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).
Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
"marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
their naked eyes.
If the people of these planets do not know that they have
just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
(and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
towards each other... and that very, very slight difference
will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
then they move towards each other)... this means that
their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
the universe by the Hubble constant.
This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
tiny factor (so that we may yet be able to tell which
way is the center of our universe).
Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
other galaxies...
The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
11, 1, and 2). Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
"journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will tend
to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
-observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in fact,
there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]
Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous "glance"
at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).
END QUOTE.
> Or
> am
> I completely wacked in believing there HAS TO BE directionality?To
> repeat, in the direction of our line of travel, why in there nota
> high
> redshift ahead, a lesser redshift behind, and zero redshift (or
> perhaps
> a little blue shift) abeam?
A lot of questions, but basically... because our little "bit" of
the galaxy (that portion which includes all the galaxies we can
"see") is a minuscule percentage of the whole of the universe.
This little "bit" of our universe is very probably unimaginably
young (compared to the true age of the whole of the universe).
But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
"blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path.
Next question,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> "chrysanthemum@my-deja.com"
*************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <88d52s$ffc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <87ldgn$o9r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<20000207225721.00880.00000153@ng-co1.aol.com>
<8845iq$avm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <qmpbas8ms4g6vre0o0do6fmpqi3vu249al@4ax.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.54
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 16 03:21:03 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,rec.org.mensa
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <qmpbas8ms4g6vre0o0do6fmpqi3vu249al@4ax.com>,
nxyrva@ivyyntrarg.pbz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:34:18 GMT, don_quixote@mindless.com wrote:
>
>>In article <20000207225721.00880.00000153@ng-co1.aol.com>,
>> ives100@aol.com (Ives100) wrote:
>
>>> Your "theories" need to
>>> make some verifiable predictions that can be observed.
>
>>Here's just two: My theory that the universe is an implosion
>>rather than an explosion demands that the speed of light be
>>a constant in identical mediums
>
> Why?
Why not? No, really...
One may begin here: A bullet traveling (say, through a perfect vacuum)
"knows" why it travels at the speed it does: The amount of gun powderin
the bullet casing tells it (+/- the gun's velocity). But how do all
photons know why they must, every last one of them, travel at the
"speed" they do when no photon can be given less or more impetus byits
source/creator? The most immediate ("only") possible answer is thatthe
photon is not traveling (moving) at all! [And when you come up witha
more elegant solution, do tell.]
Posit that "space" is expanding (x-space) [for the sake of a quicker
understanding only] ... and that were it not for gravity & thestrong
force
ordinary matter would ride x-space (expanding
space) into nonexistence (or, "explode," by our ordinary common
understanding). {Albeit you will understand that "space" = "absolute
rest" ... therefore matter would really "stay put" = "explode" in this
analogy.} However, as we all know, ordinary matter is being kept from
"exploding" by the combined energy-conservation tactics of the four
forces with the net effect that, for all practical intents & purposes,
the universe of ordinary matter is "shrinking" (approximately) at the
same rate space is expanding. [Keep in mind, however, that the universe
itself is not shrinking towards its center, like some collapsing
star--Such a linear implosion would, of course, make it impossiblefor
a
photon "shot" across the center of the universe to ever cross overto
the other side of the universe!--Rather, space is expanding "from"
every imaginable/conceivable coordinate.] This means that, as far as
we're concerned, the so-called "speed of light" is {in my opinion "only
approximately," as I shall tell you later} the rate at which spaceis
expanding [albeit, as I said, I believe this is only a very clumsy
approximation].
In relation to x-space, therefore, ordinary matter itself is what is"in
motion" [this is not a linear motion, remember, but a motion "towards"a
"shrinking" which only x-space "recognizes"]; considering which oughtto
make it instantly obvious that any & all "ordinary-matter objects"in
our universe which "appear" to be linearly accelerating (up towardsthe
so-called "speed of light") are "in reality" [in x-space's reality]
decelerating (down towards absolute rest)... and the faster an object
made of ordinary matter travels linearly in our universe the closerit
moves to absolute rest. [Why we need to accelerate objects in our
universe to increase the force with which they clash linearly is,
of course, made obvious by picturing a group of men playing baseball
inside a moving train: the train's "speed" is irrelevant to their game.]
The photon is still part of the ordinary matter of our universe, of
course; it's only that the photon is a matter-construct that exists
almost infinitely free from the common everyday effects of gravity[it's
just a matter of expressing out the proper equation.] Unlike "most"
other constructs of ordinary matter, the photon "appears" (to "us")to
ride x-space (i. e. achieve "nearly" infinite rest "as soon as" itcomes
into existence).
One hint that this is the correct model comes from the fact that there
is no absolute/perfect vacuum (one even devoid of gravitons)... andyet
the apparent speed of light is always constant in whatever identical
medium. [To posit such a perfect vacuum theoreticians must say thatthe
graviton simply does not exist, and that therefore gravity acts purely
by magic at a distance! Of course, they use the term "spacetime" to
escape straitjackets.] In any case... such an universally constant
"speed" might be understandable inside a perfect vacuum perhaps, but
outside a perfect vacuum a moving photon MUST experience a permanent
drag, however infinitesimal [and since c is really a very, very slow
speed in cosmological terms... that drag should become appreciableat
some point]: The same "moving" photons traveling first through a vacuum
A, then through air, and then through another vacuum B... when measured
at vacuum B ought to reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when passing
through air (and not "return" to the same "higher speed" they had in
vacuum A). The only possible explanation is that while air adds a slight
"push" to the photon (remember that this "air" is the one "moving by"
the photon)... once the "push" of air is no longer there, the photon
"returns" to the same (greater) degree of rest it had when passing
through vacuum A. Any other explanation would require a Rube Goldberg
construct--And many a permeability/permittivity Rube Goldberg construct
have I waded through indeed, or... eternally tireless Tarzan-like
photons swinging frictionlessly from out on one limb to the next!
Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relation to
x-space [and so "moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in whichit
was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it
originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains constant
regardless of its source/origin/direction because "about" the only
connection a photon has with its source is "orientation" [x-space is
expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the only quality the
photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an orientation
relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you" create the photon to the westof
"you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your west side,and
if you create a photon to the north of you... it will then "seem" to
shoot out away from your north side, since x-space will always take
"you" to be the exact center of its universe]... Add the proviso thatif
"enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational field) passes close
enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly display a new "linear"
orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will naturally be
"observable" by the rest of our universe because in our universe
the "orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter with respectto
any & all other bits of ordinary matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are otherconcerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding all other linear motionsof
our universe... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this one simple
"absolute law" you really have to understand to avoid having to delve
into synonymous but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
orientation with respect to the rest of the universe is absolute...so
once the photon "adopts" an orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same ("your") orientation with respectto
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.
Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN NOT be added to
or subtracted
from the so-called "speed of light" because obviously the directionof
our "real" motion (x-space = absolute rest) is never "really" linearat
all but always everywhere "towards shrinking." [And therefore one is
hard put to imagine any bit of ordinary matter in our universe achieving
any true/real "greater velocity" than the one it already has when itis
at its "greatest rest" ... with respect to the rest of the universeof
ordinary matter taken as a unit, of course.]
A simple analogy may help visualize this: Imagine two side-by-side
photons "traveling" towards a man standing next to a woman (neitherof
whom have yet been enlightened by me that it is they who are "moving
towards" the photons and not the reverse--further, I have also never
mentioned to them that the only "real" change in velocity they are
capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS of anything they might
attempt in this reality)...
Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman that he can catch his photon
before she can catch hers and rushes his "approaching" photon at 10mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks the bet childish and tells the
man she can wait for her photon right where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the woman catches hers; but then
something odd happens: [for the sake of simplicity, here] the man
reports to the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph and the woman
reports to the man that she also caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!
Why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photon at 100mph
PLUS his 10 mph acceleration? --Although you already know the answer...
it is, of course, that he "really" wasn't accelerating at all (because
it is impossible to "really" accelerate in his reality) and what hewas
really doing was decelerating (with respect to the photon's "position").
But then why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught his photonat
90 mph? And the answer is that if the only two things that existedwere
he and the photon they might indeed agree (between photon & man)on
that
90 mph; but it is the woman he must agree with on the speed of the
photon... and that is where the mystery of x-space forever will confound
them both because even though (in "Paradise") he and the photon indeed
"hit" at 90 mph... in this world he can never report this to the woman
without factoring in his acceleration of 10 mph with respect to her!
Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man "takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops (he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have no problem understanding thatthey
will both report catching their photons at 100 mph). The same is trueif
he "takes the time" to step back a few paces as well: he will catchhis
photon after she catches hers, but you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both report catching their photons at100
mph. The matter is not one of time, but of acceleration/deceleration:
The paradox will always rest with what they will interpret as
acceleration vs what the photon will interpret as deceleration... and
in that "misinterpretation" lies their eternal impossibility to agree
between them that the speed at which a photon has been caught is
anything except constant regardless of their relative velocities with
respect to the photon!
And there the matter forever rests in our reality: As far as ordinary
matter in our universe goes... the so-called "speed of light" will
always be measured in this perfectly inversely proportional mannerto
be
identical (in identical mediums) by all moving observers regardlessof
their velocities (linear) relative to each other: It is an absoluteset
value (agreed to) between the man and the woman (that whichever oneof
them "hits" a photon at a "true/real" slower speed will always reportto
the other one that he/she hit it exactly that much faster, thereby
canceling out all differences between them). They have no choice inthis
agreement, of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them by the
nature of this reality/existence... and thus too, along with the manand
the woman, every bit of ordinary matter in our universe has also
"signed" this Absolute Relativity covenant with every other bit of
ordinary matter in our universe. [And absent a profounder truth the
constancy of c is all the evidence required for/of the reality of
x-space.]
>
>>And it also
>>demands that the Hubble constant should be found to be
>>accelerating
>
> Why?
Because in a Big Bang universe the expansion of the universe
must be being driven by a primordial "explosion" (this is because
the ONLY alternative is that there is a force driving that expansion
and since the only force we know of which acts throughout the
universe is gravity... it's impossible to propose such a motivating
force without also accounting for the reason why a repelling
force can act at the same place and the same time as an attracting
force on the same matter--It's just crazy, so look for the last
desperate
proponents of the Big Bang cosmology to propose just such a crazy
thing... eventually... as the BB theory's last crazy gasp). This means
basically that either the BB universe is so tiny that its gravity will
never stop or reverse its expansion, or that it is big enough to doso:
Either way THERE IS NO REASON THAT COULD EXPLAIN
ANYTHING OTHER THAN a continued expansion at the current
rate, or a slowing down of the expansion: Any acceleration of
such an expansion would require Rube Goldberg explanations
(something being pushed ... by pulling on it & things like that).
The imploding universe model, on the other hand, is obviously
being driven by the continuous continually-applied force of
gravity: Therefore, the apparent expansion of the universe (really
only the Hubble constant--the recession of the galaxies from each
other) must display some acceleration (no matter how minuscule).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> aklein at villagenet dot com
>
**********
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 05 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87ic4n$o4b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<87aus8$jh9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <87d2hh$2ul$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 05 23:35:51 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 <87d2hh$2ul$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
TomGee <tomgee@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <87aus8$jh9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> TomGee <tomgee@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> In article <874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are many philosophies dealing with the origin of the
>>>> universe,
>>>> (snip)>>
>>> SDR, I have read through some of your posts and I must say Ilike
>>> your
>>> slant of things. I am impressed by most of what you believe,
>>> although
>>> I am not sure of your meanings re: the repelling force.
>>
>> That is the one thing which eludes most people, and, although Ihave
>> touched upon this in several posts as well as in my AR essay, Isee
>> I will have to seek a clearer way of expressing it.
>>
>>> I can go with
>>> your attracting force since we know about gravitation. Also,
how
>>> can
>>> an infinite massive universe that goes on forever and forever(as
>>> you
>>> say) ever shrink?
>>
>> This again touches upon what I like to term x-space (where the
>> repelling force lives): It's not the universe that shrinks (sizeis
>> strictly
>> a human idea). The universe is all that exists
>>
> You mean that's what you believe, right,
As I have seldom looked outside the universe (Emily
Dickinson believes the human brain can, but): Yes,
positing that ours is the only and/or one of many is
a philosophical belief.
> and you mean this and no
> other
> universe? Why do you believe that?
Why not believe something?
>> this includes not only
>> matter but the space it "once" occupied--since all matter existsin
>> motion away from where it used to be).
>>
>> There is the space which defines existence (or the universe). In
>> that space gravity manifests itself and, naturally, begins to
>> attract
>> itself.
>>
> Now, how and why would it do that?
THAT is the entire plot right there (the full story is at my
web site). You don't really expect me to reveal the ending
just yet and only to you, do you? Go thou & read my story.
>> Before the manifestation of gravity the very vacuum of existence
>> demands some sort of repulsing force if only to keep the vacuum
>> from collapsing.
>>
> Do you mean the vacuum of space? Because here on earth we don'tlive
> in a vacuum.
I beg to differ: I know a lot of people speand their whole lives
in a vacuum; and, further, I know a lot of people who actually
carry a vacuum with them wherever they go... in their heads.
>> The attracting/repelling force(s) exist at the same
>> time
>> in the same place,
>>
> But how two conflicting forces exist at once and in the same location?
It's impossible! That's why I describe them as ONE and the same.
It's just that sometimes it's going one way & at other times
it's going the other way). Still the same.
> You can't just say that without offering an explanation of why/how
> that
> happens. The relativists say, "our math model of reality doesn'thave
> to be real, so it can allow for strange things w/o further
> explanation." I know you must have an explanation because youdon't
> like non-explanations from gr and sr.
I do have an explanation. I have a solution. I not only have AN
answer but I have THE answer (one which has no peer):
It's all at my web site--which see.
>> but sometimes one overwhelms the other--And
>> the only way I can express this hurriedly here is to have you
>> imagine
>> equidistant men holding hands... who in order to maintain their
>> equidistance either pull or push the man on their right or left
>> side:
>> If a man is pushing against the man to his right he will also push
>> against the man on his left, and if he pulls against the man onhis
>> left
>> he will also pull against the man on his right:
>>
> Not if the man on his right is pushing against him.
Ah! But then (if he doesn't push back) the drill sergeant
will come along and chew his ear right off his head!
That's why if you read the paragraph again, you will
discover the man is pulling/pulling and/or pushing/pushing.
What do you care whether the man on your right or the man
on your left gets in trouble with the drill instructor?
>> Now you realize that
>> in order for a man to maintain his equidistance he will have tokeep
>> constantly pushing & pulling... and that is what the universeis
>> also
>> doing in order not to go all the way... out of existence: Sometimes
>> it pushes to its boundary & then it must push against its center,
>> and sometimes it pulls against its center and then it must pull
>> against its boundary.
>>
> If you are saying that is what you believe, fine. Butif
you are
> saying that is true, you must present arguments which we may consider
> in order to agree or disagree with you.
Actually, it is more what I believe (as there really is no way
for me to step out of the universe and look back on it to see
that it's really doing). Nevertheless I always try to support
my beliefs with some connection to reality (and you will find
the connections I have tried to make at my web site).
>>
>> When the universe is pushing it's in the grips of a repelling force
>> and there cannot be any matter in it. But when it's pulling...
>> gravity
>> manifests itself
>>
> Why?
Because as long as there is matter somewhere it will
seek other matter. Oh, you mean why does gravity
manifest itself? It's at my web site. Go thou there & learn!
>> and our side of the universe begins (gravity gathers
>> into local "pools" and these pools (or particles) begin a real
>> motion
>> towards the center of the universe.
> Why?
Because as long as there is matter somewhere it will
seek other matter. And the space between them will
tend to be at its center.
>>
>> It's just that it's not the universe
>> that's moving towards itself,
>>
> Do you mean shrinking? If so, it cannot be infinite, can it?
EVERYTHING in the universe is finite: EVERYTHING.
Also, philosophically, the universe itself must be finite
(otherwise it would not produce unitary equations and
all the mathematicians will have to go out and hang
themselves by their balls--including the females, as I am
talking about the balls rattling loose inside their abacus heads).
>> just these particles of matter, that's
>> all. This is why it's clearer sometimes to think of space as
>> expanding
>> rather than matter shrinking...
>>
>>>I would think that it could shrink but it could
>>> never decrease in size.
>>
>> Size is merely a measurement of one thing against another thing.
>> The first generations of particles which manifest themselves in
>> the early history of the universe are probably so "huge" as tobe
>> inconceivably "big."
>>
> Why do you say that?
Because if they were really, really tiny God would have slipped
on them, broken a rib (destined for a certain Hebrew) and we
wouldn't then be here talking about this nonsense--would we!?
Oh, you mean why I and not somebody else says that: Because
if somebody else had said that you'd now be asking why I hadn't
said it--I know you... and your tricks! Ok it was Adam's rib, but
if God had broken a rib He might have turned out a God with a
much less positive & sunny attitude!
>> They are also almost nothing at all. But
>> gravity will wind them up tighter and tighter,
> Gravity may pull, but I don't see how it can wind anything.
Then you haven't seen a photo--ooops, I mean, an artist's
rendering of The Milky Way Galaxy (we're the loud little star
on the outer edges of the most prominent spiral arm). Yes:
we all know there are photos of other spiral galaxies! Sheesh!
>> and as the universe
>> continues these first generations of particles will come together
>> with like-particles and build up more complex (and permanent)
>> particles--for God only knows--how many generations until we have
>> atoms and galaxies.
>>
> You're talking sex here, but particles don't do that.
Now you're got it! Now you've touched the spot! Heeeeeeeee!
(Actually the nuclear process is a sort of sexual process.)
>> But you can see that by the time we have atoms
>> and galaxies... they will be such massive particles built up ofso
>> many generations of massive subparticles that when they begin
>> to shrink because ("energy cannot be created or destroyed") the
>> very gravity of which they are made must be used to move them
>> towards the center of the universe (this is the work their stored
>> energy is being put to). By the way, the process of subparticles
>> joining together to form more stable and massive particles has
>> not ceased in our portion of the universe (as you can see by
>> the black holes which are devouring the galaxies at whose center
>> they stand, including our own Milky Way).
>>
> Uh, maybe people act that way, but particles don't. You aren't
> talking
> about atoms, are you?
Yes I am! Just keep in mind that our elemental atoms (the ones in
the periodic table) are the modern family of sub particles): They all
evolved at pretty much the same time (although Granny may be
older than Elly May).
>>> I agree with you in some of your posts about what relativity isn't
>>> and
>>> about other things, but I have ideas of my own which may or may
>>> not
>>> be
>>> the same as yours. I will try to respond to as many asI
can, and
>>> I hope we can find common ground between our ideas, as I thinkwe
>>> are
>>> close in our views.
>>
>> That is the human journey, after all. Let's hope for the best
>> and a nice warm hospitable inn along the way & perhaps a fewgood
>> stories among friends.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>
> Well, perhaps.
Did I forget to add humor? I almost never forget to add humor
(though I often forget). Is this a paradox? Or is this just someone
not expressing himself as clearly as he doesn't want to express himself?
S D Rod--O well, it's up there.
> --
> TomGee
************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87autt$jhl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.88
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Feb 03 04:07:27 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 <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
TomGee <tomgee@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> There are many philosophies dealing with the origin of the universe,
>> William. Some are more religion than science, and others more
>> science
>> than religion. And ofttimes it takes centuries before we can beall
>> that sure which way is their leaning. Presently, we can but tryour
>> best.
>> The universe was/is/will be EVERYTHING THERE IS. Consequently it
>> does
>> not get expanded or contracted: Say... there is nothing "there"we
>> would
>> recognize (because "it" doesn't qualify as some form of matter);and
>> you
>> can then consider "all that exists there" to be "infinite mass."But
>> it
>> exists, and is not simply a void, or nothingness, because --if
>> nothing
>> else-- because of the very fact that it doesn't exhibit gravity
>> (instead
>> "it all" exists as a "pressure" or "tendency" towards "up welling"
>> or
>> to
>> "surge forth" ... it's as if you were trying to forever find some
>> nonexistent "edge" and so you simply continued outwardly throughout
>> eternity): In such a state, "size" is irrelevant; it is enoughto
>> say
>> that the infinite (scalar) mass universe exhibits enough of a
>> repelling
>> force to manifest gravity (its opposite). This is explained atmy
>> web
>> site at greater leisure; but I'll try to sum it up here somewhatto
>> satisfy your philosophical bent: Aristotle proposed that thereis
a
>> natural place for everything, and that once something fell intoits
>> natural place it would remain at rest there. Newton, on the other
>> hand,
>> proposed that there is no natural place for anything, but, rather,
>> that
>> "a body remains at rest, or, if already in motion, remains in
>> uniform
>> motion with constant speed in a straight line, unless it is actedon
>> by
>> an unbalanced external force." (This is Newton's 1st law or motion.)
>> What this "means" to the infinite (scalar) mass universe is thatthe
>> minute it manifests a repelling tendency... that repelling tendency
>> is
>> an unbalanced external force acting to "move" it away from thestate
>> of
>> rest in which it existed before this repelling force began acting
>> upon
>> it. And you could not ask for a more fundamental origin to this
>> repelling force than that it should arise from the very state of
>> "massive" emptiness which existence finds itself in before this.You
>> can
>> rationalize this infinite (scalar) universe as a perfect vacuum
>> whose
>> very nature of perfection must of necessity eventually translate
>> into
>> pressures against its perfect nature... which at some point must
>> collapse into an attracting (rather than forever continuing asa
>> repelling) force. Consequently existence is forever defined/trapped
>> in
>> "a volume" the nature of which is to manifest infinite (scalar)mass
>> AND
>> (to all practical purposes) infinite energy (when the perfectionof
>> its
>> vacuum collapses). It is at this point, when the universe manifests
>> a
>> tendency towards a force of attraction that "our" side of the
>> universe
>> begins: This is the "instant" of the Big Bang (only it's not an
>> explosion but an implosion, of course). The implosion islinear
(as
>> it
>> is towards some center); however, along the way there... gravity
>> will
>> have a tendency to interact with itself and create local
>> interactions
>> we
>> shall call "forms" of matter (and which others may call particlesof
>> matter): But the term "particle" implies a solidity which
>> these "forms"
>> of matter being created really do not possess: They will always
>> remain
>> strictly "forms" that the force of gravity is assuming along the
>> way.
>> These forms are not simply a couple of generations but perhaps
>> countless
>> generations (of subparticles coming together to "form" greaterand
>> greater particles). So that by the time we come to the present-day
>> particles (atoms & galaxies), these present-day particles arealmost
>> entire universes themselves. [Imagine a black hole "particle"that
>> has swallowed a half dozen galaxies.] The implosion of the universe
>> will
>> continue as long as the universe manifests enough gravity to drive
>> it
>> --But not eternally: The energy behind this "motion" of the universe
>> towards implosion is not created along the way, it is "converted,"
>> from
>> a finite amount (present at the start), back into infinite (scalar)
>> mass. You can express this in any number of ways; but the closerone
>> gets to the center of the universe as opposed to remaining in its
>> rim...
>> the more powerful will the force of attraction towards center
>> become--
>> To
>> a point, because once gravity gets into the actual center of the
>> universe gravity will be neutralized (and forever cease to manifest
>> a
>> direction of motion). I have no idea how "big" this "center" is
>> (what
>> percentage of the size of the universe); but I can say that "we"
>> (this
>> particular part of the universe we are in) must be a long, long,
>> long
>> distance from there... as it is very obviously apparent to us (as
>> the
>> Hubble constant) that portions of our "local district" are still
>> accelerating towards center more than other portions of our "local
>> district." And don't ask me what percentage of the universe
>> that "local
>> district" is because the only thing I can tell with any confidence
>> about
>> that is that it must be a very, very, very tiny percentage indeed
>> (since
>> we can "see" nothing of the universe's true nature except a dimly
>> perceived Hubble constant).
>>
>> But to get back to your question: It is gravity that is imploding;
>> while
>> the "forms" gravity has taken along the way manifest the expenditure
>> of
>> energy (in this "motion" towards center) as a "shrinking" (or
>> forever
>> returning "some" percentage of their (stored in/as their forms)
>> energy
>> back into infinite (scalar) mass)... as, being "forms,"
>> they "dissolve"
>> not like a block of wood being splintered by an ax but by shrinking
>> as
>> the gravity upon which they are "painted" is "used up." Moreover,
>> due
>> to the fact that the universe is an implosion... in our ordinary
>> perception, the entire universe of ordinary "forms" of matter tends
>> to
>> retain its unity of shape as it "moves/shrinks" towards center.
>>
>> Most of these (more philosophical than scientific) questions are
>> answered above. However, one thing is clear: Existence is all there
>> is,
>> all there ever was, and all there will ever be. The universe of
>> implosion and the universe of absolute rest (which is where "matter"
>> moves away from once gravity manifests itself), are the same
>> universe
>> existing at once: Go thou to my web page and explore this in amore
>> leisurely manner. Only gravity (and its "forms" of matter) are
>> imploding
>> (in motion)--Once all the energy in the universe (manifesting itself
>> through matter-in-motion) is spend and returned into infinite
>> (scalar)
>> mass it will all be as before the manifestation of gravity (which
>> will
>> then manifest itself again and again in never-ending cycles). This
>> is
>> because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only momentarily
>> conserved and then "passed" from one state to another. Therefore,in
>> a
>> very real sense, existence not only has energy but is energy...and
>> once
>> one understands this, one can understand why it is that existenceis
>> an
>> unceasing process which can never again return to non-existence.
>> (And
>> I
>> certainly hope that this is philosophy enough for you.)
>>
> SDR, I have read through some of your posts and I must say I likeyour
> slant of things. I am impressed by most of what you believe,although
> I am not sure of your meanings re: the repelling force.
That is the one thing which eludes most people, and, although I have
touched upon this in several posts as well as in my AR essay, I see
I will have to seek a clearer way of expressing it.
> I can go with
> your attracting force since we know about gravitation. Also,how
can
> an infinite massive universe that goes on forever and forever (asyou
> say) ever shrink?
This again touches upon what I like to term x-space (where the
repelling force lives): It's not the universe that shrinks (size is
strictly
a human idea). The universe is all that exists (this includes not only
matter but the space it "once" occupied--since all matter exists in
motion away from where it used to be).
There is the space which defines existence (or the universe). In
that space gravity manifests itself and, naturally, begins to attract
itself. Before the manifestation of gravity the very vacuum of existence
demands some sort of repulsing force if only to keep the vacuum
from collapsing. The attracting/repelling force(s) exist at the same
time
in the same place, but sometimes one overwhelms the other--And
the only way I can express this hurriedly here is to have you imagine
equidistant men holding hands... who in order to maintain their
equidistance either pull or push the man on their right or left side:
If a man is pushing against the man to his right he will also push
against the man on his left, and if he pulls against the man on hisleft
he will also pull against the man on his right: Now you realize that
in order for a man to maintain his equidistance he will have to keep
constantly pushing & pulling... and that is what the universe isalso
doing in order not to go all the way... out of existence: Sometimes
it pushes to its boundary & then it must push against its center,
and sometimes it pulls against its center and then it must pull
against its boundary.
When the universe is pushing it's in the grips of a repelling force
and there cannot be any matter in it. But when it's pulling... gravity
manifests itself and our side of the universe begins (gravity gathers
into local "pools" and these pools (or particles) begin a real motion
towards the center of the universe. It's just that it's not the universe
that's moving towards itself, just these particles of matter, that's
all. This is why it's clearer sometimes to think of space as expanding
rather than matter shrinking...
>I would think that it could shrink but it could
> never decrease in size.
Size is merely a measurement of one thing against another thing.
The first generations of particles which manifest themselves in
the early history of the universe are probably so "huge" as to be
inconceivably "big." They are also almost nothing at all. But
gravity will wind them up tighter and tighter, and as the universe
continues these first generations of particles will come together
with like-particles and build up more complex (and permanent)
particles--for God only knows--how many generations until we have
atoms and galaxies. But you can see that by the time we have atoms
and galaxies... they will be such massive particles built up of so
many generations of massive subparticles that when they begin
to shrink because ("energy cannot be created or destroyed") the
very gravity of which they are made must be used to move them
towards the center of the universe (this is the work their stored
energy is being put to). By the way, the process of subparticles
joining together to form more stable and massive particles has
not ceased in our portion of the universe (as you can see by
the black holes which are devouring the galaxies at whose center
they stand, including our own Milky Way).
> I agree with you in some of your posts about what relativity isn'tand
> about other things, but I have ideas of my own which may or may notbe
> the same as yours. I will try to respond to as many as I can,and
I
> hope we can find common ground between our ideas, as I think we are
> close in our views.
That is the human journey, after all. Let's hope for the best
and a nice warm hospitable inn along the way & perhaps a few good
stories among friends.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> TomGee
>>>>>All that I post here is quoted or paraphrased from my essay,
> The Time And Motion Relationship By Thomas Garcia, Copyright 1996,all
> rights reserved. Readers are encouraged to quote or paraphrase
> entries
> posted herein.
>
**************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 05 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87ichm$oep$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<87auvo$ji6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <nQhm4.422$%n5.7733@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.112
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 05 23:42:47 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 <nQhm4.422$%n5.7733@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
"G & G" <grimbey@gte.net> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <87auvo$ji6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <877hqd$2u0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> TomGee <tomgee@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> In article <874tjc$5f4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>
> sdrodrian, have you published your theory yet? If so, wherecan
I
> find it?
The only place you will find a "likeness" of me is at:
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/471.htm
There is some misapprehension (especially among the people who
email me) that all this is of some grant importance to me: It is not.
Having to devote so much of my time to this matter is a distraction
from my real lifework and I do it reluctantly (and with some
resentment, as my "wit" often betrays: I am normally a Northern
Quilted quilter--True, it doesn't pay much but job satisfaction's
figuratively through the roof! And I've even had some of my quilts
exhibited at The Museum of Shit). [another opening here 4 the clever]
I pretty much knew ours was an imploding universe ten years ago.
But I never had any real intention of sharing that information
with anyone (outside a close circle of personal acquaintances).
The thing that finally forced my hand was the blessed turn of the
century: I waited and waited impatiently, hoping SOMEBODY
would see the obvious. But no one did. On retrospection it was
not easily to be expected that anyone would make that leap of
insight which leaves one with the realization that there are no
fundamental particles in the universe (and this is the required
first step to "seeing" that galaxies do not accumulate at the
center of the universe or some such). So looking back on it
now.... it was a rash action on my part making this proposition
public when I did (last Christmas, feeling as I did then that "my"
century ought not pass without an acknowledgment that "we"
knew the true nature of the universe--even if it was just me).
All that I know is at my web site (and there also you will find
links to collections of answers I have given in these newsgroups).
If nothing else it will be made more plain than most of you might
care to know just how many times and in how many different ways
I have been asked to answer the same questions!
Good luck one & all, because once I feel reasonably sure that
I have answered the same question a dozen times or more the only
place you will hear from me about this will be at my web site:
I shall only miss the out-&-out idiots, to be honest: They always
give me such wonderful material to work with, God! But as there
is no end to them everywhere, I remain confident I'll never run out
of material... wherever I needs deal with idiots at some future date!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
**********
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 12 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8845oh$b20$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<87lch5$nor$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389F9AA5.179836AA@louisville.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
171.217.234.17
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Feb 12 17:37:21 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <389F9AA5.179836AA@louisville.edu>,
Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> One example that comes to mind is Einstein's
>>> theory of relativity predicting the fact that light froma
distant
>>> star would be curved by the sun's gravitational field.
>>
>> It's only a great prediction if one assumes the photon is massless
>> (or that it does not contain matter): I, on the other hand, amquite
>> convinced from observed facts that the photon is made of matter
>> and that consequently it obeys the laws of gravity (even if itmay
>> not do so EXACTLY like every other form of matter).
>
> Convinced or not in your own mind, experimentation proves your
> assumption incorrect.
So, basically, what you're saying is that when a theory predicts
Santa Claus uses flying reindeer, if experimentation (mathematical,
of course) finds no objections to Santa Claus using flying reindeer
then my assumption that "It's all bogus, man!" has been proven
incorrect?
> Other predictions and explanations of the general theory have also
been
> demonstrated, such as the slowing of time in increasing gravitational
> fields (Newton's laws predict no such effect on time).
Go thou to my web site. There will you find that I say Einstein wasNOT
wrong but merely giving out unnecessarily convoluted explanations
(time dilation does occur: Molecular activity DOES slow down with
increased velocity in this universe, but it is not BECAUSE the molecule
is being accelerated--Why should a molecule being so stressed calm
down????????--No, Mr. Miller... it slows down BECAUSE it is being
slowed down towards absolute rest from a higher "velocity" AND
that higher velocity comes about because the universe is an implosion:
In our imploding universe NO HIGHER LINEAR VELOCITY than the
current one towards shrinking is possible! Instead ALL APPARENT
ACCELERATIONS ARE REALLY DECELERATIONS... that is why
when you apparently accelerate a molecule it REALLY calms down:
BECAUSE IT REALLY IS CALMING DOWN in the direction of
absolute rest. Einstein was not wrong, he just did not know this:
Only I knew this, FIRST... and now you know it after I just told you.
> This has been
> demonstrated on different floors of an office building using atomic
> clocks, it has been demonstrated by atomic clocks, on stationary,one
> sent on an accelerated journey in an aircraft, and it has been
> demonstrated by a binary pulsar system.
Yes. The effect is REAL, Einstein's explanation is backwards (it's
like a child looking out the window of his father's car and explaining
how, "The world is passing by." The effect is real, his explanation
backwards.
> And, Newton's laws fail to explain the precession of the perihelion
> point of Mercury's orbit completely.
This is because Newton never knew what happens when matter
travels through a massive gravitational field... not that Newton was
stupid and Einstein was smart, Mr. Miller.
> In other words, until you can clearly demonstrate, mathematically,the
> flaws in GR upon which BB theories are postulated, you simply continue
> to demonstrate that your "reality" exists only in your head and notin
> the real world.
If I tell you the moon orbits the earth... believe it or not, Mr.
Miller:
I certainly have no intention of trying to prove this to you
mathematically
or any otherwise. You are going to have to bone up on some old books.
> It is the way you wish it was, simply because you
> cannot understand or do not accept the interpretation through lackof
> complete understanding, the working of the BB models.
Not, Mr. Miller: I just looked up one early evening--And THERE was
the moon! Ergo, assuming I am on the planet earth... (it's just an
assumption, yes, Mr. Miller... you yourself may have assumed you're
on the Planet of The Itty Bitty Living Brains... and that automatically
shoots down any chance I might have of ever making you believe
the moon orbits the earth--I'll admit that much).
>>
>>> In the start of your essay you start from observations only,
>>> expecting me to accept that as proof that your theory is superior,
>>> yet you forget that almost all of the erroneous theories of
physics
>>> have been built not upon a mathematical foundation, but by
>>> observation.
>>
>> And you forget that Einstein's original theories predicted a static
>> universe, but that he had to rush to correct his model when the
Hubble
>> constant was discovered.
>
> Wrong again. Einstein's original equations predicted a changing
> universe, non-static. He introduced his cosmological constantwhen
> astronomers at the time convinced him that the universe was static
(and
> interestingly enough, even with the constant, you still get a changing
> universe).
Waitaminute, Mr. Miller: Are you saying that Einstein's believed
the astronomers over his equations!?!?!? What have we here?
What have we here! Was Einstein modeling reality with his equations
or was he just modeling his guesses (for ONLY if he was modeling
guesses could he have possibly ever been convinced his equations
were not modeling reality, obviously). Got you there, Mr. Miller.
>>> I'll accept it as superior if the experimental data fitsbetter
>>> than with any other theories, but not well until then.
>>
>> Mathematicians tend to add strictly mathematical possibilitiesto
>> their models (try them out) to see if the equations balance: Thisis
a
>> fatal game, because, being human, mathematicians will tend to
believe
>> that if their equations balance, that MUST be proof that their
>> otherwise only strictly mathematical possibilities... just mightbe
>> real (or why else would they prove themselves to be such perfect
>> solutions?). This is a truism which only a non-mathematician would
>> ever consider to be true, of course.
>
> But physicists test whether such truisms exist observationally.
Then let them test my truisms as well, Mr. Miller. And let's see
whether it's an exploding or an imploding universe. I can wait
for their results. I am an infinitely patient man.
> If they
> do not, they reject the mathematical model. You have yet to
demonstrate
> where the flaw in the mathematics is, just that you don't like the
> conclusion. Yet you can offer no observational proof that the
> mathematics is incorrect. Sorry, that is not how science works.
I have certainly told you plenty of times where to look for Einstein's
erroneous assumptions, Mr. Miller: 1) Einstein assumed SOME
"forms" of matter were indeed fundamental (ironically, this erroneous
assumption could be what let him to postulate the particle nature
of light, which is correct). 2) Einstein did not know ours was an
imploding universe... which let him to believe c constancy was
something mystical about the universe (when it's simply a result
of the fact that ours is an imploding universe).
I leave it to somebody else to check all the software lines of
codes and re-program relativity's computer. I've done enough.
>>> I have one problem with the section where you use Newton's
>>> 1st Law of Motion. You say that there are externalforces
acting
>>> upon the universe.
>>
>> If I said that I mispoke--I will reread my text to see where Imay
>> have led anyone to believe that. What may have caused some confusion
>> may be when explaining that a "body in motion" (say, the so-called
>> expansion of the universe) needs a constantly applied force to
explain
>> its continuing acceleration because otherwise gravity would bring
such
>> an expansion to a stop. The only force in the universe is a
>> fundamental one that acts towards the center (attraction) or acts
away
>> from the center (repulsion).
>
> But, the flaw in your logic is that there is a center. No suchcenter
> exists in modern cosmology in the BB models.
Well, I do assume there is a center, Mr. Miller (although I've never
seen it myself): It's a guess, therefore, which springs from the notion
that when one has an implosion it implodes towards some center or
other. But my center is a strange and wonderful place, Mr. Miller:
You should visit it (full of doctors and nurses, and soothing music).
> Therefore, your
> conclusions are incorrect simply because
What, Mr. Miller? Thou giveth not mathematical reasons why?!?!?!
In that case, Mr. Miller... I'm afraid I'll have to wait until youcan
provide me with the math why my conclusions are wrong. Sorry.
> you have chosen to ignore what
> I and others have said about what the BB models actually say aboutthe
> expansion of the universe.
Gibberish doesn't count, Mr. Miller. Only in mathematics:
Show me your mathematical gibberish!
> There is no center, there are no edges.
There is a center (it's called The S D Rodrian How I Learned To Stop
Worrying ABout The Universal Implosion And To Love the Bomb Center).
And there IS a gate around the edges, Mr. Miller--in case some of
the Big Bang inmates try to run off with parts of my Implosion model.
> So, unless you can prove a center exists, your reliance on it makes
for
> the weakest part of your argument.
I like to argue just for its own sake: I'm one of those art of art's
sake
arguers.
> If the universe did begin as a point explosion, you might have a
point.
> It didn't so you don't.
Well, in that case I humbly partially accept your partial concession
that I am partially correct. Mr. Miller--Now let's pick apart
your other parts.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> University of Louisville
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
*********
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Date: 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <88d5bj$fot$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <28868-3879149C-128@storefull-108.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<87lch5$nor$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <389F9AA5.179836AA@louisville.edu>
<8845rm$b9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38A64CAA.AE0F10FB@worldinter.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) forclient
38.26.139.54
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 16 03:25:42 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38A64CAA.AE0F10FB@worldinter.net>,
Standeven <berry@worldinter.net> wrote:
>
>
> don_quixote@mindless.com wrote:
>
>> In article <389F9AA5.179836AA@louisville.edu>,
>> Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One example that comes to mind is Einstein's theory
>>>>> of relativity predicting the fact that light from adistant
>>>>> star would be curved by the sun's gravitational field.
>>>>
>>>> It's only a great prediction if one assumes the photon is
>>>> massless
>>>> (or that it does not contain matter): I, on the other hand,am
>>>> quite
>>>> convinced from observed facts that the photon is made of matter
>>>> and that consequently it obeys the laws of gravity (even ifit
>>>> may
>>>> not do so EXACTLY like every other form of matter).
>>>
>>> Convinced or not in your own mind, experimentation proves your
>>> assumption incorrect.
>>
>> So, basically, what you're saying is that when a theory predicts
>> Santa Claus uses flying reindeer, if experimentation (mathematical,
>> of course) finds no objections to Santa Claus using flying reindeer
>> then my assumption that "It's all bogus, man!" has been proven
>> incorrect?
>>
>
> No. His argument is that when a theory predicts that
> Santa Claus uses flying reindeer, if experimentation (mathematical,
> of course) finds no evidence of Santa Claus using flying reindeer,
> then
> the theory is proven incorrect.
Really?!?!? I thought it was NOT possible to prove a negative!
In my book, if one cannot prove something... it just means one
has not proven it, and definitely NOT that it cannot be proven.
What book are you using?
>
> [...]
>
>>
>>>>> In the start of your essay you start from observations only,
>>>>> expecting me to accept that as proof that your theory is
>>>>> superior,
>>>>> yet you forget that almost all of the erroneous theoriesof
>>>>> physics have been built not upon a mathematical foundation,
>>>>> but by observation.
>>>>
>>>> And you forget that Einstein's original theories predicteda
>>>> static
>>>> universe, but that he had to rush to correct his model whenthe
>>>> Hubble constant was discovered.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. Einstein's original equations predicted achanging
>>> universe, non-static. He introduced his cosmological constant
>>> when
>>> astronomers at the time convinced him that the universe was static
>>> (and interestingly enough, even with the constant, you stillget
a
>>> changing universe).
>>
>> Waitaminute, Mr. Miller: Are you saying that Einstein's believed
>> the astronomers over his equations!?!?!? What have we here?
>> What have we here! Was Einstein modeling reality with his equations
>> or was he just modeling his guesses (for ONLY if he was modeling
>> guesses could he have possibly ever been convinced his equations
>> were not modeling reality, obviously).
>
> Obviously, he was modelling reality.
If he was m