🚀 go-pugleaf

>  Subject: Re: sdrodrian's hypothesis
>  Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 15:20:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: set@MIT.EDU ()
> To: sdrodrian@aol.com

> I have a question.  How do you propose to prove your experiments
> without
> mathematics?

Mine are not experiments--that remains for somebody else, not me.
What I have done, all I have done, is to examine certain observed
facts and interpreted them from an impartial standpoint. Anyone may
examine my interpretations and find errors I might have made. We
may then examine all such objections, and see where it leads us.

>  You keep insulting mathematics, yet you need it to prove
>  your experiments.

I do not seek to insult mathematics. Although I must admit
I feel insulted whenever anyone proposes that mathematics
can model reality better than can reality itself. However, why should
I need mathematics to prove that the speed of light is always
measured as a constant in identical mediums--It's pretty much
an accepted fact! The only think I do is give the reason why
the phenomenon is real and occurs in this universe of ours
(because it's an imploding universe... the c constant effect is
inevitable in it).

>  You keep getting mathematics wrong.  It's not about
>  balancing equations, to the uninitiated layman it may appear that
>  way,
>  but that is only because the farthest most average people get is
>  high-school algebra.

I am merely concerned with equations which purport to prove
reality. Regardless of all other mathematical disciplines.

>  You also neglect to mention how this mathematical version of physics
>  has
>  managed to predict natural phenomena, even though they haven't
>  started
>  from observation only.

That is not my side in this argument. No advocate can be
absolutely impartial--any appearance to so be is but an
indication of his hypocrisy. But if an equation is proven to be
worng but once, it is irrelevant how many times it has proven
right: That equation is forever suspect and never trusted again.

>  One example that comes to mind is Einstein's
>  theory of relativity predicting the fact that light from a distant
>  star
>  would be curved by the sun's gravitational field.

It's only a great prediction if one assumes the photon is massless
(or that it does not contain matter): I, on the other hand, am quite
convinced from observed facts that the photon is made of matter
and that consequently it obeys the laws of gravity (even if it may
not do so EXACTLY like every other form of matter).

 > In the start of your
 > essay you start from observations only, expecting me to accept that
 > as
 > proof that your theory is superior, yet you forget that almost all of
 > the
 > erroneous theories of physics have been built not upon a mathematical
 > foundation, but by observation.

And you forget that Einstein's original theories predicted a static
universe, but that he had to rush to correct his model when the Hubble
constant was discovered.

>  I'll accept it as superior if the
>  experimental data fits better than with any other theories, but not
>  well
>  until then.

Mathematicians tend to add strictly mathematical possibilities to their
models (try them out) to see if the equations balance: This is a fatal
game,
because, being human, mathematicians will tend to believe that if their
equations balance, that MUST be proof that their otherwise only strictly
mathematical possibilities... just might be real (or why else would they
prove themselves to be such perfect solutions?). This is a truism which
only a non-mathematician would ever consider to be true, of course.

>  I have one problem with the section where you use Newton's
>  1st Law of Motion.  You say that there are external forces acting
>  upon the
>  universe.

If I said that I mispoke--I will reread my text to see where I may
have led anyone to believe that. What may have caused some confusion
may be when explaining that a "body in motion" (say, the so-called
expansion of the universe) needs a constantly applied force to explain
its continuing acceleration because otherwise gravity would bring such
an expansion to a stop. The only force in the universe is a fundamental
one that acts towards the center (attraction) or acts away from the
center (repulsion). Although it is true that in the end section I do
speculate about how gravity may evolve from/in a universe devoid
of matter (as, matter being a construction of gravity at the most
fundamental level, the primacy of gavity must be assumed)... and in
doing so I also consider whether our universe might be all that exists
or whether it's simply one of an endless number of like universes
(although I hope I made it clear that it's UNIverses... which do not
communicate with each other). But that's just speculation and is
accompanied with copious amounts of question marks.

>  Yet you keep saying that the universe is closed.  Either that or
>  I misinterpreted this statement:

>  According to Newton's 1st Law of Motion the ordinary matter of our
>  universe
>  would be at rest were it not being acted on by an "unbalanced
>  external
>  force..."

This refers to the space which is "left behind" when matter moves away
from it: If matter were not in motion it would be at rest. But it is not
at rest.
Einstein proposed that nothing is "at rest" because he did not know that
the universe was imploding (and so could find "no place" in an expanding
universe which could qualify). However, in an imploding universe
SOMETHING
is at rest, at absolute rest in fact--And were it not so the universe of
matter
could not move "from" it. Therefore this x-space is a reality (as
opposed to
just being nothingness/a void) because "matter" remembers it as it moves
away from it.  It is a real force because as gravity moves toward the
center
of the universe it expends itself (energy cannot be created or destroyed
=
gravity literally turns to x-space). At the conclusion of the implosion
of matter
we shall not have an accumulation of anything at the center of the
universe
but, rather, we shall have a universe which instead of being in the
grips of
an attracting force, will be in the grips of a repelling force (the same
thing,
really, it'll just be where the energy of the universe is being worked
then);
and this will be a universe devoid of gravity, of course, but NOT of
energy:

The universe without matter will be at absolute rest (motionless,
because
no matter). But this does not mean it will be without energy (energy
will
exist in the form of infinite (scalar) mass. And that infinite mass will
once
again "shift" (or reverse direction) and implode again. You can speak of
it interms of the energy in its infinite mass "shifting" into gravity.
One needs
a constant force being applied by gravity otherwise the universe of
infinite
mass would never allow fort motion. And one needs a constant force being
applied by the repelling force because otherwise the universe of matter
would
collapse infinitely. And this infinite implosion would really be eternal
(which
is an impossibility... as it would create something out of nothingness:
Existence exits where it is as what it is, if it moves elsewhere it is
the
equivalent of either ceasing to exist or... coming into existence (and
that
violates all our unitarian dogmas): Heresy!

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity




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