🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38A025F3.E1F5A224@yahoo.com>,
  Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One thing I love about the way you respond, is that you split every
> paragraph into it's single sentences.  The reason people arrange
> sentences
> into a paragraph in the first place is because the sentences are meant
> to be
> considered as a unit.  To understand the meaning of a sentence in the
> way
> the author writes it, one must consider the other sentences it is
> related
> to.  You even go so far as to split single sentences into incomplete
> phrases, stripping off their meaning even more.  I guessing you didn't
> do so
> well in English class if this is one of your regular habits.  This is
> your
> first problem.

Wow! Is that what a paragraph is. (Now if you could teach me why
"it's" is not a contraction (it's = it is)... your lesson will be
complete.

> Your second problem is that you entirely avoided what I asked for in
> the
> first place.  You say that your hypothesis (yes, I have downgraded
> your
> essay because it's worth was less than I first stated it as) predicts
> that
> the universe is both shrinking, and doing it at an increasing rate,
> correct?

Yep.

> wouldn't that mean that the speed of light should increase
> as well
> because we are shrinking at a greater rate as time goes on?

Nope... because c is not an acceleration from us but from
absolute rest (just as our shrinking is): the speed of light is
just a value "c" slower than ours... so that no matter how
much "we" may accelerate/decelerate, the speed of light will
match our speed "perfectly" throughout eternity. If anything,
imagine our relationship as a foot-long rubberband one end
of which is absolute rest while the other end is "our" speed
(and place the speed of light at one inch from "our" end). Now
stretch the rubber band to signify "our" speed increasing
away from absolute rest: Notice that instead of the one-inch
marker for the speed of light moving towards us it actually
moves away from us (as the speed of "shrinking" increases):
It may be that in this same way, the speed of light will tend
to slow down even as our speed away from absolute rest
increases. But we (the speed of light and "ours") are forever
married. Both speeds WILL speed up. But because we will
never really know what our speed is in relation to absolute
rest 1) we will never really notice this acceleration 2) it is
likely we will never even notice c "slowing down" because
it will take billion of years for enough of it to do so [and since
we measure these rates as time, how will we understand
that "time has slowed down"..?!?!?!?!].

> Can
> shrinking
> space be expressed as an exponential value,

Even Babaloo can be expressed as an exponential value.

> or is it linear function
> that
> determines the rate of shrinkage?

The rate of shrinkage = the speed of "our" (ordinary
matter) motion. It is linear only if you say it's "toward
shrinking." (Although one can give it any value one
wishes, in reality... it's hard to calculate how fast we're
shrinking because "size" is only an idea in the human
mind (like time): Forever & ever... we shall be confined
to measuring one size IN our universe against some
other size IN our universe... and the entire universe
(including even the photon) seems to be shrinking at
the usual rate (albeit the photon "has found" a way
to "disengage partly" from this rate). Now all you have
to do is find out what role the speed of light plays
(why it's the rate it is and not some faster/slower rate)
and you've got it! I myself have no ideas there.

> I would also like to make the complaint that this idea of the universe
> expanding at an increasing rate is just a result of the latest
> calculations.  We still haven't figured out whether the universe is 10
> to 15
> Billion years old.  That's a range of about 20% error.  If the same
> error is
> applied to the calculations for the expanding rate theory, than that
> means
> it could most certainly be incorrect.  If any velocity of a distant
> galaxy
> can be off by 20%, why are you so certain that they are correct?

Not one bit certain at all: I came up with my idea of a collapsing
universe ten or more years ago, while the findings that the so-called
"expansion" of the universe may be accelerating are only 2-3 years
old: I accepted the findings as support for my idea of an imploding
universe and as proof the Big Bang theories cannot be true (but
this may just be wishful thinking on my part). Indeed let's wait
until the preliminary findings are more solid and just say for now
that the model of an imploding universe predicts that the Hubble
constant will be found to be accelerating. [The notion of an expanding
universe comes from guessing that 1) if it were a collaping universe
the galaxies would have long ago crashed, or 2) if it were a universe
neither collapsing or expanding... how to explain that the galaxies'
gravity does not interact!?!?! There's really one good guess (if one
does not understand/know that the only fundamental thing in the
universe is the force of gravity and that, consequently, all the "forms"
of matter are just "forms"). This is the main reason why until MY
ADVENT... the guess was it was an expanding universe. But now
you know better, as I have taught you.

> Please observe that I used something called "MATH" to bring about my
> proposal, something you never did, EVER, in your essay.

That's the difference between speaking to an elite group and
speaking to the world: I choose to speak to the world not just
because I observed that the only thing one gains by speaking
to an elite group is a better jockeyed position within that elite
group. I am not jockeying for any such position. Sorry. My sole
interest is the dissemination of knowledge to mankind. Period.

> And lastly, As far as we know, modern physics doesn't apply to the
> interiors
> of black holes and also during the Big Bang.  You seem confidant that
> you
> have successfully solved the Big-Bang riddle, but what about a black
> hole?
> A black hole does not expanding at all, and just sucks everything into
> it.
> How does your theory solve this problem of time near the event horizon
> of a
> black hole.  Or does it even work at all?

Simple: Forget about time: It's just an idea in your head (not any
different than Sanity Claws... you know, the evil twisted fat guy
dressed in red who keeps trying to turn our Savior's Birthday
into a crass commercial celebration of sheer raw naked Greed).
And, by the by, a black hole expands ONLY as it eats up matter:
It gets fat, really. But it does shrink (because like all the other
"forms"
of matter in our universe a black hole is also just another "form"
of matter).

> You also seem to puzzle me on why you think that we are always moving
> the
> speed of light, and that photons are motionless?  It doesn't make any
> sense
> when I think about it.  Especially if  photons can MOVE PAST EACH
> OTHER in
> real space.

I am confident this will puzzle you even more:

You seem to believe the place photons end up is "a" place: No!
1) Whatever direction "a" photon seems to be moving from... that
individual photon's orientation was given to it by its source.
2) Every individual photon source gives it an individual orientation
that is unrelated to the orientation other photons got from their
sources.
3) Every photon source has a de facto agreement with all the other
photon sources in our universe (and that agreement is that they will
all recognize the orientation given any & all photon by any & all
photon sources).
4) Therefore, two photon sources, to the right & left of each other, may
give two photons orientations which make these two photons cross
each other's path... and even crash into each other, if their photon
sources have very, very  good aims both.

> if I read your claim correctly, photons sit still in
> space,

Only for the sake on an easier understanding, yes. Otherwise
you will have to understand that the motion of all "forms" of
matter is "towards shrinking" (therefore the photon, which is
just another "form" of matter, MUST also be moving "towards
shrinking" ... albeit it does this in a most unusual and splendid
manner quite different from all the other forms of ordinary matter).

> and
> we shrink relative to their position, making it appear that they move
> the
> speed of light.

Yes--See how it makes it easier for you to achieve a little bit of
understanding at a time... when I break up paragraphs and
sentences into smaller bits!

> Then photons cannot move towards each other, ever.

You're dropping all the photons into ONE SINGLE place!
That's not what's happening (read the above, or just give
up and think not of matter shrinking but of space expanding
FROM/AT every coordinate... now you will see that you
THE PHOTON SOURCE are at the center of the universe,
and that every time you spit out a photon it will rush away in the
direction you spat it---You can spit photons in any direction
you like and they will rush away WITH that direction; and
if you and some other photon spitter decide to spit photons
at each other... you will be able to do so BECAUSE you and
every other photon spitter in our universe have signed a
contract called The Absolute Relativity Contract... which
basically says that if any one of you spits out a photon
you will all agree that the direction the spitter spit his photon
is good enough for all of you and none of you will object and
try to argue that that direction is really some other direction...
basically it gives each spitter the absolute right to set the direction
of every one of the photons he/she spits absolutely in our universe).
The only proviso is that if some other spitter (say, a massive
gravitational field this other spitter) grabs a spit photon (instead
of spitting one itself) and then puts it in its mouth AND spits it, then
it becomes that photon's de facto spitter, and that photon's original
spitter has lost his/her claim to dictating that photon's trajectory
from that moment on.

> This
> makes no sense when considering the REAL UNIVERSE.

The REAL UNIVERSE works pretty well enough on its own. But
if you're going to understand it, then you're going to have to get
yourself some sense of your own.

> Give me some >>CALCULATIONS<<, Beeyatch

If A = B, then P = I (but I have never seen ABP).

> P.S.  your grandfather smells of elderberries

And my baby smells of youngerberries
--So what'd you expect?!?! (Get that bit of sense
I talked about in my previous bit of sentence.)

That is all,

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

RE:

> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In article <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com>,
> >   Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As I'm sure may of you readers know,
> >
> > corner.)
> >
> > > sdrodrian has been posting about
> > > 100 messages in the past week
> >
> > About 1000 the past month alone.
> >
> > > telling us about how he is a genius
> >
> > You have got to find that particular post! I think I must have
> > repeated 400 times that intelligence is never as crucial as
> > knowledge: Any moron walking the streets today knows 1000s
> > of things Einstein could never even have imagined! Check it out
> > 4 yourself! I'm sure you can come up with any number of these.
> >
> > > because he knows how the universe goes 'round.
> >
> > Sorry: I only claim to have solved the riddle of existence
> > and discovered the true nature of the universe, thereby
> > giving the world the first Unified Field Theory that works  (and
> > not some far out claim about knowing what life's all about &
> > things like that--I'm quite happy to agree with everybody else
> > that life is just a bowl of cherries).
> >
> > > It is an interesting
> > > theory,
> >
> > Actually I've concocted no theories: All I have done is
> > interpreted some observed facts. If you but interpret them
> > yourself, and not have somebody else including myself
> > interpret them for you... I expect you will come to the conclusions
> > I have. If you do not come to the conclusions I have, then
> > I should like to hear from you, as either you or I have not
> > interpreted them fully in some manner or other. Or, still
> > more probable: Either you or I are missing some crucial
> > bit of knowledge necessary to make the interpretation
> > whole & sound.
> >
> > > but a theory needs one important thing.
> >
> > A theorist?
> >
> > > It needs to be
> > > tested.
> >
> > Ha! Aristotle's theory of gravity passed all tests for
> > thousands of years! The theory that the earth was flat
> > also lasted until even after Columbus (and I believe
> > a number of people adhere to it even today).
> >
> > > My question is this:  What kind of properties does this theory
> > > make
> > > about the universe, and what calculations show it's worth?
> >
> > Simple: Use my theory of an imploding universe to explain c
> > constancy
> > and see where it leads you. Then use my theory of an imploding
> > universe to see whether the recession of the galaxies should be
> > accelerating or decelerating? By the way, these are not formal
> > theories
> > but casual observations--so don't try to misconstrue them merely in
> > order to knock their value as formal theories!
> >
> > > That is
> > > the
> > > big question when going through the scientific method to see if
> > > you're
> > > correct.  Mr. Rodrian's essay on his theory involves a lot of
> > > talk,
> > > but
> > > where's the proof to back it up?
> >
> > Mr. Rodrian's essay is merely a proposal that "this" given observed
> > fact means "that." If you disagree with the validity of the observed
> > fact (for example that the speed of light is always measured as a
> > constant in identical mediums), then your argument is not with me.
> > If, on the other hand, you disagree with my explanation of why
> > c constancy exists (basically because ours in an imploding
> > universe),
> > then please come up with an even simpler and more straightforward
> > solution than mine--And I shall be only to glad to consider it. Just
> > don't come up with some Rube Goldberg construct that involves
> > multiple interconnecting dimensions and virtual particles which pass
> > photons along without expenditure of energy for all their efforts
> > (like
> > a fire brigade) & such other insanities: The answer I give is quite
> > SUPREMELY elegant and narrowly confined to observed facts (so
> > try to keeps yours, in a like manner, simple & straightforward).
> >
> > > The definition of a theory is that
> > > it
> > > must predict the behavior of what it tries to explain.
> >
> > Your theory (above) needs mathematical modeling and
> > innumerable additional calculations before I can accept it
> > as true. Please get to work on your math as soon as possible!
> >
> > > To do this, we
> > > need calculations.
> >
> > You misspelled "calculators."
> >
> > > Einstien did become famous for his paper on relativity, but it was
> > > his
> > > mathematical equations that won him the Nobel Prize.  Why else do
> > > you
> > > think E=mc^2 is synonymous with the man who discovered it?
> >
> > I believe Einstein got his prize for his marvelous iridescent
> > cookies,
> > not for any of his relativity math!
> >
> > > You have a nice idea, but you need to take it to the next level
> > > before
> > > you proclaim yourself as master of the universe.
> >
> > Too late, I already rented The Palace In The Sky (and am currently
> > interviewing for the skimpily-dressed Imperial Winged Amazons
> > which will serve as its guards).
> >
> > > (you aren't even
> > > close
> > > to He-man, so stop making suck flatulent claims).  You do the
> > > math.
> >
> > How much to slip me an A for the semester?
> >
> > > I fart in your general direction.
> >
> > That much, eh!  (I knew this teacher would eventually prove himself
> > to be nothing but a perfect asshole the minute I walked in his
> > class!)
> >
> > S D Rodrian
> > sdr@t-three.com
> > http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> >


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