🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <389F94E0.DA029CF7@louisville.edu>,
  Scott Miller <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <389B1D10.3E887D5@louisville.edu>,
> >   "J. Scott Miller" <Scott.Miller@louisville.edu> wrote:
> > > sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
> > > > there is something to be said about judging precisely
> > > > how well a given value equals another given value
> > > > through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
> > > >
> > > > However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
> > > > the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
> > > > (regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
> > > > and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
> > > > to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
> > > > to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
> > > > creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
> > > > madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
> > > > dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
> > > > really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
> > > > such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
> > > > numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
> > > > will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
> > > > the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
> > > > will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But you cannot prove this in physics, only make the claim.
> >
> > Which "this?" The "this" which the second paragraph refers to
> > the first paragraph?
>
> The "this" that the Big Bang is a myth.

Well (to be honest, I got the distinct impression you yourself
were trying to hot-potato it)... Big Bang is a myth, pure and
simple: It is a childish guess. It's on a par with Adam & Eve.
There are so many things self-evidently impossible with those
two myths that any thinking modern person KNOWS they
are myths without having to be given an enumeration of
the very good reasons why they are myths, yes.

> You continue to fail to find flaws in the physics that supports the
> theory of the Big Bang.

I know when it's possible there might be an elephant in the garage
and when it's impossible there can be an elephant in my pocket.

But, BEGIN QUOTE:

>          Why is there no directionality in the observed redshift?

Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
give us a clearer "sense of diretion" than our current one.]

Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:

Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).

Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
"marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
their naked eyes.

If the people of these planets do not know that they have
just shrank, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
(and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
are moving away from each other extremely quickly.

This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
towards each other... and that very, very slight different
will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
then they move towards each other)... this means that
their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
the universe by the Hubble constant.

This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
tiny factor (so that we may yet  be able to tell which
way is the center of our universe).

Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
other galaxies...

The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
11, 1, and 2).  Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
"journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will tend
to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
-observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in fact,
there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]

Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous "glance"
at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).

END QUOTE.

> You continue to make the claim, but you set
> up
> the straw man of a astrophysicist working in a pure mathematical
> environment without reference to real-world observations.

On the contrary, my observations are all facts. Mathematics
have modeled but guesses (of course they work: whenever
they do not, one can simply revise the guesses--it's harder
to revise reality.. that's my material, Mr. Miller).

>The fact
> is,
> you have not demonstrated that 1) General relativity is mathematically
> inconsistent with reality in terms of its giving rise to the BB
> models,

Einstein did that for me better than I could have done it..

> and 2) that the interpretation of the redshift as that of expansion is
> mathematically incorrect.

If it's incorrect, it's incorrect every which way. Period.

> In fact, a visit to your site seems to indicate that you get money if
> you drive people to it.

Sorry. The companies hosting my sites are in the business of
hosting sites for commercial purposes--The only thing I get from
them is that my site may outlive me by any number of years
my site gets enough visitors.

> I would hypothesize that that is the sole
> purpose of your being here.

Then you see things through a dark mind, Mr. Miller: I myself
would never assign any ulterior motives to why you're here--and
I assume you're just too faithful to your own religion for your
own good. (You see, Mr. Miller, I not only own a huge ego
but also an even huger pride about being a better person.)

> You have proved nothing scientifically,

I have established why the speed of light is a constant
in identical mediums. There is no other solution but mine.

> other than you have no clue
> about the true nature of the BB models and the physics that supports
> it.

What causes people to guess, rightly or wrongly? No,
I have not a clue as to why that happens, Mr. Miller.

> If you can demonstrate, from a physics point of view, as scientific
> point of view, with the supporting math, that the mathematics leading
> to
> the conclusion of an expanding universe are flawed, then please
> elaborate in the news groups.

Are you mad?!?!? And you seriously expect anyone to comb
through a million guesses (written in mathematics, no less) and
come out sane--never mind finding the mistaken guesses that were
arrived at through silly methods as opposed to dishonest ones!

> For, if you cannot, and continue to
> point
> people to your web site, you simply are verifying my hypothesis.

Ah! A true example of the scientific method at last! (Sarcasm.)

> P.S. in scanning your latest group list, I doubt seriously if
> alt.atheism, talk.atheism, or alt.chaos are chartered for this
> discussion either.  I have removed them in favor of more appropriate
> groups.

Actually there are any number of good people in those groups
interested in whether the universe originated through some
evolutionary logical process... or just Big Bang-ed into existence
quite by magic--as your religion's dogmas claim, Mr. Miller.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang



>
> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator     Scott.Miller@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> University of Louisville
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
>




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