🚀 go-pugleaf

"Vincent N. Virgilio" <virgilio@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:<3bf35e73$0$24485$724ebb72@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
>>> In article <bf7b874e.0111032349.483bffcb@posting.google.com>, S D Rodrian wrote:
>>>> Conclusion: There is NO fundamental bottom to the universe. Sorry:
>>>> The Planck Length, for example, does not mark "so small a length
>>>> that nothing shorter could exist" but only a more humble "length
>>>> so small that it's hard for us to imagine something smaller." [The
>>> 
>>> I think not. Rather, h-bar delineates the _absolute_ border between the
>>> quantum and classical.  Actions <~= to it are truly small, and actions >
>>> than it are truly big.  The former must be analyzed with quantum
>>> mechanics, the latter need not be.

The paragraph above, by Professor Irwin Corey, if I am mistaken,    [sic]
is meaningless gibberish: He might just as well have said that 
the waltz marks that border (and "get down, baby" <-= prestissimo 
are truly fast, while > "let's get it on" lento are truly slow):

There are NO absolutes inside the universe: None. The universe
is imploding, with all its inner forms in eternal relativistic
relationships ONLY. To suggest there is such a thing as "small" 
is self-evidently fallacious. Inside the universe there can ONLY 
be "smaller than." All absolutes here, inside the universe, are 
meaningless. The so-called Planck Length is eternally getting
smaller, and if over time "it" retains a stable relationship to 
the inch, say, it is only because the inch is forever also getting 
smaller at a "relatively" stable rate (preventing us from noticing
any discrepancies).

>>>> that our universe is imploding [and therefore impossible for it
>>> 
>>> Not the best conclusion to draw from available data.  All measurements
>>> say that the universe is expanding, 

All superficial observations will fail to see the core of it.

Analyze an explosion and you quickly discover that 1) matter 
which was spewed out FIRST will travel greater distances than
matter spewed out last: This means that standing anywhere 
INSIDE an explosion, one would be able to notice, at greater 
& greater distances: objects (bits) at one side "moving out" 
(away from you) at a faster rate than one would see for matter 
(bits) moving away from "you" at greater & greater distances 
on its opposite side. 

Therefore, 2) when you place yourself INSIDE an explosion mapped 
out like a 2-dimensional clock's face (with you at the position 
of the 12) --even assuming every "bit" is moving out (away from 
the point of explosion) at the same speed: you will immediately 
notice that there is a definite side where there will be a much 
denser concentration of "bits" and its opposite side where the 
concentration of "bits" will be appreciably sparser. 

Our cosmos does not show any of this explosive directionality.

But now assume that the cosmic "bits" are all imploding away 
from each other (shrinking in place). There would be no original 
concentration of bits, and therefore no subsequent de-concentration. 
So, even taking clumping into consideration, the cosmos should 
always display an eternally perfectly-maintained ratio of distances 
between all its bits from beginning to end.

Our cosmos displays exactly this lack of directionality.

Furthermore, the "cosmic bits" would necessarily implode faster 
than they could (subsequently) move toward each other. With the 
net result that, as they created "space" (or "distance") between
themselves, the farther away any two bits were from each other, 
the more "space" would be created between them [and even with the 
elastic "clumping" effects of gravity taken into consideration)...
there would necessarily arise an eternally unmitigated condition 
(extremely evenly spread throughout the cosmos) where the farther 
away from each other any two "cosmic bits" were the faster they 
would "appear" to be receding from each other... apparent to all 
observers in such imploding universe regardless wherefrom they peered].

And, sure enough, that condition perfectly describes our cosmos.

What is the engine that drives the implosion of our universe?
Gravity, and gravity alone. [Nothing else is required to fully
understand the workings of the universe: The primordial "mass"
can ONLY implode, creating "space" exactly as it is doing to this
day.]

Two side-by-side planets all of their constituents shrinking to a 
perfect agreement, will, if they do not also move towards each other, 
give the impression to their uninformed inhabitants that they are 
moving away from each other.

What happens when a force is continually applied? An acceleration 
results. What have we just discovered is happening in our universe? 
The upside-down impression it gives the uninformed observer (that 
the universe is "exploding/expanding"), that this "expansion" is 
accelerating. [Nothing else is required to explain the apparent 
"speeding up" of what "appears" to the casual observer to be the 
ongoing "expansion" of the universe.]

Will the sort of people who once were absolutely convinced that the 
universe circled the earth (and had proven mathematically that it was 
perfectly possible to predict the motions of all heavenly bodies from 
that assumption)... will these sort of very quickly switch over to 
the not unreasonable view that if itty bitty black holes must implode 
then the humongous universe MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST, 
MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST implode... and can not do anything BUT 
implode no matter what--?

Well... when have you known any sort of people to be that reasonable? 
[Yet, fear not, for even though we may not be reasonable creatures from 
the git-go, we are quite reasonable in the end. Whenever that may be.]

>>> and ever faster.  If nothing
>>> especially novel happens to it, it'll probably die a heat death. 

There ya go: He sees a universe moving from a dense bunch 
of bits to a universe of bits spread out very distantly from 
each other--And yet he can not see that it would be impossible 
for us to miss seeing the transition from one to the other
--and, ironically, he has missed this simply, "exactly" because 
it's just not there to be seen! [The world is a funny place.]

>>> That
>>> is, everything material, and all high-grade photons too, will have been
>>> transformed into one final big sea of mediocre energy (warmish).

O well, lots of people see only themselves wherever they look.

>> Hmmm, last I heard (5-10 years maybe?  memory! The second thing to go),
>> there was indication of the slowing.  

5-10 years in science today? You're talking the Dark Ages. 

>> What would be the mechanism of the universal expansion increasing in
>> speed?  

Each bit walking faster with time? (That's the only thing
I could imagine doing it.) Maybe their urge to hit the toilet
is growing... as they walk. That'd certainly make me hurry along.

>> (Slowing could be asymptotic, 

Ironically enough, that best describes the eternal implosion of
the universe!

>> never reaching zero, but an increase in
>> the speed of expansion requires a post-big bang addition of energy.)

... not to mention the Big Bang's own requirement for energy 
(unless the Big Bang really was, as most Big Bangers believe, 
God blowin' it out His--):

>>> Be careful out there.  Poetry is a legitimate form of learning, but also
>>> the lowest.

"Poetry is a legitimate form of learning" ..?!?! Sorry, Professor 
Irwin Corey, but: learning is a legitimate form of poetry, and not 
the other way around. Poetry is always an end in itself, or it's
pretty bad poetry every time. Take the work of the 20th Century's
best poet,

S D Rodrian
http://sdr.20megsfree.com/
http://physics.sdrodrian.com

re:

>>> Vince Virgilio
>> 
>> This all begs the question, why is this posted in t.r.c? 

Yes. I follow your inability to follow the connection from your 
replying to this post to why it was posted where you could come 
upon it and reply to it.
 
> Why in t.r.c?  I think the post was more relevant than the ubiquitous
> vitriol of our local anti-catholic crusaders (or rabble-rousers, which,
> in my better moments, I am not).  Stronger, speaking from within the
> Church, someone said that all that is Good, True, and Beautiful is ours.
> Maybe St. Thomas . . .

No, that was Mickey McGonnagle, but he was just a common thief
(of everything that was Good, True, and Beautiful).
 
> Or try to discuss origins et. al. in a group like alt.atheism, or
> better, talk.origins.  Very angry people, railing against the darkness.

They tried railing against the light & the electric company shut'em down.
Now they're gotten smarter.
 
> Also, Rodrian's [sp?] argument for relativism was flawed, 

Well, you may be right, everything's relative, after all.

> based on wrong
> physics, 

Ah! That might explain it right there.

> and he carried it a long way.  

Actually it was tied to me leg like a cannon ball.

> The hemorrhage was severe, 

I went a pretty long ways before it occurred to me
it'd hurt less if I picked up the bloody cannon ball
and carried it in me shirt pocked, for Heaven's sake!

> so I
> interceded (the two-cent saint).

And it was worth every cent of it, two.
 
> As for the acceleration mechanism, I am cribbing, and it doesn't matter
> much anyway, but a possible one could be quantum fluctuations in 'the
> void', empty space.  

I say it's gas. We're full of it. (Except the empty space in most 
people's heads--that's definitely full of quantum fluctuations.]

> It's a linear effect, in that twice as much space
> doubles it.  

Now, that's the smartest thing you've said yet: I'm thinking of
opening a litt'l space-saving account at me local bank (now, if I can 
only talk a vice-president there into advancing me a litt'l space)...
eventually I might even become a space-onaire!

> Physics says these fluctuations exist; apparently they're
> just now being used to explain observations.  

They must be like "bonkers" then: People're always using them
to explain observations (flying saucers and other things).

> NPR had a decent, though
> incredulous, segment on it, and feature some mainstream cosmologists.

I see you believed it, so it must've been very incredulous indeed!
 
> Main point was that the universe is not imploding, contra Rodrian (did I
> get this right?).  

Yes, and no: The universe IS imploding. It's the NPR that was pro
the Contras.

> Perhaps there is no acceleration in the expansion.
> In fact, it might, as you say, be slowing; but all indications say that
> it is at least expanding, not contracting.

I'm certainly glad you guys aren't my doctors, for Krist's Zakes!
 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Vince Virgilio

Hey: My Grandfather's name was Virgilio (so he learned Greek in 
order to read the poet Virgil in the original--Then he found out
he should've learned Latin). And, yes: He got the book... and it 
was all Greek to him, smarty-pants, BECAUSE it was in Latin.

S D Rodrian
http://sdr.20megsfree.com/
http://physics.sdrodrian.com