Re: What is Gravity?

On Jan 23, 3:34 pm, Uncle Al

<Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

> s...@sdrodrian.com wrote:

>> ... you will NOT find a definite explanation

>> of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in

>> the annals of conventional science because

> Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)

> Was that so hard? Idiot.

Dear Idiot, I wrote... "the annals of conventional

science" not those of "science fiction." [by the way,

had you read my article, you'd seen that I discuss

many of the fallacies in early 20th Century physics.]

You know, if instead of merely throwing rocks you'd

actually address whatever it is you object to (other

than people's pretty donkeys), you wouldn't come off

as so reprehensibly puerile. Never the less, here's a

hint which may cover your generalized "objection" =

If your "science" can explain how/why

Superman flies, what you have there is

NOT "science" ... it's "science-fiction."

Why, when there is a perfectly reasonable and

straightforward solution, anyone would still insist

on adhering to explanations which are not only

needlessly complex (hopelessly convoluted) but

also dependant on mathematical "reality" rather

than on actual Reality is beyond all reason/logic.

Here's a further hint: "If it walks like a duck,

and quacks like a duck, and there is a chinaman

chasing it with a cleaver ... there is no need to

explain that bird in terms of it being the product

of "complimentary pairs of virtual particles" & such

--It's a duck." Live with it. Go & suck one.

S D Rodrian

http://poems.sdrodrian.com

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.

Only science is universal.

RE:

rolfguthm...@uol.com.br (Rolf Guthmann) wrote:

> New law of gravitation?

> Power LawGravity?

> What is gravity?

> What is its cause or source?

> Many minds have attempted to solve this ancient puzzle,

> but no one has yet been fully successful.

Yes, you will NOT find a definite explanation

of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in

the annals of conventional science because

up until Mr. S D Rodrian pointed out how it is

that the universe really works NO ONE could

have possibly even imagined how gravity

works, nor what the devil gravity really "is."

[Newton merely wrote out a formal set of rules

covering how gravity appears to be working

--up/down-- "why inertia (mass)" was a complete

& utter mystery to Newton. And Einstein merely

expanded this same exercise of "drawing up

the rules on how gravity appears to act" into

a more useful, and therefore more accurate,

formal geometrical language... neither one of

which explain anything whatever about gravity.]

All this "dancing around the answer people were

really after" was because since the beginning of

time observers had believed that "masses" were

"somehow" attracting each other (and therefore

that "eventually" some sort of "graviton"would

be discovered [today's infamous quest for mythic

"gravity waves" and a "magical particle" which

imparts "inertia/mass" to all the other particles]...

futile quests, of course, because gravity is NOT

the result of "masses" attracting each other but

is in fact merely/solely/only "the way in which

the universe is moving." As fully explained in the

following text from http://physics.sdrodrian.com

All anyone needs is a grasp of Newton's original

laws of motion to understand, once and for all, why

mass/why inertia exists at all. And it has nothing

whatsoever to do with any "magical" particle:

Gravity As Thermodynamics:

The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their

own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be

sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,

unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart

enough to understand the universe but that they are

too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they

instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up

overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)

illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of

literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.

The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability

of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing

else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that

inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to

usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does

not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,

a private diversion... but certainly not science.

Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship

between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with

the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path

of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my

knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive

explanation of the universe in terms of the

inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly

how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the

inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural) phenomenon

it is in the universe.

Since I am not here going to give merely one more

description of the visible universe but am actually

going to show the causes behind its observed effects,

there will be no resorting here either to supernatural

interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps

of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations

(the mere reduction of manifest observations to

exacting measurements) behind which the absence of

actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.

There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the

mystified.

The first problem to be solved is the prohibition

against the creation/destruction of "energy," as

embodied in the question of what could have "been

there" before there was a universe of visible matter.

And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the

one which allows us to inquire into levels of

existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an

abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply

across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some

of them while not at others [including the statistical

research of probability & quantum theory].

But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to

"believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"

objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of

"matter" alone as the only "solid material" that

"exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps

telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"

existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)

that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always

insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the

only thing which really exists") is "momentary"

matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."

["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]

Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter

is an "illusion" created by interactions between the

electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear

forces."

WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.

THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different

than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"

sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your

own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are

in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and

the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other

"forms")... none of which has any relevance to the

question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too

ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"

(so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be

torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")

without this having any bearing whatsoever on the

question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,

the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are

made). And this holds true even if the forms are

imposed on you by the universe rather than your

imagination imposing them on the universe.

This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous

theorists from following the line of inquiry we are

taking here: Just as it was only after mankind finally

accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not

the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the

universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the

greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it

is only when we finally give up the human prejudice

that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are

the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with

whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or

that there are even such things), that it then becomes

possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.

This notion that there exist "immutable and

indivisible objects with whose destruction

existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human

superstition which should have been dropped once it

was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an

indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer

tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in

quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such

indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).

However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was

mulling why it might be that, given the existence of

gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of

"fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to

consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not

produce anything other than the "forms of matter"

always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the

universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby

"larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve

(or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum)

into "smaller/ faster" ones], perhaps modern physics

might have been spared the last hundred years'

nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd

(with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions"

science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected

discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are

receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate

depending on their distances) could have been

understood for what it really is --a clear reflection

on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower

forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is

necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between

themselves. [As well as hinting that there might

indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in

the universe... by which (against which) all eternally

shifting local effects might be measured.]

Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?

Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific

proposition that there is no fundamental difference

between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some

may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that

they are but merely two levels of the same single

process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders

of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately

there are only "relative differences" in "densities"

(or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental

shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that

from "non-existence" to "existence."

Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly

the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what

it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that

ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only

the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it

from one form/value/concentration to another

"equality."

Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the

primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense

of "a given energy value") can never have been an

all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead

always been an entirely relativistic "state") because

otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a

"leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it

has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a

clear violation of the laws of physics, but

consequently not even a proper subject for science.

The question of "a mathematical infinity" never

comes into what is essentially a choice offered by

the laws of physics (whether or not "something"

can come out of "nothing")... and not the sort of

mathematical game exemplified when, say, a new

guest shows up at, "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" and

the clerk claims that all rooms are full--forcing

the new guest to explain that if the hotel is

"full but infinite" the clerk can simply make the

guest in room 1 move into room 2, move the

original guest in room 2 into room 3, and the

guest in room 3 into room 4, and so on...

depriving no guest of a room but vacating room 1

into which any new guest can then move. i.e. The

supposed paradox (like all paradoxes) is

artificially created when the clerk erroneously

claims that "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" can ever be

"full." [There are no paradoxes in nature, only in

the mind.]

Acknowledging that "the process of existence itself"

is one of evolution (or, that "existence has always

existed," as it were) eliminates once & for all the

strictly human (mental) "paradox" that existence must

"originate" with/as some supernatural Big Bang

(special creation) miracle.

Let us posit instead a "given volume of space" ("the

void"), its "absolute" energy value (the absolute

density of "its whatever material") being irrelevant

because as long as that density is purely/solely

"relativistic" there can be no "lowest limit" to how

tenuous/sparse it can be and still "exist." And this

then is the "spatial volume" or, more properly, the

"scalar mass" [traditionally termed "the void"]. From

our perspective: about as close to infinitely immense

as such a thought is humanly possible; that is...

without ever permitting time to bring to an end the

process of continuing to imagine its immensity.

It quickly becomes clear how unusual (provided such a

"volume of space" has ANY "energy value" or "density"

at all), how unusual it would be if such an infinitely

vast spatial volume could maintain the same identical

"density" or "energy value" across the entirety of its

unlimited [not to mention: eternally increasing]

vastness... regardless how low that energy value or

density may be "in absolute terms" which do not apply,

remember, because an "absolute" condition of existence

demands some absolute lower limit dropping below which

"the thing" no longer exists. And, since we exist, it

behooves us to assume that the density/energy value of

the scalar mass always had to have been "relativistic"

and never "all-or-nothing" or "absolute." [Not to

mention the fact that to measure anything one must

measure it against "something else," and "existence"

is all that exists, or obviously "the only thing" that

exists.]

In an exclusively "relativistic" context then (one in

which the "density" of any given "volume of space" is

always merely "relatively" higher or lower than those

of "other" volumes of space, and NOT "absolutely"

EITHER existent OR nonexistent): there will always be

"enough" energy (if you will: "a difference" in

"pressures" or "temperatures") already present in

"even such primordial" a condition to literally "fuel"

everything which may "proportionally" evolve from it

--because it's in the nature of "energy" as we have

come to understand it (and no less in the cosmic

relativity of existence we are discussing here), it is

in the nature of "energy" to be (to also "hold")

purely a thermodynamic "potential" for "work."

More aptly: "for motion" ... replacing the term

"work" with "motion" since we are certainly not

going to speak here of "motion without matter."

[Energy being "what matter does." Remember:

"existence = energy"] Therefore... "if matter is

merely energy, matter is also merely motion" (so

that: "there has always been motion" is what we

really mean when we say that "existence has always

existed"). Again: All "the forms of matter" are

merely "larger/slower" forms becoming/evolving/

conserving themselves into "smaller/faster ones."

Or, from the diametrically opposite perspective

(not an entirely unreasonable one, so we'll be

discussing it later)... all the "forms of energy"

can be thought of as the (denser) faster/smaller

forms of energy conserving themselves into

larger/slower (more dispersed) ones.

As far as the requirements of "motion" go... the

direction of "flow" is irrelevant ("into" will "work"

just as well as "out of"). It's a mistake to belive

that what's thermodynamically required for "energy" to

"perform work" [the term "work" from classical

mechanics' "product of force/distance"], that what is

thermodynamically required for "energy" to "perform

work" is, say, "a boiler-full of heated water" when

the sole requirement (for the universe to "work") is

that a thermodynamic current "flows" (the sole

origin/source of "motion"). Therefore the singular

objection to existence is that it not be absolute (or,

"all-or-nothing") given that "absolute stillness" has

no way of "pushing off" itself, as it were.

In the primordial condition of existence, in which one

single elementary (homogeneous) principle constitutes

the sum total of "everything/the material" from which

all subsequent diversity arises (the evolution of more

complex forms from simpler ones, or even a single one)

existence can only "flow" [note the always inescapable

definition of "existence" as "motion"], existence can

only "flow" from this clearly singularly relativistic

state rather than from being arbitrarily forced by a

human superstition to "flow" from some impossible

(magical) "boiler" [or "Big Bang" furnace/mixture] of

many already complex primordial states (independent

settings) clearly violating creation/destruction laws

of energy in some impossible all-or-nothing universe.

With respect to this principle of evolution: If one

considers the present universe just in light of the

proposed "string" theories: one can hardly help

noticing that the present universe is in many, many

ways a very elegantly simple concept compared to

the notorious complexity of string theories from

which it is supposed to "originate" (from which it

"subsequently evolves"). Something which is clearly

a logical violation of the principle of evolution.

As difficult as it may be to "find" in the primordial

"void" a "volume of space" with a density lower than

that of the rest of existence, in the first place...

that much more difficult is it to even imagine where

and how one might possibly (necessarily) "create" a

volume with an even higher density, to begin with (or,

the infamous Big Bang "boiler" of inflationary

models). So the universe (everything that "follows"

from "the primordial state") is a lot more likely to

begin with the former (or "an evolution" from/of

simpler forms) rather than with the latter (some

"special creation" Big Bang already complex from its

start). And keep in mind that even if one such "Big

Bang boiler" could somehow be "produced" (at the

"onset of it all")... its destiny surely would be

dilution and dissipation, and certainly NOT the

concentration and amalgamation which obviously goes

into the organization of ever more & more complex

forms of matter.]

It is irrelevant whether "the void" comes upon a

bubble/area ("hollow") of lesser density (the

"egg" that incubates our universe of matter) or

such a "hollow" comes into being somewhere within

"the void" (my own preference because this makes

for a balanced/stable universe in which matter and

anti-matter regions balance out each other, making

it easier to understand why it is that one form

predominates in a given "side" of the universe

even as the other form may be the most common one

in the "opposite" side of the same universe.

We will always return to this same point of departure:

All that is required for the homogeneous "primordial

medium" to (perform) "work" [i.e. for "the void" to

produce an already perfect/complete machine] is for

"the void" (no matter how unimaginably tenuous and

sparse its "density") to come into contact with

another volume of space "region" or "hollow" (as we

shall term it here) having an even lower density.

And, for the purpose of illustrating more easily

the "gravitational" evolution of the visible

universe, we will "assume" in this text that "our"

lesser density "hollow" was more or less completely

and entirely (and perhaps even perfectly)

encompassed by the greater density "the void."

Though common sense rules this out (just as, given

their origin, its "discrete bits" could never have

been perfectly equidistant from each other). But we

will still speak of it this way so we may refer to

the universe as having a perfectly spherical shape

it can't in fact possibly have.

As the primordial medium of the "the void" encounters

our "hollow" of lesser density, its greater density

"collapses" our lesser density hollow (collapses into

it, that is), sending (crucially for the creation of

our universe of visible matter at its center), sending

a "shockwave" of higher density "material" into our

"hollow" from every point around it. [This "shockwave"

of inrushing material effectively represents pretty

much the sum total of all the "energy" our visible

universe is ever destined to have, by the way.] This

imploding pressure wave eventually "condensing" into

what we call matter somewhere along the way.

There still being people who think the earth is

"flat" (and many who believe it is the universe

that orbits the earth--and perhaps there are always

going to be such people): somewhere around here

advocates of inflationary models "may be tempted to

think" that the cosmic collapse of the void's

primordial material (energy) into our lower-

density "hollow" may well be describing a rationale

for their cherished Big Bang model... as "matter"

crashes against a pinpoint quantum center and then

erupts/echoes back out like 3-dimensional ripples

following the dropping of a pebble into a lake...

rescuing the ancient superstition that there can

be, after all, some fundamental particle from which

everything else is made... never mind the fact that

this idea leaves us forever unable to explain how a

necessarily mythological fundamental object like

"matter" could have possibly come into being (out

of non-being) in the first place--and "necessarily

mythological" because we can never describe a

particulate of matter in our universe we can with

any degree of certainly assure ourselves is forever

immutable and indivisible (even strings' own theory

places them neither altogether in our universe nor

altogether outside it). But as antidote to this Big

Bang superstition, keep in mind that all the forms

of matter will condense for a brief time and then

"just as quickly" dematerialize. [it's rather

likely that we are at the only point along the

shifting phases of matter-organization from

beginning to end of our universe where life is

possible.]

By definition, an indivisible body or object is hardly

likely to be made up of two or more bodies or

objects... as this would "by definition" make such a

body or object, at least theoretically, really already

very divisible indeed.

Then again, gravity itself would continue to remain

the inexplicable (seemingly magical) "force" we've

thought it until now--And the purpose of this very

text is to explain how gravity is not some magical

unfathomable "force" (of attraction or of anything

else) but really only the mistaken description of a

perfectly inevitable and natural effect which up to

now remained impossible to interpret perfectly.

What Is The Universe REALLY Doing?

The imploding universe is undertaking two crucial

motions at the same time: an absolute motion and a

relativistic one. We can actually "see" these two

motions in action if we but know from where (from

which perspective) to look:

Imagine the universe to be an earth-size globe. If

we then abstract "ourselves" from it, from now on

forever remaining unaffected by its shifting

sizes, we can "see" both the absolute and the

relativistic motions the universe is undertaking

by considering two men standing on opposite sides

of this imploding/shrinking globe universe.

The globe is shrinking in an absolute sense, so in an

absolute sense the two men are always moving towards

each other. [This absolute motion is very much

apparent to us all because it's the effect we have

come to know as gravity.] However, because they and

everything else in their globe universe is shrinking

everywhere at a constant rate... in the normal course

of events neither of the two men standing on opposite

sides of the globe universe will ever notice that they

are moving towards each other absolutely. Instead they

will forever marvel how/why they seem to "stick" to

the globe as if by magic and not "float" away into

space. [And if they happen to be scientists and

understand the Standard Model they might assume that

gravity must be mediated by gravitons & then they will

waste their lives trying to make up a Unified Field

Theory encompassing gravity and particle forces. But

you can see why the geometry of Einstein relativity

describes gravity better than the forces of Newton.]

The shrinking of everything at an universally

constant rate (so that everything appears to

remain relativistically frozen in place/size) is

itself the second motion: It is nearly impossible

to notice at very close proximities (least of all

by two such beings standing across a common lump

of matter)... but it can certainly be "seen" when

glancing across astronomical distances (and we

call this very visible effect the Hubble Constant,

which makes it appear as if the galaxies are

receding faster from each other the more distant

from each other they are). [Although one can

substitute "time" for "distance" and "witness" it

in practically every object that orbits another

body.]

To understand this purely relativistic effect (of

course in reality all the galaxies necessarily must

be "absolutely" getting closer and closer inside an

imploding universe)... one has only to consider the

nature of space (in other words, all ones has to do

is consider it) as the distance between bodies of

matter: Where does it come from? How can there be

any "spaces" at all in the single ("solid") body

which the universe of matter must be from the very

first instants of its "massing" in its cosmic

hollow?

Well, our universe is very large, and the same laws of

thermodynamics which inevitably create the "hollow"

into which the higher densities of "the voids" flows

now literally tear the "solid" universe into "bits."

And it is at the level of these bits that the body of

the universe continues to implode... so that from here

on out every one of these "bits" begins to implode

away from all the other bits about it forever FASTER

than the single body of the universe itself can

"stuff" those opening spaces: At first there is very

little "space" between the numberless bits, but given

enough time and whatever form the "bits" of the

imploding universe eventually take as they evolve &

revolve in ever more complex interactions (galaxies

in our epoch of the universe)... you can see how the

distances between them can grow to unimaginably

astronomical distances (into a "lot" of space indeed).

At first, the "absolute" (viewed from outside our

"cosmic hollow")... the "absolute" motion of this

thermodynamic "penetrating shockwave"

(flow/current) is undoubtedly always "moving" only

in the direction of our cosmic hollow's logical

center [a "center" which can probably only be

"pinpointed" by quantum theory, since obviously

anything introduced into the "hollow" to measure

the position of its "absolute center" would

necessarily shift it---thereby finally making it

clear that the world of the very big(gest, really)

behaves exactly like the world of the very

smal(lest) except perhaps in small minds]. But now

you understand how without a particle interaction

between them two objects can establish an "orbital"

relationship about a so-called "center of gravity."

To say "the world of the very small" is to say "the

world of the very near." In a universe undergoing

implosion the human perspective stares out both to a

much bigger/distant world and to a much smaller/nearer

one from somewhere in the middle: The more

distant/bigger world always appears to be growing

bigger and more distant relativistically; while the

smaller/nearer world always appears to be growing ever

smaller and nearer in an absolute sense (gravity).

This holds true across the full spectrum of possible

perspectives (the view from within the universe is

also always relativistic, while seen from outside it

the universe would appear to be absolutely "shrinking"

in isolation).

As the observer is also imploding, when he looks at

"the world he's leaving behind" it appears to him to

be big (and the farther away he looks at it the bigger

it appears to always be growing), while when he looks

at "the world into which he is moving" it appears to

him to be small (and the closer he looks into it the

smaller it appears).

Counterintuitively, it appears to us as if the

world of the very small is a chaotic one (forever

shifting its geometric centers), while in reality

it is the one behaving in an absolute way: The

world of the very big may appear to be stable as it

grows bigger and more distant... but in reality it

is growing neither bigger nor more distant at all.

Three very specific basic "motions" will describe the

nature of the universe from the instant "the void"

encounters (one of) these cosmic "hollows" of lesser

density which "nurse" entire universes of matter at

their core. But I do not include one of these three

Basic Motions of Matter (the "pressure shock" of the

general void's greater density "falling" into our

cosmic "hollow" as it is strictly a 3-dimensional

motion towards the "center of "our hollow" up until

such material fully saturates it). Essentially, all

the "falling" primordial material pressurizing itself

"solidly" in place. I leave out this "motion" because

I don't see it playing any further role in the

processes that keep our universe in its continuing

present equilibrium.

At its point (of "highest saturation") this singular

homogeneous "solid" mass (call it a "cloud" or call it

a "body" of energy) destined to become our universe of

visible matter, now finds it has no place to go from

here other than to be (literally forever) squeezed

into an always smaller & smaller volume of space (for

the very reason that, exactly like every other "thing"

that exists... it too is neither fundamentally solid

nor immutable and therefore can not refuse to be so

squeezed)... effectively causing it to "implode" in an

"absolute" sense: forever to grow "smaller & smaller"

as it is forced to occupy an ever diminishing volume

of space--the originally homogeneous "solid" mass now

very much literally tearing itself to bits--that is...

into "discrete bits" (each a self-contained system

forever "winding itself up" in a lifelong strategy

designed by the laws of physics to "conserve" its

eternally increasing angular momentum--which must from

now on always increase, as said before, as larger-but-

slower systems "conserve themselves" into smaller-but-

faster ones)... until they all eventually pay the

ultimate price of dissolution. (But that's far off in

the future at this point.)

Nonetheless: note the origin of "space" as merely the

"distance" between these primordial discrete bits: A

process (of space-creation) which has not stopped to

this day; and which at the topmost level of matter-

organization (that of stars and galaxies) is "easily"

observable by us as the Hubble Constant. But a process

which is forever on-going at ALL levels of matter-

organization.

"A" given level of matter-organization is one which

reflects a stage (or state) at which the "local

gatherings of interacting "bits" or "clusters of

them" (or "gravitational systems") nevertheless

begin to behave (or to be thought of) as if they

were one single object (giving the impression of

having no individual constituent parts within it).

We may begin to trace the history of these matter-

organization "levels" from a point where the entire

mass of the "visible universe" could be thought of

as one single homogeneous mass (or "cloud") which

has just completely saturated the "center" of the

cosmic hollow into which the primordial material of

the higher-density "the void" surrounding it has

fallen. (And it's not important for us here whether

the "saturation" fills the cosmic hollow completely

of merely a given area about its center.)

The crucial thing is that it is at this point that

this once "one" solid body begins to "tear itself

apart" (or, more to the point, to "bits"). More

specifically still: necessarily into fully discrete

"bits" (and "necessary" because it's the simplest way

that the resulting sum of all such "bits" [once one

solid body, and before that a "shockwave" of

primordial material falling from "the void"

surrounding our cosmic hollow]... can "squeeze" into

the eternally diminishing area available to it as it

continues its journey toward the center of our cosmic

hollow--And since there is literally nothing in its

way towards that "center" against which to crash (to

stop its journey) except itself (its own nonexistent

refusal to permit itself to be squeezed any

further)... that journey is one which can only end

in/with the utter dissolution of the falling body

("cloud" or "sum of discrete bits").

Crucially, all of those "fully discrete bits" are

tearing themselves away from all the other discrete

bits in the cosmic body (creating "space" between

themselves) as they "implode."

To begin with, once the entire mass (body, cloud) of

our universe consists only (or even mostly) of these

(same-sized or same-wherever) discrete bits, by

definition they will effectively collectively

constitute our universe's first ever "perfected" or

finished" level of matter-organization (the first

generation of matter-organization).

Because of the natural chaos which characterizes any

active thermodynamic system (since evolution never

stands still, in effect): eventually those

"individual" discrete bits will begin to "fall" into

local interactions (systems of "orbits" and/or

crashes) each made up of perhaps only a few discrete

bits (in ever continuing interactions) and perhaps

each of them made up of many and many handfuls of the

"original" first-generation discrete bits... which

will, no doubt chaotically at first (until they "fall"

into whatever "level of stability" is most "natural"

for their "whatever-numbered" interactions) will,

after "the chaos of transition" lifts, will then

create across most of the cosmos a "second generation"

of "gravitational systems" (or "particles") everywhere

of a "similar nature/size/structure or number"

(perhaps, but) all or most of them interacting in some

similarly (in some related) "stable" way.

And note that it is always from this (transitional)

"chaos" that everything in the universe is built

(by/from the interactions this "chaos" sets into

motion... producing "orbits" and/or "crashes"). [There

is no "chaos" in nature, there is only our inability

to understand its laws.] "Chaos" here is only our

convenient description of a nevertheless absolutely

determinate process in which there can never be any

effect without a cause--otherwise "chaos" would remain

eternal, forever precluding our very existence.]

Now: This "quest for stability" also tends to be

characterized by a "scarcity" of free-roaming

"component particles" (of the previous generation)

as these are everywhere quickly incorporated (as

the current generation's "preferred" building

blocks (of the forms of matter "now seeking" their

own "gravitational stability." SEE Standard Model).

Arbitrarily defined as they may be, it is nevertheless

"around" a given "perfected" or "finished" level (or

levels) of matter-organization that we define "similar

forms" interacting 3-dimensionally according to

Newton's laws of motion & universal gravitation. [We

tend to describe "systems" such as atoms, stars, and

galaxies as "objects."] For example: the five or more

of these "perfected" or "finished" levels of

matter-organization straddled by our own existence

(or... that of quarks & gluons, atoms & electrons,

stars & planets, and supermassive black holes & the

galaxies from which they seem to be evolving at the

present moment).

Regardless how brief or long their reign, once

these similar "systems" of interacting discrete

bits achieve their whatever measure of "stability"

as "gravitational systems" across the cosmos...

they de facto become the next "perfected" or

"finished" level of matter-organization.

At this point in this narrative we are at the "second

generation" level of matter-organization ---where it's

now the turn of this generation of "perfected" or

"finished" gravitational "systems" to build their own

local interactions... as either a few or a great many

of these second generation "systems" begin to combine

(no doubt chaotically at first, until they too find

their whatever "level of stability is most natural for

their interactions" and) combine into super-systems...

which, once they too manage to achieve cosmos-wide

stability, also de facto become the (third generation)

"perfected" or "finished" level of

matter-organization.

And so on, forever, and so on until the ceaseless

evolution of generation after generation self-

organization of the forms of matter into stable levels

reaches our own "finished" (stable) level(s) of

matter-organization (those of our atoms, stars, and

galaxies). Which is not to say that there might not be

just as stable "finished" levels of matter-

organization "higher" than ours, of course--And quite

entirely unsuspected by us as well.

For now, if only to understand the earliest condition

of our universe of matter, the important thing here is

a realization that fission/fusion "nuclear processes"

only take place at our topmost "finished" level(s) of

matter-organization (that of the Standard Model

"nuclear" particles). At more fundamental levels of

matter-organization (than that of our "particles") the

"decay of energy" does not produce what we would

recognize as "our" heat, light, or any of "our" other

familiar processes of atomic (radio)activity.

Note: Because it does not explain the inevitability

of its "strings" ... string theory only really has

one function: to supplant the Standard Model. And

since that is an unnecessary function by definition

string theory itself is unnecessary. (Gravity is

not a force, therefore there is no need for it to

be "unified" with the 3 forces.)

To continue: if this "hypothesis of eternity" seems to

suggest that the overall density of "the void" is

constantly being "thinned out" by its incorporation of

lower-density regions (like empty "hollows" in some

viscous goo) such as the "hollow" of lesser density

which produces our own universe of matter at its core

(meaning that the bigger "the void" gets, the lower

its overall absolute density value falls)... this is

because that is exactly what must be occurring.

Remember larger/slower "forms of matter" eternally

conserving themselves into smaller/faster ones...

Well, in this sense: motion in one direction by one

part of a body is balanced by another of its parts

moving in the opposite direction. [Newton's Third

Law.] Essentially this is the process of the

greater density "the void" erasing our lesser

density "hollow."

While matter itself is concentrating into "rock hard"

imploding discrete bits (ever tighter, harder, hotter,

and charged up)... "the void" is itself dissipating

into a general inertia as it "grows" (ever larger, and

more tenuous, stiller, colder). The two "different"

parts of the same "one body" (system) are pushing out

from/to exactly opposite directions at once--and we

can think of these two opposite "motions" as really in

the same direction (having the same

energy-conservation objective).

At the end of the process, matter is but motion. So

all the "matter" of the visible universe must

eventually "slow down" (unwind again) and dissolve.

Moreover, just as our hollow of lesser density is very

probably "nothing special" in nature, even our own

local "the void" is proportionally almost certainly

itself also but some likewise pinprick-size "object"

no doubt embedded in the fabric of an even "higher"

level "the void." Although likely this must remain as

hard for us to distinguish, local from general, as

it's hard for us now to distinguish "a" part of

eternity from the whole of it.

And yet, however this line of inquiry may remain

closed to us: the implication remains that vast

regions of "our" local "the void" may be\are very

probably everywhere pockmarked with similar "hollows

of lesser density" (each probably destined to give

rise at its core to a universe not unlike ours... as

they are one by one "collapsed" by the higher density

of "the void" encircling them).

A thought which, by the way, ought to bestow some

measure of respect upon even our humblest virtual

particle. And certainly illustrates the very

persistent "absolute relativity" of existence at any

level... as higher level "the void(s)" balance out

ever-thinner-and-thinner absolute densities with

ever-greater-and-greater absolute expanses--canceling

out everywhere all possible breaches of the law

against energy creation/destruction.

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

The crucial thing is that the absolute energy value

(density) of "the void" always remains an eternally

irrelevant (purely absolutely relativistic) number:

The strictly human question of where/how this

"primordial material" arose "to begin with" is

therefore made moot by its always relativistic nature.

Or: "If in order to exist Existence would have had to

have had a beginning--it could not exist. We exist,

therefore it behooves us to assume that there never

could have been a state of non-existence" (however one

may wish to define such terms as being & non-being).

What is important for us (strictly a concern for the

sentient beings of this one particular universe, that

is) is that the primordial medium ("energy") of "the

void" has come across the next relatively less dense

"hollow" and has given rise here (at the core of this

one particular lesser density "hollow") to the "next"

universe of visible matter... ours, namely.

I know of no requirement that "a" given universe "has

to be" of any specific (purely arbitrary) size: Here,

in this one "cosmic hollow" at whose core our visible

universe resides, it is only necessary that its volume

be "large enough" to produce the observed effects (the

requirements of other universes can be entirely

different, larger or smaller). So we might as well

forget about trying to impose any purely arbitrary

limits upon the "size" of our universe on that

account. And since now we know that there are no

"gravitational limitations," about the only thing we

may say for sure is that our visible universe is many

orders of magnitude larger than what we can "see" of

it (or, that the "size ratio" of our "hollow" to that

of its "universe of matter" was already hinted at by

Einstein's infamous [E=MC^2] approximation).

In any case: Into a "large-enough" lower density

volume (our "relatively empty" cosmic hollow)

"falls" (in quite a "shockwave") a thermodynamic

"current" not all that different in essence from

that of a lightning bolt: More slowly at first and

then faster and faster (an acceleration destined

never to end) as it "falls" in a 3-dimensional

direction towards the center of our cosmic hollow

like some unimaginably rarefied molasses.

It is when we can speak of "matter" as "energy" (or

"motion") that we can finally define existence as "not

either/or" (matter/energy); since obviously anything

"flowing" can only be described in terms of "a" higher

or "a" lower flow, and never as "not flowing."

Even at this our level of matter-organization (so many

& many orders of magnitude removed from that of

"energy"), this in a very real sense "reduction" of

matter to "motion" (i.e. the acceptance of matter as

energy) is what makes it possible to think of "matter"

in almost exactly the same way that we've popularly

come to think of "electric energy" as a "current" or

"flow." Thus it is just as possible to speak of matter

as only a "thermodynamic" current/flow... whose

seemingly permanent "structures" (shaped by the

interactions of the EM/weak and strong "nuclear

forces") are, every last one them, from top to bottom,

really only temporary "eddies" within what is

essentially also only a thermodynamic "current" or

"flow" and, consequently, never can be fundamental,

indivisible (unqueezeable) objects and/or

singularities.

We mortals, understandably ever in love with just

about any ideal of permanence, will undoubtedly be

emotionally anguished to have to acknowledge that

every last bit of matter (yes, to the very last one)

in our universe is destined to "fade away" without the

least hope of there surviving even the most forlorn

memory of "our having been." But that's the way it is

(and, frankly, I think it rather poetic... this "so

very human" tragedy): The process I am explaining in

this text does describe the eventual "dissipation" of

all the universe's "matter" (if matter is but "motion"

it must eventually, as it were, "come to a stop").

If this continuing process (this eternal evolution)

of matter-organization can be described as "winding

up" (larger/slower forms forever "imploding" into

smaller/faster ones)... what else can its ultimate

consequence be--if not its winding down at last

(T.S. Eliot's "whimper").

And what would the end of a universe in which its

forms of matter had completely "wound up" to the full

extent of their "energy potential" (to do so) be like?

Well, we might consider the one factor which is

evidently "increasing" even as the other two are

"decreasing" in the process described above: The

"matter-making machine" (larger/slower forms of

matter evolving or "winding up" into smaller/faster

ones) "is" of course THE mechanism by which the

finite amount of energy (of the original shockwave)

which has "fallen" into our cosmic hollow conserves

its density (or "energy value") literally into the

forms of matter (and their whatever discrete bits).

So, conversely, this same process by which "the

universe of matter" travels toward the center of the

cosmic hollow (its "singular body" imploding like a

shrinking baseball in front of our eyes) can also be

described as one in which at every step of that

journey "a" volume of space is also growing (out of

it) from a smaller/denser energy/pressure into a

larger/sparser one (or, volume of space) as if the

imploding universe of matter were a pressure wave

after the passage of which the lower density of "our"

hollow of lesser density will be left with a pressure

--an energy value-- equal to the rest of "the void"

surrounding it... thereby also making our cosmic

hollow indistinguishable from/in it:

It will be as if our lower density "hollow" had

never existed at all: So in a very real sense there

is a (thermodynamic) "purpose" to (in) the reason

for all that "space" which is continuously being

"created" inside matter itself: to finally defeat

the instability created by there being such a

"lower density" hollow "out there" to being with:

It remains axiomatic that all motion takes (uses up)

energy. So it is inevitable that "the forms of matter"

should literally consume themselves right up (even

unto nothingness): It obviously takes energy for the

forms of matter to "wind up" into "being" in the first

place--and energy/motion is what matter is "made of."

Although it may appear that (in its journey towards

the center of the cosmic hollow) the higher density

"shockwave" that has fallen into our hollow of lesser

density (to become the universe of visible matter)...

though it may appear that the higher density

"shockwave" is racing against distances, the fact is

that in reality its "forms of matter" are really

racing against time (racing toward their own

dissolution) as they "implode" (or "wind themselves

up")... literally "shrinking" themselves "right out of

existence" with all the irony of the runner in the

so-called paradox who, although running a finite

length, nevertheless can never finish his run because

he keeps switching to running half as fast every time

he gets half way to the finish line: Our universe is

also "speeding up" even as it "shrinks" (so that, like

the runner above, it too finds himself eternally just

as far away from its "finish line" as it ever is).

Even though very few of us until now have ever even

suspected that "we" were either "shrinking" or

"speeding up."

But this is why only when observed from outside

itself (from outside the universe itself) does the

universe implode in a "brief" and "finite" length

of time right down to "nothingness" (as "timed" by

clocks which being outside the universe never vary

during the implosion from its "slower" beginning to

its "faster" ending).

Observed from inside the universe itself (that is:

"timed" by clocks which "in here" are forever

adjusting as "time" itself is changing, i.e.

"speeding up")... the implosion of the universe

(like the "run" of the "eternally running" runner)

is about as close as something can come to seeming

to be eternal without actually being so.

As our clocks here inside the universe "speed up" it

makes the universe appear to us to be "lasting longer"

("longer lasting"). So that, almost nearly as

perversely as is the case with the "eternal runner" of

the story above, although the universe may also always

be running faster & faster, it is also always growing

smaller and smaller... in a quite fiendishly

proportional agreement that forever cancels out what

would otherwise be an all too obvious ever increasing

requirement for more & more energy, for example, just

to feed its same unchanging appearance (speed). Absent

which "missing energy," the universe would very

unambiguously be seen to be "slowing down"

("imploding" more and more slowly with time --or,

since for years we've misinterpreted the universe as

"expanding," we would have interpreted that

misinterpreted "expansion" as slowing down with time).

Instead the universe (its misinterpreted expansion

only as of very recently now correctly interpreted as

"speeding up") will forever be perceived to always be

"speeding up" (from our more recently well-informed

perspective, as over astronomical distances, the

farther away we look the farther back in time we're

seeing)... The universe, in reality imploding faster

and faster with time (as measured also by the Hubble

Constant), will "forever" continue to do so... until

the moment of dissolution when matter runs out of

matter, and "its forms" can no longer "hold their

forms."

Note that this is not the same phenomenon of

relativistic time-dilation described by Einstein in

the "twins paradox" where (clocks inside the

universe not being synchronized) the faster any

given bit of matter (the twin riding his rocket)

"moves" the slower his clock (its inner motions)

"runs" and therefore the faster the clocks of the

"slower moving" universe (of the twin left behind)

will run. This being caused by the disruption which

velocity imparts to matter's "inner motions."

Until matter's moment of dissolution, as with the

"eternal" runner (above) who will seem to keep running

almost forever: the universe also will be able to

continue its own "run" seemingly long, long after the

"discernible" limits of its "fuel tank" (almost as if

by magic)... as our unsuspectingly accelerating clocks

continue to unsuspectingly lengthen the "same" stretch

of time they measure.

That is to say: from our perspective, here within it,

the universe's continuing "implosion" will "seem" to

defy definition itself, appearing "never" to reach

that theoretical "smallest-possible size" beyond which

anything must "vanish" completely out of

existence--because, trapped here inside it as we are,

we can not so easily detect either the quickening of

"absolute time" (kept only by clocks outside the

universe itself), or our own dwindling "size"

alongside the ceaseless lessening of everything about

us... the eternal speeding up of the clocks here

within it making it appear to us as if it is the time

that the universe has left that is lengthening, as we

"time" the brief instant left to the universe with our

unimaginably accelerated and eternally accelerating

clocks:

And so "forever" is really only relative to the

clock against which it is being timed, and not an

absolute term: Our "forever" is someone else's

brief instant in time, just as our own "brief

instant in time" can be someone else's "forever."

[And so no one need put himself in place of someone

outside the universe and, from that position, think

that all we amount to in here is but a brief few

seconds. Rather, it's far closer to our reality to

think that "clocks" outside our universe run so

slowly that they but measure a few brief seconds

during our billions of years.]

Our sole real triumph perhaps being that power of the

intellect to hurdle even the dissolution of all being

itself: here, taking in the entirely of the universe's

lifespan (and knowing how it is only when we set it

against the brief span of our own mortality that the

universe seems "almost eternal")... we can marvel at

last how even the span of the universe is something

not all that different from the so abrupt lifespan of

even the least "virtual particle" in it.

If nothing else: still one more vindication of the

proposition that existence does consistently work

by "one single simple principle" evolving all the

subsequent complexity... after which all such

boundlessly evolved complexities eventually must

decay back to the same "one single simple

principle" from which all came. That is to say:

This is yet one more hint that the laws of physics

work everywhere exactly as they do anywhere.

What is obvious is that to understand the structure of

their cosmos human beings have to divorce themselves

from their however cherished (so exclusively human)

prejudices. And that science really begins with the

quest to identify all such prejudices... because the

human perspective obviously is NOT the most universal

but one produced strictly by the requirements of/for

our existence (required solely for us to survive here

where we happen to live... within the bosom of the

"artificial nature" which is the human condition we've

conspired with the universe to construct for

ourselves). Something which is true for all scientific

considerations (human endeavors), as we continue to

"make" our entire planet into a larger and that much

more fatal a version of what we made of Easter Island.

What all this means is that, for example, the

"speed of light" is NOT "fast" (an absolute term,

from our perspective)... and is only/merely

"faster" (or "slower") in absolutely relativistic

terms: In relation to the size of a man, the speed

of light may indeed be quite "fast." But in

relation to the size of the universe, that same

speed is so monstrously slow as to almost escape

the very description of motion!

While considered from here inside it our "virtual

particle" universe may give all the appearance of

being something almost approaching the eternal (and

thereby making it so difficult for some of us to

"understand" how an "object" can shrink "forever"

unless they first understand that it is their "sense

of time" that is quickening with the ever quickening

universe about them--giving them the mistaken

"feeling" that the measured span of time that is in

reality forever growing shorter & shorter nevertheless

always remains exactly as "long" as it has ever been),

considered from without: the lifespan of our visible

universe may "pop" in/out of existence before even

perception itself may be able to take note of it (were

there "someone" outside the visible universe to "see"

it, of course--and capable of noticing it).

Yet it is only once we grasp such things as how truly

slow "our" speed of light is in "astronomical" terms,

that we might permit ourselves to imagine timing the

orbits even of electrons in terms of our hours, years,

and centuries. And then might we countenance the idea

of all those "material" structures about us (which

have all of our lives convinced us of their unchanging

solidity across untold ages) possibly really being as

"fluid" as is the "flow" of electrons coursing within

the "bolt of lightning."

Then might we grasp how, in the same way that a brief

sweep of sixteenth notes might seem, to some level of

consciousness outside the human, to outlast even the

lengthiest passage of "their" whatever centuries...

even those motions which seem to us to be "the fastest

possible" may to some other level of consciousness

outside the human also seem to outlast the lengthiest

passage of "their" whatever centuries: The quick wave

of one of our hands may "really" seem so "slow" to

them that to their quicker consciousness all of its

"motion" ceases to be motion at all... and turns into

the same "notion" of solidness a bar of iron suggests

to us. Then might we divine "the frozen monsters" that

are all living things in our human perception

(including us, yes)... and recognize at last exactly

how truly solid even our greatest notion of fluidity

really is & fluid even our most unyielding solidness.

In this thermodynamic analogy, then, there is no real

distinction between the thermodynamic current that is

a bolt of lightning and the thermodynamic current that

is our visible universe's "matter." [Matter is energy

and energy is motion, reducing matter to pure motion.]

Keep this in mind (in light of our human notions

and prejudices about the nature of time). By "our

human clocks" the bolt of lightning happens "very

quickly," while the universe seems to be almost

eternal. But this is strictly a "real" distinction

only in our own minds--stemming from our

historically mistaken idea that "fast" and "slow"

are absolute values. They are not. And in the

universe there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow"

or "big" or "small" (only "faster than..." or

"slower than..." or "bigger than..." or "smaller

than...").

Living as we are inside the universe, a given rock's

whatever odd shape may seem to us to be almost

immutable to change... even if in reality that rock's

shape (as well as the shape of every other "form" in

which matter happens to exist "at the moment" here

inside our universe) is merely describing the passing

(momentary) state in which "its flow of matter" finds

itself... the ongoing, never-ceasing change through

which it is passing, one shape/form to the next one

--something indeed very much analogous to a current's

eddies as the sum total of the universe of matter

"flows" (not 3-dimensionally, but) in the direction

of implosion.

This is the reason all 3-dimensional acceleration

results in an increase in mass... as matter is

"forced" to move "against" its own singularly natural

direction of motion: the direction of motion in which

it is already moving (or, "implosion").

Note that it's possible for an object to accelerate

while moving at a constant speed... since "speed"

refers only to the magnitude of the velocity, and

not to the direction in which it's moving. So that

an object can also accelerate solely by changing

its direction (even as it maintains a constant

speed).

So: Matter's "singularly natural direction of motion"

is "the direction of motion in which all matter in the

universe is already moving." And in which it has been

moving ever since the instant at which "our cosmic

hollow of lesser density" became fully saturated with

the higher density material that had fallen into it

from "the void" ... at which instant the "energy" of

that "shockwave" began to "conserve" itself (its

"energy") into/by its implosion ("larger but slower

forms forever evolving into smaller but faster ones").

"Mass" being a description of the "unwillingness"

of any discrete bit of matter to be "unnaturally"

moved in any 3-dimensional direction (against a

direction of motion in which it already finds

itself moving even absent all 3-dimensional motion

... since all the matter in the universe is already

and always will be "moving in the direction of

implosion"). Which is the explanation for inertia.

Also: all subsequently even greater (proportional to

its 3-dimensional velocity... since it's now

compounded: 3-dimensional + implosive motion)

"unwillingness" of any object/body moving

3-dimensionally to be moved "against" its "additional

to implosion" direction of motion being the

explanation for all additional force (proportional to

how fast the object/body is moving 3-dimensionally, of

course) required to "move" an object which is

"already" moving 3-dimensionally.

And note that Newton's laws of motion do not explain

the cause of inertia (now explained here) and only use

inertia as a point of departure--That is: Newton

confines his famous laws of motion to 3-dimensional

motion alone... since he could not have known that

everything in the universe is "already" (eternally)

moving in the direction of implosion (leaving inertia

an unexplained mystery).

The One Particle That Reveals It All.

At our topmost level of matter-organization (that of

atoms, stars, and galaxies) the photon is a rather

peculiar discrete bit ("unit of mass") whose most

salient characteristic is precisely that its "mass" is

so minuscule that it has even inspired a heated debate

over whether it actually has any mass at all. It has:

"Mass" as a measure of "the inertia of a given unit

of matter" means that there is no practical

distinction between a unit of matter and "an

equivalent" unit of mass--since the force needed to

accelerate an equivalent unit of either is one and

the same [historically "matter" really only being a

dim reflection of how "the structure of its mass"

is "packaged" in a greater/lesser volume].

Therein the above explanation for inertia (since by

definition: all motion NOT in "the direction of

implosion" is 3-dimensional): All 3-dimensional

motion is therefore "against" the direction in

which all matter is already moving--explaining the

"reluctance" of any unit of matter to be moved

3-dimensionally in direct proportion to its "mass."

No matter what the "mass" of the photon is finally

determined to be... its "acceleration" is prodigious.

Therefore its "mass," or "inertia," is correspondingly

prodigiously tiny--although never non-existent, or (to

put it in the conventional lingo)... or photons would

be absolutely immune to "supermassive gravitational

fields" (to which they are obviously not immune).

The structure (or "package") of the photon is very

obviously substantially oversized and, compared to the

other particles, relatively "unstable." That is: it is

"visible" out of all proportion to its mass, and its

"material" is closer to the edge of annihilation than

even that of the far more massive/stable electron's,

for example--though neither electrons nor photons have

the legacy of a long enough evolution--long enough to

have brought to them, as it has to other particles of

matter, enough mass in a "stable enough" structure

(neutrinos too are unstable, changing their "flavor").

The crucial thing at this point is that because of its

infinitesimal mass the photon is able to free itself

almost entirely from one of the two Basic Motions of

Matter.

Matter's "two basic motions" as the universe moves

in the direction of implosion... one being an

"absolute" motion (which we interpret as gravity),

the other a strictly "relativistic" motion (which

we interpret as the Hubble Constant).

Photons (and other likewise extremely low-mass

particles) do "move" exactly like every other form of

matter that exists here at our topmost level of

matter-organization in one way: They also "shrink"

(thereby seeming to remain the "same size as ever"

relative to the size of all the other objects in the

universe which are also "shrinking" at the same rate).

However, as the entirety of the universe "implodes"

towards the absolute center of its cosmic hollow of

lesser density: the photon seems to be able to escape

the "absolute motion" of all the matter in the

universe (which we interpret as "gravity")... even if

it is true that it does not escape all of that motion

and only just most of it. Self-evidently: the photon

does not fully obey the absolute law of gravity most

of the other forms of matter obey.

Because all matter is everywhere moving in the

direction of implosion but there are no fundamental

objects/bodies anywhere in the universe to

"implode" toward their own "singular" geometric

centers as if they were perfect singularities...

all the objects/bodies in the universe (with the

possible exception of the discrete bits of the

theoretical "first generation" of discrete bits

ever to evolve from the primordial cloud that

"saturated" our hollow of lesser density)... all

the objects/bodies (all the forms of matter) in the

universe are imploding NOT towards their own

geometrical centers but at/toward every and all the

smallest-possible coordinate(s) in/of their matter.

Again: the overall effect of "gravity" is that (at

every smallest-possible coordinate of the matter of

every object/body in the universe)... all matter is

forever (imploding) moving in the direction of the

center of every smallest-possible coordinate of/in

its matter.

The result is that what we see at our topmost level

of matter-organization is a relativistically

"frozen" solid geometry with no easily discernible

directionality in which the imploding Planet Earth,

for example, does not "implode" ONLY towards its

own "singular geometric center" but toward the

"geometric center" of every and all possible

coordinate(s) of its matter... forever giving us a

picture of the eternally always same-sized and

same-shaped unchanging sphere we've always known.

But make no mistake about this: the entire universe of

matter is absolutely imploding at the level of its

every smallest-possible coordinate(s). And, for

example, this means that the Earth is "falling" into

the Sun and that the Moon is "falling" into the Earth

in an absolute sense (exactly as described by

Galileo). Even though, relativistically, the Earth is

also moving away from the Sun, and the Moon is moving

away from the Earth (as described by the Hubble

Constant).

To better understand exactly what the photon is up to,

let's imagine what a photon (which is after all just

one more "form of matter" among those of our level of

matter-organization)... what a photon would "look

like" if instead of "shrinking" along with all the

other "shrinking" forms of matter, a photon were to

somehow manage to always retain its size even as the

rest of the universe in which it found itself

continued "shrinking" all around it (and, further,

let's imagine this theoretical photon of ours as a

perfectly spherical hollow ball):

From "our" perspective now (unsuspecting as "we" are

that it is the universe that is "shrinking") we would

undoubtedly interpret this "miraculous spherical

photon" as "growing in size" at a quite prodigious

speed (really exactly proportional to the speed at

which the universe is "shrinking")... so that, for

example, in just over eight minutes our spherical

photon would be as big around as is the earth's orbit

around the Sun; and in a mere 50,000 years or so more

it would be the same size as is our entire Milky Way

Galaxy (90,000-100,000 light years across). So that if

the universe really is [for the purposes of this

thought experiment] just under 14 billion light years

across, in slightly over 7 billion years our

theoretical spherical photon would hold within its

"hollow" the entire universe itself).

It is its mass that "drags" matter along (making it

"move in the direction of implosion").

Any "form of matter" that lacks sufficient mass is

able to (proportional to its mass--or, lack thereof),

is able to "resist" being dragged along into

engaging in the Second Basic Motion of Matter... the

one we interpret as the "pull" of gravity here inside

the universe, but from outside the universe would

interpret as the entire universe imploding like any

other conventional single body might implode (and it

is this absolute aspect of the photon's motion which

makes it look to us as if it's "moving" so oddly). It

is the fact that the photon does not move, or moves

very little, that permits it to "behave" both as

particle "package" (in isolation) and as wave (when it

interacts or is "measured").

As I said, the photon still participates in the First

Basic Motion of Matter (implosion at the level of

every discrete bit or unit of mass) because while the

Second Basic Motion of Matter "seems to an observer"

to take place only at "a" fully-constituted (or

"finished") level of matter-organization (its

well-defined "bodies" literally "appearing to be"

interacting among themselves... as with atoms, stars,

or galaxies)... the First Basic Motion of Matter is

taking place at the level of every "least possible"

discrete unit of mass [that is: at the level of the

theoretical "first generation" of such discrete bits

which were the first ever to "tear themselves" from

the "single solid homogeneous cloud" that had fully

saturated the center of the cosmic hollow into which

"fell" the shockwave of "higher density primordial

material" from "the void" surrounding it]. So please

note that, regardless how one might arbitrarily define

such a primordial "unit" ... we say that the universe

is "imploding at every possible coordinate of its

matter," rather than only at the level of any given

"particulate" (or "finished" level of matter-

organization). Therefore the photon, being as much one

of the forms of matter at our level of matter-

organization as atoms, stars, and galaxies... the

photon is also "shrinking" exactly as are all the

other forms of matter here.

But if the photon does not retain its size (appearing

to grow ever larger), and has as little mass as it

does (therefore not being a form of matter which

"moves" along with all the other forms of matter that

are moving in the Second Basic Motion of Matter) and

thereby appearing to us to always remain "where it is"

(appearing forever unmoved amid the flow of

"everything moving together"), what exactly determines

in which direction it will go (or "appear" to go)...?

Well: That "direction" in which a given photon "moves"

is determined only by its orientation to its "source"

at the moment of its "onset" (creation). And this is a

"direction" which can have a completely 3-dimensional

orientation with regard to its source because

(disengaging as it does from the Second Basic Motion

of Matter) the photon's direction of motion instantly

becomes 3-dimensional while that of its source forever

remains (as it has been) a motion "in the direction of

implosion" ... and these are two quite separate and

independent from each other directions of motion.

In this matter the spherical photon analogy above can

serve an important illustrative purpose: Even if,

unlike our theoretical spherical photon, the real

photon is not growing in size... its position at any

given point in time after its "creation" (i.e. after

its "separation" from its source) would always still

fall exactly where the surface of that growing

theoretical spherical photon would fall, given the

passage of equal amounts of time... in any direction

(which, as I said, is determined solely by the

orientation of the photon to its source). Therefore

there really is no practical limitation either to

which 3-dimensional direction a photon can take... or

to its travelling from any point in the universe to

any other point within it--or to points outside the

universe, for that matter... considering that a photon

can move across the universe to (be at) exactly any

point in the spherical surface of the theoretical

photon which is capable of swallowing the entire

universe in our thought experiment.

Think now of the geometrical center of our theoretical

spherical photon: If there were an "ether" at absolute

rest behind the imploding (and therefore "moving")

visible universe... and its "geometrical center" were

fixed on that "ether," then our ever growing spherical

photon would appear to us to "drift" (as the visible

universe imploded towards its absolute center, leaving

behind all things, photons included, without enough

mass to be dragged along)... so that if, say, the

geometrical center of our theoretical spherical photon

(where its source was at the instant of its creation)

were in the Milky Way Galaxy--our entire spherical

photon would seem to us to "take off" now, as it grew,

drifting away from the Milky Way Galaxy. And some

portions of our galaxy could then travel across two

opposing surfaces of this growing spherical photon.

But as there is no "ether" in the real world to which

such a theoretical spherical photon might "fix" its

geometric center... that geometric center must remain

forever fixed to more or less the place where the

photon's source was at the time the photon came into

existence--Meaning that if its source was somewhere

inside the Milky Way Galaxy, our galaxy would always

remain inside the growing soap bubble hollow... and no

portion of the Milky Way Galaxy would ever be able to

cross two of the spherical photon's opposing surfaces

--every point in the galaxy will cross one surface of

our "growing" sphere, but never more than one.

This is something we must grasp in order to understand

why it is that there is no "directionality" to "the

speed of light." Our "growing" theoretical spherical

photon is in a very real absolute sense "moving" along

exactly like (with) the rest of "the entire body" of

the universe as it implodes as a whole)... thereby

effectively frustrating any attempt we here inside the

universe might try to make to establish a

directionality for the "speed of light" since no

matter in which direction a photon may be travelling

it must always "fall" (be) exactly where, in that

whatever direction, the surface of our theoretical

growing (and "drifting") spherical photon would be.

For, remember: the geometric center of our theoretical

"expanding" spherical photon is "fixed" not to some

background ("ether" or whatever) but to "all the other

matter" of the visible universe that is absolutely

imploding towards center (fixed to its "point of origin"

or "source").

So the "explanation" by G. F. Fitzgerald that matter

"contracts in the direction of its motion" [to account

for the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment

which first established that there was no

directionality to "the speed of light"] is now forever

exposed as the misinterpretation it is--As well as is

the subsequent arbitrary limitation on anything being

able to travel faster than the speed of light "because

matter can only contract to zero, obviously, and not

beyond."

The Michelson-Morley experiment, an attempt to

determine the absolute motion of the Earth against an

"ether" which was supposed to fill all space and to be

at rest was really an attempt to discover in the

universe a state at absolute rest (by having it be the

result of subtracting all possible motion in every

direction).

What Michelson and Morley discovered in fact was the

universe's absolute motion in the direction of

implosion by discovering that the photon always

travels in every 3-dimensional direction at the same

speed:

It was an experiment doomed to failure by the fact

that it only encompassed 3-dimensional motion in a

universe where 3-dimensional motion is essentially

motion in an abberrant direction (the normal direction

of all matter in our universe being in the direction

of implosion). [if one considers that motion in the

direction of implosion is the same everywhere then you

realize that there is no objection to defining such a

"motion" as the one state in the universe at absolute

rest (since all 3-dimensional motion is motion with

reference to it).

Inspired by Fitzgerald's "uninformed explanation," and

knowing that the ratio of an electron's mass to its

charge can be determined from its deflection by a

magnetic field (as there is no reason to think that as

an electron's velocity increases its charge also will

increase), H. A. Lorentz suggested that the mass of a

particle should increase as the charge of a charged

particle is compressed into a smaller volume. And W.

Kauffman discovered that, exactly as predicted by the

Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, an electron's mass did

indeed increase as its velocity increased (an

agreement which improved measurements showed to be

just about perfect)... strengthening everyone's

confidence in the accuracy of Fitzgerald's gross

misinterpretation for why the speed of light lacked

directionality--and, by the way, lending confidence to

one Albert Einstein, for whom this could only mean

that "therefore" there could be no states at absolute

rest in the universe (a thought which eventually gave

birth to some of his relativity explanations). [Never

mind that the "absolute" constancy of the speed of

light, no less than its "absolute" lack of

directionality, should have told Einstein that there

"had" to be some state at absolute rest in "the

equation of the universe" against which such constancy

was being kept constant!

But there it is, of course: the speed itself at which the

universe of matter is imploding is absolute across the

entire universe (or, I should really say: "is of an

equal value where equal conditions (of "pressure")

exist")... since one can also state it as everything

other than that which is moving as "moving" with

respect to it (just as in the description where

someone in a passing train is able to imagine it's the

train station that's passing by instead).

What is this "pressure" in the absence of particle

interaction/mediation (gravitons)...? Well, certainly

NOT the "push" of one absolute body (billiard ball?)

against another physically. Or, from the geometrically

opposing viewpoint: The fact that all the bodies/balls

are (and have always been) moving in the same

direction is enough--Obviously no individual body/ball

moving in such an avalanche of them could possibly

suddenly come up with the impetuous impatience to

speed up (or with any spontaneous sloth, for that matter).

Naturally, once the reason for inertia (given above)

is made clear, it's obvious that all 3-dimensional

acceleration of matter produces pressures ("g-forces"

as it were, or a very real "stress") against its own

inertia (its motion in the direction of implosion)...

these "g-forces stress" increasing with acceleration

make it clear just how massive a force would be

required to "move" even such a trivial "mass" as that

of a photon's across the entire universe in, say, a

fraction of a second--and the "stress" that photon

would consequently be under.

It is this proportional (to 3-dimensional velocity)

"stress" which interferes with the regular/normal

inner motions of matter (matter itself really being

reducible to "motion," which is itself merely another

definition of "energy")... causing the very real rise

in mass of ALL accelerated matter (not just of charged

particles, as Einstein himself showed)... as well as

the "slowing of time" for matter traveling at higher

3-dimensional speed, obviously. [Thereby providing the

real reason for the also very real "twin" paradox

(which like all paradoxes exists only in the human

mind, and never in nature)... while separating this

very real "relativity of time with respect to

3-dimensional velocity" from any notion that time

itself might have accelerated for the twin remaining

"at rest" behind in any "real" sense... outside a

misinterpretation by the "accelerated" twin, from

whose perspective (to whom) the clock in "the passing

train station" (the twin remaining behind) will appear

to be "moving faster") because the matter of which he

(the accelerated twin) himself is made is being

"slowed" by the stresses of its acceleration. But "the

universe's time" (or, the absolute speed at which the

universe is imploding) remains "the time" for the

"unmoving" twin left behind--as long as he keeps still

(and doesn't try to race across the entire universe

in, say, a fraction of a second... because, if he

could find the power to do so, it might be a fraction

of a second to him, but he may find the rest of the

universe aged 14 or more billion years).

S D Rodrian

Please don't ask me to edit this text into a more cohesive or

chronological/logical presentation! Thank God I still have

the mental energy to type it out at all.

ADDENDUMS

ANSWERS from GOOGLE posts by S D Rodrian ...

> maybe you could help Bill out with an answer to the

> question: What the heck causes gravity?

Sure: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY. There!

ALL the effects we ascribe to the "pull of gravity"

are really caused by/because of the fact that the

universe is (and has always been) imploding (yes,

since its origin ... in fact, THAT is its origin).

However, don't try to disprove this by tossing a coin

up "against the pull of gravity" because the "speed"

at which the coin travels "against the direction of

implosion" will be of no consequence whatsoever (you'd

have to throw the coin OUT of the universe to counter

its implosion)...

.... Instead of believing that ours is a

universe as described in the inflationary models

(a universe of immutable forms of matter forever

"expanding" from some primordial magic bean),

imagine that we live in a universe where all the

forms of matter are just that ("forms" composed

of other "forms of matter" which are themselves

composed of lesser/smaller "forms" of matter ad

infinitum) in a universe that is/has always been in

implosion...

Yes, use the metaphor of a black hole imploding. But:

How long does a black hole take to implode? Well,

viewed from outside it, almost no "time" at all. But

if the entire universe were imploding, we, of course,

would be inside that implosion. If such an implosion

lasted only our "seconds" or even "minutes" or "hours"

or even "days, months, years, et al" it would cause

our "matter" to burst! But, on the other hand, if such

an implosion "lasted" (for us here inside it, "timing"

the whole thing by our "hours, years, centuries," or

even "billions of years"), if such an implosion lasted

for as long as the entire lifetime of our universe...

then "our forms of matter" would have "enough time" to

bend/twist/evolve/adapt to whatever changes were

taking place--And it really wouldn't matter "how long"

our imploding universe took as "timed" by "somebody"

watching its implosion from outside it. The only

"time" that mattered to us... would be the one we

ourselves "timed" by whatever methods we devised.

There is no such thing as an absolute speed (time),

and "the laws of physics" which govern the movement

of "our speed" (time) depend entirely on what the

"mass about us" allows.

As the universe implodes, ever accelerating as it

does, our "sense" of time (of how "fast" the speed

of general motions about us) is also increasing

because "there is no absolute time (speed)" and

instead the "speed" (and therefore the "timing") of

everything (its timing by us) is "absolutely"

relative to "the mass" about it (about us).

Therefore: No matter how "fast" the universe

implodes to "someone" viewing its implosion from

outside it, to us, here inside it, the implosion of

the universe must necessarily seem to last "for as

long as the universe lasts."

The hardest obstacle to realizing that ours is a

universe in implosion may be that, being INSIDE this

implosion, we imagine it's exactly like what happens

in a black hole collapse (destroying all forms of

matter in it & around it in milliseconds ... the sort

of milliseconds measured by our clocks AND the

impossible clock of someone INSIDE the black hole

we're observing... which clocks we assume to be

forever absolutely synchronized).

Rather, think of one of those films of street crowds

which are sped-up and you see streams of cars & people

rushing "through" each other without a single one of

them running into anything... Well, that film is

"sped-up" from our point of view (by us), where we

exist at {what?} speed watching the film--but for

anyone "in" that sped-up scene we're watching

"existence" was unfolding at "normal" speed, and any

idea that they were going so blindingly "fast" that it

may be impossible for them to crash into everything

would seem almost insulting. [ By {what absolute

standard?} do we believe that "our speed" is the

"normal speed" of existence itself?!? ]

.... Rather, the speed of light is "fast" because we

imagine it is (measured against our walking speed).

While the speed of one set of atoms decaying into

another element is "slow" because, again, we measure

it against our walking speed, or the speed it takes us

to eat a bowl of cherries, or to live out our whole

lives, or even the lives of all the generations of

man, for that matter. We find it hard to imagine that

all the generations of man, or all the generations

of all the organisms that ever lived on this planet,

or all the generations of stars, et al, might fly by

in the "time" it takes "someone standing outside our

universe" to glance to one side and notice that it

(our universe, unsuspected by him) has imploded (in

milliseconds, as measured by his watch). But that is

EXACTLY what has happened, will happen, and is

happening: The relativity of time is absolute (and

that relativity extends to outside our universe): The

relativity of "speed" ABSOLUTELY has everything to do

with what the mass around your "watch" is doing (its

"speed" ... in effect, its "time").

I have said it before and I will repeat it endlessly:

"Everything that is now described as "the pull of

gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of

velocity." It doesn't mean that "rocket scientists"

will have to find some other way to "sling-shoot"

their space vehicles (than by gravitational orbits)

--rather, they must eventually come to realize that

what they're doing is the same thing that happens to

a leaf that's sucked into the eye-wall of a hurricane:

The closer to any "point of implosion" anything comes

the greater the velocity it must experience (and those

"points of implosion" exactly coincide with what we

now call "centers of gravity") ... which is identical

to saying now "the greater pull of gravity they must

experience."

WHERE are these "points of implosion" located inside

the universe? Well, self-evidently they cannot be

located in the middle of space (space with more space

around them) because space can neither implode or

explode. Therefore, they ONLY exist where the matter

of the universe is imploding (its material substance)

and that boils down to mass, mass, and more mass:

This makes "a" point of implosion absolutely relative

to the mass around it. So that any mass which is added

or subtracted from any "imploding system" (which is

any congregation of matter sufficiently separated from

the rest of the universe to exhibit independent motion

towards its own unique point of implosion, whether it

be the earth-moon system, or the Solar System, or the

Milky Way system, or even the earth-Newton's Apple

system)... any mass which is added to or subtracted

from any "imploding system" has an immediate effect

upon the "location" of its "point of implosion (making

ALL such "points of implosion" then absolutely

relative to the mass about them). [And I certainly

don't want to get any "the speed of gravity" nonsense

here--suffice it to say that if the Sun were to vanish

by some magical miracle, what's to prevent a magical

miracle from being instantaneous across the entire

universe?] However: Since all the mass (matter) of the

universe is moving towards such "points of implosion"

(BECAUSE such "points of implosion" exist in isolation

--from the rest of the universe--NOTICE the "space"

between them) they are all entirely relativistic: That

is, while the moon and earth are "trying" to "roll

down their own mutual/common point of implosion" they

are also, as ONE system/mass vying with the Sun to

"roll down their own mutual/common point of implosion"

and so on: so that NONE of this invalidates Galileo's

marvelous description of "gravitational" trajectories

(loss of momentum) nor Newton's laws of gravitation,

or Einstein's geometrical perfecting of them: If two

bodies approach each other with just the right amount

of momentum away from their "common point of

implosion" they will go into a mutual orbit; and if

they are both aimed straight at their "common point of

"implosion" they must surely collide. And if two

immense bags of those styrofoam packing beans pass

close enough to one another, surely a lot of those

styrofoam beans will not have/or will not be able to

maintain enough momentum away from their "common point

of implosion" to prevent a pileup too.

The point is that the entirety of the universe is ONE

geometric unit. And that the existence (and position)

of every last bit of mass in the universe affects its

entire configuration--which is the same as saying that

the "effect of gravity" extends "infinitely" across

the entirety of the universe. Which is just another

way of saying that the entire mass (matter) of the

entire universe also has its own definite/absolute

"point of implosion" towards which everything in the

universe is "moving" [not because of the mythical

"pull of gravity" but because that is the geometric

center towards which its "body" was "pushed" from

its origin].

And because the mass of the universe does not "ride"

upon some inflexible/rigid aether, naturally the

closer two "bits" of mass are to each other the

greater the acceleration they must experience toward

their common "point of implosion" (the effect is

indistinguishable in practice from the effect

described up to now as gravity, except that for many

hundreds of years scientists used a cosmological

system in which the universe revolved around the earth

to predict with great accuracy the motions of the

heavens... until a simpler, more straightforward

solution was found--a solution which also embodied the

explanation everyone was searching for). And so it is

at this writing, when the inflationary/gravitational

point of view can be used to predict the motions of

the heavens with great accuracy BUT it is only the

implosion model that at last offers the simpler, more

straightforward solution (and also embodies the

answer) everyone is searching for.

Now you know how all that is possible WITHOUT there

being some magical mediating particle (the mythical

graviton) to cross the full length of the universe:

The mass of Newton's apple and the mass of the

earth are "seeking" their common center/point of

implosion (since they do not ride any mythical

rigid matrix/aether)... and they are both "moving"

towards the "center of the universe" both as a

system while being such an infinitesimal portion

of that system that I seriously doubt we will ever

definitely ascertain its orientation. [so you

observe Newton's apple moving towards the earth

with a greater acceleration than the moon is moving

towards the earth, or the earth-moon system are

moving toward the Sun, and the Solar System is

moving toward the "center" of the Milky Way, etc.]

Simply assume that our universe IS imploding...

and begin to re-examine all the observations which

have for the last 100 years (and longer) "argued" for

so many counter-intuitive, and self-contradictory, and

just plain illogical/crazy explanations for/of why/how

the photon "knows" at what speed it should travel and

in which direction? How is it possible for the effect

of gravity to extend infinitely (and WITHOUT any

mediating particle WHATSOEVER--because the proposition

of the graviton's existence is just a guess exactly

like the proposition of "dark matter")? How spiral

galaxies can do what they're doing with only the mass

of their stars! And, indeed, why/how the so-called

"expansion" of the universe can itself be forever

accelerating with no visible expenditure of the

tremendous amounts of energies such an acceleration

obviously requires or we are all mad!

And everything else, to boot: Imagine what some being

riding upon one of these independent systems (say, a

planet), what such a being must think when he looks

out into space and observes all the other systems

"draining" down into their whatever "points of

implosion" ... without suspecting the true nature of

what he is looking at: Let's call such a being Edwin

Hubble, and he notices that there is a "constant"

relationship between the distance from us of "an

object" and the speed at which it looks like it's

receding away from us: Not suspecting that the

universe is in implosion, and therefore that all its

"independent systems" (galaxies, say) are (as it were)

"shrinking into themselves" wherever they happen to

be--that is, not knowing that it's really his ruler

that's "shrinking" Hubble assumed that it is the

distance between all the systems that's "growing" [and

necessarily, the farther a galaxy is from ours the

"faster" Hubble assumed it was receding away from us).

REMEMBER: The closer something is to something else

the "faster" it is imploding. Therefore the

universe is imploding fastest at the quantum level

--if for no other reason than that is the smallest"

(and therefore "closest") level of which we know.

The inflationary models cannot even explain the most

basic phenomena we observe in our universe, such as

WHY/HOW radiation propagates except by gibberish/

nonsense. While in an imploding model the "disconnect"

between massive and nearly-massless matter perfectly

explains why one "moves" and the other does not: If

you are riding the "moving" part of it and you do no

suspect that you are the one moving, you tend to

imagine that the part you are passing by is the thing

doing the moving--

And now you also know why no matter how much the

photon is slowed it must "regain" its full velocity

once it is freed from whatever was slowing it down:

The velocity at which the "more massive" matter of the

universe is imploding must certainly hold very

steadily across a very large swath of the universe

--since it is all governed by the mass (matter) about

it. But, thereby the reason why the speed of light is

fixed.] But I imagine that at some point most thinking

persons will eventually realize that while the Big

Bang (inflationary) models of the universe are

forever drowning in self-contradictions and utter and

hilariously zany science fiction... there is not one

serious challenge to the implosion model that has ever

gone adequately unanswered (even as you can read in

this very text).

Again: ONCE you consider the universe from that point

of view, then ALL the puzzles and conundrums which

plague and baffle us now (causing us to propose

near-or-just-plain-ole magical solutions) to mysteries

such as "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement),

how a single photon can interact with itself, and the

impossibility of making sense of relativity and QM

existing in the same world ... all of them and more

will finally begin to "argue" their own solutions, as

"you" say, despite all our most cherished prejudices.

= Everything that is now described as "the pull of

gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of

velocity. This includes so-called lesser/greater

massive gravitational fields as described by\in

relativity theory. OR: If you are "a mile" from a

neutron star you are obviously a LOT closer to the

"point of implosion" of a greater amount of mass

than if you were even an inch from, say, the moon.

The implosion model in no way invalidates relativity;

but, on the contrary it is clear just how remarkable

an achievement Einstein managed while never even

suspecting that the universe is imploding--that he

should be able to describe it with such purely

geometrical perfection... at last putting an end to

the ancient myth of the aether. And without realizing

exactly why it should be that the universe acts rather

more like a geometrical structure than a purely

gravitational one (as previously described by Newton).

If gravity were ANY KIND OF "force" then it would,

by the laws of physics (QM) blow up the universe

to smithereens.

It would ALSO create stars and watery planets with

hollowed-out centers BECAUSE there would be little

or no "gravity" at their centers: Yet, the theories we

have about how our Sun works calls for most of its

nuclear reactions to be taking place precisely AT ITS

CENTER, under the greatest "pressures" therein! And

no one that I know of has EVER proposed hollow

planets (except some laughable comic book I read

as a child, as I recall). Oy! But people don't think.

What then are orbits, galaxies? Use the simplest

of all analogies: In an imploding universe

EVERYTHING is (perhaps not so figuratively) going

down the drain:

Look at the whirlpool that forms as water tries to go

down your kitchen drain pipe (the same thing is taking

place in tornadoes and hurricanes, where pressure in

the eye-wall forces air to "drain" up, sucking in air

from the area surrounding the "funnel"). Why does

a whirlpool form at the mouth of your drainpipe?

Because some water drops, unfortunately for them, have

just enough momentum toward one side to avoid going

directly down the drain. And the more water, the more

likelihood there is of a whirlpool forming...

And whether it's the earth/moon system, or the Solar

System, or galaxies we're talking about... what we're

looking at is "bodies" (the water drops here) which,

unfortunately for them, have just enough momentum

away from the exact/absolute point of implosion (what

we now call their common center of gravity). [And,

such "absolute points of implosion" are completely

relativistic (i.e. created by the very presence of the

mass around them that creates them).] And just as

not every time you open the faucet does a whirlpool

form at the mouth of the drain (it usually has to do

with the volume of water), not every galaxy develops

into a spiral one like the supermassive Milky Way

(something which also seems to have a correlation with

whether it's a massive or smaller galaxy, surprise,

surprise).

And NONE of it has anything whatever to do with any

"dark matter" or other nonsense like it, I assure you.

> But why things are imploding and where they came

> from remains unanswered.

No they do not: It is all an inevitable consequence of

the laws of thermodynamics... Think (!) of "the void"

as so immense/vast that at some point or other its

"body" hiccups a wave and presto: thermodynamic

currents/waves back & forth. Is it so impossible from

there to think that somewhere a bubble of "lesser

pressure" arose which then burst, as higher pressures

poured into it--the "concentration" at "its center"

being our "visible" universe...? And there you have

our imploding universe, and without having to have a

single graviton in it for it to work EXACTLY as we

can observe it working all around us.

GO backwards from our universe, and it is a

prick-point in some vaster/more diffuse universe,

which is itself but another prickpoint in some

vaster/more diffuse universe, ad infinitum, and

you can see where it all comes from: All you

really need is "something so very close to

nothingness" as to make the difference negligible

indeed. But then, eventually here we are.

Think! That describes the raison d'etre for the

implosion model of the universe, except that any

notion of "time" is moot: ALL time is relative, just

as Einstein began to understand, and while the

implosion of our universe, as viewed (timed) from

outside it, may look like (and take about as long as)

the collapse of a massive star into a black hole seems

to us... we here inside it (because our SENSE of time

is so humongously "fast" ... AND FOREVER SPEEDING UP)

we here inside the universe will "experience" it like

some "unending" amount of time (or, equal to the

entire length of the part of the lifetime of our

universe in which we exist).

It may be a fact that as we go on there is "less and

less time" of the universe left--because, inevitably,

as the universe continues its implosion (or,

concentration into less and less volume) it must

undergo a general acceleration... but because "our

sense of time" is literally accelerating ahead of the

universe... what is left of the universe will always

be, at least for us, quite a lot (and perhaps even

growing as "we" go on--if I may be so bold as to

include us with the rocks & hydrogen atoms out there).

What will our universe end up as? I certainly don't

have enough information to theorize about it with any

real authority. Although I'd like to think it will all

dissolve into plain ole nothingness. It's still

possible it will also be some massive pile-up of black

holes... or a single one, which may well be another

universe-of-sorts ad infinitum. Who knows. Who cares!

The whole human race will certainly be dead long, long

before then. And all that will certainly be a long,

long, long time in our future, of course.

S D Rodrian

Other Bits & Pieces, Here & There ...

"Immortalist" wrote:

"sdr" wrote:

>> Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:

>> Cosmological Constant (i.e. "Dark Energy") is BOGUS

>If the available evidence argues that most of the

>matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected

>from the light which it emits or fails to emit, the

>question arises about how this stuff which cannot be

>seen directly exists at all unless its presence is

>inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical

>objects, specifically stellar, galactic, and galaxy

>cluster/supercluster observations

"Available evidence" (observations) do not "argue"

anything: It is men, such as you and I, who look at

"something" and "see" in it our prejudices: The

"evidence" of a plane flying overhead "argues" one

set of conclusions from a guy in Philadelphia and

quite another from a stone age hunter (as it did

for New Guinea tribesmen, who in the 40s, thought

the American airmen who were landing there to

prepare for battle against the Japanese HAD TO BE

gods and worshipped them as such).

For many years now MANY different forms of matter

(since all matter MUST needs come in some form)

have been proposed and searched for as candidates

for "dark matter." Either none has been found or

contradictory evidence have suggested that the forms

proposed could not exist where they have been

proposed (as required) or in such forms at all.

We have a specific observation (namely, that some

galaxies behave in a way they should not, given the

mass of their visible stars). It is a puzzle. And it

demands theories/guesses. But until we find the

specific reason/cause for this observation ALL our

best theories are mere guesses:

There is NO argument FOR or requirement of any

such stuff as "dark matter." It is simply ONE guess.

Further, it is a guess which has FOR MANY MANY years

been thoroughly explored and which remains unproved.

Perhaps if we had extended but 1/100th the effort in

some other line of inquiry... we'd know the answer

now.

As a matter of principle, I am against killing ANY

line of inquiry until such time as the solution has

been found. But I myself am of the strong opinion

that the search for some/any/all form(s) of dark

matter are a dead end. Why? SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

>... or in order to

>enable gravity to amplify the small fluctuations in

>the Cosmic Microwave Background enough to form the

>large-scale structures that we see in the universe

>today,

The answer to this mirrors the large-scale structures

of the material universe itself, and the solution is

to be found in the same identical causes which have

given rise to the universe's other large-scale

structures. Namely, the sheer vagaries of matter-

distribution over large scales of time: It is not a

true "random" process, simply one whose dynamics

we have not yet computed (and perhaps never will).

The "proposal" for dark energy is not as a result

of any particular requirement in the Big Bang model;

rather, the real world (the universe) was unexpectedly

discovered to be working in the exact opposite manner

that model says it ought to be working... but rather than

acknowledge the observed facts have invalidated the

model, BB theorists merely now said they thought some

"dark energy" MUST exist which is making the model

work in the exact opposite way the BB model should work.

The original requirement for a "Big Bang" were effectively

nullified by the discovery that the universe is "expanding"

NOT from some primordial "explosion" (Big Bang) but due

to some "other" reason NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. (The

proposal that it MUST BE some "dark force" is somewhat

like people who do not understand how/why planes fly

suggesting that it MUST BE because of some "dark force"

invisibly holding planes up in the air: It is nonsense which

not everyone has yet realized what utter nonsense it is.

And it is utter nonsense because it violates any number of

physical laws, not least of which is that its WORKING needs

LOADS of energy consumption/conversion which no one

has either observed or proposed how it is taking place. The

proposal of a pushing force acting in the same place and at

the same time as the "pull" of gravity simply insults logic.)

Where did the Big Bang model come from? Einstein asked:

"If there is gravity, why hasn't the universe collapsed?"

He thought "there MUST be" some force keeping the

universe from collapsing (i.e. counter-balancing the "pull"

of gravity). He called his "MUST-BE pushing force" the

Cosmological Constant. But then Hubble discovered that

the galaxies "appeared" to be moving away from each

other, and Einstein immediately realized the folly of his

Cosmological Constant proposal. Instead another down-

to-earth bit of nonsense was proposed: Wasn't it the case

here on earth that whenever things expanded from a

common point there had been an explosion at that point?

Ergo, since the universe' galaxies were seen to be moving

away from each other... they MUST be moving away from

some super-ancient explosion (some really Big Bang).

Never mind that all "explosions" require energy. Never

mind that the creation of matter/energy from nothingness

revives the ancient paradox of a First Cause Uncaused (God).

Never mind thinking/reasoning at all. The Big Bang model

satisfied men's thirst for a quick, slick answer. And since

people are lazy at everything, but especially about exercising

their brains... the nonsense's stuck (it's easier to shout down

objections than to think them through seriously).

>Yesterday, [January 12, 2006] Louisiana State

>University astronomer Bradley

>E. Schaefer tossed a grenade

>into this debate, ["dark energy"

>or, Cosmological Constant] presenting

>new research to suggest that

>the force dark energy exerts

>may have varied over time.

>That casts new doubt on the

>validity of Albert Einstein's

>"cosmological constant" only

>a few years after astronomers

>rescued the concept from

>scientific oblivion.

>"I'm not pushing this as a proof,"

>Schaefer said in an

>interview at this week's

>meeting of the American

>Astronomical Society in

>the District, where he presented

>his research. "It's pointing

>against the cosmological

>constant, but it's a first result

>describing how dark energy

>changes with time. We need

>more people to test the

>results and get more information."

Well, I for one am glad that it's so darn hard

for so many to let go of their most cherished prejudices

(they were taught to us all by the fools we love so much,

after all), and to actually see what's right in front of

their eyes ... because that way the joy of being able

to keep telling people that I told them so is multiplied

by the number of dense brains there are out there.

>Mr. Schaefer based his findings

>on analysis of ultra-bright

>cosmic explosions called

>gamma-ray bursts, detected as

>far as 12.8 billion light-years

>away. He found that the

>most distant explosions

>appeared brighter than they

>should have been if the universe

>were accelerating at

>a constant rate.

>"As you go back in time, the

>universe is pushing [outward]

>less and less," he said. "At

>some point, the pressure of dark

>energy is zero and is exerting

>no force on the universe.

>There is no explanation for it."

NOT in the Big Bang model, certainly. But

consider what the case would be in an imploding

universe: The further back in time you go, the

larger the universe is (i.e. the slower it is imploding).

Now the observation makes sense. And we can

remove all the nonsense about "dark matter."

What "pushing [outward] less and less," in the

paragraph above means is that the acceleration of

the universe's expansion is "less and less" as we go

"more and more" back in time. At "zero point" there

is no "dark force" at all, and ONLY the pull of gravity

is acting on the universe (so we are effectively back

at the point where Hubble discovered the galaxies

appear to be moving away from each other AGAINST

the pull of gravity ... devoid of any reason why/how).

However, now any quick/slick "Big Bang" suggestion

becomes more problematic because most explosions

tend to make things move faster at first and then slower

with time... NOT the other way around, certainly!

>Schaefer's findings, the first

>attempt to use gamma-ray

>bursts to study dark energy,

>produced a result that

>disagreed with accumulating

>evidence gleaned from

>observing a different kind of

>blast -- the exploding stars

>called supernovae. That work

>suggested that the expansion

>of the universe is accelerating

>in accordance with Einstein's

>cosmological constant.

>"The idea of using a gamma-ray

>burst as a distance

>indicator is a very exciting one,"

>said California Institute

>of Technology astronomer

>Richard Ellis, a supernova

>cosmologist. "The trouble is

>there are no ways to check

>the techniques. I'm not saying

>it's no good, but I can't

>believe it's as precise as supernovae."

>The concept of dark energy

>emerged in 1999 as a way to

>explain the fact that the

>expansion of the universe, once

>thought to be slowing ever

>since the big bang about 13.7

>billion years ago, was accelerating.

>That resurrected the

>idea of a cosmological constant,

>introduced by Einstein

>more than 80 years ago as a

>"fudge factor" to explain why

>the universe then appeared to

>be in equilibrium, rather

>than being pulled together

>by gravity.

>A few years later, however,

>astronomer Edwin Hubble

>discovered that the universe

>was not in stasis, after all,

>but was expanding. There

>was no "constant." Einstein

>condemned his own idea

>as "my greatest blunder."

Actually, what Hubble discovered was that the galaxies

"appeared" to be moving away from each other.

The idea that this discovery suggested that the universe

is expanding is both reasonable and idiotic, since while

in a very simple way it resembles the way an explosion

here on earth works... it also presents impossible hurdles

to explaining where all that energy came from. [Recently

someone who must have gotten the idea from watching

bedsheets hung out for drying in a yard fluttering in the

wind... suggested the nonsense of "branes" flapping in

the Mind of God or something, which when they touch

create a rupture through which pour all the energy in the

Big Bang--I must say I had to laugh like a mule when I

read it. But that's me, other people actually take this non-

sense quite seriously, I swear to God. Naturally, people

who suggest a God as The Origin "forget" to tell us about

the origin of God, and it's no different here, where they

are happy to explain the origin of our "dimensions" from

some other "dimensions" but they never ever quite get

around to explaining the origins of those other dimensions

--which I assume did not originate from ours.]

>That led to the 1999 discovery

>that the expansion of the

>universe was accelerating

>rather than slowing. There had

>to be some "repulsive force"

THERE JUST HAD TO BE, right?

It just couldn't be something OTHER THAN

what they were imagining/proposing!

>overcoming the gravity that

>should have been causing

>the universe to come together.

>Astronomers called the force

>dark energy, and "it mimics

>the cosmological constant,"

>said Michigan Technological

>University astronomer Robert

>J. Nemiroff. Einstein may

>have been right after all.

Wonder how many times in all people will repeat

the same error before they finally acknowledge it

as an error and move on to something else...!

>Astronomers estimate that

>dark energy makes up 70 percent

>of the universe, but they do not

>know what it is.

Is it some "invisible hand" holding the plane

up in the air?

>Solving the

>mystery is as all-consuming

>as any passion in physics. "It's

>so spooky," said Astronomical

>Society President Robert B.

>Kirshner, a cosmology expert

>at the Harvard-Smithsonian

>Center for Astrophysics.

>"Everybody is looking for ways to

>get at it."

If all the seekers are searching down the wrong path

the chances of any one of them discovering the truth

are nil, and no matter how many seekers. One lone seeker

searching down the true path is worth all the seekers

in infinity searching down the wrong one.

> Janika Rifley wrote:

> I see gravity as a point of balance between magnetic

> fields, not as a force.

Explain to me what purpose/point there would be

for gravity AT ALL in an imploding universe ... if

the implosion were the result of a "push" given it

at its very beginning by the "greater pressures'

surrounding the hollow into which those "pressures"

cascaded? (Literally, "by their very weight.")

Read thou: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Being a hollow, bubble-like, the outside pressures

which "fell" into it must be "speeding up" as they

concentrate nearer & nearer its geographic center. We

don't notice this acceleration in the normal course of

events, except back around 1998 when two different

groups of astronomers noticed an "inexplicable"

acceleration in a universe which they do not yet

understand is imploding ... and, of course, by one S D

Rodrian, who when years earlier realized that the

universe was indeed imploding deduced that that

implosion therefore had to be accelerating. And,

presto, so it was found to be. Nice. But I don't drink

Champagne (as Dracula once said).

"Dr Nanduri" - wrote:

> This new modelling of reality brings physics very

> much into accord with the general concepts of

> Process Philosophy.

That must have been what was missing in physics:

Less study of physical phenomena & junk like that,

and more tightening up on abstract thinking about

all sorts of crazy things!

Sir, the nature of science is to make as unbiased

a set of observations of physical phenomena as

possible ... in the hope they one day lead to some

sort of unprejudiced interpretation of reality.

Don't be misled by the fact that people like to guess

where the solution will be found before the solution

is actually found ... don't be misled by this into

believing that science and philosophy mix very well

at all: The history of physics the last century is the

sorry proof they do not (being the result of guessers,

so-called theorists, who will blurt out just about any

guess that pops into their flirty heads, proclaiming

it "the only possible solution in the universe").

A good theorist does not merely propose any ole

elephant as the only possible solution, but FIRST

goes through at least the trouble to see whether

there is room in the room into which he wants to fit

his/her theoretical elephant for it to actually fit in

there:

In other words, somebody tells you there is an

elephant in the matchbox he carried around in his

pocket ... don't waste time arguing the physics of his

claim (how/why there is an elephants in...), just don't.

I tell thee this: There are an awful low of people

nowadays looking at the universe while convinced

that they are looking at something else entirely, and

growing puzzled/confused/baffled (not by the

observations, but by the nonsense theorist are

constantly proposing): Ya can't look at a mule and

believe you're looking at a tornado & not remain

puzzled/confused and baffled by what you "see."

S D Rodrian

POST: What is Gravity? Why/How Does It Work?

On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden

BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian's piano sonata

http://www.archive.org/details/COMPLETE_MOZART_PIANO_SONATAS

>> Ha! Those are by Mozart.

>> Last time "I" wrote a piano

>> sonata it caused such hysterics

>> (of laughter) that I

>> was briefly held on a charge

>> of attempted homicide

>> (of my listeners).

>

> Sorry... interpretation...

>

>>> I wish we could discuss the relation of

>>> thermodynamics and gravity.

VISIT THOU: http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

It's all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:

Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the

land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when

there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away

towards where there is "less of it." [suggesting that

because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"

only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the

universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how

tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,

all that was really required was that "somewhere" the

"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still

than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would

have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And

because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would

have eventually become our universe (the concentration

of so many, many somethings). SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally

"shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this

is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,

"singularities" are physically impossible in our

reality--all you need do is look around you).

Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to

compare "the size" of the universe... it will

"always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no

matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.

Where can you find more on all this? Hello:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect

of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this

shrinking may actually be).

Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there

is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and

drop Newton's apple it will simply "float" in place.

You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at

which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving

away from Newton's apple with a matching speed:

Think of the earth's ground (in the latter case, or #2

above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the

earth's matter keeps it from going into any sort of

"free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens

to an actual black hole star's "ground." Therefore the

falling Newton's apple can only accelerate until it

hits the earth's surface. Why should it/does it

accelerate at all?

The reason for this acceleration is that the

"shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation

engine." [in "shrinking" the universe is forever

hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of

angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one

sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]

The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever

growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower

to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The

entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in

merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the

"faster" it grows smaller... forever.

This is the reason why for a dozen or more

years before astronomers finally discovered

that the universe's "expansion" was

accelerating I despaired of ever discovering

the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD

to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.

If our "Newton's apple" were falling into an actual

black hole star, its acceleration would almost

certainly continue until it very nearly matched that

of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"

only just "nearly."

This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every

point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator

(above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you

dropped Newton's apple it would NOT just float "in

place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."

And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe

as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on

earth's surface, very pronounced on a black hole

star's. Why?

Because this effect/interaction is one which is

strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:

In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is

identical to the conventional description of "gravity"

in any way you would care to measure it: Since the

"universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking

unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers

as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and

not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other

words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,

Newton's apple appears to be pulling at the elevator's

floor and vice versa.

And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is

the center of the universe ["down" is strictly only a

"relative" term], it is "the sum centers of mass" that

are the "points" toward which the surrounding mass

is/are "shrinking" (i.e. obviously, "space" plays no

part whatsoever in "shrinking" ... and therefore the

"illusion" of weaker/stronger "gravitational fields").

The "distance" between two nearby bodies will

diminish more than/long before the "distance"

between them and bodies farther afield" (because

all groups/conglomerations are "moving" ["down"]

towards the sum of all their mass' centers) and

therefore away from everything else "outside" them.

There is nothing "personal" about this, it's merely

that the universe is "so big in comparison to the bit

under consideration" that, to all practical effects...

every such bit of the universe can be described as its

"center." [The universe is everywhere "shrinking"

towards its everyplace ... not "slurping" wholesale

towards its whatever singular sum center.]

Individual stars, planets ... and related/very

close but "untouching" conglomerations will be

"shrinking" into a point "in space" which is the

center of the sum of their added mass: the

earth/moon system, as well as solar systems,

galaxies, galaxy groups, et al ... and so forth

outwards with every surrounding and

correspondingly independent conglomeration of

mass/energy from the smallest subparticle to the

entire universe itself (which you may choose to

call "gravitational systems" if you still believe

in gravitons).

As one continues to pull back one will always observe

all whatever groupings of such conglomerations to be

behaving as if they were independently "associated

super-conglomerations" BECAUSE they will always be

"shrinking" towards the center of the sum of their

total mass. And so it will continue (as you "pull

back") until the entire universe itself will be "seen"

as behaving as if it were one single "associated

conglomeration," [not a "singularity" of course].

The effect can be "observed to be" extremely

subtle or extremely pronounced (depending on the

amount of mass, and its organization, whether

more compact or more spread out/insubstantial.

The crucial factor being the amount of mass in a

given volume observed, and not necessarily how it is

distributed across that volume... again, because

what matters always is "how much mass/matter is

falling towards the sum of its mass' center, or

[see above] the closer a sum of mass/energy is to

itself, the more it will be moving away from

everything else afield.

As the independent conglomerations "shrink into

themselves" the distance between them will naturally

increase ... subtly with proximity and increasing with

distance so that very distant galaxies will seem to be

speeding away from each other at nearly the speed of

light (there is no natural law against something

moving faster than the speed of light, but "catching

sight of something moving away faster than the speed

of light" is always problematical, even if only

philosophically).

Einstein's restriction comes from his assumption

that the "Fitzgerald contraction" (that all matter

contracts in the direction of its motion) was true

[as truly a whoppingly moronic explanation of why

the speed of light is constant as is "dark energy"

to explain why the universe's "apparent expansion"

is accelerating]. But having assumed that, Einstein

was left with the fact that this moronic assumption

demanded that matter could only contract "so much"

and then could not possibly contract any "mucher" (a

reflection of his state of mind, I imagine). ergo:

The "numbers" told him that at 7/8th the speed of

light a 12-inch ruler would contract to 6 inches,

and so forth, until at the speed of light his ruler

would have contracted to zero--And, as a ruler can

then contract no further, Einstein left himself no

wiggle-room to imagine any speed greater than that

of light. Neat, eh! Unfortunately for Einstein,

smart as he was, the "facts" upon which he built his

Grand Temple were rotten and, eventually, it shall

all tumble down, I'm afraid. (You will be able to

tell when this is happening by the number of rats

leaving the edifice ... and whether they will be

sauntering out, or scrambling like ... rats).

"But," you might say, a neutron star can still be seen

just as the Sun/Earth can still be seen." This is because,

just like the Earth, a neutron star has reached a point

in its collapse where its "matter" has achieved a

stable framework (exactly like the "matter" of the

earth has achieved a stable framework) and will

collapse no more: The greater speed of its collapse

(of a neutron star's collapse, versus, say, that of a

Sun-sized star, or of an earth-sized planet, for that

matter) could be observed only when its combustion

fuel ran out and it -then- collapsed into a stable

neutron star (when the Sun exhausts its fuel it will

collapse into a stable white dwarf quite gently in

comparison). While, on the other hand, a black hole

star's collapse after burning up all its fuel will be

monstrously spectacular. [Astrophysicists are not yet

sure how to describe whatever "stable" thing a black

hole star eventually collapses to, if any-thing, except

to use the quite "unreal" term of "a singularity."]

Of course, the actual distance between galaxies, as

measured by a yardstick outside the universe, will

actually be "shrinking." But, since we can only

measure such distances with our own "shrinking"

galactic yardsticks... such distances must therefore

forever appear to us to be increasing! An effect which

is clearly discernible to us as the "illusion" that

the galaxies are everywhere moving away from each

other at rates of speed "surprisingly" related to how

"distant" they are from each other.

Needless to say, any silly goose first coming upon

this peculiar motion of the galaxies away from each

other ... with a brain empty of the knowledge I have

just outlined above must inevitably conclude that THE

UNIVERSE MUST OBVIOUSLY BE EXPANDING (as if

it were ... oh, I don't know, the result of an ancient

explosion, a really "big bang"). And so, imagine the

surprise of all such "empty brains" when astronomers

suddenly discovered (in 1997 or so) that their UNIVERSAL

EXPANSION IS ACTUALLY ACCELERATING!

(Obviously, a physical impossibility for the remnants

of an explosion.) Oh, I don't know, I suppose they

might be made loopy enough to even grow to imagine

that this inexplicable/completely unpredictable (in a

big bang universe) acceleration HAD TO BE due to some

invisible and undetectable mystical/magical kind of

"dark" energy or something. No, really, don't laugh:

Billions of dollars being dropped down this particular

black hole is more something to cry about.

But that is how man's knowledge advances across the

stumbling nature of his history... from blind guess to

blind guess, I guess.

There, now I've written it so that even a fly can

understand it. But, have I not said all this before?

>> If you wish to plunge into the lighter side of

>> humanity visit: http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm

> Unfortunately your poem is as long as your treatise

> on gravity and thermodynamics.

And people have forgotten how to read. I know.

> By the time I get a bit of the way through I am

> tired and wish that you could compress the rhetoric

> down to a simplistic construction.

A kind of Dick and Jane Reader for physicists... yes.

> Then there could be a real discussion.

O yeah--yeah--O yeah--yeah--O yeah. Been there.

> I do not wish to be light. You would like to goof

> around a bit and it is your right to do so.

What else can one do around goofballs?

> You say you are old.

My bones concur. As well as the last two brain cells

still alive and echoing back & forth to each other in

the otherwise Brain Cells Mausoleum of my mind.

> Will your idea of unifying gravity and

> thermodynamics die with you?

The instant I die the universe shall be swallowed by

eternal oblivion. I should be better off worrying

about keeping a smile on until that instant, don't you

think. Well, perhaps you don't. But that's no skin off

my nose either.

> Is there even anything substantial there?

For whom?

> Why then would you attempt to force your reader

> through such a long roundabout path?

Thank me for my least effort. And then move on!

I shall be thankful for your thanks (I do not intend

to take anything with me to oblivion.)

> The direct approach is much more efficient. When

> you have someone offering to be a student why

> would you throw them away?

So that, hopefully, a real teacher might catch them.

I am not a teacher but an observer. This is an

interesting planet.

> I suppose you are a man of great variations with

> little basis.

Ah! You have been to:

http://www.archive.org/details/BACH_ART_OF_THE_VARIATION

> I challenge you to present your theory of

> gravitation and thermodynamics in as compact

> a form as possible.

I have news or you, my boy: It will never be compact

enough for someone or other. Otherwise they would have

surely stopped running the 100-yard dash long ago.

Those who truly wish to understand ... will.

> I have a brief theory that predicts that large solid

> objects cannot achieve low temperature.

I think my fridge disproves it already...

> By a natural tendency of matter to cohere as it

> oscillates such a tendency can be intuited.

Now, think about why matter "coheres" and one day

you may yet come to understand that the universe is

imploding!

> I admit that my own theory is infantile

> and it needs work. I

> encourage you to present even just such

> a starting point as a kernel

> of development.

Can't: My ancient digestive system can no longer

take corn.

> Operating by declaration is necessary but the

> quality of the declarations are an open problem.

Isn't that a declaration!

> All human knowledge is

> constructed and as such is suspect

> and therefor open to development.

Another declaration? Will it never end?

> Unfortunately your declarations are

> either nonexistent or lay buried.

Declaration or mere opinion, or both?

> Perhaps you should bury your hard drive

> with you. Or will you be incinerated?

Incinerated: I'm already burnt up.

> Either way your state is presently grim.

Don't be too sure: I seem to suffer from incurable

happiness. I think it's genetic. From my father's

side. The curious thing is that I grew up with my

mother's family, grim apes the lot of them... and here

was this jolly kid always having a grand ole time

living among them). It must have infuriated them no

end (something always rather hilarious to me).

> It seems you need this reflected.

I own several mirrors. Albeit I have them all covered

up now so that I can still live the illusion that I am

seven years old! I'll uncover one of them ... last

time I uncovered them was last time I had visitors (on

account of some time ago other visitors accused me of

being Dracula, and I had AN AWFUL time proving to

everybody that I wasn't): Monkeys, can't live with'em-

> -Tim (with more retort below)

>

>> There are no atheists in the human species. Anyone

>> sez he's an atheist who then prays/prays and prays

>> that he gets the job is a mere hypocrite (at best).

>

> I am an atheist.

Hello: You are a hypocrite. Again you weren't reading!

> This merely means that I do not believe in God.

NOTE that you did not say "there is no God."

Trust me: "hypocrite."

> Prayer is closer to thought and intention

When you propose something only God can affect,

you are proposing God. USE YOUR BRAIN, sometime.

> and may not be far from meditation.

When you meditate on things God does,

how could you possibly think you are NOT

medicating [sic] on God?!?

> These concepts are not directly tied to the

> three letter word.

When you use a metaphor that can only be alluding

to God, it is to God you're alluding. How much more so

when you directly allude to God's very name!

> If you wish to define an abstract God we may

> come to some resolution

Perhaps when you learn to be honest with yourself

--first.

> but I will prefer the word reality to such a misuse

> of the old egotistical construction.

>>> The Abrahamic religions are false belief systems.

>> Do these religious principles really require that

>> they

>> be correct? I mean, after all: Didn't the Maya keep

>> the world from coming to an end for a thousand

>> years

>> by ripping the still beating hearts out of the

>> breasts

>> of their countless sacrificial victims? These

>> things work.

>

> But do they work well?

Hello! Kept the entire WORLD from coming to an end:

ALL religions are saving Mankind, saving the universe,

preserving existence itself... what more do you want?!

> The current situation may be dismissed as

> purely political,

You mean this post?

> but are the greivances of the Islamic

> fundamentalists valid?

You mean that non-Muslims are stubbornly refusing to

join the blood-thirsty cult? Sure. Their religion says

that people who refuse to join should be killed,

man, woman, or child. It's the Maya all over again.

Oh no, wait, the Maya only sacrificed enemy warriors:

Islam is a much more primitive sort of barbarism.

> Their unified mixture of tribal culture,

> religion, and government is old and strong.

> The American attention

> deficit disorder does not allow for such

> consideration.

You should know: You can't even read a collection of

old jokes....

http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm

> The maturity

> of American politics is suspect, especially when

> the leader preaches

> that God is on his side.

That's true. I think the President's poll numbers

might improve if he started preaching that he's a

Satan-worshipper instead...

>>> Perhaps the situation for the individual is of

>>> multiple identities.

>> Don't woik:

>> Multiple identifies = multiple taxation.

> Yes. We already have multiple taxation: town, state,

> nation ...

But obviously you don't have a good tax consultant.

You must be one of "the little people."

>>> So I cannot rule out the media completely.

>> Yeah! Nasty bastards all, who are always bending

>> backwards to try to be unbiased and report only the

>> facts when they should properly be the instruments

>> of

>> OUR propaganda/the voices of our biases/the petards

>> of our prejudices! But, nooooooo!

>

> How often is it mentioned in the media that the US

> is facing a long term foreign policy crisis?

Like: EVERY TIME. You gotta stop commenting on things

you never see/hear/read about/watch/know the least of!

> Are we ever reminded that we helped to build the

>Taliban?

Every Democrat and independent commentator I ever

saw on every news show repeats it. It's like, "You do

know that bread is made with flour, don't you" Yeah--

> That the US and GB armed Saddam Hussein?

I have not heard "we've got ants" mentioned more!

(Green Bay armed Saddam Hussein--? Holy--!

That I didn't know...)

>> A financial crisis looms and dithering from

>>> external

>>> forces along with

>>> another terrorist attack are a plausible end.

Are you even on planet earth? Prove it: Explain

to me what cows are.

>>> It's

>>> not going to be

>>> pretty, but it is perhaps the right thing in terms

>>> of global justice.

Global justice is what justifies local injustices.

Old as time.

>> Yes. Well, it's a good thing Russia, China and Iran

>> are there to pick up the slack if the United States

>> falters in this world, no? Ho! Ho! Ho!

>

> The USA has played a large part in how these

> countries that you

> mention have come to be what they are.

Then they are right to hate us. They're shit.

> Your own sense of hostility is

> exactly the tension of which I have spoken

> elsewhere.

Elsewhere I have spoken of ducks, and of chickens,

and of ping pong playing wombats...

>>> Of course, the US could stand down, join the ICC,

>>> stop twisting the

>>> rest of humanity around its interests...

>> And implode into the most monumental economic crash

>> ever seen on this earth since The Flood (which I'm

>> sure won't even blow away a single leaf in the rest

>> of the planet)... Ha! Ha! Ha!

>

> We'll see won't we? At some level we just watch

> and see what unfolds.

We do that at every level, the world is a colossal

Colosseum, ain't it.

>>> Morality has been a puzzle for philosophers yet it

>>> is clear to me that

>>> symmetry plays a fundamental role in the supply

>>> of moral values.

>> The more criminals that arise/the more cops we

>> gotta hire: Yes, I'm beginning to see the symmetry

>> of human behavior.

>

> No. I do accept that there are asymmetries in our

> behavior.

Where do you get asymmetries from symmetries?

Are you a mathematician?

> But in a

> search for moral principles which we accept as

> ideal symmetry would be

> observed.

Because if something makes us feel good, it is

"obviously" good. We are bastards all, yes.

> It is also a grave mistake to presume that others

> operate exactly as ones self.

I don't know. Medicine is based on that assumption.

>>> We must exist in a

>>> culture of false assumptions

>> Who did you say made this unchallengeable judgment?

>

> Me.

I thought as much, since it is a false assumption!

> You are of course free to challenge it.

Okay: "Coke is better than Pepsi." There! I win.

> It is tiring to preface

> everything with

> 'I think/believe/...'

..

From now on use: "Fuck you/Bite me/..."

They'll pay more attention to you. They might

even throw you in jail (which is like the highest

amount of attention society can pay you).

> So before everything I write you can just insert

> this preface universally.

You can insert my preface (above) before everything

you write too: I even think it sounds funnier. And

I like that.

>> Yes. And I know which parts too, but, because by

>> almost universal agreement, we term those parts

>> "dirty," as a gentleman of the old school (in fact,

>> I believe it's been torn down & carted away): I

>> refuse to mention such terms.

>

> This is cryptic

Some people just aren't equipt to discern the funny

parts. Sometimes that can be rather funny too.

> but I suppose there is a lack of tabboo in current

> culture that you find distasteful.

The only thing I find universally distasteful any more

is cheese: I've eaten too much of it.

> Still the open paradigm is strong

> especially here on this medium which you choose

> to use.

She is a good medium. I have already spoken to

everybody I know who's dead (brain dead).

Good luck,

S D Rodrian

RE:

On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob

<robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> And, of course, to 'prove' that no

> magic is required you need to

> explain (or eliminate) the beginning,

> i.e. how something evolved from

> nothing. -- Rob

As I've said many times, and as (surely) you

yourself must realize: "If Existence had to

have had "a" beginning it could not exist."

In a very real sense: There was always

"something." AND/OR what now exists is

another version/variation of Nothingness

--Something which some scientists and

theoreticians (including myself) like to swear

is the case:

SEE http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

In fact this is what makes it possible for the

universe to continue "conserving" the energy

of which it is made from larger/slower to

smaller/faster ... for all eternity.

We do not notice this eternal conservation

of energy, of course. Except for the "force"

we call "gravity."

S D Rodrian

On Aug 5, 3:31 pm, Chris L Peterson

<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> You try to force the Universe to conform

> with the limitations of your

> imagination, rather than trying to

> expand your ideas to encompass the

> reality of the Universe.

Pardon me for thinking.

> I suspect the Universe is far different,

> and far more interesting, than

> the form you attempt to define

> with your philosophy.

EVOLUTION

Horatio, believe Einstein (a very smart

fellow) when he assures you that it is

unlikely the universe began from complexity

and more likely it began BECAUSE of ONE

very simple principle... from which it

evolved to the present level of complexity.

> What came "before",

> or whether any such concept as "before"

> even has meaning, is currently

> beyond our ability to know. When

> that question is answered, however, it

> will be by science (not philosophy)-

> and it's perfectly possible that

> the answer will be that there truly was nothing-

> in any sense- before the BB. Chris L Peterson

Dear Horatio, the very essence of

analytical thinking is directly involved

with understanding "what came before"

FROM the study of "what exists now."

(Ask your local police detectives & such.)

.... Just as, hopefully, studying present

conditions will tell us what's coming next:

Which is, in sum, why the brain evolved

--aside its body maintenance duties--

in the first place: that is, to predict the

future. "If I jump in the creek the gator

will eat me!"

Even BigBangers understand that "something

can not come out of nothing" and have

thought up all sorts of sci-fy scenarios in

which, for the most part, the Big Bang erupts

(is, in fact, a puncture) from some other

dimension/universe when hanging bedsheets

(banes) "blowin' in the wind" touch the

prick point (Big Bang!) through which it all

then came to fill up our universe! Complexity

creates the universe--Einstein sez, "Nix!"

Unfortunately for them, this marvelous scenario

better than anything I could possibly come up

with (with all my wit), exemplifies the ancient

circular argument against those who claim that

God created the world: That, if God created

the world, then the business of "origins" is no

longer about the world's origin but about God's.

The Big Bangers have themselves made the Big

Bang as irrelevant as the God proponents have

made the world. Please hand out the straitjackets

so we can start arguing which God created God

and which dimension created which dimension

worlds without end. "Simplicity is the essence

of elegance."

Look. Let's be reasonable about this. And let's

try to reduce it to its simplest and most logical

(sanity): The nature of matter speaks about it

being (speaking too poetically perhaps) "a mere

swirl of energy." Everywhere we look into the

subatomic world we "see" horrific/enormous

amounts of energy "bound" in tiny swirls. And

when we look out to the greater universe we

see the unmistakable evolution of "the universe

of stars" into "tighter swirls" called "black holes."

SEE? ... One can look at "matter" as EITHER

Something OR Nothing. Nothing could be simpler:

After there are no more stars (atoms) there will

be no more us. But there will be a universe (of

black holes). In such a universe there may yet

arise intelligent life--since we do not know the

ultimate limitations of life... and it may be very

difficult for those beings, perhaps, to imagine

life (their forms of life, of course) possible in

the universe of atoms/stars which existed before

them. And they will know about our universe

BECAUSE

They will create monstrously powerful machines

which will crash black holes (or tear them apart)

until showers of galaxies pour out. In human

lifetimes, these out-pouring galaxies will live for

billions and billions of our years. But for the black

hole physicists they will wink out perhaps after

only a flash of one of their moments.

Meanwhile, some fellow in our own universe is

reading http://physics.sdrodrian.com and thinking:

"How can our universe be a mere swirl of energy

"shrinking" at the speed of light?! I'd notice it!"

And then after all is said & done, perhaps only

Dr. Seuss's philosophy (from amongst all that

have peopled this noble race of ours) will have

any truth/meaning left at all. Albeit, I doubt

seriously there will be even one "black hole

physicist" named Horton among the lot of'em.

Look for beauty where it exists, Horatio. Close not

your eyes to it and but curse the blackness.

S D Rodrian

RE:

On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur

(Bobby > In article <1184873139.211531.245...@d55g2000hsg.

googlegroups.comBryant) wrote:

>sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> writes:

>

> > Existence is absolutely deterministic.

>

> Physicists have determined otherwise.

> --

> Bobby Bryant

> Reno, Nevada

Don't bet on it, Bobby.

Or, before you place that bet, at least consider

THE SORT of "physicists" who have made

the "claim" that there is a portion of existence

where the laws of physics (i.e. determinism)

do not apply. In essence, Quanta Theory is

statistical analysis (it is BOUND to produce

the most informed guess, but it is NEVER looking

directly and absolutely at its subject in its

totality). This explains its many (and continuing)

successes; and why it ought to have no say

--whatsoever-- in any discussion trying to settle

the question of the nature of existence in its sum

total. [You cannot have someone who is but guessing

about exactly what it is he/she is looking at being

the final arbiter of that thing's description--and no

matter how well such a guess works in the meantime.]

START QUOTE

mccarthy@ writes:

Mr. S D Rodrian,

I have been reading scientific articles

(i.e. space.com, nature.com,

etc) and following the mainstream

thinking (BB, string theory, QM,

QP, extra dimensions, etc.) for

the last 8-10 years and not

understanding what all the fudge

factors (dark energy, dark matter,

etc.) are all about and why they

were so illogical.

With great difficulty, I managed to

wrap my head around most of it

except that in spite of all I read,

I could never ever comprehend

where a single photon emitted from

a candle gets its insane energy

and acceleration to travel that "fast"

( in all 3 dimensions ) and

always regain its speed after being

slowed down by some medium.

It never occurred to me that a

photon is created, suspended in

'place' while everything else is

collapsing (imploding) towards,

from, away or past this photon -

depending on one's reference point.

Your explanation clicked something

I can understand and comprehend

now in laymen's terms; and as you

said, it should be simple enough

for me to see everything from

hereon out on my own.

much appreciated,

-eric

eric,

Thank you for your note. I was just now

thinking about the implosion vs expansion

(Big Bang, et al) dichotomy. And contemplating

the endless number of nonsense required for

the expansion model to "work" (not to mention

all the things which actually put it into question)...

while at the same time realizing that I have yet

to find a single objection to my own implosion

"viewpoint."

I am more than willing to admit that if ever

there is ANY objection (even the slightest), my

entire theory would collapse--and I would be

more than glad to admit it: If but a paperclip

were to cast a doubt on it, that would be enough

for me. And I would let others fight it out from

here on out.

But I have not yet run across even a paperclip

objecting to it. And so I will continue to believe

that the implosion model describes the universe

--And that THAT is why everything appears to

agree with it. Reality agrees with itself.

I believe the world (of men) will slowly but

eventually come around--One can only ignore

the Sun in the sky so long.

Good luck,

S D Rodrian

mccarthy@ wrote:

To S D Rodrian:

....and I appreciate your reply.

I am sure you get enough email to

make it impossible to answer all of them.

I am not a mathematician, physicist

etc., just a plain M.Sc. from a

canadian university. I have been

trying to find some model that

would explain the world around me

for years now. Since "everybody"

was so excited and united wrt the

BBang, strings, "branes" concept,

it appeared they just "must" be correct

even though my logic couldn't

get around all the complexities and

hiccups involved in the BB model.

This may sound silly, however, since

I couldn't possibly get my head

around the BB concept with crashing

branes, multi-dimensions, etc. in

its entirety, I had started

compensating for the lack of logical

flow in the BB th. by thinking about

our universe as a computer

generated, recursive, virtual reality

simulation. The BBang being

"somebody" throwing the switch

and all the inconsistencies and

contradictions in the model being

programming mistakes. I thought of

it all as a universe within universe(s)

with time as such being

relative and irrelevant.

Right or wrong, your theory/explanation

via imploding universe using

laws of thermo-dynamics clicked with

me and the logic of universe

finally flows for me. It just makes

plain sense. The fact I can now

understand why photon behaves the

way it behaves was well worth the 5-

6 hours it took me to read your

material and absorb it. Great stuff.

You certainly gave me a lot to think

about...in a different light.

thanks again,

-eric

mccarthy@ wrote:

Hi, S D Rodrian:

can this double-slit experiment:

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html

be explained by the imploding universe model?

How can a photon pass

through two holes at the same time?

thanks,

-eric

eric,

I have sometimes thought it very well may. It might,

were the photon to not only not "move" but also not

"shrink" (however, this is self-evidently not the

case, or light could never be "aimed"). But I have

also had to admit that the double-slit experiment is

too subject to interpretation for a slick answer (it's

not just a matter of: ask a child what he/she is

seeing and of course you'll never get the QM answer

.... but that it also depends on a large number of

assumptions about the nature of the photon, et al,

going back to Thomas Young's 1803 version of the

double-slit experiment and Newton's even older

interpretations on the nature of light, all of which

have to be absolutely correct): The QM interpretation

is just that, one interpretation of the light

refraction. And none of the QM interpretations HAVE

TO BE correct: If they are ALL correct, however, then

the answer is either indeed the imploding universe

OR we are all insane. Hard to come up with a third

alternative:

Take the following quote from the article as the

perfect hint of what quantum fundamentalists

(extremists) are carried away with:

"and ... nothing existing until it is observed,

these are a few of the interpretations of quantum

reality that are consistent with the experiments

and observations."

Every child understand that the answer to the ancient

question of whether a falling tree really makes a

noise if there is no one there to hear it fall is that

YES IT DOES. But QM fundamentalists have not yet

grown up even to the level of children (apparently).

That's saying a lot.

It is merely/purely/only/simply a display of the

heights of human arrogance to claim that if WE cannot

"measure" something "it cannot be measured." And yet

we have made such a claim, as you can see!

The point that "one cannot measure something so

frail/delicate without the very act of measuring it

changing its character/nature/displacement" is

absolutely reasonable. But when one jumps from such

reasonableness to the idea that "something does not

have a definite position at a definite time--and ONLY

the measurement/observation GIVES it that." Then one

are talking logical insanity. One needs a doctor, not

a science journal editor.

Dr. Heisenberg wrote, "Some physicist would prefer

to come back to the idea of an objective real

world whose smallest parts exist objectively in

the same sense as stones or trees exist

independently of whether we observe them. This

however is impossible."

Quanta theory is one of the greatest mathematical

tools ever devised to "peer" into the realms of things

which will never be observed directly. But it is

merely a form of statistical analysis. Period. The

problem is that when QM theoreticians start "looking"

into the world that can NEVER be seen, they start

"seeing" everything in their heads there. And people's

heads are teeming with squirming eecky nightmares.

"Reality is absolutely deterministic." If ever you

hear that "an experiment" has proven this wrong, you

can be just as certain that it is the experiment that

is wrong as if you had heard that the real Santa Claus

was recently interviewed by Katie Curic. And no matter

how much you trust the integrity of Katie Curic.

"There are many ways we could go now in

examining quantum results. If conscious

observation is needed for the creation of an

electron (this is one aspect of the Copenhagen

Interpretation, the most popular version of

quantum physics interpretations), then ideas

about the origin of consciousness must be

revised. If electrons in the brain create

consciousness, but electrons require

consciousness to exist, one is apparently caught

in circular reasoning at best."

The paragraph above is obviously a man struggling with

his sanity. This is not science, this is psychology.

Trust Einstein in this at least: The world is sane,

period. When the "wise-ass kids" who came up with

the "uncertainly principle" and other insanities by

taking Quanta theory to its logical extremes were

being lionized for saying things nobody even bothered

to analyze in the light of day, all Einstein could say

was that "God didn't play dice." In his quaint way,

what he was saying was that "reality is

deterministic." The alternative is "magic" (as

described in extremist QM) and "utter insanity"

(again, as described in extremist QM).

Quantum mechanics, as statistical analysis, will

always produce predictions which will bear out--It's

what statistical analysis does: wear down the numbers

to the most probable results.

NOTE, above all (or, if nothing else) this crucial

passage:

"The answer is that each individual photon must -

in order to have produced an interference pattern

-- have gone through both slits! This, the

simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has

been the basis of many of the unintuitive

interpretations of quantum physics."

And there you have one of the greatest examples of how

just one very probably wrongly-interpreted experiment

can lead an entire mob of zebu-people utterly crazy.

The answer is NOT that the universe is magical and

utterly insane. The answer is more likely that there

is a simpler (and sane) explanation, after all.

As I said above, it's very possible that what we are

seeing is the photon acting very normally in an

imploding universe, but I just don't have the time now

to diagram all the steps. If you would like to, more

power to you! It's (probably) very simple--and people

shall laugh at why people should have thought it so

difficult (as people have done since the dawn of time).

S D Rodrian

mccarthy@ wrote:

Hi, S D Rodrian:

you wrote:

>> imploding universe, but I just don't

>> have the time now

>> to diagram all the steps.

>> If you would like to, more

>> that's fine; I just wondered if

>> there is some simple

>> explanation using a model we know

>> - perhaps your analogy with cork, helium

>> balloons, drag and so forth...

Also, perhaps the experiment itself is flawed in

some way i.e. how and when the photon is created,

how it (photon) reacts with the medium through

which it travels, what forces (el.magn.) iterfere with

it when the size of the slits and the material itself

is considered, etc. Anyway, I'd hate to speculate

about something that I cant competently defend.

thanks anyway; perhaps we'll know the answer

in our lifetime...

-eric

eric,

I actually saw the experiment carried out when I was

very young. (It's actually something of a requirement.)

Einstein was familiar with it too, and I don't wonder

it might have been the reason he never came out more

forcefully against the crazier QM claims. (Apparently,

Einstein's confidence in Reality was only "relative,"

whereas my confidence in Reality is ... absolute.)

I was rather impressed by it myself. And had (have)

no explanation for it (not that I have even given it

any serious time): However, not much later I watched

a lady being sawed in half and was equally baffled.

(And much more impressed... there were screams,

and a gush of blood... and if I'd had a gun with me

I don't know whether I might not have taken a shot

at the bastard doing the sawing.)

Was it all magic? The ONLY difference between the

two "tricks" is that the magician sawing the lady in

half only claimed his "magic" was real in jest. But,

I assume, those who "perform" the double-slit

experiment actually always believe in its "magic."

Ah! Some time later some TV magician explained

how the lady was sawed in half (and was later glued

back up with no apparent ill effects to her health).

And the whole thing was, rather quite embarrassingly,

very childishly simple.

I always regretted Einstein didn't attend that lady-

sawing performance--What might his mind have made

of it!

Will the explanation for the double-slit trick (I mean

"experiment") turn out to be as childishly simple? Who

knows? (I don't.) But, this is certain:

I think I'll wait (until they perform the experiment

inside a Bose-Einstein condensate with the photon

travelling at a few inches per hour or so ... so we

can "see" it go through the two different slits at the

same time and then bounce! against itself) before I

make any real attempt to "explain" an "experiment"

which (like the sawing-the-lady-in-half experiment)

just doesn't seem to square with reality. And reality

is the thing I am more inclined to trust, frankly.

THINK: Were the answer, say, that the photon quanta

is not inviolate and two photons are produced by

the experiment, then a most marvelous violation of

the conservation-of-energy laws would occur, and

by merely forcing a single photon through infinitely

doubling double-slit experiments... we could produce

enough energy to blow up the whole universe if

necessary!

PLEASE always remember: When you insist to someone

(who asks you whether a tree falling in the forest

without anybody being there to hear it fall makes a

noise) that, yes, it does and he/she then inevitably

asks you: "How do YOU know?!" Don't be shy about

pointing out that "identical conditions produce

identical results" (and that millions of trees have

fallen while people were present--and ALL of them

made a noise of falling). So there!

Similarly, when they ask you whether Schrodinger's

cat is alive or dead. You ask how long it's been in

the box. And if it's been in there a year ... that cat

is dead, baby: "You can bury the box now." And without

having to look inside, either. Some magic tricks are

just easier to figure out than others.

Please forgive me for not having given the double-slit

experiment more thought. But perhaps now you

understand why I never did.

Good luck,

S D Rodrian

END QUOTE

"Experiments which produce verifiable results can

not be ignored, as they are the foundation and

sustenance of science. But this does not mean that

our immediate interpretations of those experiments

are and will always be the correct ones." --SDR

Finally: NOTE that the very fact that the double-slit

experiment ALWAYS produces the same results

(and does not merely have a propensity to do so)

is evidence of the deterministic nature of existence

regardless of whatever explanations we may prefer

to give for the results: "Identical conditions always

produce identical results." Period. Modern science

is based on verifiable (reproducible) results.

Everything else is lies, lies, and damned statistics.

S D Rodrian

Here is the text of the articles in question:

Quantum Astronomy: The Double Slit Experiment

By Laurance R. Doyle

SETI Institute posted: 11 November 2004

This is a series of four articles each with a separate

explanation of different quantum phenomena. Each of

the four articles is a piece of a mosaic and so every

one is needed to understand the final explanation of

the quantum astronomy experiment we propose, possibly

using the Allen Array Telescope and the narrow-band

radio-wave detectors being build by the SETI Institute

and the University of California, Berkeley.

With the success of recent movies such as "What the

&$@# Do We Know?" and the ongoing -- and continuously

surprising -- revelations of the unexpected nature of

underlying reality that have been unfolding in quantum

physics for three-quarters of a century now, it may

not be particularly surprising that the quantum nature

of the universe may actually now be making in-roads

into what has previously been considered classical

observational astronomy. Quantum physics has been

applied for decades to cosmology, and the strange

"singularity" physics of black holes. It is also

applicable to macroscopic effects such as

Einstein-Bose condensates (extremely cold

conglomerations of material that behave in

non-classical ways) as well as neutron stars and even

white dwarfs (which are kept from collapse, not by

nuclear fusion explosions but by the Pauli Exclusion

Principle - a process whereby no two elementary

particles can have the same quantum state and

therefore, in a sense, not collapse into each other).

Well, congratulations if you have gotten through the

first paragraph of this essay. I can't honestly tell

you that things will get better, but I can say that to

the intrepid reader things should get even more

interesting. The famous quantum physicist Richard

Feynmann once said essentially that anyone who thought

he understood quantum physics did not understand it

enough to understand that he did not actually

understand it! In other words, no classical

interpretation of quantum physics is the correct one.

Parallel evolving universes (one being created every

time a quantum-level choice is made),

faster-than-light interconnectedness underlying

everything, nothing existing until it is observed,

these are a few of the interpretations of quantum

reality that are consistent with the experiments and

observations.

There are many ways we could go now in examining

quantum results. If conscious observation is needed

for the creation of an electron (this is one aspect of

the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most popular

version of quantum physics interpretations), then

ideas about the origin of consciousness must be

revised. If electrons in the brain create

consciousness, but electrons require consciousness to

exist, one is apparently caught in circular reasoning

at best. But for this essay, we shall not discuss

quantum biology. Another path we might go down would

be the application of quantum physics to cosmology --

either the Inflationary origin of the universe, or the

Hawking evaporation of black holes, as examples. But

our essay is not about this vast field either. Today

we will discuss the scaling of the simple double-slit

laboratory experiment to cosmic distances, what can

truly be called, "quantum astronomy."

The laboratory double-slit experiment contains a lot

of the best aspects of the weirdness of quantum

physics. It can involve various kinds of elementary

particles, but for today's discussion we will be

talking solely about light - the particle nature of

which is called the "photon." A light shining through

a small hole or slit (like in a pinhole camera)

creates a spot of light on the screen (or film, or

detector). However, light shown through two slits that

are close together creates not two spots on the

screen, but rather a series of alternating bright and

dark lines with the brightest line in the exact middle

of this interference pattern. This shows that light is

a wave since such a pattern results from the

interference of the waves coming from slit one (which

we shall call "A") with the waves coming from slit two

(which we shall call "B"). When peaks of waves from

light source A meet peaks from light source B, they

add and the bright lines are produced. Not far to the

left and right of this brightness peak, however, peaks

from A meet troughs from B (because the crests of the

light waves are no longer aligned) and a dark line is

produced. This alternates on either side until the

visibility of the lines fades out. This pattern is

simply called an "interference pattern" and Thomas

Young used this experiment to demonstrate the wave

nature of light in the early 19th Century.

However, in the year 1900 physicist Max Planck showed

that certain other effects in physics could only be

explained by light being a particle. Many experiments

followed to also show that light was indeed also a

particle (a "photon") and Albert Einstein was awarded

the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for his work

showing that the particle nature of light could

explain the "photoelectric effect." This was an

experiment whereby low energy (red) light, when

shining onto a photoelectric material, caused the

material to emit low energy (slow moving) electrons,

while high energy (blue) light caused the same

material to emit high energy (fast moving) electrons.

However, lots of red light only ever produced more low

energy electrons, never any high-energy electrons. In

other words, the energy could not be "saved up" but

rather must be absorbed by the electrons in the

photoelectric material individually. The conclusion

was that light came in packets, little quantities, and

behaved thus as a particle as well as a wave.

So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of

unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally

weird. But the double slit experiment had another

trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or

"quantum" of energy) through a single slit at a time,

with a sufficiently long interval in between, and

eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the

one produced when a very intense (many photons) light

was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing

happened. When one sends a single photon at a time

(waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward

the screen when both slits are open, rather than two

spots eventually building up opposite the two slit

openings, what eventually builds up is the

interference pattern of alternating bright and dark

lines! Hmm... how can this be, if only one photon was

sent through the apparatus at a time?

The answer is that each individual photon must - in

order to have produced an interference pattern -- have

gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum

weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of

the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We

can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for

example, that a particle of light is not a particle

until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that

the particle of light is rather a wave before it is

measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave

sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns

out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That

is, the elementary particles making up the trees,

people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are

apparently just distributions of likelihood until they

are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much

for the Victorian view of solid matter!

The shock of matter being largely empty space may have

been extreme enough -- if an atom were the size of a

huge cathedral, then the electrons would be dust

particles floating around at all distances inside the

building, while the nucleus, or center of the atom,

would be smaller than a sugar cube. But with quantum

physics, even this tenuous result would be superseded

by the atom itself not really being anything that

exists until it is measured. One might rightly ask,

then, what does it mean to measure something? And this

brings us to the Uncertainly Principle first

discovered by Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Heisenberg wrote,

"Some physicist would prefer to come back to the idea

of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist

objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist

independently of whether we observe them. This however

is impossible."

Perhaps that is enough to think about for now. So in

the next essay we will examine, in some detail, the

uncertainty principle as it relates to what is called

"the measurement problem" in quantum physics. We shall

find that the uncertainty principle will be the key to

performing the double-slit experiment over

astronomical distances, and demonstrating that quantum

effects are not just microscopic phenomena, but can be

extended across the cosmos.

On Aug 7, 7:36 am, "andy" <th...@thought.com> wrote:

> Hello, SDR!

>

> Slight correction - gravity is as a result

> of the energy around us.

Slight correction: Sweat is as a result

of the energy around us.

> We are

> all part of the same 'mass' of energy that

> was blown apart at the point of

> the big bang.

That is totally meaningless: You are saying:

"Look but do not think!" I hate that.

> It's one of the basic laws, energy

> can not be created nor

> destroyed, it just changes it's state.

The universe as a result of an explosion

is putting the horse before the cart. If you

tell me, the universe and THEN it explodes

it might be hard to imagine how, but at least

it would not be counter-intuitive.

> As for nothingness, impossible.

Ah! Yet another man who believes there has

always been death and taxes! (Me too!)

> To

> measure nothingness involves some form of

> interaction, observer and event.

Ha! You'd be surprised at how many people are even

now in government measuring nothingness.

> Not possible as event = action and reaction, and

> in the event of nothingness

> the equation can not be completed as you can

> not oberve nothingness.

Then what are all those strong-muscles gentlemen

who say they're bending space really up to?

On Aug 8, 10:31 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 5 Aug, 12:14, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:

>> On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

>

>>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no magic is

>>> required you need to

>>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning, i.e. how

>>> something evolved from nothing. -- Rob

START QUOTE

Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the

land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when

there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away

towards where there is "less of it." [suggesting that

because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"

only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the

universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how

tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,

all that was really required was that "somewhere" the

"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still

than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would

have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And

because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would

have eventually become our universe (the concentration

of so many, many somethings). SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

END QUOTE

>> As I've said many times, and as (surely) you

>> yourself

>> must realize: "If Existence had to have had "a"

>> beginning

>> it could not exist."

>

>> In a very real sense: There was always "something."

>> AND/OR what now exists is another version/variation

>> of Nothingness--Something which some scientists

>> and

>> theoreticians (including myself) like to swear is

>> the case:

>

>> In fact this is what makes it possible for the

>> universe

>> to continue "conserving" the energy of which it

>> is made

>> from larger/slower to smaller/faster ... for all

>> eternity.

>

>> We do not notice this eternal conservation of

>> energy,

>> of course. Except for the "force" we call

>> "gravity."

>

> That, and the argument on your website, is a

> statement of belief.

If I chose to believe in the laws of physics... let

them take me where they're going to take me.

> To

> be a valid scientific theory it needs to propose

> explanations from

> which predictions can be made.

Every prediction I have ever drawn from the

conclusion that the universe is in implosion

has proven true, from why the speed of light should

be constant, to what really causes inertia, to the

1997 discovery that the universe is in acceleration,

and not (as a big bang universe predicts AND was

proven false) in deceleration. Further, an universe as

an implosion makes "dark energy" and "dark matter"

unnecessary. Use the model to come up with a thousand

predictions more, and then watch them all be proven

true. GO: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

> These predictions then need to be

> verified by independent, repeatable experiment.

"No matter how you slice it an apple will ALWAYS

prove to be an apple." There will be (and have already

been) countless facts which will baffle/frustrate

people who still believe the universe is the result of

a big bang (no matter how many "proofs" they "find"

to support it). And there has not been nor can there

ever be even one substantial fact ever found which

will contradict that the universe is in implosion:

This is an absolutely black/white either/or matter.

The universe is either the aftermath of a "big bang"

(which contradicts the laws of physics and countless

discoveries about how the universe works) or it is

in implosion, which instantly explains everything

about how it works & why it works that way... with

not a single contradiction.

It is the difference between what is true and what

is not true.

On Aug 5, 6:15 am, BernardZ

<DontBot...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> In article <1186209867.957163.147...@

r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

> sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com says...

>

>> Otherwise, what you have there is A THING

>> brought into existence out of Nothingness. Or,

>> "created" by magic (with no connection whatever

>> to the laws of science, of nature, of physics).

>

> The big bang is magic?

Strictly speaking, it is a myth.

1 a usually traditional story of ostensibly

historical events that serves to unfold part of the

world view of a people or explain a practice, belief,

or natural phenomenon

2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up

around something or someone; especially: one

embodying the ideals and institutions of a society

or segment of society seduced by the American

myth of individualism-- Orde Coombs

b: an unfounded or false notion

It comes from observing that the galaxies are receding

from each other as if they were the gigantic remnants

of an ancient explosion. ERGO: "Run the film

backwards" and one HAD TO eventually end up at a

"point" where the "big bang" took place. And now you

know how the Big Bang Myth came about. I kid you not.

"running the film backwards" is the experiment which

"proved" the "reality" of the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!!!

On Aug 5, 11:04 pm, "'foolsrushin.'"

<dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 Aug, 03:53, SDR <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com>

wrote:

>

>> On Jul 21, 5:21 am, "'foolsrushin.'"

<dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> All religions are local.

>> Only science is universal.

>

>>> And, so, now, you are going to tell how, quite

>>> accidently, of course,

>>> you came to have your present opinions, God!

>> Sure: I was in the wrong place

>> at the wrong time.

>

> Where should we move you to - to get the

> correct result?

To the correct location.

Thank you,

S D Rodrian

Jim S wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:35:23 -0700, sdr wrote:

>

> I was going with that until you said

> "BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion"

> 'because of'? Jim S

Yes. "BECAUSE OF"

START QUOTE FROM:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Let us begin our explanation of how Newton changed our

understanding of the Universe by enumerating his Three

Laws of Motion.

Newton's First Law of Motion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends

to remain in that state of motion unless an

external force is applied to it.

This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of

inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of

Inertia".

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

II. The relationship between an object's mass

m, its acceleration a, and the applied force

F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are

vectors (as indicated by their symbols being

displayed in slant bold font); in this law

the direction of the force vector is the same

as the direction of the acceleration vector.

This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws,

because it allows quantitative calculations of

dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are

applied. Notice the fundamental difference between

Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle:

according to Newton, a force causes only a change in

velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the

velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under

Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is

the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is

only a velocity if there is a force, but according to

Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains

that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an

acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As

we have noted earlier in conjunction with the

discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be

more in accord with common sense, but that is because

of a failure to appreciate the role played by

frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces

acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of

Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found

to be in accord with the observations.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

III. For every action there is an equal and

opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off

a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the

direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the

opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water,

if we aren't careful!).

END QUOTE

>> Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the

>> land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when

>> there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away

>> towards where there is "less of it." [suggesting that

>> because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"

>> only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the

>> universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how

>> tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,

>> all that was really required was that "somewhere" the

>> "Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still

>> than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would

>> have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And

>> because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would

>> have eventually become our universe (the concentration

>> of so many, many somethings). SEE:

>>

>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

The UNIVERSE' breeding area (the "more tenuous spot"

above) would have been perfectly surrounded by "denser

material" which would have crashed towards its center:

Note that, in response to this motion {Law 3} a

growing greater volume of that "denser area" would

have "become less dense" ... as its "material" moved

towards "the more tenuous spot," [the "area" from

which "the material" was moving would have spread

outwards BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion].

Additionally, the "thermodynamic flow" would have

crashed towards the "center" of the less dense spot.

And, necessarily, all the material flowing there from

the surrounding areas would have had only itself to

crash against (or, "to wind itself up unto itself"

might be a more appropriate way of putting it): An

effect which continues even unto this very day "there"

--or "here," since "there" is the entirety of the/our

visible universe (in other words, the universe of

"matter" which has coalesced into "us").

S D Rodrian

http://poems.sdrodrian.com

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.

Only science is universal.

"What is Gravity?"

There is not such thing as Gravity. The Earth just sucks.

Yol Bolsun,

Grendel.

"After enough decimal places, no one gives a damn."-Solomon Short