🚀 go-pugleaf

username <username@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:<3C05489E.1FA988CD@yahoo.com>...
> S D Rodrian wrote:
>> "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.
> 
> Isn't that an absolute? Prove that there are no absolutes in
> the universe.

I don't have to, you little trickster, you: You ALREADY KNOW
IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE (and are only asking me to prove to you
something you already know is already proved because you are
such an obvious smarty-pants, already). 

What'd'ya think, I was born yesterday?!?! Baby, when you
were setting out... that was me already coming back:

I'm wise to you, you know! Sorry, but you KNOW for a fact 
that THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES IN THE UNIVERSE--Otherwise you
wouldn't be SO damn ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN my statement above
could NOT be a provable absolute... that you felt confident
enough to challenge me as boldly and perilously as you did!

Proved enough?... or shall I send in the clowns now?
(Jeepers, Wally: There's always one in every bunch!}

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

re:
 
> Ah...the great astro theorizer wannabe cringes...when he
> hears the words..."prove it".
> 
> Next you'll be telling us a race of aliens in an alternate universe
> created our universe.
> 
> 
>> 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