🚀 go-pugleaf

I mostly agree with you, (I can't expect everyone to get it right, we are
only human.) yet I must contest, you say there are no absolutes, are you
absolutely shure?

to argue with ignorant people is a sign of someone with no life whatsoever,
Ignorance is blizz, there having a blizzard man leave them alone. ;)



"SDR" <rodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:7783c078.0201190110.3d581fcd@posting.google.com...
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:<u4e642r0mmn5d@corp.supernews.com>...
> > SDR <rodrian@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> > news:7783c078.0201162356.15eb1512@posting.google.com...
> >> mercury481@aol.com (Mercury481) wrote in message
> >> news:<20020115232556.13573.00003069@mb-fo.aol.com>...
> >>> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >>>>1) Gravitational systems (clumps) are never fundamental
> >>>>  and ALWAYS in motion about themselves (self-centered).
> >>>>  Their "shrinkage" already responds to their surroundings
> >>>>  so their surroundings need not respond to them. [The
> >>>>  moon's orbit affects comets and meteors traveling close
> >>>>  enough to the moon, but it certainly does not affect any
> >>>>  bodies orbiting distant stars... to any appreciable degree!]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Don't tell that to Einstein.  After all,
> >>> the big-bang theory (which we have
> >>> very compelling evidence to its favor)
> >>
> >> Actually there is NO conclusive evidence of the Big Bang:
> >
> > Other than, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation,
>
> Which is indicative of the rising temperature of the universe,
> not its falling one, certainly!
>
> > the observed
> > distribution of elements,
>
> Putting side the fact that the percentage of the universe
> we observe (or will ever likely observe) probably falls
> below POINT something something something... at any given point
> in the EVOLUTION of the "universal black hole" one is likely
> to expect conditions which at such point(s) only permit the
> arrangements of matter-constructs POSSIBLE in its conditions
> (this means that the universe is moving from "particles" which
> can no longer exist here for very long... to particles (black
> holes) which will likely make our "atoms" appear to be virtual
> particles in the comparison). The point is that it's not very
> likely you will find the same region of the universe inhabited
> by particles diverging in their nature by all that much AT THE
> SAME TIME.
>
> > the observed expansion of space,
>
> Space (get it through your head) is just only merely the
> distance between objects (such as between "some" people's
> ears):
>
> An expansion of absolute (indivisible, in your lingo) bodies
> caused by some primordial Big Bang (however caused) could ONLY
> either collapse or gradually slow down. PERIOD. The observed
> recession of galaxies from each other (with farther galaxies
> receding faster than nearer ones) is ACCELERATING. Just bury
> your primordial inflationary theories, please! It's the 21th
> Century, already! Oooops, I spoke too soon. Pardon my audacity.
>
> [Add to this the physical impossibility of absolute anythings:
> ... monopoles, homogenous singularities, unisex, you name it...
> one-dimensional spheres! and other lunacies are the direct
> consequence of believing in fairies and other "absolutes"]. If
> one cannot sunder a thing, how the *#@$!*# could such "a" thing
> ever be "put together" in the first place: Do the impossible
> FIRST, and then call it possible. [Ya can't have sanity at once
> from looniness.]
>
> The galaxies really ARE receding from each other, but this
> is because all the forms of matter are just that--merely
> only purely "forms" and not fundamental. Thereby energy is
> conserved into and out of them (unlike absolute bodies
> which violate the laws of energy conservation because they
> can't get it and they can't share it--therefore they are
> "magical" not "physical"). I've pointed out this a billion
> times, give or take twice: The laws of physics come FIRST,
> then our theorizing. One ought NOT try to come up with a
> brilliant theory to explain how an elephant can fit into
> a matchbox!!!! This warming should be printed over the door-
> way of every college in this world. One day it just might.
>
> As the "universal black hole" implodes (obviously NOT as some
> homogenous singularity, since you'se got yous skateboard on your
> right and yous yo-yo on your left)... imagine you understand
> how gravity acts (at least) and now you know why it is that as
> this universe's "forms of matter" implode, they move away from
> each other (remember: recession of the galaxies... remember: all
> gravitational systems are de facto differentiated lumps/clumps
> of matter... the standard model particles/subparticles, the
> earth/moon, the solar system, the Milky Way Galaxy, the local
> group... et al).
>
> That is how--here, inside the universe, which holds "what is"
> and NOT "space" (which is "nothing" and really ought to be
> "outside" the universe): this is how one finds pockets and bits
> and regions and volumes and ever bigger and bigger volumes of
> "space" (remember: "stretches of nothing" however imperfect
> vacuums because INSIDE and not OUTSIDE the UNIVERSAL BLACK HOLE!
> ....): because whatever the universe is made of ("energy"
> --Surprise! and energy = motion) far away and long ago a volume
> MOVED! And that is the origins of the universe. Nothing more
> and nothing less. That is what gravity is, essentially, the
> conservation of energy into the forms of matter and out of them
> again:
>
> That region/volume gave rise to energy/gravity and imploded,
> and is still imploding to this day, and ever will implode until
> all the energy (whatever moved) ceases to move (to be IN the
> form(s) of matter). Remember: Our brains did not evolve to
> understand existence outside the form of matter. Therefore,
> once matter ceases to exist, that's the end of existence itself.
> But, fret not, just because we cannot understand "existence
> without matter" doesn't mean the universe cares all that much
> about matter: Energy is what the universe understand. And
> that will never/can never cease to exist: For the same reason
> the primordial volume collapsed into motion (the laws of
> thermodynamics) creating matter.... which is really nothing
> other than/more than just only merely tightly wound motion
> [remember the sequence of universal evolution: Slower but larger
> motions evolving into smaller but faster motions]... once the
> universe of matter unwinds into pure energy again, again must
> it wind up into cats & dogs & Bob's your uncle.
>
> The really amusing musing remains.... whether every twist of
> the ride (or vice versa) is unique, or identical? What do you
> think?
>
> > and so on?
>
> For many long years now I've been of the opinion that it's
> always the same.. down to the last twist of the string
> blowing in the draft through my window: And now you know
> all there is to know about my way of life and what I would do
> and not do, morally, ethically, or for sport--Since every
> moment, however brief, might really be eternal (repeated
> time and time again without end)... each and every moment
> of your life: Heaven or Hell. And billions of different
> Heavens to be had for every precious life... and billions
> of different Hells too. Good luck.
>
> >> None! This is because ALL the so-called evidence FOR the
> >> reality of all inflationary theories can exist alongside
> >> "that evidence" being "evidence" of something other than
> >> a Big Bang. Worse: There is a body of indisputable facts
> >> which make Big Bang explanations a physical impossibility.
> >
> > As opposed to your "incredible shrinking universe"
>
> Come one! Come all!
>
> > hypothesis, which merely
> > violates the law of conservation of matter,
> > not to mention the square-cube
> > law and a whole host of other things.
>
> Ignorance can also be bliss: Enjoy yourself!
>
> >> Conclusive evidence of something is not merely that evidence
> >> which makes "something" the most probable... it has to be
> >> evidence that makes something the only possible explanation
> >> (not merely as an opinion but as a proven fact---that is,
> >> one cannot dismiss some persons' opinion while accepting
> >> the opinion of other persons simply because some persons
> >> are just "better persons than others" in one's opinion...
> >> there must be facts which clearly demonstrate that no other
> >> explanation is physically possible... and that is certainly
> >> NOT the case with the Big Bang as an explanation of why
> >> it is that the galaxies are receding from each other).
> >>
> >> Not more than a week ago I was reading in the New York Times
> >> about the "recently discovered Dark Matter" and it almost
> >> made me fall off my chair, let me tell you! I was suddenly
> >> facing the very real possibility that I might be wrong and
> >> that the troglodytes of modern physics/cosmology right! So
> >> I read further and, thankfully, eventually discovered that
> >> no such "Dark Matter" had ever "in fact" been found/
> >> discovered and was about to be put on sale at Macy's--It was
> >> that particular reporter's presumption that "some guy's
> >> proposal of Dark Matter to explain away observations in our
> >> imploding/shrinking universe in terms of its being an exploding/
> >> expanding one" ... that such a proposal was in fact the
> >> equivalent of having found/discovered, and deposited several
> >> samples of Dark Matter over at the Smithsonian!!!!
> >>
> >> Exactly the same "presumptions" (that unproved guesses however
> >> informed are the equal of indisputable evidence) also applies
> >> to the question of Big Bang "proofs." Just as there has never
> >> been any evidence actually found of the existence of Dark Matter
> >> (nor can there ever be because... the whole notion is just plain
> >> silly and self-contradictory, and Rube Goldberg), so too there
> >> has never been any conclusive evidence of the Big Bang actually
> >> found (nor can there ever be because all inflationary theories
> >> contradict very fundamental physical laws). And that is a leap
> >> nothing can breach nor will ever--
> >
> > Perhaps you would care to tell us which
> > physical laws you had in mind,
> > rather than merely asserting that they exist.
>
> Did. (Above) or see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> >> Evidence is something quite distinct from guesses which may/may
> >> not have any connection to the matter at hand: Astronomers found
> >> that the galaxies are receding from each other and clever guessers
> >> very quickly tossed out the (clever?!) guess that they were looking
> >> at the aftermath of an explosion (clever chaps those, no?):
> >>
> >> But there is no direct and inevitable connection between the
> >> observation and the guess it elicited (certainly as long as
> >> any number of other guesses may be just as valid as the one
> >> first jumped at by chaps more clever than intelligent). Even
> >> as a child I understood that if matter were imploding uniformly
> >> across the universe (and therefore gravitational systems were
> >> "shrinking away from" each other)... it would be as impossible
> >> to tell whether the universe was exploding (a la Big Bang) or
> >> imploding... as it would be unnecessary for the average architect
> >> to take into consideration that the earth is not really flat
> >> when he composed his blueprints: The earth is simply too large
> >> to make any difference in the area most architects will work; and
> >> the universe is also too vast to make any appreciable difference
> >> that obvious in the area most cosmologists will examine.
> >
> > If galaxies were genuinely shrinking, it
> > wouldn't be long before all life,
> > including us, would be fried by radiation
> > from the galactic center - said
>
> You really must stop thinking that matter is absolute
> you know: It's not, and, by the way, that also applies
> absolutely, here inside the universe: There is nothing
> absolute here... everything inside the universe is relative
> in the absolute. Put it to the test.
>
> > radiation now having a much shorter
> > distance to travel and thus
> > comparatively more power when it
> > reaches us. We do not see this radiation
> > becoming comparatively more intense over time.
>
> You're still abiding by primitive mythologies, my boy:
> Centuries ago now the Greeks imagined fundamental particles
> and called them "atoms." Now even you know atoms are not
> fundamental. Modern primitives are still coming up with
> fundamental bodies ("strings" and other uni-dimensional
> pixies). I hope they have fun: They're very clever, but
> hardly intelligent (they create marvelous puzzles, but
> explain nothing really). I think they ought to be given
> baubles (like the Nobel Prize, etc.), because, frankly, what
> else could they achieve on this planet?
>
> But, about your comment on time: As the universe implodes,
> ALL the relative (remember that word) factors are forever
> readjusting (relative to each other): Our measuring devices
> are shrinking right along with everything they measure...
> I assume people about me never cease to grow more and more
> brilliant (and yet they always seem to remain the same
> stupid apes they've been all along). What is time, really,
> if not a number of cesium atom vibrations equaling that
> which an accident of history has come to name "a second?"
>
> http://www.bldrdoc.gov/timefreq/general/history.htm
>
> You see: MOTION. That's all energy is (it's just that
> our brains did not evolve to understand motion without
> "some thing" --necessarily made of matter-- moving).
> Therefore it will always require some intellectual work-
> around or other for us to understand what "energy" is
> (and therefore what "gravity" is, since a "force" is
> really "a force of energy" --Remember: MOTION = ENERGY).
> The closest we can come is to say that energy is motion,
> motion energy. And that is all. Period
>
> Well, as the universe implodes those cesium vibrations
> speed up; but what's that to us? A million years from now
> "a second" will still equal the same number of cesium
> vibrations it now does (because both the vibrating of
> the cesium atom AND our "second" (the vibrations of every
> other atom living in the same universe as the cesium atom)
> will speed up in so very nearly an agreement between us all
> that none of us will notice whether a second now lasts as
> much as a century long, long ago... or one of our current
> centuries will go by like seconds in some distant future.
>
> Only God, looking at His watch will know differently: And
> so too, as we go back farther into the long ago... time
> (motion, it is only motion and motion only) was slower,
> and slower the farther back we go until very much closer
> to the beginnings of the universe of matter a single cesium
> vibration (had there been cesium then) would have equaled
> trillions and trillions of our "present" centuries...
>
> Are we getting "hotter" too, baby? Hell yes (remember that
> an implosion is just another sort of explosion): But "heat"
> is also a relative thing. And the particles of fire are no
> different to gravity than any other particle in the universe
> (the Greeks had it wrong there too). And our universe has
> many, many cesium vibrations to run through yet.
>
> >> In fact there are many reasons which directly contradict
> >> any possibility that the Big Bang guess could be the true
> >> explanation (the clearest one being that the so-called
> >> "expansion" of the universe is accelerating... which I am
> >> certain no one has to explain to you is a complete physical
> >> impossibility in a Big Bang scenario and contradicts it
> >> out of hand).
> >
> > Only if you make the naive assumption that
> > the expansion of space itself can
> > be the only force contributing to the universal
> > expansion. The universe *is*
> > expanding faster over time, and how do *you*
> > explain it? Or do you think any
> > problem in the current theory somehow makes
> > yours win by default, regardless
> > of whether it has an explanation or not?
>
> Dear sir; Study a fellow called Newton (the continuous
> application of a force produces an acceleration--It is
> the ONLY thing in the laws of motion/gravitation that
> can produce an acceleration (act)---Remember: the "force"
> of gravity is forever in application across this universe).
> Now, answer me truly: What could ANYTHING this universe do
> without it displaying an acceleration? [Now you know so
> much about why all inflationary theory is bunk... and
> not even the first thing about how to go about disagreeing
> with your fellow monkeys without their taking great offense
> at your doing so.] Duck, you dog!
>
> >> Were it not for the historical accident that
> >> so much time/money and reputations have been invested in
> >> the Big Bang scenario... no one would seriously consider it
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing what credentials
> > you actually have to make this
> > statement, as opposed to the credentials
> > of thousands of trained
> > astrophysicists and cosmologists who
> > apparently have overlooked the numerous
> > absurdities in the Big Bang that your
> > penetrating insight detects so
> > clearly.
>
> Ah! A faithful acolyte of The Argument From Authority!
> Congratulations, my boy! You have chosen not to waste your
> precious time/effort thinking things through for yourself:
> I envy you! May you achieve great heights in your profession
> (you have stumbled upon the staircase itself, I dare say).
> The gods love clumsy bastards. Never figured out why. But:
>
> The same credentials as every other nobody who was not merely
> the best student and memorizer of the conventional textbooks:
> I can assure you I was a nightmare student: I could tell when
> the lesson was pure gobbledygook. Worse, I had a sense of humor.
>
> >> (were it to be freshly proposed now that we have so many
> >> proofs of its physical impossibility): Explanations from
> >> a Big Bang/expanding universe point of view (for the
> >> observations in our universe) require Rube Goldberg
> >> explanations... while not only is there not even ONE
> >> objection to the proposition that ours in an imploding
> >> universe, but assuming that the universe is imploding makes
> >> explanations of every observation in the universe simple
> >> and straightforward:
> >>
> >> The proposition that "there must be" some sort of "dark
> >> matter" out there (which although making/having no impact
> >> on ANY kind of measuring regime... yet must comprise up
> >> to 90% of all matter in the universe!) is a requirement
> >> ONLY if our universe is NOT an imploding one. Rid yourself
> >> of the superstition that ours is a Big Bang/expanding
> >> (exploding) universe, and suddenly you find you have rid
> >> yourself of any requirement that there exist anything
> >> remotely like the proposed "Dark Matter" (as well as all
> >> the other nonsense now plaguing current physics/cosmology).
> >> Our instruments work again, as do the laws of physics, and
> >> we can again assume that reality reaches to every corner
> >> of the universe.
> >
> > Yes, and our instruments and the laws
> > of physics tell us there's matter
> > there we can't see.
>
> Marvelous instruments those, old boy: Every instrument
> of which I know is merely an enhancement of our senses
> (with the exception of Quantum Theory, and even QT obeys
> the First Rule of computing: Garbage IN, garbage OUT).
>
> > If there isn't, the galaxies would fly apart under the
> > speed of their own rotation.
>
> Ah! There is your stated reason why you think there must be
> all that dark matter out there. The unstated one, of course,
> is that you believe the galactic cowboys are spinning their
> lassos IN an ongoing explosion: But, now, imagine your cowboys
> trying to spin their lassos inside an ongoing implosion... and
> boy, they'd sure have to spin'em lassos fast to make'em go!
>
> > [snip more crackpottery]
>
> Thank God! It's very nearly my bedtime, and the fellow in
> the white hospital suit doesn't like my breaking into the
> director's office to use the computer.
>
> Good night, and sleep tight!
>
> S D Rodrian
> poems.sdrodrian.com
> physics.sdrodrian.com