Writes Mr. Rodrian:

No: It is not my AR model of an imploding universe's
prediction (that the Hubble constant will be found to be
accelerating)... that has already been pretty much "found"
--if not yet fully "proved." Rather...

Exactly as I have been predicting in these newsgroups
Big Bangers are even as early as right now attempting to
concoct ANY imaginary causes they can come up with
to accommodate the apparent acceleration of the Hubble
constant within their BB theory (instead of doing what they
ought to do immediately & give the poor dead thing a decent
timely burial): Here are just two of their craziest concoctions:

1) The cosmological constant ... "an unusual form of energy
that distributes itself uniformly throughout the cosmos rather
than breaking into galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, or
other clumps" ...  Nobody knows what it is, where it might come
from, or whether it even exists or not... but it has the grace
of having been proposed by Einstein... so there probably has
to be something to it in spite of the fact that Einstein himself
called it his greatest mistake--What'd he know, right?

2) Funny Energy (I mean, REALLY funny energy): "In general
relativity, the strength of gravity depends on pressure, energy,
and matter. Funny energy," ("related to the quantum nature of
gravity," no less)...  "acts as a negative pressure, pushing on the
fabric of space-time. If the universe contains a large enough
component of this exotic energy, the net effect of gravity becomes
repulsive rather than attractive. Cosmic expansion speeds up
instead of slowing down." (Which translates: "Sure, gravity acts
like an attracting force, but maybe sometimes it has gas and
repels rather than attracts." Yeah, sure! Like, THAT makes sense!

ANYTHING as long as the Big Bang theory is retained (and this
apparently includes inventing a new definition for gravity as
a repulsive force... or, adding exotic matter to space which instead
of intensifying gravity, actually cancels of out).

But fear not, all ye sane persons out there... eventually reasonable
persons exhaust all crazy notions and go back to the simplest, most
straightforward and logical solution (that the universe is imploding
and NOT exploding). It's just that human history is replete with brief
episodes of chaos and revolution preceding the return of civilization.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

RE:

Week of Feb. 12, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 7
Revved-Up Universe
Astronomers check out an expansive finding

By R. Cowen

Next week, the venerable American
Museum of Natural History in New York
City will unveil an exhibit on the history
of the universe. Descending a spiral
ramp, visitors will journey through the
cosmos beginning at its fiery birth
some 13 billion years ago.

Few will notice the small metal plaque
at the entrance to the gallery, let alone
the mathematical symbols engraved
upon it. But these symbols speak
volumes about the size and fate of the
cosmos—and the rapidity with which
astronomers have come to embrace
one of the most bizarre discoveries
ever made.

Just 2 short years ago, two teams of astronomers
presented the first evidence that we live in a runaway
universe, driven to expand at a faster and faster rate.

That finding is in direct conflict with the simplest version
of the Big Bang. According to that theory, the universe
has expanded ever since its explosive birth, but gravity
has gradually slowed the expansion. Even if the universe
grows forever, the theory predicts that it should do so at a
steadily decreasing rate.

Recent observations of exploded stars, however, suggest
that the universe's rate of expansion is in fact increasing.
Over the past year, new data appear to corroborate those findings.

To be sure, no one is yet claiming that the notion has been
proved. "I don't think it's yet definitive, but it's certainly our
current best model," says cosmologist David N. Spergel of
Princeton University. It was good enough for Spergel, along
with several other eminent astronomers, to recommend
that the museum inscribe the parameter for an accelerating
universe on its plaque.

Although the model may not be cast in concrete, it's now
been engraved in bronze.

So far, astronomers have found no serious objections to
the acceleration model. Nonetheless, "it's a big puzzle,"
says Scott Dodelson of the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. Typically, he notes, theory
leaps ahead of observations in cosmology. In this case,
however, "people are struggling to understand the data.
It's a crazy time," he says.  << You said it, baby!  SDR

Several studies promise to tie up loose ends—or overturn
the idea—over the next 2 years. Many of the tests have
their roots in 1998 findings on the exploded stars called
type 1a supernovas.

To determine whether or not the universe is revving up its
rate of expansion, astronomers several years ago began
comparing type 1a supernovas in distant regions of the
universe with those nearby. Not only can these brilliant
beacons be seen from far away—more than halfway to
the edge of the observable universe—they also appear
to have the same intrinsic brightness in both nearby and
distant galaxies, like light bulbs of the same wattage.

Because light from a distant galaxy takes several billion years
to reach Earth, astronomers observe that galaxy as it appeared
when the universe was several billion years younger. If gravity
were steadily slowing cosmic expansion, the distance between
Earth and that remote galaxy would be less, and the galaxy
would thus appear brighter, than if the expansion had proceeded
at a constant rate. By the same token, a supernova in a remote
galaxy would look brighter in a decelerating universe than it would
in a universe where expansion has been constant.

In early 1998, two teams startled astronomers by finding
exactly the opposite effect. Distant supernovas appeared
20 percent dimmer than expected for constant expansion,
indicating that over the past few billion years, the
universe's growth has sped up (SN: 12/19&26/98, p. 392).

Cosmologists have come to attribute the acceleration
to an unusual form of energy that distributes itself
uniformly throughout the cosmos rather
than breaking into galaxies, galaxy clusters,
superclusters, or other clumps. At present, this energy
has a higher density than matter, and its
gravitational influence dominates the cosmos.

Some call this energy the cosmological constant, a term first
invoked by Albert Einstein in 1917 when he realized that his theory of
gravity predicted a universe that was either expanding or contracting.
Because standard wisdom at the time held that the universe is static,
Einstein added the cosmological constant so that his equations would
allow a stationary solution. He later abandoned the idea, calling it "my
greatest blunder."

To explain the new observations, cosmologists have resurrected the
cosmological constant. Many associate its energy with the sea of
particles and antiparticles that, according to quantum mechanics,
populates empty space. Others call it "funny energy" and propose that it
relates to the quantum nature of gravity. In either case, it's exotic
stuff and poorly understood.

In general relativity, the strength of gravity depends on pressure,
energy,
and matter. Funny energy acts as a negative pressure, pushing on the
fabric of space-time. If the universe contains a large enough component
of
this exotic energy, the net effect of gravity becomes repulsive rather
than
attractive. Cosmic expansion speeds up instead of slowing down.

But are the supernova studies correct? "The cosmological constant is
such an exotic and strange idea . . . there's no really good conceptual
understanding of what it is," says Adam G. Riess, a member of the High-Z
Supernova discovery team at the Space Telescope Science Institute in
Baltimore.

"I think it really requires extraordinary proof to convince people that
there's
this whole other kind of energy that makes up most of the energy in the
universe. The only way to give that extra proof is to really exhaust
every
other possibility," he says.

Among the confounding effects that might muddy the issue, two have
taken center stage. Cosmic dust could make the supernovas look dimmer,
or the more distant ones might have a composition different from the
nearby ones, making them look fainter.

The first explanation calls for a special type of dust. If the culprit
had been
the ordinary form, researchers would already have detected it, says
Riess.

Ordinary dust, composed of particles smaller than 0.1 micrometer,
preferentially absorbs blue wavelengths of light, allowing red
wavelengths
to pass through relatively unimpeded. Observing the same supernovas at
slightly different wavelengths—some redder, some bluer—astronomers
have found no evidence that such dust significantly blocks the light.

That doesn't rule out a hypothetical type of intergalactic dust composed
of
particles 0.1 µm or larger in size. Dubbed gray dust by theorist Anthony
N.
Aguirre of Harvard University, such material would absorb red light
almost
as well as it does blue.

Gray dust would only betray its subtle presence through observation of a
single supernova at two widely separated wavelengths, a test Riess and
his colleagues performed last year. They found no difference in
brightness
when they observed a supernova at 400 nanometers, or blue light, with
the
Hubble Space Telescope, and at 900 nm, or near-infrared light, with the
Keck I Telescope atop Hawaii's Mauna Kea.

"We don't see any evidence for gray dust," Riess says. Without similar
studies of other supernovas, "we can't say categorically that it isn't
out
there, but this kind of observation disfavors it at a 95 to 98 percent
confidence level," he notes. Riess reported the finding last month at a
meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Atlanta.

Nor have astronomers so far found any significant differences in
composition between nearby and distant supernovas. A new project is
looking for differences between old and young supernovas in nearby
galaxies.

Using telescopes with unusually large
fields of view, some of them designed
to hunt near-Earth asteroids, Saul
Perlmutter of Lawrence Berkeley
(Calif.) National Laboratory and his
colleagues have begun a program to
find large numbers of these
supernovas. The project won't swing
into full gear until next year.

To test the runaway-universe model
directly, astronomers need to find
supernovas at still greater distances
than they have so far observed. Theory
suggests that before cosmic
expansion sped up, it had slowed
down. That's because the youthful
cosmos was much smaller and denser
than it is today, and the gravitational
tug exerted by ordinary matter in the
universe's early days would have
dwarfed any repulsive force associated
with the cosmological constant (SN:
11/27/99, p. 341).

Measuring the brightness of extremely remote supernovas can reveal
whether the universe had indeed undergone a period of deceleration. If
expansion had slowed, supernovas from long ago would appear brighter
than would be expected if expansion were constant.

The transition between slowing down and speeding up would have occurred
when the universe was about one-third its current age, or about 9
billion
years ago, astronomers calculate. To date, the supernova teams have
examined two supernovas that hail from about this time. Over the next 2
years, Perlmutter says, researchers are likely to find enough of the
extremely distant supernovas to determine whether there was a
deceleration.

"This is a unique signature of a cosmological constant—namely that today
the universe is accelerating, yesterday it was decelerating," says
Riess.
Neither dust nor differences in composition could mimic such behavior,
he
says.

"Nature would be cruel if it came up with a [different mechanism] that
makes things look dimmer then brighter in just that way," says Spergel.
"If
we see both the slowing down and the speeding up, then it becomes a
really compelling case."

A flying observatory devoted to studying type 1a supernovas could gather
such data, Perlmutter says. Such a satellite, known as the Supernova
Acceleration Probe (SNAP), may be launched in 2006. It could make
measurements that would be precise enough to not only document funny
energy but also distinguish between different theories of its nature, he
says.

For instance, a theory known as quintessence suggests that the
cosmological constant is not a constant at all but varies over time (SN:
2/28/98, p. 139). In this model, cosmic expansion would not have sped up
as rapidly.

A completely independent line of evidence also leads to a runaway
universe and a mysterious form of energy.

Just as ancient explorers mapped the shape of Earth, cosmic
cartographers are charting the shape and density of the universe.
Listening
to the cosmic-microwave background, the whisper of radiation left over
from the Big Bang, researchers have confirmed a long-standing prediction
that the universe is flat. It has just enough matter and energy so that
the
fabric of space-time is not curved and parallel lines never meet.

A telescope perched high in the Chilean Andes and a balloon-borne
detector on a test flight over Palestine, Texas, have closely examined
subtle temperature variations—tiny hot spots and cold spots—in the
microwave background. These variations, the imprint left on the infant
universe from the Big Bang, were first glimpsed 8 years ago by a NASA
satellite.

That satellite, however, could only view the hot and cold spots as broad
brushstrokes, averaged over large chunks of the sky.

The newer experiments reveal the temperature variations in much finer
detail. Both have found that variations in temperature reach their peak
over
patches of sky that are 1° across. This size, twice the apparent
diameter
of the full moon, fits the model for a flat universe. Other experiments
had
hinted at the same finding, but these newer data are the most
convincing.

The temperature fluctuations recorded
by the Chilean telescope, known as the
Mobile Anisotropy Telescope (MAT),
and the balloon-borne detector,
BOOMERANG, correspond to
microscopic fluctuations in the density
of the universe when it was about
300,000 years old. At that time, the
cosmos had cooled to the temperature
where matter and light cease to
interact strongly and radiation could
stream freely into space.

Amber D. Miller of Princeton University
and her colleagues reported the MAT
results in the Oct. 10, 1999
Astrophysical Journal Letters. Brendan
P. Crill of the California Institute of
Technology in Pasadena, a member of
the Italian-U.S. BOOMERANG team,
presented the balloon findings last
month at the Atlanta meeting.

"These are hard measurements to get right, but I think now one can feel
some confidence that the fluctuations do really peak on the 1° scale,"
says Spergel.

In a flat universe, the total density of energy and matter must equal
the
so-called critical density. A slew of other studies shows, however, that
the
universe is seriously underweight. Analysis of the clustering of
galaxies
across the sky, for example, indicates that matter provides only about
one-third of the critical density.

To balance the cosmic ledger, some form of energy must make up the
missing 70 percent of the critical density. The amount of exotic energy
suggested by the supernova studies fills the bill.

"Taken together, the cosmic-microwave background and the supernova
data are very powerful because the two are completely unrelated to each
other," says Riess.

Although each set of experiments is susceptible to its own errors, "the
experiments don't have the same Achilles heel," he adds. "It's pretty
suggestive that [the microwave-background studies] fit together very
nicely
with the supernova data," adds Spergel.

After carefully combining the results of the supernova studies with
those of
the microwave background and other observations, two astronomers say
that the findings require a cosmological constant. Max Tegmark of the
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Matias Zaldarriaga of the
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton reported their analysis at
last
month's astronomy conference.

Spergel worries, however, that other cosmological models could be
consistent with the single peak observed in the microwave-background
fluctuations. Compelling proof that the universe is flat, he says, will
come if
researchers can detect a predicted second and third peak.

In the meantime, the American Museum of Natural History wants to make
sure it won't get caught flatfooted. "Our expectation is that we will
reevaluate the prevailing winds of cosmology every 5 years and adjust
both
the plaque and the exhibit accordingly," says curator Frank Summers. The
plaque, he notes, is attached by screws and can easily be replaced.

Some astronomers are confident, however, that definitive data may
already
be in hand. BOOMERANG's test flight in 1997 examined the microwave
background for just 4.5 hours. A year later, it logged 190 hours during
a
flight over Antarctica. BOOMERANG researcher Andrew E. Lange of
Caltech says that in theory, the 1998 experiment is capable of finding a
second peak if it's there.

Crill says the team hopes to announce the results of the 1998 flight in
a
month or two. Several astronomers told Science News that they have
heard rumors that the team has already found the second and third peaks.

Another satellite, the Microwave Anisotropy Probe, is set for launch
this
November. Much more sensitive than BOOMERANG and capable of
viewing the entire sky, it should find several peaks if they exist,
Spergel
says.

"For both the cosmic-microwave-background and the supernova studies,
there are data in the next 2 to 3 years that will make this go from a
very
suggestive case, a best-bet case, to a really compelling one," Spergel
predicts.

From Science News, Vol. 157, No. 7, February 12, 2000, p. 106.

***************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 20 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <88nfsu$hbd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.79
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 20 01:26:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
  "mountbatur" <mountbatur@beand.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Very interesting - but as I understood it redshift shows that Galaxies
> are
> moving away from each other.  Surely this would not be the case in an
> imploding universe.

Yes it would be the case. Always keep in mind one absolute truth:
It is OUR universe that is imploding (consequently EVERY ASPECT
OF ITS NATURE is that of an imploding universe). Nothing
could be simpler:

The galaxies ARE receding from each other (not equidistantly, of course:
individual galaxies crash and orbit each other)... on the whole.

BEGIN QUOTE:

> Why is there no directionality in the observed redshift?

Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
give us a clearer "sense of direction" than our current one.]

Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:

Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).

Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
"marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
their naked eyes.

If the people of these planets do not know that they have
just shrank, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
(and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
are moving away from each other extremely quickly.

This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
towards each other... and that very, very slight different
will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
then they move towards each other)... this means that
their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
the universe by the Hubble constant.

This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
tiny factor (so that we may yet  be able to tell which
way is the center of our universe).

Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
other galaxies...

The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
11, 1, and 2).  Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
"journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will tend
to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
-observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in fact,
there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]

Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous "glance"
at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).

> Or
> am
> I completely wacked in believing there HAS TO BE directionality? To
> repeat, in the direction of our line of travel, why in there not a
> high
> redshift ahead, a lesser redshift behind, and zero redshift (or
> perhaps
> a little blue shift) abeam?

A lot of questions, but basically... because our little "bit" of
the galaxy (that portions which includes all the galaxies we can
"see") is a minuscule percentage of the whole of the universe.
This little "bit" of our universe is very probably unimaginably
young (compared to the true age of the whole of the universe).
But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
"blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path. And since
many galaxies do crash and even combine, it's possible this
may yet happen as we go along on our merry Milk Way.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

***********************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <894vab$ul8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88ng25$hjh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<YHPs4.4699$2E1.112462@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 171.213.120.38
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 25 04:09:49 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <YHPs4.4699$2E1.112462@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
  "Phssthpok" <phssthpok@netzero.net> wrote:
> It's a clever idea, but I'm afraid your hypothesis doesn't make sense.

And that doesn't make sense to me (surely there must be some
half way betwen us). Let us explore the possibility.

> Consider your thought experiment again. What makes the atoms of one
> planet
> shrink together and away from those of the other planet?

In short: All the forms of matter are but forms. All matter
is build of gravity. Gravity is the fundamental form of energy
in the universe. If the universe would use energy it must
obtain it from matter. Matter is not fundamental but merely
"forms" ... and "forms" can shrink without losing their forms.
Consequently, as the universe siphons off the energy/gravity
of which the "forms" of matter are made... they shrink (and
they will continue to shrink until there is no more energy (or
gravity) to support their existence. Now...

Gravity will always exert a greater effect with proximity.
This means that where matter is "denser" it will shrink just
"faster enough" to stay ahead of the shrinkage where matter
is "less dense." In practice this means that atoms will shrink
before their planet; but it is a meaningless distinction within
the bigger picture: The forms of matter do not shrink just for
the Hell of shrinking... they shrink because E=MC^2 (in effect
because energy is IN the forms of matter) and the universe
fuels its every least motion with that energy... eternally leaving
an ever-decreasing energy supply behind (or... an eternally
shrinking/diminishing totality of ordinary matter): But, as I said,
this is really inconsequential to us BECAUSE "size" (like time) is
only an idea in the human mind... as so the universe will always
remain the same size in our ordinary human experience.

First you have to understand that the universe is imploding, then
you have to understand that such an implosion MUST be fueled
by a tremendous amount of energy (and you must also understand
that every motion in the universe also must be fueled by energy):
Then you have to understand where that energy is coming from.
And once you understand that... you understand WHY it is that ALL
the "forms" of matter in the universe are shrinking and WHERE
the "subtracted" matter is going.

> If the matter
> were,
> in fact, shrinking as you suggest, each atom would shrink in situ. The
> atoms
> of my hand would withdraw from each other and it would vaporize.

ONLY if it were just the atoms in your hand shrinking AND "shrinking
in place" were the ONLY motion occurring in the universe.  But, in
fact, the entire universe (of matter) is behaving exactly like every
atom
in it... And this means that its shrinking is nowhere linear: Remember
that there is no exception to the absolute rule: There are NO (none)
fundamental particles: ALL the "forms" of matter are just that...
"forms."

If only an atom in your thumb and an atom in your index finger were
shrinking they would indeed shrink away from each other. But every
atom in the universe is shrinking AND moving equidistantly towards
each other (this eternal universality to equidistantly cancel the "gaps"
created by the shrinking... in effect cancels out any & all linear
motions
in our universe). In our ordinary sensual perception nothing changes,
of course... since every last subparticle in the universe save one (the
photon, which although also shrinking, does not completely "join" in
that
secondary motion of ordinary matter "towards closing the "gaps" left
by the primary shrinking in place")... are all shrinking.

> Unless, of
> course, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces and their spheres
> of
> influence remained unaffected in which case the net effect of such a
> shrinkage would be unmeasurable (read: no redshift).

The mediating particle of light, the photon, is also shrinking.
Therefore
a "distance" of one light year will always remain a distance of one
light
year regardless how much the universe shrinks because it's an eternal
ratio rather than some ideal absolute distance.

> Otherwise, where would the energy come from to overcome inertia and
> propel
> the shrinking atoms towards some hypothetical center?

I don't know about propelling atoms towards "center" but the energy
of the universe is stored in matter [E=MC^2] and that matter exists
(not as the early Greeks believed... in fundamental atoms, but) in
"forms" of matter. If matter were fundamental, the universe would
find it extremely difficult to obtain its energy from it; but because
the energy of the universe is "conserved/locked up" only in "forms"
of matter... that energy can be easily accessed and put to use in
the "motions" of the universe. Think of it this way: Gravity suffuses
the universe outside the forms of ordinary matter, and it also suffuses
the insides of the forms of matter (therefore, there is no apparent
barrier
between gravity outside matter and gravity inside matter). The result,
of
course, is not the nuclear annihilation of matter in order for the
universe
to have access to the energy stored in matter but the most perfect form
of non-nuclear "cold fusion" one could possibly ever dream of: One
in which the "forms" of matter merely shrink as the energy locked in
them
is almost imperceptibly "extracted." [And this is obviously never a
violent or sudden extraction process, but a continuing, eternal one
which will continue until there just isn't any more energy (or, matter)
to fuel the work of gravity. Then the most marvelous solution of all:
That energy which was once gravity again becomes infinite (scalar) mass
and that gives rise to matter again in our universe.]

> What would
> define the
> center?

Think of it this way: In the movement of gravity (which is the only
fundamental thing in matter) "towards center" ... gravity is consumed.
The journey "towards center" (really, towards shrinking) is ONLY
for the lifetime of gravity. Therefore, once gravity is exhausted...
the forms of matter are no more, and even gravity is no more. So
what would you really expect to "find" at your imagined "center?"

> if it's gravity, why, then, wouldn't the planets/galaxies
> remain in
> the same relative positions due to their gravitational pull on each
> other?

In point of fact, they do: First comes the shrinking BECAUSE
that is caused by the subtraction of energy to fuel all the goings on
(shrinking is just a motion too). Then gravity bridges the gaps
left by the shrinkage--This is an important sequence to understand
because, given enough cosmological distance, this tiny effect is
magnified into the Hubble constant.  The Hubble constant is the
ONLY hint given us (aside of c constancy) of what the universe
is really up to. The fact that gravity "closest to center" will move
"towards center" (where most of the rest of gravity is) faster than
gravity located in more diffused regions away from center ONLY
comes into play when one notices that the Hubble constant is
accelerating. [And it becomes proof against a Big Bang model and
therefore supportive proof of an imploding model of the universe.]

> If it could preserve the local integrity of matter it should preserve
> the
> integrity of the whole system.

And it does... as close to perfectly as one could ever hope to imagine
perfection to get.

Kindly,

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

***********************************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 64.24.21.129
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Feb 23 23:03:04 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.math,alt.math.recreational,soc.men
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net>,
  "faust" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> First, let me say that really admire your concept of an "imploding
> universe".... its very creative and for the moment I can not really
> think of
> any flaw in the basic logic.

Well, I don't know how creative it may be, but I myself have been
trying everything I can to debunk it for the past ten years or so
and so far I've been unable to do so. It's really personally annoying
to contemplate an existence which is literally "going down the drain"
(at least with the Big Bang Mythology one had the "comforting" thought
of being able to imagine "bits" of matter surviving for billions of
years
in some yet cold & darkened universe inside which some intelligent life
might survive on fusion or some other non-star energy).

> I do however take issue with your
> evidence,

Well, good luck to you! I've tried to take issue with the evidence
myself... without much luck.

> as
> the expansion of the universe is not necessarily dependent upon your
> hypothesis.

I've gone that route so many times my thoughts've developed
little itty bitty legs and a familiar groove!

> The expansion of the universe is non-directional because
> the
> whole universe is expanding and everything is moving at a consistent
> rate
> (excepting independent motion) from everything else.  The best way I
> have
> heard of visualizing it is to imagine that the galaxies are raisins in
> a
> loaf of bread.  When the bread is baked it expands.and each raisin
> will move
> with the expansion of the bread at a consistent rate away from each
> other
> raisin.  If you were placed onto a single raisin you would see every
> other
> raisin around you moving away at a constant rate.  It is not necessary
> to be
> in the center raisin to experience this consistent recession of the
> other
> raisins.

It all sounds so delicious and aromatic! Unfortunately there is a
nagging
wall beyond which we may not travel this route. And it is this: "Energy
can not be created or destroyed."

TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all over
the universe like balls on a pool table (which is basically the Big Bang
premise... in which the galaxies have been "cued" to break into an
"expansion"). It's nifty for cosmologists to say that the universe is
not
exploding but expanding, and that it's just "space stretching" between
the galaxies... but at SOME point one has to account for THE REASON
galaxies are moving about. It's as simple as that. But, BECAUSE no one
who has ever tried to account for this has ever been able to come up
with a good enough reason why the galaxies are receding from each
other... the original thinkers of the turn of the last century proposed
that
it HAD to have been that some primordial explosion GAVE the expansion
of the universe its energy.  It's simple and hard to dispute (if you
have
an objection, it says, then you tell us why the universe is expanding
without
any visible "means of support" ... as, NOWHERE is there ANY evidence
that the expansion is being fueled by any ongoing expenditure of
energy).
Even in the face of this there are astronomers who with a straight face
will tell you that the universe is expanding, "but there was really no
primordial explosion... located at the place from which the universe was
pushed into expanding." [It's all magic in their minds, and in the dark
&
marvelous shows they put on for us in their planetariums.] Obviously, if
some primordial explosion gave the expansion of the universe its energy
then we don't have to worry about the fact that the universe is
expanding
without using any energy whatsoever to do so!

Yes, by the way, I know a lot of theorists have proposed that the
expansion
of the universe may be fueled by bursting hydrogen atoms or the odd
electrons
that get sick of hanging around with ordinary matter.. and all sorts of
"energy"
particles that... ALL fail miserably in one respect: The amount of
energy required
to fuel the Hubble constant is so immense, so monstrously immense that
the
loss of the energy required to fuel it would have to be just as
monstrously
apparent... and NOT merely one or two electrons (spared by ordinary
matter)
and dropped here & there into the cosmic engine. [Move a galaxy a couple
of
inches, and then come back to us on this one.] It is for this reason,
and a couple
of others, that ALL Big Bang and ALL true expanding universe models are
based on magic and ONLY on magic--They cannot run in the real world.
Period.
They just don't have any gas in their tanks. [Nevermind that none of
them
even TRIES to account for the origin of matter or energy themselves.
But, then
again: Why should a system that works on magic alone bother with such
things?]

Only a imploding model for the universe can account for the origin of
energy
and of matter. Only an imploding model accounts for how and why every
last little bit of motion in it is able to move, where its energy/fuel
comes from,
how it uses it, and even how much it uses at every step of the way: NO
MAGIC.
Only an imploding model for the universe explains c constancy in
identical
mediums in a simple and straightforward manner (COMPLETELY in just three
very simple to understand paragraphs... so that any reasonable human
being
can "see" it as clearly as he/she can see a tree). Only an imploding
model explains
why the Hubble constant might be accelerating (Hell, it actually demands
that
the universe exhibit just such an acceleration). What more anyone would
ask for
of the imploding universe model... I do not know!

And yet, as posted here recently, cosmologists are still posting some
"funny
energy" or other fueling the "expansion" (hilarious, really)... an
"energy" which
is not only invisible, intangible,  and without a source, but which has
no conceivable
mechanism by which to do anything Big Bang cosmologists are trying to
convince
themselves it "might" be doing! The SOLE reason for this is that the Big
Bang model
of the universe cannot be supported by the evidence... and so its high
priests and
disciples must INVENT imaginary "justifications" for continuing to
believe in it.
And they will do so until, literally, "the tide turns," and they can
begin to take
seriously the evidence that's in front of their own eyes.

> Another important point to consider, is that the universe
> may not
> even have a center in a tradition sense.

This is an aside, but...

Before settling on my implosion model I myself leaned towards some
unconventional methods which might yet allow for a Big Bang model.
Twenty years ago the argument centered around whether the universe
had sufficient matter in it to halt and/or reverse its expansion or
whether
its expansion would continue forever. While I  tended to concentrate on
the amount of energy produced by the theoretical BB explosion itself:

I was always stumped by the idea that such an expenditure of energy
would have to have "converted" the primordial form of energy into the
"work" of pushing the expansion of the universe... and how (whatever
that pre-Big Bang energy form) had ended up as ordinary matter. But
the Big Bang furnace never proved very efficient--it had to have been
mediated by too many distinct parameters which did not "agree"
among themselves sufficiently: Meaning... unworkable complexities.
[You simply cannot have a Big Bang "singularity" which is as complex
as the modern day universe. Period.] Even if you took the view that
gravity was the fundamental force into which the primordial energy
of the universe had settled... it obviously worked against expansion!
Further, even if you assumed that none of the forms of matter were
themselves fundamental (and therefore allowed for a theoretical
continued expenditure of gravity/energy in the expansion of the
universe... fueled at the cost of all those forms of matter "shrinking"
(meaning... that the universe would remain the same "size" as the
original singularity ... and the expansion of the universe is merely a
misinterpretation of the fact that all the forms of matter are
shrinking):
you still do not end up with a true expanding universe but, in fact,
what
you inescapably end up with is... an imploding universe which only
appears to us to be expanding. So no matter how one tries to figure out
a way for the universe to escape implosion it always comes back to it.

> It is only with the Steady
> State
> model that space is flat.  In that model there is precisely enough
> matter
> for the universe to expand,

Unfortunately... the same stone wall: Where comes the energy
to fuel such an expansion? And, where comes matter (since it is
assumed that matter is ultimately fundamental--that there is some
"particle" which will never be found to be composed of other
more basic particles; and, consequently, that there is a limit to
how small a "something" can get).

> ... but after a certain amount of time gravity
> "brakes" the universe to a halt.  So the universe would have a
> traditional
> center with a sphere around it.

It is not possible to propose mass without a center (even donuts
are centered inwardly and extend out towards a finite edge away
from center). The mathematical dimensions man dreams up all come
from a children's toy: Take a strip of paper and glue its edges together
(only twist the paper once before gluing them): Now place a pencil
on the strip of paper and draw a line without ever lifting the pencil
off
the strip of paper: Voila! "You will eventually end up where you
started!"
(Ostensibly discovering that your strip of paper only has a single side,
or "dimension.") Does this mean you have created a piece of paper
that only has one single side to it? Nope. Sorry. This is obvious to you
because you can take the strip of paper in your hands and see that it
still
has two sides: Reality is hard to counterfeit. However... mathematical
models which twist/trick the mind into the illusion that reality is
multi-
dimensional... cannot be so easily disproved by reality because such
models cannot exist in it (you cannot hold them in your hand and see
EXACTLY where the "trick that glues it in place" lies... most of the
time).
Therefore it is possible to model (glue together) ANY milti-dimensional
"trick" mathematically and claim it as reality (magicians do it all the
time
... the real trick is getting other magicians to not find... or, at
least, to not
reveal how the trick's just a trick... so they can all profit from
wowing the
rubes--I mean... the customers--a while longer).

> The other two models are the Open and
> Closed model.  The Open model is a universe with inadequate mass to
> compensate for the force of the explosion of the Big Bang.  The
> universe
> slows, but expands to infinity.  The Closed model predicts a universe
> that
> will expand for some time but then gravity will overcome the force of
> the
> expansion and then reverse it.  The universe will collapse back unto
> itself.

Either way it's still the same impossibility of "something from
nothing."

> Both of these models are non-Euclidean models i.e. space would be
> curved
> (one in an ellipse, the other in a parabola).

And if one keeps curving space, of course, we can then eventually
drill a small "worm hole" between the curved halves of the universe
(where they almost bump against one another) and travel in time
billions of years into the past and billions of years into the future
and billions of light-years from here... and, isn't this Star Trek fun!
It almost seems as if space it the easiest thing to bend there is in
the universe--And, know what: it is!!!! (Italians seem especially
good at it, when they take it in their hands and say, "I'ma gonna
twist yo neck lika thisa!")

> It is possible with
> both of
> these models to imagine a universe with no conceivable center.

Yep: Ye olde sack-o-potatoes universe!

> The
> best way
> to think of this, would be trying a flat plane curved over a sphere,
> the
> earth's surface for example.  If one were to try to find the center or
> "edge
> of the earth", you would ultimately end up at the exact spot you
> started at.

Nice alternative to the strip of paper toy I mentioned before! (As are
all
"complex" mathematical models of mathematical models.) And it even has
the added grace that no one can pick it up and "spot" where the trick
lies.

> That is because there is no center.  Much the same way with the
> universe
> (except instead of a 2D structure curved into 3D space, it would be a
> 3D
> structure - a sphere curved into 4D space - maybe a hypersphere).

Of course... an object with a dimension of time could not have a "rest"
state except in the mind. And if an object has no "place" in which to
exist.. can it exist at all?!?!?! I doubt it. Such an object would have
to
FIRST drop "out" of the dimension of time before it could "exist" in
a given (necessarily... timeless) place. And so I prefer the notion that
there are only three dimensions; and that things exist in those three
dimensions alone Further... that if something or other moves in those
three dimensions... it moves from here to there (from one "rest state"
to the next). And, of course, this individual motion is independent of
all the other motions of the universe (each of which may be moving
or not moving, speeding up or slowing down, themselves independent
of all other motions in the universe). Rather wonder: is "motion" really
"smooth;" or does it "jump" in a manner already described by QM? ...

> If
> you
> were to start at Earth and try to find the edge or center of the
> universe,
> you would (after an extremely long period of time) end up back at
> earth.

Only as long as you did not lift the pencil off/from the universe. Yes.

> Last time I checked in 97,

My God, how often do you get your checks?!

> given the measured rate of expansion and
> the
> estimated age of the universe,

NONE of which we really know much about, by the way...

> the universe seemed to be borderline
> Steady
> State leaning to the Closed Model (This is still a Closed Model... in
> the
> Steady State Model the universe must be to the gram a certain mass).
> However, theorist could not come up with enough mass to justify this
> state
> of affairs.  Thus something has to wrong - the estimated age of the
> universe
> or the nature matter and mass as currently known.

In my experience... physicists, cosmologists, et al, are children
arguing at
the sandlot: My, what wonderful clever ideas they all come up with! What
colorful expressions & equations, and four-letter words! But, at the end
of the day they are all driven home by any quick Spring shower. None of
their words chiseling permanently a single truth upon the passing
clouds.
(I love the pun, "chiseling.") In any case, maybe that's the thing makes
me
so willing to consider a possibility not already toyed with by the
children
... or a possibility perhaps cast aside too quickly because it might not
have
been "childish" enough for them. In any case, I'm one of those folks
likes
to work with an open mind--You know: a serious scientist; not just some
player at the sandlot happy to construct the prettiest little castle of
the day.

> Of course nothing of what I have written directly contradicts your
> concept
> of an imploding universe. I am only trying to argue your supporting
> tenants.
> :-)

Well, if SOMEBODY doesn't come up with one single objection to
the model of an imploding universe THAT STICKS, and soon, I imagine
people will definitely start wondering WHY they're still sticking with a
Big Bang model... which is becoming practically invisible under all the
objections it's overrun with. Even the "dullest" of Big-Bangers today
make
sure people understand that "their" Big Bang universe is just
"expanding"
without ever having had anything whatever to do with any "actual" Big
Bang.

Go figure! But not physics or cosmology... go figure human nature.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
 

RE:

> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>>   "mountbatur" <mountbatur@beand.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Very interesting - but as I understood it redshift shows that
>>> Galaxies
>>> are
>>> moving away from each other.  Surely this would not be the case in
>>> an
>>> imploding universe.
>>
>> Yes it would be the case. Always keep in mind one absolute truth:
>> It is OUR universe that is imploding (consequently EVERY ASPECT
>> OF ITS NATURE is that of an imploding universe). Nothing
>> could be simpler:
>>
>> The galaxies ARE receding from each other (not equidistantly, of
>> course:
>> individual galaxies crash and orbit each other)... on the whole.
>>
>> BEGIN QUOTE:
>>
>>> Why is there no directionality in the observed redshift?
>>
>> Basically because ours is an imploding universe and not
>> an exploding (Big Bang) universe. [There is directionality, but
>> very little--hopefully the cosmic background radiation will
>> give us a clearer "sense of direction" than our current one.]
>>
>> Galaxies really are receding from each other "mostly" uniformly
>> in every direction. Although the fact that the universe is imploding
>> is/may be adding a slight acceleration to its implosion, there are
>> other factors about this recession which take primacy in an
>> imploding universe; and none is more important that the fact that
>> all the "forms" of ordinary matter are shrinking:
>>
>> Let's use the following thought experiment: There are two
>> earth-sized planets standing side-by-side (in fact, let's say
>> they're one inch apart, so anyone standing on either planet
>> can look at the surface of the companion planet and see
>> its every least detail clearly with the naked eye).
>>
>> Suddenly, in the blink of an eye the two planets have shrunk
>> to a size not much larger than a glass marble. But these two
>> "marble-sized" planets are now exactly where the centers
>> of the pre-shrunk planets were... so that "people" on each
>> of the planets need to use very powerful telescopes to
>> see as much of "the other" planet as they did before with
>> their naked eyes.
>>
>> If the people of these planets do not know that they have
>> just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
>> away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
>> one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
>> (and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
>> report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
>> they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
>> And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
>> perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
>> are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
>>
>> This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
>> the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
>> shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
>> are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
>> towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
>> will tend to almost cancel each other... just not to an
>> absolutely exact degree: Because gravity will always have
>> a more powerful effect locally than at a distance, the
>> planets will shrink just slightly faster than they will move
>> towards each other... and that very, very slight difference
>> will be magnified by distance, of course, so that at
>> galactic distances it will be observable as the Hubble
>> constant. You can also speak of this in this manner:
>> The shrinking of the two planets takes precedence
>> over their moving towards each other (first they shrink and
>> then they move towards each other)... this means that
>> their motions toward each other will lag infinitely behind
>> their shrinking "away from each other" and thereby comes
>> the universe by the Hubble constant.
>>
>> This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
>> And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
>> closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
>> of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
>> center. However, because, in my opinion, our "bit" of
>> the universe is very near the edge of the universe: this
>> acceleration effect will be a very tiny one in our "bit" of
>> the universe... though I'm convinced that eventually we
>> will develop the means to accurately estimate even this
>> tiny factor (so that we may yet  be able to tell which
>> way is the center of our universe).
>>
>> Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
>> recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
>> seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
>> respect to us (our own galaxy). And this tells me that in
>> a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
>> apparent: This results from the fact that in a true expanding
>> universe our "trajectory" (from center to edge) would
>> always seem more direct than the trajectories of all the
>> other galaxies...
>>
>> The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
>> our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
>> up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
>> the center of the clock face towards the other numbers (10,
>> 11, 1, and 2).  Any galaxy which is moving towards the edge
>> at the same speed as ours and which departed from "a" center
>> at the same time as ours will reach the edge of the universe
>> at the same time as ours... however, their "edge" will always
>> seem "lower in the universe horizon" with the effect that their
>> "journey" to that edge will seem slower (and once you factor in
>> the fact that it takes light some time to reach us)... this will
>> tend
>> to make it seem as if our galaxy is moving faster in one direction
>> than the rest of the other galaxies (with the exception of those
>> galaxies which are directly in front of our path and directly
>> behind us as we travel up to the clock face's 12). The opposite
>> -observable- effect would be to make it seem as if (except for
>> the couple of galaxies directly ahead & behind us), to make it
>> seem as if the rest of the universe were "moving" past us (and
>> towards the center of the universe). [This, of course, would be
>> more obvious the smaller the universe--Consequently, even if
>> we may dismiss our inability to see this "falling behind" effect
>> due to our universe being so massive... we can still use this
>> to "prove" a much more massive universe than the tiny one
>> proposed by the Big Bang theories. Therefore the fact that
>> our universe does not display this "falling back" effect very
>> obviously enhances my prediction of a universe much, much
>> bigger than the current estimates, even if it cannot be used with
>> absolute confidence to prove an imploding universe--And, I
>> might add... the bigger the universe THE LESS LIKELY that
>> it is an exploding one because it increases the demand that its
>> overall gravity haul the expansion or reverse it altogether; while
>> there are no practical reasons to limit the size of an imploding
>> universe... all universe sizes work just as well there--and, in
>> fact,
>> there is a case to be made for the idea that the bigger the
>> universe the better it works as an imploding universe model.]
>>
>> Of course, this "opening flower" scenario is one which can only
>> occur to someone seriously considering the merits of an imploding
>> vs and exploding universe--If one just gives a very superfluous
>> "glance"
>> at the consequences of a true expanding universe many of the most
>> irrational outcomes of the expanding universe models are very likely
>> to be missed (or to be too easily dismissed; much the same thing).
>>
>>> Or
>>> am
>>> I completely wacked in believing there HAS TO BE directionality?
>>> To
>>> repeat, in the direction of our line of travel, why in there not a
>>> high
>>> redshift ahead, a lesser redshift behind, and zero redshift (or
>>> perhaps
>>> a little blue shift) abeam?
>>
>> A lot of questions, but basically... because our little "bit" of
>> the galaxy (that portions which includes all the galaxies we can
>> "see") is a minuscule percentage of the whole of the universe.
>> This little "bit" of our universe is very probably unimaginably
>> young (compared to the true age of the whole of the universe).
>> But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
>> "blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path. And since
>> many galaxies do crash and even combine, it's possible this
>> may yet happen as we go along on our merry Milk Way.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>
>>
***************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <894u93$tsu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 152.205.156.98
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 25 03:52:04 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics,umich.physics.astro-ph
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
  "Androcles" <androcles@home.com> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [snip]
> Since you have chosen to post this to alt.math, would you mind telling
> us
> what axioms you are basing your ideas upon?
> Androcles

The following one:

"Where is
the energy that gravity is using to do its work
coming from?"

e. g.

If gravity works strictly by magic, as some
conventional physicists posit, then the question is
not relevant.

However, if, on the other hand, one needs
to account for the energy which MUST be fueling
the work that gravity is doing in our universe
...  then, pray tell, where are the fuel tanks located,
how is gravity accessing its fuel, and (since energy
cannot be created or destroyed) how is the universe
conserving/converting that energy... and into what?

An imploding universe model perfectly accounts for all
these (as well as for c constancy in identical mediums
AND for an accelerating Hubble constant).  See:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-6.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-5.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-1.htm

Period.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

**********************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 27 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89bnrp$f5v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
<894uob$u9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <D9Ut4.123240$j63.2457389@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.254
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 27 17:45:29 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <D9Ut4.123240$j63.2457389@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
  "Androcles" <androcles.nospam@home.com> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:894uob$u9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> In article <i72t4.120360$j63.2328146@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
>>   "Androcles" <androcles@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:891ov5$j93$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>> [snip]
>>> Since you have chosen to post this to alt.math, would you mind
>>> telling
>>> us
>>> what axioms you are basing your ideas upon?
>>> Androcles
>>
>> The following one:
>>
>> "Where is
>> the energy that gravity is using to do its work
>> coming from?"

> That is a question, not an axiom.

Sorry, Androcles, but
[S D Rodrian's Axiom]...

What is the question (while
that may well be its answer).
 

>
>> e. g.
>>
>> If gravity works strictly by magic, as some
>> conventional physicists posit, then the question is
>> not relevant.
>>
>> However, if, on the other hand, one needs
>> to account for the energy which MUST be fueling
>> the work that gravity is doing in our universe

> You haven't yet established that work is being done.

Nor have I established that you are wearing underwear.
However, I venture to bet that it shall be many times easier
to prove that gravity is doing "some work" in the universe
than that you are wearing underwear.

>> ...  then, pray tell, where are the fuel tanks located,
>> how is gravity accessing its fuel, and (since energy
>> cannot be created or destroyed) how is the universe
>> conserving/converting that energy... and into what?
>>
>> An imploding universe model perfectly accounts for all
>> these (as well as for c constancy in identical mediums
>> AND for an accelerating Hubble constant).  See:

> No, you see. This is a math newsgroup.
> If you want to ask a question, then many here will be glad to answer.
> If you want to discuss your theory with mathematicians, you must play
> by the
> rules. First we want to know the basis of your theory, the axioms upon
> which
> it is built.
> One step at a time.
> What are the axioms you are basing your ideas upon?
> Androcles

Newton's. [Newton, Sir Isaac (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist.
Born at Woolsthorpe, near Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he attended
school,
he entered Cambridge University in 1661; he was elected a Fellow of
Trinity
College in 1667, and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669. He
remained
at the university, lecturing in most years, until 1696. Of these
Cambridge years,
in which Newton was at the height of his creative power, he singled out
1665-1666
(spent largely in Lincolnshire because of plague in Cambridge) as "the
prime of my
age for invention". During two to three years of intense mental effort
he prepared
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of
Natural
Philosophy) commonly known as the Principia, although this was not
published
until 1687.]

Now that we have danced step one, you may instruct
the orchestra that we are ready for step two.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/absoluterelativity

***************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <894v50$ud9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p0d$j9a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38B49337.97332839@nbnet.nb.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 171.213.120.38
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 25 04:06:57 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.cynicism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <38B49337.97332839@nbnet.nb.ca>,
  Michael Gauthier <jmgauth@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> I have been intruiged by comments on this shrinking universe idea
since I
> first noticed them here so I checked out the web page link. It left me
with
> 2 observations.
>
> The first is trivial, since I probably just didn't understand the full
> picture. The page gives the example of how contraction can look like
> expansion by suggesting a person being stretched as the person falls
toward
> a gravity source. That is valid if the person doesn't gaze very far,
but at
> a shallow enough angle toawrd the gravity source the person should see
some
> very big evidence of shrinkage, mainly all the matter rushing into the
> source from the far side. Like I said, that arguement is trivial.

Actually the idea above only applies toward an explanation of why
the Hubble constant is accelerating. But the "understanding" you give
in your paragraph is so removed from all understanding that I can only
regret that my page must be much harder to follow than I imagined!

Perhaps it might be better if you simply went over some of the
answers I have already given in previous Usenet threads. These
can be found at the following urls:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-1.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-5.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/cconstancy/ar-6.htm
and others...

> The non-trivial arguement has to do with the strenuous arguements
against
> the existence of initial conditions for the big bang. Where did the
initial
> conditions for the shrinking universe come from?

Before the advent in our universe of the fundamental force we know
locally as gravity, existence consisted of infinite (scalar) mass. There
was no ordinary matter in the universe, but there was energy (we can
posit this as simply the result of something as simple as the entirely
of
existence not being homogeneous... and thereby giving rise to different
consistencies in different areas, or pressures): You don't have to have
different amounts of matter in a volume to create pressure (it is enough
to simply increase the volume itself, which you can do with a container
of gas, or a simple vacuum). In an earth-bound experiment such a vacuum
would be "mediated" by the matter in the surrounding container, of
course. But in the infinite voids of space... such a "vacuum" might be
mediated by the sheer fact that there is nothing to contain it: How "far
and wide" would infinite (scalar) mass extend in such a situation is
really
anybody's guess; but, although necessarily finite at some point, it must
be something quite monstrously immense to contemplate intellectually.

At this point it's as if you had an almost infinite rubber band
stretching
for aeons: The more it stretches, the more energy it builds up. And so
it
goes... almost forever. Until the pressure it has built up reaches its
critical
point. [And let me just say this: This model is the one & only true
expansion
the universe ever undergoes... an expansion into infinite (scalar)
mass.]
It is at this critical point, however defined, that the finite amount of
energy
the universe will ever have is set forver.

Here follows the story of our universe upon the advent of gravity (or,
in other words, once the accumulated energy of the universe is converted
into vector mass): And this point that expansion of infinite (scalar)
mass
will "reverse" and where once the universe lay in the grip of a
repulsive
force, it will now shift its nature into that of an attracting force.

Just as with the repulsive force it replaced, this new attracting force
will
characterize every last coordinate of the universe (it will not itself
be
linear). However, it will quickly become linear by its very nature and
immediately begin to establish local vectors). [You might say that the
instant just before the manifestation of gravity in the universe marked
that moment when the entire universe could have been described as
being in a stale equivalent to the pre-Big Bang singularity, except that
the universe's real Singularity does not explode, of course, and instead
implodes. If you understand gravity you understand why this is so.]

Therefore the highest moment of activity (and therefore the highest so-
called "temperature") now follows (although the term "temperature"
refers to nuclear processes which gravity does not engage in while
it exists outside particles). The nascent universe, remember, has
as its disposal at this moment the highest amount of energy it will ever
have (to put to the "work" of gravity, or motion). The one thing we do
understand about gravity is that its effect is strongest with proximity.
So it's very likely that a picture of the earliest moments of the
universe
would have shown NOT an overall "motion" towards universal implosion
but rather... innumerable instances of very localized interactions (or,
as
physics today might interpret such a picture... coalescences everywhere
into so-called subparticles). And because of the sheer vastness
(volumes)
which would have been necessary to give rise to even the most primordial
(simplest) subparticles... the universe at this time must have
experienced
its greatest linear velocities (therefore its greatest so-called
"temperatures"
... though  this could ONLY have happened after the universe had already
created its first subparticles, of course, because of the need for
mediating
subparticles). [Gravity itself does not engage in nuclear processes.]

It now becomes possible to quantify the strong force as gravity. In
other
words: Let's say the strength of gravity is X in "a given volume" (or,
there
is "so much" energy in that volume). By what factor must we reduce that
volume in order to make the strength of gravity equal that of the strong
force?

Provided there are no unsuspected variables, this should yield an
equation
which would say, "If one took the strength of gravity in a given
volume... one
would need to reduce that volume by "this factor" in order for that
"amount
of energy" to equal the energy/strength of the strong force" (provided
the
strength of gravity always remained perfectly concentrated in the
reduction).
This way you could slide up & down the "given volumes;" but the ratios
of
energy/strength between the strong force & gravity would always remain
the same (that's the equation). And this gives us absolute knowledge of
their
permanent relationship, just as envisioned in any Unified Field Theory.

But to continue: Once the universe has settled the question of exactly
which subparticles constitute its stablest "forms" of matter... those
particles
will themselves begin to engage in a true universe-wide implosion
(evenly
all across the entire universe). At this point energy (or gravity) will
be
concentrated (or stored, or conserved) in the "forms" of matter. But
once
those "forms" of matter put their energy to the "work" of motion
again...
something has to give: Either the universe CANNOT move (because it
doesn't have the energy available for it to do so), or it will move (in
which
case it must fuel its motion with energy siphoned from... somewhere).

This is the unavoidable wall against which crashes any notion that our
universe could be truly expanding/exploding: Ask yourself but this:

Where is the energy that gravity is using to do its work coming from?

This is not simply the energy posited to have been used by the
primordial
Big Bang explosion to create the so-called expansion of the universe:

Inertia may keep the moon racing about the earth, but the earth is using
gravity to keep the moon from flying off in a straight line: Where is
Earth
getting the energy to do the work it's putting its gravity to? I am sure
you
must understand that it's taking "quite a bit of energy" to hold on to
the
moon. Please show me where the earth keeps the gas tanks that fuel this
"little bit" of work! (In my opinion it ought to be so huge a train of
tanks,
given the huge work Earth is doing, that they should figuratively
"litter
the land.") And now think about the amount of gravity being expended to
keep entire galaxies together! --And, if you're one of those persons who
believe it's all being done by magic (without any accounting to/by the
real
world, or expenditure of energy)... then you are the acolyte of
conventional
physics and believe in invisible unpalpable channels in space through
which
roll all the heavenly bodies. [But, where is Newton's apple really
getting the
energy it is using to move itself towards the earth?... There are people
who
don't believe in gravity, of course; and I don't just mean those SR/GR
folks
who believe in magic... these others  believe that there's no such thing
as
"the pull of  gravity" and that instead the universe is afflicted with a
general
"pressure"  that "pushes" bodies together & such--Which ideas must have
occurred to their originators while recovering in great iron lungs after
having
surfaced  too quickly from too great a depth while scuba diving.]

If the forms of ordinary matter are fundamental, then it's truly beyond
our
comprehension exactly where this tremendous amount of energy which
gravity MUST be consuming is located, how it's being accessed, how
matter is
putting it to work, and (since energy cannot be created or destroyed)
how
is the universe conserving/converting that energy... and into what? So
too
if the universe is expanding/exploding. But only the first Greeks who
originally
proposed the atom believed it was fundamental... and we have long since
proved it is not.

No matter what form our acknowledgment of this truth takes... we know
today
that all "forms" of matter are just "forms" and not fundamental. The
only
fundamental thing in our universe is gravity/energy (and therefore it is
not
mediated by any subparticle). Further, today we know where the energy of
the universe is stored (E=MC^2)... in matter. And so, if the "forms" of
matter
were fundamental... the extraction of its energy could only take place
by one
method, and that would be the annihilation of matter. (This truth we see
in
effect inside every star in the cosmos and in nuclear reactors & bombs.)
Particles are excited (accelerated) and temperatures increase until a
critical
point is reached. But this is obviously not where gravity is getting its
energy
(remember that gravity does not engage in nuclear processes). The
modern-
day method of extracting energy from matter is a monstrously clumsy and
inefficient method. Instead the primal fueling system of the universe is
the most
perfect form of  non-nuclear "cold fusion" imaginable: There is an
eternal drain
of energy out of all the "forms" of matter in the universe... with the
result that
all the universe's forms of matter shrink, and motion is then made
possible by this.

That sequence is crucial in order to understand what the universe is
doing,
by the way: First one must get the energy, and only after this can one
put it
to work.  In practice this means that first the forms of matter shrink,
and then
they "move" (mostly to fill in the newly created "equidistant gaps"
between
themselves). Because there are NO fundamental forms of matter EVERY form
of matter (particle) is shrinking and then "moving in" to retain the
equidistance.
This means that most of the motion of the universe is NOT linear but
"towards
shrinking." [You can also visualize it this way: Think not of matter
"shrinking"
but of space expanding at/from every imaginable coordinate: Now you will
be
able to see that the universe remains as it has always been, but all
about it and
throughout it... space is expanding--It doesn't really have any effect
on us, but
every coordinate in our universe can now be thought of as being the
center of
the universe. Find a feather which will "float" in that expanding space,
and no
matter in which direction you "drop it" (in that expanding space) it
will "float"
away in that direction forever. [This is exactly what happens with the
photon,
which, although it still shrinks right along with us, will yet refuse to
rush in to
"fill the gaps" at the same velocity as the rest of the forms of
ordinary matter
are themselves "rushing in to fill the gaps." The difference in speeds
between
the speed at which ordinary forms of matter "rush in to fill the gaps"
and the
speed at which the photons "rush in to fill the gaps" is measured as c
constancy
in identical mediums--And this is because the photon will "slow down" in
relation
to us more in a vacuum than in a medium in which it is being pressured
by the
greater "velocities" of the ordinary forms of matter themselves "rushing
past it"
as they "rush in to fill the gaps" at their "normally" higher speeds...
and, naturally,
the "thicker" the medium... the greater the "pressure" exerted on the
photon.]

Thereby: 1) c constancy is one of the most powerful proofs that ours is
an imploding
universe. 2) It is indisputable that gravity can only WORK the way it
does in our
universe if ours is an imploding universe. And, finally: 3) The most
obvious hint the
universe gives us that it is indeed an imploding universe is,
ironically, the Hubble
constant (or, the very real recession of the galaxies from each other).

> Instead
> of an initial
> energy with no space or structure, this theory suggests an initial
> space
> and structure (with no energy or not?). I don't see any real bonus
> here.
> Personally, I think the big bang is just the easy answer to why we see
> an
> expanding universe. Inflation sounds like a terrible mathematical
> fudge to
> explain why the big bang theory fails so utterly to describe the
> flatness
> we see in space now. But your model is just 6 of one, a half dozen of
> the
> other. Yes objects drop. But how do they get up to drop in the first
> place
> (my complaint with your model)? And where do they get the energy to
> get up
> (your complaint with the big bang)?
>
> Your theory and the big bang are both interesting attempts to explain
> here
> two schools of thought think the universe "must" have come from. Would
> either group like to offer me any proof that their theory works? Could
> someone explode or shrink a nice little universe for me to give me
> experimental proof that either can be done, thank you very much?

Sure: By the same marvelous device by which you can be swallowed
by a lion and yet live... imagine the universe as I've described it and
enjoy!

> OK. That last was a little cheeky, but not half as arrogant as some of
> the
> self serving remarks splattered all over that web site.

No argument there.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
 

******************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89i2ft$rfd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.154
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 01 03:23:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
 
 

In article <eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>,
  "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
>> energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all
>> over
>> the universe like balls on a pool table
>
> Actually, they do exactly that.   Galaxies respond to gravity just
> like
> anything else and do, in fact, act like free (if diffuse) projectiles
 .

You've missed the point, Mikey: It is the energy to fuel gravity
we're talking about, and not how gravity is manipulating matter.

> Their motions in this regard, however, are on a much smaller scale
> than the
> apparent motion imparted by the expansion of the universe.  Study the
> motions of galaxies within clusters some time.

Mikey: The question is... where is gravity getting its energy, not
how gravity's distributed matter about the universe. I agree with you
that gravity acts locally (ergo, it will create "particles" and force
those
particles to react locally... long, long before they react to the entire
sum of the universe--This means that the universe will have atoms and
galaxies, and that galaxies will bounce about in response to the local
effects of gravity... the overall structure of galaxy distribution is
similar
to a soapy froth with the bubbles marking regions of space where
galaxies are not as abundant as they are on the "rims" of these
"voids").

>> (which is basically the Big Bang
>> premise... in which the galaxies have been "cued" to break into an
>> "expansion").
>
> That's not the Big Bang's premise.  A pool "break" takes place
> from a
> central point.  This doesn't match the evidence- the big bang occurred
> everywhere in the universe at once - hence the talk of expanding
> spacetime,

Since time only exists in the human mind.... any and all theories which
depend on the reality of time (outside the human mind) as null & void
(and fraudulent, if it can be proven in a court of law): And if you're
one of those latter-days Big Bangers who have repudiated the Big Bang
as the source of energy for your so-called "expansion" of the universe
then I bow to thy Lord god Abracadabra with great respect.

> _rather_ than an "explosion"; only the former description is accurate
> (though we see metaphorical reference to explosions fairly often when
> talking to laymen such as yourself).

Well, I am a man who likes to lay it on the line (if some softer place
is unavailable). However, you would be hard put to explain how
the "expansion" of the universe is powered without an explosion.
(This is only rhetorical, of course: Look at how many explanations
there are for every bit of nonsense in the Bible!)

>> It's nifty for cosmologists to say that the universe is
>> not exploding but expanding, and that it's just "space stretching"
>> between
>> the galaxies...
>
>     It's also accurate.

It's accurate that they say that, it's moronic for them to say it
because one must posit that the gravity of the entire universe
plays no role in mediating such an expansion & therefore the
expansion must be being fueled by magic (in some scientific
doublespeak or other--after all, we can't have scientists who
believe in magic actually admitting they believe in magic
in so many words).

>  If you measure the vectors of their motion,
> the
> presence of a volumetric expansion (as opposed to billiard-ball
> expansion
> from a point) becomes immediately apparent.

Precisely, old boy: That comes from ours being an imploding universe!
Mikey: The point is that billiard balls can be treated as fundamental
on the billiard table (therefore you can push them about with a well-
placed blow). If you believe that galaxies are fundamental in the
universe
then you must account for "the blows that's moving them." We all
agree on what is moving them (gravity). The dispute centers about
conventional cosmologists' claim that it was either a primordial "break"
(or Big bang explosion), or some "funny energy" which (suspiciously
like magic) has no apparent source or means of doing what it's claimed
it's doing... and my own humble claim that every last thing gravity
does in this universe it does because it has the energy to do it (and
that I know where that energy source is stored, and how it's being
fuel-lined into the engine that's moving everything about... no magic,
no Rube Goldberg mechanisms, just the plain honest facts, ma'am).

>> but at SOME point one has to account for THE REASON
>> galaxies are moving about.
>
> Cosmologists have a handle on the engines for this already

You might wish to check whether these cosmologists have happy faces
on'em (they might've got a hold of the wrong handle there).

> (look up
> inflationary theory, symmetry breaking, energy of false vacuum).

Wait! Wait... I gotta get back on my seat (after falling down laughing).
Okay. Mikey: The reason a car moves is because it has a tank filled
with energy; and because that energy is fuel-lined to the engine: No
fuel in the fuel tank, no motion. You CAN, I imagine, propose that
space is "inflating" and that explains the car moving about. But at some
point you will have to explain the car stopping at red lights and
taking off with the green. So too, you can create the delusion that
the so-called overall "expansion" of the universe is due to some
natural unexplained/inexplicable "inflation of space" or some such...
but
at some point you are going to have to explain why/how you're standing
on the earth with all the inflationary pressure of the universe pushing
only
on the soles of your shoes instead of bursting your bag of bones & blood
to smithereens.

Gravity is real, Mikey: Gravity is driving ALL the motions of/in our
universe, big & small. And you don't have to drive yourself nutty trying
to come up with irrational reasons why the work gravity is doing in the
universe ought to be being done by something else odd & exotic (when
it is so reasonably and straightforwardly explained by the work of
gravity
alone).

>> It's as simple as that. But, BECAUSE no one
>> who has ever tried to account for this has ever been able to come up
>> with a good enough reason why the galaxies are receding from each
>> other... the original thinkers of the turn of the last century
>> proposed
>> that it HAD to have been that some primordial explosion GAVE the
>> expansion
>> of the universe its energy.
>
>     This is not how the big bang theory was arrived at.

This is the reason behind all BB theories, regardless how they were
arrived at or when. The alternative is the positing of magic (in some
scientific doublespeak, of course... to disguise that what we're talking
about is really "magic") as the energy driving the so-called "expansion"
of the universe.

> It's not even
> _when_.  Big Bang theory arose from the recognition that if the
> observed
> expansion were to be run backwards in accordance with Einstein's
> theories,
> there would come a point where everything were rather compressed and
> hot.

... and "expanded," yes, I know!  I suppose the difference between
"expanded" and "exploded" here is that it "exploded in slow motion"
--which REALLY cooks the goose on "the primordial expansion" being
able to impart enough energy to the expansion of the universe for it to
continue
"expanding" to this day. Never mind that it's actually accelerating
now!!!!

> This condition would leave a distinct footprint on the universe
> (leftover
> radiation of a specific nature),

Translation: If the "oven" is cooling there ought to be
a residual temperature--Find it, and you have proof
that the oven was previously hot!!!!!! (Of course, if one had a brain
one might actually stop to consider whether the oven might indeed
be cooling down or heating up.... But, where're you gonna find
a Big Banger with actual brains? What Big Banger has ever
taken to the Yellow Brick Road? I ask thee.)

> whose existence was then
> independently
> confirmed.  This theory also predicted conditions that would lead from
> raw
> energy to matter to matter *undergoing fusion* - yielding a universal
> abundance of light elements (H to He) that matches remarkably well to
> that
> which has been measured.

I see, so you think that anyone in his/her right mind would have ever
proposed that the universe could have evolved from a universe of
heavier elements to one of lighter elements? (And therefore your
contention is that the "Big Bang evolutionists" are clever fellows
because
they have not modeled primordial protozoans descending from parrots?
Clever fellows these, indeed! I can see your lines of reasoning, Mikey.)

>> Yes, by the way, I know a lot of theorists have proposed that the
>> expansion of the universe may be fueled by bursting hydrogen atoms
>> or the
>> odd
>> electrons  that get sick of hanging around with ordinary matter..
>
> What theorists might that be? Oh, yes, crackpots.  Sorry for
> asking.

I'm sorry, I thought you were one of these very believers yourself!
(So I was hoping you'd tell us which particular subparticles are proving
the universe with the energy to carry on its expansion. Drats! And
please
don't just leave us with some cockamamie general notion of some
mystic "funny energy" or other causing an inflation of space--Please!)

>> It is for this reason, and a couple
>> of others, that ALL Big Bang and ALL true expanding universe models
>> are
>> based on magic and ONLY on magic--They cannot run in the real world.
>> Period.
>
>  What a fascinating load of hungus you've presented, here.

Isn't it though! I'm thinking of turning it over into a play (on words).

>> They just don't have any gas in their tanks. [Never mind that none
of
>> them even TRIES to account for the origin of matter or energy
>> themselves.
>
>  Why should they? The big bang theory describes what happens
> *after* the
> universe starts kicking; that's all we have to work with.  This is
> like
> complaining that evolution doesn't describe abiogensis.

Sorry, Mikey. It's like describing a car which doesn't use any fuel
going about its business for days & days after being given a push.
But say I: At some point the push is going to run out and either magic
is going to kick in, or somebody's gonna have get out and give it
another push, ole boy: There's just no alternative to this. None.

>> Only a imploding model for the universe can account for the origin
>> of
>> energy and of matter.
>
>     <laughter>
>     You're cute.

Thank you (it's grand to have one's happiest suspicions confined).

>> It is not possible to propose mass without a center
>
> Bah. I propose a block of cheese, with dimensions
> infinity*infinity*infinity.
>
>  Where's the center, tweedledee?

Humbug. Think about it all & presto! There it is, tweedledumb!
(Say, are you setting yourself up on purpose? Not every
sporting, you know. Fish-in-a-barrel & that rot.)

>> Either way it's still the same impossibility of "something from
>> nothing."
>
>   You make this claim of impossibility without foundation.

I never wear pants when I'm at the computer (it kills the crease).

However, I can understand how you could believe in "something
from nothing." And I respect all religions, let me assure you.

>> In my experience... physicists, cosmologists, et al, are children
>> arguing at  the sandlot: My, what wonderful clever ideas they all
>> come up
>> with!
>
>   My irony-meter is redlining.

I say! Where've you got it stuck, old boy?

>> Well, if SOMEBODY doesn't come up with one single objection to
>> the model of an imploding universe THAT STICKS, and soon, I imagine
>> people will definitely start wondering WHY they're still sticking
>> with a
>> Big Bang model... which is becoming practically invisible under all
>> the
>> objections it's overrun with.
>
>  Just what objections are those? Every probe of the BB and the
> nature of
> the expanding universe yields stronger confirmation.

No, Mikey: "Every search for proofs of one's prejudices
yields ever-stronger confirmations." An exploding universe model
cannot account for the energy our universe is using; an imploding
universe model accounts perfectly and satisfactorily for EVERY
last bit of energy our universe is using. An exploding universe model
cannot account for the constancy of the speed of light; an imploding
universe model actually demands that the speed of light be measured
as a constant in identical mediums. An exploding universe model
cannot account for the Hubble constant accelerating; an imploding
universe model actually demands that the Hubble constant be found
to be accelerating. And these are but just three of the most salient
objections to the Big Bang model (NOTICE that they are not merely
explained in the imploding universe model but actually required in it).
As for the cosmic background radiation, Mikey: If you just suspend
your prejudiced view that it is a residual from the primordial explosion
long enough to consider that it may actually have some other source
... perhaps you will yourself contribute some day to actually finding
its actual source. Who knows! Opportunity knocks everywhere.

> Your model isn't even worth consideration until you can show that
> it
> fits all known observations of the relationship between space and
> time; ie -

Forget about time, Mikey. You're just wasting it. Let it suffice that
the only "proof" for the Big Bang is the Hubble constant: Every other
observation is proof of an imploding universe. And, if you consider
the matter to some depth, the Hubble constant is itself explained
simply and straightforward with the imploding universe model, while
all attempts at explanation reduce to nonsense in a Big Bang model.

> obeys general relativity.   Your original post is unavailable.
> Perhaps you
> might enlighten us as to why your 'imploding' mechanism doesn't apply
> to the
> distance between the earth and the sun but does manifest as expansion
> of
> distant galaxies?

Oh, but it does apply, Mikey (it's just magnified with astronomical
distances into the Hubble constant). To put it simply: First the
mechanism
requires the energy it will need to do its work (this means that,
because
that energy [E=MC^2] is in the "forms" of matter... those forms shrink
--remember that if they were not forms but fundamental they would not
shrink but be annihilated by the extraction of their energy). And then,
and
only then do the forms of matter that have just shrunk "move in"
(obviously
equidistantly) to "fill in the gaps between them" left-over from the
original shrinking. BECAUSE of the order of this sequence... the
"filling
in of the gaps" always follows an infinitesimal instant BEHIND the
original
shrinking and therefore, amplified over astronomical distances, it will
produce the Hubble constant. (e.g. It will "appear" to us that the
universe
is expanding.) But there you have, 1) where the energy being used to
fuel the motions in/of our universe comes from. And,  2) you can
actually
see the "pools" of its energy quite literally "going down" as their
energy
is being used up. (Or,  you can  see WHY it's being used, and why it is
required that all the "forms" of matter shrink).

>>>> If the people of these planets do not know that they have
>>>> just shrunk, they must assume that the two planets "shot"
>>>> away from each other at an unimaginable speed (or, at least
>>>> one of them did). If they use Doppler on each other's planets
>>>> (and the shrinking never stops)... Doppler red-shift will
>>>> report NOT that the two planets are shrinking but that
>>>> they're speeding away from each other at tremendous rates.
>>>> And the same is true even if all they use is a simple visual
>>>> perspective... their senses will tell them that the two planets
>>>> are moving away from each other extremely quickly.
>
>     <laughs>
>     Hilarious.

Doctor: Do you understand why he's laughing?
Nurse: No, Doctor. He's been doing that since he got here.

> Your description of this scenario is not correct
> Hint #1: what does the acronym RADAR stand for? Once you
> understand
> that, you'll understand that the fact that something is shrinking and
> not
> moving away can be trivially determined.

"Really Astonishingly Distant Annoying Radios?" Perhaps it
has something to do with "radio detecting and ranging" ... But
what do you think "photon" stands for, old boy, and "microwaves?"
You must think your radar system is standing outside the universe!
No, it isn't. It's inside the universe. Hint: "Measurement" is only
valid
in the human mind." We always measure "this inside our universe"
against "that inside our universe." The photon is a "form" of matter in
our universe (it is shrinking along with all the other forms of matter
in our universe): Your radar gun will always "measure" linear distances
and NEVER the "motions towards shrinking."

> Hint #2: The more you shrink the sphere, the lower the relative
> velocity
> of the surface.

And how will you EVER tell, pray tell?  (By the way, we are not
"on any surface" but part & parcel of the substance.) And have you
even considered: What if as the sphere shrinks the shrinking speeds up?

> Hint #3: Different parts of a sphere "recede" at different
> velocities as
> it shrinks.  Extrapolate what doppler radar signature this would give
> all
> objects in the known universe.

In the universe, Mikey: Matter is composed of only ONE fundamental
stuff... and that is the force of gravity. Period. Now, understand this:
All the "forms" of matter in the universe are made of gravity, therefore
all the "forms" of matter "shrink" at the identical rate. Equidistantly.
The
only hint available to us is... that infinitesimal gap between the two
motions involved in its shrinking. But this is very difficult to
visualize
(believe me, I understand this); this is why it's better if you simply
stop thinking of matter shrinking and think instead of space expanding
at/from every possible coordinate. Now you can visualize the universe
of matter motionless and forever the same size & only think of space as
expanding throughout it with no effect whatever on you & yours
(except it might give you an insight as to the reason the speed of light
is always measured as a constant in identical brains... I mean mediums).

>>>> This is exactly what is happening in our universe, but with
>>>> the added proviso that the whole, entire universe itself is
>>>> shrinking as a unit... therefore as fast the our two planets
>>>> are shrinking "away from each other" they are also "moving"
>>>> towards each other just as quickly. The two "motions"
>>>> will tend to almost cancel each other...
>
>     !!
>     More hilarious.
>     This cannot work.

This is obviously a union word~!

> The reasons why are related to Hint #2.

Mikey: Know thee this one truth, and then will thou know
everything: "Ours is an imploding universe." Therefore EVERY
aspect of the imploding universe model works. The thing's
already been built. Period. Describe ANY aspect of our universe
and you are describing an aspect of the imploding universe model.

> *Relative
> Size* differences impose differences in "apparent velocity from
> shrinking"
> for different objects and this shatters your contention that it's
> possible
> for everything to get closer together at 'just the right speed';
> nonuniformity is imposed and your whole model goes kaput.

Sorry, Mikey: The ONLY "flaw" in the system is the Hubble constant.
And this is a necessary flaw (say, gravity works locally first).
Your confusion stems from the superstition that some particles are
fundamental--But the shrinking is NOT taking place at the level
of fundamental particles... which then have to readjust their
fundamental relationships: The entire universe is shrinking as a unit
AND every last bit of it is also shrinking (it's not just this atom
and that black hole).

> You cannot
> achieve the distribution of velocities we measure in the universe
> under such
> a scheme.

Definitely NOT in a universe composed of fundamental particles. No.
But in our universe there are NO fundamental particles, therefore
the entire universe is itself ONE "form" of matter; the galaxies are
one form of matter; atoms are one form of matter; quarks are one form
of matter... and so on for God-knows how many levels down until
there are no more subparticles and we are left with the "raw" gravity
that is the form energy takes in our vector universe (it takes the form
of infinite mass in the scalar universe which is the other side of our
universe's conservation of energy from side to side of existence).
You are not moving asteroids and black holes relative to each other
here: What the universe is doing is fueling its inner motions by
shrinking
as a greater unit "form" ... until it run out of energy (gravity) and
it can no longer support any of the "forms" of matter (therefore, in
a very real sense, the implosion/shrinking of matter does not accumulate
anything anywhere AND it will continue as long as there is matter).

>>>> This implosion of the universe is being driven by gravity.
>>>> And because it is indeed an implosion, those galaxies
>>>> closest to center will always accelerate in the direction
>>>> of center slightly faster than the galaxies farthest from
>>>> center.
>
> The what? The center? This will be news to everyone.  You are
> aware, are
> you not, that a universe with "edges" cannot look as ours does?

The observable universe looks as it does, Mikey. The theoretical
universes all stem from theories which may be true or false. When
you say you know the way the universe "looks" you are looking
at it through some theory or other, and not through your eyes.
In which case... one may posit Donald Duck as its center, and your
objection is that your theory posits Mickey Mouse there. So what!

>>>> Conversely, in a true expanding universe, galaxies will also
>>>> recede, of course; but they will also display a tendency to
>>>> seem to fall back towards the center of the universe with
>>>> respect to us (our own galaxy).  And this tells me that in
>>>> a true expanding universe "a" center would be more
>>>> apparent:
>
>     <laughter>

I say, old boy, you're laughing too much: You sure you
wouldn't case for a psychiatrist?

> You uninformed buffoon,

I take this as your acknowledging that you have run out of
objections to my propositions (and therefore must now resort to
personal attacks, or objections to me). I accept this easy victory.

> there *is* a _Very_ apparent center to the
> universe's expansion.  Right here.  You. Me. Earth. Volumetric
> expansion
> motions are such that *wherever you are in the universe*, you appear
> to be
> at the center of that expansion.

I knew you'd eventually come over to my side, Mikey: Yes!
If you consider what is happening in terms of space expanding
from every imaginable coordinate, then one is indeed always at the
center of the universe--Isn't it grand!

> This is how we know there _isn't_
> any
> center.

What? Are you denying me my eccentricity that quickly? (Wait a
minute: That can't be right... my centricality, mt centrosymmetry...?)
In any case... Mikey: In an imploding universe matter will move
towards where there is more matter. Wherever that is... that is
center enough. If the universe is a perfect sphere so be it.
If it's a sack ot potatoes, so be it too. I do not aspire to dictate
the universe, Mikey, only to breathe in it. --S D Rodrian

>>>> The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
>>>> our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
>>>> up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
>>>> the center of the clock face towards the other numbers
>
>     This is an absolutely wrong description of galactic expansion.

Aha! So you DO agree with me that the so-called "expansion" of the
Big Bang universe is dead wrong. I dare say! Good for you. Mikey.

>>>> But it is so tiny a "bit" that the only galaxy we will ever see
>>>> "blue-shifted" is one "knocked" directly into our path. And
>>>> since
>>>> many galaxies do crash and even combine, it's possible this
>>>> may yet happen as we go along on our merry Milk Way.
>
> Possible? Certain.  If you knew any astronomy, the name Andromeda
> would
> have meaning. So would 'Magellanic Cloud'.

I'm sorry, Mikey: It was an understatement (given the fact that
that information ought to be so very readily available to readers
here). Dear me! Nobody understands sarcasm either these days.
But I do know any astronomy; and the name Andromeda means
something to me. (I think I dated her in high school or something
--I just hope my name doesn't mean anything to her: That would
definitely date me! Aghhhhh.)

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> -Michael
>
>

**************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 03 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2j6$rhi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.160
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 03 02:35:34 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics,umich.physics.astro-ph
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net>,
  Standeven <berry@worldinter.net> wrote:
>
>
> don_quixote@mindless.com wrote:
>
>> In article <eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>>   "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>
>>>> TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
>>>> energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all
>>>> over the universe like balls on a pool table
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, they do exactly that.   Galaxies respond to gravity just
>>> like anything else and do, in fact, act like free (if diffuse)
>> projectiles
>>
>> You've missed the point, Mikey: It is the energy to fuel gravity
>> we're talking about, and not how gravity is manipulating matter.
>
> Since gravity is a conservative force, it does not require fuel.

I believe the correct truism is, "Since he is a rich candidate
he does not require contributions" (conservative or liberal).

Everything else that moves in this universe requires a steady,
reliable of energy. EVERYTHING. So if somebody tells you
something which moves does not require fuel... take him/her
to the patents office: That goomer's invented The long-sought-after
Perpetual Motion Machine! (Just a word to the "wise" ... you
understand: DO NOT let him/her take YOU to the cleaners!.)

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

**************************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a5tku$no1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2j6$rhi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net> <89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<952083414.76203@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.172
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 08 16:03:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.math,alt.math.recreational,soc.men
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <952083414.76203@shelley.paradise.net.nz>,
"Victor Kemp" <vkemp@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> Everything else that moves in this universe requires a steady,
>> reliable of energy. EVERYTHING. So if somebody tells you
>> something which moves does not require fuel... take him/her
>> to the patents office: That goomer's invented The long-sought-after
>> Perpetual Motion Machine! (Just a word to the "wise" ... you
>> understand: DO NOT let him/her take YOU to the cleaners!.)
>
> Would you mind stating Newton's first law of motion?

Sure thing: "A body remains at rest, or, if already moving,
remains in uniform motion with constant speed in a straight line
unless it is acted on by an unbalanced external force."

Let's examine what this means in terms of "creation" (which is,
after all... the general topic of this discussion): First of all:
No bit of matter in our universe is "at rest." The only time in
the history of our universe anything was "at rest" was at the
instant just before the primordial singularity (which imploded
into our universe) imploded--or, before it manifested gravity.

That instant, when the primordial (infinite (scalar) mass)
singularity began imploding, also marks the moment at which
the universe began to expend energy in/by its motions. This
expenditure of energy means that there is no practical way for
us to make a distinction between the force of gravity and energy
itself (even IF there is such a distinction to be made by "a" God).

Therefore: gravity is the unbalanced external force which (unlike
infinite (scalar) mass --which is aimed "out" in every "direction")
is vectored "in" to one single "direction." This is not, however,
an implosion in the same sense as the collapse of a star, for example
... as there are no fundamental particles in the universe, this is
strictly an implosion in the (singular) direction of shrinking because
the force of gravity is vectored exclusively in that "direction." [In
practice, this means that immediately upon our universe manifesting
gravity EVERY IMAGINABLE COORDINATE becomes de facto
the center of the universe (from the viewpoint of gravity) and
thereupon... gravity is a localizing force (and NOT one which "pulls"
the entire universe towards some greater center). This localization
of gravity will continue until so much of the force is localized in
individual system (or particles... and thereby concentrated AND
separated from other gravity concentrations)... that most of the
gravity in such particles will no longer be able to interact with
gravity
outside them. From this moment on it is the particles themselves
which will interact. But these "outside" interactions will always
involve a tiny percentage of the total amount of gravity "conserved"
in these particles; and ONLY if/when two such particles come "close
enough" to each other will the strength of their interaction then be
increased enough to reflect anything near the great amount of
gravity/energy "concentrated" in them--And this is when the
electromagnetic and strong forces come into play.]

This shrinking will immediately begin to localize throughout
the general implosion into the coalescences we call particles.
Primordial particles will themselves coalesce into ever more
complex (and massive) particle until we end up with the
periodic table atoms & stars and galaxies... all of which, every
last one of which is/are merely the "forms" matter has taken.
As this differentiation of gravity into individual particles/forms
continues... Newton's 1st law of motion will (again) apply to
them (these, specifically, become the "bodies" Newton talks
about in his formulation of his rule)... in relation to each other.

Confusion may arise because as Newton's law speaks of "body"
it is necessary to understand that EVEN AFTER the advent
of gravity in the universe THE body in question IS STILL the
entire universe of infinite (scalar) mass... the motion of matter (in
its totality) is always away from there (infinite rest): Gravity is
absolutely fundamental (it is matter and energy in one single
"body"). It is the only thing in the universe that is both the body
in question AND the force acting on it (because it is the ONLY
"thing/ultimate form of matter" that exists). This is why when
any form of matter is in motion... gravity is the energy that fuels
that motion. Hope this covers everything we're talking about here
(as this also explains why it is possible to state that "motion is
all that exists" as well)... although it always remains my hope that
you can finish these thoughts on your own, as I certainly don't
have the time to do much outside of scratching out a few quick
superficial comments here & there.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

Please note: Any fool can quote Newton's 1st Law of Motion
but it takes a very special kind of fool (one who doesn't have
easy access to a dictionary) to understand it "fully."

*****************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8aas4q$brv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2j6$rhi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net> <89n8dm$j9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<952083414.76203@shelley.paradise.net.nz> <8a5tmu$nok$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<952599415.109055@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.181
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 10 13:08:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <952599415.109055@shelley.paradise.net.nz>,
  "Victor Kemp" <vkemp@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8a5tmu$nok$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>>> Would you mind stating Newton's first law of motion?
>>
>> Sure thing: "A body remains at rest, or, if already moving,
>> remains in uniform motion with constant speed in a straight line
>> unless it is acted on by an unbalanced external force."
>
> OK, thanks for clearing that up. What I was trying to figure out was
your
> reason for saying that things moving about in space need to be "using
 up"
> energy.

My firm belief that reality does NOT work by magic (and that
therefore, it demands a proper salary for any work it puts in).

> Since you seem to understand at least classical mechanics I  imagine
> you know that it can describe the motion of galaxies, orbiting
planets, etc
> without requiring them to use any energy (besides transferring it
between
> potential and kinetic).

I'm afraid no: I do not understand in the slightest how ANYTHING
could possibly go anywhere without it being pushed or pulled there
(and all that pulling and pushing, I'm afraid, is going to have to be
accounted for down to the last drop of sweat before I can write it all
down in my accounts book--the IRS is very strict about this).

> So could you explain why you've said in  several
> posts that they must be using energy and that this energy can't
"magically"
> come from nowhere?

Yes: It's my brain's fault (the bloody bastard won't let me believe
anything just on some other bloody bastard's brain say-so). Just think
how easy it would be for me if my brain would just shut the Hell up
any time some bloody bastard claimed the card he placed atop the deck
"teleported magically" to the bottom of the deck.

> Can you quantify this?

Yes: 1+1=2. (I've tried to work the matter any number of
other whichways to no avail.)

> For instance how much energy  is
> used by the Earth as it makes one rotation about the Sun?

If we knew that, we would know 1) how "fast" the universe
is shrinking (and, before you take out your abacus, think about
this: The only way to know the size of the universe is to stand
outside it and compare it to something "else." 2) how much
existence there is left to it (and who the hell want's to know that?!)
(Albeit it's mostly the Sun keeps the earth from fulfilling its
inertial destiny.)

> Or any  easier
> example you have the figures for.

I only have the figure for lying about on a sofa, I'm afraid
(putting on a strip show is well beyond any figure of mine,
I'm sorry to confess).

> Neglecting small conventional energy
> losses (tidal flexing, gravitational waves, etc), unless they're
important.

Not for the matter of... matter shrinking: And the reason for this is
that gravity (the embodiment of vector energy) does not
engage in thermonuclear processes; therefore it really matters not
one whit whether a given quantity of gravity/energy is in the "form" of
your thumb and/or liver, or neutrinos and/or photons (although, in the
singular case of photons, perhaps it makes something of an exception).

>> Let's examine what this means in terms of "creation" (which is,
>> after all... the general topic of this discussion): First of all:
>
> <snip a whole bunch of stuff that confuses me to buggery and back>

Ah! Success at last!

>> have the time to do much outside of scratching out a few quick
>> superficial comments here & there.
>
>> Please note: Any fool can quote Newton's 1st Law of Motion
>> but it takes a very special kind of fool (one who doesn't have
>> easy access to a dictionary) to understand it "fully."
>
> Or you could just understand the second law instead which is really a
> generalization of the first.

Newton's 1st law involves the very notion of a force, while his 2nd law
is a means of measuring its strength (so I don't see why you should
wish to abolish the distinction).

> And since it can be written without  words, a
> dictionary won't be so nessecary :)

Anything can be written without words:     :(    : )
That's the very essence of art, you might say.

However, I'd still recommend a dictionary to you, old boy.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

**************************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 04 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89q2po$jsb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2j6$rhi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38BD6DC3.6826FD77@worldinter.net> <89n8kk$ji3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<_CHv4.128919$j63.2764283@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.13
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Mar 04 04:18:03 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <_CHv4.128919$j63.2764283@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
  "Androcles" <androcles.nospam@home.com> wrote:
> If you are going to persist in writing to alt.math while answering
posts to
> other newsgroups, don't you think it might be appropriate to reply to
 the
> question provided you in alt.math?
> What information do you have that leads you to suppose that there is
any
> collapse or expansion of the universe anyway?
> Androcles

1) c constancy is explained ONLY when, considering that
matter is shrinking, you then visualize the effect in terms of
space expanding: This gives you the knowledge that matter is
what is moving at the highest speed possible. And once you know
that, you can see that the photon has no way/room to move much
logically in relation of matter... so what is the photon doing?
It can only be doing one thing: Moving at some speed SLOWER
than that of matter. (It cannot be at absolute rest because the
only thing at absolute rest is the infinite (scalar) mass Singularity
from which matter is moving (imploding, obviously).

2) the motions of the universe (including those of the strong force
& the weak/electromagnetic forces) CANNOT be being powered
by magic. However, these "motions" practically describe the entire
universe in one way or another (consequently the amount of energy
necessarily to power them must be so huge that we ought to be
witnessing billions of galaxies being tossed into the furnace... and
yet we see no such fueling mechanism anywhere). Sure, the confused
will always postulate that "forces" can act in the universe without
requiring fuel (but they don't count). In a universe where particles
(quarks, stars & galaxies) are fundamental it is indeed a puzzle where
the universe gets the energy to exist at all. But in an imploding
universe
(where ALL the forms of matter are just forms--and you don't have to
annihilate mere forms to diminish them)... the entire universe can fuel
itself simply by shrinking as a form. If you are yourself one of the
forms
inside the shrinking/imploding universe then you would NEVER know
that ANYTHING's shrinking at all... and consequently it would be a
tremendous puzzle to you where the hell the universe is getting the
energy
to fuel itself.

3) The shrinking of the universe's forms has a curious side-effect:
The shrinking HAS to occur in a very inescapable sequence: FIRST
the universe has to get a hold of the fuel it will use to shrink (which
causes the first/original "motion" towards shrinking)... and then, and
ONLY then can the secondary "motion" needed so that the universe
shrinks as a unit follows (namely matter moves equidistantly in on
itself
to fill the gaps left by the primary shrinkage). This means there is an
infinitesimal lag between the two "motions." In very short distances
this lag is monumentally imperceptible, but amplified by/with
astronomical
distances... it is multiplied into the Hubble constant (galaxies ARE
really
receding from each other at the prescribed/observed rates).

4) Gravity is a/the force moving matter in the universe, naturally. This
means
that motion in the direction/with the/a force ought to produce
acceleration
(while motion against a/the force ought to produce a deceleration). Ten
years
ago I thought this meant that if our universe "were really imploding" we
ought
to find that the Hubble constant is accelerating (and since 1998... more
and
more evidence has been coming in that this is indeed the case): You have
no idea what 1998 did for my ego.

You can try to really understand the (really) short essay I've posted at
my
web site (and I have even included a number of links to many, many, many
questions I've answered in these newsgroups). But consider this: Can one
really be absolutely certain of one's truths? I don't think so. I've
often
answered the question, "Just how certain are you ours is an imploding
universe?" Thus: "I am as certain as are you that your husband/wife is
faithful."

I have spent ten or more years trying to find an objection to the idea
that
ours in an imploding universe; and I have yet to find even one that's
stuck.
I have written about my imploding universe model here since last
Christmas
and I have yet to receive one single objection to it that is not either
outright
idiotic, or, at any rate... the product of ignorance and/or
misunderstanding.

However, because I do not believe that it is within the human experience
ever to own absolute truth, I am yet, and I will ever remain open to any
truly
well-thought-out serious objection to the implosion model. Frankly, the
Big Bang Myth is far more tasteful to me (perhaps I'm just an old
conservative
that way).

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

*************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 03 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89n80c$j4d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.160
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 03 02:28:31 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.tasteless,alt.flame.psychiatry,alt.silly.little.newsgroup
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03>,
  "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> Since time only exists in the human mind.... any and all theories
which
>> depend on the reality of time (outside the human mind) as null &
void
>
>  This is dead wrong.  Do you wish to reconsider, or shall we move  you
> directly to the bin of Boatwrightian crackpots immediately?

Does the bin have room service? Consider this: The hour has no more
meaning to the universe than the inch (they are only human measurements,
and all human measurements are strictly ONLY meaningful in the human
mind). Therefore: time has no meaning outside the human mind.

>> is unavailable). However, you would be hard put to explain how
>> the "expansion" of the universe is powered without an explosion.
>
> At what point in your strange understanding of physics did
"explosions"
> become the only way of powering things?

Actually nowhere--Which is exactly why I keep telling you AND telling
you that no Big Bang or little farts power the motions of the universe
(it's
not a matter of powering the Hubble constant, old boy--any ole fart will
serve to do that--it's also the "small" matter of powering the strong
force
and all those weak/electromagnetic interactions.... and bicycle pumps...
I mean: Obviously ONE HUGE GOOBER of energy is being used up
by everything in the universe... and breaking a couple of electrons here
and there like eggs to power it all just isn't going to cut it,  I'm
afraid).

> Learn about inflationary  theory if
> you want to learn about the relationships between the ambient energy
in free
> space and the expansion of the spacetime manifold.

There's an old tale goes something like this: There once was a chap
who wanted to know how "it all" came about, so he asked a wise man
where man had come from. The wise man told him that God made man.
So from that moment on our chap stopped inquiring where man came
from and started inquiring where God came from. FINIS (I mean, if you're
going on a quest to find out where everything came from... it doesn't
really make sense to inquire into where Chicklets came from.) So too,
if the quest is to find out what powers the universe, it makes little
sense to inquire about particles which obviously (like man) have arisen
FROM/in today's universe OUT OF some more primordial/fundamental
beginnings: Any and all forms of energy you may derive from "particles"
and/or their subparticles are no more informative OF THIS than if you
were
talking about Chicklets in the little fairy tale above. By the by...
I once actually tried to put my time to better use by trying to learn
about the internal combustion engine and the just plain manifold... But,
alas... I had as much luck with that as Einstein did trying to learn
how to drive a car! (PS. If ever I wish to learn about magic I shall be
sure
to secure a real magician as my teacher. Sorry.)

>>>> It's nifty for cosmologists to say that the universe is
>>>> not exploding but expanding, and that it's just "space
stretching"
>>>> between the galaxies...
>>>
>>>     It's also accurate.
>>
>> It's accurate that they say that, it's moronic for them to say it
>> because one must posit that the gravity of the entire universe
>> plays no role in mediating such an expansion & therefore the
>> expansion must be being fueled by magic
>
> This in no way follows.

Oh, yeah! What if it were tied to the end of its rope?

> The gravity of the universe *does* affect  the
> expansion; have you so poor an education in astrophysics

It was all my parents could afford, I'm afraid (although I still
managed to use it later to teach a thing or two to some rich kids).

> that you are
> unaware of the initial deceleration of the universe's expansion due to
> gravity?

Anything doesn't agree with the laws of physics I keep out of physics,
I'm stubborn that a-way.

> Have you somehow missed the entire inquiry into the  curvature of
> the universe?

No: I actually hit a home run off it! However, I wouldn't put too much
into the belief that, in a closed system where chaos has broken out...
the motions of chaos suddenly, for no apparent reason whatsoever,
speed up & slow down and/or slow down & speed up every so often
without any other factor in such a closed system compensating for this.
(It's magic, feller: It's magic, not science.)

> [snip erroneous self-aggrandizement about having All The Answers ]

{Here: Pontius Pilatus turns his back on The Master after having
asked him: "What is Truth?" Yeah... So? Crucify me, why don't ya.
--That's not the exact quote from Jesus, by the way.]

> [snip pointless blather about cars and fuel tanks]

That's why you're still going around with your horse (people
are starting to talk behind you back, old boy). And, besides...
you're starting to walk funny.

>> You CAN, I imagine, propose that
>> space is "inflating" and that explains the car moving about. But at
 some
>> point you will have to explain the car stopping at red lights and
>> taking off with the green.
>
> You make an analogy so poor and so wrong that it is fascinating in
its
> own right, like a circus exhibit of mutants.

And this like of yours, of course, is not a non-sequitur! I say!

> Apparent motions derived  from
> the expansion of space do not include such manouvers as "stopping at
red
> lights".   You are conflating two different kinds of motion with this
> blather.

"This blather?" Is that blather... empty? Or, did it in fact contain
a substantial quantity of gold coins which I had been carefully
hoarding for a number of years in anticipation that this universal
inflation you keep trying to ram down our throats would eventually
turn into a great big bust! (Say, just how big is this bust of yours...
keeps "two different kinds of motions" going in your corn flakes?)

> A correct example would be: you have a little matchbox car with an
itty
> bitty engine and sticky little tires.

A more correct example still would be: 2+3=5

More importantly: Have you been spying on me?!?! Do you also know
about thelittle pink pony with the cigarette lighter up its ass? And
what about the thimble-headed French Partisan terrorist with the
cheese bomb half-pint and the loaf of bread down his right pant leg?

> Put it on the side of a  balloon.

The cheese bomb? Already did it once; and Mommie made me
scrape all the cheesy goop off the walls of the chapel saints!
Never again say I!

> Drive the little bastard around.

So! You finally decided to take my advice and give up the horse!

> This is "local" motion.

Stop doing that! You can get a ticket from a policeman
for doing that in the middle of the street... and just like that!

> Now, stick
> another car on the balloon.

It can't have a radio antenna, though (you forgot to mention that).

> Hell, put dozens.  Drive them all around.

I think I know where all this is leading: Madam,
you're of trying to get me to do the hokey-pokey!

> Now inflate the balloon while you're at it.

This is the silliest dance I've ever been involved in!

> Notice how the expansion of the space containing the vehicles
*carries
> them all apart* even as they carry on their little drives.

Or it could just be some car thief & his gang working the parking lot.
(Just when I thought no one could come up with a goofier version
of the inflating balloon with the dots, there you are!) I'm starting to
feel a hunger for the ole inflating bread with the raisins... bit.

> Their  observed
> recession velocities match the same kinds of patterns we see in our
> universe.

That's what they get for sharing the same tailor!

> The expansion of this balloon-space is also _not_ related  to
> their driving about.

I see... first they drive about, and THEN they inflate their balloons
(is this at the request of the cops, or their dates?) Are you sure
about all this? I've seen things even crazier after driving about
(especially in circles). Well, ok, alcohol was usually also somewhere
in the picture. Damn cops've got video cameras these days!

>> but at some point you are going to have to explain why/how you're
standing
>> on the earth with all the inflationary pressure of the universe
pushing
>> only  on the soles of your shoes instead of bursting your bag of
bones &
>> blood
>> to smithereens.
>
>  Inflationary pressure? On our *feet*? What on earth are you  talking
> about?

I'm talking about the universe of high finance, and a hot-cha-cha, or
how to make money as a cobbler. (Dishonestly: Frankly, I really
don't see how a cobbler could possibly make money any other way.).

> You obviously haven't studied the theories you decry.

I just like to decry them, that's all. Besides, after I get through
decrying them the papers get all soggy & very hard to read.

> Because the universe is free to expand, there *is* no "pressure".

And because I am free to not become rich I suppose there is
no pressure on me to not do it either, I suppose! Ha! Just see
where a double negative like that will get you these days!

> Besides -the tendency of spacetime to expand is arrested by
> gravitational fields; the stronger they are, the less expansion.

I knew eventually we'd all end up... up the river. Also: "The stronger
the cops the less one should resist them." Rodney King, in his
upcoming book, "Now I know what I didn't know I knew what it was
I didn't know I knew when I knew it! ...You know?"

> Anywhere
> there is significant density of matter the expansion of the universe
is
> arrested; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are like ... islands of
> stability.

I once spent an entire Summer on a galaxy 4,979 light years from
here. It wasn't my fault... an ET told me to fetch him "his pencil" from
the saucer and I, like the big fool I am, went in after it. Well, before
you could say, "Hey, that's a great picture of The Milky Way on
that window!" ... Zoom! Off we were. (No I didn't come back on my
own: I was deported on a tea cup--O, the indignity! Actually, if it
wasn't for the indignity I'd just as soon settled for some Cuban coffe.)

> Spacetime "makes more of itself" in empty space, and this
> carries these islands apart volumetrically.

You think they will ever make a Disney World ride out of this?
I'd love to island-hop volumetrically past Animatronic space making
more of itself! (You might need a dye, I think, to make it all
brilliant.)

> [snip flawed blather on origins of big bang]

Surviving fragment: "This smells funny... how far away
did you say that big bang banged?"

> [snip ignorant incredulity over the confirmation of repulsion force]

Surviving clip: "Say what?!?!?!?!"

> [snip bizarre ranting]

Surviving bit: "Agra agra agra.... rhag rhg rrrrhgggggg! Glakity,
glakity!!!!!!"

>>>> It is not possible to propose mass without a center
>>>
>>> Bah. I propose a block of cheese, with dimensions
>>> infinity*infinity*infinity.
>>>
>>>  Where's the center, tweedledee?
>>
>> Humbug. Think about it all & presto! There it is, tweedledumb!
>
> Strange, there were many words there, raving nonsequiturs perhaps.
...
> but no *answer* to my most basic question.  Where is the center of an
> infinite block of cheese, windmiller?

After exhaustive work by Scotland Yard, it was established
that the cheesemonger himself ate it! The proof turned up
after the "bobbies" offered him a "dip" of fongoo (yes, the coppers
didn't know how to spell it either, as they had very little Chinese
--and were mostly great big cockneys the whole lot of'them). The
missing center was centered around the cheesemonger's brain,
of all places! Said Inspector Eyeball of the Infinite Division:
"We simply weighed one infinity against the other and found one
to be three pounds heavier than two... so we immediately suspected
his brain of being involved in it." The Inspector would not answer this
reporter's question whether he was therefore talking about a one-pound
brain... or a fiver. Said it was "beneath him" (and that he never spoke
over anything less than "six quid"). I misunderstood him and ended up
at the fish market--But me & me old lady had a nice calamare dinner
later that night.

> Where is the center of the  surface of
> a balloon in it's own dimension?

"In it is own dimension?" I gotta get hammered
a lot worse than I now am before I can understand this.
Hang on...

>  Your postulate is wrong. I suggest you accept it.

Never! Oh... "postulate" (I thought you'd said "posture").
I'm constantly working on my posture (on the sofa). But
don't worry: I pop all my postulates with hot needles (or
dirty fingernails... it don't make no never mind to me
as long as they're located in places ... that don't show).

>> An exploding universe model
>> cannot account for the energy our universe is using;
>
> The existing _expanding_ universe models do, in fact, deal with  the
> engines of expansion.

Yes, but they're horse-driven engines, every one. While I've
moved on to diesel (and diesel kill'ya, I'm afraid).

>  This complaint is dead wrong.

Well, if it's dead, I say... good! (I believe
in letting dead wrongs lie uncomplained.)

>> an imploding
>> universe model accounts perfectly and satisfactorily for EVERY
>> last bit of energy our universe is using.
>
> Beyond the fact that this scenario is simply wrong (see below),  you
have
> yet to provide any evidence beyond your sayso that this is the case.

I saw below, and, frankly... I need a bath. And why shouldn't this
be the case? It's a good case, a solid case, a just in case!

>> An exploding universe model
>> cannot account for the constancy of the speed of light;
>
> And it need not "account" for it; the history of the universe
*reflects*
> it's physics, it does not explain them.

"It is physics?" History?!? Personally I tend to prefer physics
to be taught in a different classroom than history. (They make you
keep track of everything in history. While physics is more a
lazy mind's idle pastime...)

>> an imploding
>> universe model actually demands that the speed of light be measured
>> as a constant in identical mediums.
>
>     This is also wrong.

How can "this" be wrong? This was just now born!
Will you condemn this new-born wrong
simply because it is this?! You are a cruel monster!
A baby killer if ever I saw one (and I have seen more ones
than practically any of the other numbers).

>> An exploding universe model
>> cannot account for the Hubble constant accelerating;
>
>  You don't read much Einstein, do you?

Not since he started writing for those God-awful sitcoms, no.
But I used to love his rip-roaring spy novels best of all.
Especially the ones with detectives Norton and Yestron..

> The capacity for an  acclerating
> open universe has been recognized since he penned the relevant
cosmological
> GR equations.

Is that the one goes: "GR (we there yet, Mom?) = (car trip) + kids"

>One feature of such universes is that they first  decelerate,
> the expansion 'force' gets stronger with characteristic distance as
> gravitation grows weaker - until they trade roles.

I think I saw something similar in "Earth versus The Flying
Wallenkas."  (Some of the actors in the alien suits traded roles
in this movie too... as they kept falling off the high wire
every time somebody turned on the lights--It was electric!)

>> an imploding universe model actually demands that the Hubble
constant be
>> found
>> to be accelerating.
>
> Which means that it does not match the known history of the  universe.
> Oops!

Too late: Caught ya there! Didn't know the Hubble constant
has been found to be accelerating, did ya! Say, are you one of those
historian
who makes up history instead of seeking it out? (A lot easier to be your
kind of historian, isn't it! Could I've discovered America in your next
book?)

> [snip utterly misguided understanding of how well supported the CBR's
 origin
> is]

Recovered fragment: "Come here, Mr. Wilson, I need you!"
"What is it, Penzias?" ... "I have something burning a hole
in my pant leg ... I think you should see!"

> [snip amusing handwaving about how implosion makes everything better]

Ha! You misspelled butter.

>>> Hint #1: what does the acronym RADAR stand for? Once you
>>> understand that, you'll understand that the fact that something is
>>> shrinking and
>>> not moving away can be trivially determined.
>>
>> You must think your radar system is standing outside the universe!

> No, it isn't. It's inside the universe.

Let's settle this right now ... once & for all!
Okay, somebody: Open a window!

> Irrelevant.  The universe obeys certain rules,

That's not what Einstein said: He said it obeys his rules!

> one of which is  that the
> time required for a photon to travel between two places is a direct
function
> of their separation along the photon's path.

You mean it takes as long to travel a distance as it does?!?!?!
That can't be right--It's physically impossible, ole boy.
You better run that by me again, and this time run it by me again.

> A shrinking object still
> returns "pings" at the same characteristic time as before, even if it
 were
> collapsing rapidly enough to give it's surface a measurable redshift.

Only if the pinger realizes the shrinking object is shrinking, otherwise
the poor pinger will stand around waiting for the object to start
shrinking
so it can ping it... just like people waiting to have their pictures
taken.

>>Hint: "Measurement" is only valid in the human mind."
>
> Here is another shockingly erroneous claim.

I aims to shock (that's why I've been arrested so number of times
for carrying concealed raw electrical wires--damned extension cords
running back to the wall sockets keep giving me away).

> There was a wonderful  post
> on how to educate yourself about solipsism yesterday - I recommend you
 find
> it and obey it's instructions to the letter.

"It is instructions to the letter?" That leaves me out: I'm the farmer.
[sic]

>>> Hint #2: The more you shrink the sphere, the lower the relative
>>> velocity of the surface.
>>
>> And how will you EVER tell, pray tell?
>
>  The point, oh ye of feeble physics, is that your 'implosion rate'
has to
> _slow down_ over time.

Yes, but if your watch is also slowing down, how can you tell?
It's still synchronized with all the other watches in the universe
(even Hipoli-Krackle of the Planet Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr's watch).

> This also has direct bearing on how you resolve the problem of
getting
> the "shrinking and getting closer" Sun (a large object with a large
> 'recession' rate consequently) and the "shrinking and getting closer"
 Moon
> (a small object with a small 'recession' rate) to work out properly.

Dang! And after I specifically asked you not to compare apples
& black holes!

> Your
> universe has to shrink at different rates in different directions.

What directions? Are you talking about right or left, north or south?
If the entire universe is shrinking (hold that thought for a moment):
Which specific object could you possibly be thinking is moving in
which direction? And, in relation to which other object?.... Picture
the entire universe shrinking and expanding as a unit (you are
obviously OUTSIDE the universe). Now get yo ass INTO the universe
(now you are part of that shrinking & expanding universe)... so
please explain to us how on earth you're going to tell ANYTHING
in the universe AT ALL is shrinking and/or expanding?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

> This destroys symmetry and catapaults it directly into the realm  of
> conceptually unfeasible.

Non-sequitur! (How did we get into a discussion of your IQ from
what we were discussing?) Ah!... Just as they used to spread
The Black Death during The Dark Ages (although I believe they
used to catapult rats & swollen corpses into sundry towns back then:
no football, I believe).

>>> Hint #3: Different parts of a sphere "recede" at different
velocities as
>>> it shrinks.  Extrapolate what doppler radar signature this would
give
>>> all  objects in the known universe.
>>
> [snip non-answer]

Recovered fragment: "Non!" [We think the fragment
might be complete.]

> I noticed a lot of preaching, but no factual content.

Church on Sunday? Me too. The subject this past Sunday
was the Sermon On The Bees (thank God).

> The  implication
> of #3 is simple, direct, and *damnning* to your postulate.

As long as it gets rid of my postulates I'm ok with it.

> Every  single
> (spherical) object in the known universe would have a circular
"fringe"
> signature of doppler shift!

There you are still outside the universe watching it shrink!
I wish you'd just saw off the top of your head (it's really just
a big ugly cancer taking up space up there) and join us in here:
Look, we're all nudie-nude & wiggle-wiggling!

> Examine: if you move the center of mass  towards
> the observer at the same rate that it's "front" edge shrink-recedes,
then
> the *sides* of the object (which are "shrinking" perpendicularly to
the line
> of sight and thus have no doppler shift from that motion) will be
moving
> *faster* towards the observer than the front. They'll register a
blueshift -
> as will every other segment of the object (reduced by the appropriate
> trignometry).

And then you wake up and the lions were no longer chasing your ass,
I know. How can you stay outside the universe so long?! You must
tell me what breathing exercises you do!

>     Your implosion theory is thus easily testable.
>     And this effect has never been noticed.

Again with the this! I've noticed this all over the place.
This is this, that is this...

>>>>>> The "BB" opening flower universe: In an expanding universe
>>>>>> our galaxy moves from the center of a clock face straight
>>>>>> up towards the 12, while the rest of the galaxies move from
>>>>>> the center of the clock face towards the other numbers
>>>
>>>     This is an absolutely wrong description of galactic expansion.
>>
>> Aha! So you DO agree with me that the so-called "expansion" of the
>> Big Bang universe is dead wrong. I dare say! Good for you. Mikey.
>
>  Sigh.  Such obtuseness can only be deliberate.

I agree doctor: We should remove his liverate immediately!

> *Your* description  of
> what you *think* is big-bang derived motion is *not correct*.

Well, whatever is causing my car sickness: it stinks, let me tell you!

> If you
> understood volumetric expansion,

We could transfer you to the hospital wing with all the pretty nurses.
(Yeah, sure: Last time I was there they were all male nurses! Pretty
though--Give you that.)

> you would not have galaxies shooting  out
> from the center of the clock.

Wow! Does this happen to you too? I thought I was
the only one this sort of thing happened to when I looked at
clock faces! I even threw towels over the grandfather clock, and
the grandfather (what the hell, I had an extra towel).

> Do you wish to demonstrate your
> qualification to discuss the big bang by getting the scenario *right*
 this
> time, or would you rather capitulate and admit that you know not of
what you
> speak?

I know some not of what I speak, it's the pronunciation
always throws me for a loop. (Ha! I misspelled loupe. But
I have a good excuse: I couldn't see without it.) However,
I will capitulate and bow my little head before you.... Oh, sorry:
I was aiming at your feet! Really. I swear. (I get the same gripe
from my old lady all the time.)

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> -Michael
>
>

****************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 04 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89q37i$k9b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03> <89n82o$j4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<GvLbrCBO+0v4EwiY@microser.demon.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.13
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Mar 04 04:25:26 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

  "B.E.N." <ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  Deja.com - Before you buy. writes:
>>Does the bin have room service? Consider this: The hour has no more
>>meaning to the universe than the inch (they are only human
measurements,
>>and all human measurements are strictly ONLY meaningful in the human
>>mind). Therefore: time has no meaning outside the human mind.
>
> Bollocks.

Dear B.E.N., this obsession of yours with bollocks
is starting to worry your family and friends (especially
your M.O.M.)... they're even beginning to avoid visiting
your house because of all the simply ghastly "art" you've
hung all over the place! (Not to mention the smell.)

> Time continues to elapse everywhere regardless of units.

Time cannot "elapse" except in well-defined units, old man:
Otherwise time would not be a very efficient measuring
system--which is what it is... ALL it is. Period.

> Your
> life will be no shorter or longer even if you ignore time.

I think it will be a lot longer if I ignore time
(least, that's what my heart specialist swears to me
on his mother finest set of China).

> Time is  more
> fundemental than you think.

I doubt that: My thoughts are absolutely
positively fundamental (or da mental fun,
one of the two--can't think straight
without devoting more time to it).

> After all, you can measure distance using
> time, but you cannot measure time with a ruler.

Sez who?!?! Dear Ben... and how do you propose
measuring a distance then!?!?! Please get it right
so I don't have to post this same grand bit of wisdom
again & again... more amusingly with each subsequent
posting: Here goes then...

Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
therefore it only has meaning in the human mind. *

In the time-measuring system one measures
"this" motion "from here to here" against
"that" motion "from there to there." Period.

A human being arbitrarily sets/picks/limits
"this" and "that" finite amounts.

Yes, even in an universe utterly devoid of humans
... motions will still occur. But those are
motions NOT timed: Only humans time motions;
therefore... no humans, no time.

Time to move on!

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

* With the proviso, of course, that humans are
   the ONLY intelligent life-form around. However
   other time-using fellers found elsewhere will
   very likely use a time-system in which their hours
   will be longer/shorter than ours (no pun); just as
   their feet (and meters) will also be longer\shorter:
   If ANY of our arbitrarily-set units of measurement
coincide at all... it shall prove a monstrous coincidence.

> --
> Ben
>

***********************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 05 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89u8iq$9t7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03> <89n82o$j4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<GvLbrCBO+0v4EwiY@microser.demon.co.uk> <89q39i$k9u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<zCdGAbArdJw4EwuO@microser.demon.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.187
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Mar 05 18:21:17 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.life.universe.everything,alt.alt.life.the-universe.and-everything,alt.life-sucks,sci.physics.cond-matter
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <zCdGAbArdJw4EwuO@microser.demon.co.uk>,
  "B.E.N." <ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  Deja.com - Before you buy. writes:
>>Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
>>exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
>>therefore it only has meaning in the human mind. *
>
> No.
>
>>In the time-measuring system one measures
>>"this" motion "from here to here" against
>>"that" motion "from there to there." Period.
>
> Only if you accept that electromagnetic radiation propagates at a
> "speed". If you send a signal, it will be received later by someone
> else, conventionally interpreted as "distance".
> --
> Ben
 

My apologies. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that
in my universe motion "travels a distance" (not necessarily
a straight line, you understand). But, apparently, in your
universe motion does not result is anything moving!

How interesting! (And how... were you able to
type out your post?!?!?!) W.O.W. -!-

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

***************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a0k9o$sqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03> <89n82o$j4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<GvLbrCBO+0v4EwiY@microser.demon.co.uk> <89q39i$k9u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<zCdGAbArdJw4EwuO@microser.demon.co.uk> <89u8iq$9t7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<54+k+jAnZzw4EwNe@microser.demon.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.201
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 06 15:53:29 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <54+k+jAnZzw4EwNe@microser.demon.co.uk>,
  "B.E.N." <ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  Deja.com - Before you buy. writes:
>>My apologies. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that
>>in my universe motion "travels a distance" (not necessarily
>>a straight line, you understand). But, apparently, in your
>>universe motion does not result is anything moving!
>>
>>How interesting! (And how... were you able to
>>type out your post?!?!?!) W.O.W. -!-
>
> "Motion" results in a difference in the time taken

By George, old boy! You fellows in the Magth Sector of the
universe ALSO time your motions?!?! How fascinating!!!!
You see: We are not as different as all that.

>to receive a
>  signal.

You left out... to remove the bra
(we fellows in this universe have this
timed to the nonasecond).

> The rate of change in that time you would call "speed".

True. However, our females here are of the opinion
that immediately thereupon... their mates should
slow their "speed" considerably. Are the females
in your universe more agreeable to the male condition?

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> --
> Ben
>

************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a0leq$toe$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03> <89n82o$j4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<GvLbrCBO+0v4EwiY@microser.demon.co.uk> <89q39i$k9u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<zCdGAbArdJw4EwuO@microser.demon.co.uk> <89u8mf$9tu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89vnps$qs7$1@news1.kornet.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.201
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 06 16:13:19 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <89vnps$qs7$1@news1.kornet.net>,
  "Karl M. Hartman" <karla@ppp.kornet.nm.kr> wrote:
> Again you have proven that the physical
> world moves, not time.  Time is the
> ruler by which you measure the physical
> environment in which you live.  The
> ruler must be still to measure the
> environment you are measuring.  Time
> does not move, the object you are
> measuring is doing the moving.

Although you are essentially correct, I would not
agree that "our notion of" time is some
immutable constant:

It's all much too arbitrary for all that:
The independent motions of the universe
continue at their rates (some speeding up, others
slowing down)... according to their natures.

Along comes man and invents his watch.
What does he make his watch of? And, what
does he measure when he uses it?

These are definitely 2 distinct things.
The first is some arbitrary "amount of motion"
(such as the revolutions of the planet on which
he lives). The second can be anything--but is itself
arbitrary as well when one considers that, however
"long" an interval/length of motion equals
whatever unit man has divided his "standard" (in
this case earth's revolutions)...  that "length"
is always predetermined by man having picked earth's
revolutions to time it with.

Therefore, absent man, all that remains
as far as the universe is concerned...
are an almost infinite number of independent
motions (which have little or nothing to do
with each other).

Moreover, it's quite within the realms of
probabilities that some other intelligent life form
in the universe uses the same celsium element we
use "as their watches" too. But our interpretation
of this element resolved into our own planet's
revolutions, and it's highly unlikely their planet
will revolve at the same "speed" as ours. So that
time for us will mean one thing, and time will mean
something else entirely to all the other intelligent
life forms in the universe ad infinitum.

Not coincidentally,

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

*******************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a1llh$ml7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03> <89n82o$j4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<GvLbrCBO+0v4EwiY@microser.demon.co.uk> <89q39i$k9u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<zCdGAbArdJw4EwuO@microser.demon.co.uk> <89u8mf$9tu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89vnps$qs7$1@news1.kornet.net> <8a0lg2$ton$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a0tc7$68j$1@news.ihug.co.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.94
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 07 01:23:00 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <8a0tc7$68j$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8a0lg2$ton$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <89vnps$qs7$1@news1.kornet.net>,
>>   "Karl M. Hartman" <karla@ppp.kornet.nm.kr> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>> So that
>> time for us will mean one thing, and time will mean
>> something else entirely to all the other intelligent
>> life forms in the universe ad infinitum.
>
> It matters not.
> Time is still the master component/dimension.
> Without time duration, nothing can possibly exist at all.
 

See comments below.

> Most people tend to think of time as just the ticking of a clock (ie
time
> duration).
> But the dimension of time is far more complex than that.
> It is the master of all other dimensions.
> Without the dimension of time there can be nothing.

There can't be a Twilight Zone, that's 4 sure. (At least, not
according to Rod Serling's intro at the start of each show.)

> In other words, nothing (including gravity) can even exist,
> if there is no time to exist in.

"The only thing that exists is motion." (You can also
state it this way: "The only thing that exists is gravity." Or"
"The only thing that exists is infinite (scalar) mass." And
the reason one can state it in any of the phrases above
is because they all embody energy: Energy is existence
regardless of which form it is in/which force it is feeding.)
Energy is motion: Even the infinite (scalar) mass universe
"exists" only because it is being pushed outwards by a
repellant force--and that repellant force we understand
no more/no less when it shifts into an/the attractive force
which then begins to pull the universe in on itself (and
which we "know" locally as gravity).

Motion takes place IN three dimensions (albeit this is
a geometrical simplification of it--it's really an infinite
number of linear directions). But, in any case: the reason
why we know there are 3 dimensions is that motion
takes place ONLY in those dimensions. If there were 2
dimensions, motion would only take place in them. If
there was but 1 dimension, motion would be impossible.
And if there were 4 or more dimensions then motion
would take place in all those dimensions as well... that is
how we know there are ONLY 3 dimensions--except in
the mathematical dreams & nightmares of mathematical
poets, of course.) If there were no motion in 3 dimensions
there would not need to be 3 dimensions. And ONLY if
there were motion in 4 or more dimensions would there
need to be 4 or more dimensions. The crucial distinction
is that the equation is exclusively between MOTION and
its dimensions: None of the human notions of "time" (which
are exclusively convenient (measuring) systems to/of
synchronizing different motions as invented by man) do not
apply... none:

START QUOTE:

 http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/getdoc.xp?AN=592948163&fmt=text

Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
therefore it only has meaning in the human mind. *

In the time-measuring system one measures
"this" motion "from here to here" against
"that" motion "from there to there." Period.

A human being arbitrarily sets/picks/limits
"this" and "that" finite amounts.

Yes, even in an universe utterly devoid of humans
... motions will still occur. But those are
motions NOT timed: Only humans time motions;
therefore... no humans, no time.

* With the proviso, of course, that humans are
   the ONLY intelligent life-form around. However
   other time-using fellers found elsewhere will
   very likely use a time-system in which their hours
   will be longer/shorter than ours (no pun); just as
   their feet (and meters) will also be longer\shorter:
   If ANY of our arbitrarily-set units of measurement
coincide at all... it shall prove a monstrous coincidence.

END QUOTE

The rate of motion is unique to each independent motion.

Our universe is a closed system inside of which a measure
of chaos (not absolute chaos, which is impossible inside a
closed system) has broken out: And at any given moment
every independent motion in the universe is either speeding
up or slowing down (it is impossible for motion not to be
doing one of these two, because there is no eternal perpetual
motion possible in our universe--ours is a finite-energy
universe, and that energy is constantly being used to fuel
its existence). Any chaos that has ANY limiting parameters at
the beginning is always condemned to some pre-ordered
(pre-defined) specific conclusion (and so too our universe...
which "appears" to consist of true random motions; but, in
reality, every one of those motions has its pre-ordained
conclusion built into it). This is because ours is a cause/effect
reality (where exceptions, or, as our sweet little theists call them...
"miracles," or, as our little dear mathematicians call them... true
"randon numbers" ARE NOT POSSIBLE). I say again: Human
ignorance is quite possible, but God knows everything (because
everything is knowable to a God with absolute knowledge).

Time: Man likes as not to entertain himself & his fellows by timing
"this" motion against "that" one (but, while admittedly entertaining,
this game is meaningless to the universe... because what man's game
consists of is the attempt to synchronize quite independent motions
... which are eternally impossible to synchronize except superficially
by man). Although ALL the motions in our universe will eventually
spend themselves out and come to a dead stop... very, very, very few
of them will come to anything like a true synchronized stop... which
synchronization (something the universe does not anywhere recognize)
is the essence of man's notion of time:

Ours is not a universe of absolute chaos, but only a closed system
in which some degree of chaos has broken out. For this reason it is
always better to say that we cannot predict "some future/whatever"
than to posit that such "future/whatever" is absolutely unpredictable:
Every motion in our universe is fueled by a constant supply of energy
(the problem is that we cannot know much about a motion of which
we do not know either the rate of energy fueling it OR how much
energy remains in the tank--and either one of these factors is enough).

Some elucidations: Gravity is a "force." Although in physics you will
find "forces" described in terms of their strength, you will nowhere
find a description of the exact nature (why) of a force.  We just don't
know (and we prefer to not talk about things we know nothing about
--human nature, old boy). It's nevertheless still possible to use some
analogies [with gasses, etc.] to try to get a superficial understanding
of what a force is. The problem is that when one inflates a balloon
(with
a gas) one is pumping matter into the balloon, while the force of
gravity
it not itself composed of matter. The force of gravity may itself create
matter, but it is not itself matter...

In my web site you will find that I use the term "graviton" to mean "one
unit of gravity." Although this is a far cry from proposing the
existence
of a fundamental (non-divisible) particle... this does not mean that
such
a theoretical particle is absolutely ruled out (however it could not be
a
particle of matter, of course). BECAUSE "forces" are usually of the
"push & pull" variety... the only equivalence a graviton could possibly
have is, naturally, an "oppositon." But once you understand that
the force of gravity is the only thing that exists, you understand that
if the graviton/oppositon is the only thing that exists... it will never
be
possible to ascertain their absolute values (the known "value" of one
graviton and/or oppositon will always remain "all" and/or "zero").

The infinite (scalar) mass universe (devoid of matter) also has the
value of one oppositon (or, of as many as you'd care to divide its sum
into). Just as the sum total of the universe's gravity may be considered
as one indivisible thing and/or be considered in terms of units (in some
human measuring system).

It's curious, but matter is only/just a "form" gravity takes; and
gravity
(being a force) is not made up of matter.  This can only be possible
if one speaks of the method by which gravity creates matter as... a
temporary but quite real motion of some sort: In other words, the force
of gravity reacts with itself locally in such a way that it results in a
very
real motion (at the particle level, motion about itself)... At the
beginning
this motion must be infinitesimally ineffable, but, like a building
hurricane,
it eventually coalesces into a quite specific primordial particle (or
locality
which is the focus of its force)... which particle can then combine with
other
like particles and go on to create more and more complex "forms" of
matter
up to galaxies & black holes. One truth is inescapable, though: There is
no
fundamental particle (that is: every particle of matter that exists ONLY
exists
because it is "in motion." Or, one could say... because it embodies
motion).
But if you are searching for a God-like understanding of the fundamental
force of existence... I do not think you will ever hold a true graviton
in
your hand.

Human knowledge, for good or ill (I know not), eventually unravels
even unto nothingness itself... at the level of the truly fundamental.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
http://www.geocities.com/rodrian/

***********************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a3937$qm0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<#6gVXZ4g$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03> <89n82o$j4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<GvLbrCBO+0v4EwiY@microser.demon.co.uk> <89q39i$k9u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<zCdGAbArdJw4EwuO@microser.demon.co.uk> <89u8mf$9tu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89vnps$qs7$1@news1.kornet.net> <8a0lc7$tnh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a27pu$97j$1@news1.kornet.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.147
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 07 16:00:42 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,rec.org.mensa
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <8a27pu$97j$1@news1.kornet.net>,
  "Karl M. Hartman" <karla@ppp.kornet.nm.kr> wrote:
> I think we are in agreement.  I use time
> as an immobile object of the mind to
> prove a point.  There is no reason that
> if the mind creates an immobile object
> that it can not create a mobile one.
> Time is the concept that man has placed
> on the movement of objects.  It helps us
> to understand them.  Our time is not
> anyone else's time.  My time, for that
> matter, is not your time.  It is a
> constant only in the fact that it is
> used to measure.  It is a constant
> because we have made it thus.  It would
> be difficult to assume that one minute
> had 60 seconds and the next 25 and the
> one after that 43.  In an ever changing
> and confusing universe, it seems to be
> the goal of the human mind to seek out
> order.

Well, the mind's job is indeed to piece together
whatever loose associations it's given; and to try
to make something out of it that makes sense
(to it, of course, since this also includes
the mind of the lunatic). This is why memory
works as well as it does... and why people keep
seeing the face of Jesus in potatoes, old walls,
tree trunks, and sundry other scribbly surfaces.
(Not to mention Deja Vu.)

> Your comments are well received.

Only some of the time, other of the time
they do not seem to belong in the same time
of the receivers (so they cannot receive my
comments properly, apparently). The receivers
obviously require an upgrade before they can
work with messages from my time.

> Enjoy the journey.

In the human experience... the journey
is all there is (so either we enjoy the journey
or we die all worn out and bitching about
how long it took to get there, and, "When's
the next train due? What, you mean this is it?!
Well... is there a good hotel anywhere the station,
porter? And, do you have to keep the furnace so high?"

S D Rodrian
sdr@-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

"Are you people celebrating Halloween?"

*************************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 03 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89n7hi$ip0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.160
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 03 02:20:37 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  lseib7631@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   don_quixote@mindless.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>>   "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>
>>>> TO move galaxies about (never mind moving mice & men) one needs
>>>> energy--and LOTS of it. One just can't have galaxies rolling all
>>>> over
>>>> the universe like balls on a pool table
>>>
>>> Actually, they do exactly that.   Galaxies respond to gravity just
>>> like
>>> anything else and do, in fact, act like free (if diffuse)
>>> projectiles
>>  .
>>
>> You've missed the point, Mikey: It is the energy to fuel gravity
>> we're talking about, and not how gravity is manipulating matter.
>>
>>> Their motions in this regard, however, are on a much smaller scale
>>> than the
>>> apparent motion imparted by the expansion of the universe.  Study
>>> the
>>> motions of galaxies within clusters some time.
>>
>> Mikey: The question is... where is gravity getting its energy, not
>> how gravity's distributed matter about the universe. I agree with  you
>> that gravity acts locally (ergo, it will create "particles" and  force
>> those
>> particles to react locally... long, long before they react to the
>> entire
>> sum of the universe--This means that the universe will have atoms  and
>> galaxies, and that galaxies will bounce about in response to the  local
>> effects of gravity... the overall structure of galaxy distribution  is
>> similar
>> to a soapy froth with the bubbles marking regions of space where
>> galaxies are not as abundant as they are on the "rims" of these
>> "voids").

> Gravity Has NO energy.

Ah! Then you DO believe in magic! How Romantic! However,
even if you believe in magic... I go by the ancient adage: "Energy
cannot be created or destroyed (only converted/conserved)."

In practice (and don't just go by physics terms... which were designed
to quantify forces, not to EXPLAIN them), ANYTHING that does
ANYTHING in this universe does "it" ONLY because it has the energy
to do "it." [And I am assuming that when you say gravity HAS no
energy it cannot USE it, of course.]

> Gravity is a FORCE.

In physics... a force is defined by Newton's laws of motion
(such as, "that which can bring about a change of velocity
upon a body of matter" ... or a "push" & a "pull"). Therefore
let's say you apply two vector forces to a body: the first one
of which moves the body 10 miles toward the north and the
second one of which then moves it 10 miles to the south
the total displacement equals zero (10+10=0), as in physics
a force is a vector. In the case above, even though forces
have come into play we say (in the language of physics) that
the body subjected to them has not changed its velocity. Now
imagine the two forces mentioned above working on the
body in question at once... Does this mean that no energy
has been exerted in the effort? Obviously not (as a great deal
of energy is indeed exerted in all such efforts).

In fact, wherever you find a body of matter in this dear universe
of ours supposedly "at rest" the ONE thing you can be sure of is
that there ARE forces currently exerting themselves over it (the
force of gravity and the other three forces), and that the only reason
it may appear to you that this particular body of matter is "at rest"
is that the vector sum of all the forces involved in the case of that
particular body of matter is zero from your perspective. But, does
this mean that no energy is being exerted by all these forces in the
ongoing effort? Again: No. Never.

Quite annoyingly... there seems to arise a confusion about this
simple distinction in too many persons (even in those who should
really know better). The zero (of 10+10=0 above) refers strictly to
vector addition, not to the involvement of energy at all! Please! If you
confuse these two you are going to believe that forces are "magical
influences" every time--So please stop it this instant! (Or I shall be
forced to stand you in the corner with the pointy hat on your heads.)

If the vector sum of the forces involved is not zero, then there is an
"unbalanced" force among all the forces exerting themselves on the
body of matter... and that is the "force" which "just might" move it,
of course, in your eyes. Also, that particular force "just might" be the
one using the most mount of energy (although never the only one; and
merely the most apparent one in the system you are contemplating).

Acceleration (due to a force) can also be considered a vector; and
so, for example, in a collapsing star, movement in the direction of its
center (being caused by a force, gravity) will accelerate. If the universe
is an imploding universe, you would expect that it will display some
acceleration with time (and our universe does precisely show that).
If, on the other hand, it were a true expanding universe (or, a vector
away from the force of gravity) you would expect it to show negative
acceleration... and nowhere does our universe show such a tendency.
(Velocity is also a vector, but we needn't specifically use the term
in the case above--For one thing, because we just do not know the
specific amount of "distance" covered per unit of time of any given
"bit of matter" in our imploding universe "towards shrinking." But
when physicists describe a force in terms of a "change of velocity"
it is merely "more to the point" than merely speaking of a "change of
speed," since "speed" does not take "direction" into consideration. )

> When to [2] objects held together by the
> force of gravity are pulled apart, the
> object gain potential energy.

Sorry: No they do not! As far as your two objects (planets
maybe) are concerned, all that happens is that they no longer need
to expend the same high amount of energy "pulling at each other"
(unless by "gain" you don't mean "not use as much as before," of
course).

A force acts continuously (that is why the acceleration
of a body is only possible while a force is acting on it).
What this means for the entire imploding universe is that
the implosion accelerates, of course, but we needn't concern
ourselves with that here.

If a body is held between two opposite but equal forces
it will not seem to move (and, in fact, somewhat as in your
example above... if the two forces are scaled back at the
same rate THE ONLY change --in this system-- will be that
they will require less and less energy to continue to keep
the body "at rest" between them... nothing else will change).
Perhaps you are thinking of stretching a rubber band (in
which case the rubber band will indeed "store" the energy
in --or, converted from-- your muscles).

Your example above may indeed result in a never-increasing
or diminishing expenditure of total system energy (but this is
only so IF the guy pulling the (two planets?) apart uses his own
energy to cancel that of the two planets' added gravity); however,
the instant the two planets begin to move apart... the energy to
make that motion possible comes ONLY from your Superman's
muscles: The strength of gravity is limited by the amount of matter
mass AND proximity (it will take a finite amount of Superman
energy to move the two planets apart, and then it will take
less and less energy the farther apart the two planets move).

However, as stated before, this does not mean that if one moves
two planets far enough away from each other their expenditure
of energy (via gravity) will cease (remember that in our universe
there really are no  bodies of matter "at rest")... What you, ALL
that you have accomplished by moving the two planets away from
each other is to equalize all the different forces acting upon each
planet to zero (and in practice this means that no matter what a body
of matter may be up to in our universe its expenditure of energy (via
gravity alone) will be identical per identical quantities of matter).
This will explain why the Sun doesn't appreciably shrink faster than
the moon in our ordinary experience (the Sun, however is "sending
out" quantities of its matter into outer space continuously, of course,
while matter is continuously falling/adding to/upon the moon--but
that's another story altogether).

> This
> energy comes from whatever pulled them
> apart.

Actually that "unbalanced" net force will merely seem to ADD to the
expenditure of energy in the two-planet system in the beginning (and only
AFTER it diminishes the expenditure of energy by "the two planets" in that
system will it have the side-effect of allowing those two planets to stop
spending their energy specifically on each other). As stated before: this
shift in the vector of energy expenditure is really only meaningful to
someone considering the focus of such expenditure. In reality, the universe
forever preserves/exacts an absolute balance of energy expenditure on all its
matter (so, as the Superman invests his energy into the two-planet system to
pull them apart... the two planets themselves will cease investing (by an
amount equal to that of the Superman's investment) their own energy into the
system of pulling at each other). And, again: This never means that the
planets will ever really lower their eternal investments of energy... it
merely means that instead of investing in the two-planet system, their energy
investments will now be diversified among all the other forces acting upon
them. And, of course, if the sum of all those other forces is zero they will
seem to hang motionless through all eternity thereafter... even though,
hopefully, you will now understand that their capital of gravity/energy will
continue to be "drawn" upon by the universe until it's ALL OF IT sucked dry
and there is no more matter in the universe. As distance between two bodies
increases... the gravitational force between them is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance [NOT because matter "knows" when to turn up the
force of gravity and when to turn it down, but] because greater and greater
proximity knocks the otherwise balanced effect of equalized forces off kilter
by proportionally larger and larger values (while the "strength" of gravity
always remains the same for the same amount of matter throughout the entire
universe). [And because, say, a quark's proportionally huge amount of
matter-to-distance is confined to such a proportionally monumentally small
system --of proximity-- the effect of the strong force (really gravity
multiplied by proximity) is that proportionally more immense over the very
small "distances" involved.]

> In the case of the expanding universe,
> the energy was created in the blast of the big
> bang, the same thing that created the matter.

Well, believe it or not, even true Big Bang believers no longer
believe that... and are desperately seeking to find (or invent)
some other rationalization for their irrational belief that the
universe is really "expanding" (or, as I would prefer to put it...
"doing everything in the world without using a drop of energy"):
Consider that it is not merely the Hubble constant that takes/uses
energy: The strong force must ALSO use energy (and so too the
processes of the weak/electromagnetic forces)... Think about why
it is that even "ball lightning" cannot last but only a very brief
time. Even hydrogen atoms will decay, every last one of them
(we might not know when a particular atom will decay, but each
atom "knows" & once it goes past its critical level... that's it).

However, I really can't blame Big Bangers for  their irrational
and hopeless quest for an impossible energy source to fuel their
notion of an expanding universe: They REALLY can't see that
our universe is already using up tremendous/prodigious quantities
of energy (even though they know exactly WHERE the universe's
energy is)... it's just that they LOOK at the storehouses of this
energy, and look at them years after years after years... and never
once SEE even so much as a single droplet of energy ever being
removed from those storehouses. So I don't blame them going
a bit crazy over all this and getting into the mind-set that, "If one
does not see gravity using energy to do what it's doing, then gravity
obviously doesn't need to use energy to do what it's doing! Voila!"
And, if one does not know that the work that gravity is doing in the
universe HAS to be fueled by some form of energy, it's easy to fall
into the superstition that it's all done by magic (put in other words).
Toss in a few misunderstandings due to the different usages of terms
between physics and ordinary language, and it even becomes possible
for otherwise clear-thinking persons to vehemently insist that it is
indeed possible to get "something from nothing" (in other words, of
course, for sanity's sake... but it all boils down to this fallacy).

The truth is, of course, hidden from our eyes because as the universe
uses the energy stored in the forms of ordinary matter... all those
forms shrink (and we have seen that they all shrink as a unit BECAUSE
regardless what they're up to individually... the universe always siphons
an equal amount of energy from an equal amount of mass)... Therefore
we do not perceive this "shrinking" ordinarily since ALL forms of matter
are shrinking at the same rate (and being inside the universe ourselves,
and therefore just some more of those "forms" of matter... our rulers also
shrink at the same rate as everything we might try to measure with them).
And so we never "notice" that gravity (and the other three forces) are/is
using up tremendous amounts of energy doing what they/it does/do). And
the amounts ARE tremendous (not just only from the tremendous amount
of work the universe is doing, but from the tremendous "speed" at which
the universe is shrinking--even though there yet remains enough of it
to power our existence for billions and billions of years into the future
--a hint as well of just how "immense" the primordial Singularity which
imploded into our universe of matter must have been.)

But there is always that... flip side to this "understandable ignorance."
That is... that because the expenditure of energy by the universe is hidden
from our eyes, we should "believe" that the huge amount of work very
obviously being done (by gravity, et al ) in it... is not directly fueled by
any energy at all. And as I have said.... it is somewhat understanding that
"some of us" should fall for this fairy tale, but it is always personally
disappointing when those among us who should know better... also go about
espousing the idiotic superstition that "somewhere out there" one can yet get
something from nothing after all!

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

RE:

>>>> (which is basically the Big Bang
>>>> premise... in which the galaxies have been "cued" to break into  an
>>>> "expansion").
>>>
>>> That's not the Big Bang's premise.  A pool "break" takes place
>>> from a
>>> central point.  This doesn't match the evidence- the big bang
>>> occurred
>>> everywhere in the universe at once - hence the talk of expanding
>>> spacetime,
>>
>> Since time only exists in the human mind.... any and all theories
>> which
>> depend on the reality of time (outside the human mind) as null &  void
>> (and fraudulent, if it can be proven in a court of law): And if  you're
>> one of those latter-days Big Bangers who have repudiated the Big  Bang
>> as the source of energy for your so-called "expansion" of the  universe
>> then I bow to thy Lord god Abracadabra with great respect.
>>
>>> _rather_ than an "explosion"; only the former description is
>>> accurate
>>> (though we see metaphorical reference to explosions fairly often
>>> when
>>> talking to laymen such as yourself).
>>
>> Well, I am a man who likes to lay it on the line (if some softer  place
>> is unavailable). However, you would be hard put to explain how
>> the "expansion" of the universe is powered without an explosion.
>> (This is only rhetorical, of course: Look at how many explanations
>> there are for every bit of nonsense in the Bible!)
>>
>>>> It's nifty for cosmologists to say that the universe is
>>>> not exploding but expanding, and that it's just "space  stretching"
>>>> between
>>>> the galaxies...
>>>
>>>     It's also accurate.
>>
>> It's accurate that they say that, it's moronic for them to say it
>> because one must posit that the gravity of the entire universe
>> plays no role in mediating such an expansion & therefore the
>> expansion must be being fueled by magic (in some scientific
>> doublespeak or other--after all, we can't have scientists who
>> believe in magic actually admitting they believe in magic
>> in so many words).
>>
>>>  If you measure the vectors of their motion,
>>> the
>>> presence of a volumetric expansion (as opposed to billiard-ball
>>> expansion
>>> from a point) becomes immediately apparent.
>>
>> Precisely, old boy: That comes from ours being an imploding  universe!
>> Mikey: The point is that billiard balls can be treated as  fundamental
>> on the billiard table (therefore you can push them about with a  well-
>> placed blow). If you believe that galaxies are fundamental in the
>> universe
>> then you must account for "the blows that's moving them." We all
>> agree on what is moving them (gravity). The dispute centers about
>> conventional cosmologists' claim that it was either a primordial
>> "break"
>> (or Big bang explosion), or some "funny energy" which (suspiciously
>> like magic) has no apparent source or means of doing what it's  claimed
>> it's doing... and my own humble claim that every last thing gravity
>> does in this universe it does because it has the energy to do it  (and
>> that I know where that energy source is stored, and how it's being
>> fuel-lined into the engine that's moving everything about... no  magic,
>> no Rube Goldberg mechanisms, just the plain honest facts, ma'am).
>>
>>>> but at SOME point one has to account for THE REASON
>>>> galaxies are moving about.
>>>
>>> Cosmologists have a handle on the engines for this already
>>
>> You might wish to check whether these cosmologists have happy faces
>> on'em (they might've got a hold of the wrong handle there).
>>
>>> (look up
>>> inflationary theory, symmetry breaking, energy of false vacuum).
>>
>> Wait! Wait... I gotta get back on my seat (after falling down
>> laughing).
>> Okay. Mikey: The reason a car moves is because it has a tank filled
>> with energy; and because that energy is fuel-lined to the engine: No
>> fuel in the fuel tank, no motion. You CAN, I imagine, propose that
>> space is "inflating" and that explains the car moving about. But at
>> some
>> point you will have to explain the car stopping at red lights and
>> taking off with the green. So too, you can create the delusion that
>> the so-called overall "expansion" of the universe is due to some
>> natural unexplained/inexplicable "inflation of space" or some  such...
>> but
>> at some point you are going to have to explain why/how you're  standing
>> on the earth with all the inflationary pressure of the universe
>> pushing
>> only
>> on the soles of your shoes instead of bursting your bag of bones &
>> blood
>> to smithereens.
>>
>> Gravity is real, Mikey: Gravity is driving ALL the motions of/in our
>> universe, big & small. And you don't have to drive yourself nutty
>> trying
>> to come up with irrational reasons why the work gravity is doing in
>> the
>> universe ought to be being done by something else odd & exotic (when
>> it is so reasonably and straightforwardly explained by the work of
>> gravity
>> alone).
>>
>>>> It's as simple as that. But, BECAUSE no one
>>>> who has ever tried to account for this has ever been able to  come
>>>> up
>>>> with a good enough reason why the galaxies are receding from  each
>>>> other... the original thinkers of the turn of the last century
>>>> proposed
>>>> that it HAD to have been that some primordial explosion GAVE the
>>>> expansion
>>>> of the universe its energy.
>>>
>>>     This is not how the big bang theory was arrived at.
>>
>> This is the reason behind all BB theories, regardless how they were
>> arrived at or when. The alternative is the positing of magic (in  some
>> scientific doublespeak, of course... to disguise that what we're
>> talking
>> about is really "magic") as the energy driving the so-called
>> "expansion"
>> of the universe.
>>
>>> It's not even
>>> _when_.  Big Bang theory arose from the recognition that if the
>>> observed
>>> expansion were to be run backwards in accordance with Einstein's
>>> theories,
>>> there would come a point where everything were rather compressed  and
>>> hot.
>>>> ... and "expanded," yes, I know!  I suppose the difference between
>>>> "expanded" and "exploded" here is that it "exploded in slow motion"
>> --which REALLY cooks the goose on "the primordial expansion" being
>> able to impart enough energy to the expansion of the universe for it
>> to
>> continue
>> "expanding" to this day. Never mind that it's actually accelerating
>> now!!!!
>>
>>> This condition would leave a distinct footprint on the universe
>>> (leftover
>>> radiation of a specific nature),
>>
>> Translation: If the "oven" is cooling there ought to be
>> a residual temperature--Find it, and you have proof
>> that the oven was previously hot!!!!!! (Of course, if one had a  brain
>> one might actually stop to consider whether the oven might indeed
>> be cooling down or heating up.... But, where're you gonna find
>> a Big Banger with actual brains? What Big Banger has ever
>> taken to the Yellow Brick Road? I ask thee.)
>>
>>> whose existence was then
>>> independently
>>> confirmed.  This theory also predicted conditions that would lead
>>> from
>>> raw
>>> energy to matter to matter *undergoing fusion* - yielding a
>>> universal
>>> abundance of light elements (H to He) that matches remarkably well
>>> to
>>> that
>>> which has been measured.
>>
>> I see, so you think that anyone in his/her right mind would have  ever
>> proposed that the universe could have evolved from a universe of
>> heavier elements to one of lighter elements? (And therefore your
>> contention is that the "Big Bang evolutionists" are clever fellows
>> because
>> they have not modeled primordial protozoans descending from parrots?
>> Clever fellows these, indeed! I can see your lines of reasoning,
>> Mikey.)
>>
>>>> Yes, by the way, I know a lot of theorists have proposed that  the
>>>> expansion of the universe may be fueled by bursting hydrogen  atoms
>>>> or the
>>>> odd
>>>> electrons  that get sick of hanging around with ordinary  matter..
>>>
>>> What theorists might that be? Oh, yes, crackpots.  Sorry for
>>> asking.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I thought you were one of these very believers yourself!
>> (So I was hoping you'd tell us which particular subparticles are
>> proving
>> the universe with the energy to carry on its expansion. Drats! And
>> please
>> don't just leave us with some cockamamie general notion of some
>> mystic "funny energy" or other causing an inflation of  space--Please!)
>>
>>>> It is for this reason, and a couple
>>>> of others, that ALL Big Bang and ALL true expanding universe
>>>> models
>>>> are
>>>> based on magic and ONLY on magic--They cannot run in the real
>>>> world.
>>>> Period.
>>>
>>>  What a fascinating load of hungus you've presented, here.
>>
>> Isn't it though! I'm thinking of turning it over into a play (on
>> words).
>>
>>>> They just don't have any gas in their tanks. [Never mind that  none
>>>> of
>>>> them even TRIES to account for the origin of matter or energy
>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>>  Why should they? The big bang theory describes what happens
>>> *after* the
>>> universe starts kicking; that's all we have to work with.  This is
>>> like
>>> complaining that evolution doesn't describe abiogensis.
>>
>> Sorry, Mikey. It's like describing a car which doesn't use any fuel
>> going about its business for days & days after being given a push.
>> But say I: At some point the push is going to run out and either  magic
>> is going to kick in, or somebody's gonna have get out and give it
>> another push, ole boy: There's just no alternative to this. None.
>>
>>>> Only a imploding model for the universe can account for the  origin
>>>> of
>>>> energy and of matter.
>>>
>>>     <laughter>
>>>     You're cute.
>>
>> Thank you (it's grand to have one's happiest suspicions confined).
>>
>>>> It is not possible to propose mass without a center
>>>
>>> Bah. I propose a block of cheese, with dimensions
>>> infinity*infinity*infinity.
>>>
>>>  Where's the center, tweedledee?
>>
>> Humbug. Think about it all & presto! There it is, tweedledumb!
>> (Say, are you setting yourself up on purpose? Not every
>> sporting, you know. Fish-in-a-barrel & that rot.)
>>
>>>> Either way it's still the same impossibility of "something from
>>>> nothing."
>>>
>>>   You make this claim of impossibility without foundation.
>>
>> I never wear pants when I'm at the computer (it kills the crease).
>>
>> However, I can understand how you could believe in "something
>> from nothing." And I respect all religions, let me assure you.
>>
>>>> In my experience... physicists, cosmologists, et al, are  children
>>>> arguing at  the sandlot: My, what wonderful clever ideas they  all
>>>> come up
>>>> with!
>>>
>>>   My irony-meter is redlining.
>>
>> I say! Where've you got it stuck, old boy?
>>
>>>> Well, if SOMEBODY doesn't come up with one single objection to
>>>> the model of an imploding universe THAT STICKS, and soon, I
>>>> imagine
>>>> people will definitely start wondering WHY they're still  sticking
>>>> with a
>>>> Big Bang model... which is becoming practically invisible under
>>>> all
>>>> the
>>>> objections it's overrun with.
>>>
>>>  Just what objections are those? Every probe of the BB and the
>>> nature of
>>> the expanding universe yields stronger confirmation.
>>
>> No, Mikey: "Every search for proofs of one's prejudices
>> yields ever-stronger confirmations." An exploding universe model
>> cannot account for the energy our universe is using; an imploding
>> universe model accounts perfectly and satisfactorily for EVERY
>> last bit of energy our universe is using. An exploding universe  model
>> cannot account for the constancy of the speed of light; an imploding
>> universe model actually demands that the speed of light be measured
>> as a constant in identical mediums. An exploding universe model
>> cannot account for the Hubble constant accelerating; an imploding
>> universe model actually demands that the Hubble constant be found
>> to be accelerating. And these are but just three of the most salient
>> objections to the Big Bang model (NOTICE that they are not merely
>> explained in the imploding universe model but actually required in
>> it).
>> As for the cosmic background radiation, Mikey: If you just suspend
>> your prejudiced view that it is a residual from the primordial
>> explosion
>> long enough to consider that it may actually have some other source
>> ... perhaps you will yourself contribute some day to actually  finding
>> its actual source. Who knows! Opportunity knocks everywhere.
>>
>>> Your model isn't even worth consideration until you can show that
>>> it
>>> fits all known observations of the relationship between space and
>>> time; ie -
>>
>> Forget about time, Mikey. You're just wasting it. Let it suffice  that
>> the only "proof" for the Big Bang is the Hubble constant: Every  other
>> observation is proof of an imploding universe. And, if you consider
>> the matter to some depth, the Hubble constant is itself explained
>> simply and straightforward with the imploding universe model, while
>> all attempts at explanation reduce to nonsense in a Big Bang model.
>>
>>> obeys general relativity.   Your original post is unavailable.
>>> Perhaps you
>>> might enlighten us as to why your 'imploding' mechanism doesn't
>>>> apply
>>> to the
>>> distance between the earth and the sun but does manifest as
>>> expansion
>>> of
>>> distant galaxies?
>>
>> Oh, but it does apply, Mikey (it's just magnified with astronomical
>> distances into the Hubble constant). To put it simply: First the
>> mechanism
>> requires the energy it will need to do its work (this means that,
>> because
>> that energy [E=MC^2] is in the "forms" of matter... those forms  shrink
>> --remember that if they were not forms but fundamental they would  not
>> shrink but be annihilated by the extraction of their energy). And
>> then,
>> and
>> only then do the forms of matter that have just shrunk "move in"
>> (obviously
>> equidistantly) to "fill in the gaps between them"...

**************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 04 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89q3ej$kb5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <
89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.13
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Mar 04 04:29:11 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02>,
  "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> it may appear to you that this particular body of matter is "at
rest"
>> is that the vector sum of all the forces involved in the case of
that
>> particular body of matter is zero from your perspective. But, does
>> this mean that no energy is being exerted by all these forces in the
>> ongoing effort? Again: No. Never.
>
> Would you be so kind as to calculate for us the energy expended  per
> second by the table upon which your monitor sits?

Now that you mention it, old boy... my electric bill
has been totally unjustified (since I secretly ran that wire
from my neighbor's electric meter)... and your mention of this
just might have pointed out where the fault may lie--as
the table upon which my computer monitor sits HAS been
looking kinda "shiny" of late... I'm going to have to look
into this more carefully.

>> If, on the other hand, it were a true expanding universe (or, a
vector
>> away from the force of gravity) you would expect it to show negative
>> acceleration... and nowhere does our universe show such a tendency.
>
>     You really should learn some astrophysics.

You mean... over & above just spelling it properly?

>     You are completely wrong.

Ha! Got you there: Nobody could be completely wrong
any more than everything could be nothing, or chocolate pie
could be a tart! Therefore, if I am completely wrong,
I must necessarily be 360 degrees wrong, so.... waitaminute,
I think I'm back where I started. Oh well, at least I'm complete!

>>> When to [2] objects held together by the force of gravity are
pulled
>>> apart, the
>>> object gain potential energy.
>>
>> Sorry: No they do not!
>
> This will be news to the physicists of the world.

But it will be good news: Now they will be able to
tell people how the universe really works, and
they won't have to resort to using magic as an
explanation to gloss over their ignorance.

> Even the most  basic
> high-school education should have introduced you to the conventions
used to
> describe interactions with a gravitational field.

It's all those damned conventions they made me attend
inside those gravitational fields (they used them for baseball
during the Summer and it left patches grassless the rest of
the year... so it wasn't unusual people getting hurt in'em).

But read the example above again: You have misunderstood
what it is  it's talking about. Hint: It is talking about something
like two very close planets pulling (themselves?) away from each
other...

> In accordance with  the
> principles of energy conservation, raising an object in a g-field
increases
> it's potential energy by an amount equal to the work required.

This is only true as long as you only raise it a little bit.
And the "extra" energy now in the earth/object system
ALL came from you, and from nowhere else, my friend.

> This  is
> trivially demonstrated by releasing the object and watching that
energy
> returned as exactly the same amount of kinetic energy.

And it's a trivial example indeed. But now keep investing
more and more of your "extra" energy into the lifted object
until you've taken it so far away from the earth that the earth's
gravity will no longer interact with it... Boy! This must mean
that this object has gained such a HUGE load of potential
energy that if you ever were to let go of it... it would probably
turn into a black hole right in front of our eyes! (NOT.)

>> As far as your two objects (planets
>> maybe) are concerned, all that happens is that they no longer need
>> to expend the same high amount of energy "pulling at each other"
>
>     Show us the equations.

You mean Newton's gravity inverse-square equations?
What, did you dog eat your Principia again!??!! You
gotta start wearing a cup, my friend.

>>> In the case of the expanding universe,
>>> the energy was created in the blast of the big
>>> bang, the same thing that created the matter.
>>
>> Well, believe it or not, even true Big Bang believers no longer
>> believe that... and are desperately seeking to find (or invent)
>> some other rationalization for their irrational belief that the
>> universe is really "expanding"
>
> This is news to the rest of the wolrd's physicists.

Nope: Only to about 90% of them (which obviously
includes you). Physicists in the top 10% are clever chaps.

> Have you  looked up
> symmetry breaking, yet?

I NEVER look up anything that's breaking ANYTHING
(least of all while it's at it).

>> The strong force must ALSO use energy (and so too the
>> processes of the weak/electromagnetic forces)...
>
> You don't know anything about quantum mechanics, do you?

I know whenever they get a hold of my car it suddenly
becomes physically impossible to predict the exact instant
when they'll be returning it back to me again.

>Atoms  exist
> because they *don't* use up energy.

Nothing exist without using energy.  When it comes to
matter... existence involves hanging on (in every sense of
the meaning). Sorry, Mikey: There are no frozen-solid atoms
anywhere in existence, so (regardless what anybody tells you)
... all atoms use up energy in their existence. If ANYTHING
stops using energy... it ceases to exist (at least, as matter).

>> "If one
>> does not see gravity using energy to do what it's doing, then
gravity
>> obviously doesn't need to use energy to do what it's doing! Voila!"

The quotation above is a sarcastic rewording by me
of the conventional Big Bang physicists' philosophy.

> You are aware that the relationship of gravity to spacetime is  well
> understood, aren't you?

As usual, you misspelled "misunderstood." But I tell you again:
Any theory which uses the notion that time has ANY meaning
outside the human mind is null & void de facto from the git-go:

BEGIN QUOTE:

> Time continues to elapse everywhere regardless of units.

Time cannot "elapse" except in well-defined units, old man:
Otherwise time would not be a very efficient measuring
system--which is what it is... ALL it is. Period.

> Your
> life will be no shorter or longer even if you ignore time.

I think it will be a lot longer if I ignore time
(least, that's what my heart specialist swears to me
on his mother finest set of China).

> Time is  more
> fundemental than you think.

I doubt that: My thoughts are absolutely
positively fundamental (or da mental fun,
one of the two--can't think straight
without devoting more time to it).

> After all, you can measure distance using
> time, but you cannot measure time with a ruler.

Sez who?!?! Dear Ben... and how do you propose
measuring a distance then!?!?! Please get it right
so I don't have to post this same grand bit of wisdom
again & again... more amusingly with each subsequent
posting: Here goes then...

Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
therefore it only has meaning in the human mind. *

In the time-measuring system one measures
"this" motion "from here to here" against
"that" motion "from there to there." Period.

A human being arbitrarily sets/picks/limits
"this" and "that" finite amounts.

Yes, even in an universe utterly devoid of humans
... motions will still occur. But those are
motions NOT timed: Only humans time motions;
therefore... no humans, no time.

Time to move on!

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

* With the proviso, of course, that humans are
   the ONLY intelligent life-form around. However
   other time-using fellers found elsewhere will
   very likely use a time-system in which their hours
   will be longer/shorter than ours (no pun); just as
   their feet (and meters) will also be longer\shorter:
   If ANY of our arbitrarily-set units of measurement
coincide at all... it shall prove a monstrous coincidence.

END QUOTE.

>     Einstein ring any bells?

I doubt it: He was Jewish, old boy (only less so).

> [snip an unbelievably amusing load of horseshit]

My word! Exactly to what extent do you usually
amuse yourself with horseshit?

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

>
> -Michael
>
>
*********************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 05 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <89u9jh$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02> <89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.187
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Mar 05 18:38:41 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <sd_rodrian_i@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02>,
>>   "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> (snipped)

Well, sir, you are the better judge of
what mood you were in while posting this reply.

>> Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
>> exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
>> therefore it only has meaning in the human mind.
>
> Time is not only the creator of all existence,

Ah, a true believe at last! (I'm something of
an anthropologist; and always interested in
people's strange religions...)

> but it also provides "the" fundamental programme.

Could you fax me a copy? I'm also a collector
(I could fax you a copy of the original Catz!)

> Everything in our existence is born, grows to maturity, dies, and
> decays.

Except my family's rich uncle--Bloody fellow's being around
for aeons (we supect he was on the jury that condemned Jesus.)

> Everything ! There are no exceptions.

I take it you work for the "revenooers."

> It matters not whether time is measured in units.

It certainly seems to be of some importance
to a number of watch makers!

> The speed of light remains the universe's constant.

Ha! Apparently you haven't yet been told how it changes
in different mediums! (I've heard it's been clocked
as slow as 38 miles per hours in some mediums.)

> All matter and energy, including life forms, is born, grows to
> maturity,

Ha! I'm still feeling rather childish myself (and
I dare anybody who knows me to contradict me here).

> dies, and decays.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong:
We all decay while we're alive. (Who have you ever
heard complaining about decay after dying?)

> It's all the same programme.

Where are you located in the world? If
you're in the States, then you are correct
(regardless what the TV Guide sez).

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
 

*****************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a1l44$m89$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02> <89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <89u9jh$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89uflm$pbv$1@news.ihug.co.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.94
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 07 01:13:43 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <89uflm$pbv$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:89u9jh$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
>>   "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> <sd_rodrian_i@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>> news:89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>> In article <uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02>,
>>>>   "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>
>>  (snipped)
>> Where are you located in the world?
>
> New Zealand, the country that gave the USA Lord Rutherford,
> who as you would know, first split the atom.
>
>> If you're in the States, then you are correct
>> (regardless what the TV Guide sez).
>
> Your observations about gravity are interesting but don't explain
> how gravity is or was created, or what it comprises.

See comments below.

> Most people tend to think of time as just the ticking of a clock (ie
time
> duration).
> But the dimension of time is far more complex than that.
> It is the master of all other dimensions.
> Without the dimension of time there can be nothing.

There can't be a Twilight Zone, that's 4 sure. (At least, not
according to Rod Serling's intro at the start of each show.)

> In other words, nothing (including gravity) can even exist,
> if there is no time to exist in.

"The only thing that exists is motion." (You can also
state it this way: "The only thing that exists is gravity." Or"
"The only thing that exists is infinite (scalar) mass." And
the reason one can state it in any of the phrases above
is because they all embody energy: Energy is existence
regardless of which form it is in/which force it is feeding.)
Energy is motion: Even the infinite (scalar) mass universe
"exists" only because it is being pushed outwards by a
repellant force--and that repellant force we understand
no more/no less when it shifts into an/the attractive force
which then begins to pull the universe in on itself (and
which we "know" locally as gravity).

Motion takes place IN three dimensions (albeit this is
a geometrical simplification of it--it's really an infinite
number of linear directions). But, in any case: the reason
why we know there are 3 dimensions is that motion
takes place ONLY in those dimensions. If there were 2
dimensions, motion would only take place in them. If
there was but 1 dimension, motion would be impossible.
And if there were 4 or more dimensions then motion
would take place in all those dimensions as well... that is
how we know there are ONLY 3 dimensions--except in
the mathematical dreams & nightmares of mathematical
poets, of course.) If there were no motion in 3 dimensions
there would not need to be 3 dimensions. And ONLY if
there were motion in 4 or more dimensions would there
need to be 4 or more dimensions. The crucial distinction
is that the equation is exclusively between MOTION and
its dimensions: None of the human notions of "time" (which
are exclusively convenient (measuring) systems to/of
synchronizing different motions as invented by man) do not
apply... none:

START QUOTE:

 http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/getdoc.xp?AN=592948163&fmt=text

Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
therefore it only has meaning in the human mind. *

In the time-measuring system one measures
"this" motion "from here to here" against
"that" motion "from there to there." Period.

A human being arbitrarily sets/picks/limits
"this" and "that" finite amounts.

Yes, even in an universe utterly devoid of humans
... motions will still occur. But those are
motions NOT timed: Only humans time motions;
therefore... no humans, no time.

* With the proviso, of course, that humans are
   the ONLY intelligent life-form around. However
   other time-using fellers found elsewhere will
   very likely use a time-system in which their hours
   will be longer/shorter than ours (no pun); just as
   their feet (and meters) will also be longer\shorter:
   If ANY of our arbitrarily-set units of measurement
coincide at all... it shall prove a monstrous coincidence.

END QUOTE

The rate of motion is unique to each independent motion.

Our universe is a closed system inside of which a measure
of chaos (not absolute chaos, which is impossible inside a
closed system) has broken out: And at any given moment
every independent motion in the universe is either speeding
up or slowing down (it is impossible for motion not to be
doing one of these two, because there is no eternal perpetual
motion possible in our universe--ours is a finite-energy
universe, and that energy is constantly being used to fuel
its existence). Any chaos that has ANY limiting parameters at
the beginning is always condemned to some pre-ordered
(pre-defined) specific conclusion (and so too our universe...
which "appears" to consist of true random motions; but, in
reality, every one of those motions has its pre-ordained
conclusion built into it). This is because ours is a cause/effect
reality (where exceptions, or, as our sweet little theists call them...
"miracles," or, as our little dear mathematicians call them... true
"randon numbers" ARE NOT POSSIBLE). I say again: Human
ignorance is quite possible, but God knows everything (because
everything is knowable to a God with absolute knowledge).

Time: Man likes as not to entertain himself & his fellows by timing
"this" motion against "that" one (but, while admittedly entertaining,
this game is meaningless to the universe... because what man's game
consists of is the attempt to synchronize quite independent motions
... which are eternally impossible to synchronize except superficially
by man). Although ALL the motions in our universe will eventually
spend themselves out and come to a dead stop... very, very, very few
of them will come to anything like a true synchronized stop... which
synchronization (something the universe does not anywhere recognize)
is the essence of man's notion of time:

Ours is not a universe of absolute chaos, but only a closed system
in which some degree of chaos has broken out. For this reason it is
always better to say that we cannot predict "some future/whatever"
than to posit that such "future/whatever" is absolutely unpredictable:
Every motion in our universe is fueled by a constant supply of energy
(the problem is that we cannot know much about a motion of which
we do not know either the rate of energy fueling it OR how much
energy remains in the tank--and either one of these factors is enough).

Some elucidations: Gravity is a "force." Although in physics you will
find "forces" described in terms of their strength, you will nowhere
find a description of the exact nature (why) of a force.  We just don't
know (and we prefer to not talk about things we know nothing about
--human nature, old boy). It's nevertheless still possible to use some
analogies [with gasses, etc.] to try to get a superficial understanding
of what a force is. The problem is that when one inflates a balloon
(with
a gas) one is pumping matter into the balloon, while the force of
gravity
it not itself composed of matter. The force of gravity may itself create
matter, but it is not itself matter...

In my web site you will find that I use the term "graviton" to mean "one
unit of gravity." Although this is a far cry from proposing the
existence
of a fundamental (non-divisible) particle... this does not mean that
such
a theoretical particle is absolutely ruled out (however it could not be
a
particle of matter, of course). BECAUSE "forces" are usually of the
"push & pull" variety... the only equivalence a graviton could possibly
have is, naturally, an "oppositon." But once you understand that
the force of gravity is the only thing that exists, you understand that
if the graviton/oppositon is the only thing that exists... it will never
be
possible to ascertain their absolute values (the known "value" of one
graviton and/or oppositon will always remain "all" and/or "zero").

The infinite (scalar) mass universe (devoid of matter) also has the
value of one oppositon (or, of as many as you'd care to divide its sum
into). Just as the sum total of the universe's gravity may be considered
as one indivisible thing and/or be considered in terms of units (in some
human measuring system).

It's curious, but matter is only/just a "form" gravity takes; and
gravity
(being a force) is not made up of matter.  This can only be possible
if one speaks of the method by which gravity creates matter as... a
temporary but quite real motion of some sort: In other words, the force
of gravity reacts with itself locally in such a way that it results in a
very
real motion (at the particle level, motion about itself)... At the
beginning
this motion must be infinitesimally ineffable, but, like a building
hurricane,
it eventually coalesces into a quite specific primordial particle (or
locality
which is the focus of its force)... which particle can then combine with
other
like particles and go on to create more and more complex "forms" of
matter
up to galaxies & black holes. One truth is inescapable, though: There is
no
fundamental particle (that is: every particle of matter that exists ONLY
exists
because it is "in motion." Or, one could say... because it embodies
motion).
But if you are searching for a God-like understanding of the fundamental
force of existence... I do not think you will ever hold a true graviton
in
your hand.

Human knowledge, for good or ill (I know not), eventually unravels
even unto nothingness itself... at the level of the truly fundamental.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
http://www.geocities.com/rodrian/

***************************************

From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8a5sru$n5g$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02> <89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <89u9jh$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89uflm$pbv$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <8a1l44$m89$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a1v41$db8$1@news.ihug.co.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.172
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 08 15:50:24 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <8a1v41$db8$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>> In article <89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
>>>>   "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <sd_rodrian_i@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>>>> In article <uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02>,
>>>>>>   "Michael Brown" <mikeyb@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>>>
>>>>  (snipped)
>>>> Where are you located in the world?
>>>
>>> New Zealand, the country that gave the USA Lord Rutherford,
>>> who as you would know, first split the atom.
>>>
>>> Your observations about gravity are interesting but don't explain
>>> how gravity is or was created, or what it comprises.
>>>
>  >> Most people tend to think of time as just the ticking of a clock
 (ie
>>> time duration).
>>> But the dimension of time is far more complex than that.
>>> It is the master of all other dimensions.
>>> Without the dimension of time there can be nothing.
>>
>> There can't be a Twilight Zone, that's 4 sure. (At least, not
>> according to Rod Serling's intro at the start of each show.)
>>
>>> In other words, nothing (including gravity) can even exist,
>>> if there is no time to exist in.
>>
>> "The only thing that exists is motion."
>
> Can't agree. You can't have motion without time duration.

Translation: "The tree that falls unheard in the forest
doesn't really fall." Tell that to the fallen tree, old boy.
But, really, read what you yourself write: "Time duration!"
You know: "TIMED duration!" "Duration" (that's a motion
by another name); "timed" (that's a motion somebody's
synchronized to/with his/her watch). Read what you write!

> No motion can possibly be instant.

Translation: "No motion can take place without motion."
Okay, I might have to agree with you here (sarcasm).

> It always has a start and a finish.

Oh, this is too much! I fear you'll tell me
next North is north & South is south. Why not?!

> Therefore there has to be a time component.

Only if you're there with your stop, "Watch! An old woman
being run over by a  bus usually takes less than 7 second all!"
--I say, shouldn't we try to prevent it or something?   "And how
am I supposed to time it AND prevent it at the same time?!?!
Besides didn't Planck or some goomer say if we stick our noses
into it ... our observation disrupts what we're observing--?"

>> Motion takes place IN three dimensions.
>
> Can't agree. Motion only takes place in four dimensions.
> (1) Time duration, (2) length, (3) breadth, (3) height,
> and where [(2)+(3)+(4) can be space/volume/mass/subatomic particle]

Dear sir, if motion is already taking place in 3 dimensions
why call the motion taking place in 3 dimensions an additional
dimension?!?!?!?!?! And, if you're going to do that, what about
the dimension of solid? I mean, you can't tell me that motion is
possible without/outside the dimension of solid, now can you!
In which case, by your "reasoning," motion can only take place
in 5 dimensions... the regular 3, plus the dimension of time, plus
the dimension of solid. You can't have existence without/outside
the dimension of solid, you know. And what about the dimension of
mind? How can motion even be "considered" outside/without there
having to be a dimension of mind? Where's Rod Serling when you
need him?

> (snipped)

I don't blame you at all.

>> Time is but a measuring system invented by AND
>> exclusively used by humans (that is ALL it is);
>> therefore it only has meaning in the human mind.
>>
>> In the time-measuring system one measures
>> "this" motion "from here to here" against
>> "that" motion "from there to there." Period.
>
> Nope. Can't agree.

Am I surprised? (This is also sarcasm.)

> Doesn't matter "how" you measure, or don't measure, time duration.

Translation: "The hour still exists even if there are no clocks.
Just as the inch still exists even if there are no rulers." What...
the inch would still exist if man had never invented it? And
the minute would still last as long? I remember some guy or other
used to dress in dresses and go around saying a rose would smell
by any other name, but there was a smelly rose somewhere in there!
While... if one removes the inch, for example, what's left? And
if one removes the hour, what's left? [If your answer is "an amount
of something solid" to the former and "an amount of motion" to
the latter... you win the cupie doll for ignorance of what amounts 2...]
And now you understand that our ordinary existence consists of
things moving about... whether we time them, measure them, or
feel them up, or not--Maybe you still don't understand anything!

> It still exists, and rattles on regardless.

I think I've met mental illnesses like this (going about
without people... attached to them). Hasn't everybody?

> If it didn't, then every event would be instant, or frozen/fixed, and
> they're not.

Which "event" are you "motioning" about?.... the wheel of a truck
going around? It does seem to roll on like Byron's ocean
waves. Albeit I've never been asked by a wheel what time it was
so it could continue rattling on...

> (snipped)

>> Only humans time motions;
>
> (We're not getting medical here, are we?)
> But, sure. Why not?
>
>> therefore... no humans, no time.
>
> Nope. Can't agree.

Well: No humans, no disagreement. Ergo: We exist.
This clearly explains why it is inhuman to agree. (If nothing
else, we have solved the riddle of why man's bloody history.)

> Just because someone human isn't measuring it, doesn't make it
> non existent.

Not what is being measured perhaps... but the measuring system?!?!?!
If no measuring system is required by what might be measured
then what might be measured can certainly exist without being measured,
yes. But to measure something requires something with which to
measure (I remain quite firm about this). [And saying things like
these're
what got me kicked out of a number of insane asylums... before
my time was up.]

> It was there long before humans, long before the  dinosaurs,
> long before the formation of our solar system etc.
> The stars you see in the sky aren't as they are the instant you see
them.

I thought as much! There're peepholes in The Black Curtain
tossed over us so folks in Heaven won't have to look at us
all day... but, apparently, there are a few Peeping Toms got
grandfathered into Heaven before they tightened up the
membership requirements.

> Some of them we see now, are as they were a hundred years ago.

I suppose it takes longer for some Peeping Toms to get off
than others.

> If you look at our sun, that's how it looked eight minutes ago.

Ah! But you can't look at the Sun for 8 minutes can you? This means
that there is something wrong with your logic.  Or try it yourself!

> Our universe and all that's in it, is governed and limited by the
speed of
> light constant,

In which particular medium, old boy? The speed of light is only
constant in identical mediums, in different mediums it can be
anything down to 38 miles per hour or less! Doesn't this point out
the loose morals our universe is governed by?... or something.

> which in itself confirms and establishes relativity, and the
comprehensive
> reality of our universe and the dimension of time.

Amen. That's a marvelous old prayer! I believe Shirley Temple
sang AND tapdanced it to a Jazz tune in one of her movies once.

> If the entire universe was fixed and nothing moved, time would still
pass.

I have bad news for you, old boy: Thoughts in your head require
the motions of chemical/electrical processes. So your frozen
universe is unthinkable (look, Ma, I made a funny)...

> If the entire universe was reduced to nothing, time would still pass.

"Were," old boy: After all you are talking just possibilities here
(no matter how impossible). But if the universe were reduced to
nothingness... which would be the last thing left... the fire or the
pot?
(This is the other end of the ancient chicken-or-the-egg paradox.)

> If the entire universe was born, grew to maturity, grew old, died, and
> decayed,
> time would still pass.

There wouldn't be enough of it to build a clock, though.
My cousin is a watch-maker, and it takes him all sorts of
time to make a Rolex (though it's well worth it, sez he).

> Time applies to all that exists, and to all that doesn't exist,
> and is therefore the master dimension of all.

Say, do you work as a barker at a Las Vegas show?
I think I heard you once "open" for Siegfried & Roy
(or... for one of them... can't remember which).

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

**********************************
From: don_quixote@mindless.com
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8aapbt$9t8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <
88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02> <89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <89u9jh$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89uflm$pbv$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <8a1l44$m89$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a1v41$db8$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <8a5t33$n7j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<sgphIiB$crx4EwmE@microser.demon.co.uk> <8a8e6n$img$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a8q01$e8v$1@news.ihug.co.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.4
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 10 12:21:20 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <8a8q01$e8v$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8a8e6n$img$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <sgphIiB$crx4EwmE@microser.demon.co.uk>,
>>   "B.E.N." <ben@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>  Deja.com - Before you buy. writes:
>>>>In article <8a1v41$db8$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
>>>>  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> Motion takes place IN three dimensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't agree. Motion only takes place in four dimensions.
>>>>> (1) Time duration, (2) length, (3) breadth, (3) height,
>>>>> and where [(2)+(3)+(4) can be space/volume/mass/subatomic
>>>>> particle]
>>>>
>>>>Dear sir, if motion is already taking place in 3 dimensions
>>>>why call the motion taking place in 3 dimensions an additional
>>>>dimension?!?!?!?!?!
>>>
>>> "Dimensions" do not "exist" at all, they are merely our coordinate
>>> system.
>
> If time and motion are the same (according to SD Rodrian)
> does it follow that if a mass is motionless, it is also timeless?
> I think not.

You may think what you like, of course. But
you will never be able to find even one theoretical instance
of anything (either matter or infinite mass) which is
"motionless." Such motionless "mass" could not "continue;"
and, if it had a history, it would be God. (And I doubt
you will even find theists "for" a frozen God.)

> By definition, dimensions are essentially single measureable
> fields of perception.

That makes ours a 3-dimensional reality (with the understanding
that this is a simple convenient geometrical convention):
It all began with North/South/East/West (although, obviously
this includes Northwest, Southeast, etc). And then one adds
"up & down" and there you have our conventional 3 "dimensions."
However, in a true 3-dimensional existence only a cube
could exist, not a circle or a balloon (so you see here
how it's all only a mental convenience, a "device" in every sense
of the term). The universe really doesn't recognize conventions
we invent willy-nilly for our own convenience, I'm afraid.

Sorry if this seems to diminish our omnipotence
in your mind; but any hold on reality is far, far better
than any and all insanities loose upon the world.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

********************

From: SDRodrian <don_quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Funny Energy: 1 More confirmed SDRodrian prediction.
Date: 11 Mar 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8adit3$960$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38978A26.58673C2E@yahoo.com> <88jrdk$5dk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<88lrts$69j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <88nfvp$hj0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <
88vohp$b7t@chronicle.concentric.net> <891p7e$jbq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<eWrRHRtg$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa03> <89i2lt$ri7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89j9rk$lur$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89n7nj$iqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<uwh#DCPh$GA.96@cpmsnbbsa02> <89q3j6$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89rp84$hle$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <89u9jh$ako$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<89uflm$pbv$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <8a1l44$m89$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a1v41$db8$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <8a5t33$n7j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<sgphIiB$crx4EwmE@microser.demon.co.uk> <8a8e6n$img$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8a8q01$e8v$1@news.ihug.co.nz> <8aapbt$9t8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8abg0c$a$1@news.ihug.co.nz>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.183
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Mar 11 13:49:23 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <8abg0c$a$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
  "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8aapbt$9t8$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8a8q01$e8v$1@news.ihug.co.nz>,
>>   "Tony Cook" <tonycook@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8a8e6n$img$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> (snipped)
>> That makes ours a 3-dimensional reality (with the understanding
>> that this is a simple convenient geometrical convention):
>> It all began with North/South/East/West (although, obviously
>> this includes Northwest, Southeast, etc). And then one adds
>> "up & down" and there you have our conventional 3 "dimensions."
>> However, in a true 3-dimensional existence only a cube
>> could exist, not a circle or a balloon (so you see here
>> how it's all only a mental convenience, a "device" in every sense
>> of the term). The universe really doesn't recognize conventions
>> we invent willy-nilly for our own convenience, I'm afraid.
>>
>> Sorry if this seems to diminish our omnipotence
>> in your mind; but any hold on reality is far, far better
>> than any and all insanities loose upon the world.
>
> There's no need to apologise.
> It wasn't your fault.
>
> But, your 3 dimentional cube can't even exist if it has no time to
> exist in,

Give it some time--What'd you care?

> which is why there has to be the fourth dimension of time.

Tony, if there are no dimensions whatsoever to begin with,
you must propose a "one" dimension for "Time the One Dimension!"

> Motion is simply the movement of anything from one position to
> another,

Yep. And something is the thing moving about! Consequently
I counter-propose the dimension of solid (since... how can you
have any motion--which we obviously have--WITHOUT, or outside
"The Dimension of Solid!" ... even if it's moving or not?)

> but ALWAYS in a given time.

And ALWAYS... SOMETHING is solid.

> There are no exceptions.

Not even if I realy, realy have to go!?

> If there's no time component, there's no motion.

If there is no solid component... neither.

> Therefore time and motion cannot possibly be the same.

Nor solid and something... neither (something FIRST
has to exist in the dimension of solid to be something).

> Objects in space orbit other objects in space because of their
> original
> kinetic
> energy being acted upon by gravity, that's all.

And objects in space hit upon other object in space because of their
original
getting in the way
of each other.

> There's no great mystery about this.

The butler did it. Yes. I see it now! (Although
I saw a guy one time float an ace of spades
between his hands... I never found out why
he picked the ace of spades, though.)

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm

*****************************

INDEX