🚀 go-pugleaf

S D Rodrian wrote:

> 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?

He who asserts must prove. You asserted there are no absolutes in the
universe. So prove it.

Write a paper...create a website!!!! Invent an inflationary dark matter
red shifted cosmic radiated blob to help prove your point! Why not?
Everybody does it!!!!

-k


>
> (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