🚀 go-pugleaf

lvl@juno.com (tomgee) wrote in message
news:<f2d0fb3d.0110301222.4617fee1@posting.google.com>...

cont/

> They do not have to move so they do not have to be magically massless.
>  Notice that none of this has anything to do with whether the U. is
> expanding or not.

Everything has to do with whether the universe is expanding/exploding
or imploding: In the same manner and for exactly the same reason that
it is always hard to propose self-evident impossibilities, it is self-
evident AT ONCE that no form of matter could possibly be fundamental
in an imploding universe, for example (and, sure enough, no such form
has ever been found, although many have been proposed and many will
continue to be proposed, with but only the latest being all those
oodles & oodles of theoretical/mathematical "strings"). In fact, the
matter of whether one works from an exploding/expanding model of
the universe or from an imploding one is so fundamental to whether
one works from the laws of physics or from flights-of-fancy... that
it is ONLY possible to posit explanations outside the possibilities
of the laws of physics FROM the exploding/expanding universe model
and NOT from an imploding universe model: Once you look upon reality
from the imploding universe model it becomes instantly obvious not
only that everything MUST BE absolutely relativistic INSIDE the
universe, but HOW they are that way [i.e. it is not possible to 
propose the existence of anything which is NOT relativistic... from 
the imploding universe model such as singularities et al]. So, if 
nothing else, explaining reality from the imploding universe model
imposes a very real physical deterrence upon flight-of-fancy 
disconnects with reality... which itself hints at which model best 
describes it (reality).

> > I don't think you quite get the difference: In an imploding universe
> > everything is "shrinking in place" in the direction of every possible
> > coordinate. Evolution's moving from simplest forms to the complex forms.
> Why should anything shrink in place?  The mechanism for the expanding
> U. is the BB.  What is it for the imploding U.?

Gravity: The universe is filled with examples of things 
imploding as their nature, from simple objects removed 
from heat, to stars running out of fuel, and black holes: 
the only examples of explosion in the universe are sticks 
of dynamite and stars which are in the process of eliminating
their extra fuel [i.e. to go against the imploding nature 
of everything in this universe requires special and not 
natural circumstances].

>> The universe is the only "thing" that exists;
> I understand that is your belief, but why do you think that?  It seems
> logical to think that if the U. came into being, there had to have
> been something here before it came into being.  Or are you saying the
> U. always existed?

It is not just only automobiles that evolved in this universe.
Can you picture the evolution of the automobile? Was it a creation
by magic, or did it evolve from something previous? ... Well,
everything in the universe down to the last effect had its cause:
Nothing in it suddenly sprung into being irrationally/miraculously.
And to say that if in order to exist anything that exists would
have had to have an irrational/miraculous beginning it could not
exist, is quite reasonable... in a reality where not only has the
opposite never been proved, but cannot be proved, since to determine
(prove) the connection of anything with/to reality is to eliminate
any/all possibility of its having been uncaused (indeterminism).

There is but one impediment to understanding the evolution of matter
and that is the fact that the human brain evolved to understand that
"either something is matter or it does not exist." [By the way, this
is an evolutionary requirement which I would not advocate us doing
without. There's a more than very good reason we require it.] But it
will always remain an impediment to our understanding of a universe
where it is matter that is "virtual" (i.e. momentary, and fleeting)
and "energy" that has permanent existence:

Everywhere the universe speaks to us about "energy" and we cannot
understand what it is talking about, while everywhere we speak only
about "matter" and the universe is unable to make sense of what we
mean... and the only way we have to make any sort of logical 
connection is through physical laws like those of of thermodynamics, 
for example:

Infinite (spatial) mass:  Energy as we understand it because it is to
us (here, in "motion") what we are moving against... and, if the only
two things in the whole of existence are moving relative to each other,
then it becomes impossible to determine which one is "really" moving
and which one is "really" at rest, if either "really" is.

Infinite (spatial) mass therefore can be spoken of as moving outwardly
in a direction opposite implosion (which is the direction of gravity).
It is, from our perspective, "absolute rest" (so we "push off" from it)
... or, in the language the universe understands but we might not: It
is what gives us all the energy we have or will ever have, and which
"energy" we are eternally using to fuel our motion. So we will use it
"up" and then vanish into the nothingness from which we came ("matter"
that is, but certainly NOT "energy" since it has always been and will
forever continue... again and again and again sending waves (each of
which we will call "the universe of matter") down its being according
to the laws of thermodynamics... to iron out (resolve) whatever
differences in pressure ("energy values") perturb its otherwise calm
existence.

Conclusion about the nature of matter: It cannot be fundamental
at ANY level. And so it is forever divisible... even unto that
purest form of primordial/fundamental "energy" which we poor
humans can only speak of as "infinite (spatial) mass" or as
"absolute rest" without any hope of ever really being able to
speak of it in human terms. All we can say is "E=MC^2"

> > The crucial thing is the size of the universe compared to a size we
> > can understand.
>  Why is that crucial and what is it crucial to?

Because the reality is that sizes are only relativistic INSIDE
the universe. And it is crucial to understand this, so we will
not waste our time proposing "imagined realities" which are
physically impossible IN the universe. [There is a good reason
why ONLY mentally damaged persons go about proposing they speak
to gods, see ghosts, take nightly trips in UFOs, claim to be
Martians, and the like... and that is that, unlike persons with
undamaged brains, their illnesses prevents them from recognizing
that such things are not physically possible--no same person
would invest his time on things he himself acknowledges as
impossibilities.] It's just the nature of the human condition
that what best convinces us to follow the true path of life...
are the unambiguously fatal dead ends:

The more we understand the limitations imposed upon our
imagination by the actual physical reality of the universe
IN which we exist, the closer we will focus on (limit ourselves
to) understanding its facts... and the least likely we will waste
our time on the fallacies possible only in our dreams.

> What is your idea of how the
> U. came about to be unrestrained in size, since you object to current
> restraints?

The absolute size of the universe is a meaningless value because
there is nothing against which to measure it. However, while there
are any number of artificial constraints on the size of a Big Bang
universe, there are NONE on an imploding universe model (in fact,
the bigger you propose it to be... the better its implosion works).

Any notion of an "absolute zero" value is irrelevant in our universe:
And existence is all that exists. There is no past or future to it,
just never-ending evolution (change).

> So your answer is that the implosion is a process of evolution?  Then
> at what point did the evolution begin?  Evolution cannot "always be";
> by definition, it must have a beginning.  And what has made it begin
> to implode?

Evolution IS by definition WITHOUT beginnings: Living creatures are
more complex forms of matter than carbon atoms, say, but living
creatures are evolved from atoms in the same way that all complex
forms of matter are evolved from simpler forms of matter. To say
that something "evolved" is to say it "changed" ... not "came into
existence." Just as we may point to waves and think of them as
"individual waves" while yet finding it impossible to point out the
exact point where the water molecules of one wave ends and those
of the next wave begin except arbitrarily... a "transitional species"
always stands between every current species and the one from which
each of them "evolved" ... There can be no absolute disconnects in 
the process of evolution (either one thing changed into something 
else OR something came to exist by magic). This is a function of 
language!

> > The description of Existence boils down to nothing more than so-
> > called primordial "infinite (spatial) mass" [it is NOT possible to
> > describe this "existence" in terms of "matter as we understand it"
> > today, so term it "energy"].
> No, I would not do that.  To me, energy is the fifth force,

And to the next guy it's a Mars Almond Bar. But, even though 
there are no constraints on your dreaming there exist as many 
forces as you'd care to imagine, a description of a universe 
where there already is a complex number of forces is not 
a description of a universe in its most rudimentary stage:
This is what puzzled Einstein most, that "four distinct forces" 
should be required for the creation of the universe. Well, 
the imploding universe model requires one and only one force
(gravity)... all the other "forces" are "evolutions" of gravity, 
produced at very distinct epochs/levels/strata/orders of 
magnitude of subsequent matter-organization.

> it is not
> a description of "Existence".  So if you can't tell me what you mean
> by "Existence", can't you tell me what you mean by "infinite (spatial)
> mass"?  You are not one I would think is ever at a loss for words.

http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> > The point being that "its shape" alone
> > fully determined its nature:
>  And what is "its shape"?
>  And why and how did "its shape" determine its nature?

The forms of matter are many and varied. So: If the pre-matter
universe was nearly homogeneous it was describably "shapeless"
(shapes are strictly relativistic). The instant that the pre-matter
universe developed different ["densities/energy values," et al]
that, by definition, means it developed a "definite" shape. It is
only the forms of matter that have "a" shape (you cannot have
shape without having "a" shape). Yes, wise guys.

> > Its realization (into existence, or
> > "matter") is strictly a function of the laws of thermodynamics:
> No, no, no.  Physical laws are not forces that make things do
> something.  Nothing can be a "function" of a law, per se.

Maybe in your town, but in my town... the Police "force" is
always set into motion by those laws that move it in that
direction.

> And if you
> are saying that matter is "Existence", that is patently untrue.

Okay: You seem to be aware of a universe where cats and
puppy dogs exist but matter exists not there... do you
happen to have its StarGate address? I need a vacation.

> > What the laws of thermodynamics first give rise to is "space"
> No, sorry.  Thermodynamics gives rise to heat, or, thermal energy, not
> space.

Ah! I see that in your town "some" things ARE a function of 
a law (of thermodynamics, in this case), after all. Fascinating. 
[And please try to understand that the laws of thermodynamics 
describe effects from causes: and they are terms "laws" because 
the effects described seem to remain the same from the same 
causes throughout the universe, and not just here & there...
as "you" might imagine.]

> > [gravity begins to rip apart "infinite (spatial) mass" at the
> > point where it is no longer possible for even the "nothingness
> > it represents"
> Here it seems you are saying that infinite (spatial) mass is
> "nothingness".

Nope: "represents" (read again)

> Very poetic, but what do you mean, in physics terms?

Your problem will always be that the human brain evolved
to understand "existence" as "the things which exist" [or,
"matter" by another name], while to the timeless universe
"all the forms of matter" are virtual and brief: It is
just as (and perhaps even more) proper to speak of matter
as a construct of energy (or, "something" which is really
constructed of "nothing") as it is to speak of energy as
a form of "diffused matter" (or, some "nothingness"
eventually becoming "something"). In other words (perhaps
you'll understand it better this way)... to the universe
it is the "solidness" of matter that is an illusion (rather 
than the non-materiality of "energy"), just as it is the non-
materiality of "energy" that seems an illusion to us (rather
than the "solidness" of matter): When you press your finger
against a "solid" surface, for example, the only reason
you finger doesn't go right through it like some ghostly
appendage is because the atoms of your finger are "glued
together" by the electromagnetic force (as are the atoms of
that so-called "solid" surface) and "finger" atoms refuse to
mix with "surface" atoms. But, turn off the EM field, or
"current" (find the proper switch, of course, enough "heat"
or some other)... and one would be very hard pressed indeed
to find ANYTHING one can recognize as being so-called "solid"
in the universe any more.

We may never really understand "energy" or "force" any more
than the universe understands our illusion of physical solidity:

We speak to the universe of solid things and it answers back
that there are no fundamental particles (just only more basic
subparticles within all the subparticles). The universe speaks
to us "gravity" and "forces" and we answer back that we cannot
"see" or "touch" those things, that they are not even "things"
but only incomprehensible unphysical "causes" which can only be
known by us from the effects they have on matter... although
we do not even (yet?) know why/how they affect matter!

The conversation between us and the universe is one often at
cross-purposes: We speak to the universe in terms of matter...
and the universe speaks to us in terms of energy... which we
cannot fully "grasp" any more than can the universe "imagine"
what we're talking about when we speak of "matter." Sorry.
I think that under the circumstances... we know a great deal
more than we ought to.

> > ... to "communicate" its level of "sparseness" (its
> > energy value) to its every/all portions/parts

[refering to a body which, remaining homogeneous, is calm 
(or, having all its parts agreement: communicating that 
agreement) and becomes agitated when it develops different 
densities throughout that agreement no longer communicated 
to all its parts)...]

>  So why is such communication important?

The point at which any (the) slightest disagreement arises: 
That is the point at which those effects (which we describe 
as behaving in a way that they can be generalized as "the laws 
of thermodynamics") give birth to gravity, and therefore 
to "matter" as we understand it: In the simplest possible 
analogy... those parts with greater densities create greater 
pressures TOWARD those parts with lesser densities and the 
result is a current--And if you remember that there are no
absolute sizes for the universe you may be able to realize
that even if such a current is infinitesimal with respect 
to the rest of the "infinite (spatial) mass" at rest... it
is still enough for it to be described as the "universe of 
matter" as we know it. Therefrom flows our understanding
that matter is only motion (just as we understand that 
energy only expresses itself through/by motion), and that 
fully explains E=MC^2.

Now you can see where the universe is coming from (literally): 
That lit'l shift or "motion" is all there is to what we call 
"energy" and so is all there is to what we call "matter." 
Make that motion cease and "matter" unravels (this unraveling 
is also something we call "energy" for it matters not what 
energy is doing, all that matters is that it does). Cease 
ALL motion and we have no "matter" whatever and only a "body" 
of potential energy (provided some conditions are met). But 
in the pre-matter universe... those conditions WERE met, 
and so ALL the energy now in "matter" existed there & then
as "energy" ... and since it doesn't really matter whether
energy is coming or going: the "conservation of energy" 
will remain eternal.

> > The nature of Gravity is the exact opposite of the nature which
> > maintained the primordial "infinite (spatial) mass" stable/uniform
> > /homogenous:
> By exact opposite, do you mean it breaks up the infinite (spatial)
> mass?

Even Archie Bunker can now explain the creation of the universe:
"Foirst youse got a large fog float'n out in space (only this fog
occupies all the space, so there's no space anywheres which
ain't filled with dis here fog). Then the fog starts to break up,
sos you begin to see bits-o-nott'n (where there ain't no fog, see)
and them places, they is the "space" what people talk'n about).
So next, like, you gotta understand this "gravity" shit: It's like
pulling everything there is out there. So the bits of fog still
hanging around fall into themselves like da Solar System did 
coupla years back. [So what happens: Every huge cloud becomes
an itty bitty star.] And aaaaaaaaaal'em litt'l stars are also
pulling on each other. Just remember that the creation of 
the "space" between'em happens faster/before they can move
toward each other. SO it has always been, so it will always be
--as written in the Bible, Edith: Just remember that the 
universe is implod'n at every level of matter-organization,
not just at the level of stars, now: let's not be completely 
stupid there, if we's can help it, Meathead: Huh!"

> > Gravity always acts locally FIRST, so the resulting
> > "bits" of "infinite (spatial) mass" slowly at first and then always
> > faster and faster... begin to organize themselves locally (creating
> > distances/space) between themselves... because the more localized
> > Gravity becomes the stronger its local effect: This is a method the
> > universe follows to this day and will always follow...
>  No, the U. cannot be said to have a "method".

Well, this universe bought its method AND paid cash for it, so
neither you nor anybody else is going to get it away from it
without starting a big ugly brawl out in the middle of the street.

> > the continuous
> > application of a force will produce an acceleration,
> But what if I use a force to stop an object from moving?

I can see you're hell-bent on having that street-brawl.

> Once I have
> stopped the object, there will be no more force to produce an
> acceleration.

Yep: Once there is no matter in the universe, there will also
be no more gravity (just as before there was gravity in the
universe there was no matter). Wonderful how these things always
seem to work out in the end!

> > and the force
> > of gravity will always apply in the universe, therefore--
> > As the currents of Gravity grow stronger AND more localized, its
> > ever and ever more stabilizing ( simpler -> more complex )
> > gravitational systems ALSO close in on themselves... the universe
> > is in implosion (with all its new gravitational systems forever
> > going/evolving from slower/larger systems to smaller/faster ones).
> > And now all you need to understand the universe is the knowledge
> > Newton gave you concerning the strength of gravity being greater *
> > with nearness [FIRST those gravitational systems will contract,
> > opening "spaces" between them... and THEN they will all rush each
> > other, filling in those spaces]
> Lets take the "gravitational system" of earth, for example.

Okay, but be extremely careful, because the planet isn't likely
to stay what it is if you take it (where you're going to take it)
and keep it there for any appreciable amount of time.

> Why and
> how will the system contract?

It's contracting as we speak (only in latin, so you can't
understand it).

> And why will it do it now and didn't do
> it yesterday?  Then, why should they all rush each other?

[See above: Gravity's strength is greater locally, so, in the solar
system analogy... FIRST cosmic clouds collapse into solar systems 
and THEN stars attract other stars... and galaxies other galaxies 
attract.]

> > And the FIRST motion will always out-race the SECOND motion, causing
> > those spaces to increase with time. [And look far enough away into
> > the distance and you will "see" the effect magnified by the distance
> > you pick for your "cosmic glimpse" ... something which we know today
> > as the Hubble Constant].
> > In a true explosion... it would be impossible for matter to clump
> > early on; and extremely hard for it to do so at any later stages:
> > This is first crazy thing we see the farther back in time we look is
> > galaxies existing too soon after a supposed Big Bang (the second
> > is all those perfectly spiraling galaxies without enough matter to/
> > in them to hold their stars in place... in the present day universe).
> Ok, but all of that is supposedly explained by existence of dark
> matter, which has been proven to exist.

You are horrifically misinformed. What is happening is that physicists
are looking at an imploding universe (in which the continuous application
of the force of gravity is producing an acceleration, of course) and
scratching their empty heads trying to figure out why an exploding\
expanding universe should be accelerating! Naturally the poor bastards
must propose that there "must be" some invisible force producing this
acceleration (without realizing that it's right under their noses, since
this "force" they are searching for is the force of gravity---it's just
their brains'r'on upside-down). NOTE: The "cold dark matter" they think
"must" exist out there "because it needs to exist" is only satisfying a
need that exists ONLY inside their heads (yes: their heads REALLY ARE
empty). Whatchagonnado! Once they can no longer go on living
in their fantasy world, they will have to move to the real one.

Long ago Einstein recognized that a static universe with gravity in it
was a physical impossibility and proposed the first of those "must be
out there" anti-gravity forces (or the harebrained cosmological constant,
or "Lambda") until astronomers discovered that the universe appeared
to be exploding\expanding and Einstein abandoned his Lambda in favor of
the dance that then came into fashion, the Big Bang. "About the time
that Einstein was abandoning his Lambda, quantum mechanics (yes) was
establishing a theoretical foundation for the cosmological constant! Ooo!
According to quantum theory, empty space should be foaming with virtual
(temporary) particles and their cumulative energy would outweigh the
matter in the universe, including dark matter, by some, oh... 120 orders
of magnitude � that is, a factor of 10 followed by 119 zeros. At that
level, the force of the vacuum would either have crumpled the universe
or blown it apart before even an atom had the chance to form." So you
see: Even numbers can't make sense of some insanities (and that's
saying a LOT, because normally one can make any facts fit the numbers
... little pun there).

The point is that NO: No dark matter is being sold in any mall
"even as we speak," nor will any ever be sold there: The notion
now plaguing our primitive physicists that some sort of cold
dark matter is as "necessary" for the universe to exist as it does
... is as true a reflection of reality as the notion, held not that
many years ago in a lot of otherwise very rational people's heads
that for the earth to exist as it does SURELY it HAD TO
be resting upon the back of a giant turtle! The Turtle Theory
too is made impossible and completely unnecessary by starting
out from a model of the universe describing it as imploding.

        It's just the way gravity works.

"Imagination can also be as much a hindrance to the scientific pursuit
as having no imagination at all." S D Rodrian wrote that in Part One
of this post: I swear. And remember it's copyrighted.

There is a logical prohibition to an exploding/expanding universe
which is just as prohibitive as the one that prohibits that giant
turtle carrying the world on its back: You could propose forms of
matter in it which are fundamental (while at the same time: there is
no logical way to account for their formation except by special acts
of creation, or magic). Fundamental forms of matter do not evolve
and are, by definition, indivisible. They are paradoxes in nature,
since, on the one hand, they must have an inner structure (or they
would be singularities impossible for us to interact with them), yet
their structures cannot decay (or they would become divisible): So
the existence of fundamental forms of matter is prohibited by the
laws of physics. Therefore ANYTHING, no matter how crazy, becomes
possible in the exploding/expanding universe:

 REALITY ALWAYS LIMITS US TO ONLY THAT WHICH IS REAL.

But there are no paradoxes in Nature, only in our minds.
Or, to put it bluntly to the brutes: You will know when
you are working with Reality when all the objections
to its being physically impossible are no longer there. And,
obversely, as long as what you are working with
may/might extend beyond what is physically possible...
it shouldn't be taken to be real until after it's proven 
to be real.

The imploding universe model absolutely limits its 
possibilities to what has been observed in our universe, 
and explains them elegantly.

The exploding\expanding universe model is a never-ceasing 
factory of logical and physical self-contradictions which 
can impose no limits to the flights-of-fancy folks can 
spawn & spin out regardless all sanity.

[The latest is the Supernova/Acceleration Probe, or SNAP, 
satellite combining an 80-inch diameter mirror (only about
16 percent smaller than the Hubble's), a giant electronic 
camera with a billion pixels and a special spectroscope...
to be launched around 2008. "Dr. Saul Perlmutter (a 
physicist at the University of California's Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory and a veteran dark energy 
hunter) estimated that in three years of operation, 
SNAP could harvest about 2,000 supernovae by which 
the universe's acceleration is gauged (in order to 
distinguish the different ideas about dark energy, 
observations would have to be refined to the level of 
1 or 2 percent uncertainty).]

Let's hope the knowledge gained by this satellite is on 
the order of that gained by the guy who stumbled on penicillin 
when he set out to fry an egg or whatever it was 
he was originally aiming for!

> > > ... and what will most likely happen
> > > when it all comes back together again?
> > > I really want to know
> > What can happen... when it's all "infinite (spatial) mass" (or, if you
> > prefer, "absolute rest"), and that's all there really is to it?...
> > Gravity will "wind up" and "unwind" until we are right back where we
> > were...
>  What do you mean by that?

Remember "energy-conservation law" ...?  "Energy cannot be 
created or destroyed" ... and that jazz! Well, it turns out
that "if in order to exist Existence would have had to have
"a" beginning: it would not exist!" We will never hold the 
primordial and eternal energy of the universe in our hands,
but it turns out that we will still understand a lot 
about it from the way we know it works. [This knowledge is, 
by the way, formally remembered by us in what we call The 
Laws of Physics which... apply equally throughout the universe, 
and not just in your mind.]

> > and will ever be again: Existence is all that exists (or, if
> > in order to exist Existence would have had to have "a" beginning, it
> > could never exist): It does.
> But what is your argument to that?  Why could Existence not ever exist
> if it had a beginning?

Uncaused effect = miracle = not physically possible

> > ... it is far easier to
> > explain the existence of matter from the standpoint that its ultimate
> > nature is merely/only MOTION, than from the standpoint of "special
> > creation" Adam/Eve particles springing fully-armored from the fountain-
> > head of some Moment In Time!
> No, motion is not the nature of matter.  Motion is a property of
> visible matter, like time.

However you wish to speak of it, at its most fundamental: 
"matter" is "energy" and "energy" is "motion." If you could 
bring all the motions of an atom to a stop, you would not 
end up with little fundamental marbles (of which that atom
was constructed)... what would happen is that the matter 
of that atom would literally unravel right out of existence 
and you would end up with no matter whatsoever: None (zero).

If that doesn't tell you what "matter" is ultimately made of, 
nothing will.

> Sorry, but I still can't see the logical connection.

Well, since it is only crucial to you whether you do or not: 
I certainly wish you the best of luck stumbling on the proper optician! 
I am outta here. [For now.]

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