🚀 go-pugleaf

ON dimenswions and much more, see my book on the nature of reality,
free on the web.
www.structureofexistence.com
S D Rodrian wrote:
> The Achilles Heel of String Theory.
>
> The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
> elements in a basis of a vector space,"  "the quality
> of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
> anything which might exist apart from our reality
> (universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
> fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
> study of reality").
>
> I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
> mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
> the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
> purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
> My objection is when either mathematics or science-
> fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
> reality THAN does reality.
>
> One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
> but that does not remove such a sphere from our
> reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
> ("a topological space in which every point has a
> neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
> sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
> dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.
>
> The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
> mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
> being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
> three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
> reality."
>
> It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
> animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
> of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
> proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
> dimensional" painting. The fact is that even
> theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything
> being even one-dimensional:
>
> Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
> even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
> looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
> than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
> to look at it from a little to the side).
>
>     Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
>     Your floating arm is describing an impossible
>     journey through an infinite number of (certainly
>     more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
>     circumference such as the earth's...
>
> And because all it would take would be a very tiny
> "little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
> we are talking strictly theoretically here.)
>
> The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
> tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
> Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
> lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
> Length, although I do not know of any objection to
> that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
> Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
> Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
> because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
> any side it would have to look at it from a second,
> third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
> much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
> believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
> drawing... even though we know that no true purely
> two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]
>
>        HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
>        the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
>        graphic is two-dimensional.
>
> And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
> three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
> then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
> dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
> our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
> really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
> (and not even though you be even as clever as a
> checkers-playing computer).
>
> The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
> in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
> changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
> or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
> to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
> through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
> universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
> possible at this point in human history to point to
> anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
> the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
> each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
> sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
> own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
> item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
> at the same time and most of them are all likely to
> stop spinning at the same time, all things being
> equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
> since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
> the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]
>
>     Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
>     created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
>     therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
>     between the objects/items of the universe, neither
>     going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
>     they also being forced to give up the notion of
>     "time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
>     in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
>     to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
>     suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]
>
> This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
> the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
> matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
> reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
> furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
> the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
> (and even death) back to youth!
>
> In any case, our description of time is always quite
> superficial. And we usually limit such a description
> to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
> the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
> conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
> the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
> child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
> overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
> own time" as well, just in some other form than either
> child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
> is still here with us.
>
>    http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> 		 Gravity As Thermodynamics:
> The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian
>
> There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their
> own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be
> sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,
> unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart
> enough to understand the universe but that they are
> too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they
> instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up
> overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)
> illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of
> literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.
>
> The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability
> of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing
> else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that
> inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to
> usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does
> not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,
> a private diversion... but certainly not science.
>
> Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship
> between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with
> the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path
> of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my
> knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive
> explanation of the universe in terms of the
> inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly
> how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the
> inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural)
> phenomenon it is in the universe.
>
> Since I am not here going to give merely one more
> description of the visible universe but am actually
> going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
> there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
> interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
> of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
> (the mere reduction of manifest observations to
> exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
> actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.
>
>     There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the
>     mystified.
>
> The first problem to be solved is the prohibition
> against the creation/destruction of "energy," as
> embodied in the question of what could have "been
> there" before there was a universe of visible matter.
> And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the
> one which allows us to inquire into levels of
> existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an
> abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply
> across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some
> of them while not at others [including the statistical
> research of probability & quantum theory].
>
> But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to
> "believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"
> objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of
> "matter" alone as the only "solid material" that
> "exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps
> telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"
> existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)
> that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always
> insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the
> only thing which really exists") is "momentary"
> matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."
> ["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]
> Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter
> is an "illusion" created by interactions between the
> electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear
> forces."
>
> WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.
>
> THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different
> than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"
> sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your
> own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are
> in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and
> the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other
> "forms")... none of which has any relevance to the
> question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too
> ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"
> (so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be
> torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")
> without this having any bearing whatsoever on the
> question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,
> the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are
> made). And this holds true even if the forms are
> imposed on you by the universe rather than your
> imagination imposing them on the universe.
>
> This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous
> theorists from following the line of inquiry we are
> taking here: Just as it was only after mankind finally
> accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not
> the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the
> universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the
> greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it
> is only when we finally give up the human prejudice
> that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are
> the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with
> whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or
> that there are even such things), that it then becomes
> possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.
>
>     This notion that there exist "immutable and
>     indivisible objects with whose destruction
>     existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human
>     superstition which should have been dropped once it
>     was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an
>     indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer
>     tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in
>     quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such
>     indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).
>
> However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was
> mulling why it might be that, given the existence of
> gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of
> "fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to
> consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not
> produce anything other than the "forms of matter"
> always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the
> universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby
> "larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve
> (or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum)
> into "smaller/ faster" ones], perhaps modern physics
> might have been spared the last hundred years'
> nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd
> (with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions"
> science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected
> discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are
> receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate
> depending on their distances) could have been
> understood for what it really is --a clear reflection
> on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower
> forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is
> necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between
> themselves. [As well as hinting that there might
> indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in
> the universe... by which (against which) all eternally
> shifting local effects might be measured.]
>
>     Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?
>
> Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific
> proposition that there is no fundamental difference
> between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some
> may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that
> they are but merely two levels of the same single
> process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders
> of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately
> there are only "relative differences" in "densities"
> (or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental
> shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that
> from "non-existence" to "existence."
>
>     Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly
>     the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what
>     it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that
>     ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only
>     the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it
>     from one form/value/concentration to another
>     "equality."
>
> Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the
> primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense
> of "a given energy value") can never have been an
> all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead
> always been an entirely relativistic "state") because
> otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a
> "leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it
> has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a
> clear violation of the laws of physics, but
> consequently not even a proper subject for science.
>
>      The question of "a mathematical infinity" never
>      comes into what is essentially a choice offered by
>      the laws of physics (whether or not "something"
>      can come out of "nothing")... and not the sort of
>      mathematical game exemplified when, say, a new
>      guest shows up at, "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" and
>      the clerk claims that all rooms are full--forcing
>      the new guest to explain that if the hotel is
>      "full but infinite" the clerk can simply make the
>      guest in room 1 move into room 2, move the
>      original guest in room 2 into room 3, and the
>      guest in room 3 into room 4, and so on...
>      depriving no guest of a room but vacating room 1
>      into which any new guest can then move. i.e. The
>      supposed paradox (like all paradoxes) is
>      artificially created when the clerk erroneously
>      claims that "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" can ever be
>      "full." [There are no paradoxes in nature, only in
>      the mind.]
>
> Acknowledging that "the process of existence itself"
> is one of evolution (or, that "existence has always
> existed," as it were) eliminates once & for all the
> strictly human (mental) "paradox" that existence must
> "originate" with/as some supernatural Big Bang
> (special creation) miracle.
>
> Let us posit instead a "given volume of space" ("the
> void"), its "absolute" energy value (the absolute
> density of "its whatever material") being irrelevant
> because as long as that density is purely/solely
> "relativistic" there can be no "lowest limit" to how
> tenuous/sparse it can be and still "exist." And this
> then is the "spatial volume" or, more properly, the
> "scalar mass" [traditionally termed "the void"]. From
> our perspective: about as close to infinitely immense
> as such a thought is humanly possible; that is...
> without ever permitting time to bring to an end the
> process of continuing to imagine its immensity.
>
> It quickly becomes clear how unusual (provided such a
> "volume of space" has ANY "energy value" or "density"
> at all), how unusual it would be if such an infinitely
> vast spatial volume could maintain the same identical
> "density" or "energy value" across the entirety of its
> unlimited [not to mention: eternally increasing]
> vastness... regardless how low that energy value or
> density may be "in absolute terms" which do not apply,
> remember, because an "absolute" condition of existence
> demands some absolute lower limit dropping below which
> "the thing" no longer exists. And, since we exist, it
> behooves us to assume that the density/energy value of
> the scalar mass always had to have been "relativistic"
> and never "all-or-nothing" or "absolute." [Not to
> mention the fact that to measure anything one must
> measure it against "something else," and "existence"
> is all that exists, or obviously "the only thing" that
> exists.]
>
> In an exclusively "relativistic" context then (one in
> which the "density" of any given "volume of space" is
> always merely "relatively" higher or lower than those
> of "other" volumes of space, and NOT "absolutely"
> EITHER existent OR nonexistent): there will always be
> "enough" energy (if you will: "a difference" in
> "pressures" or "temperatures") already present in
> "even such primordial" a condition to literally "fuel"
> everything which may "proportionally" evolve from it
> --because it's in the nature of "energy" as we have
> come to understand it (and no less in the cosmic
> relativity of existence we are discussing here), it is
> in the nature of "energy" to be (to also "hold")
> purely a thermodynamic "potential" for "work."
>
>      More aptly: "for motion" ... replacing the term
>      "work" with "motion" since we are certainly not
>      going to speak here of "motion without matter."
>      [Energy being "what matter does." Remember:
>      "existence = energy"] Therefore... "if matter is
>      merely energy, matter is also merely motion" (so
>      that: "there has always been motion" is what we
>      really mean when we say that "existence has always
>      existed"). Again: All "the forms of matter" are
>      merely "larger/slower" forms becoming/evolving/
>      conserving themselves into "smaller/faster ones."
>      Or, from the diametrically opposite perspective
>      (not an entirely unreasonable one, so we'll be
>      discussing it later)... all the "forms of energy"
>      can be thought of as the (denser) faster/smaller
>      forms of energy conserving themselves into
>      larger/slower (more dispersed) ones.
>
> As far as the requirements of "motion" go... the
> direction of "flow" is irrelevant ("into" will "work"
> just as well as "out of"). It's a mistake to belive
> that what's thermodynamically required for "energy" to
> "perform work" [the term "work" from classical
> mechanics' "product of force/distance"], that what is
> thermodynamically required for "energy" to "perform
> work" is, say, "a boiler-full of heated water" when
> the sole requirement (for the universe to "work") is
> that a thermodynamic current "flows" (the sole
> origin/source of "motion"). Therefore the singular
> objection to existence is that it not be absolute (or,
> "all-or-nothing") given that "absolute stillness" has
> no way of "pushing off" itself, as it were.
>
> In the primordial condition of existence, in which one
> single elementary (homogeneous) principle constitutes
> the sum total of "everything/the material" from which
> all subsequent diversity arises (the evolution of more
> complex forms from simpler ones, or even a single one)
> existence can only "flow" [note the always inescapable
> definition of "existence" as "motion"], existence can
> only "flow" from this clearly singularly relativistic
> state rather than from being arbitrarily forced by a
> human superstition to "flow" from some impossible
> (magical) "boiler" [or "Big Bang" furnace/mixture] of
> many already complex primordial states (independent
> settings) clearly violating creation/destruction laws
> of energy in some impossible all-or-nothing universe.
>
>     With respect to this principle of evolution: If one
>     considers the present universe just in light of the
>     proposed "string" theories: one can hardly help
>     noticing that the present universe is in many, many
>     ways a very elegantly simple concept compared to
>     the notorious complexity of string theories from
>     which it is supposed to "originate" (from which it
>     "subsequently evolves"). Something which is clearly
>     a logical violation of the principle of evolution.
>
> As difficult as it may be to "find" in the primordial
> "void" a "volume of space" with a density lower than
> that of the rest of existence, in the first place...
> that much more difficult is it to even imagine where
> and how one might possibly (necessarily) "create" a
> volume with an even higher density, to begin with (or,
> the infamous Big Bang "boiler" of inflationary
> models). So the universe (everything that "follows"
> from "the primordial state") is a lot more likely to
> begin with the former (or "an evolution" from/of
> simpler forms) rather than with the latter (some
> "special creation" Big Bang already complex from its
> start). And keep in mind that even if one such "Big
> Bang boiler" could somehow be "produced" (at the
> "onset of it all")... its destiny surely would be
> dilution and dissipation, and certainly NOT the
> concentration and amalgamation which obviously goes
> into the organization of ever more & more complex
> forms of matter.]
>
>      It is irrelevant whether "the void" comes upon a
>      bubble/area ("hollow") of lesser density (the
>      "egg" that incubates our universe of matter) or
>      such a "hollow" comes into being somewhere within
>      "the void" (my own preference because this makes
>      for a balanced/stable universe in which matter and
>      anti-matter regions balance out each other, making
>      it easier to understand why it is that one form
>      predominates in a given "side" of the universe
>      even as the other form may be the most common one
>      in the "opposite" side of the same universe.
>
> We will always return to this same point of departure:
> All that is required for the homogeneous "primordial
> medium" to (perform) "work" [i.e. for "the void" to
> produce an already perfect/complete machine] is for
> "the void" (no matter how unimaginably tenuous and
> sparse its "density") to come into contact with
> another volume of space "region" or "hollow" (as we
> shall term it here) having an even lower density.
>
>     And, for the purpose of illustrating more easily
>     the "gravitational" evolution of the visible
>     universe, we will "assume" in this text that "our"
>     lesser density "hollow" was more or less completely
>     and entirely (and perhaps even perfectly)
>     encompassed by the greater density "the void."
>     Though common sense rules this out (just as, given
>     their origin, its "discrete bits" could never have
>     been perfectly equidistant from each other). But we
>     will still speak of it this way so we may refer to
>     the universe as having a perfectly spherical shape
>     it can't in fact possibly have.
>
> As the primordial medium of the "the void" encounters
> our "hollow" of lesser density, its greater density
> "collapses" our lesser density hollow (collapses into
> it, that is), sending (crucially for the creation of
> our universe of visible matter at its center), sending
> a "shockwave" of higher density "material" into our
> "hollow" from every point around it. [This "shockwave"
> of inrushing material effectively represents pretty
> much the sum total of all the "energy" our visible
> universe is ever destined to have, by the way.] This
> imploding pressure wave eventually "condensing" into
> what we call matter somewhere along the way.
>
>     There still being people who think the earth is
>     "flat" (and many who believe it is the universe
>     that orbits the earth--and perhaps there are always
>     going to be such people): somewhere around here
>     advocates of inflationary models "may be tempted to
>     think" that the cosmic collapse of the void's
>     primordial material (energy) into our lower-
>     density "hollow" may well be describing a rationale
>     for their cherished Big Bang model... as "matter"
>     crashes against a pinpoint quantum center and then
>     erupts/echoes back out like 3-dimensional ripples
>     following the dropping of a pebble into a lake...
>     rescuing the ancient superstition that there can
>     be, after all, some fundamental particle from which
>     everything else is made... never mind the fact that
>     this idea leaves us forever unable to explain how a
>     necessarily mythological fundamental object like
>     "matter" could have possibly come into being (out
>     of non-being) in the first place--and "necessarily
>     mythological" because we can never describe a
>     particulate of matter in our universe we can with
>     any degree of certainly assure ourselves is forever
>     immutable and indivisible (even strings' own theory
>     places them neither altogether in our universe nor
>     altogether outside it). But as antidote to this Big
>     Bang superstition, keep in mind that all the forms
>     of matter will condense for a brief time and then
>     "just as quickly" dematerialize. [It's rather
>     likely that we are at the only point along the
>     shifting phases of matter-organization from
>     beginning to end of our universe where life is
>     possible.]
>
> By definition, an indivisible body or object is hardly
> likely to be made up of two or more bodies or
> objects... as this would "by definition" make such a
> body or object, at least theoretically, really already
> very divisible indeed.
>
> Then again, gravity itself would continue to remain
> the inexplicable (seemingly magical) "force" we've
> thought it until now--And the purpose of this very
> text is to explain how gravity is not some magical
> unfathomable "force" (of attraction or of anything
> else) but really only the mistaken description of a
> perfectly inevitable and natural effect which up to
> now remained impossible to interpret perfectly.
>
>     What Is The Universe REALLY Doing?
>
> The imploding universe is undertaking two crucial
> motions at the same time: an absolute motion and a
> relativistic one. We can actually "see" these two
> motions in action if we but know from where (from
> which perspective) to look:
>
>      Imagine the universe to be an earth-size globe. If
>      we then abstract "ourselves" from it, from now on
>      forever remaining unaffected by its shifting
>      sizes, we can "see" both the absolute and the
>      relativistic motions the universe is undertaking
>      by considering two men standing on opposite sides
>      of this imploding/shrinking globe universe.
>
> The globe is shrinking in an absolute sense, so in an
> absolute sense the two men are always moving towards
> each other. [This absolute motion is very much
> apparent to us all because it's the effect we have
> come to know as gravity.] However, because they and
> everything else in their globe universe is shrinking
> everywhere at a constant rate... in the normal course
> of events neither of the two men standing on opposite
> sides of the globe universe will ever notice that they
> are moving towards each other absolutely. Instead they
> will forever marvel how/why they seem to "stick" to
> the globe as if by magic and not "float" away into
> space. [And if they happen to be scientists and
> understand the Standard Model they might assume that
> gravity must be mediated by gravitons & then they will
> waste their lives trying to make up a Unified Field
> Theory encompassing gravity and particle forces. But
> you can see why the geometry of Einstein relativity
> describes gravity better than the forces of Newton.]
>
>      The shrinking of everything at an universally
>      constant rate (so that everything appears to
>      remain relativistically frozen in place/size) is
>      itself the second motion: It is nearly impossible
>      to notice at very close proximities (least of all
>      by two such beings standing across a common lump
>      of matter)... but it can certainly be "seen" when
>      glancing across astronomical distances (and we
>      call this very visible effect the Hubble Constant,
>      which makes it appear as if the galaxies are
>      receding faster from each other the more distant
>      from each other they are). [Although one can
>      substitute "time" for "distance" and "witness" it
>      in practically every object that orbits another
>      body.]
>
>     To understand this purely relativistic effect (of
>     course in reality all the galaxies necessarily must
>     be "absolutely" getting closer and closer inside an
>     imploding universe)... one has only to consider the
>     nature of space (in other words, all ones has to do
>     is consider it) as the distance between bodies of
>     matter: Where does it come from? How can there be
>     any "spaces" at all in the single ("solid") body
>     which the universe of matter must be from the very
>     first instants of its "massing" in its cosmic
>     hollow?
>
> Well, our universe is very large, and the same laws of
> thermodynamics which inevitably create the "hollow"
> into which the higher densities of "the voids" flows
> now literally tear the "solid" universe into "bits."
> And it is at the level of these bits that the body of
> the universe continues to implode... so that from here
> on out every one of these "bits" begins to implode
> away from all the other bits about it forever FASTER
> than the single body of the universe itself can
> "stuff" those opening spaces: At first there is very
> little "space" between the numberless bits, but given
> enough time and whatever form the "bits" of the
> imploding universe eventually take as they evolve &
> revolve in ever more complex interactions (galaxies
> in our epoch of the universe)... you can see how the
> distances between them can grow to unimaginably
> astronomical distances (into a "lot" of space indeed).
>
>     At first, the "absolute" (viewed from outside our
>     "cosmic hollow")... the "absolute" motion of this
>     thermodynamic "penetrating shockwave"
>     (flow/current) is undoubtedly always "moving" only
>     in the direction of our cosmic hollow's logical
>     center [a "center" which can probably only be
>     "pinpointed" by quantum theory, since obviously
>     anything introduced into the "hollow" to measure
>     the position of its "absolute center" would
>     necessarily shift it---thereby finally making it
>     clear that the world of the very big(gest, really)
>     behaves exactly like the world of the very
>     smal(lest) except perhaps in small minds]. But now
>     you understand how without a particle interaction
>     between them two objects can establish an "orbital"
>     relationship about a so-called "center of gravity."
>
> To say "the world of the very small" is to say "the
> world of the very near." In a universe undergoing
> implosion the human perspective stares out both to a
> much bigger/distant world and to a much smaller/nearer
> one from somewhere in the middle: The more
> distant/bigger world always appears to be growing
> bigger and more distant relativistically; while the
> smaller/nearer world always appears to be growing ever
> smaller and nearer in an absolute sense (gravity).
>
> This holds true across the full spectrum of possible
> perspectives (the view from within the universe is
> also always relativistic, while seen from outside it
> the universe would appear to be absolutely "shrinking"
> in isolation).
>
> As the observer is also imploding, when he looks at
> "the world he's leaving behind" it appears to him to
> be big (and the farther away he looks at it the bigger
> it appears to always be growing), while when he looks
> at "the world into which he is moving" it appears to
> him to be small (and the closer he looks into it the
> smaller it appears).
>
>     Counterintuitively, it appears to us as if the
>     world of the very small is a chaotic one (forever
>     shifting its geometric centers), while in reality
>     it is the one behaving in an absolute way: The
>     world of the very big may appear to be stable as it
>     grows bigger and more distant... but in reality it
>     is growing neither bigger nor more distant at all.
>
> Three very specific basic "motions" will describe the
> nature of the universe from the instant "the void"
> encounters (one of) these cosmic "hollows" of lesser
> density which "nurse" entire universes of matter at
> their core. But I do not include one of these three
> Basic Motions of Matter (the "pressure shock" of the
> general void's greater density "falling" into our
> cosmic "hollow" as it is strictly a 3-dimensional
> motion towards the "center of "our hollow" up until
> such material fully saturates it). Essentially, all
> the "falling" primordial material pressurizing itself
> "solidly" in place. I leave out this "motion" because
> I don't see it playing any further role in the
> processes that keep our universe in its continuing
> present equilibrium.
>
> At its point (of "highest saturation") this singular
> homogeneous "solid" mass (call it a "cloud" or call it
> a "body" of energy) destined to become our universe of
> visible matter, now finds it has no place to go from
> here other than to be (literally forever) squeezed
> into an always smaller & smaller volume of space (for
> the very reason that, exactly like every other "thing"
> that exists... it too is neither fundamentally solid
> nor immutable and therefore can not refuse to be so
> squeezed)... effectively causing it to "implode" in an
> "absolute" sense: forever to grow "smaller & smaller"
> as it is forced to occupy an ever diminishing volume
> of space--the originally homogeneous "solid" mass now
> very much literally tearing itself to bits--that is...
> into "discrete bits" (each a self-contained system
> forever "winding itself up" in a lifelong strategy
> designed by the laws of physics to "conserve" its
> eternally increasing angular momentum--which must from
> now on always increase, as said before, as larger-but-
> slower systems "conserve themselves" into smaller-but-
> faster ones)... until they all eventually pay the
> ultimate price of dissolution. (But that's far off in
> the future at this point.)
>
> Nonetheless: note the origin of "space" as merely the
> "distance" between these primordial discrete bits: A
> process (of space-creation) which has not stopped to
> this day; and which at the topmost level of matter-
> organization (that of stars and galaxies) is "easily"
> observable by us as the Hubble Constant. But a process
> which is forever on-going at ALL levels of matter-
> organization.
>
>     "A" given level of matter-organization is one which
>     reflects a stage (or state) at which the "local
>     gatherings of interacting "bits" or "clusters of
>     them" (or "gravitational systems") nevertheless
>     begin to behave (or to be thought of) as if they
>     were one single object (giving the impression of
>     having no individual constituent parts within it).
>
>     We may begin to trace the history of these matter-
>     organization "levels" from a point where the entire
>     mass of the "visible universe" could be thought of
>     as one single homogeneous mass (or "cloud") which
>     has just completely saturated the "center" of the
>     cosmic hollow into which the primordial material of
>     the higher-density "the void" surrounding it has
>     fallen. (And it's not important for us here whether
>     the "saturation" fills the cosmic hollow completely
>     of merely a given area about its center.)
>
> The crucial thing is that it is at this point that
> this once "one" solid body begins to "tear itself
> apart" (or, more to the point, to "bits"). More
> specifically still: necessarily into fully discrete
> "bits" (and "necessary" because it's the simplest way
> that the resulting sum of all such "bits" [once one
> solid body, and before that a "shockwave" of
> primordial material falling from "the void"
> surrounding our cosmic hollow]... can "squeeze" into
> the eternally diminishing area available to it as it
> continues its journey toward the center of our cosmic
> hollow--And since there is literally nothing in its
> way towards that "center" against which to crash (to
> stop its journey) except itself (its own nonexistent
> refusal to permit itself to be squeezed any
> further)... that journey is one which can only end
> in/with the utter dissolution of the falling body
> ("cloud" or "sum of discrete bits").
>
>     Crucially, all of those "fully discrete bits" are
>     tearing themselves away from all the other discrete
>     bits in the cosmic body (creating "space" between
>     themselves) as they "implode."
>
> To begin with, once the entire mass (body, cloud) of
> our universe consists only (or even mostly) of these
> (same-sized or same-wherever) discrete bits, by
> definition they will effectively collectively
> constitute our universe's first ever "perfected" or
> finished" level of matter-organization (the first
> generation of matter-organization).
>
> Because of the natural chaos which characterizes any
> active thermodynamic system (since evolution never
> stands still, in effect): eventually those
> "individual" discrete bits will begin to "fall" into
> local interactions (systems of "orbits" and/or
> crashes) each made up of perhaps only a few discrete
> bits (in ever continuing interactions) and perhaps
> each of them made up of many and many handfuls of the
> "original" first-generation discrete bits... which
> will, no doubt chaotically at first (until they "fall"
> into whatever "level of stability" is most "natural"
> for their "whatever-numbered" interactions) will,
> after "the chaos of transition" lifts, will then
> create across most of the cosmos a "second generation"
> of "gravitational systems" (or "particles") everywhere
> of a "similar nature/size/structure or number"
> (perhaps, but) all or most of them interacting in some
> similarly (in some related) "stable" way.
>
> And note that it is always from this (transitional)
> "chaos" that everything in the universe is built
> (by/from the interactions this "chaos" sets into
> motion... producing "orbits" and/or "crashes"). [There
> is no "chaos" in nature, there is only our inability
> to understand its laws.] "Chaos" here is only our
> convenient description of a nevertheless absolutely
> determinate process in which there can never be any
> effect without a cause--otherwise "chaos" would remain
> eternal, forever precluding our very existence.]
>
>     Now: This "quest for stability" also tends to be
>     characterized by a "scarcity" of free-roaming
>     "component particles" (of the previous generation)
>     as these are everywhere quickly incorporated (as
>     the current generation's "preferred" building
>     blocks (of the forms of matter "now seeking" their
>     own "gravitational stability." SEE Standard Model).
>
> Arbitrarily defined as they may be, it is nevertheless
> "around" a given "perfected" or "finished" level (or
> levels) of matter-organization that we define "similar
> forms" interacting 3-dimensionally according to
> Newton's laws of motion & universal gravitation. [We
> tend to describe "systems" such as atoms, stars, and
> galaxies as "objects."] For example: the five or more
> of these "perfected" or "finished" levels of
> matter-organization straddled by our own existence
> (or... that of quarks & gluons, atoms & electrons,
> stars & planets, and supermassive black holes & the
> galaxies from which they seem to be evolving at the
> present moment).
>
>     Regardless how brief or long their reign, once
>     these similar "systems" of interacting discrete
>     bits achieve their whatever measure of "stability"
>     as "gravitational systems" across the cosmos...
>     they de facto become the next "perfected" or
>     "finished" level of matter-organization.
>
> At this point in this narrative we are at the "second
> generation" level of matter-organization ---where it's
> now the turn of this generation of "perfected" or
> "finished" gravitational "systems" to build their own
> local interactions... as either a few or a great many
> of these second generation "systems" begin to combine
> (no doubt chaotically at first, until they too find
> their whatever "level of stability is most natural for
> their interactions" and) combine into super-systems...
> which, once they too manage to achieve cosmos-wide
> stability, also de facto become the (third generation)
> "perfected" or "finished" level of
> matter-organization.
>
> And so on, forever, and so on until the ceaseless
> evolution of generation after generation self-
> organization of the forms of matter into stable levels
> reaches our own "finished" (stable) level(s) of
> matter-organization (those of our atoms, stars, and
> galaxies). Which is not to say that there might not be
> just as stable "finished" levels of matter-
> organization "higher" than ours, of course--And quite
> entirely unsuspected by us as well.
>
> For now, if only to understand the earliest condition
> of our universe of matter, the important thing here is
> a realization that fission/fusion "nuclear processes"
> only take place at our topmost "finished" level(s) of
> matter-organization (that of the Standard Model
> "nuclear" particles). At more fundamental levels of
> matter-organization (than that of our "particles") the
> "decay of energy" does not produce what we would
> recognize as "our" heat, light, or any of "our" other
> familiar processes of atomic (radio)activity.
>
>     Note: Because it does not explain the inevitability
>     of its "strings" ... string theory only really has
>     one function: to supplant the Standard Model. And
>     since that is an unnecessary function by definition
>     string theory itself is unnecessary. (Gravity is
>     not a force, therefore there is no need for it to
>     be "unified" with the 3 forces.)
>
> To continue: if this "hypothesis of eternity" seems to
> suggest that the overall density of "the void" is
> constantly being "thinned out" by its incorporation of
> lower-density regions (like empty "hollows" in some
> viscous goo) such as the "hollow" of lesser density
> which produces our own universe of matter at its core
> (meaning that the bigger "the void" gets, the lower
> its overall absolute density value falls)... this is
> because that is exactly what must be occurring.
>
>     Remember larger/slower "forms of matter" eternally
>     conserving themselves into smaller/faster ones...
>     Well, in this sense: motion in one direction by one
>     part of a body is balanced by another of its parts
>     moving in the opposite direction. [Newton's Third
>     Law.] Essentially this is the process of the
>     greater density "the void" erasing our lesser
>     density "hollow."
>
> While matter itself is concentrating into "rock hard"
> imploding discrete bits (ever tighter, harder, hotter,
> and charged up)... "the void" is itself dissipating
> into a general inertia as it "grows" (ever larger, and
> more tenuous, stiller, colder). The two "different"
> parts of the same "one body" (system) are pushing out
> from/to exactly opposite directions at once--and we
> can think of these two opposite "motions" as really in
> the same direction (having the same
> energy-conservation objective).
>
>     At the end of the process, matter is but motion. So
>     all the "matter" of the visible universe must
>     eventually "slow down" (unwind again) and dissolve.
>
> Moreover, just as our hollow of lesser density is very
> probably "nothing special" in nature, even our own
> local "the void" is proportionally almost certainly
> itself also but some likewise pinprick-size "object"
> no doubt embedded in the fabric of an even "higher"
> level "the void." Although likely this must remain as
> hard for us to distinguish, local from general, as
> it's hard for us now to distinguish "a" part of
> eternity from the whole of it.
>
> And yet, however this line of inquiry may remain
> closed to us: the implication remains that vast
> regions of "our" local "the void" may be\are very
> probably everywhere pockmarked with similar "hollows
> of lesser density" (each probably destined to give
> rise at its core to a universe not unlike ours... as
> they are one by one "collapsed" by the higher density
> of "the void" encircling them).
>
> A thought which, by the way, ought to bestow some
> measure of respect upon even our humblest virtual
> particle. And certainly illustrates the very
> persistent "absolute relativity" of existence at any
> level... as higher level "the void(s)" balance out
> ever-thinner-and-thinner absolute densities with
> ever-greater-and-greater absolute expanses--canceling
> out everywhere all possible breaches of the law
> against energy creation/destruction.
>
>     "Nature abhors a vacuum."
>
> The crucial thing is that the absolute energy value
> (density) of "the void" always remains an eternally
> irrelevant (purely absolutely relativistic) number:
> The strictly human question of where/how this
> "primordial material" arose "to begin with" is
> therefore made moot by its always relativistic nature.
> Or: "If in order to exist Existence would have had to
> have had a beginning--it could not exist. We exist,
> therefore it behooves us to assume that there never
> could have been a state of non-existence" (however one
> may wish to define such terms as being & non-being).
>
> What is important for us (strictly a concern for the
> sentient beings of this one particular universe, that
> is) is that the primordial medium ("energy") of "the
> void" has come across the next relatively less dense
> "hollow" and has given rise here (at the core of this
> one particular lesser density "hollow") to the "next"
> universe of visible matter... ours, namely.
>
> I know of no requirement that "a" given universe "has
> to be" of any specific (purely arbitrary) size: Here,
> in this one "cosmic hollow" at whose core our visible
> universe resides, it is only necessary that its volume
> be "large enough" to produce the observed effects (the
> requirements of other universes can be entirely
> different, larger or smaller). So we might as well
> forget about trying to impose any purely arbitrary
> limits upon the "size" of our universe on that
> account. And since now we know that there are no
> "gravitational limitations," about the only thing we
> may say for sure is that our visible universe is many
> orders of magnitude larger than what we can "see" of
> it (or, that the "size ratio" of our "hollow" to that
> of its "universe of matter" was already hinted at by
> Einstein's infamous [E=MC2] approximation).
>
>     In any case: Into a "large-enough" lower density
>     volume (our "relatively empty" cosmic hollow)
>     "falls" (in quite a "shockwave") a thermodynamic
>     "current" not all that different in essence from
>     that of a lightning bolt: More slowly at first and
>     then faster and faster (an acceleration destined
>     never to end) as it "falls" in a 3-dimensional
>     direction towards the center of our cosmic hollow
>     like some unimaginably rarefied molasses.
>
> It is when we can speak of "matter" as "energy" (or
> "motion") that we can finally define existence as "not
> either/or" (matter/energy); since obviously anything
> "flowing" can only be described in terms of "a" higher
> or "a" lower flow, and never as "not flowing."
>
> Even at this our level of matter-organization (so many
> & many orders of magnitude removed from that of
> "energy"), this in a very real sense "reduction" of
> matter to "motion" (i.e. the acceptance of matter as
> energy) is what makes it possible to think of "matter"
> in almost exactly the same way that we've popularly
> come to think of "electric energy" as a "current" or
> "flow." Thus it is just as possible to speak of matter
> as only a "thermodynamic" current/flow... whose
> seemingly permanent "structures" (shaped by the
> interactions of the EM/weak and strong "nuclear
> forces") are, every last one them, from top to bottom,
> really only temporary "eddies" within what is
> essentially also only a thermodynamic "current" or
> "flow" and, consequently, never can be fundamental,
> indivisible (unqueezeable) objects and/or
> singularities.
>
> We mortals, understandably ever in love with just
> about any ideal of permanence, will undoubtedly be
> emotionally anguished to have to acknowledge that
> every last bit of matter (yes, to the very last one)
> in our universe is destined to "fade away" without the
> least hope of there surviving even the most forlorn
> memory of "our having been." But that's the way it is
> (and, frankly, I think it rather poetic... this "so
> very human" tragedy): The process I am explaining in
> this text does describe the eventual "dissipation" of
> all the universe's "matter" (if matter is but "motion"
> it must eventually, as it were, "come to a stop").
>
>     If this continuing process (this eternal evolution)
>     of matter-organization can be described as "winding
>     up" (larger/slower forms forever "imploding" into
>     smaller/faster ones)... what else can its ultimate
>     consequence be--if not its winding down at last
>     (T.S. Eliot's "whimper").
>
> And what would the end of a universe in which its
> forms of matter had completely "wound up" to the full
> extent of their "energy potential" (to do so) be like?
>
>     Well, we might consider the one factor which is
>     evidently "increasing" even as the other two are
>     "decreasing" in the process described above: The
>     "matter-making machine" (larger/slower forms of
>     matter evolving or "winding up" into smaller/faster
>     ones) "is" of course THE mechanism by which the
>     finite amount of energy (of the original shockwave)
>     which has "fallen" into our cosmic hollow conserves
>     its density (or "energy value") literally into the
>     forms of matter (and their whatever discrete bits).
>
> So, conversely, this same process by which "the
> universe of matter" travels toward the center of the
> cosmic hollow (its "singular body" imploding like a
> shrinking baseball in front of our eyes) can also be
> described as one in which at every step of that
> journey "a" volume of space is also growing (out of
> it) from a smaller/denser energy/pressure into a
> larger/sparser one (or, volume of space) as if the
> imploding universe of matter were a pressure wave
> after the passage of which the lower density of "our"
> hollow of lesser density will be left with a pressure
> --an energy value-- equal to the rest of "the void"
> surrounding it... thereby also making our cosmic
> hollow indistinguishable from/in it:
>
>     It will be as if our lower density "hollow" had
>     never existed at all: So in a very real sense there
>     is a (thermodynamic) "purpose" to (in) the reason
>     for all that "space" which is continuously being
>     "created" inside matter itself: to finally defeat
>     the instability created by there being such a
>     "lower density" hollow "out there" to being with:
>
> It remains axiomatic that all motion takes (uses up)
> energy. So it is inevitable that "the forms of matter"
> should literally consume themselves right up (even
> unto nothingness): It obviously takes energy for the
> forms of matter to "wind up" into "being" in the first
> place--and energy/motion is what matter is "made of."
>
> Although it may appear that (in its journey towards
> the center of the cosmic hollow) the higher density
> "shockwave" that has fallen into our hollow of lesser
> density (to become the universe of visible matter)...
> though it may appear that the higher density
> "shockwave" is racing against distances, the fact is
> that in reality its "forms of matter" are really
> racing against time (racing toward their own
> dissolution) as they "implode" (or "wind themselves
> up")... literally "shrinking" themselves "right out of
> existence" with all the irony of the runner in the
> so-called paradox who, although running a finite
> length, nevertheless can never finish his run because
> he keeps switching to running half as fast every time
> he gets half way to the finish line: Our universe is
> also "speeding up" even as it "shrinks" (so that, like
> the runner above, it too finds himself eternally just
> as far away from its "finish line" as it ever is).
> Even though very few of us until now have ever even
> suspected that "we" were either "shrinking" or
> "speeding up."
>
>     But this is why only when observed from outside
>     itself (from outside the universe itself) does the
>     universe implode in a "brief" and "finite" length
>     of time right down to "nothingness" (as "timed" by
>     clocks which being outside the universe never vary
>     during the implosion from its "slower" beginning to
>     its "faster" ending).
>
>     Observed from inside the universe itself (that is:
>     "timed" by clocks which "in here" are forever
>     adjusting as "time" itself is changing, i.e.
>     "speeding up")... the implosion of the universe
>     (like the "run" of the "eternally running" runner)
>     is about as close as something can come to seeming
>     to be eternal without actually being so.
>
> As our clocks here inside the universe "speed up" it
> makes the universe appear to us to be "lasting longer"
> ("longer lasting"). So that, almost nearly as
> perversely as is the case with the "eternal runner" of
> the story above, although the universe may also always
> be running faster & faster, it is also always growing
> smaller and smaller... in a quite fiendishly
> proportional agreement that forever cancels out what
> would otherwise be an all too obvious ever increasing
> requirement for more & more energy, for example, just
> to feed its same unchanging appearance (speed). Absent
> which "missing energy," the universe would very
> unambiguously be seen to be "slowing down"
> ("imploding" more and more slowly with time --or,
> since for years we've misinterpreted the universe as
> "expanding," we would have interpreted that
> misinterpreted "expansion" as slowing down with time).
>
> Instead the universe (its misinterpreted expansion
> only as of very recently now correctly interpreted as
> "speeding up") will forever be perceived to always be
> "speeding up" (from our more recently well-informed
> perspective, as over astronomical distances, the
> farther away we look the farther back in time we're
> seeing)... The universe, in reality imploding faster
> and faster with time (as measured also by the Hubble
> Constant), will "forever" continue to do so... until
> the moment of dissolution when matter runs out of
> matter, and "its forms" can no longer "hold their
> forms."
>
>     Note that this is not the same phenomenon of
>     relativistic time-dilation described by Einstein in
>     the "twins paradox" where (clocks inside the
>     universe not being synchronized) the faster any
>     given bit of matter (the twin riding his rocket)
>     "moves" the slower his clock (its inner motions)
>     "runs" and therefore the faster the clocks of the
>     "slower moving" universe (of the twin left behind)
>     will run. This being caused by the disruption which
>     velocity imparts to matter's "inner motions."
>
> Until matter's moment of dissolution, as with the
> "eternal" runner (above) who will seem to keep running
> almost forever: the universe also will be able to
> continue its own "run" seemingly long, long after the
> "discernible" limits of its "fuel tank" (almost as if
> by magic)... as our unsuspectingly accelerating clocks
> continue to unsuspectingly lengthen the "same" stretch
> of time they measure.
>
> That is to say: from our perspective, here within it,
> the universe's continuing "implosion" will "seem" to
> defy definition itself, appearing "never" to reach
> that theoretical "smallest-possible size" beyond which
> anything must "vanish" completely out of
> existence--because, trapped here inside it as we are,
> we can not so easily detect either the quickening of
> "absolute time" (kept only by clocks outside the
> universe itself), or our own dwindling "size"
> alongside the ceaseless lessening of everything about
> us... the eternal speeding up of the clocks here
> within it making it appear to us as if it is the time
> that the universe has left that is lengthening, as we
> "time" the brief instant left to the universe with our
> unimaginably accelerated and eternally accelerating
> clocks:
>
>     And so "forever" is really only relative to the
>     clock against which it is being timed, and not an
>     absolute term: Our "forever" is someone else's
>     brief instant in time, just as our own "brief
>     instant in time" can be someone else's "forever."
>     [And so no one need put himself in place of someone
>     outside the universe and, from that position, think
>     that all we amount to in here is but a brief few
>     seconds. Rather, it's far closer to our reality to
>     think that "clocks" outside our universe run so
>     slowly that they but measure a few brief seconds
>     during our billions of years.]
>
> Our sole real triumph perhaps being that power of the
> intellect to hurdle even the dissolution of all being
> itself: here, taking in the entirely of the universe's
> lifespan (and knowing how it is only when we set it
> against the brief span of our own mortality that the
> universe seems "almost eternal")... we can marvel at
> last how even the span of the universe is something
> not all that different from the so abrupt lifespan of
> even the least "virtual particle" in it.
>
>     If nothing else: still one more vindication of the
>     proposition that existence does consistently work
>     by "one single simple principle" evolving all the
>     subsequent complexity... after which all such
>     boundlessly evolved complexities eventually must
>     decay back to the same "one single simple
>     principle" from which all came. That is to say:
>     This is yet one more hint that the laws of physics
>     work everywhere exactly as they do anywhere.
>
> What is obvious is that to understand the structure of
> their cosmos human beings have to divorce themselves
> from their however cherished (so exclusively human)
> prejudices. And that science really begins with the
> quest to identify all such prejudices... because the
> human perspective obviously is NOT the most universal
> but one produced strictly by the requirements of/for
> our existence (required solely for us to survive here
> where we happen to live... within the bosom of the
> "artificial nature" which is the human condition we've
> conspired with the universe to construct for
> ourselves). Something which is true for all scientific
> considerations (human endeavors), as we continue to
> "make" our entire planet into a larger and that much
> more fatal a version of what we made of Easter Island.
>
>     What all this means is that, for example, the
>     "speed of light" is NOT "fast" (an absolute term,
>     from our perspective)... and is only/merely
>     "faster" (or "slower") in absolutely relativistic
>     terms: In relation to the size of a man, the speed
>     of light may indeed be quite "fast." But in
>     relation to the size of the universe, that same
>     speed is so monstrously slow as to almost escape
>     the very description of motion!
>
> While considered from here inside it our "virtual
> particle" universe may give all the appearance of
> being something almost approaching the eternal (and
> thereby making it so difficult for some of us to
> "understand" how an "object" can shrink "forever"
> unless they first understand that it is their "sense
> of time" that is quickening with the ever quickening
> universe about them--giving them the mistaken
> "feeling" that the measured span of time that is in
> reality forever growing shorter & shorter nevertheless
> always remains exactly as "long" as it has ever been),
> considered from without: the lifespan of our visible
> universe may "pop" in/out of existence before even
> perception itself may be able to take note of it (were
> there "someone" outside the visible universe to "see"
> it, of course--and capable of noticing it).
>
> Yet it is only once we grasp such things as how truly
> slow "our" speed of light is in "astronomical" terms,
> that we might permit ourselves to imagine timing the
> orbits even of electrons in terms of our hours, years,
> and centuries. And then might we countenance the idea
> of all those "material" structures about us (which
> have all of our lives convinced us of their unchanging
> solidity across untold ages) possibly really being as
> "fluid" as is the "flow" of electrons coursing within
> the "bolt of lightning."
>
> Then might we grasp how, in the same way that a brief
> sweep of sixteenth notes might seem, to some level of
> consciousness outside the human, to outlast even the
> lengthiest passage of "their" whatever centuries...
> even those motions which seem to us to be "the fastest
> possible" may to some other level of consciousness
> outside the human also seem to outlast the lengthiest
> passage of "their" whatever centuries: The quick wave
> of one of our hands may "really" seem so "slow" to
> them that to their quicker consciousness all of its
> "motion" ceases to be motion at all... and turns into
> the same "notion" of solidness a bar of iron suggests
> to us. Then might we divine "the frozen monsters" that
> are all living things in our human perception
> (including us, yes)... and recognize at last exactly
> how truly solid even our greatest notion of fluidity
> really is & fluid even our most unyielding solidness.
>
> In this thermodynamic analogy, then, there is no real
> distinction between the thermodynamic current that is
> a bolt of lightning and the thermodynamic current that
> is our visible universe's "matter." [Matter is energy
> and energy is motion, reducing matter to pure motion.]
>
>     Keep this in mind (in light of our human notions
>     and prejudices about the nature of time). By "our
>     human clocks" the bolt of lightning happens "very
>     quickly," while the universe seems to be almost
>     eternal. But this is strictly a "real" distinction
>     only in our own minds--stemming from our
>     historically mistaken idea that "fast" and "slow"
>     are absolute values. They are not. And in the
>     universe there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow"
>     or "big" or "small" (only "faster than..." or
>     "slower than..." or "bigger than..." or "smaller
>     than...").
>
> Living as we are inside the universe, a given rock's
> whatever odd shape may seem to us to be almost
> immutable to change... even if in reality that rock's
> shape (as well as the shape of every other "form" in
> which matter happens to exist "at the moment" here
> inside our universe) is merely describing the passing
> (momentary) state in which "its flow of matter" finds
> itself... the ongoing, never-ceasing change through
> which it is passing, one shape/form to the next one
> --something indeed very much analogous to a current's
> eddies as the sum total of the universe of matter
> "flows" (not 3-dimensionally, but) in the direction
> of implosion.
>
> This is the reason all 3-dimensional acceleration
> results in an increase in mass... as matter is
> "forced" to move "against" its own singularly natural
> direction of motion: the direction of motion in which
> it is already moving (or, "implosion").
>
>     Note that it's possible for an object to accelerate
>     while moving at a constant speed... since "speed"
>     refers only to the magnitude of the velocity, and
>     not to the direction in which it's moving. So that
>     an object can also accelerate solely by changing
>     its direction (even as it maintains a constant
>     speed).
>
> So: Matter's "singularly natural direction of motion"
> is "the direction of motion in which all matter in the
> universe is already moving." And in which it has been
> moving ever since the instant at which "our cosmic
> hollow of lesser density" became fully saturated with
> the higher density material that had fallen into it
> from "the void" ... at which instant the "energy" of
> that "shockwave" began to "conserve" itself (its
> "energy") into/by its implosion ("larger but slower
> forms forever evolving into smaller but faster ones").
>
>     "Mass" being a description of the "unwillingness"
>     of any discrete bit of matter to be "unnaturally"
>     moved in any 3-dimensional direction (against a
>     direction of motion in which it already finds
>     itself moving even absent all 3-dimensional motion
>     ... since all the matter in the universe is already
>     and always will be "moving in the direction of
>     implosion"). Which is the explanation for inertia.
>
> Also: all subsequently even greater (proportional to
> its 3-dimensional velocity... since it's now
> compounded: 3-dimensional + implosive motion)
> "unwillingness" of any object/body moving
> 3-dimensionally to be moved "against" its "additional
> to implosion" direction of motion being the
> explanation for all additional force (proportional to
> how fast the object/body is moving 3-dimensionally, of
> course) required to "move" an object which is
> "already" moving 3-dimensionally.
>
> And note that Newton's laws of motion do not explain
> the cause of inertia (now explained here) and only use
> inertia as a point of departure--That is: Newton
> confines his famous laws of motion to 3-dimensional
> motion alone... since he could not have known that
> everything in the universe is "already" (eternally)
> moving in the direction of implosion (leaving inertia
> an unexplained mystery).
>
>      The One Particle That Reveals It All.
>
> At our topmost level of matter-organization (that of
> atoms, stars, and galaxies) the photon is a rather
> peculiar discrete bit ("unit of mass") whose most
> salient characteristic is precisely that its "mass" is
> so minuscule that it has even inspired a heated debate
> over whether it actually has any mass at all. It has:
>
>     "Mass" as a measure of "the inertia of a given unit
>     of matter" means that there is no practical
>     distinction between a unit of matter and "an
>     equivalent" unit of mass--since the force needed to
>     accelerate an equivalent unit of either is one and
>     the same [historically "matter" really only being a
>     dim reflection of how "the structure of its mass"
>     is "packaged" in a greater/lesser volume].
>
>     Therein the above explanation for inertia (since by
>     definition: all motion NOT in "the direction of
>     implosion" is 3-dimensional): All 3-dimensional
>     motion is therefore "against" the direction in
>     which all matter is already moving--explaining the
>     "reluctance" of any unit of matter to be moved
>     3-dimensionally in direct proportion to its "mass."
>
> No matter what the "mass" of the photon is finally
> determined to be... its "acceleration" is prodigious.
> Therefore its "mass," or "inertia," is correspondingly
> prodigiously tiny--although never non-existent, or (to
> put it in the conventional lingo)... or photons would
> be absolutely immune to "supermassive gravitational
> fields" (to which they are obviously not immune).
>
> The structure (or "package") of the photon is very
> obviously substantially oversized and, compared to the
> other particles, relatively "unstable." That is: it is
> "visible" out of all proportion to its mass, and its
> "material" is closer to the edge of annihilation than
> even that of the far more massive/stable electron's,
> for example--though neither electrons nor photons have
> the legacy of a long enough evolution--long enough to
> have brought to them, as it has to other particles of
> matter, enough mass in a "stable enough" structure
> (neutrinos too are unstable, changing their "flavor").
>
> The crucial thing at this point is that because of its
> infinitesimal mass the photon is able to free itself
> almost entirely from one of the two Basic Motions of
> Matter.
>
>     Matter's "two basic motions" as the universe moves
>     in the direction of implosion... one being an
>     "absolute" motion (which we interpret as gravity),
>     the other a strictly "relativistic" motion (which
>     we interpret as the Hubble Constant).
>
> Photons (and other likewise extremely low-mass
> particles) do "move" exactly like every other form of
> matter that exists here at our topmost level of
> matter-organization in one way: They also "shrink"
> (thereby seeming to remain the "same size as ever"
> relative to the size of all the other objects in the
> universe which are also "shrinking" at the same rate).
> However, as the entirety of the universe "implodes"
> towards the absolute center of its cosmic hollow of
> lesser density: the photon seems to be able to escape
> the "absolute motion" of all the matter in the
> universe (which we interpret as "gravity")... even if
> it is true that it does not escape all of that motion
> and only just most of it. Self-evidently: the photon
> does not fully obey the absolute law of gravity most
> of the other forms of matter obey.
>
> Because all matter is everywhere moving in the
> direction of implosion but there are no fundamental
> objects/bodies anywhere in the universe to
> "implode" toward their own "singular" geometric
> centers as if they were perfect singularities...
> all the objects/bodies in the universe (with the
> possible exception of the discrete bits of the
> theoretical "first generation" of discrete bits
> ever to evolve from the primordial cloud that
> "saturated" our hollow of lesser density)... all
> the objects/bodies (all the forms of matter) in the
> universe are imploding NOT towards their own
> geometrical centers but at/toward every and all the
> smallest-possible coordinate(s) in/of their matter.
>
> Again: the overall effect of "gravity" is that (at
> every smallest-possible coordinate of the matter of
> every object/body in the universe)... all matter is
> forever (imploding) moving in the direction of the
> center of every smallest-possible coordinate of/in
> its matter.
>
> The result is that what we see at our topmost level
> of matter-organization is a relativistically
> "frozen" solid geometry with no easily discernible
> directionality in which the imploding Planet Earth,
> for example, does not "implode" ONLY towards its
> own "singular geometric center" but toward the
> "geometric center" of every and all possible
> coordinate(s) of its matter... forever giving us a
> picture of the eternally always same-sized and
> same-shaped unchanging sphere we've always known.
>
> But make no mistake about this: the entire universe of
> matter is absolutely imploding at the level of its
> every smallest-possible coordinate(s). And, for
> example, this means that the Earth is "falling" into
> the Sun and that the Moon is "falling" into the Earth
> in an absolute sense (exactly as described by
> Galileo). Even though, relativistically, the Earth is
> also moving away from the Sun, and the Moon is moving
> away from the Earth (as described by the Hubble
> Constant).
>
> To better understand exactly what the photon is up to,
> let's imagine what a photon (which is after all just
> one more "form of matter" among those of our level of
> matter-organization)... what a photon would "look
> like" if instead of "shrinking" along with all the
> other "shrinking" forms of matter, a photon were to
> somehow manage to always retain its size even as the
> rest of the universe in which it found itself
> continued "shrinking" all around it (and, further,
> let's imagine this theoretical photon of ours as a
> perfectly spherical hollow ball):
>
>  From "our" perspective now (unsuspecting as "we" are
> that it is the universe that is "shrinking") we would
> undoubtedly interpret this "miraculous spherical
> photon" as "growing in size" at a quite prodigious
> speed (really exactly proportional to the speed at
> which the universe is "shrinking")... so that, for
> example, in just over eight minutes our spherical
> photon would be as big around as is the earth's orbit
> around the Sun; and in a mere 50,000 years or so more
> it would be the same size as is our entire Milky Way
> Galaxy (90,000-100,000 light years across). So that if
> the universe really is [for the purposes of this
> thought experiment] just under 14 billion light years
> across, in slightly over 7 billion years our
> theoretical spherical photon would hold within its
> "hollow" the entire universe itself).
>
> It is its mass that "drags" matter along (making it
> "move in the direction of implosion").
>
> Any "form of matter" that lacks sufficient mass is
> able to (proportional to its mass--or, lack thereof),
> is able to "resist" being dragged along into
> engaging in the Second Basic Motion of Matter... the
> one we interpret as the "pull" of gravity here inside
> the universe, but from outside the universe would
> interpret as the entire universe imploding like any
> other conventional single body might implode (and it
> is this absolute aspect of the photon's motion which
> makes it look to us as if it's "moving" so oddly). It
> is the fact that the photon does not move, or moves
> very little, that permits it to "behave" both as
> particle "package" (in isolation) and as wave (when it
> interacts or is "measured").
>
> As I said, the photon still participates in the First
> Basic Motion of Matter (implosion at the level of
> every discrete bit or unit of mass) because while the
> Second Basic Motion of Matter "seems to an observer"
> to take place only at "a" fully-constituted (or
> "finished") level of matter-organization (its
> well-defined "bodies" literally "appearing to be"
> interacting among themselves... as with atoms, stars,
> or galaxies)... the First Basic Motion of Matter is
> taking place at the level of every "least possible"
> discrete unit of mass [that is: at the level of the
> theoretical "first generation" of such discrete bits
> which were the first ever to "tear themselves" from
> the "single solid homogeneous cloud" that had fully
> saturated the center of the cosmic hollow into which
> "fell" the shockwave of "higher density primordial
> material" from "the void" surrounding it]. So please
> note that, regardless how one might arbitrarily define
> such a primordial "unit" ... we say that the universe
> is "imploding at every possible coordinate of its
> matter," rather than only at the level of any given
> "particulate" (or "finished" level of matter-
> organization). Therefore the photon, being as much one
> of the forms of matter at our level of matter-
> organization as atoms, stars, and galaxies... the
> photon is also "shrinking" exactly as are all the
> other forms of matter here.
>
> But if the photon does not retain its size (appearing
> to grow ever larger), and has as little mass as it
> does (therefore not being a form of matter which
> "moves" along with all the other forms of matter that
> are moving in the Second Basic Motion of Matter) and
> thereby appearing to us to always remain "where it is"
> (appearing forever unmoved amid the flow of
> "everything moving together"), what exactly determines
> in which direction it will go (or "appear" to go)...?
>
> Well: That "direction" in which a given photon "moves"
> is determined only by its orientation to its "source"
> at the moment of its "onset" (creation). And this is a
> "direction" which can have a completely 3-dimensional
> orientation with regard to its source because
> (disengaging as it does from the Second Basic Motion
> of Matter) the photon's direction of motion instantly
> becomes 3-dimensional while that of its source forever
> remains (as it has been) a motion "in the direction of
> implosion" ... and these are two quite separate and
> independent from each other directions of motion.
>
> In this matter the spherical photon analogy above can
> serve an important illustrative purpose: Even if,
> unlike our theoretical spherical photon, the real
> photon is not growing in size... its position at any
> given point in time after its "creation" (i.e. after
> its "separation" from its source) would always still
> fall exactly where the surface of that growing
> theoretical spherical photon would fall, given the
> passage of equal amounts of time... in any direction
> (which, as I said, is determined solely by the
> orientation of the photon to its source). Therefore
> there really is no practical limitation either to
> which 3-dimensional direction a photon can take... or
> to its travelling from any point in the universe to
> any other point within it--or to points outside the
> universe, for that matter... considering that a photon
> can move across the universe to (be at) exactly any
> point in the spherical surface of the theoretical
> photon which is capable of swallowing the entire
> universe in our thought experiment.
>
> Think now of the geometrical center of our theoretical
> spherical photon: If there were an "ether" at absolute
> rest behind the imploding (and therefore "moving")
> visible universe... and its "geometrical center" were
> fixed on that "ether," then our ever growing spherical
> photon would appear to us to "drift" (as the visible
> universe imploded towards its absolute center, leaving
> behind all things, photons included, without enough
> mass to be dragged along)... so that if, say, the
> geometrical center of our theoretical spherical photon
> (where its source was at the instant of its creation)
> were in the Milky Way Galaxy--our entire spherical
> photon would seem to us to "take off" now, as it grew,
> drifting away from the Milky Way Galaxy. And some
> portions of our galaxy could then travel across two
> opposing surfaces of this growing spherical photon.
>
> But as there is no "ether" in the real world to which
> such a theoretical spherical photon might "fix" its
> geometric center... that geometric center must remain
> forever fixed to more or less the place where the
> photon's source was at the time the photon came into
> existence--Meaning that if its source was somewhere
> inside the Milky Way Galaxy, our galaxy would always
> remain inside the growing soap bubble hollow... and no
> portion of the Milky Way Galaxy would ever be able to
> cross two of the spherical photon's opposing surfaces
> --every point in the galaxy will cross one surface of
> our "growing" sphere, but never more than one.
>
> This is something we must grasp in order to understand
> why it is that there is no "directionality" to "the
> speed of light." Our "growing" theoretical spherical
> photon is in a very real absolute sense "moving" along
> exactly like (with) the rest of "the entire body" of
> the universe as it implodes as a whole)... thereby
> effectively frustrating any attempt we here inside the
> universe might try to make to establish a
> directionality for the "speed of light" since no
> matter in which direction a photon may be travelling
> it must always "fall" (be) exactly where, in that
> whatever direction, the surface of our theoretical
> growing (and "drifting") spherical photon would be.
> For, remember: the geometric center of our theoretical
> "expanding" spherical photon is "fixed" not to some
> background ("ether" or whatever) but to "all the other
> matter" of the visible universe that is absolutely
> imploding towards center (fixed to its "point of
> origin" or "source").
>
> So the "explanation" by G. F. Fitzgerald that matter
> "contracts in the direction of its motion" [to account
> for the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment
> which first established that there was no
> directionality to "the speed of light"] is now forever
> exposed as the misinterpretation it is--As well as is
> the subsequent arbitrary limitation on anything being
> able to travel faster than the speed of light "because
> matter can only contract to zero, obviously, and not
> beyond."
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment, an attempt to
> determine the absolute motion of the Earth against an
> "ether" which was supposed to fill all space and to be
> at rest was really an attempt to discover in the
> universe a state at absolute rest (by having it be the
> result of subtracting all possible motion in every
> direction).
>
> What Michelson and Morley discovered in fact was the
> universe's absolute motion in the direction of
> implosion by discovering that the photon always
> travels in every 3-dimensional direction at the same
> speed:
>
> It was an experiment doomed to failure by the fact
> that it only encompassed 3-dimensional motion in a
> universe where 3-dimensional motion is essentially
> motion in an abberrant direction (the normal direction
> of all matter in our universe being in the direction
> of implosion). [If one considers that motion in the
> direction of implosion is the same everywhere then you
> realize that there is no objection to defining such a
> "motion" as the one state in the universe at absolute
> rest (since all 3-dimensional motion is motion with
> reference to it).
>
> Inspired by Fitzgerald's "uninformed explanation," and
> knowing that the ratio of an electron's mass to its
> charge can be determined from its deflection by a
> magnetic field (as there is no reason to think that as
> an electron's velocity increases its charge also will
> increase), H. A. Lorentz suggested that the mass of a
> particle should increase as the charge of a charged
> particle is compressed into a smaller volume. And W.
> Kauffman discovered that, exactly as predicted by the
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, an electron's mass did
> indeed increase as its velocity increased (an
> agreement which improved measurements showed to be
> just about perfect)... strengthening everyone's
> confidence in the accuracy of Fitzgerald's gross
> misinterpretation for why the speed of light lacked
> directionality--and, by the way, lending confidence to
> one Albert Einstein, for whom this could only mean
> that "therefore" there could be no states at absolute
> rest in the universe (a thought which eventually gave
> birth to some of his relativity explanations). [Never
> mind that the "absolute" constancy of the speed of
> light, no less than its "absolute" lack of
> directionality, should have told Einstein that there
> "had" to be some state at absolute rest in "the
> equation of the universe" against which such constancy
> was being kept constant!
>
> But there it is, of course: the speed itself at which
> the universe of matter is imploding is absolute across
> the entire universe (or, I should really say: "is of
> an equal value where equal conditions (of "pressure")
> exist")... since one can also state it as everything
> other than that which is moving as "moving" with
> respect to it (just as in the description where
> someone in a passing train is able to imagine it's the
> train station that's passing by instead).
>
>     What is this "pressure" in the absence of particle
>     interaction/mediation (gravitons)...? Well,
>     certainly NOT the "push" of one absolute body
>     (billiard ball?) against another physically. Or,
>     from the geometrically opposing viewpoint: The fact
>     that all the bodies/balls are (and have always
>     been) moving in the same direction is enough
>     --Obviously no individual body/ball moving in such
>     an avalanche of them could possibly suddenly come
>     up with the impetuous impatience to speed up (or
>     with any spontaneous sloth, for that matter).
>
> Naturally, once the reason for inertia (given above)
> is made clear, it's obvious that all 3-dimensional
> acceleration of matter produces pressures ("g-forces"
> as it were, or a very real "stress") against its own
> inertia (its motion in the direction of implosion)...
> these "g-forces stress" increasing with acceleration
> make it clear just how massive a force would be
> required to "move" even such a trivial "mass" as that
> of a photon's across the entire universe in, say, a
> fraction of a second--and the "stress" that photon
> would consequently be under.
>
> It is this proportional (to 3-dimensional velocity)
> "stress" which interferes with the regular/normal
> inner motions of matter (matter itself really being
> reducible to "motion," which is itself merely another
> definition of "energy")... causing the very real rise
> in mass of ALL accelerated matter (not just of charged
> particles, as Einstein himself showed)... as well as
> the "slowing of time" for matter traveling at higher
> 3-dimensional speed, obviously. [Thereby providing the
> real reason for the also very real "twin" paradox
> (which like all paradoxes exists only in the human
> mind, and never in nature)... while separating this
> very real "relativity of time with respect to
> 3-dimensional velocity" from any notion that time
> itself might have accelerated for the twin remaining
> "at rest" behind in any "real" sense... outside a
> misinterpretation by the "accelerated" twin, from
> whose perspective (to whom) the clock in "the passing
> train station" (the twin remaining behind) will appear
> to be "moving faster") because the matter of which he
> (the accelerated twin) himself is made is being
> "slowed" by the stresses of its acceleration. But "the
> universe's time" (or, the absolute speed at which the
> universe is imploding) remains "the time" for the
> "unmoving" twin left behind--as long as he keeps still
> (and doesn't try to race across the entire universe
> in, say, a fraction of a second... because, if he
> could find the power to do so, it might be a fraction
> of a second to him, but he may find the rest of the
> universe aged 14 or more billion years).
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://music.sdrodrian.com
> http://ar.sdrodrian.com
>
> Please don't ask me to edit this text into a more
> cohesive or chronological/logical presentation! Thank
> God I still have the mental energy to type it out at
> all.
>                        - 30 -
>
> ANSWERS from GOOGLE posts by S D Rodrian ...
>
>  > maybe you could help Bill out with an answer to the
>  > question: What the heck causes gravity?
>
> Sure: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY. There!
>
> ALL the effects we ascribe to the "pull of gravity"
> are really caused by/because of the fact that the
> universe is (and has always been) imploding (yes,
> since its origin ... in fact, THAT is its origin).
>
> However, don't try to disprove this by tossing a coin
> up "against the pull of gravity" because the "speed"
> at which the coin travels "against the direction of
> implosion" will be of no consequence whatsoever (you'd
> have to throw the coin OUT of the universe to counter
> its implosion)...
>
> .. Instead of believing that ours is a
> universe as described in the inflationary models
> (a universe of immutable forms of matter forever
> "expanding" from some primordial magic bean),
> imagine that we live in a universe where all the
> forms of matter are just that ("forms" composed
> of other "forms of matter" which are themselves
> composed of lesser/smaller "forms" of matter ad
> infinitum) in a universe that is/has always been in
> implosion...
>
> Yes, use the metaphor of a black hole imploding. But:
> How long does a black hole take to implode? Well,
> viewed from outside it, almost no "time" at all. But
> if the entire universe were imploding, we, of course,
> would be inside that implosion. If such an implosion
> lasted only our "seconds" or even "minutes" or "hours"
> or even "days, months, years, et al" it would cause
> our "matter" to burst! But, on the other hand, if such
> an implosion "lasted" (for us here inside it, "timing"
> the whole thing by our "hours, years, centuries," or
> even "billions of years"), if such an implosion lasted
> for as long as the entire lifetime of our universe...
> then "our forms of matter" would have "enough time" to
> bend/twist/evolve/adapt to whatever changes were
> taking place--And it really wouldn't matter "how long"
> our imploding universe took as "timed" by "somebody"
> watching its implosion from outside it. The only
> "time" that mattered to us... would be the one we
> ourselves "timed" by whatever methods we devised.
>
> There is no such thing as an absolute speed (time),
> and "the laws of physics" which govern the movement
> of "our speed" (time) depend entirely on what the
> "mass about us" allows.
>
> As the universe implodes, ever accelerating as it
> does, our "sense" of time (of how "fast" the speed
> of general motions about us) is also increasing
> because "there is no absolute time (speed)" and
> instead the "speed" (and therefore the "timing") of
> everything (its timing by us) is "absolutely"
> relative to "the mass" about it (about us).
> Therefore: No matter how "fast" the universe
> implodes to "someone" viewing its implosion from
> outside it, to us, here inside it, the implosion of
> the universe must necessarily seem to last "for as
> long as the universe lasts."
>
> The hardest obstacle to realizing that ours is a
> universe in implosion may be that, being INSIDE this
> implosion, we imagine it's exactly like what happens
> in a black hole collapse (destroying all forms of
> matter in it & around it in milliseconds ... the sort
> of milliseconds measured by our clocks AND the
> impossible clock of someone INSIDE the black hole
> we're observing... which clocks we assume to be
> forever absolutely synchronized).
>
> Rather, think of one of those films of street crowds
> which are sped-up and you see streams of cars & people
> rushing "through" each other without a single one of
> them running into anything... Well, that film is
> "sped-up" from our point of view (by us), where we
> exist at {what?} speed watching the film--but for
> anyone "in" that sped-up scene we're watching
> "existence" was unfolding at "normal" speed, and any
> idea that they were going so blindingly "fast" that it
> may be impossible for them to crash into everything
> would seem almost insulting. [ By {what absolute
> standard?} do we believe that "our speed" is the
> "normal speed" of existence itself?!? ]
>
> .. Rather, the speed of light is "fast" because we
> imagine it is (measured against our walking speed).
> While the speed of one set of atoms decaying into
> another element is "slow" because, again, we measure
> it against our walking speed, or the speed it takes us
> to eat a bowl of cherries, or to live out our whole
> lives, or even the lives of all the generations of
> man, for that matter. We find it hard to imagine that
> all the generations of man, or all the generations
> of all the organisms that ever lived on this planet,
> or all the generations of stars, et al, might fly by
> in the "time" it takes "someone standing outside our
> universe" to glance to one side and notice that it
> (our universe, unsuspected by him) has imploded (in
> milliseconds, as measured by his watch). But that is
> EXACTLY what has happened, will happen, and is
> happening: The relativity of time is absolute (and
> that relativity extends to outside our universe): The
> relativity of "speed" ABSOLUTELY has everything to do
> with what the mass around your "watch" is doing (its
> "speed" ... in effect, its "time").
>
> I have said it before and I will repeat it endlessly:
> "Everything that is now described as "the pull of
> gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of
> velocity." It doesn't mean that "rocket scientists"
> will have to find some other way to "sling-shoot"
> their space vehicles (than by gravitational orbits)
> --rather, they must eventually come to realize that
> what they're doing is the same thing that happens to
> a leaf that's sucked into the eye-wall of a hurricane:
> The closer to any "point of implosion" anything comes
> the greater the velocity it must experience (and those
> "points of implosion" exactly coincide with what we
> now call "centers of gravity") ... which is identical
> to saying now "the greater pull of gravity they must
> experience."
>
> WHERE are these "points of implosion" located inside
> the universe? Well, self-evidently they cannot be
> located in the middle of space (space with more space
> around them) because space can neither implode or
> explode. Therefore, they ONLY exist where the matter
> of the universe is imploding (its material substance)
> and that boils down to mass, mass, and more mass:
> This makes "a" point of implosion absolutely relative
> to the mass around it. So that any mass which is added
> or subtracted from any "imploding system" (which is
> any congregation of matter sufficiently separated from
> the rest of the universe to exhibit independent motion
> towards its own unique point of implosion, whether it
> be the earth-moon system, or the Solar System, or the
> Milky Way system, or even the earth-Newton's Apple
> system)... any mass which is added to or subtracted
> from any "imploding system" has an immediate effect
> upon the "location" of its "point of implosion (making
> ALL such "points of implosion" then absolutely
> relative to the mass about them). [And I certainly
> don't want to get any "the speed of gravity" nonsense
> here--suffice it to say that if the Sun were to vanish
> by some magical miracle, what's to prevent a magical
> miracle from being instantaneous across the entire
> universe?] However: Since all the mass (matter) of the
> universe is moving towards such "points of implosion"
> (BECAUSE such "points of implosion" exist in isolation
> --from the rest of the universe--NOTICE the "space"
> between them) they are all entirely relativistic: That
> is, while the moon and earth are "trying" to "roll
> down their own mutual/common point of implosion" they
> are also, as ONE system/mass vying with the Sun to
> "roll down their own mutual/common point of implosion"
> and so on: so that NONE of this invalidates Galileo's
> marvelous description of "gravitational" trajectories
> (loss of momentum) nor Newton's laws of gravitation,
> or Einstein's geometrical perfecting of them: If two
> bodies approach each other with just the right amount
> of momentum away from their "common point of
> implosion" they will go into a mutual orbit; and if
> they are both aimed straight at their "common point of
> "implosion" they must surely collide. And if two
> immense bags of those styrofoam packing beans pass
> close enough to one another, surely a lot of those
> styrofoam beans will not have/or will not be able to
> maintain enough momentum away from their "common point
> of implosion" to prevent a pileup too.
>
> The point is that the entirety of the universe is ONE
> geometric unit. And that the existence (and position)
> of every last bit of mass in the universe affects its
> entire configuration--which is the same as saying that
> the "effect of gravity" extends "infinitely" across
> the entirety of the universe. Which is just another
> way of saying that the entire mass (matter) of the
> entire universe also has its own definite/absolute
> "point of implosion" towards which everything in the
> universe is "moving" [not because of the mythical
> "pull of gravity" but because that is the geometric
> center towards which its "body" was "pushed" from
> its origin].
>
> And because the mass of the universe does not "ride"
> upon some inflexible/rigid aether, naturally the
> closer two "bits" of mass are to each other the
> greater the acceleration they must experience toward
> their common "point of implosion" (the effect is
> indistinguishable in practice from the effect
> described up to now as gravity, except that for many
> hundreds of years scientists used a cosmological
> system in which the universe revolved around the earth
> to predict with great accuracy the motions of the
> heavens... until a simpler, more straightforward
> solution was found--a solution which also embodied the
> explanation everyone was searching for). And so it is
> at this writing, when the inflationary/gravitational
> point of view can be used to predict the motions of
> the heavens with great accuracy BUT it is only the
> implosion model that at last offers the simpler, more
> straightforward solution (and also embodies the
> answer) everyone is searching for.
>
> Now you know how all that is possible WITHOUT there
> being some magical mediating particle (the mythical
> graviton) to cross the full length of the universe:
> The mass of Newton's apple and the mass of the
> earth are "seeking" their common center/point of
> implosion (since they do not ride any mythical
> rigid matrix/aether)... and they are both "moving"
> towards the "center of the universe" both as a
> system while being such an infinitesimal portion
> of that system that I seriously doubt we will ever
> definitely ascertain its orientation. [So you
> observe Newton's apple moving towards the earth
> with a greater acceleration than the moon is moving
> towards the earth, or the earth-moon system are
> moving toward the Sun, and the Solar System is
> moving toward the "center" of the Milky Way, etc.]
>
> Simply assume that our universe IS imploding...
> and begin to re-examine all the observations which
> have for the last 100 years (and longer) "argued" for
> so many counter-intuitive, and self-contradictory, and
> just plain illogical/crazy explanations for/of why/how
> the photon "knows" at what speed it should travel and
> in which direction? How is it possible for the effect
> of gravity to extend infinitely (and WITHOUT any
> mediating particle WHATSOEVER--because the proposition
> of the graviton's existence is just a guess exactly
> like the proposition of "dark matter")? How spiral
> galaxies can do what they're doing with only the mass
> of their stars! And, indeed, why/how the so-called
> "expansion" of the universe can itself be forever
> accelerating with no visible expenditure of the
> tremendous amounts of energies such an acceleration
> obviously requires or we are all mad!
>
> And everything else, to boot: Imagine what some being
> riding upon one of these independent systems (say, a
> planet), what such a being must think when he looks
> out into space and observes all the other systems
> "draining" down into their whatever "points of
> implosion" ... without suspecting the true nature of
> what he is looking at: Let's call such a being Edwin
> Hubble, and he notices that there is a "constant"
> relationship between the distance from us of "an
> object" and the speed at which it looks like it's
> receding away from us: Not suspecting that the
> universe is in implosion, and therefore that all its
> "independent systems" (galaxies, say) are (as it were)
> "shrinking into themselves" wherever they happen to
> be--that is, not knowing that it's really his ruler
> that's "shrinking" Hubble assumed that it is the
> distance between all the systems that's "growing" [and
> necessarily, the farther a galaxy is from ours the
> "faster" Hubble assumed it was receding away from us).
>
> REMEMBER: The closer something is to something else
> the "faster" it is imploding. Therefore the
> universe is imploding fastest at the quantum level
> --if for no other reason than that is the smallest"
> (and therefore "closest") level of which we know.
>
> The inflationary models cannot even explain the most
> basic phenomena we observe in our universe, such as
> WHY/HOW radiation propagates except by gibberish/
> nonsense. While in an imploding model the "disconnect"
> between massive and nearly-massless matter perfectly
> explains why one "moves" and the other does not: If
> you are riding the "moving" part of it and you do no
> suspect that you are the one moving, you tend to
> imagine that the part you are passing by is the thing
> doing the moving--
>
> And now you also know why no matter how much the
> photon is slowed it must "regain" its full velocity
> once it is freed from whatever was slowing it down:
> The velocity at which the "more massive" matter of the
> universe is imploding must certainly hold very
> steadily across a very large swath of the universe
> --since it is all governed by the mass (matter) about
> it. But, thereby the reason why the speed of light is
> fixed.] But I imagine that at some point most thinking
> persons will eventually realize that while the Big
> Bang (inflationary) models of the universe are
> forever drowning in self-contradictions and utter and
> hilariously zany science fiction... there is not one
> serious challenge to the implosion model that has ever
> gone adequately unanswered (even as you can read in
> this very text).
>
> Again: ONCE you consider the universe from that point
> of view, then ALL the puzzles and conundrums which
> plague and baffle us now (causing us to propose
> near-or-just-plain-ole magical solutions) to mysteries
> such as "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement),
> how a single photon can interact with itself, and the
> impossibility of making sense of relativity and QM
> existing in the same world ... all of them and more
> will finally begin to "argue" their own solutions, as
> "you" say, despite all our most cherished prejudices.
>
> = Everything that is now described as "the pull of
> gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of
> velocity. This includes so-called lesser/greater
> massive gravitational fields as described by\in
> relativity theory. OR: If you are "a mile" from a
> neutron star you are obviously a LOT closer to the
> "point of implosion" of a greater amount of mass
> than if you were even an inch from, say, the moon.
>
> The implosion model in no way invalidates relativity;
> but, on the contrary it is clear just how remarkable
> an achievement Einstein managed while never even
> suspecting that the universe is imploding--that he
> should be able to describe it with such purely
> geometrical perfection... at last putting an end to
> the ancient myth of the aether. And without realizing
> exactly why it should be that the universe acts rather
> more like a geometrical structure than a purely
> gravitational one (as previously described by Newton).
>
> If gravity were ANY KIND OF "force" then it would,
> by the laws of physics (QM) blow up the universe
> to smithereens.
>
> It would ALSO create stars and watery planets with
> hollowed-out centers BECAUSE there would be little
> or no "gravity" at their centers: Yet, the theories we
> have about how our Sun works calls for most of its
> nuclear reactions to be taking place precisely AT ITS
> CENTER, under the greatest "pressures" therein! And
> no one that I know of has EVER proposed hollow
> planets (except some laughable comic book I read
> as a child, as I recall). Oy! But people don't think.
>
> What then are orbits, galaxies? Use the simplest
> of all analogies: In an imploding universe
> EVERYTHING is (perhaps not so figuratively) going
> down the drain:
>
> Look at the whirlpool that forms as water tries to go
> down your kitchen drain pipe (the same thing is taking
> place in tornadoes and hurricanes, where pressure in
> the eye-wall forces air to "drain" up, sucking in air
> from the area surrounding the "funnel"). Why does
> a whirlpool form at the mouth of your drainpipe?
> Because some water drops, unfortunately for them, have
> just enough momentum toward one side to avoid going
> directly down the drain. And the more water, the more
> likelihood there is of a whirlpool forming...
>
> And whether it's the earth/moon system, or the Solar
> System, or galaxies we're talking about... what we're
> looking at is "bodies" (the water drops here) which,
> unfortunately for them, have just enough momentum
> away from the exact/absolute point of implosion (what
> we now call their common center of gravity). [And,
> such "absolute points of implosion" are completely
> relativistic (i.e. created by the very presence of the
> mass around them that creates them).] And just as
> not every time you open the faucet does a whirlpool
> form at the mouth of the drain (it usually has to do
> with the volume of water), not every galaxy develops
> into a spiral one like the supermassive Milky Way
> (something which also seems to have a correlation with
> whether it's a massive or smaller galaxy, surprise,
> surprise).
>
> And NONE of it has anything whatever to do with any
> "dark matter" or other nonsense like it, I assure you.
>
>  > But why things are imploding and where they came
>  > from remains unanswered.
>
> No they do not: It is all an inevitable consequence of
> the laws of thermodynamics... Think (!) of "the void"
> as so immense/vast that at some point or other its
> "body" hiccups a wave and presto: thermodynamic
> currents/waves back & forth. Is it so impossible from
> there to think that somewhere a bubble of "lesser
> pressure" arose which then burst, as higher pressures
> poured into it--the "concentration" at "its center"
> being our "visible" universe...? And there you have
> our imploding universe, and without having to have a
> single graviton in it for it to work EXACTLY as we
> can observe it working all around us.
>
> GO backwards from our universe, and it is a
> prick-point in some vaster/more diffuse universe,
> which is itself but another prickpoint in some
> vaster/more diffuse universe, ad infinitum, and
> you can see where it all comes from: All you
> really need is "something so very close to
> nothingness" as to make the difference negligible
> indeed. But then, eventually here we are.
>
> Think! That describes the raison d'etre for the
> implosion model of the universe, except that any
> notion of "time" is moot: ALL time is relative, just
> as Einstein began to understand, and while the
> implosion of our universe, as viewed (timed) from
> outside it, may look like (and take about as long as)
> the collapse of a massive star into a black hole seems
> to us... we here inside it (because our SENSE of time
> is so humongously "fast" ... AND FOREVER SPEEDING UP)
> we here inside the universe will "experience" it like
> some "unending" amount of time (or, equal to the
> entire length of the part of the lifetime of our
> universe in which we exist).
>
> It may be a fact that as we go on there is "less and
> less time" of the universe left--because, inevitably,
> as the universe continues its implosion (or,
> concentration into less and less volume) it must
> undergo a general acceleration... but because "our
> sense of time" is literally accelerating ahead of the
> universe... what is left of the universe will always
> be, at least for us, quite a lot (and perhaps even
> growing as "we" go on--if I may be so bold as to
> include us with the rocks & hydrogen atoms out there).
>
> What will our universe end up as? I certainly don't
> have enough information to theorize about it with any
> real authority. Although I'd like to think it will all
> dissolve into plain ole nothingness. It's still
> possible it will also be some massive pile-up of black
> holes... or a single one, which may well be another
> universe-of-sorts ad infinitum. Who knows. Who cares!
> The whole human race will certainly be dead long, long
> before then. And all that will certainly be a long,
> long, long time in our future, of course.
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://music.sdrodrian.com
> http://ar.sdrodrian.com
>
> Other Bits & Pieces, Here & There ...
>
> "Immortalist" wrote:
> "sdr" wrote:
>
>  >> Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
>  >> Cosmological Constant (i.e. "Dark Energy") is BOGUS
>
>  >If the available evidence argues that most of the
>  >matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected
>  >from the light which it emits or fails to emit, the
>  >question arises about how this stuff which cannot be
>  >seen directly exists at all unless its presence is
>  >inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical
>  >objects, specifically stellar, galactic, and galaxy
>  >cluster/supercluster observations
>
> "Available evidence" (observations) do not "argue"
> anything: It is men, such as you and I, who look at
> "something" and "see" in it our prejudices: The
> "evidence" of a plane flying overhead "argues" one
> set of conclusions from a guy in Philadelphia and
> quite another from a stone age hunter (as it did
> for New Guinea tribesmen, who in the 40s, thought
> the American airmen who were landing there to
> prepare for battle against the Japanese HAD TO BE
> gods and worshipped them as such).
>
> For many years now MANY different forms of matter
> (since all matter MUST needs come in some form)
> have been proposed and searched for as candidates
> for "dark matter." Either none has been found or
> contradictory evidence have suggested that the forms
> proposed could not exist where they have been
> proposed (as required) or in such forms at all.
>
> We have a specific observation (namely, that some
> galaxies behave in a way they should not, given the
> mass of their visible stars). It is a puzzle. And it
> demands theories/guesses. But until we find the
> specific reason/cause for this observation ALL our
> best theories are mere guesses:
>
> There is NO argument FOR or requirement of any
> such stuff as "dark matter." It is simply ONE guess.
> Further, it is a guess which has FOR MANY MANY years
> been thoroughly explored and which remains unproved.
> Perhaps if we had extended but 1/100th the effort in
> some other line of inquiry... we'd know the answer
> now.
>
> As a matter of principle, I am against killing ANY
> line of inquiry until such time as the solution has
> been found. But I myself am of the strong opinion
> that the search for some/any/all form(s) of dark
> matter are a dead end. Why? SEE:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>  >... or in order to
>  >enable gravity to amplify the small fluctuations in
>  >the Cosmic Microwave Background enough to form the
>  >large-scale structures that we see in the universe
>  >today,
>
> The answer to this mirrors the large-scale structures
> of the material universe itself, and the solution is
> to be found in the same identical causes which have
> given rise to the universe's other large-scale
> structures. Namely, the sheer vagaries of matter-
> distribution over large scales of time: It is not a
> true "random" process, simply one whose dynamics
> we have not yet computed (and perhaps never will).
>
> ****
>
> The "proposal" for dark energy is not as a result
> of any particular requirement in the Big Bang model;
> rather, the real world (the universe) was unexpectedly
> discovered to be working in the exact opposite manner
> that model says it ought to be working... but rather
> than acknowledge the observed facts have invalidated
> the model, BB theorists merely now said they thought
> some "dark energy" MUST exist which is making the
> model work in the exact opposite way the BB model
> should work.
>
> The original requirement for a "Big Bang" were
> effectively nullified by the discovery that the
> universe is "expanding" NOT from some primordial
> "explosion" (Big Bang) but due to some "other" reason
> NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. (The proposal that it MUST BE some
> "dark force" is somewhat like people who do not
> understand how/why planes fly suggesting that it MUST
> BE because of some "dark force" invisibly holding
> planes up in the air: It is nonsense which not
> everyone has yet realized what utter nonsense it
> is. And it is utter nonsense because it violates any
> number of physical laws, not least of which is that
> its WORKING needs LOADS of energy
> consumption/conversion which no one has either
> observed or proposed how it is taking place. The
> proposal of a pushing force acting in the same place
> and at the same time as the "pull" of gravity simply
> insults logic.)
>
> Where did the Big Bang model come from? Einstein
> asked: "If there is gravity, why hasn't the universe
> collapsed?" He thought "there MUST be" some force
> keeping the universe from collapsing (i.e. counter-
> balancing the "pull" of gravity). He called his "MUST
> -BE pushing force" the Cosmological Constant. But then
> Hubble discovered that the galaxies "appeared" to be
> moving away from each other, and Einstein immediately
> realized the folly of his Cosmological Constant
> proposal. Instead another down-to-earth bit of
> nonsense was proposed: Wasn't it the case here on
> earth that whenever things expanded from a
> common point there had been an explosion at that
> point? Ergo, since the universe' galaxies were seen to
> be moving away from each other... they MUST be moving
> away from some super-ancient explosion (some really
> Big Bang).
>
> Never mind that all "explosions" require energy. Never
> mind that the creation of matter/energy from
> nothingness revives the ancient paradox of a First
> Cause Uncaused (God). Never mind thinking/reasoning at
> all. The Big Bang model satisfied men's thirst for a
> quick, slick answer. And since people are lazy at
> everything, but especially about exercising their
> brains... the nonsense's stuck (it's easier to  shout
> down objections than to think them through seriously).
>
>  >Yesterday, [January 12, 2006] Louisiana State
>  >University astronomer Bradley
>  >E. Schaefer tossed a grenade
>  >into this debate, ["dark energy"
>  >or, Cosmological Constant] presenting
>  >new research to suggest that
>  >the force dark energy exerts
>  >may have varied over time.
>  >That casts new doubt on the
>  >validity of Albert Einstein's
>  >"cosmological constant" only
>  >a few years after astronomers
>  >rescued the concept from
>  >scientific oblivion.
>  >"I'm not pushing this as a proof,"
>  >Schaefer said in an
>  >interview at this week's
>  >meeting of the American
>  >Astronomical Society in
>  >the District, where he presented
>  >his research. "It's pointing
>  >against the cosmological
>  >constant, but it's a first result
>  >describing how dark energy
>  >changes with time. We need
>  >more people to test the
>  >results and get more information."
>
> Well, I for one am glad that it's so darn hard
> for so many to let go of their most cherished
> prejudices (they were taught to us all by the fools we
> love so much, after all), and to actually see what's
> right in front of their eyes ... because that way the
> joy of being able to keep telling people that I told
> them so is multiplied by the number of dense brains
> there are out there.
>
>  >Mr. Schaefer based his findings
>  >on analysis of ultra-bright
>  >cosmic explosions called
>  >gamma-ray bursts, detected as
>  >far as 12.8 billion light-years
>  >away. He found that the
>  >most distant explosions
>  >appeared brighter than they
>  >should have been if the universe
>  >were accelerating at
>  >a constant rate.
>  >"As you go back in time, the
>  >universe is pushing [outward]
>  >less and less," he said. "At
>  >some point, the pressure of dark
>  >energy is zero and is exerting
>  >no force on the universe.
>  >There is no explanation for it."
>
> NOT in the Big Bang model, certainly. But
> consider what the case would be in an imploding
> universe: The further back in time you go, the
> larger the universe is (i.e. the slower it is
> imploding).
> Now the observation makes sense. And we can
> remove all the nonsense about "dark matter."
>
> What "pushing [outward] less and less," in the
> paragraph above means is that the acceleration of
> the universe's expansion is "less and less" as we go
> "more and more" back in time. At "zero point" there
> is no "dark force" at all, and ONLY the pull of
> gravity
> is acting on the universe (so we are effectively back
> at the point where Hubble discovered the galaxies
> appear to be moving away from each other AGAINST
> the pull of gravity ... devoid of any reason why/how).
> However, now any quick/slick "Big Bang" suggestion
> becomes more problematic because most explosions
> tend to make things move faster at first and then
> slower
> with time... NOT the other way around, certainly!
>
>  >Schaefer's findings, the first
>  >attempt to use gamma-ray
>  >bursts to study dark energy,
>  >produced a result that
>  >disagreed with accumulating
>  >evidence gleaned from
>  >observing a different kind of
>  >blast -- the exploding stars
>  >called supernovae. That work
>  >suggested that the expansion
>  >of the universe is accelerating
>  >in accordance with Einstein's
>  >cosmological constant.
>  >"The idea of using a gamma-ray
>  >burst as a distance
>  >indicator is a very exciting one,"
>  >said California Institute
>  >of Technology astronomer
>  >Richard Ellis, a supernova
>  >cosmologist. "The trouble is
>  >there are no ways to check
>  >the techniques. I'm not saying
>  >it's no good, but I can't
>  >believe it's as precise as supernovae."
>  >The concept of dark energy
>  >emerged in 1999 as a way to
>  >explain the fact that the
>  >expansion of the universe, once
>  >thought to be slowing ever
>  >since the big bang about 13.7
>  >billion years ago, was accelerating.
>  >That resurrected the
>  >idea of a cosmological constant,
>  >introduced by Einstein
>  >more than 80 years ago as a
>  >"fudge factor" to explain why
>  >the universe then appeared to
>  >be in equilibrium, rather
>  >than being pulled together
>  >by gravity.
>  >A few years later, however,
>  >astronomer Edwin Hubble
>  >discovered that the universe
>  >was not in stasis, after all,
>  >but was expanding. There
>  >was no "constant." Einstein
>  >condemned his own idea
>  >as "my greatest blunder."
>
> Actually, what Hubble discovered was that the galaxies
> "appeared" to be moving away from each other.
>
> The idea that this discovery suggested that the
> universe is expanding is both reasonable and idiotic,
> since while in a very simple way it resembles the way
> an explosion here on earth works... it also presents
> impossible hurdles to explaining where all that energy
> came from. [Recently someone who must have gotten the
> idea from watching bedsheets hung out for drying in a
> yard fluttering in the wind... suggested the nonsense
> of "branes" flapping in the Mind of God or something,
> which when they touch create a rupture through which
> pour all the energy in the Big Bang--I must say I had
> to laugh like a mule when I read it. But that's me,
> other people actually take this nonsense quite
> seriously, I swear to God. Naturally, people
> who suggest a God as The Origin "forget" to tell us
> about the origin of God, and it's no different here,
> where they are happy to explain the origin of our
> "dimensions" from some other "dimensions" but they
> never ever quite get around to explaining the origins
> of those other dimensions--which I assume did not
> originate from ours.]
>
>  >That led to the 1999 discovery
>  >that the expansion of the
>  >universe was accelerating
>  >rather than slowing. There had
>  >to be some "repulsive force"
>
> THERE JUST HAD TO BE, right?
> It just couldn't be something OTHER THAN
> what they were imagining/proposing!
>
>  >overcoming the gravity that
>  >should have been causing
>  >the universe to come together.
>  >Astronomers called the force
>  >dark energy, and "it mimics
>  >the cosmological constant,"
>  >said Michigan Technological
>  >University astronomer Robert
>  >J. Nemiroff. Einstein may
>  >have been right after all.
>
> Wonder how many times in all people will repeat
> the same error before they finally acknowledge it
> as an error and move on to something else...!
>
>  >Astronomers estimate that
>  >dark energy makes up 70 percent
>  >of the universe, but they do not
>  >know what it is.
>
> Is it some "invisible hand" holding the plane
> up in the air?
>
>  >Solving the
>  >mystery is as all-consuming
>  >as any passion in physics. "It's
>  >so spooky," said Astronomical
>  >Society President Robert B.
>  >Kirshner, a cosmology expert
>  >at the Harvard-Smithsonian
>  >Center for Astrophysics.
>  >"Everybody is looking for ways to
>  >get at it."
>
> If all the seekers are searching down the wrong path
> the chances of any one of them discovering the truth
> are nil, and no matter how many seekers. One lone
> seeker
> searching down the true path is worth all the seekers
> in infinity searching down the wrong one.
>
> *******
>
>  > Janika Rifley wrote:
>  > I see gravity as a point of balance between magnetic
>  > fields, not as a force.
>
> Explain to me what purpose/point there would be
> for gravity AT ALL in an imploding universe ... if
> the implosion were the result of a "push" given it
> at its very beginning by the "greater pressures'
> surrounding the hollow into which those "pressures"
> cascaded? (Literally, "by their very weight.")
>
> Read thou: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> Being a hollow, bubble-like, the outside pressures
> which "fell" into it must be "speeding up" as they
> concentrate nearer & nearer its geographic center. We
> don't notice this acceleration in the normal course of
> events, except back around 1998 when two different
> groups of astronomers noticed an "inexplicable"
> acceleration in a universe which they do not yet
> understand is imploding ... and, of course, by one S D
> Rodrian, who when years earlier realized that the
> universe was indeed imploding deduced that that
> implosion therefore had to be accelerating. And,
> presto, so it was found to be. Nice. But I don't drink
> Champagne (as Dracula once said).
>
> "Dr Nanduri" - wrote:
>
>  > This new modelling of reality brings physics very
>  > much into accord with the general concepts of
>  > Process Philosophy.
>
> That must have been what was missing in physics:
> Less study of physical phenomena & junk like that,
> and more tightening up on abstract thinking about
> all sorts of crazy things!
>
> Sir, the nature of science is to make as unbiased
> a set of observations of physical phenomena as
> possible ... in the hope they one day lead to some
> sort of unprejudiced interpretation of reality.
>
> Don't be misled by the fact that people like to guess
> where the solution will be found before the solution
> is actually found ... don't be misled by this into
> believing that science and philosophy mix very well
> at all: The history of physics the last century is the
> sorry proof they do not (being the result of guessers,
> so-called theorists, who will blurt out just about any
> guess that pops into their flirty heads, proclaiming
> it "the only possible solution in the universe").
>
> A good theorist does not merely propose any ole
> elephant as the only possible solution, but FIRST
> goes through at least the trouble to see whether
> there is room in the room into which he wants to fit
> his/her theoretical elephant for it to actually fit in
> there:
>
> In other words, somebody tells you there is an
> elephant in the matchbox he carried around in his
> pocket ... don't waste time arguing the physics of his
> claim (how/why there is an elephants in...), just
> don't.
>
> I tell thee this: There are an awful low of people
> nowadays looking at the universe while convinced
> that they are looking at something else entirely, and
> growing puzzled/confused/baffled (not by the
> observations, but by the nonsense theorist are
> constantly proposing): Ya can't look at a mule and
> believe you're looking at a tornado & not remain
> puzzled/confused and baffled by what you "see."
>
> S D Rodrian
> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> http://music.sdrodrian.com
> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com