🚀 go-pugleaf

"tomm-gulland" <tomm-gulland@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:<9v66ru$7fc$1@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk>...
> Yeh, I can see the idea behind your imploding universe. However, 

There's always a however. If you handn't placed one there
I would have been forced to place one there myself.

> it
> necessitates, if I interpret you correctly, 
> that the outer rim of a galaxy
> (speaking in terms of a galaxy's chief 
> gravitational sphere of influence)
> gets closer and closer to the galaxy's centre, 

Yep. In absolute terms (that is: from God's point of view).
But you are not God (get over it). Therefore your view is always 
relativistic. This means that relative to everything else, 
everything always seems to remain exactly as it has ever been.

> so people on the outside of
> that galaxy are in a sense receding from other galaxies. 

Please: Don't smack your brain against any walls on my account.
It's the simplest thing to understand...

1) In the beginning you had... the largest expanse.
   What is it made of? It doesn't matter. It works whether
   it was made of wood or nothing at all surrounded by something.

2) That expanse begins to implode. Why? Gravity.

3) Gravity creates clumps (bits of matter) even as the whole
   universe (what was once that expanse) is itself imploding.
   God sees it's imploding. He's not shrinking, so he sees that
   the universe is shrinking compared to Him. But for the rest 
   of us the universe is all there is, so it doesn't ever really 
   change. Why? Because we'd need to measure it against God. And 
   we just can't see God.

4) The "clumps of matter" shrink (from each other) creating
   space (distances between themselves). Even as they continue
   to concentrate.

5) After a while... the imploding universe appears to have
   achieved an eternally changeless shape (and, in fact, the
   only "change" people notice is that "space" continues to be
   "created" ... galaxies appear to be receeding from each other).

6) Astronomers evolve here & there and speculate that the
   universe "must" have been created in a Big Bang which sent
   the galaxies exploding every whichway, since they have no idea
   the universe is imploding (how such a thing could be possible).

7) Wiser beings in the future discover that those primitive
   astronomers thought with their eyeballs instead of with their
   brains and realize that the ancient poet and Usenet crackpot
   S D Rodrian was correct after all. Then they go for a beer.

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

>>> [snip]
>>
>> snap
>>
>>>>> Nothing with mass can move faster than light.
>>>
>>> Actually, in GR, *nothing* can move faster than light.
>>
>> Actually, this is inherently upside-down. "Light" doesn't "move."
>> Perhaps this will help: I went to a carny the other day and one
>> of the side-shows involved trying to shoot a 12-inch ruler as it
>> zipped back & forth in front of the shooter. Well, I was missing
>> all my shots, so, suspecting they were zipping that darn ruler
>> in front of me at near the speed of light (so that the ruler
>> compressed to a width so thin that it would have been a miracle
>> indeed if anybody could have hit it with their ole BB rifles),
>> naturally, I complained to the "manager." He just offered me a
>> free shot. (I missed with that shot as well, darn it.)
>>
>> But here's a quick reminder that the notion that "matter compresses
>> in the direction of motion" is NOT the observed result of some
>> marvelous experiment. Rather, what happened was that Albert Michelson
>> and his buddy E. W. Morley used an interferometer to measure the speed
>> of light and found that in spite of earth's rotation (etc.) the speed
>> of light was constant regardless of which direction they measured it.
>> Funny thing, really. They laughed & laughed. The housekeeper didn't call
>> the authorities because she already knew they were mad from long ago.
>>
>> Now, as it usually happens with humans and other apes... instead of
>> trying to figure out the whys of this funny results, an Irishman by
>> the name of G F Fitzgerald was drinking in a pub & he turned around
>> to another barfly and said, "Well I thinks it must be because matter
>> must contract in the direction of motion (or some such) and that darn
>> interferometer contraption must become shorted when measuring c in
>> the direction of motion, I betcha." (History does not record what
>> his drinking companion said to that, but the point is that Fitzgerald's
>> notion stuck.) Fitzgerald even wrote out how much matter contracted
>> at which speed, as he was heard calling out across the pub: "What
>> number do ye like, lads?" (Actually he used very dignified, time-
>> honored mathematical doodles.) Anyhow:
>>
>> We switch next to a Dutchman by the name of H A Lorentz, who was
>> pinning butterflies to a board one day and suddenly came up with
>> a brilliant deduction: "If," said he to his butterflies, "If matter
>> contracts in the direction of motion... then any charge (of a
>> charged particle) which is sufficiently accelerated will also be
>> squeezed AND therefore should exhibit an increase in mass!" And,
>> surprise, using the same mathematical doodles which Fitzgerald
>> had probably used in his own calculations Lorentz came up with
>> results very close to those Fitzgerald had reported for the
>> contraction of matter using these same math doodles. It was all
>> very filling.
>>
>> Now here's the clincher: Lorentz's postulation turned out to be true!
>>
>> Experiments soon showed that (since the ratio of an electron's mass to
>> its charge can be gauged via its deflection in a magnetic field)...
>> experiments soon showed that as an electron's velocity increased, its
>> mass also increased indeed (there being no reason its charge would).
>>
>> At this point it was therefore ASSUMED that the reason the electron's
>> mass increased was because it was being squeezed by its contraction
>> due to velocity (there being no time, I imagine, to try to think of
>> some better reason). ERGO: Contraction in the direction of motion
>> seemed "proved enough" simply by guessing that the Lorentz/Fitzgerald
>> equations were interchangeable! Viola!
>>
>> But is it true? Are they really equivalents? What if there is some other
>> reason for the increase in mass experienced by an accelerated charged
>> particle? [For example, what if all linear accelerations by ordinary
>> matter in our universe are really decelerations (toward absolute rest)?
>> If the universe were to be... oh, say, imploding, that would mean that
>> all its mass was moving in the direction of implosion (that being its
>> fastest-possible speed) and therefore anything we would consider moving
>> was really moving in the opposite direction of implosion (slowing down
>> in the direction it all originally came from, or infinite (spatial) mass)?
>> This would account for the observed increase in mass without having to
>> resort to the notion of contraction in the direction of motion being
>> responsible for the squeezing of the electron. (Increase in mass going
>> with/in the direction of absolute rest.)
>>
>> But, of course, to arrive at that alternate explanation one would need
>> to understand such things as the fact that the forms of matter are NOT
>> fundamental but only forms, and that therefore they do not pile up like
>> neutrons inside a neutron star but merely "shrink without much loosing
>> their forms" somewhat like deflating balloons (which realization no one
>> was seriously advocating at that time).
>>
>> The questionable notion that "nothing can move faster than light" stems
>> directly from Fitzgerald's Lunacy (Contraction) above: "An object moving
>> at seven miles per second would contract by about two parts per billion
>> in the direction of its motion. But at 93,000 miles per second (half the
>> speed of light) it would be 15 percent (a 1-foot ruler moving past us at
>> 163,000 mps would only seem 6 inches long to us). At the speed of light
>> (186,282 mps) its length in the direction of motion would be zero!" And
>> now you know the reason behind the reasoning behind the reasonless notion
>> that the speed of light has a finite upper limit: "Since nothing can have
>> a minus length, nothing can travel faster than light." But it's all based
>> upon a VERY probably false premise to begin with (Fitzgerald's Lunacy),
>> and on a definite logical fallacy (that a relativistic point of view can
>> confer reality upon a perceived effect): Of course, there is no "absolute
>> rest" position INSIDE our absolutely relativist universe (BECAUSE it is
>> imploding, and nothing in it can remain at rest except in relation to
>> something else that's also moving in it)... so the velocities of all its
>> traveling rulers... are ALL OF THEM only/merely relativistic.
>>
>>>> Much confusion
>>>> abounds from the mistaken notion that the second postulate is about
>>>> light. It's not. It's about speed limits. It is, in one sense, merely
>>>> a coincidence that light happens to be able to reach the speed limit.
>>
>> Same thing happens to my ancient and decrepit automobile! It's ALWAYS a
>> coincidence it can usually reach the speeds at which it usually travels.
>>
>>>> Why should "light" move at all?! Everything that "moves" in this
>>>> universe always very strictly follows the laws of gravitation.
>>>
>>> Alas, behind this observation falls the central quandry in physics.
>>
>> Yes: That it is trying to describe the effects occurring IN an universe
>> which is imploding... in terms of an universe which is exploding: And
>> there is NO way to describe effects observed in an imploding universe
>> in terms of their occurring in an exploding/expanding universe without
>> having to resort to the craziest imaginable rationalizations... And,
>> true enough, current physics is practically ALL OF IT invariably (mis-)
>> interpreted in the most nonsensical and counterintuitive rationalizations
>> the craziest Mad Hatter in Wonderland could possibly imagine!
>>
>>> It
>>> is impossible to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics, (QM) given our
>>> current understanding.
>>
>> Fear not, one day, sooner or later, people who are now certain
>> beyond a doubt that the earth is flat (and the rest of it) will
>> stumble into the true imploding nature of the universe. Then
>> it shall all be clear to them. And they will explain it to you.
>>
>>> In QM, all sorts of interesting things happen
>>> that are rather embarrasingly independent of gravitation.
>>
>> Funny, the same thing happens to a lot of people when
>> they try to interpret the work of stage magicians in terms
>> of their magic actually being real!
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> snap
>>
>>>> Consider the one matter of the speed of light: In an
>>>> expanding/exploding universe model it's nearly impossible to advance
>>>> a sane theory (one comprehensively rooted in reality--one which does
>>>> not require that we suspend belief in the reliability of reality
>>>> itself over the long run) as to why a particle supposedly nearly
>>>> massless (the photon) would never (or very seldom really) be
>>>> affected by gravity: It's not merely that the photon refuses to fall
>>>> as even the most massive moving canon ball obviously eventually
>>>> does... but that it almost completely ignores Earth's gravity (for
>>>> example) at all: the photon doesn't even much bend down to it. Add
>>>> to that the quite impossible question on "what is pushing it?" (or,
>>>> "what could possibly be pulling it?"} Really...  another way of
>>>> asking what is the source of the energy it MUST be using for its
>>>> propulsion?] And what you have is a recipe for almost certainly the
>>>> craziest "solutions."
>>>
>>> More unfortunate confusion.
>>
>> Have you talked to your doctor about it? Modern medicine is working
>> miracles these days, you know. Tell him there's a fellow insists that
>> planets and moons do not ride invisible channels in space but follow
>> the gravitational laws of Newton (any discrepancies arising from Newton
>> not taking into consideration later discoveries concerning the varying
>> strengths of whatever intervening gravitational fields notwithstanding).
>>
>>> GR does not assume that massless particles
>>> are not effected by gravity. The GR formulation of gravity, in the
>>> form of, say, differential geometry, is *not* the Newtonian form.
>>
>> Translation: Our formulas (they happen to be Newtonian) do not seem to
>> apply exactly to our exploding/expanding universe, so, instead of
>> trying to figure out why (latest knowledge on the effects of "strong"
>> gravitational fields, etc.) let's just throw them all away... and
>> from now on we should assume that the world is a lot crazier than we
>> first gave it credit for being.
>>
>>> The aside about propulsion betrays considerable confusion about
>>> Newtonian mechanics anyway. Once moving at a velocity, an object not
>>> being subjected to other forces does not need any further 'propulsion'
>>> to sustain that velocity.
>>
>> It does not surprise me this poster overlooked the obvious, so I will
>> put it in even simpler terms still (hopefully he will now see what he
>> so obviously overlooked before):
>>
>> 1) Let us assume for a moment the expanding/exploding universe holds:
>>
>> 2) A photon is pitched out by its source with "a" given impetus (and
>>    this is a nearly massless particle, mind you, so how it manages to
>>    hold on to that impetus is anybody's guess).
>>
>> 3) Suddenly the entire universe about it begins pulling at it from
>>    every direction (every dust particle and planet it passes exerts its
>>    whatever gravitational tug at it). And, mind you, we know that all
>>    other bits of matter tugged likewise would stop to chat with their
>>    tuggers.
>>
>> 4) But NOT SO the photon: It very nearly completely ignores all such
>>    tugs... even the most astonishingly strong of them (photons passing
>>    near massive stars only slightly bend their linear trajectories in
>>    response to the astonishingly powerful gravitational fields of those
>>    stars!
>>
>> 5) And, most magical of all: The "speed" of photons is independent of
>>    source in the absolute. SO a photon with the speed of [a car being
>>    driven by a teenager] which suddenly finds itself traveling through
>>    a jar of molasses at the "speed" of [a 100-year-old man with a cane]
>>    will, after exiting from [the jar of molasses] SUDDENLY regain its
>>    previous "speed" as if the teenager had simply stepped on the gas!
>>
>> Such a phenomena is IMPOSSIBLE to explain sanely, rationally. It has
>> the disturbing effect of suggesting that we cannot trust reality. It
>> is extremely unnerving and tends to push people into all kinds of nutty
>> explanations for it. But... now assume ours is an imploding universe:
>>
>> 1) All forms of matter in an imploding universe are moving (in the
>>    direction of implosion).
>>
>> 2) The photon, being nearly massless will very nearly escape the pull
>>    (of implosion) moving the rest of the universe's mass (gravity).
>>
>> 3) Although, having an infinitesimal amount of mass it will "move" an
>>    infinitesimal amount of distance... the photon will remain very nearly
>>    motionless while the rest of the universe around it moves.
>>
>> 4) To us, part of the mass of the universe (and therefore moving past
>>    the very nearly frozen-in-place photon) it will appear that the photon
>>    is the one moving, of course.
>>
>> 5) Remember that infinitesimal amount of mass the photon has? Well, it
>>    means that, even if infinitesimally, the photon will react to gravity.
>>    And so... when passing through volumes with "little amounts of mass"
>>    the photon will be dragged along less powerfully and will appear to us
>>    to be moving that much faster while when passing through volumes with
>>    "greater amounts of mass" it will be dragged along (with us, remember)
>>    more powerfully and so appear to be moving that much slower than usual.
>>
>> 6) Now it becomes clear why it is that a photon traveling through a nearly
>>    perfect vacuum achieves its greatest speed. And why when that same
>> photon travels through a "denser medium" it suddenly appears to slow down.
>>
>> 7) And now it becomes clear at last and inescapably inevitable why it is
>>    that AFTER having traveled through that "denser medium" and exited it
>> ... our photon again appears to "speed up" when it again begin to travel
>>    through a more diluted volume after exiting from the denser volume!
>>
>> There is no magic in the world, you see. Not if you know how it's done.
>>
>>> [snip of much confused nonsense]
>>
>> Well, perhaps you're less confused now (although, I will not be
>> holding my breath... for one's best shot at taking advantage of
>> one's opportunities always depends a lot more on how Fate has put
>> one together than on where Fate has put one at the most opportune
>> moment, I'm afraid). But I do wish you the very best of luck!
>>
>>>> By the way, Einstein's famous light-bending experiment's true
>>>> achievement was to finally kill any goofy notion that the photon is
>>>> absolutely massless (something later again proven by the observation
>>>> that photons cannot escape from the gravity of black holes).
>>>
>>> Alas, this is simply not true. The light-bending experiments are
>>> rather good confirmation that the photon has no mass.  (Technically,
>>> they are confirmations that if the photon has any mass at all it must
>>> be less than a very small amount.)
>>
>> Yep: I can see the confusion: 1) The photon has no mass.
>> And, 2) the photon's mass is very small. You can now
>> have your cake and eat it.
>>
>>> GR predicts that even massless particles are effected by gravitational
>>> fields. In this way it differs from Newtonian physics. The various
>>> 'light-bending' experiments would have different results if the photon
>>> had any mass.  (Einstein, by the way, was a theory guy. He never did
>>> any experiments.)
>  
>>> [snip of the author's thought processes imploding]
>>
>> No. I will not snip it: It is not unusual for most people's brains
>> to implode when they overload on actual information that contradicts
>> the mindless mantras they were taught by rote in their youth.
>>
>>>>> In order for the big bang to have occurred, the resulting
>>>>> explosion would have required mass to travel faster than light in
>>>>> order to achieve escape velocity.  How is this possible?
>>>
>>> If there was a big bang, it was not merely an explosion of a black
>>> hole, but rather something wildly different. Unfortunately, it
>>> requires understanding a great deal of mathematics in order to
>>> distinguish the difference.
>>
>> Unfortunately it requires understanding of a great deal less mathematics
>> than you think to lose all touch with reality: Ted Kaczynski, for example,
>> was only a humble college math teacher when all those numbers in his head
>> drove him to become the Unabomber.
>>
>>>> Listen carefully: The Big Bang would have required mass/energy.
>>>> Period. This means that its realization would require an equivalent
>>>> of what the existence of a stick of dynamite requires (as most
>>>> thinking persons should be realizing about now: the existence of
>>>> a stick of dynamite requires the pre-existence of Alfred Nobel
>>>> as well as the whole entire universe... which made him possible).
>>>> Therefore, tracing things back to "a" Big Bang as an exercise in
>>>> trying to find the beginnings of the universe is as self-defeating
>>>> an exercise as seeking the beginnings of the universe by tracing
>>>> the development of dynamite back to the first few nanoseconds after
>>>> Alfred Nobel came up with it. The only difference really being
>>>> that Alfred Nobel really DID come up with dynamite, while the
>>>> universe REALLY never produced any big bangs in any shape, form,
>>>> or whatsoever.
>>>
>>> The sum of all of the energy in the universe is 0.
>>
>> O my God, that equals the sum of all the intelligence in the brain
>> of... (let's be civil now).
>>
>>> This conservation
>>> was not violated by the big bang. There was no net energy before the
>>> big bang. There is no net energy now. The only thing that is different
>>> is that the distribution of the energy has gotten considerably less
>>> uniform.
>>
>> Since you agree with this, why must you propose the universe's creation
>> of widgets and hobbyhorses out of a point in time's explosion, pray tell?!
>>
>> Now look at the inevitable simplicity of the timeless imploding universe:
>>
>> 1) infinite (spatial) mass
>>    (what has always been and always will be)
>>
>> 2) the laws of thermodynamics
>>    (the result of infinite mass become unstable)
>>
>> 3) gravity
>>    (the result of the laws of thermodynamics)
>>
>> 4) the evolution of more complex forms from simpler forms
>>    (the result of gravity)
>>
>> 5) Rose Parks refuses to go to the back of the bus
>>    (the result of the brain's continuing evolution)
>>
>> At no point in time does any of this require any sudden shift.
>>
>> Now, I ask you: Do you want to know the timeless truth,
>> or do you want to be entertained by the clever creations
>> of someone with great timing?
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>>
>> I can provide you with either or both:
>>
>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>> physics.sdrodrian.com