🚀 go-pugleaf

"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message 
news:<u4j958e8depp7a@corp.supernews.com>...
> S D Rodrian <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0201190100.15cadaac@posting.google.com...

> http://posting.google.com/post?cmd=post&enc=ISO-8859-1&msg=u4e642r0mmn5d%40c
> orp.supernews.com&gs=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26selm%3Du4e642r0mmn5d%2540corp.super
> news.com%26rnum%3D1%26prev%3D/groups%253Fq%253Drodrian%252Band%252Bgoogle%25
> 26num%253D100%2526hl%253Den%2526scoring%253Ddate%2526filter%253D0%26frame%3D
> right
> 
> Now just what was that intended to do?

It is called an U-R-L and one pastes them into one's browser's
search box. [The particular URL above is the post I was answering
in case you thought it was all in my mind... waitaminute: It IS
all in my mind, as my toe seems to have contributed very little
to this entire affair. So I've never understood why black people
assume almost everybody has an ass. AND I've always wanted to see
a Disney movie where a mule-skinner cries out to a donkey-rustler:
"Hey! Get your hands off my ass!" ... among other things...]

>>>>> 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!
> 
> It's only 2.7 degrees above absolute zero and the universe is billions of
> years old. If things are heating up, they're certainly taking their time
> about it.

Time, like all things IN the universe (including chewing gum)
is relative. And "temperature" (being, in physics, more like 
the description "radioactively hot" by the way) really only refers
to the concentration of subatomic particles: It is the heights
of folly to assume that a given concentration of anything(s) points
to a rising rather than a waning concentration of them WITHOUT
FIRST taking a sufficiently long-term measurement to determine
with some degree of certainty whether we are looking at a filling
or a leaking barrel. Your assumption that the CBR is a remnant
of some primordial Big Bang is an arrogant assumption at best.
Moreover, ALL "particles" of matter are the matter that's imploding
in our universe (and that includes photons and sparticles and
other SUSY's).

>>> 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.
> 
> It's nice to know you've ruled out the future discovery of any new forces
> and decided exactly what it is the universe can and cannot do. 

Since the beginning of the universe--Nay, since long, long 
before then there has been but ONE force here. And that's
the force of gravity. And since I am not particularly inclined
to believe in magic, I am fairly certain that there can NEVER
arise either a force or a miracle here which is not a direct
derivative of the force of gravity (just as are the strong force
and the weak/electromagnetic "forces").

If but tomorrow today's physicists would cease believing in magic
that would be the salvation of physics right there right then.

> I'll be sure
> to tell this to God or Santa Claus or whoever else it is that's running
> things around here.

I can't say I know the name of the particular establishment 
in which you find yourself. But seek out a "head nurse."

>> 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.]
> 
> Is this anything other than an argument from ridicule? 

The best argument is always the one that best suits one's
opponent. And I always tailor mine to my opponents at the time.

> You know current
> theories must be false because they use so many big words?

No sir: I only know that if a theory goes against the laws
of physics, it's suspect. This isn't the stuff of genius:
In fact, I have nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't
at the least follow this simple bit of wisdom.

> [snip]
> 
>>>> 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!
> 
> Square-cube law. Simple. Surface area decreases by the square, but volume
> decreases by the cube. 

I see you've suffered through a great many deflations in
your life. Here's a hint: The universe, perhaps the most
perfect sphere of all, is nevertheless slightly larger than
your litt'l pet balloon.

> If we kept shrinking while the relative strength of
> gravity remained the same (which we know it does from independent checks),
> before long we'd have way more muscle tissue than was needed to support our
> own weights, and we'd all become human powerhouses capable of leaping tall
> buildings in a single bound, and so on.

Godhavemercyuponmysoul, old boy! You really are behind even the
most basic of scratch, aren't you? Well, here's primer to the
21st Century for you in a capsule: 

1) ALL forms of matter are "forms" and not "fundamental."

2) Gravity is energy, energy is motion.

3) The force of gravity creates matter (all matter is
   is motion).

4) As the universe implodes, its forms of matter "evolve"
   from slower but larger motions INTO faster but smaller motions.
   However, all things being relative INSIDE the universe...
   nothing appears to change that much here.

5) AGAIN: Energy is conserved both INTO and OUT OF matter.

6) At any given point in this process ALL matter is equivalent
   or, "just as evolved" ("runs at the same speed" as) ALL other
   matter (in the same universe).

7) RESULT: The universe may be imploding in the absolute (and
   God may be watching IT shrink away into nothingness right in
   front of His eyes), but for us here inside... everything is
   absolutely relative. And the ONLY effect we may ever notice
   is that the "bits of matter" are shrinking faster than they
   are bunching up [i.e. the Hubble Constant Effect, cosmologically]

> [snip]
>>>> 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?"
> 
> Now this we *know* is untrue, precisely 
> because physicists and cosmologists
> have been searching for a *long* time 
> (Dirac first proposed this in the
> 30's) for evidence of the change of 
> the physical constants that govern our
> universe. So far, the best they've found is 
> a *possible* change of about one
> part per 10^15 per year in the fine 
> structure constant, and that's not
> nearly enough for what you need. Let me 
> quote from a post on the t.o.
> archive:

Ay Chiguagua! Reread the following: We do not synchronize
our clocks to God's pocket watch (but to the relativistic
motions of this universe's "other" motions). And, if you 
can manage to remember that this universe's atoms are INSIDE 
this universe (and that everything INSIDE the universe is 
absolutely relative)... you may realize that if ALL the atoms 
in the universe speed up at the same time... exactly HOW is 
ANYONE INSIDE the universe to notice that they have done so!

Do I really have to point out that the earth would revolve
about its axis faster in perfect symmetry with its orbiting
the Sun faster (so the year would last as many days as ever)? 
Really... if I wanted to teach this to third graders I'd've
at least opened a private school somewhere to do so!!!!!!!

> "For instance, if you suppose the speed 
> of light varies, that affects
> spectral lines in distant stars.  

Provided it varies relative to something else INSIDE
the universe! If nothing varies relative to anything
else IN the universe IT's all remaining the same (by
definition)...!

> It affects different lines in different
> ways, and so would be easy to see....  
> You can try to compensate by allowing
> the charge of the electron to vary in synch 
> with the speed of light.  But
> that requires that the charge of 
> the proton must vary as well, since
> otherwise hydrogen gas wouldn't be 
> neutral (which would have dramatic and
> easily observable effects).  But if the 
> charge of the proton varies, the
> rates of nuclear reactions will change, 
> affecting the production of energy
> by stars in a way we don't see. You 
> might then propose that the strength of
> the nuclear interaction could change 
> exactly in synch with the speed of
> light and the charge of the electron 
> and proton.  But nuclear interactions
> affect neutrons as well, and again you'd 
> end up with drastic changes in the
> behavior of stars that we would see (and 
> don't).  People have gone through
> this kind of argument carefully and 
> quantitatively.  It just doesn't work."

People, or baboons? Are you certain YOU know which? 

> Absent a whole slew of incredibly fine-tuned 
> changes in every physical
> constant and equation there is, each 
> changing in different ways at different
> times so as to give the perfect illusion 
> of nothing happening at all, you
> can be sure the constants are staying 
> the same, and that means the
> incredible shrinking universe is dead. 

Your report of its death is highly encouraging 
of its probable long life.

> If everything was growing smaller,
> the absolute distance (which you can 
> measure as a function of lightspeed)
> between us and the galactic center, 
> or other sources of high-energy
> radiation nearby, is growing smaller, 
> while their actual radiation flux
> would be staying the same (since we don't 
> see stars become steadily less
> luminous over time, even if they're 
> shrinking they must still be putting out
> the same amount of energy). Therefore, 
> the dose we get should be growing,
> and it's not.

You know, I keep saying EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE
and you keep talking about the universe as comprised
of absolutely isolated portions which are yet able
to communicate. We are obviously at cross-purposes:

The universe is ONE. The thing that makes it ONE
is that everything IN it is in an absolutely
relative state with respect to each other. If you
remove that from the universe, then you'd have
absolute things scattered here & there all over
the place. And THEN, and only then, would you have
Absolute Rest here, something BIG there (not bigger
than something else), and a truly constant speed of
light.... instead of the really, really, fast one we 
have (which is only identical in identical mediums).

I wouldn't like that sort of universe (absolute muscles 
rippling out of our shrinking skin & all, as you put it).
I evolved to understand our absolutely relativistic
universe, and find it comforting that mine isn't any much
bigger or smaller than most other men's).

> [snip]
> 
>>>> 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!
> 
> I can't even parse that. 

Well, see if you can you wear it as a mustache...

> There are a few contenders for dark energy - one
> that I know of is zero point energy coming 
> from quantum fluctuations. 

Dear me! Some people think it's all in finding 
a goodly number of quantum particles with enough mass,
others think it's hidden in the stuff of loggias.

> The
> problem is that the force that provides is 
> way too big, not too small - it
> should have blown the universe apart before 
> any kind of structure could
> form. If we could find some opposing 
> force to cancel out most of its
> contributions, what was left over would work nicely.

You're gonna keep smoking this until it blows up
in your face, aren't you? Well, good luck! [Hint:
Give it a rest already: Even the numbers say there
ain't no dark matter, brudder--Look for some other
solution. And this is coming from somebody who is
absolutely convinced that, "The only good mathematician
is the musician." --S D Rodrian]

>>>> 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!
> 
> In this case it is valid, 

What kind of faithful acolyte would you be
if you didn't agree with it!?!?!

> because there are many experts in widespread
> agreement with the proper credentials 
> to make this sort of statement

... "The earth is flat!" Columbus's pawn broker.

"The universe revolves about the earth! And if it
were not so AND all the astronomers of the last 
thousand years not worked under the assumption that it 
IS so... they could NEVER have amassed such a body of 
accurate predictions for the movements of the heavenly
spheres!" --Some goomer who heard about Copernicus.

"Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton will go down... as the
two greatest presidents of the 20th Century." --A Democrat.

> (namely, that the Big Bang and inflation 
> are correct). When you feel sick
> and go to your doctor and he makes a diagnosis, 
> you don't reject it because
> it's an "argument from authority".

Nope: I accept it because I've looked into the matter
personally (otherwise I'd go to witchdoctors, who are
tons cheaper). But I know plenty of doctors who are
such ignorant morons you wonder if they know which
city they're in--And plenty of people who ask their
doctors whom they should vote for & how they should live
their lives!

>> Congratulations, my boy! You have chosen not to waste your
>> precious time/effort thinking things through for yourself:
> 
> I *have* thought things out for myself. As I explained above, your
> hypothesis doesn't hold water.

Well, old boy, I don't know how you got it into
your head it was supposed to hold water (or wash out
your socks); but we were talking about the universe 
& stuff like that---You must've hit yourself on the head
or... or... something. I'd advise you to see a doctor
(just don't go visit one--something which I did the other 
day and came away with a $400 bill... and mine was only 
a social visit, forGod's sakes).

> [snip]
>>> 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!
> 
> The Big Bang has little or nothing to do 
> with dark matter. Galaxies are
> rotating. Whether they happen to be 
> moving in a linear direction
> simultaneously or not is irrelevant 
> to their rotational velocity. The
> evidence tells us that if the visible matter 
> was all there is, the galaxies
> are rotating too quickly for gravity 
> to hold them together; they should have
> flown apart. Therefore there must be some 
> matter there that isn't luminous,
> that we can't see but that exerts
> gravity to hold them together. 

1) Galaxies are NOT composed of "fundamental" bodies
   in a universe where the ONLY factor that is increasing
   is the distance between galaxies.

2) From start to finish, our universe is composed of
   "larger but slower motions evolving into faster but
   smaller motions."

3) "Smaller" = Galaxies spinning "fast enough" to fly
   apart would be doing so in your "absolute" universe
   but in our relativistic universe... the salient feature
   is that all the forms of matter (including galaxies) 
   are imploding:

Planet Earth itself is on the outer rim of one of these 
spiral galaxies, and if there were any "dark matter" to 
be found anywhere in the Milky Way the solar system would 
be just the place to be teeming with it...

  "What are you doing?"

"I'm looking for dark matter."

  "How will you know the stuff when you see it?"

"You can't see it."

  "Ok, where are you looking for it then?"

"In neutrinos. If we find that neutrinos have mass
 it may be that the missing "dark matter" is in neutrinos."

  "I see! So... you have all that "dark matter" IN neutrinos
   which... do not interact too well with matter?"

"That's right. Well... very seldomly."

  "Where'd neutrinos come from anyway?"

"Well... stars... you know: the Sun."

  "So, basically, they're draining mass from the Sun
   and (I imagine we have neutrinos from far-off galaxies)
   removing it from galaxies?"

"That's right."

  "Doesn't that mean that your "neutrino dark matter" 
   would be more in the nature of how galaxies lose mass 
   rather than how they are storing it...?"

"Physics is full of contradictions and puzzles. It 
 wouldn't be physics if it weren't so. In any case, 
 while neutrinos are on their way... out of a galaxy... 
 they're still INSIDE the galaxy, so they still qualify 
 as barrels & barrels of "dark matter."

  "I see."

"Where?!"

> This isn't
> brain surgery.

You've noticed that, doctor...?

S D Rodrian
poems.sdrodrian.com
physics.sdrodrian.com