🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <389EDA42.C85D2E54@louisville.edu>,
  "J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <389B0B18.F1A76D47@louisville.edu>,
> >   "J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, we fool ourselves into thinking the universe is expanding
> > > according to
> > > observed increases of redshift with distance because we are in a
> > > special
> > > place in the universe (whatever outer edge/inner edge means).
> >
> > The universe fools us, not we:
>
> Now this is as absurd as you have gotten.

I don't know... I've gotten pretty absurd elsewhere!

> This implies that there is
> intent
> on the part of the universe to fool us

Ah! What a wonderfully intuitive deduction! (And, of
course, you immediately considered the possibility, no?)

> > Imagine this: A universe whose galaxies are forever in the same
> > place in
> > relation to each other. Then, the force of gravity is turned on.
> > What will
> > happen?
>
> First explain how if gravity is the result of the presence of mass how
> you can
> suddenly turn it on.

You got it backwards: Matter is the result of the presence
of gravity--Only gravity is fundamental, remember!

> In modern cosmology, gravitational pulls are
> nothing
> more than the curvature of space-time.

Translation: "Gravity doesn't exist. What exists are channels
in space made of space (obviously) and cosmic bodies roll
on these channels (which by some strange coincidence JUST
happens to describe the paths which IF gravity existed would
force cosmic bodies to travel)..." A very elegant solution indeed!

[And, by the way, as no one really understands sarcasm: ALL
my comments above are sarcasms. And a few below.]

> It exists because the universe
> exists,

That certainly makes sense, "If the universe didn't exist,
obviously "it" wouldn't exist either." Very logical!
[Will the sarcasm never need to end?]

> with mass concentration in space-time resulting in curvatures of
> greater or
> lesser amounts, depending on the amount of mass present.

This means that the invisible channels in space made of space (which
just happen to describe the paths orbiting bodies would take if
gravity existed)... also vary according to whether the bodies they
circle are large or small exactly as they would if more massive bodies
created more massive gravitational fields (which time-space does
not recognize it does, because gravity does not exist, apparently).

> > Those galaxies nearer the center will move towards center faster
> > than those galaxies furthest from center, yes. But something
> > else: None of those galaxies are absolutely solid, fundamental
> > particles... they will also start shrinking as they move towards
> > center: This means that while fundamental particles will tend to
> > come closer together as they move towards center... these galaxies
> > will cancel out this factor with their shrinking (so they will tend
> > to always seem to remain as equidistant as ever). However, there
> > is another factor still: Something has to be fundamental, and if
> > it's not the galaxies, then it's the gravity they are fashioned out
> > of:
>
> But you said the galaxies existed and then you turned on gravity.

I've always said gravity is fundamental & everything else is made
of gravity. How you can reason to your statement above from this
is beyond me... but apparently not beyond you (surprise!).

> How
> can the
> galaxies be fashioned by something that didn't exist until you turned
> it on?

Gravity is the ONLY fundamental thing that exists in our universe:
This means it has precedence over EVERYTHING.

> And, frankly, galaxies are not treated as fundamental particles in
> modern
> cosmology, being large aggregates of stars, gas, and dust.

That's a small step for modern cosmology, a large leap
for even more modern modern cosmology.

> They are
> also not
> uniformly distributed throughout that part of the universe that we can
> observe, existing instead in clusters, which themselves are linked
> into
> supercluster surrounding voids.

Isn't that the "dishwater soapy foam" I was talking about some
5000 posts ago? Mmmmm!

> > That fundamental something WILL refrain from shrinking (it is
> > the fuel used by the galaxies to move towards the center of the
> > universe, and so it may be consumed --converted, really, back
> > to what it was before: from an attractive force into a repelling
> > one,
> > because energy cannot be created or destroyed)... and that
> > fundamental force will move towards center as would a particle
> > if it were fundamental...
>
> So, where is this center?

Perhaps the more thorough study of the cosmic
background radiation coming... will tell us! Let's see!

> It should be obvious to someone such as
> yourself
> who has seen what others fail to to point out a general direction.

I possess an item or two of knowledge you do not, Mr. Miller...
I never claimed to be God.

> Especially
> since, observationally, the redshifts observed are centered on us
> uniformly
> throughout the sky.  If there was an asymmetry, then one might deduce
> a
> direction toward which the galaxies are collapsing in your model.  No
> such
> asymmetry is observed.

That's because the universe is more massive than you give it
credit for in your philosophy, Mr. Miller. And because it's not
so much the "elongating" effect of gravity which plays the main
part in determining red-shifts... you also have to realize that the fact
that galaxies are "shrinking" away from each other (FASTER than
they are closing in on each other as we near the center) keeps them
from manifesting this asymmetry--In fact, it would not surprise me if
it turned out that the direction towards which it first appeared to us
the center of the universe were thought to be didn't turn out eventually
to be in the opposite direction (it's the universe trying to fool us
--rotten Joe).

> > What would we "see" happening in our universe? Well, because
> > all the galaxies are shrinking at the same rate... it will cancel
> > out
> > any hint that we are shrinking. But because the gravity [those
> > galaxies are made of which are closest to center] would be pulled
> > with slightly more force than the gravity [those galaxies are made
> > of
> > which are farther away from center] will experience... overall we
> > would see galaxies ever so slightly receding from each other.
>
> There is no evidence that galaxies are shrinking observationally.

What "particular" evidence might you suggest we should be
on the look out to be "seeing?" Perhaps... if, say, there were some
special "form" of matter (construct) which were not shrinking as
"fast" as the majority of the universe's ordinary matter... THEN
that "particle" might (by refraining from shrinking as fast as "us")
... O, I don't know... maybe SUDDENLY seem to stay where it was
while the rest of us kept moving towards shrinking! Of course, if
we didn't know it was "we" who were moving, that particle would
seem to move in relation to us... it would seem to shoot away from
us at the difference in speeds between our speed of shrinking and its
speed of thinking.... AND if it were something like a photon, say,
then we could actually see it do this miraculous/spectacular trick!

> Such
> observations would be measurable by difference in the Doppler shifts
> across
> galaxies, a pretty easy observation to make.

Ah, but what if the galaxies were really receding from each other
exactly as described by the Doppler reports? Certainly if everything
made of matter in the entire universe were shrinking at the same
"speed" ... how would you notice ANY particular THING were
shrinking or enlarging out/of/phase with everything else WHEN
nothing is doing that?

> And, again, you can't
> make
> galaxies out of gravity if they existed before you turned it on.

Again: Galaxies are modern-day particles like helium atoms (one
day the only particles in the universe will be black holes, and then
galaxies and helium atoms will be prehistoric particles scientists
in the black hole universe will "produce" by crashing black holes
together).

> And,
> finally, under the conditions you mention, we would not see galaxies
> ever so
> slightly receding from each other.  Doesn't work mathematically
> (whoops, I
> forgot, you want to refrain from using mathematics in your model - too
> messy!).

Might I ask you what exactly is my "model?"
I have a terrible memory. However, the very fact that galaxies
are receding very, very slowly from each other tells me that
we must be very, very close to the outer edge of the universe
(whatever that is). While the fact that gravity is so but so thin
a matter... tells me that we've a LONG, LONG, LONG ways to go
before our atoms begin to decay on us by any substantial percentage.

> > The farther away a galaxy the greater this effect would be
> > magnified.
> Wrong, but keep talking, for you a providing better proof of the
> fallacies in
> your model than I could come up with.

And a thank you!

> > This is because the galaxies really ARE receding from each other:
> > As time continues more and more gravity will be lost, of course.
>
> Where is it going?

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."  The infinite (scalar) mass
universe (sans matter) extended as far as its energy drove it, and then
its energy was transferred to gravity... the imploding universe will
extend as far as its energy drives it, and then its energy will be
transferred to infinite (scalar) mass again--And this cycle will never
cease. The universe has a finite amount of energy because it is a
closed system. You can even say that the force of attraction is pure
energy (as ethereal and rarefied, as uncompressed as it is): Gravity
expends/invests itself in the "work" of moving towards center (or,
away from absolute rest). Gravity is not destroyed but "returned"
to infinite mass until there is no more gravity. Then the energy
"stored"
in infinite (scalar) mass will begin to be "returned" to the vector
side of the universe and that will mean that the repelling force that
grips the infinite (scalar) mass universe will again become ...
our old friend gravity.

> > But more importantly... the "shrinking" galaxies
> that effect that isn't observed

It's there to be seen, Mr. Miller. All it takes is a little bit of
knowing where to look. And not even that any more, as I
have pointed the direction for you to turn your eyeballs in.

> > themselves would never really ever come closer to each other. In the
> > resulting lesser and lesser volume they will always occupy, their
> > shrinking
> > will always beat their motion towards center... with the result that
> > there
> > will always be less "matter" per given volume (or, the galaxies will
> > recede from each other even though the fundamental stuff they
> > are made of --gravity-- will itself move closer and closer to
> > itself).
>
> Unless their matter is disappearing, then the result of their
> shrinking (which
> isn't observed) should be an increase of matter per given volume.

Isn't it great how reality has a way of being logical every time:
Gravity is energy, energy is needed for motion, everything made
of gravity is moving... and as it is moving it is consuming energy
(or, gravity), which means that gravity is being used up (diminishing):

" Use this clumsy 2-D analogy: Imagine a sphere-volume filled with
millions of  balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two "huge
beings" (a triangle and a square): Both are pretty much the same "body"
size and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of the world). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons start
bursting throughout the sphere-volume at an even ratio. (Our two beings
do not know this.) To us it will seem as if these two beings are
shrinking, but the two beings themselves will look at each other and
still see that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect"
triangle and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length). An
agreement between them which will continue until there just aren't
enough balloons left to maintain their "existence," no matter how
"small" they become in our God-like eyes. "

In the analogy above, the balloons are energy/gravity
(which is why I use the term graviton = balloon); and
the "shape beings" are all the "forms" of matter. Now
do you understand why nothing is accumulating at the
center of our universe, Mr. Miller? I just know you do!

> And how can something throughout the galaxy, gravity, move closer to
> itself?

It's the way gravity works, Mr. Miller: It is a force of attraction.
Gravity is moving towards center (it is imploding--and that's the
term I love best because a contraction on an universal level
ought to be forcefully termed): Only the "forms" "painted" upon
gravity are moving towards shrinking (and that means that as
much as they might move towards each other... that much and mucher
are they receding from each other, Mr. Miller). Now you see it,
don't you Mr. Miller! And you don't even have to close your
eyes, Mr. Miller... just SLOWLY make a couple of fists (to stand
for the shrinking galaxies) while holding your two hands equidistantly
and "see" the space growing between them! Isn't it beautiful!

> > I am often puzzled by people who ask about red-shift! And I think
> > I must have told a hundred of them by now that galaxies ARE
> > receding from each other. But I suppose they just cannot jump
> > the hurdle of galaxies not being fundamental particles (and thereby
> > they keep "seeing" them coming closer in an imploding universe).
>
> They aren't fundamental particles in modern cosmology either, so I
> would
> suggest that it isn't their inability to jump hurdles.  It is you poor
> wordsmithing (and you claim to be a writer!).  But I bet if you could
> mathematically demonstrate your points, wordsmith or not, you might be
> able to
> make a more convincing argument

Mr. Miller, if after but just the words I have poured into this one post
you still don't "see" it, then I can assure you not all the infinities
ever
dreamt of in all of math will ever make you see it (and if they did,
then
there's something in you fundamentally at odds with the rest of us).

> (Oh, yeah, you don't need math to make
> your
> model work, just your words.

Now you've got it, Mr. Miller: All I am saying is, "The sky is
blue!" It is my considered opinion that it's better to just look
at the sky and agree or disagree as to its color. Going inside
and working it all out in numbers... I think that's a bit 2 much.

> But people can't make the hurdle because
> of your
> poor choice of words, which might be better explained with
> mathematics, but
> then your model doesn't need mathematics to work.....)

You are developing the eerie habit of repeating yourself,
Mr. Miller. In me that is a nifty habit because I embellish
each repetition with wit, Mr. Miller. But if you repeat something
in the same way every time... people will going to imagine
that you might try to bludgeon them next with an ax.

> > > An application of Occam's razor at this point further demonstrates
> > > the
> > > error
> > > of your thoughts.  The big bang models make no such ad hoc
> > > assumptions
> > > about
> > > our special place within the universe, which is vastly larger than
 the
> > > observable universe in which measurements are being made.
> >
> > The difference is that the BB universe is minuscule compared to the
> > real universe.
>
> You keep making this claim but fail to understand that in modern
cosmology,
> the universe we see is not the entire universe.  That it is much
bigger.  So,
> you are beating a dead horse here!

Worry not, old fellow: I will never shoot you just because
you're dead--I never give up! (But I'm glad you agree with me
that the universe is really, really big.)

> > This is because the BB universe is imagined as being
> > fundamental (it has a finite amount of matter that's thinning out).
 The
> > imploding universe does not have a finite amount of matter, since
all
> > "forms" of matter are just "forms" it is as "big" as it ever was
(it's
> > just that its matter is ever going out of it or coming back into
it)...
> > the only thing that happens in the imploding universe on the
fundamental
> > level is that attraction becomes repulsion becomes attraction
becomes
> > repulsion becomes attraction... ad infinitum.
>
> But I bet you can't prove it.  Saying it doesn't make it so.

Why should I wish to prove anything, Mr. Miller? I am not some
vulgar liar who needs to convince you of the value of some lie
or other. I've given you the truth--what you do with it is no concern
of mine, Mr. Miller. When I cease having fun posting here
I shall elsewhere move.

> > > The history of science has generally shown that if two competing
> > > models attempt to explain the same phenomena, it is usually the
one with
> > > the fewer initial assumptions that is the correct one.
> >
> > In that case mine takes the cake, as its only initial assumption
> > is that all there is (gravity) is an elemental  force of attraction.
>
> Wrong, for yours requires us to be in a special point in the universe
 and to
> live in a time when the universe was still shrinking.  The BB models
make no
> such ad hoc assumptions.  Yours is therefore, the poorer model.

Assume what you must, Mr. Miller. The fact remains the universe
is in accord with our senses: What we see is the imploding universe.
EVERYTHING about the universe says it is an imploding universe.
Nothing about an expanding universe makes any sense, Mr. Miller.

> > > Coupled with the fact that your ideas are not testable
> >
> > Yes they are: If the Hubble constant is accelerating it's an
imploding
> > universe, otherwise it's an expanding universe. Let's see what it
is.
> >
> > > and have not mathematical basis in reality,

Not does a sparrow, Mr. Miller. Model me a sparrow
mathematically--And yet it is a reality much more real
than any set of numbers.

> > Yes, the pain in my ass also has no mathematical basis
> > in reality, but it's real enough for me.
> >
> > >I would say you need to rethink.
> >
> > I would think I need to let one go (I mean one pain in the ass).
>
> If you remove your head from that locale, the pain will probably
subside, and
> you would benefit from thinking clearer.

Excellent! Mr. Miller.... your zinger above yet gives me hope
that your humanity will yet burst through your emotional dams
someday! And so I congratulate you, sir!

Most humbly,

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


>
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Scott.Miller@louisville.edu





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