🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <86n8uh$tjv$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
  "Philip Whitehead" <philip@whitehead9964.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Simple answer: (not exact, please redefine if you know something I
> obviously
> don't)

"Every human being, even the least of them, knows
  SOMETHING I do not--And in THAT he/she is my Master."

                                      --Voltaire

> Ok, so I say that the speed the universe is expanding is less than the
> speed
> of light and more than nothing.

Actually the universe is not expanding at all. Nor,
by the way, is it--strictly speaking--contracting:

There are two sides or processes to the universe: On the side
which we have left behind the universe can best be described
as being pure infinite mass (there are many ways to describe
this stage of the universe; perhaps the easiest to grasp is that
at this stage the universe is as "large" as the Big Bang universe
would be if it continued to expand to its most extreme size). This
scalar universe does not contain "matter" (or, not much of it, in
any case), and so it is one whose nature is a repelling force. But,
as anyone familiar with Newton's concept of a force knows, this
repelling force can exist only because it is in balance with its
opposite... and eventually this scalar universe is "pushed" into
that opposite (or, attracting) force.

This is the beginning of "our" side of the universe (the manifestation
of gravity). What is the nature of gravity? (Rhetorical question only.)
What happens when gravity becomes the nature of the universe?
(Not a rhetorical question.) You already know, don't you: In a process
which must be almost infinitely protracted... the force of gravity
slowly
builds more and more compounded and complex "islands" or "pools"
or "eddies" of locally self-focused gravity... even as the entire
universe
as a unit begins to implode: This is the beginning of what we call
"particles" (which, as you can see from this vantage point, are simply,
merely, and only just the "forms" which gravity is taking locally--for
the same reason that somebody standing on the moon will feel the
moon's gravity much more than the earth's, or the Sun's, or the Milky
Way's, or that or the rest of the entire universe). As the universe
whose nature is now gripped by this attracting force continues its
history... more and more complex "forms" of matter (particles) build up
from/upon the previous generations of particles... until we get the
supra-particles we know as quarks, elemental atoms, stars, and galaxies
of today.

But one thing remains true & unchanging across the entire process:
There are NO fundamental particles: ALL of THEM, without a single
exception, are just "forms & shapes" which the force of gravity has
taken locally. And now imagine the history of our universe (of this
protracted process of building generation after generation of these
"forms of matter" on top of each other... and realize that we really
have no idea just how many generations there may have gone before ours.

Remember when "philosophers & theists" thought the universe
was 6000 years old? Well, what if today's "physicists" are but only
the modern-day equivalent of those "philosophers & theists" when
it comes to "imagining" how many generations of subparticles have
gone before the present one?

>Haha common sense really.

Indeed. It doesn't take a super-abundance of intelligence and/or
even a super-abundance of knowledge to eventually realize that
our universe must be the result of a protracted process of evolution.
SO next time you hear someone --ANYONE-- spouting about how
the universe "suddenly burst into existence out of an exploding
magic bean" please remind that person that the age of myths & magic
hath come and is all but gone... gone into a time of scientific inquiry
and, indeed (finally) into the beginnings of an age of common sense.


> No, there
> must be
> a better theory...

Indeed there is! And you can explore it fully at my web site:
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <868gve$4ij$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <85vpp8$ik3i$1@news.umbc.edu>,
> >  Bill McHale <wmchal1@umbc7.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >} In talk.origins sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:

> >} : Many mistaken interpretations of observed facts indeed
> >} : strengthened the superstition of an exploding universe (just
> >} : as, with the passage of time, many mistaken interpretations
> >} : of observed facts have strengthened religious superstitions
> >} : as well as beliefs in little green men and alien abductions....
> >}
> >} :> The shining
> >} :> moment of GR was its prediction (and the first - albeit marginal
> >} :> observation) of gravitational lensing.
> >}
> >} : That superstition [that the photon's "trajectory" being altered
> >} : by a strong gravitational field should be proof of GR] is typical
> >} : of the sort of pseudoscience which instead of objectively
> >} : interpreting observed facts... seeks in every new discovery
> >} : proof of whatever "holy truth" it is seeking to substantiate.
> >} : If one considers the photon a magical particle then indeed
> >} : any time it responds to gravity it will strike "one" as magical.
> >}
> >} It is not merely that the photon's path was altered that served as
> >} a proof
> >} of General Relativity but also that it was altered by the amount
> >} that
> >} General Relativity predicted.  Granted there is never such a thing
> >} in science as unconditional proof, but as yet nobody has come up
> >} with a better theory.
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> >
> >You will be amazed--In fact any layman who finally comes to
> >understand the true nature of our universe will be quite floored:
> >The earth not being at the center of the universe or flat... these
> >things are nothing compared to the reality of a universe literally
> >forever swallowing itself! And yet we live! Go to my WWW site
> >and be swept away with the real wonder of existence.
> >
> >} : Your reaction is precisely the one predicted in my paragraph:
> >} : If you merely realize a few fundamental (indisputable) facts
> >} : you too would see it as I do. Facts:
> >}
> >} : 1) All "forms" of matter are just that: "Forms" of matter.
> >} :     If this were not true the FBI and Interpol would be
> >} :     after all those particle accelerator folks.
> >}
> >} Actually all forms of matter are merely forms of energy : )
> >
> >Notice you agreed with me: all forms = forms. Go from there!
> >}
> >} : The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
> >} : is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the center
> >} : of the universe" ... this is not what's happening! AGAIN:
> >}
> >} : 1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
> >} :    of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.
> >}
> >} Mind you of course, gravitons have yet to be detected.
> >
> >Those gravitons being sought are modern-day particles and
> >have nothing to do with the fundamental "particles" of gravity
> >(my gravitons are not particles at all--I just coopted the word).
> >
> >} And what
> >} exactly
> >} are oppositions?
> >
> >Exactly the opposite of gravitons. Simple, no?
> >
> >
> >} : 2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
> >} :     the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
> >} :     they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes & forms."
> >}
> >} : 3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
> >} :      will not accumulate at the center of the universe. (How
> >} :     could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
> >} :     Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
> >} :     because they merely represent the force of gravity, and
> >} :     are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!
> >}
> >} :        --PLEASE NOTE THIS for future reference.--
> >}
> >} : 4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
> >} :     nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
> >} :     gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely represent
> >} :     attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will unravel
> >} :     and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will take over
> >} :     and, "Yara, yara, yara..." eventually recreate the gravitons
> >} :     and then we will have another universe. (But don't guess:
> >} :     read my text--And, by the way, if you can express all this
> >} :     better than I have there, then I'll consider myself your
> >} :     student and take up working with needles and cloth.)
> >}
> >} : PLEASE NOTE: Fundamentally, "gravity" is all that exists.
> >}
> >} I always thought myself a grave man but that this is taking it to
> >} extremes.
> >
> >Finally you know: God did not set up 57 different parameters
> >when He dreamt up existence but just the one: Gravity.
> >
> >} : You don't have to warp your brains to think anything new
> >} : here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
> >} : suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
> >} : receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
> >} : receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!
> >}
> >} Sounds like the same thing stated a different way.  Still see no
> >} reason to
> >} reject Big Bang/inflationary cosmology for your model.
> >
> >You will. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow....
> >but somewhere down the road you're going to regret not
> >having gotten on that plane, and then it'll be the start o
> >a beautiful friendship--or some such.
> >
> >} : They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
> >} : it's just that in the case of an imploding universe, the
> >} : acceleration
> >} : of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
> >} : universe... such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
> >} : and most counterintuitive.
> >}
> >} :> >Oh, sure, a Big Bang universe was more proof of A Cause
> >} :> >Uncaused
> >} :> >and a Creator than an explanation of the whys & wherefores of
> >} :> >existence. But Einstein was content to let God play His dice.
> >} :>
> >} :> This is a rather peculiar charge, considering that the
> >} :> theological
> >} :> implications (or lack thereof) play no role whatever in the
> >} :> history
> >} :> of
> >} :> the BB model.
> >}
> >} : Nonsense: The BB model is the scientific description of
> >} : how God creates the universe (it's just that you're too faithful
> >} : to peer through the political dogmas of your religion all the way
> >} : deep down into the falsity of its "truths," dear Cardinal).
> >}
> >} Ah, Mr. Hoyle your socio-political agenda is showing here.
> >
> >Well, as long as it's not my panties.
> >
> >} :> Furthermore, Einstein differentiated himself from the
> >} :> atheist only insofar as he perceived atheism to be activist. Why
> >} :> he would search for a model of the universe that provided an
> >} :> uncaused
> >} :> cause - especially when he tinkered with GR to try to remove the
> >} :> implicit scale evolution of the universe, is quite beyond
> >} :> imagining.
> >}
> >} : He did not do that. He misinterpreted the true nature of reality
> >} : the same way the theist philosophers misinterpreted the true
> >} : nature of reality... and, guess what, both arrived at the same
> >} : dead end solution: "Something eternally unfathomable created..."

> >} :> It's been known for quite some time that the "singularity", a
> >} :> naive
> >} :> extropolation of the cosmological expansion back to t=0, is not
> >} :> physical.
> >}
> >} : Amen. I KNEW you'd eventually reduce your argument to some
> >} : prayer or other! Lawd! And I betcha can't see it even now, can
> >} : you?
> >} : [ Hint: God maketh something out of nothing. Rodrian 14:7 ]
> >}
> >} Not familiar with that book of scripture here!
> >}
> >} :> It's been known for a long time that some other physics must
> >} :> take over prior to the nucleosynthetic epoch.
> >}
> >} : Translation: "We have absolutely no idea how God created
> >} : the universe, but He probably didn't use picks and shovels."
> >} : Most incisive and perceptive of you, ole boy! (I was going to ask
> >} : you how one makes an omelet, but now I'll ask someone else.)
> >}
> >} :> The most popular model for the universe these days, inflation,
> >} :> *has*
> >} :> no
> >} :> singularity.
> >}
> >} : Are you of the dotted balloon... or the loaf of bread full of
> >} : raisins
> >} : denomination? Pray tell.
> >}
> >} Two analogies to explain the same phenomena.
> >
> >}
> >} :> The BB model is completely
> >} :> consistent with gravity;
> >}
> >} : Except that the explosion seems to be accelerating, of course.
> >} : But, as I said before: Who cares, right? Say, maybe if we
> >} : rework all those SR/GR equations we can "find" (wink, wink)
> >} : that gravity is actually "pushing" the BB universe... maybe
> >} : from some parallel dimension nobody has yet heard of but which
> >} : we can discover cam into existence right in the nick'o time
> >} : the instant we found out we needed it to explain why SR/GR
> >} : is still all right!... a dimension "not only of sight & sound but
> >} : of mind, a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that
> >} : of imagination, your next stop: The Twilight Zone!" THEME MUSIC.
> >}
> >} The explosion may be expanding, but that is an open question and
> >} can be
> >} explained by once again assigning a non-zero value to the
> >} Cosmological
> >} constant.  Further this would have been true in any inflationary
> >} Universe
> >} anyway.
> >
> >Yep. I know: If you can't ignore the fact that the facts
> >are contradicting the Big Bang model, just... do the numbers
> >again: That's the great thing about numbers: You can do
> >ANYTHING with them


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.