🚀 go-pugleaf

Somebody most have informed you that it's not the universe expanding
beyond
all understanding it is our (the human RACE) expanding beyond all
understanding
which give us the illusion that the universe is doing such.  When our
species finds
its full understand of our own neurological functionality and the
possibility of what
all our brain can understand and do then understanding of our universe
and its expanding illusion will stop completely as we shall.

WOMP WOMP
Tom
Saint Isadore
Patron Saint of the Universe  opps - I should have said
Patron Sant of the Internet

www.apple2.org.za/gswv/me/

sdr wrote:
> The Universe, Expanding Beyond All Understanding
> By DENNIS OVERBYE  June 5, 2007
>
> When Albert Einstein was starting out on his
> cosmological quest 100 years ago, the universe was
> apparently a pretty simple and static place. Common
> wisdom had it that all creation consisted of an island
> of stars and nebulae known as the Milky Way surrounded
> by infinite darkness. We like to think we're smarter
> than that now.
>
>   We ALWAYS like to think that we're smarter than we
>   are. But I suspect the truth is that we've gone
>   downhill since the Stone Age. --SDR
>
> We know space is sprinkled from now to forever with
> galaxies rushing away from one another under the
> impetus of the Big Bang. Bask in your knowledge while
> you can. Our successors, whoever and wherever they
> are, may have no way of finding out about the Big Bang
> and the expanding universe, according to one of the
> more depressing scientific papers I have ever read. If
> things keep going the way they are, Lawrence Krauss of
> Case Western Reserve University and Robert J. Scherrer
> of Vanderbilt University calculate, in 100 billion
> years
>
>   Whoa! This goomer believes we're going to be around
>   100 billion years from now! I got $10 bucks sez we
>   don't make it to the end of this century. --SDR
>
> the only galaxies left visible in the sky will be the
> half-dozen or so bound together gravitationally into
> what is known as the Local Group, which is not
> expanding and in fact will probably merge into one
> starry ball. Unable to see any galaxies flying away,
> those astronomers will not know the universe is
> expanding and will think instead that they are back in
> the static island universe of Einstein. As the
> authors, who are physicists, write in a paper to be
> published in The Journal of Relativity and
> Gravitation, "observers in our 'island universe' will
> be fundamentally incapable of determining the true
> nature of the universe."
>
>   The same is true today, where today's astronomers
>   look out and misinterpret "what they see" into being
>   "all there is." Thereby also remaining fundamentally
>   incapable of determining the true nature of the
>   universe. [see SDR comment on Stone Age summit of
>   our I.Q.s] Thankfully, there is one human being left
>   who still uses his brains instead of his i'balls to
>   determine the true nature of the universe. Visit:
>
>   http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> It is hard to count all the ways in which this is sad.
>
>   Nonsense. It's hilarious!
>
> Forget the implied mortality of our species and
> everything it has or has not accomplished.
>
>    Life is what it is. "Live you life & think it nice."
>    In the end, the rocks will not mourn ye. And, to
>    one dead, the three seconds after one's death are
>    the same as all the infinity that hath ever been &
>    will ever be. --SDR
>
> If you are of a certain science fiction age, like me,
> you might have grown up with a vague notion of the
> evolution of the universe as a form of growing
> self-awareness: the universe coming to know itself,
> getting smarter and smarter, culminating in some grand
> understanding, commanding the power to engineer
> galaxies and redesign local spacetime.
>
>   It is a common misconception that evolution is
>   always upwards & onwards. While the truth is that it
>   is often off to some side dead end, and even
>   backwards into greater barbarity/morality. --SDR
>
> Instead, we have the prospect of a million separate
> Sisyphean efforts with one species after another
> pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll back
> down and be forgotten. Worse, it makes you wonder just
> how smug we should feel about our own knowledge.
> "There may be fundamentally important things that
> determine the universe that we can't see," Dr. Krauss
> said in an interview. "You can have right physics, but
> the evidence at hand could lead to the wrong
> conclusion. The same thing could be happening today."
>
>   Hello! ... http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> The proximate culprit here is dark energy, which has
> been responsible for much of the bad news in physics
> over the last 10 years. This is the mysterious force,
> discovered in 1998, that is accelerating the cosmic
> expansion that is causing the galaxies to rush away
> faster and faster. The leading candidate to explain
> that acceleration is a repulsion embedded in space
> itself, known as the cosmological constant. Einstein
> postulated the existence of such a force back in 1917
> to explain why the universe didn't collapse into a
> black hole, and then dropped it when Edwin Hubble
> discovered that distant galaxies were flying away -
> the universe was expanding.
>
>    There ya go: Human stupidity in a single paragraph!
>    The fact IS that the universe IS collapsing into a
>    "black hole." The fact that "we" are living in its
>    singularity blinds us to that fact (unless you are
>    griviously a throwback to when we were Stone Age
>    smarter). The fact [how many facts is that
>    already?] ... the fact that "velocities" are
>    relativistic, and NOT absolute, blinds us to the
>    fact that our fragile lives can exist AS the matter
>    of such a universal singularity (which we
>    experience at such close-up a magnification as to
>    make us lose all perspective of its singular
>    nature).  --SDR
>
> If this is Einstein's constant at work - and some
> astronomers despair of ever being able to say
> definitively whether it is or is not - the future is
> clear and dark. In their paper, Dr. Krauss and Dr.
> Scherrer extrapolated forward in time what has become
> a sort of standard model of the universe, 14 billion
> years old, and composed of a trace of ordinary matter,
> a lot of dark matter and Einstein's cosmological
> constant.
>
>   Why, O why can't these clever chaps work on the
>   third race at Santa Anita instead?  --SDR
>
> As this universe expands and there is more space,
> there is more force pushing the galaxies outward
> faster and faster. As they approach the speed of
> light, the galaxies will approach a sort of horizon
> and simply vanish from view, as if they were falling
> into a black hole,
>
>    Everywhere we are surrounded by a black hole, and
>    these "geniuses" can't seem to glimpse hair nor
>    hide of it! --SDR
>
> their light shifted to infinitely long wavelengths and
> dimmed by their great speed. The most distant galaxies
> disappear first as the horizon slowly shrinks around
> us like a noose. A similar cloak of invisibility will
> befall the afterglow of the Big Bang, an already faint
> bath of cosmic microwaves, whose wavelengths will be
> shifted so that they are buried by radio noise in our
> own galaxy.
>
>   Unless a piano falls on your head. Then it won't
>   matter even whether the movers had insurance or not.
>   ---SDR
>
> Another vital clue, the abundance of deuterium, a
> heavy form of hydrogen manufactured in the Big Bang,
> in deep space, will become unobservable because to be
> seen it needs to be backlit from distant quasars, and
> those quasars, of course, will have disappeared.
> Eventually, in the far far future, this runaway dark
> energy will suck all the energy and life out of the
> universe. A few years ago, Edward Witten, a prominent
> theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study, called a
> universe that is accelerating forever "not very
> appealing." Dr. Krauss has called it simply "the worst
> possible universe."
>
>    Ah! Another goomer who's just now realized that the
>    universe a trillion billion years from now will be
>    inhospitable to the butterflies in his backyard:
>    What will his little son collect then?!  -- SDR
>
> But our future cosmologists will be spared this
> vision, according to the calculations. Instead they
> will puzzle about why the visible universe seems to
> consist of six galaxies, Dr. Krauss said. "What is the
> significance of six? Hundreds of papers will be
> written on that," he said.
>
>    Wait a minute: What kind of stars are these that
>    seem to be existing a trillion years from now to
>    keep our Sun company?  --SDR
>
> Those cosmologists may worry instead that their galaxy
> cloud will collapse into a black hole one day and,
> like Einstein, propose a cosmic repulsion to prevent
> it.
>
>    Ya mean like the "dark energy" which the current
>    crop of ignoramuses are proposing today for the
>    acceleration of the universe's expansion?  Hmmm...
>    --SDR
>
> But they will have no way of knowing if they were
> right.
>
>   Here's a hint: If there's not one (!) single fact
>   contradicting your proposal, it "may" be right [go
>   study http://physics.sdrodrian.com ] And if there is
>   no end of new facts seemingly contradicting your Big
>   Bang... it's blown up: Let it go already. Life is
>   cruel. Become a cobbler like your father told you.
>   --SDR
>
> Although by then the universe will be mostly dark
> energy, Dr. Krauss said, it will be undetectable
>
>   By the only instruments "dark energy people" will be
>   able to construct then: those also only made of dark
>   energy. [These are your brainiacs at work... on
>   account of all Stone Age smart guys are dead now.
>   Evolution having devolved.]  --SDR
>
> unless astronomers want to follow the course of the
> occasional star that gets thrown out of the galaxy and
> is caught up in the dark cosmic current. But it would
> have to be followed for 10 billion years, he said - an
> experiment the National Science Foundation would be
> unlikely to finance. "This is even weirder," Dr.
> Krauss said. "Five billion years ago dark energy was
> unobservable; 100 billion years from now it will
> become invisible again."
>
>   Oh, I'm ... sorry ... where did you say that
>   polaroid of dark energy is? I must've missed that
>   one. What? You say we know it "exists' NOT because
>   we have a bit of it in a lab but because we have
>   looked at the universe (obviously ALL THERE IS) and
>   "see" that it is "THE ONLY possible solution" to the
>   problem (having also consulted God, and all the
>   angels--in case God too is an ignoramus)...? --SDR
>
> It turns out that you don't actually need dark energy
> to be this pessimistic about the future, as Dr. Krauss
> and Dr. Scherrer point out. In 1987, George Ellis, a
> mathematician and astronomer at the University of Cape
> Town, in South Africa, and Tony Rothman, currently
> lecturing at Princeton, wrote a paper showing how even
> ordinary expansion would gradually carry most galaxies
> too far away to be seen, setting the stage for cosmic
> ignorance.
>
>    I'm sorry, but I do not believe that even after a
>    billion years of ever more growing ignorance we
>    could possibly be more ignorant than we are right
>    now. I just don't believe it. --SDR
>
> Dark energy speeds up the picture, Dr. Ellis said in
> an e-mail message, adding that he was glad to see the
> new paper, which adds many astrophysical details.
> "It's an interesting gloss on the far future," he
> said. James Peebles, a Princeton cosmologist, said
> there were more pressing worries. We might be headed
> toward a universe that is "asymptotically empty," he
> said, "But I have the uneasy feeling that the U.S.A.
> is headed into asymptotic futility well before that."
> You might object that the inhabitants of the far
> future will be far more advanced than we are.
>
>    I personally believe they will have pet monkeys
>    instead of dogs. Don't laugh, this is a significant
>    advance. ---SDR
>
> Maybe they will be able to detect dark energy - or the
> extra dimensions of string theory, for that matter -
> in the laboratory. Maybe they will even be us, in some
> form or other, if the human race manages to get out of
> the solar system before the Sun blows up in five
> billion years.
>
>    Man! This goomer doesn't even know that the Sun
>    isn't going to blow up but gently inflate into a
>    red giant! Is he the panhandler I gave that nickle
>    too outside The New York Times building? --SDR
>
> But if relativity is right, they won't be able to
> build telescopes that can see past the edge of the
> universe.
>
>   In five billiiioin years? Man, in 5 billion years
>   Americans will have probably come up with the
>   self-cooking dog-on-a-stick. (And Muslims will
>   probably even start believing the earth isn't flat
>   after all--Or at least stop chopping off the heads
>   of people who say they no longer believe it.) Okay,
>   so I'm an optimist. --SDR
>
> It's not too late to start thinking about sending out
> the robot probes that could drift down through alien
> skies eons from now with, if not us or our DNA, at
> least a few nuggets of wisdom -
>
>   "What does it say, Ork?" "It says, 'Nixon was
>   right.' Korc."  --SDR
>
> that the world is made of atoms and that it started
> with a bang.
>
>   "Who/whatever they are/were: They had a sense of
>   humor, Korc. Qua, qua, qua, qua, qua!"  --SDR
>
> The lesson in the meantime is that we don't know what
> we don't know, and we never will - a lesson that
> extends beyond astronomy. Einstein once said, "The
> Lord God is subtle but malicious he is not."
>
>   I always knew Einstein would've made a great Pope.
>   (If it wasn't for the fact that it would've been
>   hard for him to fit his Afro even inside those Chess
>   hats popes wear.) --SDR
>
> I wondered in light of this new report whether it
> might be time to revise that quotation. Max Tegmark, a
> cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology, told me the problem was not malice but
> human arrogance - a necessary but unfortunate
> condition for scientific progress. "We have a tendency
> to put ourselves at the center of the universe," he
> said. "We assume all we see is all there is." But, as
> Dr. Tegmark noted, Big Bang theorists already suppose
> that basic aspects of the universe are out of sight.
>
>    NOTE: Admission by BBers that they don't know. But
>    that they KNOW what they're talking about when
>    they're talking about what they don't know. No, I
>    said, "Who's on first?" --SDR
>
> The reason we believe we live in a smooth, orderly
> universe instead of the chaotic one that is more
> likely, they say, is that the chaos has been hidden.
> According to the dominant theory of the Big Bang,
> known as inflation, an extremely violent version of
> dark energy blew it up a fraction of a second after
> time began, stretching and smoothing space and
> pushing all the wildness and chaos and even perhaps
> other universes out of the sky, where they will never
> be seen.
>
>   This is the "beach wave" analogy theory of
>   everything. THERE IS NEVER ANYTHING NEW IN
>   THE HUMAN MIND. --SDR
>
> "Inflation tells us we live in a messy universe,"
>
>   Messy minds tell us we live in a messy universe. A
>   clear mind [ http://physics.sdrodrian.com ] shows us
>   we live in a simple, straightforward universe.
>
> Dr. Tegmark said. Luckily we never have to confront
> it. Ignorance is us, or is it bliss?
>
>   If we are lucky, "we is bliss."
>
>   S D Rodrian
>   http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>   http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>   http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>
>   All religions are local.
>   Only science is universal.
>
>
>
> .