🚀 go-pugleaf

John Sefton <john@petcom.com> wrote in message news:<3C3F8EEA.C07700C@petcom.com>...
> Uniform expansion of space between clumps
> of matter or uniform shrinkage of matter
> amid 'clumps' of space are equally impossible.

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!]

2) Space (the distance created between "clumps" as the "clumps"
   "shrink" (recede away from each other as they implode)
   is necessarily absolutely relativistic [i.e. whatever
   twisting this forces upon the universe is absolute and
   therefore the entire universe may have a (one) "spin"
   ... which would not be the case if all its "clumps"
   were engaged in a chaos of individual, non-relativistic
   reactions among themselves--That is what the relativistic
   nature of the universe's innards is, in fact: glued to
   a frozen-appearance by gravity... or, basically, all the
   litt'l clumps are synchronized to look like they're not
   doing anything at all, albeit they're twisting the universe).

> It is why a shell grows in a spiral.
> Uniform expansion or shrinkage of both space
> AND matter at the same time is the only possible thing-
> *without* postulating an edge to space and/or time.
> John

The phrase "expansion of space" is illogical unless one
absolutely understands space to be the mere distance between
two objects, and nothing more than that. If one understands
"space" to be some sort of "more or less dense vacuum" not
necessarily situated between any "things" ... then one should
call that region "a more or less dense volume of things" (and
any expansion of that as "its things receding from each other")
since "space" is not "the substantial nothingness" whose bits
of nothingness can ever be measured to be ... let alone to be moving
in relation to each other!

Understand this: The gravitational systems (or "bits" or "lumps"
of matter) are imploding. But space is neither expanding nor
imploding... it is nothing. Space is just only the distance
created between the "bits" of the imploding universe (because
gravity acts locally BEFORE it acts generally, that's all). 

And, if ever you can measure any distinction in the absolutely
symmetrical implosion of the universe... you will have spotted
the center of the universe itself! And I doubt you'll ever manage
that. But, good hunting, certainly.

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

re:
 
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> 
> > "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
> >