Answers & Elucidations given in Usenet:
Why doth the Photon move at all?
What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Funny Energy: 1 More Confirmed SDRodrian prediction
Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Time and Stuff
What exactly is gravity
Why should the speed of light be constant?
What is Time
How can space be bent (plus)
Time
Speed at which the universe expands
Einstein - Charlatan, flim-flam man, or man of the century?
S D Rodrian posts on google

If there are two solutions to a problem: one the most direct and simple
one, and the other one a very complex and indirect one... chances are
the simple and most direct answer will also be the correct one.

> "sdRODRIAN" <litrate@rednecks.com> in post wrote:
>> in two motions: The first motion is shrinking in place (which
>> creates gaps between the forms of matter). And, as you
>> might imagine... gravity then orders all the forms of matter
>> to close in on each other (fill those gaps). The net result is
>> that the universe retains its form (shape) so seamlessly
>> you never notice.
>
> Except, of course, that Rodrian fails to either comprehend or
> admit that he cannot have parity in this over the entire axis
> of the body.

Which "body" is this/that...? And who says that parity over the
ENTIRE axis of the body (of the universe) is of any relevance
to us?

Maybe you're thinking of matter shrinking ONLY at the level/scale
of "your" recognizable "forms" (atoms, dogs, cars, et al) when it is
every form of matter that is shrinking... at every level (even unto
the scale of a "Planck length" and beyond): If the shrinking were
taking place ONLY (or even mainly) at the level of atoms, or cats
and cars... the experience would be about a zillion times crazier
than the worst possible nightmare imaginable could produce.

We live in a universe (the universe of matter) which is an
evolved process and not a "necessary creation from special
pre-existing conditions." This universe is the result NOT of
some special top-to-bottom "creation" (as told in Genesis and
 in Big Bang mythologies) but is an evolution from simplest-
to-most-complex forms, from most basic and primordial "forms"
to most developed and evolved ones. Moreover, in this universe,
matter has had the time (and it is the very nature of gravitational
interactions) to organize its forms in layers and strata (in such
a way that the stratum at which atoms organize themselves, for
example, does not permit atoms to interact as peers with stars
and planets... nor can atoms likewise interact with quarks as if
quarks were atoms). In a very real sense there is a universe of
stars and there is a universe of atoms and there is a universe
of quarks and so on down the strata ad infinitum... and in none
of those levels at which matter organizes itself into the forms
that exist in them is there ANY form of matter which is not
just simply a "form" and is instead fundamental and indivisible.
Assuming, as well, that ANY of the strata/levels at which the
forms of matter have organized themselves is itself fundamental
produces the equivalent of scientists debating the aerodynamics
of Pegasus. Could there really be anyone who still does not
comprehend why it is that most religions so eagerly embrace
any/all inflationary (Big Bang) proposals? Well, believe this: Any
and all attempts to "rationalize" the origins of the cosmos from
some "cosmic egg" (including all string AND supersymmetry
theory support of this) are dead-ends.

To understand the solid geometry of our three-dimensional
universe shrinking without apparent distortion (apparent to us)
the only requirement is that one consider all distances between
every "form" of matter retaining their relatives values (top to
bottom, and not simply at one or other level of matter organization)
as the universe shrinks at an even rate throughout. [This is the
simplest way of putting it. But one can always look into it on
a closer level...]

However, the first thing one must do ABOVE ALL is to free
oneself of any thought that there are ANY fundamental forms
of matter in the universe (this is the great stumbling block which
kept Einstein and others since from putting together an accurate
description of the way our universe really works): Think of it as the
universe itself being just "one" more "form" of matter, the top-level
form, so to speak) and that the universe is constructed/arranged top
to bottom of descending strata... at every one of which the forms
of matter (there) organize themselves differently than they organize
themselves in every other stratum. With the understanding that
NONE of the "forms" of matter anywhere in the universe are
fundamental (atoms are forever divisible into constituent subparticles,
and those subparticles are forever divisible into more basic
subparticles ad infinitum)...

At the beginning of the universe of matter (out of the universe
of energy) the first gravitational interactions gave rise to the
simplest, most basic "gravitational systems." In the text which
follows below I use the term "graviton" to mean not the
proposed particle supposedly mediating gravity but rather
"the least imaginable quantity of gravity/energy" ... and so let's
say that the first gravitational interactions in the first instances
of the universe that has just manifested gravity takes place
between "individual gravitons." [Even if it had been possible
for all these "gravitons" to have appeared equidistantly from
each other, creating a so-called homogeneous Singularity] this
condition can't last very long since all that's required is for
but a single one of them to "step out" of equidistance to force
this ideal primordial equilibrium into a massive cascade of
ever increasing chaos--This means that the first generation
"gravitational systems" to achieve "a" stability in the universe
MUST have themselves already been extremely complex
"formations" composed of perhaps enormous "amounts" of
"gravitons." In any case, at some point these "first generation"
gravitational systems began to combine into more complex (or,
second generation) systems which then gave rise to the next
and the next and next generation systems ad infinitum (because
the process is still continuing even today)... With perhaps each
one (or more likely more than just one) of these individual
"generations" qualifying as a level or stratum of matter organization.

If what you are trying to do is to paint the easiest picture of the
three-dimensional universe's "motion of shrinking" ... it's best to
do it at the level of the most fundamental or "first generation"
forms of matter: At some ideal (only) "Planck length" or such
(keeping in mind that in a shrinking universe one "Planck length"
is only a relative, not an absolute "size" ... the same way the inch
is only "smaller than" the yard and not absolutely "small"): At
that "tiny" scale the universe consists of mostly quite identical
individual forms of matter... all of them individually shrinking
in place and then collectively rushing each other (taking advantage
of the gaps/space opening up between them) in a very straight-
forward way... where non-homogeneous densities on some
impossibly huge scale dictate the textures which we eventually
recognize as atoms and cats and cars, and planets and stars, et al.
[It is also best to consider these first generation gravitational
systems not as solid forms but simply as coordinates, since,
literally, their shrinking forever eludes/precludes their really being
considered solid.] Just keep in mind that the "texture" displayed
by this universal scale or stratum is more like the texture we
observe in our human-scale cosmos (as created by the present-
day distribution of galaxy clusters), and NOT any kind of ether
--because the temptation to imagine it as some sort of "ether" is
a very strong one here.]

To us there are no "recognizable" forms of matter at this
primordial scale/level/stratum (not cats or cars or atoms or
quarks): At this level the universe truly consists only of
individual "gravitational systems" which are shrinking in place
individually and then collectively rushing each other... which
they will do until they literally run out of the energy of which
they are composed (or, the universe runs out of gravity/energy).
But there is no room in this texture for any possible
"dimensionalities" beyond the basic three (time is ALWAYS
ONLY a mental construct we use to "map out" the recognizable
relationships between the forms of matter which exist only at
the human level of matter organization, and thus not here):

The gravitational relationships governing the behavior of the forms
of matter at the tiniest, most basic scales/strata forever dictate (set)
the nature of all the subsequent "geometrical agreements" between
every subsequent "higher" level/scale/stratum at which matter exists
(forms "forms"). So it is at this point that the simplest of all ideal
geometrical understandings of what it means for the three-dimensional
universe to be shrinking while yet preserving its perspective (or,
"form") can be made (from some impossible "rest frames"): Here...
"freeze" the universe and imagine that every one of these "first
generation gravitational systems" is "a" coordinate (rather than
some sort of "fundamental particle" with any degree of physical
requirement); then "draw" lines connecting the central-most
coordinate in our frozen universe to every other coordinate in
this universe: You have now established the absolute relationship
between that central-most coordinate and every single one of
the coordinates in the entire "frozen" universe.  [Because it is a
"rest frame" your universe is absolutely "rigid" throughout.]

For the next "rest frame" you will shorten EVERY ONE of the
lines you drew by 10%. The result will be two "frozen" universes
(each in its own rest frame) which are identical in every aspect
except that one of them is slightly smaller than the other one.
Standing "out here," we can easily "see" (absolutely) this crucial
difference between them; but had we been inside (standing at
the center of) this "shrinking" universe... it would have been
absolutely impossible for us to tell the "lines" had shortened
at all (in fact, this particular "frozen" universe could shorten
OR lengthen its "lines" quite violently either way as much as
it liked and we creatures existing only inside it would NEVER
know or even so much as suspect such a thing was happening,
given either a center-most position in a "small universe"
(meaning we could "see" most of it from its center) OR an
off-centered perspective in a universe large-enough to not permit
us access to enough of its coordinates for us to extrapolate from
them that "our" position was indeed off-center (and, thereby,
by how much). [NOTE: In this purely geometrical rigid universe
it's still possible to "easily" measure any off-center position
EVEN if the measurer is very tiny. Which is not as easy a task
in a universe where the rule/laws of gravity forever "localizes"
(organizes) all "coordinates" at every imaginable point (really
"distorts" the geometry away from a simple universe-wide
agreement of all values) into spherical gravitational systems,
be it atoms, galaxies, or anything else.]

To some extent, it is also possible at this point to understand
how and why it is that "a feather slowly drifting as it falls" in
any part of this rigid "frozen" universe will change the entire
universe, given enough time AND rigidity to its nature. Just
don't start throwing feathers to the wind in our (gravity) "elastic"
universe (trying to change it): As I said, the texture woven by/out
of gravity is rigid ONLY across the shortest distances and
becomes forever more & more "elastic" with the addition of
more & more distance (as per Newton's gravitational constant.)
In the non-rigid "real" elastic universe in which we live,
gravitationally-woven (produced) "textures" work against the
usual "elongations" produced in off-centered regions (as localized
systems favor rather tight sphere-like formations (matter
organizations), thereby making the ability to detect the fact
that ours may be (is) an off-centered perspective even tougher
--though certainly never completely/absolutely impossible.

In practice this means that those forms nearer a/any "center" will
move (toward it) faster than forms farther from center (but this
acceleration has other meanings more relevant to our human
understanding of the universe than just this basic one): Note the
apparently "relativistic" velocities from "a" centralized perspective
in this "frozen" rigid universe model: This ideal "frozen" universe
seems to behave as if it shrinks and expands at once, so it
demands that the more distant any given coordinate is from our
position at the center... the "faster" it must move toward/away
from "us." Because all (but mathematically-imagined) universes
must have "a" center, lines between coordinates nearer their centers
will always lengthen and/or shorten "a lot less" than lines between
coordinates farther from center: However, because universes are
so huge, this really finds no meaningful expression in the "tiny"
regions "we" inhabit inside a universe even when such "regions"
are NOT at the true center of their universes: In the ideal rigid
universe above coordinates nearer center will "move towards/away
from each other" more slowly than those farther away. While in
our own "elastic" universe coordinates farther from center will tend
to "lag" behind those nearer center, with the net result that gravity
in our own "real" elastic universe will produce concentrations
and/or eternally more and more complex "gravitational systems"
at all whatever "centers" (or localized concentrations/organizations
of matter). This would lead to "pile-ups" of matter at all such
"centers" in our elastic universe... but since the forms of matter
are just forms and not fundamental, as they come closer and
closer to a "center" our forms of matter either shrink proportionally
more and more, or simply run out of energy and "cease to exist
as matter." [The "real" result is... planets, stars and galaxies at
one level, atoms at another level, black holes at still another level,
et al.] So it is more than likely that at "the true" center of our
(gravity "lined") universe there are fewer forms of matter (or, less
"matter" there) than anywhere else in it... for somewhat the same
reason that at "the true" center of our planet Earth all gravitational
forces cancel out and (if you discount extraterrestrial sources of
gravity) there is no gravity effect there at all. [This no more means
that gravity is stronger farther from the center of the universe than
nearer it than it means gravity on Earth is stronger atop the tallest
clouds than it is at sea-level.] In any case:

The inviolable nature of the way in which the most basic stratum
of matter organization (the universe's "first generation" gravitational
systems) has set up itself means that all the subsequent generations
of gravitational systems (or strata of matter organization) built from
there on up... are forever forced to agree nearly perfectly to the
pattern of universal shrinking established at the level of the universe's
most basic and primordial stratum. This system of strata also means
that at whatever level/scale they exist (and for as long as they all
exist) the gravitational systems at any given stratum forever remain
organized exactly as they organized themselves at that most basic
stratum (atoms may be violently "split" into quarks, but they will
not gently decay into them... so quarks will always remain quarks
even until such time as the universe's entire system of matter
organization into distinct strata itself crumbles with the end of the
universe of matter).

If you still cannot "picture" the three-dimensional shrinking of
the universe by solid geometry from an ever-shrinking perspective
inside the universe itself use this clumsy but perhaps more
effective 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 God-like us [watching this some distance
away from the cosmic sphere] it will seem as if these two "beings"
are indeed 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. A 3-dimensional (solid geometry) translation
of this analogy would only be slightly more difficult to visualize.
[Just make sure you have enough balloons in your sphere,
otherwise your two beings will end up literally bending over
backwards (over the sphere's horizon) and then they'll start
suspecting something... especially after they loose sight of
each other.] However:

We are not, cars, and cats, and fingers, and pots and pans...
the fundamental level at which the universe is shrinking (though
we are, exactly like the fundamental forms of matter which are
shrinking much more directly and straightforward than us, also
forms of matter and also shrinking): The universe is very old,
and at our level... things have been settled and agreed to (the
rules of the cosmic choreography of shrinking) long, long ago.
We are like "painted shape beings" lately deposited upon this
ancient universe, as it were... who imagine ourselves truly
fundamental when we are really no such a thing: EVERYTHING
at every level/scale (all the forms of matter at every level & at
every scale) above that fundamental level I described before in
terms of "Planck lengths" or "balloons") are/is merely as if one
"layer of existence" upon an always more fundamental layer
which itself exists upon a still more fundamental layer of existence
ad infinitum. [And I really have no way of determining the "size"
of the first most stable gravitational systems which "formed"
after the universe manifested gravity. I can only tell you that
even at that most fundamental level the forms of matter are
just "forms" ... or eternally temporary and infinitely divisible
"gravitational systems."]

Yes, by definition this means the universe is indeed imploding
towards "a" center, but you and I will never notice (as in the
"balloon analogy" above) that some "balloons" are bigger (than
others which are about to "pop off"). Yes, the "balloons" closer
to the center are likely under more pressure to explode than
those closest to the surface... but on the scale of the universe,
this is utterly, utterly meaningless compared to the fact that all
the "balloons" throughout the universe are "exploding" at a regular
agreed-to rate. [Or, the force of gravity applies identically to
every "identical quantity of mass" without regard to where it is
or what its context--that is: regardless of whether it's in some
greater or lesser volume, since in practice "volume" is just a
relativistic function of matter itself. And this means that an
identical quantity of mass in the universe will still "shrink" at
the same rate regardless whether it's "churning" in the center of
a star or "floating" in outer space.]

Are "fundamental forms of matter" possible at all? There may
yet indeed be such a primordial... tiny, basic, "fundamental"
scale/level of existence where the forms of matter are indeed
'blinking off" right out of existence exactly like the "balloons"
in the analogy above--But this can't be happening "because"
these forms of matter are fundamental (except through some
semantic convenience for the sake of definition, perhaps)...
rather this might be happening because there is so little energy
to/in them that their dissolution (gentle unraveling) is extremely
quick: The objection to their being fundamental is, of course,
that fundamental forms of matter do not "dissolve" and instead
behave exactly like nuclear particles... producing the familiar
violent fusion/fission interactions we see at our level/scale
(because by the time the forms of matter reach our level of
existence they are unimaginably complexly-bound gravitational
systems which, for all practical purposes, behave as if they
were indeed fundamental). The objection to this even going on
at all is that it would require that throughout the entirety of the
universe these "almost fundamental" "balloons" be "popping off"
at an unimaginably, quite impossibly consistent agreed-to rate/ratio.
And therefore my contention will remain that the universe could
never agree to the existence of any fundamental form of matter
at any level/scale/stratum. [This is just an additional objection.]

However, the recession of galaxies from each other is quite real
and not merely an optical illusion: The "lag" in time between
the 1st motion of matter (shrinking in place) and the 2nd motion
of matter (rushing in to fill the gaps opened up by the 1st motion
of matter) means that "moving away from" any perspective in
the universe... distance will magnify the "lapse" until, given enough
astronomical distance, it will make the objects of our universe
(literally) fly away from each other at astronomical speeds. As I
said before, this is a relativistic effect AND an absolute effect
at the same time. [Then again, the universe of humanity is also
both relativistic and absolute (considered from inside it/outside it):
What each man knows pretty much depends on his position in
the universe of men AND his ability to step away (outside) from
the confines of that position.] There is also the fact that anything
closer to the center of the universe will move faster (or shrink
faster) than anything farther from center (call it the 3rd motion
of matter)... however, for all practical purposes, this only
accentuates (enhances) the other two motions.

Just keep in mind that because the universe is not shrinking
ONLY at the level of galaxies NOR even "mostly" so (if it
were so then there could arise a near-perfect agreement
between all the galaxies in the universe on the rate at which
these galactic forms of matter were shrinking and there
would never be observed anything in the cosmos but a
perfectly static universe without any apparent expansion or
contraction of the galaxies throughout such an eternity that it
would be unimaginable that man could ever uncover the "fact"
that the nature of the universe wasn't really static). The reason
why we can see an "apparent only" recession of galaxies
from each other is because even the forms of matter which
are between the galaxies are also creating the gaps just as
the forms of matter in stars and planets are creating gaps
between them as they shrink. Albeit, relativistically (to us
here inside the universe) the galaxies REALLY ARE receding
from each other.

> If a body is shrinking while translating towards you "to make
> up for it",  then the edges are approaching even as the absolute
> center seems not to. Very simple math.  Everything in the
> universe would  have a doppler  shifted fringe around it.  Our
> measurements of doppler shifts are  excruciatingly sensitive
> - we'd have seen this.  It's just that simple.

The confusion you show (because you will always insist -apparently-
on believing that SOME forms of matter are fundamental when NONE
are at ANY level or scale) is exactly why I've always advocated that
people refrain from trying to work out the solid geometry of a three-
dimensional universe (even one as unimaginably huge as ours must be)
teeming with "fundamental bits of matter" shrinking (!) ... and instead
try to picture matter as not shrinking and only space expanding at and
from every imaginable coordinate: This way you can blissfully close
your eyes and think of the universe as unchanging ever!

Our relativistic existence inside the universe is good enough for most
purposes. And it's really only those few persons seeking profounder
insights into very esoteric phenomena who will ever really have to
deal with the absolute reality that ours is an imploding universe...
persons looking into why the speed of light is always measured as
a constant in identical mediums, say, or persons trying to explain how
the galaxies can keep their stars from flying off into the night while
spinning as fast as they do, or persons looking into why it is that
the farther galaxies lie from each other... the faster they recede from
each other. These effects are caused by the fact that ours is an
imploding universe, and therefore ONLY by assuming that our
universe works as it really works can one discover the elegant and
inevitable solution.

               TEXT of the Main Essay:

The problem with conventional physics is that it's begun to more
resemble religion than science (worse, religion going by the name
of science); and the inquiry into more and more basic subatomic
particles is beginning to look like some medieval inquiry into higher
& higher orders of angels: It's all very lovely, but as it goes along it
ultimately explains very little, if anything. So let's put aside SR/GR
for the moment (for the sake of argument say that it was a
misinterpretation of the observed reality): Space-time is merely a
convenient set of coordinates and does not explain anything, just
merely paints a topography we can already "see" without having to
describe it as "space-time."

Here then is the real solution to the riddle of existence for you--
a solution which was all along everywhere we looked (and that is why
we failed to see it for so long). Perhaps it is simply just too obvious.

Look out into the cosmos and it seems as if our universe is expanding
(and the first explanation that comes to mind is that it's the result of
an explosion).  We have now concluded the 20th Century holding this
belief. But is it the correct belief? It certainly doesn't explain
anything: Science has no explanation why the pre-Big Bang singularity
(which some posit the size of a basketball and others posit as a pinprick)
should have exploded. No one dares propose where "matter" (it all)
came from, let alone why it should explode... It's all magical somehow.
(And is it any wonder all the religions and religious-minded persons in
the world have embraced the conventional Big Bang theory as evidence
of the existence of a Creator behind the "creation" of the universe?)

But let's consider another alternative (preferably one which is more
consistent with the observed facts): All one really has to do is to ask
oneself: Does it really make sense that gravitons in the pre-Big Bang
Singularity should explode? [It goes against the nature of gravitons
to explode--we are not talking here about nuclear processes.] Put a few
gravitons together and what do they tend to do... move towards each
other. Therefore, if our universe is composed of gravitons (gravity), these
gravitons are moving towards each other and not away from each other:

Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
recede from each other, of course; but it will prove exceptionally
hard for them to organize themselves in the first place [a true
expanding/exploding universe will be an inhospitable place for
the formation/organization of any large-scale forms of matter far,
far longer than the current Big Bang models now allow for galaxies
to arise in it]. Galaxies in a true expanding universe 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--and every trajectory is such
a one in a true expanding universe, of course)... "our" trajectory
would seem more direct than the trajectories of all 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 "whatever"
edge at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a"
center at the same time as ours will reach this 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 halt 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).

                       Implosion, not explosion.

Before the advent in our universe of the fundamental force we know
locally as gravity, existence consisted of infinite (scalar) mass. There
was no ordinary matter in the universe, but there was energy (we can
posit this as simply the result of something as simple as the entirety
of existence not being homogeneous... and thereby giving rise to different
consistencies in different areas, or pressures): This equates to different
values of energy (and this means that our closed-system universe follows
the laws of thermodynamics). You don't have to have different amounts
of matter in a volume to create pressure (it is enough to simply increase
the volume itself, which you can do with a container of gas, or a simple
vacuum). In an earth-bound experiment such a vacuum would be
"mediated" by the matter in the surrounding container, of course. But in
the infinite voids of space... such a "vacuum" might be mediated by the
sheer fact that there is nothing to contain it: How "far and wide" would
infinite (scalar) mass extend in such a situation is really anybody's guess;
but, although necessarily finite at some point, it must be something quite
monstrously immense to contemplate intellectually.

At this point it's as if you had an almost infinite rubber band stretching
for eons: The more it stretches, the more energy it builds up. And so it
goes... almost forever. Until the pressure it has built up reaches its
critical point. [And this model is the one & only true expansion the
universe ever undergoes... an expansion into infinite (scalar) mass.]
It is at this critical point, however defined, that the finite amount
of energy the universe will ever have is set forever.

Here follows the story of our universe upon the advent of gravity (or,
in other words, once the accumulated energy of the universe is converted
into vector mass): At this point that expansion of infinite (scalar) mass
will "reverse" and where (for all practical purposes) once the universe
lay in the grip of a repulsive force, it will now shift its nature into that
of an attracting force. [This "directionality" is really non-linear: It does
not go from one coordinate to another, rather it's one of every coordinate
either pointing outward or inward.]

Energy existing without a well-defined "polarity" literally "merely
fills up space" (the voids--there is no perfect vacuum); but once it
displays a "polarity" (or, better, a vector), energy must interact (with
itself, naturally, if it's the only thing that exists) to create extremely
localized gravitational systems FIRST, and then these "gravitational
systems" must interact with each other... forming more and more
complex super-gravitational systems ad infinitum... or, until such time
as all the available energy has been "neutralized" and the universe
again consists only of an equilibrium where energy no longer displays
a "polarity" (or vector)... which is the electricity analogy. Conversely,
if you use the analogy of  magnetism, then you speak of the universe
as going from being an almost perfectly homogeneous "singularity"
(with no "flows" of energy anywhere) to being a universe where
space/matter have become two distinct "poles" with energy flowing
unimpeded from space into matter and then from matter into space
(the universe may be a true closed system... but "the universe of matter"
is only half of it, while "the universe of energy" is its other half).

[Most exchanges of energy seek/long/work to enhance the flow of
that/their "exchange" (to always take the path of least resistance)...
and one begins to get a hint why it is that a FORCE --if gravity is
indeed the only real force which exists in the universe-- why a force
continuously-applied must always produce momentum. Since a force
(gravity) is a "flow" of energy, use then the analogy of electricity to
explain why it is that its strength decreases according to "the square
of distance."

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

Distance is gravity's great "insulator" (or, the lesser the distance the least
resistance offered to the "flow" of gravity). The practical effect of this is
that at the subatomic level of "nearness" (or, the closest imaginable distances),
the "flow" of gravity is quite monstrous (or, the strong force). And now you
know most of what I know about the nature of gravity and, consequently,
of a force.] Perhaps now you might also see as well:

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

The advent of gravity in the universe results from its energy breaking into
a "flow" (in a closed system, 2nd law of thermodynamics). And so we may
with some confidence posit that the natural state of our universe is, for the
most part, one in which matter is forced to exist. The "orientation" of that
"flow" (determined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is to be the "thermal"
equivalent of convection currents whose "work" is to equalize the distribution
of ("energy" in this case) across the entirety of the universe: In this sense,
the advent of gravity can be thought of as a "wave" which "runs" across the
universe (towards its center) bringing order/equilibrium to the totality of
energy in existence. As it travels throughout the universe it creates eddies
and horrific tornados (the various "forms" of matter which then immediately
AND quite instantly begin to "unwind away" back into equilibrium/energy).
The result is that ALL the "forms" of matter are temporary and absolutely
certainly NONE whatever are fundamental in nature. [This not only suggests
the real possibility of the gravitational constant (Newton) changing values
over time but over different volumes of the universe as well.] The thing to
keep in mind is that the critical "vector" of gravity is not towards THE center
(of the universe... really, this is its least critical vector), but, rather, towards
ALL centers: Gravity manifests itself first of all as an extremely localized
phenomenon and only afterwards as a less extremely localized phenomenon
in all cases (each one of which can then be described as "a" given "form" of
matter). Because they are but "forms" ... regardless of which "form" they take
and which "size" they might be... we shall always continue to recognize their
"forms" (shapes, et al). And if all the "forms" in our universe are shrinking
(or enlarging, for that matter) uniformly around us--all of them, including even
us poor "human forms" as well... then it's nearly impossible to notice to what
extent they are doing this, or whether they are even doing it or not.

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

The result is also cataclysmic (and absolutely chaotic, given the fact that
the "flow" of gravity, like the flow of electricity, always seeks the path
of least resistance): In practice, the fact that the "strength" of gravity always
diminishes inversely-proportionally to the square of distance (thereby making
"distance" its "insulation") means that the "energy flows" quickly turned into
localized self-centered "swirls" and that then, during all the eons since the
birth of the forms of matter... those "gravitational systems" became entangled
"into" more and more complex interactions [with the understanding that once
a given "class" or "order" of complex gravitational systems arose the members
of that particular "order/class" of matter-organization must have found it
impossible to interact directly with gravitational systems not peer members of
its order/class or stratum of matter-organization]... ever tightening even as
they interacted with each other... having necessarily started from "immense
volumes" which then "shrank" throughout their subsequent existence... as
the very gravity of which they were made was literally almost immediately
"sucked" out of them. Basically, this means that each one of the "primordial"
gravitational systems (or primordial forms of matter) itself directly mirrors
the life-history of the overall universe itself in that a vast volume coalesces
into a very tight concentration of energy which almost immediately begins to
"wind down" (or, return its energy again into the infinite (scalar) mass from
whence it came to begin with). Or, all energy-conservation schemes practiced
by only semi-closed systems (part of some larger closed-system) are doomed
to fail... and so too with all the forms of matter which are part of our universe.

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

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

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

Gravity (energy) creates (goes into) matter. Matter is, for all practical purposes,
motion. Motion must be "fueled" or it's done by magic. "Motion" is the "work"
being done by energy. If all the forms of matter are made of energy (gravity,
or E=MC^2), then as their motions (or existence) are fueled by the energy IN
THEM, either they (the forms of matter) MUST "shrink" or the whole thing's
being done by magic. I can find no reason to suppose that it's done by magic,
unlike many other physicists & cosmologists.

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

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

> and that it needs to be 'fueled'.

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

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

On the contrary, I say energy is all that exists (it is Existence). I say
that in our closed system universe the 2nd law of thermodynamics
means that chaos occasionally requires the universe to regulate (bring
into equilibrium) its many parts... which it does simply and efficiently
by means of "currents" or "flows" of energy (positive-to-negative or
negative-to-positive, until, continuing the electricity analogy... its energy
isn't "grounded" any more and existence can safely therefore perch upon
itself like a crow... without fear of electrocuting itself--which is the
universe of "pure" energy, without matter/gravity). The benefit to us
(of electrocuting crows, or creating the universe of "vectored energy") is,
of course, that "electrocuting crows" creates matter in its many "forms."
[And it really doesn't matter at all which "polarity" matter takes, right-
handed or left-handed, matter or anti-matter... they are both equally the
children of Gravity.]

Just as with the repulsive force it replaced, this new attracting force
will characterize every last coordinate of the universe (it will only
be linear on an universal scale as the last resort): However, it will
very quickly become oriented in the direction of shrinking by its very
attractive nature). [You might say that the instant just before the
manifestation of gravity in the universe marked that moment when
the entire universe could have been described as being in a state
equivalent to the "pre-Big Bang" singularity, except that the universe's
real Singularity does not explode, of course, and instead implodes. If
you understand gravity you understand why this is so.]

Therefore the highest moment of activity (and thereby the highest so-
called "temperature" in the thermodynamics analogy) now follows
(although the term "temperature" is usually understood by us in terms
of nuclear processes which gravity does not engage in while it exists
outside particles). The nascent universe, remember, has as its disposal
at this moment the highest amount of "available" energy it will ever have
(to put to the "work" of gravity, or motion). The one thing we do
understand about gravity is that its effect is strongest with proximity.
So it's very likely that a picture of the earliest moments of the universe
would have shown NOT an overall "motion" towards universal implosion
but rather... innumerable instances of very localized interactions (or, as
physics today might interpret such a picture... coalescences everywhere
into so-called "subparticles"). And because of the sheer vastness (volumes)
which would have been necessary to give rise to even the most primordial
(simplest) subparticles... the universe at this time must have experienced
its greatest linear velocities (therefore, if only analogously, its greatest so-
called "temperatures" ). Just keep in mind that true "temperatures" could
ONLY have "risen" after the universe had already created its many strata
of matter organization, of course, and therefore a need for mediating
subparticles to maintain an energy-balance or equilibrium between/among
all such strata). [Gravity itself does not engage in nuclear processes.]

It now becomes possible to quantify the strong force as gravity. In other
words: Let's say the strength of gravity is X in "a given volume" (or, there
is "so much" energy in that volume). By what factor must we reduce that
volume in order to make the strength of gravity equal that of the strong force?
Provided there are no unsuspected variables, this should yield an equation
which would say, "If one took the strength of gravity in a given volume... one
would need to reduce that volume by "this factor" in order for that "amount
of energy" to equal the energy/strength of the strong force" [provided the
strength of gravity always remained perfectly concentrated in the reduction
--what this means in practice is that the ways our subparticles organize
themselves ARE not perfect mirrors of our planetary systems... a quark is
not a sphere like a planet is a sphere... and a photon is a whole universe of
complexity unto itself and not simply a tiny version of a star: The "strength"
of gravity in a "black hole volume" is not equal to the "strength" of gravity in
a "planet volume" even though both "volumes" may be measured as identical
by a naive measurer]. But this way you could slide up & down the "given
volumes;" but the ratios of energy/strength between the strong force & gravity
would always remain the same (that's the equation). And this gives us absolute
knowledge of their permanent relationship, just as envisioned in any Unified
Field Theory (once the "actual" absolute numbers are discovered, of course).

But to continue: Once the universe has settled the question of exactly
which subparticles constitute its stablest "forms" of matter... those
particles will themselves begin to engage in a true universe-wide implosion
(evenly all across the entire universe). At this point energy (or gravity)
has been concentrated (or stored, or conserved) in the "forms" of matter.
But once those "forms" of matter put their energy to the "work" of motion
something has to give: Either the universe CANNOT move (because it
doesn't have the energy available for it to do so), or it will move (in which
case it must fuel its motion with energy siphoned from... somewhere).
This is the unavoidable wall against which crashes any notion that our
universe could be truly expanding/exploding: Ask yourself but this:

Where is the energy that gravity is using to do its work coming from?

This is not simply the energy posited to have been used by the primordial
Big Bang explosion to create the so-called expansion of the universe:

Inertia may keep the moon racing about the earth, but the earth is using
gravity to keep the moon from flying off in a straight line: Where is Earth
getting the energy to do the work it's putting its gravity to? I am sure you
must understand that it's taking "quite a bit of energy" to hold on to the
moon. Please show me where the earth keeps the gas tanks that fuel this
"little bit" of work! (In my opinion it ought to be so huge a train of tanks,
given the huge work Earth is doing, that they should figuratively "litter
the land.") And now think about the amount of gravity being expended to
keep entire galaxies together! --And, if you're one of those persons who
believe it's all being done by magic (without any accounting to/by the real
world, or expenditure of energy)... then you are the acolyte of conventional
physics and believe in invisible unpalpable channels in space through which
roll all the heavenly bodies. [But, where is Newton's apple really getting the
energy it is using to move itself towards the earth?... There are people who
don't believe in gravity, of course; and I don't just mean those SR/GR folks
who believe in magic... these others  believe that there's no such thing as
"the pull of  gravity" and that instead the universe is afflicted with a general
"pressure" which "pushes" bodies together & such--Which ideas must have
occurred to their originators while recovering in great iron lungs after having
surfaced  too quickly from too great a depth while scuba diving.]

If the forms of ordinary matter are fundamental, then it's truly beyond our
comprehension exactly where this tremendous amount of energy which gravity
MUST be consuming is located, how it's being accessed, and how matter is
putting it to work, and (since energy cannot be created or destroyed) how
is the universe conserving/converting that energy... and into what? So too
if the universe is expanding/exploding. But only the first Greeks who originally
proposed the atom believed it was fundamental... and we have long since
proved it is not.

No matter what form our acknowledgment of this truth takes... we know today
that all "forms" of matter are just "forms" and not fundamental. The only
fundamental thing in our universe is gravity/energy (and therefore it is not
mediated by any subparticle). Further, today we know where the energy
of the universe is stored (E=MC^2)... in matter. And so, if the "forms" of
matter were fundamental... the extraction of its energy could only take place
by one method, and that would be the annihilation of matter. (This truth we
see in effect inside every star in the cosmos and in nuclear reactors & bombs.)
Particles are excited (accelerated) and temperatures increase until a critical
point is reached. But this is obviously not where gravity is getting its energy
(remember that gravity does not engage in nuclear processes). The modern-day
method of extracting energy from matter is a monstrously clumsy and inefficient
method. Instead the primal fueling system of the universe is the most perfect
form of  non-nuclear "cold fusion" imaginable: There is "an eternal drain" of
energy out of all the "forms" of matter in the universe... with the result that all
the universe's forms of matter shrink, and motion is then made possible by this.

That sequence is crucial in order to understand what the universe is doing,
by the way: First one must get the energy, and only after this can one put it
to work. In practice this means that first the forms of matter shrink, and
then they "move" (mostly to fill in the newly created "equidistant gaps"
between themselves). Because there are NO fundamental forms of matter
EVERY form of matter (particle) is shrinking and then "moving in" to retain
the equidistance. This means that most of the motion of the universe is NOT
linear but "towards shrinking." [You can also visualize it this way: Think not
of matter as "shrinking" but of space expanding at/from every imaginable
coordinate: Now, if you close your eyes, you will be able to "see" that the
universe remains as it has always been, but all about it and throughout it...
"space" is expanding--It doesn't really have any effect on us, but every
coordinate in our universe can now be thought of as being the center of the
universe. Find a feather which will "float" in that expanding space, and no
matter in which direction you "drop it" (in that expanding space) it will "float"
away in that direction forever.] This is exactly what happens with the photon,
which, although it still shrinks right along with us, will yet refuse to rush in
to "fill the gaps" at the same velocity as the rest of the forms of ordinary
matter are themselves "rushing in" to "fill the gaps." The difference in speeds
between the speed at which ordinary forms of matter "rush in to fill the gaps"
and the speed at which the photons "rush in to fill the gaps" is measured as
c constancy in identical mediums--And this is because the photon will "slow
down" in relation to us more in a vacuum than in a medium in which it is being
pressured by the greater "velocities" of the ordinary forms of matter themselves
"rushing past it" (really, their gravitational fields) as they "rush in to fill the gaps"
at their "normally" higher speeds... and, naturally, the "thicker" the medium...
the greater the "pressure" exerted on the photon.

Thereby: 1) c constancy is one of the most powerful proofs that ours is an
imploding universe. 2) It is indisputable that gravity can only WORK the way it
does in our universe if ours is an imploding universe. And, finally: 3) The most
obvious hint the universe gives us that it is indeed an imploding universe is,
ironically, the Hubble constant (or, the very real recession of the galaxies from
each other).

                    Definition of x-space:

If one considers the entirety of the universe of matter and Newton's
relativistic descriptions of motion in that universe (where there is no
place at absolute rest) everything makes perfect sense. However, once
you understand that the universe of matter is merely a "motion" away from
the universe of energy, it becomes obvious then that the universe of energy
IS [at] absolute rest. Therefore all the most fundamental "absolute" motions
of matter are either towards absolute rest (or those of matter "away from
shrinking" ... which was the condition which gave rise to matter in the first
place), or away from absolute rest (or "towards shrinking" ... which pretty
much perfectly describes the direction matter takes back to (becoming) energy
"again"). Therefore, "x-space" refers both to the universe of energy (sans
matter) and to absolute rest: The importance of x-space being (or, at) absolute
rest becomes obvious when we realize that particles like the photon can
recognize the existence of x-space even if all other forms of ordinary matter's
only recognition of it is... when they shrink from it or "expand" toward it):
And now it may become easy to understand why the mass of a charged particle
increases with velocity: NOT because it's compressed by the silly "Fitzgerald
contraction" but because an accelerating charged particle is "in absolute reality"
moving towards "absolute rest" [or, in the direction of infinite (scalar) mass].

      Constancy of The Speed of Light In Identical Mediums

One may also 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
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 by its
source/creator? The most immediate ("only") possible answer is that the
photon is [relatively speaking] not traveling (moving) at all: In an imploding
universe it is "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 ought to make it instantly obvious
that any & all "ordinary-matter objects" in our universe which "appear" to
be linearly accelerating (up towards the so-called "speed of light") are "in
absolute 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 closer it 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 which ONLY
obeys the 1st motion of matter (shrinking in place) while apparently
remaining free from having to obey the second motion of matter (or,
closing the "gaps" opened by the 1st motion of matter). This requires
that the photon (and all such particles) be extremely and uniquely
constructed "universes unto themselves." [The description of the
photon as "a discrete quantum packet" is therefore here very pertinent
indeed (as is Frank Wilczek's idea of "asymptotic freedom," which
holds that quarks feel scarcely any mutual attraction when they are
very near each other despite their powerful attraction when separated):
If the universe is to exist as a stratified architecture in which the
forms of matter in any given stratum cannot directly interact with
forms of matter in other strata... there must yet exist a method by
which different strata can equalize (exchange) their different energy
values and therefore one or more "special particles" is required to
mediate this interaction between the strata: The photon fits this
requirement perfectly: Every other form of ordinary matter is the
absolute slave and prisoner of its stratum. But the photon is the
means by which the different strata of our universe "mediate" (or
"exchange"), really "maintain" their "energy equilibrium" --a "side
effect" of which mediation is that energy is also made available for
an opportunistic parasite of the universe, namely... most forms of life:
which would find it very hard to make a living in the universe
without having this most direct and easy access to the energy of
the universe which the photon also offers them.]

One hint that this is the correct model comes from the fact that there
is no absolute/perfect vacuum (one even devoid of "gravitons")... and
yet the apparent speed of light is always a constant in whatever identical
medium. [To posit such a perfect vacuum theoreticians must say that the
graviton simply does not exist, and that therefore gravity acts purely by
magic at a distance! Of course, they use the term "space-time" 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 appreciable at 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 which it
was created (which makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly" away
from the "spot" in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it originated);
thereby the so-called "speed of light" remains constant regardless of its
source/origin/direction because "about" the only connection a photon has
with its source is "orientation" [x-space is expanding equally from/at all
coordinates, so the only quality the photon creator/source can impart unto
"his" creation is an orientation relative to "himself" --e.g. when "you"
create the photon to the west of "you" that photon will "seem" to shoot
out away from your west side, and if you create a photon to the north
of you... it will then "seem" to shoot out away from your north side,
since x-space will always take "you" to be the exact center of its universe]
... Add the proviso that if "enough matter" (a massive enough gravitational
field) passes close enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly
display a new "linear" orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will
naturally be "observable" by the rest of our universe because in our
universe the "orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter with respect
to any & all other bits of ordinary matter in the universe is "recognized"
by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are other concerns
not needed to be discussed here regarding all other linear motions of our
universe... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this one simple "absolute
law" you really have to understand to avoid having to delve into synonymous
but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your" orientation with
respect to the rest of the universe is absolute... so once the photon "adopts"
an orientation with respect to "you" it has also (de facto) adopted that same
("your") orientation with respect to the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.

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

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

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

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

Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man "takes the time" to move a few
paces ahead of the woman and then stops (he will catch his photon there
before she catches hers, but you have no problem understanding that they
will both report catching their photons at 100 mph). The same is true if
he "takes the time" to step back a few paces as well: he will catch his
photon after she catches hers, but you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both report catching their photons at 100 mph.
The matter is not one of time, but of acceleration/deceleration: The paradox
will always rest with what they will interpret as acceleration vs what the
photon will interpret as deceleration... and in that "misinterpretation" lies
their eternal impossibility to agree between them that the speed at which
a photon has been caught is anything except constant regardless of their
relative velocities with respect to the photon!

And there the matter forever rests in our reality: As far as ordinary
matter in our universe goes... the so-called "speed of light" will always
be measured in this perfectly inversely proportional manner to be
identical (in identical mediums) by all moving observers regardless of
their velocities (linear) relative to each other: It is an absolute set value
(agreed to) between the man and the woman (that whichever one of
them "hits" a photon at a "true/real" slower speed will always report to
the other one that he/she hit it exactly that much faster, thereby canceling
out all differences between them). They have no choice in this agreement,
of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them by the nature of this reality/
existence... and thus too, along with the man and the woman, every bit
of ordinary matter in our universe has also "signed" this Absolute Relativity
covenant with every other bit of ordinary matter in our universe. [And
absent a profounder truth the constancy of c is all the evidence required
for/of the reality of x-space.]

It takes light nearly eight minutes to travel even such an infinitesimal
cosmological distance as that one from the Sun to the earth, after all.
So, to account for it being the photon that is "moving" we would not only
have to account for what gives it its initial "push" but we would also have
to account for what keeps that momentum from decaying--and quite
appreciably, given the relatively slow speed of light. [The only other
alternative being that the photon is expending its "pool of energy" in
propulsion--something which is nowhere apparent.] On the other hand, if
we think in terms of it being we [the universe of ordinary matter, excluding
the photon] who are traveling at (approx.) the so-called "speed of light"
instead of the photon... we can more easily account for a drag (on us) on
many, many levels of understanding (the universe might be "cooling down,"
the expansion --really, the implosion-- of the universe might be slowing
down, et al).

Moreover, note that this cosmic ballet may be further complicated, in my
opinion, by the notion (philosophical prejudice?) that the photon never really
goes all the way down to absolute rest [as I feel I must equate absolute rest
with absolute zero/absolute rest/infinite (scalar) mass/non-gravity energy
/non-polarity energy/non-vector, non-matter energy etc.... and therefore one
can hardly have a photon "lying about" there]. Consequently the so-called
speed-of-light will not be the "greatest speed possible" (as it is really not the
equivalent of absolute rest, and merely only much, much closer to it than
anything else we know of).

More properly, think of the analogy of a helium balloon released at sea-level...
where the photon merely gets appreciably closer there (to absolute rest) than
the rest of us (ordinary matter in our universe). [And since this summation is
intended for laymen as well as scientists, please forgive my repetitions:] I will
conclude here with the old analogy of a ship traveling through an ocean devoid
of gravity, and from which ship a sailor casts off a cork: As soon as the cork hits
the water it will lose its connection with the ship and will effectively come to a
dead stop: Since this ocean has no gravity the cork will always remain at rest
more or less where it is unless acted upon by some other force [Newton].

No known force is acting on the photon (cork) outside "some very negligible
effect of gravity" once it is assembled/created (cast off the ship)... except that,
unlike the cork, the photon retains an infinitesimal connection with the ship
and thus "goes along with it" a little bit. [I have already dealt with the matter
of the "observer" above.]

However, just as there is no way for the ship to impart "much" of a push to
the cork, there is no way for the photon creator to give "much" of a "push"
to his photon; so a photon (perhaps the most monumentally simple/easy
subatomic matter-construct (particle) to "put together/assemble" on the human
level, whether naturally-occurring or man-made): a photon is "manufactured"
in "a place" ["where" it "pretty much" remains (approximately) stationary
--remember: only in relation to all other ordinary matter of our universe
considered as a unit--while the source that created it continues to ride "x-space"
(expanding space) away from it--making it seem, from the photon creator's
point of view as if it's the photon that's "suddenly" moving away from "him"
... in the same way that a sailor on that ship would "see" the cork he cast out
from the ship "moving" away from him--albeit he would be a little more
perceptive than we perhaps and realize that it's the ship moving and not the
cork]... the rate of speed at which the cork is moving away being equal to
the velocity of his ship--in this simple analogy.

[But don't forget that in the photon's case, the speed ("of light") does not
perfectly equal absolute rest even though it is that much closer to it with
respect to the "speed" of ordinary matter: The simple "cork" analogy above
has to be fine-tuned, of course... The photon does not really come to a
"full stop" but only decelerates (tremendously/precipitously) in that direction
(with regards to us): Perhaps a closer analogy is the releasing of a helium-
filled balloon at sea level: The balloon will "shoot up" with greatest velocity
achieved very near where it was released and afterwards decelerate as it nears
an altitude where it achieves equilibrium between inner/outer pressures...
lingering there without ever escaping the earth or falling back down. So too
the photon will decelerate towards absolute rest but never really get as far as
that (if it did it would, in my opinion, literally cease to exist in what we would
interpret as an "explosion," rather than the radiation effect). The "speed of
light" is therefore not a measure of "our speed" vs absolute rest but only a
reflection of "our" much, much greater velocity than that of the photon vs
absolute rest (so what the photon is doing is really more akin to what the
helium balloon does than what the "cork" does).]

            Existence, in terms of Time.

Try this: Existence as an infinite number of parallel lines
(each one a counter) standing for the ever-changing "shapes
and forms" (individual/independent motions) of the universe
extending infinitely in a direction you'd care to recognize:

Every one of the counters is progressing at a rate different
and independently from all the other counters.

You are, of course, one of those counters: That's your "time."

You notice that the "earth rotation" counter is not synchronized
with your counter (say it's 12045 beats per each one of yours, if
you live around 33 years).

You notice that the "earth orbit" counter is synchronized neither to
your counter (an odd 33/1) nor to the "earth rotation" counter
(365.xxx/1...!)... etc.

The ice-cream melting counter is also off on its own pace. And
so is the bowling-ball melting counter. Even the counter of the atoms
whose vibrations you use to keep your watch on time is not
synchronized with any other counter in the universe! You try "timing"
"that" block of iron counter (which seems not to be moving at all);
and you tell your descendants to keep timing it, but a thousand
generations of your descendants pass and the block of iron counter
still looks like it's not moving at all. One of those descendants gets
a little impatient and takes a blow torch to the block of iron (and gets
its counter moving at quite a clip). But as soon as he ceases applying
the torch to it, the block of iron counter again slows down to its own
sweet time... Meaning:

Man may apply his idea of time outside his own mind, but, in truth,
once man's application is removed, nature returns to its absolute
obliviousness of the idea (e.g. every single counter will continue to
"change" at its (each's) own rate without regard to what any of the
other counters are doing). Ours is a universe in chaos.

One of the most crucial first steps in our understanding of how reality
works is always the elimination of human prejudices (which naturally
cloud our sight): And there is probably no one single greatest obstruction
keeping modern science from a more profound insight than the self-
defeating attempt to apply the always misleading and confusing human
notion of "time" to reality: The absolute relativity of reality naturally calls
for a picture that corresponds absolutely to reality; and ours is an
absolutely three-dimensional reality, period.

To say that something "existed" is to imply it no longer exists (just as
to say something "will exist" is to imply that although it does not exist
now, it will yet come into existence in future). This flies in the face of our
conviction that the energy which takes the "forms & shapes" of "matter"
can neither be created nor destroyed: What people mean to say when they
imply those impossibilities is that "forms & shapes" change (and since the
only "existence" forms & shapes have is in our minds, to say: "That shape
over there has changed to another shape" is totally meaningless outside
our minds). We live in a universe where individual forms & shapes are
constantly changing at rates (mostly, as nothing is absolute IN our universe)
independent of whatever rates at which all the other forms & shapes are
changing--and consequently it's impossible to keep track of all of them,
across the entirety of the universe, "long enough" to synchronize them all.
It is also pointless to attempt to do so (the only acceptable goal to doing so
being to ascertain the exact age of the universe).

The so-called "speed of light" may indeed "come close" to answering
the question, "What time is it?" for the universe as a whole, but never
for any one given point along its lifetime. [i.e. posit that "time" is the rate
at which the forms of matter have been "combining" (from simpler to
more complex gravitational systems) even from the beginning of the
universe... but since this process will always be greater at the beginning
than at the end {in a descending graph}, it is not easy to determine at
any given point exactly how far along (down) the descending line in
the graph that point is [how fast time is "going"] when all one has to go
by are the very inexact approximations conjured up by someone inside
the closed system itself: In such a closed system time moves very quickly
at the beginning but hardly at all at the end--and, in absolute terms, it may
take as "much time" for the last two gravitons to "die" as it did for all the
other gravitons put together since the "beginning of time" to die]. This is
why scientists find themselves needing to say that "more" happened in
the history of the universe in its first few nanoseconds (even when speaking
in terms of Big Bang mythologies) than "since" and/or hereafter. We can,
however, draw up approximations from the "current" (apprehended) "speed
of light" and such [say, since we can "estimate" that (at this point in time)
the "speed of light" is very very slow in cosmological terms, then our
universe must consequently be very very old--or, "far along" (down) our
line on "the graph" --providing c is really very very close to absolute rest,
of course]. Only if we knew the exact "size" of the universe would we be
able to know its exact age, because in the beginning (not the "current speed
of light" but) the greatest possible "speed" would have been instantaneous
from one end (or, "side") of the universe to the other (when the entire
universe = absolute rest). [Unfortunately for us, "size" is also a purely
human idea, forever impossible to detach from matter, and "the inch" has
no more real existence than "the minute" outside the human mind (where
time is also forever impossible to detach from matter... and so consequently
anything that "took place" in the universe before there was matter in it must
forever remain "as if" it had been "instantaneous" in our consideration.]

But therefore the one thing that must be removed from the model (and
which a model of absolute relativity does) is a time-coordinate: Time can
only have existence (meaning, relevance) in a closed system in which all
its components (matter components, of course) can agree with each other
(are synchronized): In a closed system where chaos (misnamed "randomness,"
although it's really "absolute ignorance") has broken out time is meaningless.
[The only meaning time has to such a chaotic system is outside that system
--i.e. from when the system was created (created the highest degree of
chaos) to when it ceased to exist (chaos came to an end); and only to
"someone" outside the system itself--possible, in this case, because the
human mind can do just that: It can step entirely out of this universe
and consider its entirety.]

But if you (who are inside such a closed system) personally want to "use"
the idea of time here inside our universe at its most applicable... synchronize
your family's watches so you can all agree whose turn it is to use the
bathroom, and leave it at that. The only knowledge "we" have "here" with
respect to time is that the universe (chaos) "seems" to be moving from
beginning to end--an educated guess, really--but because chaos will be greater
at the beginning than at the end (i.e. because "time" will move slower/faster
as time goes on and we can only momentarily synchronize our watches to
bits of the chaos which are themselves eternally becoming less and less chaotic
over the long haul)... it is impossible to say (at any given "time") with any
degree of accuracy how far along that process we are (and so we can't tell
what "time" the bits of chaos we have synchronized our watches to have
themselves synchronized their watches to ad infinitum).

By the way, Special Relativity (and General Relativity) are not strictly speaking
"wrong" ... one can still use SR/GR to "see" the world (just as one can use one's
eyes). [It's as if Einstein had said, "Wherever one finds a  tree one also finds
earth collected at its roots." This is not wrong; it's just that it's more elegant to
say that trees grow in earth.] However, the SR/GR universe, with its "time"
dimension, has almost infinite "slack/elasticity" (certainly enough to allow for
"a" singular beginning and/or a singular end for all time): [e.g. If one thinks of time
moving in one direction only, one may then envision time coming to a full stop,
or moving at any rate one might care to imagine, etc.] This does not correspond
with the logic of a reality which is a most absolutely exclusively a 3-dimensional
one (or, apparently a steady-state one). [e. g. It's really impossible to imagine a
beginning or an end to the motion of the universe--the AR universe can be thought
of as a pendulum without a clock attached, with "time" moving forwards and
backwards ad infinitum without ever retaining a memory of which way is forward
and which way is backward--And since "time" is only a human idea, it's even
possible to say that existence itself is a mere vibration (although we shall never
know its pitch): Remember too that "motion" is not an additional dimension but
rather all the nature there is to a 3-dimensional reality multiplied an infinite number
of pendulums = nowhere is there an aspect of our reality which is not equivalent to
"more/less motion than some other motion," period.] The human idea of time can
only apply in a very local perspective--always some one or another only very local
motion with respect only to some other equally only very local motion.  And so
the problem with the SR/GR model is that, unlike an Absolute Relativity model,
one cannot use SR/GR to look directly at the world: SR/GR is more like a painting
... beautiful, ingenious, definitely the work of genius, it's both perceptive and
insightful--but it's just not clear enough: It's much too (humanly) interpretative
to let us actually "see" the world itself (and so we are left with a very profound
insight which does not go past first glance): And the business of science is to
travel down the details towards an ever more profound insight. Whereas it is in
the details that the painting which SR/GR provides that it begins to break down
[yes, the girl in the painting "looks like" the girl in the real world, only in the
painting her right eye is slightly larger than her left eye while it's quite the other
way around with the girl in the real world]. The Fitzgerald/Lorentz (SR/GR)
interpretation that "particles gain mass with velocity" is illogical; an AR model
gives us the more reasonable view that particles "gain" (become) mass the closer
they come to absolute rest (as well as time-dilation in the direction towards
absolute rest)... Of course, nothing changes in the world, but SR/GR's statement
is convoluted, while AR's agrees more directly with the logic of reality.

What are the limits beyond which Absolute Relativity cannot go? All human
knowledge will remain imperfect, I'm afraid. But although heretofore science
has been unable to "peek" into the nature of existence prior to a few
nanoseconds after Big Bang, AR now allows us an insight almost into eternity.
But there are those "human" limits... and (perhaps the greatest, even perhaps
the only, but certainly) the first such limit is hinted at by the knowledge that
our entire universe may itself be no more than merely just one more
graviton/oppositon among an infinite number of them... which, altogether,
may themselves comprise a higher level fabric/matrix of existence we can
never know the least thing about outside of the very speculative possibility
that we might not be able to rule out its existence (in other words, our "one"
universe may only be just "one" more localized "super gravitational system").

And, also by the way, if experimental data "seems to" contradict any portion
of the AR model then it's more likely that the results of the experiment will
have been misinterpreted... for the simple reason that while the world is as it
is, interpretations of experiments are done by mere humans--and to err is
human, after all. [Only partly kidding.] However, as I have now given you
a view into the way reality really works it should be simple enough for you
to see everything from hereon out on your own.

S D Rodrian
sdr@sdrodrian.com
http://web.sdrodrian.com
http://www.sdrodrian.com

PS. If you do not understand any portion of this text, please, please
re-read it before trying to obtain a further explanation from me (as
I already get 150+ emails per day).

Many answers to Usenet Questions have already been given in the following threads:
Why doth the Photon move at all?
What is Gravity? What is a Force?
Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Funny Energy: 1 More Confirmed SDRodrian prediction
Questioning the Big Bang and other Theories
Time and Stuff
What exactly is gravity
Why should the speed of light be constant?
What is Time
How can space be bent (plus)
Time
Speed at which the universe expands
Einstein - Charlatan, flim-flam man, or man of the century?
S D Rodrian posts on google
 

- 30 -

POEMS

MIDIs