[dead SDR addresses have been changed to live ones]

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 28 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x72.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.205
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun May 28 14:56:26 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/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
  Slavek Krepelka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --------------E31A903E3D411832FCF4CE28
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hi all
>
> G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
>
>> The universe is exspanding,and that is why it has created
>> so much space.
>> Herb PS that is exspanding,not epandind,all my life
>> I wanted to correct
>> someone else's spelling.Thank you and you made my life complet.

My recommendation: "The Good Fairy" is one of the great films
in history, a phenomenal comedy about a girl who's kicked out
of an orphanage to work as an usherette in a movie house and
is mistaken for a prostitute by none other than The Wizard of Oz
(Frank Morgan) after Bob Cratchit (Reginald Owens), who is now
working as a waiter, invites her for a meal at his restaurant:
When The Wiz discovers his mistake, he tells the girl he will
grant her her fondest wish (which happens to be doing something
grand for somebody); so she picks a name out of the phone book
and Presto! Off they go to realize this stranger's fondest
dream--It just happens that this guy's fondest dream, since he
was a child, was to own an electric pencil sharpener! But all
that aside, The Wiz and the girl make him European Representative
for The Wiz's Meat Packing business or something and, so, you see:
The moral of the story is that even though your life's ambitions
may be stupendously humble, you too may stumble into some high
position or other if a good woman falls in love with you (and she
brings along The Wizard of Oz). Rent the movie this weekend--You
won't regret it (it's much better than that silly movie The Wiz
made with that Dorothy girl and the tornado).

>   Someone please answer this one.
>
> WHAT DOES THAT UNIVERSE EXPAND INTO?
>
> Slavek.

Dear Slavek, in absolute terms the universe is NOT
really expanding but shrinking. However, in its inner-
relationships it "but appears" to be expanding (galaxies
really ARE flying away from each other with greater
velocity the farther away from each other they are;
but this is only because of a quirk inherent in the
shrinking of the universe: All forms of matter FIRST
shrink in place and THEN move towards each other to
"fill the gaps" created by the shrinking... ordinarily
this is not at all apparent at the human level of our
perception, but at the level of astronomical distances
the "gap" between the two required actions creates the
very huge "lagging" which we know as the Hubble Constant).

The superstition that the universe must be expanding into
"something" stems from the fundamental error in cosmology:
Namely, the physical impossibility of matter going against
the force of gravity on its own! True, some goomer or other
many years ago sought to get around this physical impossibility
by proposing that the thing pushing the expansion was/is an
ancient magical cataclysmic explosion (but this silliness
has pretty much been proven false... due to the fact that the
"expansion" of the universe appears to be accelerating).

Now we have another set of goomers proposing that there is
an unsuspected magical sort of matter in the universe whose
gravity works in reverse (AND at once & in the same place as
regular gravity is working, but... the magical anti-gravity
is overwhelming regular gravity long-range while regular gravity
seems unaffected by it, near-term)... and that THAT magical
gravity-in-reverse nutty quality is what's pushing the "expansion"
of the universe! Will goomers never restrain their guesses?

Look at it this way: If you consider the universe as expanding
you have to account for the formation of matter as going against
the grain (as the universe expands... everything in it seems to
contract! Gee, I wonder why things seems to be so illogical
in nature? Sarcasm.) However, if you consider the universe is
contracting then NOTHING stands out as either a logical or a physical
barrier from the earliest history of the universe to this very day.

The "transition" from non-being to existence in the notion of
a Big Bang universe jumps from nothing to something (the pre-
Big Bang Singularity). A physical impossibility.

The transition from non-matter to matter in the notion of an
eternally-forming (imploding/contracting) universe is seamless
every step of the way. "If in order to exist existence would
have had to have a beginning... it would not exist." It does.
And this means that at no time EVER could reality have consisted
of absolute nothingness: The pre-matter Void must have contained
enough energy--in fact, all the energy that went into the creation
of its matter: That "energy" itself is "enough" to demarcate the
full extent of existence (so it must be regarded as a "repulsive"
energy pushing outwards... until it can do so no more).

This means that the pre-big bang singularity of myth and
legend was NOT a magic jelly bean that exploded into our
universe. What we (can) imagine as that so-called primordial
singularity was in fact the full and total expanse of existence
... which then, by the manifestation of gravity, coalesced into
matter in all its glorious forms (including us).

What is ultimately happening in the universe at this moment
is that (after the pre-Singularity energy coalesced into matter)
that matter is even now once again transitioning back into that
primordial energy (energy is being "used/consumed away" by the
shrinking/motions of the universe). Thereby energy is NEVER
created/destroyed, but is merely converted into/out of matter.

The implosion/shrinking of the universe will continue until
there is no more energy in the form of matter (matter will
cease to exist, rather than accumulate like junked cars
piled up somewhere or other). Then we are right back where
we (matter) started from... and once again that "spread-out"
energy will coalesce into matter (neither created.destroyed).
And please remember that energy does NOT have a physical
component to it (only matter does), so don't get into the
silly game of imagining some sort of primordial "plasma"
the Startship Enterprise can inject into its engines!

This... by the way, is something which is happening at a level
far deeper than nuclear reactions: Nuclear reactions take place
between the existing particles/subparticles ONLY, while the
shrinking of the universe is happening in the form of those
particles/subparticles themselves shrinking: This is probably
the most important thing you have to keep in mind: As long as
those particles/subparticles "exist," they will always be able
to engage in nuclear reactions regardless of their absolute
"size/mass" BECAUSE nuclear reactions do NOT depend upon absolute
mass but on the mass/volume ratio--The clearest example of this
is, of course, the nuclear reaction inside our "huge" Sun versus
the nuclear reaction inside the "tiny" three/four pounds of plutonium
mass in a nuke bomb: The nuclear reaction inside that "tiny" volume
is more "powerful/hotter" than that taking place inside the Sun.)

One form of matter to another,

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 29 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x51.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 04:42:28 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/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott Miller <[email protected]> took
his eye off the piece for a moment & wrote:

> SDRodrian wrote:
>
> The mark of someone with nothing to offer
> the sciences is found in their
> own writings when they prefer name calling
> references to specific
> problems of the theory itself.  To whit:
>
>> The superstition that the universe must be expanding into
>> "something" stems from the fundamental error in cosmology:
>> Namely, the physical impossibility of matter going against
>> the force of gravity on its own! True, some goomer or other
>> many years [POINT 1] ago sought to get around this physical
>> impossibility by proposing that the thing pushing
>> the expansion was/is
>> an ancient magical cataclysmic explosion (but this silliness
>> has pretty much been proven false... due to the fact that the
>> "expansion" of the universe appears to be accelerating).
>
> Actually no one in current cosmology expresses the
> initial expansion as
> an "explosion" nor that the universe is expanding
> into anything, which
> the word explosion conjures up.  This is simply a
> straw man set up by
> folks that don't understand or simply don't like
> what current cosmology
> really says.

Sir, it is well known that you like to defend
your Faith while constantly damning its beliefs!
It is the mark of someone who hates his Faith.
And so I say unto thee: Turn a Moslem instead
and be a happy jolly guy again!

>> Now we have another set of goomers [POINT 2] proposing that there is
>> an unsuspected magical sort of matter in the universe whose
>> gravity works in reverse (AND at once & in the same place as
>> regular gravity is working, but... the magical anti-gravity
>> is overwhelming regular gravity long-range while regular gravity
>> seems unaffected by it, near-term)... and that THAT magical
>> gravity-in-reverse nutty quality is what's pushing the "expansion"
>> of the universe! Will goomers [POINT 3] never restrain
>> their guesses?

Sir, your POINTy-ness is messing up my paragraphs!

> The equations of general relativity predict a universe that is
> expanding
> or contracting.

Didn't I say that?!?! Please understand what you
are reading! (Read, read, read again.)

> Current cosmology prefers the former.

Science ought not to be a religion, sir!
That, if anything, take thou away from me.

> The reason is
> that we observe stars using up hydrogen
> in their formation and fusion
> processes to generate the light we see,

You mean stars use hydrogen?!?! That's good
to know.

> returning less than when they
> got started.  This implies that in a universe
> that has been around
> long
> enough, all the raw material to make stars
> will be used up.  That it
> still exists can be used to imply we are in the
> expanding phase and
> not
> in the (yet to be demonstrated observationally,
> if it happens at all -
> observationally, it may not).

That is one explanation. This is another one:
Our region of the universe is very near the
outer "skin" of the universe (very young).
And regions nearer the center of the universe
are probably composed of super-immense black holes.

You still believe that particles are fundamental.
As long as you deny that all the forms of matter
are but forms you will never understand the true
nature of the universe--This is an absolute barrier
for you, Mr. Miller. It is one which is self-made.
It's entirely up to you to take it down.
>
>>
>> Look at it this way: If you consider the universe as expanding
>> you have to account for the formation of matter as going against
>> the grain (as the universe expands... everything in it seems to
>> contract! Gee, I wonder why things seems to be so illogical
>> in nature? Sarcasm.)
>
> Of course, this is a false statement.
> Current cosmology accounts for
> the formation of stars and galaxies in an
> expanding universe.  Again, a
> straw man set up.

And the explanation follows the logic that
it is done by gravity--Why then do you insist
that there are things which go against the
very logic of gravity... even as you insist
that everything is "assembled" by gravity
in our universe? Do you not see the inconsistency
in your logic?

> [rest deleted for brevity]

Thank God. I'm growing sleepy.

> Suggestion, though you have been given it
> in the past.  Write up your
> ideas with appropriate mathematical models and
> predictions and send to a
> peer-reviewed astronomy or physics journal.
> Who knows, maybe you are
> right.  But, I assure you that what you
> get back in the referees' report
> will not be references to you as a "goomer".
> Intellegent people are
> above name calling in reference to other theories.

Dear Mr. Miller, although I have said it to you
before, I will repeat it: My observations are
inevitable, unavoidable. If you had never heard
of me... one day perhaps you too might have come
to make them. ALL my observation on this earth journey
belong to mankind. The only thing which really
belong to me... are my "fabrications" ... my poems
and stories: Only I can produce those. The finding
that the universe is imploding is inevitable: It really
doesn't matter WHO makes it. (I'd like a bit of credit
for my own primacy, but in the end... I'm telling
you nothing more original than that rain falls down
from the clouds.) All my efforts go into my hobbies
(music & writing children's stories of all things
--Could've been worse, there are people out there
obsessed with toothpick buildings and little trains.

Good luck to you, Mr. Miller:
Hope you eventually discover the universe
is imploding too. I know you'll definitely
publish books about it, and think you've
done something original in the world.

I'll know better,

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
thesolutionisthis.com

> --
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator     [email protected]
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> University of Louisville
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium

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

From: S D Rodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 31 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x51.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.54
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed May 31 15:58:21 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] (Jim Carr) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> SDRodrian <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Scott Miller <[email protected]> took
>>his eye off the piece for a moment & wrote:
>
>... something in a newsgroup other than sci.physics.particle
>    where this off-topic comment was spammed.

Dear, dear Mr. Carr, here you surprise me
greatly (ok, I fib a little there). But
you will never make a truly spiffy scientist
by narrowing the scope/field/range of things
you are willing to take into consideration!

Physics, sir, encompasses everything physical
from cosmology to particle physics, from
ballistics to biology, mathematics & psychology
(because the madness of numbers permeates physics),
from the Olympics... even unto that sweaty mule
with the carrot at the end of the stick, French
cuisine, yes, and every other form of chemistry
dreamt up by woman & man.

Open yourself to the possibility (that the answer
you seek may yet be awaiting you... exactly
where you least expect it).

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
thesolutionisthis.com

>  James A. Carr   <[email protected]>

>   "The half of knowledge is knowing
>    where to find knowledge" - Anon.
>    Motto over the entrance to Dodd
>    Hall, former library at FSCW.

"The full extent of Ignorance is
 the unshakable conviction
 that what one already knows
 is all the knowledge worth having." --SDR

Motto of every person who will yet attain Knowledge.
 

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 04 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x55.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.30
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jun 04 21:34:41 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
orton <[email protected]> was reading
a novel by a Russian Romantic writer named Issac Newton
when he thought, "My brain is hurting, so I'll just
post something SDR can entertain himself with" & wrote:

> sdr,
>
> i like your entertaining manner of writing.

You mean you can see me sitting naked at my computer
out in the yard? You visiting Bob & Debbie's house?

> 1)  thermodynamics can not work in reverse, can it?

In a closed system like the universe the total energy
content is constant, the "available energy" is in matter
and is converted into "unavailable energy," resulting in
matter shrinking (this is not a nuclear process, as it
would be if it involved subtracting 10 atoms from a 100,
rather it is always the same 100 atoms... if atoms is what
you're speaking about). Therefore it is only in a truly
shrinking (and imploding) universe that the laws of
thermodynamics work: Matter is not a closed system but
part of the energy/matter system. The entropy of this
system is increasing (the available energy in matter is
flowing out of it and "becoming" the unavailable energy
which ideally takes the form of (in my coinage) "x-space"
[since I thought it might be easier for newcomers to this
view of the nature of the universe that if instead of their
trying to conceptually resolve the geometries of a world
shrinking with them in it... they just think of "space" as
expanding at/from every possible/imaginable coordinate].

Think of an ideal moment in which the universe consisted
entirely of unavailable -to do work- energy, its entropy
was at maximum, therefore its polarity was repulsive and
its entropy could not increase any further... so "its" (say)
"polarity" shifted and entropy began to decrease--in other
words: "matter" came into existence, or NOW instead of
the universe being x-space/energy it is matter/energy, and
since matter is but PART of the entire closed system...
"the universe of matter" can display a decrease of entropy
because it is not the complete system, only a part of it:

"The universe of matter" starts out from a "singularity of
energy"... when energy manifests/becomes gravity... gravity
then interacts (because its strength decreases proportionally
with the square of distance), creating local gravitational systems
that are nothing less than pools of energy conservation [but
these systems are "working" and MUST be using energy: the
1st law of thermodynamics here means that energy is "flowing"
from them just merely because they exist]... with time, even the
simplest primordial systems create disorder as they interact
with each other chaotically... creating more complex systems
with time... systems which eventually give rise to what must be
termed as "super-gravitational systems" (although perhaps at
this level the "size" only of a "Planck length" even at the tail end
of all these primordial interactions--albeit "size" is never an
absolute and ALWAYS relativistic)... from there these still
quite primordial super-systems continued "combining" until we
get elemental particles and even the super-super-gravitational
systems which we now fondly call stars and galaxies (and which
are themselves still combining--the texture of the universe is like
that of a soapy foam, as super-clusters of galaxies are ever
interacting with each other to produce chaotic geometries). But
the point is that there aren't/cannot be any self-contradictions
in the system of creation--Nature cannot blast through ANY
objections by the laws of physics: None. Nature ALWAYS takes
the path of least resistance (or comes to a complete dead end
--it has not, so there never could have been any objections
in the past to the absolutely straight path it has taken to here).

It is ONLY the imploding "universe of matter" that is finite
and therefore fully obeys the laws of thermodynamics; something
which a truly expanding/exploding universe could not do: In a
truly expanding universe you would have to account for where
the energy being used to push bodies away from each other is
coming from. In a truly imploding/shrinking universe the answer
is the very painfully obvious E=MC2 (or... the very laws of
thermodynamics). To account for the laws of thermodynamics in
an expanding universe one needs to propose that the universe
is NOT a closed system after all... and that it is getting energy
from other universes/dimensions (as has been proposed by any
number of goomers who just can't put two & two together and
come up with four... and instead come up with some form or other
of "quintessence" (of ether) stinking up the universe, or some
primordial "engine" (like the dead Big Bang and other "inflation"
theories)... or the latest bouncy "string" theory). Furthermore
it is only in an imploding universe model that the universe as it
is actually seen to exist and work... can be accepted by our logic
and common sense. For if you believe that the universe is truly
expanding an almost never-ending number of its phenomena
become perplexing and impossible to explain except by twisting
logic and sanity. [A case in point is the problem of "dark matter"
which is not so much needed to keep the Big Bang universe from
continuing to expand forever... as to just simply explain why
the damn galaxies exist at all, given the fact that they just don't
seem to have enough matter to them to maintain the cohesion
they seem to display--Well, do the usual goomers suddenly take
a minute to reconsider whether their basic assumptions might
need to be reconsidered? Hell no! They just come up with a new
Rube Goldberg construct explanation: "The universe must be made
of matter about 80% of which cannot be detected by any physical
means in the universe!" And, of course, right on cue, an Italian
team of physicists recently proposed they had discovered the
WIMP particles this "dark matter" is made of by grabbing at them
with their "brass ring" every time the carrousel earth rides past a
particular season of the year. Now... it's foolhardy to propose
that any given scientific inquiry is folly (after all, astrology
gave us cosmology and alchemy chemistry), but... shouldn't we first
try out the most simple solutions possible BEFORE we jump
into the search for the most complex possible solutions (imaginable)
... to our lit'l everyday problems?

Well: All the "apparent" problems in astrophysics are caused by
trying to think of the universe as expanding when it is NOT doing
that--Once one thinks of the universe as imploding... ALL the self-
contradictions & artificially-produced paradoxes instantly vanish.
And then the Unified Field Theory stands before our eyes like the
brilliant Singularity of God... all at once and forever lighting the way
for us to/with its inevitable Truth. I have seen it myself. It's there!
And eventually you too will see it. Just a matter of time... and
stubbornness. Although... never underestimate stubbornness.

> 2)  the regulation of energy (motion) requires resistance.

And the promulgation of the self-evident appears to require
even more of it still! But, study any gravitational system: It's
the most marvelous model of the regulation/conservation/use
of gravity. And gravity is energy... and energy is matter. et al.
I have no problem with saying that "motion is all that exists"
(I might only have a fuzzy idea of what energy is, but certainly
"matter" is nothing BUT motion at its most fundamental).

> 3)  resistance quantizes the measureables.

Are you saying that "something is not all?" If you are
I'm glad to see you've been reading my poems!

> 4)  my final question:
>
> what regulates your implosion?

Reality. At every step! Gravity (all there is, really).
If there were something other than or even in addition to
energy in the universe... it would have to be some other
"form" of that same energy. And the only other possible
form the universe's energy can take (as energy) is that
same energy behaving in some state of opposite polarity
(e.g. it's acting either like gravity OR acting in the exact
opposite manner in which gravity acts): The repelling
"polarity" of energy produces infinite (scalar) mass [that
"infinite" does not create an infinity BECAUSE eventually
its polarity reverses... here it just means "as long as it's
in that polarity"], while the attracting polarity of energy
produces matter. Just keep in mind that, no matter what
the goomers try to sell you: gravity and anti-gravity, like
matter and anti-matter, cannot exist at once and in the
same place. Every time a goomer proposes that it can do
this (whether it's some cosmological constant, quintessence,
funny energy, or other-than 3-dimensional strings & all other
such nonsense)... you can laugh him/her right out of the
room. Unless it's your boss, of course... in that case, just
look quite fascinated, say, "Mmmmm..." and go talk to
the beautiful young lady with the huge... slippers. Just
be careful you don't walk all over her "feet" either (or
your wife's, especially).

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
http://members.aol.prebigbang
Or just say: "sdrodrian" to your Internet Explorer.

> dave orton
>
> http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified.htm
> http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_unified2.htm
> http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/index.html
 

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x64.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.195
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jun 05 18:32:39 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,alt.astronomy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <[email protected]>,
Robin Riordan <[email protected]> got drunk at the party
and finding himself dancing the Lambda with a lamb (duh)
on his head instead of the usual lamp, he threw up:

> Oh yes. The votes are in... the universe is expanding.

Dear Robin: Batman sez results in science should
come from facts and not from popularity contests.

> By all current
> accounts, the geometry of space-time is flat.

Have you checked with your bank lately?
I'd hurry if I were you: There's a Big Crash
in your future (prediction # 345). And no
apparent contradictions in your present.

> We still do know what kind
> of force is causing the lambda constant invented
> by Einstein that causes
> the universe to accelerate outward,

Yes, but I have to ask every goomer who tells me this:
Is it the quintessence? Is it the Cosmological Constant?
Is it stringy worms eating energy in another dimension
and excreting it in ours? Is it funny energy? Or is it
just plain levity with you (as it certainly is with me)...?

> but the universe is expanding. For
> decades the only question was 'at what rate'.

Egads, man! Is THAT the ONLY question in cosmology
you are aware of?!??!! Haven't you ever heard of
the mising "dark matter" question? Well, hang on to your
underwear, because I happen to know where ALL
of the dark matter in the universe is! Yes! Swear to God!
Every last bit of it! And I shall now reveal it to you here:
Listen carefully (as I shall only repeat this again elsewhere):
... you know where a lot of current cosmologists' and
physicists' "grey matter" should be?... Well, THAT's where
all the dark matter of the universe IS to be found at this
point in time. AND in great super-abundance, I might add.

Ever,

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
http://ANSWER.findHERE.com

> --
> ... life is like a beanstalk.... isn't it?
> Robin

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.84
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jun 05 23:33:32 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
  Sunny <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear mad scientist Rodrian, I have enjoyed your posts
> and your sense of
> humor.

Thank you, Sunny: Humor is not a natural gift,
by the way... we really gotta practice it.

> Not having a background in physics,

... you are in a MUCH better position than
those who must first cut through a lifetime
of being taught illusions as facts--You are
not only Sunny but quite lucky as well!

> I am asking if a synopsis
> of your case is simply this (and please
> pardon my ignorance of

Pardon it?! Sunny, what can the person learn
who is convinced he/she knows everything? You
have a bright & promising future in learning.

> scientific terms.  I did pretty well in physics
> in college, but it's
> been a while):

Great! Most of the greatest nonsense in physics
has arisen in the last 20 years or so. (That's pretty
much always the case, which is why older people
always seem wiser.)

> Gravity is a constant factor between masses.
> Therefore, all the matter in the universe is exerting gravitational
> pull on itself.
> Therefore, the universe is shrinking backward.

In the direction of shrinking, actually.

> However, we cannot measure it, because we are
> shrinking, too, and the
> tools we use to measure it are shrinking.  Also,
> distance is relative
> to the person measuring the distance.
> Therefore, because anything else flies in the
> face of known laws of physics,

Actually reality faithfully obeys the laws of physics, while
mortal men are stubborn and unyielding followers of Pride.

> the universe is actually imploding -- with the center
> accelerating more quickly, which would account for
> the appearance that
> the outer edges are moving away from us.  It's not that
> they are moving
> out, it's that we're moving in -- but there's no way to prove it,
> because we are shrinking all the time.

Sunny, practically everything about the universe cries out
it's an imploding universe, but for years now entire careers
have been invested in the superstition that it is expanding:
Guess which side most mortals are going to fall on. [pun]
But we are living in exciting times, Sunny: The first time anyone
proposed an idea which went on to turn the world upside down
it must have been exactly like this. So, if nothing else, enjoy it!

> Is that it?

Pretty much (if you understand that even though galaxies
closest to the center of the universe MUST be moving
towards it faster than galaxies farthest away from center:
this only means they are shrinking faster... so it doesn't
mean much unless the universe is as small as currently
believed and then (perhaps with the aid of the cosmic
background radiation) it'll be a lot easier for us to find
the universe's "orientation" --or, in which direction
lies the center of the universe). It'd be neat to know, but
taking vacations there wouldn't really amount to much:
There is NOTHING at the center of the universe. And
I mean that "literally."

> Have you ever read C.S. Lewis, "The Great
> Divorce"?  (Hell seems so
> big, but is really, really tiny)

Yep: So tiny, in fact, that a lot of people usually
just carry it about with'em.

> Sorry about my lack of familiarity with scientific
> jargon.  You're a
> funny man.

Thanks, Sunny: Laughter is one
of many tickets to happiness. Personally,
I think it's one of the easiest rides there.

Happy landings,

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
http://wisdom.findhere.com

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 01 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x54.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.101
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 01 03:30:49 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Gyudon Z), as usual with him, fell asleep
at the switch (err... keyboard) & wrote:

>>Sir, it is well known that you like to defend
>>your Faith while constantly damning its beliefs!
>>It is the mark of someone who hates his Faith.
>>And so I say unto thee: Turn a Moslem instead
>>and be a happy jolly guy again!
>
> And you haven't managed to refute (or even address)
> his point.  Surprise,
> surprise.

Well, I'm sure it must have been a very dull point
(so it doesn't surprise me that even you can't
remember what point it was).

>>Sir, your POINTy-ness is messing up my paragraphs!
>
> I think you did a good enough job of messing up
> in your paragraphs.

That's just the way I was house-trained, sir!
I happen to have been brought up in a very
literate family.

>>Didn't I say that?!?! Please understand what you
>>are reading! (Read, read, read again.)
>
> But the universe appears to be in an expanding mode.

Well, I'm glad you finally concede that it
but only appears to be so! Congratulations. Now, for
you next lesson I will teach you to say: "Good day,
Mister Wilson! And, how are you feeling today?"

>>Science ought not to be a religion, sir!
>>That, if anything, take thou away from me.
>
> Paul Allan Panks (schizophrenic, scientific illiterate,
> kook) also used to address people in strange ways.

Yes, but did he send them postage due?

> This is not a religion; most widely  held
> scientific beliefs have a basis in empirical evidence.

Sir, one man's religion is still another man's science
(you've never heard of creationism, perhaps).

> It's only the  strange
> ones that have little support (like yours, for instance)
> that run into
> problems.

And Columbus's (for another instance): Even today people
claim it's impossible to end up somewhere by going in exactly
the opposite direction! (While I do that every day of the week!
The idea!) I mean, and what about poor Galileo? That poor bastard
was muffled for years... and all he wanted to tell people was
that if they but looked with their own eyes they too (or is it
those two?) would see that Heaven was just as crappy and pot-
marked with imperfections as the very worst slums of Rome! Hell,
he found that even the Sun was damned with some filthy pox
of other! (And where it could've possibly picked up such an
indecent disease, God only knows.)

>>That is one explanation. This is another one:
>>Our region of the universe is very near the
>>outer "skin" of the universe (very young).
>>And regions nearer the center of the universe
>>are probably composed of super-immense black holes.
>
> Possibly, but the distance from the center of
> the universe does not  indicate
> that the sun could be much older than 4.5 billion years.

Pay attention, my boy: The most conservative "shortest"
youngest age guess for the universe is 15-17-billion years.
The grandest, most spectacular evidence that the material of
our solar system is older than the Sun is that only stars
can make/create the complex atoms/elements in our bodies:
So it's a fact that many stars lived their entire life-spans
before the birth of our Sun, died, and spewed material
into the cosmos which billions & billions (can't ever write
that without thinking of Carl Sagan)... billions & billions
of years later collected into the dust cloud which then
coalesced into the Sun and its lit'l planets. [.10 for the
cosmology lesson, please--Not that that's what it's worth
but that that's the price closest to my gett'n paid/you.]
By our most conservative estimates the Sun is at least a
third generation star. And since our estimates of the age
of the universe are assumption from observations (e.g. if
we see a '94 Dodge in the universe we assume the universe
must be at least on the order of six years old), it's always
likelier that, with more observations, our universe will prove
a lot older than our estimates than younger than our estimates
(unless they are theoretical/mathematical "observations" and
then all bets are off--that '94 Dodge might've been something
left over from some previous universe).

>>You still believe that particles are fundamental.
>>As long as you deny that all the forms of matter
>>are but forms you will never understand the true
>>nature of the universe--
>
> Before you prove that all forms of matter are but
> forms, we will  continue to
> deny it.

The very best minds and scientists in the world (not always
the same guys/gals) have been denying it since --at least--
since the time of the ancient Greek atomists (and even though
they have been consistently proven wrong and wronger still
time after time after time... there will never a lack of them
to deny it). Most persons simply do not push their imagination
to the edge of greatness; and it's plain human nature to want
to belong, to go with the crowd, to throw a brick or two yourself
when you stumble upon a crowd stoning some stranger or other.
But, consider this: The individuals who "changed the world" ...
they did it FIRST, didn't they? When Galileo peeked at the Heavens,
he wasn't in a mob with a 100,000 other telescope-wielding goomers.
So, yes, feel safe in the rock-throwing mob if that's your
life's goal in life. Frankly, I think the world is better off
with heroes who do not have to be pushed forward by bayonet.

>>This is an absolute barrier
>>for you, Mr. Miller. It is one which is self-made.
>>It's entirely up to you to take it down.
>
> The burden of proof actually lies on you.

Dear Z: I accept all my burdens gladly! This is why
you will find that I do not make many unfounded
proposals: When I say to you the fact the universe
is imploding causes the speed of light to always be
reported as a constant in identical mediums: I tell you
and show you exactly how and why that is. See my site:

thesolutionisthis.com

What you do not seem to grasp is that the Big Bang
Theory does not come from an observation of the Big Bang:

For the longest time in history it was quite normal to
believe in a steady-state universe (a "static" universe,
if you wish). When Einstein first considered the matter
it was self-evident to him that this was a physical
impossibility (an universe in the grips of gravity simply
could not be static--it HAD to be either expanding or
collapsing). It was not simply that his equations said
as much, but that sanity itself demanded at least that:
Either the universe was collapsing naturally, or expanding
unnaturally (due to some continuously-applied force).
[Therefore the choice is between a collapse the evidence
for which is nowhere to be observed... and an expansion
the reason for which we have not yet found--so please guess
which is the more reasonable alternative of the two.]

Einstein was also smart, and knew that in a world where
everybody is mad it's the heights of folly to appear sane;
so he denied his own scientific integrity and actually
himself advanced "the reason" (which the mob demanded) why
the universe was as static as the mob believed it to be...
some mystical/mythical "force" which he amazingly aptly
termed The Cosmological Constant (e.g. The Thing keeping
the Cosmos "static" or "constant") in order to be taken
seriously as a modern-day scientist by the quack-quack mob.
It was his way of admitting (if only to himself) that he did
not know what was preventing the universe from collapsing.

Besides, Einstein also had a sense of humor. [One time, while
Einstein was working as a patents examiner a farmer came by
wishing to patent his mule: "God beat you to it," Einstein told
the farmer. "Yes," the farmer told Einstein: "But God's design
calls for a mule that eats you out of house & home. While
my mule doesn't requite ANY food whatsoever: That mule you
see there has not eaten a bite for two months now!" Where-
upon, naturally, the mule fell dead on the spot. "Ah, what
a shame," Einstein comforted the farmer: "What a shame your
mule had to die on you like that... just when you'd managed
to teach it to live without eating! Now you'll have to go
home & kill another mule." --Old story told by an old Cuban.]

In any case, Einstein's self-preservation scheme worked... until
Ed Hubble looked through his telescope one day and SAW that
the cosmos was NOT static after all but SEEMED to be expanding!

Oy, vie! Was that a shocker, or was that a shocker! Einstein
had been peacefully enjoying his fame, resting in the park,
smoking a Cuban cigar & feeding the pigeons (both literally
AND, of course, figuratively), and telling his secretary that
if any reporter called asking what the Hell this "Cosmological
Constant" of his was --Yeah, like he'd know!-- to tell them
all that he was out taking a bath... when he suddenly got Ed
Hubble's email on his mobile computer--Well, Einstein's underwear
nearly fell off! He almost got hit by a bus trying to hail a cab
in which to hurry back to his office (driving a stick-shift was
so complex an engineering undertaking that Einstein just never
quite managed to learn how to do the darn thing). In any case,
once he got back to his office he instantly erased all traces
of this stupid Cosmological Constant gag from his little red book
of equations, and for the rest of his life whined to everyone
who couldn't avoid him at cocktail parties that it'd been the
greatest blunder of his life (he didn't like to talk about his
wives and children). End story? No:

In exactly the same manner that Einstein had come up with his
Cosmological Constant idiocy to satisfy the mob's expectation,
Einstein originally (before the Cosmological Constant debacle)
had proposed that the Universe was expanding... by reverse-
engineering that proposal from what he knew of reality): Since,
unlike moi, Einstein DID NOT KNOW that all forms of matter are
but "forms" and not fundamental... it was unimaginable for him
to conceive that the non-static universe was imploding (which
would have required him to believe that galaxies were crashing
against one another as they SURELY would have had to do were
they fundamental in nature instead of mere "forms'). Therefore
the only reasonable proposal Einstein could really advance was
an expanding universe--regardless of the fact that he really had
not the least clue what could possibly be driving such a crazy
"expansion" against the laws of physics (or, the rule of gravity).

[In fact, on the surface of it, it's just as counter-intuitive
to propose that the universe is expanding as contracting: It
goes against the laws of physics, because, again: what could
possibly be powering an expansion of an universe which is self-
evidently in the grips of gravity? However, the much greater
unreasonableness of proposing a universe in which galaxies/stars
are crashing into each other (not very many could be found to be
doing that) made even the notion of a static universe a far less
unreasonable alternative (and most especially of all today, when
we can more clearly see where even if Einstein had not a clue
what could possibly be keeping the universe static or making it
expand... it was more reasonable to him to believe the universe
was indeed as "static" as everybody said it was and that therefore
some mystical/magical/unknown "force" was indeed responsible for
keeping the universe from collapsing inwardly... as required by
the laws of physics... than to propose an inwardly-collapsing
universe chuckful of crashing galaxies no one could find crashing
anywhere out there--This does not excuse Einstein's "greatest
blunder," but it makes it easier to understand why he "made it."]

Oddly enough, the "best" Cosmological Constant was finally found
(developed) in almost the exact manner that Einstein developed
his "greatest blunder" (by reverse-engineering reality): Once it
became an accepted "reality" that the universe SEEMED to be (through
the looking glass) expanding... all one had to do was to "run the
film of time backwards through the projector" and... Viola! THERE
WAS THE ANSWER at last: What had OBVIOUSLY occurred
was that sometime in the primordial past there must have taken place
ONE humonguous explosion (at a point where all the stuff of the
universe had been "back then")... sending everything out every
whichway like crazy! And, we're not talking little fart here, we're
talking an explosion so powerful that the only way to describe it
forever after was with an understatement... this was unquestionably
The Big Bang. The problem is (always) that one can only believe a
myth for so long, and then, here & there, slowly at first, but surely,
in the end... myths tend to reveal themselves for what they are. [The
cosmic background radiation is NOT proof of the Big Bang: It's
there, it's real, it's caused by something else, it's only touted as
proof
of the Big Bang by its fundamentalist priests--as the meaning of the
cosmic background radiation can have any number of equally-reasonably
explanations. No: A much more powerful proof that an expansion of
the universe can NOT be the result of "a" primordial Big Bang
remains the fact that the "apparent" so-called "expansion" of the
universe has been found to be accelerating: If the universe is
in the grips of gravity, as we have known it to be from the "dawn
of man" ... such a primordial explosion can ONLY produce either
a slowing "expansion" (if the universe consists of enough matter
to halt its "expansion") or an expanding universe whose inertia
will cause it to continue steadily expanding for all eternity (if the
universe does not have enough matter in it to reverse its so-called
"expansion"). What it CANNOT do under ANY circumstances
is exactly what it has been found to be doing... accelerating its
so-called "expansion." As everybody who knows the rudiments of
physics knows: the only way the universe can do that is
if/when/only as long as it is being acted on continuously by
a "force" ...

Now we have the problem at hand fully before us to either
understand and explain, or to fuzz anew: On the one hand
we have the knowledge that the only force acting in this
universe is gravity. While on the other hand... we have
a mob of goomers proposing one more time that there exists
some mystical/mythical "force" which pushes against the
everywhere force of gravity--but not "everywhere" ... only
everywhere gravity is "pulling" ... except that while gravity
is pulling everything together, this "anti-gravity" Cosmological
Constant stuff is pushing everything apart--even if it's all
being done at once & in the same place--provided the thing
it's pushing apart is farther away than the things gravity is
pulling in... everywhere they both exist at once and in the same
place--if you can believe it. And many do; because there just
never is, nor ever will there be a shortage of people who, when
they do not know the answer to a question... will just up and
make up one, any one!

And so Einstein must indeed be laughing himself silly in his
grave, knowing that he wasn't the last, goofiest scientist
on earth after all! He always did have a sense of humor.

> Only religious arguments  list faith
> as a prerequisite.

Yea, try to get a job FIRST.

>>And the explanation follows the logic that
>>it is done by gravity--
>
> This is blatant strawman arguing. The explanation
> follows the logic  that it is
> done by momentum.

Momentum does not DO, momentum is DONE by X.

>>Why then do you insist
>>that there are things which go against the
>>very logic of gravity...
>
> We don't. Momentum! I'm getting about as tired of
> saying it as you  must be of
> reading it!

I never tire of expressing the obvious, the self-
evident, the truth (it's telling lies & other
unreal fabrications put a stress on one's memory
& other mental faculties enough to wear them out).

>> even as you insist
>>that everything is "assembled" by gravity
>>in our universe? Do you not see the inconsistency
>>in your logic?
>
> There is no inconsistency.

... in madmen's minds--nor in most children's
for that matter ("I just saw you do it! Now, did
you do it?" Every parent knows the answer to that!)

> He never proposed that the same gravity  that brings
> stars and planets together drive the galaxy apart.

Not gravity--some "other" mystical/mythical force which
pushes where gravity pulls (and which acts at once and
in the same volumes where regular gravity acts). It's a
load of more recent proposals (only during the past few
years): It's been proposed under the name of "funny energy"
or the more generic "repulsive force," more recently again
as Einstein's Cosmological Constant," and it's been around
for some time in various versions of "inflation theory"
(which only touches upon economics when it concerns the
careers of the goomers whose "jobs" seem to be "to invent
reasons where there are none." (Perfect job description.)
But, frankly, if I were going to propose such nonsense
I'd let my imagination really go wild and propose that
the reason why the universe isn't collapsing is because
it's everywhere suffused with a numberless army of tiny
lit'l elves cranking car jacks to keep the walls around
them from falling in. And I would DEFINITELY call my anti-
gravity: Levity! (On THAT you can depend.)

> Unlike you, he  never argued
> that everything in the universe is made of gravity.
> And if you don't  prove it,
> we shall continue not to argue it.

Well, I say everything in the universe is made of
gravity, and you say it's made of... what was that
again?... "grape juice" did you say? Dear me!

>>Dear Mr. Miller, although I have said it to you
>>before, I will repeat it: My observations are
>>inevitable, unavoidable.
>
> Then why do they look so vastly and ineffably wrong?

To you? Because I am light years ahead of your time.
(Or maybe only "hours," as I am not in the business of
converting people but only of pointing out the obvious):
'Tis a curse, of course... and a blessing! I always
try to enjoy it for what it's worth... In a matter of
"hours," really, everybody & his dog will know the true
nature of the universe (which only "hours" ago only I
knew)... and then, who will even mail me a postcard
scribbled: "You were right, SD"...? 14 persons of
conscience? Three, if I'm lucky (and if you include
the usual one crank in every group)? I wonder.

>>If you had never heard
>>of me... one day perhaps you too might have come
>>to make them. ALL my observation on this earth journey
>>belong to mankind.
>
> Sounding very metaphysical and bizarre here.
> Very unscientific.

The truly perceptive man understand
not merely the things in front of his eyes
but everything behind them as well. (Rather
and ambiguous "them," don't you think?...
Hint: It helps.)

>>The only thing which really
>>belong to me... are my "fabrications" ... my poems
>>and stories: Only I can produce those. The finding
>>that the universe is imploding is inevitable:
>
> You have given no support for
> the implosion of the universe

It's doing pretty good on its own
(I think I'll give my support to
some worthier cause meanwhile).

> that could  not be
> explained better with conventional physics.

You are a darling, Z. Visit thou my web site:
It starts out from Occam's Razor--Are you
old enough to shave yet, if you don't mind
my asking?

>>It really
>>doesn't matter WHO makes it. (I'd like a bit of credit
>>for my own primacy, but in the end... I'm telling
>>you nothing more original than that rain falls down
>>from the clouds.)
>
> What you are telling us is much more
> difficult to believe;

Do I care how difficult it may be for you
to believe the obvious? No: Believe NOTHING
I tell you! (I'd never forgive myself if I
led you down the wrong path.) I am only telling
you what I see. Look for yourself! Just... do
not close your eyes and swear to me you can't
see it: I can see that too.

> you will  forgive us,
> I hope, for our incredulity.

Absolutely! I'm still here, am I not?
You will have my forgiveness for as long as
you need it. The day I cannot find it in my
heart to forgive you... you will never hear
from me again. I promise you!

> The greater the assertion, the greater  the
> evidence needed.

The greater the incredulity only: Even a blind man
can always find some way to "see" the obvious.

>>All my efforts go into my hobbies
>>(music & writing children's stories of all things
>>--Could've been worse, there are people out there
>>obsessed with toothpick buildings and little trains.
>
> I would expect more of your efforts going into
> defending yourself from  people
> with an accurate understanding of physics.

And who will judge their accurateness? Proofs
only satisfy some degree of confidence or other,
and never God. (It's ever hard for us poor mortals
to ask God how much satisfaction He gets from us.)

>>Good luck to you, Mr. Miller:
>>Hope you eventually discover the universe
>>is imploding too. I know you'll definitely
>>publish books about it, and think you've
>>done something original in the world.
>
> I would rather you published something in a
> scientific journal. If it  gets
> through the peer reviewers, it would go a long way
> towards supporting  your
> claim.

Sorry: I will never willingly publish anything
except I publish it. Think about it: Everything
you publish in somebody else's publication... that's
what he/she's publishing, not you. While EVERY
DAY of the week something like 500/600 persons
visit the web sites where my poetry is posted (see:
http://thegoods.findhere.com ) while nearly as many
visit my music pages. My "absolute relativity" sites
have already been visited by more people than even
the most popular publications' individual runs:
If your career depends on it--Publish! But if what
you seek is to get a message across--Internet it.

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 29 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x71.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.57
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 02:23:33 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/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
"Philip McSweeney" <[email protected]> wrote:

> SDRodrian <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Dear Slavek, in absolute terms the universe is NOT
>> really expanding but shrinking.
>
> <snip>
>
> First things first. You have started off this reply with a completely
> erroneous assumption. Modern data (i.e. that obtained from reputable
> ovservatories within the past 3 years) all seems to indicate that the
> universe is not only expanding, but that the expansion is, in fact,
> accelerating. Remember Einstein's famous "cosmological constant"?
> Well, it's
> back in vogue because it explains this acceleration.
>
> Phil

Dear Phil, let's take things one at a time:
Since the mid-90s I have been speaking on the Net
(sometimes as footnotes to my poems) about
my proposal that the Big Bang Theory is in error
and that the "apparent" expansion of the
universe is NOT caused by a BB explosion. Ever
since then I had been awaiting proof that the
BB theory was wrong and that I was right...
that proof was finally realized with the
discovery that the Hubble constant is indeed
accelerating! (Since the BB explanation for
the expansion of the universe demands that the
expansion either slows down or reverses, a
finding that the expansion is accelerating
destroys once and for all the myth that such an
"expansion" is due to a primordial BB explosion.
Period.) So you see, the finding you mention
is proof positive that the universe MUST be
imploding, because only the continually-applied
force of gravity can cause such an acceleration.
This is basic physics (we're talking Galileo here).

As for Einstein: He did not originate the notion
of a static universe (it was a common belief of
his day). This means that somebody told him the
universe was static and that drove him to introduce
into his mathematical doodles the notion of the
cosmological constant (a mythical/mystical "force"
which would prevent an universe ruled by gravity from
naturally... collapsing into itself). Soon afterwards
somebody else (E. Hubble) informed Einstein that
the universe was not static after all but actually
expanding! And, soon as he could, Einstein rushed
home and erased the now infamous Cosmological
Constant from his mathematical doodles. calling it
(its introduction into them) the greatest error of his
life. (Actually Einstein had gotten it right to begin
with... but he, at least, believed that reality's
reality took precedence over his math doodles.)

In any case, the fact remains that the universe is
imploding. How can it be otherwise when GRAVITY is
all there is to our universe! This means that ALL
(without ANY exception), ALL the characteristics of
the universe MUST reflect the fact that the universe
is imploding. The least exception effectively debunks
this "theory." So far I have not come across even the
least exception.

On the other hand, BECAUSE the universe is not really
expanding (the Hubble Constant is very real, and caused
by the fact that the forms of matter must first shrink
in place and then move in to fill the gaps between them
left by their shrinking... and at the level of our human
perception this happens so smoothly that we are never aware
of it, but at astronomical distances the effect is magnified
into the Hubble Constant by a lag between the two actions);
but because the universe is not really expanding [it is
IMPOSSIBLE for it to be expanding]... every characteristic
typical of a truly expanding universe MUST (without any
exception) eventually prove false. And so far every
proposed/theoretical "proof" (because they can ONLY be
misapprehensions, like the BB theory, and false observations)
that the universe is expanding has proven either to be
embarrassingly easy to disprove (after all) or so down-right
silly in its nature that it doesn't even require debunking.

A case in point IS the revival of "Einstein's greatest
mistake" (the Cosmological Constant) precisely now again
(in the last three years or so) coming back into favor
BECAUSE as the Big Bang theories of an expanding universe
are debunked... hard-core believers in the notion of an
expanding universe can find no logical or reasonable
cause behind the accelerating Hubble Constant and must
resort to ANY explanation no matter how goofball: Einstein's
Cosmological Constant is an ADMITTED (by Einstein) fable:
His mathematical doodles proposed an universe which was
not static, but when told a static universe was universally
accepted Einstein said, in effect, "Well, then there must
be some magical mysterious force keeping the universe static
even though it goes against science and all I know of!"
And then he called it The Birth of The Blues! (The CC.)

As long as theoreticians (dreamers) continue to believe
that they must account for an universe which acts contrary
to the laws of physics they will forever propose sillier
and sillier explanations (guesses) of indeed why the universe
acts against the laws of physics. It's as simple as that.

Once scientists finally liberate themselves from their
blinding prejudices and follow their eyes to whatever
is there... they will finally see what is there.

You can be among the first human beings in history
to discover the true nature of the universe too. It's at:

thesolutionisthis.com

And if you cannot grasp it at once, there are links to
innumerable elucidations I have been posting in these
newsgroups since the last century.

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 04 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.119
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jun 04 02:38:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.education,alt.philosophy.objectivism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] (spider) wrote:
>  I'm afraid that gravity, being the weakest of
> the forces, plays a minor
> role in the expansion of our universe.
>  Einstein was troubled by the static universe scenario, and tried to
> adjust his math to allow for such.
>  Hubble, using spectral data, observed the red
> shift which implies that
> all observable objects are moving away from a central point in the
> universe.
>  Einstein was elated, and found this model to be more sound.
>  You have yet to demonstrate evidence to show how your shrinking
> universe works.

Just because you have not yet seen the color green
does not mean it does not exist and been seen
up & down & all around the town by others. GO thou to:

thesolutionisthis.com

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
sdrodrian.com

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 29 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x66.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 04:15:31 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,de.sci.physics,alt.sci.time-travel
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

Gyudon Z had a few nanoseconds free & wrote:
>
>>Dear Phil, let's take things one at a time:
>>Since the mid-90s I have been speaking on the Net
>>(sometimes as footnotes to my poems)
>
> So you're a poet. I had been wondering what was wrong with you.

I am poet and musician, painter, historian, scientist,
great humanitarian, lover of women and other animals
(there are many, many other things wrong with me as well).

> Paul Allan
> Panks writes poetry too.

I love poetry! Perhaps I will read
Allan Panks's and love it as much
as I love Plato's poetry. Who knows!

>>my proposal that the Big Bang Theory is in error
>>and that the "apparent" expansion of the
>>universe is NOT caused by a BB explosion. Ever
>>since then I had been awaiting proof that the
>>BB theory was wrong and that I was right...
>
> That is rather faulty in terms of method.
> It's observation-first, not
> opinion-first.

I disagree: I am of the opinion
I should observe nature. That should settle it
(for most people).

>>that proof was finally realized with the
>>discovery that the Hubble constant is indeed
>>accelerating!
>
> Do you mean increasing? Do you mean that it is
> not a constant constant? I've
> not heard this one.

Actually, although you are technically correct, Hubble's
constant IS accelerating (if you take into consideration
that "the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it's
receding away from us" is constantly becoming truer, or
changing).

>>Since the BB explanation for
>>the expansion of the universe demands that the
>>expansion either slows down or reverses,
>
> Not really. It hinges on the speed of light
> being constant

You will have to elucidate this statement further:
What is the connection between the Hubble constant
and the constancy of the speed of light?

> and technically
> speaking, the universe is "surrounded" by an
> expanding spherical shell of
> photons,

That I'd really like to see!
Do I just have to take your word for this?

> and its volume is expanding at a rate
> proportional to the square of
> its radius--simple calculus and geometry tells us that.

Ah! You've been at Newton, haven't you, you bad boy!
Did we forget to actually apply Newton to something?
Or... do we take Newton merely, strictly theoretically?

>>a
>>finding that the expansion is accelerating
>>destroys once and for all the myth that such an
>>"expansion" is due to a primordial BB explosion.
>
> First, let us see this finding.

It's been around for the past two-three years and
quite universally accepted for the last 14 months.

>>So you see, the finding you mention
>>is proof positive that the universe MUST be
>>imploding, because only the continually-applied
>>force of gravity can cause such an acceleration.
>
> You do understand the concept of "escape velocity?"

Do I?!?! How do you think I can get out of the house
a good, solid couple of times per week!?! Can you do that?

> Gravity cannot catch every
> particle in the universe and pull it back
> --especially considering that not
> everything in the universe has a mass.

"Mass" is a technical term, sometimes used to mean
weight. A truer truism is that every particle in
existence consists of matter in some form.

>>This is basic physics (we're talking Galileo here).
>
> But what you've done with basic physics is questionable.

Your statement is so general that it can mean anything.
Consequently it's meaningless. Please point to a specific
action of mine which is as questionable as you suggest.

>>As for Einstein: He did not originate the notion
>>of a static universe (it was a common belief of
>>his day). This means that somebody told him the
>>universe was static and that drove him to introduce
>>into his mathematical doodles the notion of the
>>cosmological constant (a mythical/mystical "force"
>>which would prevent an universe ruled by gravity from
>>naturally... collapsing into itself). Soon afterwards
>>somebody else (E. Hubble) informed Einstein that
>>the universe was not static after all but actually
>>expanding! And, soon as he could, Einstein rushed
>>home and erased the now infamous Cosmological
>>Constant from his mathematical doodles. calling it
>>(its introduction into them) the greatest error of his
>>life. (Actually Einstein had gotten it right to begin
>>with... but he, at least, believed that reality's
>>reality took precedence over his math doodles.)
>
> Maybe Einstein double-checked himself because he was wrong.

My point WAS that Einstein did NOT check himself even once:
He merely accepted what others accepted as reality
regardless of what his numbers told him. You can take that
to mean that he really didn't believe/trust his numbers, or
(as I choose to do) that Einstein was smart enough to know
that when the numbers say one reality and reality says
something else... one ought to go with reality over the numbers.

>>In any case, the fact remains that the universe is
>>imploding. How can it be otherwise when GRAVITY is
>>all there is to our universe!
>
> Gravity is a force. Whatever is flinging the borders
> of the universe outward is
> momentum.

A force continually applied will cause acceleration
(how soon we forget dear old Newton)...

> They are pointing in opposite directions.

Who is they?

> Much of the universe may
> one day find itself imploding,

All of the universe finds itself imploding
now. It's the only way to go! It's physically
impossible for it to be otherwise. FIRST you
must propose (opinion) what might be causing it;
then (observation) you must find it (the
characterization of your proposal will determine
where to look, obviously).

> but the faster,
> lighter, and further particles
> will just keep expanding merrily.

NOTHING in the universe is expanding: Nothing.
There is not ONE single reason why it should
expand. (And, please: There are never any lack
of reasons in the dreamer's dreams.)

>>This means that ALL
>>(without ANY exception), ALL the characteristics of
>>the universe MUST reflect the fact that the universe
>>is imploding.
>
> This is pseudoscience,
> especially since you cannot revolutionize physics
> without your revolutionary discovery being correct.

Well, I predicted the necessity of the universe's
apparent expansion accelerating before it was as
universally accepted as it now is. If anything
anywhere is ever discovered to be moving faster
than the speed of light, Einstein is dead. In my own
concept of an imploding universe such a find is
not only irrelevant but actually expected. In addition
to this an imploding universe resolves elegantly
why the speed of light is always measured as a constant
in identical mediums. All which you can check out at:

thesolutionisthis.com

>>The least exception effectively debunks
>>this "theory."
>
> Then consider it debunked.

Please "mention" the exception which so
quickly debunked me. I'm very absent-minded.

>>So far I have not come across even the
>>least exception.
>
> What about the Doppler effect?

The effect is REAL (the galaxies ARE receding
away from each other faster with distance).
The explanation is in error. As it MUST be
because gravity does not repulse: it attracts.
As the forms of matter shrink in place
gravity brings them together to fill the gaps
opened up by their shrinking. Because ALL the
forms of matter are shrinking at the same rate
we cannot perceive this shrinking (we ourselves
are shrinking). So, at the human level of
perception these two actions are seamless; however
astronomical distances accentuate the infinitesimal
lag between shrinking in place and moving in to
fill the opening gaps... with the result that the
further a galaxy is from us the faster it will
be receding away from us. The result will appear
to be that the universe is expanding (a physical
impossibility) but it remains true that galaxies
ARE receding from each other nevertheless.

> It is, after all, our best evidence that the
> universe is expanding in the first place.
> If we were contracting, it would mean
> that we observers would be moving nearer
> to the source of the light, not
> farther. That would indicate a blue-shift,
> not a red-shift.

Dear Mr. Z, would you be so kind as to explain
how in an universe in which ALL the forms of matter
(including the photon) are shrinking at the same rate
while retaining the same proportional distances between
all its particles... how in the world YOU would be
able to tell the universe was changing sizes?!?!
Shoot a radar gun at your target, and imagine the
entire universe shrinks (or expands, for that matter)
while the photons go out to your target and return...
what sort of instrument could possibly tell you that
anything has changed at all, in the slightest, in
the universe?!?!?! No, sir, the Hubble Constant and
the constancy of the speed of light are about all
the peek the universe grants us into its real nature.

>>On the other hand, BECAUSE the universe is not really
>>expanding (the Hubble Constant is very real, and caused
>>by the fact that the forms of matter must first shrink
>>in place and then move in to fill the gaps between them
>>left by their shrinking...
>
> Please elaborate on this. It seems like a leap
> over a gaping hole of logic
> right now.

Right now you are obviously very new to this idea.
But it is an inevitable idea (like rain falling down).
Eventually it will seem so obvious to you
you'll wonder that you ever living without it.
Let me just say this: The only fundamental stuff
in nature is gravity (it is the energy of the universe).
All forms of matter are just that: forms which are
NEVER fundamental, at any level. And forms retain
their forms whether they are one size or another.
But do visit my site and understand at leisure.

>>and at the level of our human
>>perception this happens so smoothly that we are never aware
>>of it, but at astronomical distances the effect is magnified
>>into the Hubble Constant by a lag between the two actions);
>>but because the universe is not really expanding [it is
>>IMPOSSIBLE for it to be expanding]...
>
> No it isn't.

Yes it is.

>>every characteristic
>>typical of a truly expanding universe MUST (without any
>>exception) eventually prove false.
>
> And they haven't been.

Yes they have. We could, I imagine, be much
more specific; but if that's the way you play it...

>>And so far every
>>proposed/theoretical "proof" (because they can ONLY be
>>misapprehensions, like the BB theory, and false observations)
>>that the universe is expanding has proven either to be
>>embarrassingly easy to disprove (after all)
>
> If they have already been so easily disproved,
> then why do they persist in the
> scientific literature and in the public understanding.

You know, I too wonder how even today
there can live people who doubt evolution
and people who swear the earth is flat!

> You're sounding like Ed
> Conrad here.

This is writing (I may write like Ed,
but I can only sound like him in your dreams).

>>or so down-right
>>silly in its nature that it doesn't even require debunking.
>
> Everything that is wrong requires debunking.

Every generalization is wrong in some instant.

>>A case in point IS the revival of "Einstein's greatest
>>mistake" (the Cosmological Constant) precisely now again
>>(in the last three years or so) coming back into favor
>>BECAUSE as the Big Bang theories of an expanding universe
>>are debunked...
>
> No they aren't.

Yes they are. (This could get boring.)

>>hard-core believers in the notion of an
>>expanding universe can find no logical or reasonable
>>cause behind the accelerating Hubble Constant and must
>>resort to ANY explanation no matter how goofball:
>
> Sounding like a combination between Conrad and Hovind here.

Ah! A literary critic, to boot! (There, you see:
I can be as perverse as you, my dear.)

>>Einstein's
>>Cosmological Constant is an ADMITTED (by Einstein) fable:
>>His mathematical doodles proposed an universe which was
>>not static, but when told a static universe was universally
>>accepted Einstein said, in effect, "Well, then there must
>>be some magical mysterious force keeping the universe static
>>even though it goes against science and all I know of!"
>
> But the universe is not static. That's why it
> tripped Einstein's wrongness
> sensors.

No it did not trip any Einstein sensors: Hubble knocked
him up the side of the head and said: "Hello! Anybody home?
Are you in there Mr. Einstein? I've got news for you!"

>>And then he called it The Birth of The Blues! (The CC.)
>
>>As long as theoreticians (dreamers) continue to believe
>>that they must account for an universe which acts contrary
>>to the laws of physics
>
> What laws of physics have been contrarily acted upon?

"The force of gravity always attracts, NEVER repels!"
Any contention that anywhere in this universe there exists
a force which, acting at the same time and place as gravity,
repels... is going counter to the laws of physics.

>>they will forever propose sillier
>>and sillier explanations (guesses) of indeed why the universe
>>acts against the laws of physics. It's as simple as that.
>
> You cannot make ad hominems against scientists
> even if you have a point. And
> you don't even have that.

"You ought not to" (as I have done it, sir:
I propose that you have been debunked).

>>Once scientists finally liberate themselves from their
>>blinding prejudices and follow their eyes to whatever
>>is there... they will finally see what is there.
>
> You sound just like a Southern Baptist site
> I like to visit when I need a good
> laugh.

Look... you're wasting a lot of time. Why don't
you just call me hairy/smelly and leave it at that?

>>You can be among the first human beings in history
>>to discover the true nature of the universe too. It's at:
>
> Thanks, I'll pass.

Why am I not surprised!

> When you're published in a
> reputable physics journal, e-mail
> me.

Yeah, and when I go pick up my Nobel
I'll split a cab with you. Cheeeez!

>>And if you cannot grasp it at once, there are links to
>>innumerable elucidations I have been posting in these
>>newsgroups since the last century.
>
> Physics should not be "difficult" to grasp
> all at once. Properly done physics
> makes sense very quickly.

Especially the guy with the exploding bottles!
I liked him. The geography professor had nothing
on him (and all he did was point here & there
... and you passed the class).

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 29 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x73.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.39
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 19:55:20 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
Apparently "Ben" <[email protected]> wanted to know, so he wrote:

>> shrinking of the universe: All forms of matter FIRST
>> shrink in place and THEN move towards each other to
>> "fill the gaps" created by the shrinking... ordinarily
>> this is not at all apparent at the human level of our
>> perception, but at the level of astronomical distances
>> the "gap" between the two required actions creates the
>> very huge "lagging" which we know as the Hubble Constant).
>
> But atoms are very small so they can't be
> shrinking by any significant
> amount otherwise they would become a singularity
> in very little time (let's
> forget protons and neutrons for now which
> are even smaller). So if the
> shrinking is very very small, how can
> the "filling in the gaps" create the
> large values of the Hubble Constant?
>
> Ben

Ben, your post exemplifies the single biggest barrier
to finally understanding the nature of the universe.
In sum: You assume there are forms of matter which are
fundamental. As long as one entertains such an assumption
one will never really understand how reality (the universe)
works BECAUSE there really are NO forms of matter which
are fundamental: All forms of matter are just that: forms.

Historically, we live at the apex of a scientific quest
which began with the ancient Greeks who first proposed
the existence of fundamental particles (namely, the atoms).
Yet, in spite of centuries of suspecting/knowing that the
atom is not indivisible, we are even now embarking upon a
perfect duplication of that atomist dead-end in the modern-
day string theories: Because we can see no bottom to sub-
particles we now propose one-dimensional "extensions" into
our three-dimensional reality as the fundamental building
blocks of the universe! (Never mind the self contradicting
nature of "strings.") It is enough to set the modern version
of ancient atomist philosophy in contrast with the old one:
Ancient atomists proposed such things as that water molecules
were smooth and therefore rolled around each other (making
water flow) while iron atoms had tiny hooks which grabbed
each other (and therefore iron was solid). We all know the
modern equivalents in string theory (with different vibrations
giving rise to different particles, et al). But the reason
we are back where we started at is because we have not yet
acquired the wisdom to finally let go of the notion that
there exist fundamental particles (where there are none).

Ben, your absolutist conception of "size" is understandable
at the present time, but the universe (reality) just doesn't
work that way: A man is neither short nor tall (he is only
either of these with regard to some arbitrary average height).
So your question basically devolves into the crucial one
of whether the universe itself is big or small: As you must
see even now... the answer to that question is that the universe
is just as big as it is small: It is the only thing that
exists, so it is the biggest thing that exists (and if one
understands it to be one thing (uni-), when it is also the
smallest thing that exists. If suddenly the entire universe
were to vanish except for one quark, the same description of
its size would apply: It would be impossible for you to say
(tell) whether that quark was either big or small. Close your
eyes and imagine the universe (with you in it) shrinking
and/or expanding wildly at the level of every last item of
existence in it--How would you be able to tell it was doing
so? There are hints; but the one thing you'd really have to
rid yourself of before you could even begin to suspect the
true nature of your sizes-shifting universe would be the
notion that the forms of matter are fundamental: Fundamental
forms of matter would either crash against each other or
explode away from each other, but they could not maintain
the almost absolute proportional relation required to make
all that shrinking/expanding seamless to us.

One of the most crucial hints at just how fast the universe
must be shrinking is the Hubble constant, but in order to
come up with an absolute number we would have to know how
"big" the universe is... and I don't see how that could even
be done (at least from inside it). So we use the standard
speed of light as a measuring stick: Again I ask you... is
the speed of light very, very fast, or extraordinarily slow?
Certainly in human terms it SEEMS to be very fast (I can't
remember the last person who flat out-ran it). But pull back
a little; say, to just outside Jupiter, and now the speed of
light takes around 8 minutes just to go from the earth to
the Sun. Pull back a little more and the speed of light now
needs 4-plus years to reach one of the nearest stars from
the Sun. It takes 100,000-plus years just to "zip" through a
good portion of our galaxy. Pull back a little more and now
it takes a million years to traverse a tiny section of our
local region... so, is the speed of light really that fast,
or is it really as unbelievably slow as it now seems? Measured
against the speed of light, the Hubble constant produces
speeds comparable to the speed of light for the farthest
galaxies (but these might only be "far" in human terms and
the universe could be billions --yes-- of times larger than
even our best guesses today--because once you remove the Big
Bang constrains we have shackled it with the universe can be
what it is rather than what we imagine it to be). In
practical terms this means that galaxies TRULY distant from
each other might be receding from each other at many, many
times the speed of light. [The only barrier to things
traveling faster than c is an artificial one dreamt of by
one G.F. Fitzgerald, who not understanding why the speed
of light measured as a constant regardless the relative
motion of the measurer, proposed that the reason was that
matter contracted in the direction of its motion! thereby
canceling out the differences... the results of this
embarrassing misapprehension (the real reason why the
speed of light always measures as a constant in identical
mediums is because it is required to do exactly that in an
imploding/shrinking universe)... is that if one IMAGINES
that at, say, 93,000 mps (1/2 the speed of light) matter
contracts by 15%... then at the full speed of light (which
is 186,282 mps) the contraction would reach zero (and since
there can be no length shorter than zero... there you have
the explanation why Einstein and his descendants have
thought that nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light). Luckily for them... things traveling faster than
the speed of light are so rare in our local region of the
universe that we have not yet seen the phenomenon with
absolute certainty that that's exactly what we were looking
at--although there have been tantalizing hints.]

But, as to the rate at which the universe is shrinking:
In human terms it seems to be shrinking at stupendously
huge rates (certainly faster than the speed of light, and
I personally believe it to be many, many times faster
than the speed of light). But, as you can see, the speed
of light is really a very, very slow speed in astronomical
terms... so it's quite possible to say that if the universe
were the size of our planet earth, say, and God, who could
stand outside the universe and look upon its totality, were
standing a third of the way to the moon... I believe that
He could stand out there for billions of years looking at
the universe and never once notice that it was shrinking.
So in that sense... we have a LONG ways to go before we
reach a point where the universe would cease to exist.
The thing can be quite easily extrapolated down to the
level of a quark (although the various forms of matter
are/were assembled under different circumstances--for
example, we need stars first before we can have bronze
and iron atoms). A hydrogen atom inside the Sun is liable
to have a much shorter life-span than one free-floating
out in space, but if you were to tell me that the average
life-span of the hydrogen atom was 100 billion years or
more, I would have no way of disputing that claim (the
life-span of any given individual atom is a function
of its life-experience, no less than the fact that it is
always losing mass at a constant rate/mass as it partakes
in the shrinking of the universe along with all other atoms).

Although Einstein was not the originator of E=MC2, by now
we all know what it means: "There is an unimaginably huge
amount of energy in the forms of matter." Gravity is the
purest form of energy we know of (and the other 3 "forces"
are but stupendously localized manifestations of gravity
just as are all the forms of matter)... instead of thinking
of "particles/subparticles," think instead of "gravitational
systems." Because these gravitational systems will remain stable
(systems) even though huge amounts of their absolute "mass"
is lost--Remember they are forever shrinking, or compacting
... so that the relative "strength" of their gravity will
always remain the same: The strength of gravity increases
with nearness, so, as they compact, the gravitational systems
retain the same stability they began with regardless of
whatever "absolute loss" of mass they might experience due to
that shrinking: The forms of matter remain the same (form)
regardless of how they might shrink or at which velocity...
until such time as they just simply run out of the critically-
required absolute amount of mass they need to maintain their
stability (as that whatever form of matter)... but this
critical amount may be so infinitesimal (with respect to
the "size" at which that given form of matter started) that
a quark which began the size of the present universe might
yet shrink by many, many factors like that and still remain
very much a quark as we have come to understand quarks).

I wish I could have been more thorough, but I find that I no
longer have the time to go into all that much detail. So
I do hope you will instead visit my site and read more there:

thesolutionisthis.com

Even if the holy grail you seek is not there, there
will you find a step closer to it.

S D Rodrian
[email protected]
SDRodrian.com
 

******************************
 

From: SDRodrian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 03 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x73.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.233
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 03 17:25:32 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <[email protected]>,
  JoeKinz@webtv.net (Joseph Kinz) wrote:
> Mr. Rodrian:
>
> What do you make of Quantum Mechanics?

QT is the greatest tool modern science has produced.
Period. It is also the greatest sign yet that we are
intellectual beings (as distinct from merely physical
ones)... whose inquiry into Nature is not delimited
by our having to use just only physical tools. It is
as well, Einstein's work on QT which will forever
remain his one true, indisputably great legacy: A
thousand years from now people will yet look back on
Einstein as the greatest scientist of the past century
just as we today consider Newton to have been the
greatest scientist of his century (and they will easily
forgive Einstein's "errors" just as we today "forgive"
Newton's early dabblings in traditional alchemy).

> How does it fit into the
> cosmological gap between itself and the General
> and Special Theories of
> Relativity?

GR/SR are not "wrong" (in the sense that reality
comes out nonsense if you run it through them);
they are unnecessarily complex (Rube Goldberg
constructs) and make it needlessly difficult to
understand reality... when it's run through them.
The reason for this is because Einstein was forced
to design them as tools to interpret a universe
the true nature of which he believed to be something
other than what it is! [The fact that we can still
use SR/GR AND make "some" sense of this universe
is something which never ceases to impress me...]
The bad thing about it (interpreting reality upside-
down and backwards--as if through a mirror), is, of
course, that this increases the chance of some mis-
interpretation of reality (innumerable instances of
which fill the history of the last 80 years). What remains
truly wrong is to believe is that Quantum Theory has
"overthrown" the old classical laws of physics we have
relied on for so long now: What Quantum Theory allows
us to do is to set aside "for the moment" having to
absolutely account for every last bit of energy in a
system, say, and NOT to forever sweep it under the rug!
In other words, scientists (who are brutes when it comes
to demand an absolute accounting of "all there is to it" --as
you might infer from the "uncertainty principle" etc.) now
can behave like reasonable people and use some sense.

> What stock do you place in M-theory and String theories
> regarding the interval between sub-atomic physics and astronomical
> physics?  What do you make of the mathematical
>  machinations inherent  in
> string theory that postulate multiple sub-atomic
> dimensions in  addition
> to the four that commolnly make up Cartesian
> spacial coordinates?  Up  to
> seven (at this time) possible dimensions at this time.

Eleven, actually, and counting... However, I've already
expressed my attitude towards string theories (mostly
the Bosonic, but really all of them, including the super-
string sorts). Now we have M-theory (named after Saddam
Hussein, no doubt... the Mother-of-all theory). But it
all boils down to a few fundamentally flawed assumptions:
All string theory arises from a perceived need to explain
something which needs no explanation (namely, determiniting
the nature of the most fundamental subparticles at their most
fundamental): Baby, there ain't no fundamental particles
-- NONE --. ALL particles, down to the most basic of
them, are only "forms" (or, gravitational systems only...
each of them always only composed of other still more
basic gravitational systems ad infinitum--or, until  one
finally comes to some level of existence at which there
just isn't enough gravitational forces to form/combine into
any system whatsoever there. And "there" existence (the
existence of matter) comes to an end (not an absolute end,
because as I've said: An absolute vacuum is not part of
existence (Nature), but enough of an end to satisfy anyone).

If Einstein had been able to take the intellectual leap
which would have permitted him to acknowledge that all
forms of matter are but "forms" and not fundamental, he
would have instantly understood that the universe displays
no self-contradictions at any point of consideration, and
we wouldn't have the gross spectacle we see to this day
of persons too clever for their own good (or ours) trying
to explain reality right & left as some bizarre nightmare in
a punk-rocker's drug-crazed mind, chuckful of dimensions
without end curling about each other, & single-dimensional
objects extending into our three-dimensional universe like
lava-fingers crawling through the sea floor... forming "strings"
the vibrations of which determine what elements exist (the
"string" playing chopsticks giving rise to the graviton, say,
and the "string" playing the Mahler Symphony giving rise to
uranium--I believe plutonium is produced by The Ring of
The Nibelungs, by the by... in any case, many persons have
perished while being exposed to it). Look it up! But, in any
case, Einstein couldn't make the leap NOT because he
wasn't smart enough BUT because things just worked out
that way for him (the entire history of science up to then
pointed in the direction he eventually took--and this is
what any bright person would have seen, obviously).

The history of string theorizing duplicates historically the
history of atomic theory from its earliest beginnings among
the ancient Greeks who proposed a fundamental particle
(namely, the atom). From there, the history of this theory
follows a long span during which the only fundamental truth
one finds at every critical moment is that there are NO
fundamental particles. But, theorists, as it always happens
with human nature, seem to have pretty much concluded that
it's beating a dead horse to try to split the atom further to
get to a fundamental subparticle and so have now proposed
the "string" as the latest version of the fundamental "item"
out of which everything else is composed! Mamma mia! Oy, vei!

Look: You can create an object with as many dimensions as
you like IN YOUR BRAIN. But a one-dimensional object
cannot have ANY existence whatsoever in this universe: NONE.
It would be invisible and impossible to sense ... and if that
suggests that you can bring it into existence by shrinking
it to a size so small that our 3-dimensional reality will
"overlook" the fact that it's not itself 3-dimensional: Just
draw cartoons and leave science to people with SOME sense
in their heads, please! So impossible is this that the only
way we can create things in this reality which are, say, two-
dimensional (a cartoon, for example) is by pretending they
are two-dimensional (if a drawing were REALLY two-
dimensional it would be physically impossible to even SEE it
--e.g. if your fingertips are sensitive enough you can feel the
genuine three-dimensionality of any drawing just by running
your fingers over the pools of ink on the paper---photograps
use other visual illusions based on color/shade differences).
But certainly insanity has never stood in the way of a clever
mind dreaming up infinitely clever insanities! (And the argument
from authority makes it almost as great a certainty that when
the guy in the monkey suit tells you that "the banana" is the
fundamental building block of the universe... you'll eat it up:
This is not a reflection on you personally, it's just the way
it is with us poor unfortunate homo sapiens sapiens until such
time as we really become sapiens instead of just going around
wearing the tag... while flicking fleas off each other with it.)

> What function  do
> these dimensions play in your infinitly
> expanding/cotracting Universe?

None. Zero. Zilch. A so-caled "topological defects" such as two-
dimensional "domain walls," and single-dimensionals (monopoles),
and other one/two dimensional nutty "texture" (including "strings"
The Infamous)... are mathematical-only constructs (they exist only
in the human brain, and that's the only place they can exist): You
remember the old one-dimensional piece of paper trick? (This
is a long strip of paper which is glued end-to-end to form a ring;
only just before you glue the ends together you twist one end: The
result is that if you then draw a line throughout the length of the
strip of paper... you will be able to draw your line up and down both
sides of the paper strip without having to lift the pencil off the
paper: Have you REALLY produced a one-dimensional piece of paper
in this reality? Sorry. Nope!) ALL OTHER SUCH mental-only constructs
which involve 'realities' of some lesser OR greater number
of dimensions than our three will NEVER "exist" in  or "extend into"
this universe. Period. However, unlike the case with the paper-ring
example above, it is hard to see exactly where the "trick" is
in more complex, other-than-3-dimensional, mathematics-only
proposals advanced (especially since the persons advancing such
absurd proposals themselves never notice the "trick" to them
because these figments of the imagination "make sense" to them
"as long as they display no mathematical inconsistencies" (and not
if and only if they can be observed in the world). Under this
so very loose criterion, there is as little objection to Homer
Simpson walking about in our world as there is for a "string"
defect. [Topological "defects" observed in condensed matter
systems (regions in ferromagnets, in which aligned magnetic
dipoles are separated by "domain walls,"), "monopoles" "seen"
in liquid crystals, and other such "defects" in biochemistry
processes... are just NOT what we're talking about here, and
regardless of which baboon in a monkey suit suggests it is!]

> Do you think that other Universes exist somewhere out
> there in the void
> (not space)?

No. There is no absolute "void." There could NEVER
have been an absolute void: Existence is all that exists.
In the language of the classical laws of physics: The
universe consists of the finite amount of energy it
has always had and will always have. [Quantum Theory
may suggest that each cycle of the universe displays
an "indeterminate" portion of the amount of energy
which existence has reserved for "that given" cycle (or
that individual cycles may have different values), but
it is still required that existence "balance out" over
a wide-enough sample.] So I myself do not believe that
the primordial Singularity can be homogeneous; however,
a curious notion arises from a consideration that it is:
Each cycle of the universe would be identical! And
the ramifications for every living/thinking being are quite
staggering, as this would mean that we are condemned to
live our lives over and over again an infinite number of
times... each time exactly and identically! In any case:

The totality of the universe consists of a shift between
a state of energy and a state in which that energy
coalesces into the forms of matter. [Note that I said
the forms (plural): It is a characteristic of gravity
that its strength lessens with distance... this means
that when the primordial "singularity" of existence
shifted away from its polarity of zero entropy and
into the polarity of gravity... although the absolute
vector of the universe did point towards its center,
because the implosion of the universe was not
instantaneous... there was/is/ever will be time enough
for gravity to interact locally, giving rise to endless very
localized systems of gravity (or particles/subparticles)
or, the highest-possible building up of entropy... a
process which we can see happening in our universe
to this day, as even the stars in our own Milky Way
galaxy rushes to create yet another gravitational system
"unit" ... in the form of the black hole at its center.]
Notice that entropy appears to be both arising AND
dying within the same universe of matter... this is
because energy/gravity is both becoming matter AND
ceasing to be matter:

The state of the universe NOT in a gravity polarity
is characterized ONLY by the extent of energy which
is itself the universe (or, existence), and which a
poet might take the liberty to describe as repulsive
(given the fact that life is impossible outside a
state of matter). As long as you understand that this
"repulsive" polarity is not "pushing" anything: It's just
a type of polarity opposite to that which produces
gravity. As long as the universe consists solely of
this repulsive polarity it's, in effect, a Singularity
... while, once the polarity of the universe begins to
reverse, crumble or fail/shift/collapse/or just plain
fall into chaos, the anomalies we know as distinct
gravitational systems begin to form (these then are
our beloved subparticles & particles up to galaxies
and beyond). Please consider, as I've said, that the
shifts from matter to energy or energy to matter are
not exclusive of each other: Just as the so-called
"energy singularity" crumbles chaotically into matter,
the matter in "our" universe is even now crumbling back
to its energy state: Were it not so... "matter" would
be as fundamental as energy and then it could not form
complex interactions: The universe would forever
consist of ONE eternally-indivisible singularity of
matter. And that would be THE END. Period. (There is
but one force in the universe and that is gravity/energy.
But matter exists "as" the almost infinite plurality of
the numberless "forms" it can take--If you're willing
to understand that at many levels those forms fall
into classifications such as atoms, stars & galaxies.]
The crucial point is that in an imploding universe there
are no infinities and it is possible to understand at last
the sum of existence in terms of one single underlying
principle (the unified field theory which GR/SR can
NEVER produce).

> If you can answer these few simple questions I have a  few
> more for you.

Hell, if you had told me that to begin with, I might
never've answered any of your questions at all!
I have a very manly brain. You see: Women want to
talk and talk about it, while men want to get to it
as quick as possible... and then never mention it again
as long as they live. (So I guess... this is my
"feminine side" talking here after all! Darn.)

In any case, I think I've answered your simple
questions to such an extent that further questions
will only re-trample (muddy up) my answers. From
here on out, understand this: Understanding comes
to a person from within--So think about it!

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com
Or just enter "SDRodrian" into your browser:
Most browsers know by now where to find me.*

* Except possibly on June 3, when I'll be moving
  (too fast to be found).

>
> Wietchpec Joe

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

From: SDRodrian <phd@quackquack.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 04 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8hdksi$5hs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8grc4n$om8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <0e3658fe.177bbda0@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x65.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.218
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jun 04 13:17:12 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <0e3658fe.177bbda0@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
orton <dorton3853NOdoSPAM@aol.com.invalid> came home from
working at the sewer, cried out: "He-he-he-hey, Ralphy boy!
& when he saw Ralph wasn't home, wrote:

> sdr,
>
> you wrote:
>
> slavek wrote:
>
> Someone please answer this one.
> WHAT DOES THAT UNIVERSE EXPAND INTO?
> Slavek.
>
> sdr replied:
>
> Dear Slavek, in absolute terms the universe is NOT really
> expanding but shrinking. However, in its inner- relationships
> it "but appears" to be expanding (galaxies really ARE flying
> away from each other with greater velocity the farther away from
> each other they are;
> but this is only because of a quirk inherent in the shrinking of
> the universe: All forms of matter FIRST shrink in place and THEN
> move towards each other to "fill the gaps" created by the
> shrinking... ordinarily this is not at all apparent at the human
> level of our perception, but at the level of astronomical
> distances the "gap" between the two required actions creates the
> very huge "lagging" which we know as the Hubble Constant).
>
> The superstition that the universe must be expanding
> into "something" stems from the fundamental error in cosmology:
> Namely, the physical impossibility of matter going against the
> force of gravity on its own! True, some goomer or other many
> years ago sought to get around this physical impossibility by
> proposing that the thing pushing the expansion was/is an ancient
> magical cataclysmic explosion (but this silliness has pretty
> much been proven false... due to the fact that the "expansion"
> of the universe appears to be accelerating).
>
> ..........
>
> orton writes to slavek who is no dummy:
>
> energy can reduce to no energy and potential energy reduces to
> no energy unless regenerative. regenerative energy adds to
> itself. regeneration of energy causes acceleration not shrinking.

SDR writes to orton who is no puppet but
since I haven't knocked on his head I cannot yet
make general statements concerning his mettle:

if energy there and then energy not there no more:
results are less energy after. SO if gravity = energy,
one moment more gravity & next moment less gravity

if Einstein fellow and others right and e-mc2 then
matter = energy or gravity, and if matter lose gravity
and dont blow up: matter shrink

if you no see this you no God and are shrinking in universe
as if you too mattered

> now to sdr who ignores me for obvious reasons:

SDR not ignore you, SDR never heard of you until this minute.
also possibility: you SDR's best friend all life
but SDR = bad memory. SDR bad child (as child) too and
mother whack him on head much when SDR little boy

> you sdr should stay with theology.

i SDR faithful Catholic but very fussy/scrupulous and keep
telling priest I want my Christ's Blood in styrofoam cup
instead of one cheap goblet used by whole congregation
(I even offer to bring my own cup, but priest whack me
on head too many time)

> the universe is fractal
> meaning the outside of us is the same only a larger version
> undergoing proportional accelerated expansion and likewise
> within us a smaller version  undergoing proportional accelerated
> expansion and each expands into the other you dummy.

your claim to be naturally occurring dummy very interesting
and means you very humble people, much to be admired
(but your claim skin made of atoms just like liver made of
atoms... just old cliché)

> i show the
> cause of the proportional accelerated expansion.

magic do not count as cause in science, orton: only cause
of momentum continually applied force; only force in
universe gravity; gravity = energy and matter = energy;
only thing in universe = matter, only action possible in
universe of matter where gravity hang around all the time =
acceleration of whatever matter doing; if you remove
matter (energy) from matter = matter shrink, matter no go
to bar to drink beeah like some kind of aussie; so matter
no shrink because of magic you dummy orton, it shrinks because
under continuous exposure to force of gravity which means
its shrinking MUST show acceleration and it does (in the
increasing value of the Hubble constant for example).

> sdr you belong in theology where you can spoof and spook lamers.

orton I belong here spooking your spoofs: perfect marriage:
I love you very much

> i can explain time itself and its cause

I do it better/faster: no time + no cause

> but i can only explain
> things to open minds.

I try this but person with open mind kept fainting
after losing much blood. now I only try break into their minds
with words (police not want me as much now... unless
called in after I raise volume so loud people in Canada
call American Embassy to complain)

> i only know two folks that fully
> understand granularity and they are each disabled physicists.

please be so kind as to visit sugar processing mills:
there even broom generals know all about granularity, and
they never hire broom-pushers on wheelchairs there (this
next big project by civil libertarians and other liberal
punks trying to get Clint Eastwood)

but no wonder you understand so little, orton:
please associate with physicists that have whole minds,
not disabled--this tripping you before you start dance

> of course existence had no beginning and cannot end but you
> will.

I will what? I news for you orton: I intend to live
for rest of life--after I dead whole entire universe
can go to gods/dogs for all I care (I have a few friends
in Hell I want to visit--they ask not to bother cooking
any snacks I bring them ha ha)

> as much of a downer that is we have to accept it.

Don't cry for me orton
I send you postcard from Hell (postage due:
I no put out my tongue to lick anything
that low--Oooooo you orton have such dirty mind!)

> religion
> causes insanity and wars

also cowardice orton: as long as people can
send out others to die out far enough away
so it don't put them in peril too people will forever
be sending other into war, but if enemy got nukes
then suddenly the sonnababitches want talk peace
and not single one of them, not communists, not Indians
and Pakistanis sending out people to die in
countries of enemies with nukes any more

> but you still belong in theology due to
> the fact your insanity is incurable.

hope not orton: I prefer my insanity

I seen what sanity does to people
and it's not pretty (SDR live by credo
Jimmy Stewart lived by in "Harvey" --See movie:
Best damn movie ever sdr saw, and which
drove him crazy most likely... I no talk about
Clint Eastwood movie "Tarantula" sdr saw when five
or six... and which, when mother saw sdr not
interested in movie, mother cry out: "See the big spider
coming into the town? Well, this theater's at the end
of the street its heading down on! It'll be here
in no time and eat us all!" Sure, sdr pay
attention to movie after that (and stop rehearsing
second act of Trovatore like mother ask), but
sdr no sleep for week after that too. Cheech!
I suspect mother not have proper child-rearing license
like she swore she had until sdr about 10 or more

explain much

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: SDRodrian <don_quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 29 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8gseoh$f6v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8grc43$om2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39315e3d@news.server.worldonline.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.7
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 00:48:20 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/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <39315e3d@news.server.worldonline.co.uk>,
"john h brockbank" <wagley@wagley.screaming.net> screamed:

> I really do hope that the guy takes no notice of this
> erroneous information
> you are giving out.

Sez you, sir: If you REALLY knew it were erroneous
I am CERTAIN you would never have let the chance
go by to show everyone you KNOW how/where/why
it is erroneous. (You might've well've called me
ugly as all get-out and left it at that.)

> If he wants to know why it is thought
> that the universe
> is expanding,
> he should look at cosmology pages on the
> web, not ask a
> philosophy group.

Knowledge is to be had wherever it's to be had.
It's also human nature to protect one's ignorance
(careers are built on marvelous legions & loads
of ignorance): Sometimes it's quite counter-
productive to seek the truth of people whose
livelihood depends on the promotion of things
other than the truth... passing for the truth.

> There are a few places denying
> the big bang, but all are
> based on mistakes,

Sez you, sir. On the other hand, read my post
again: Just in that one casual post you will find
at least one impossible-to-deny good & solid reason
why the Big Bang Theory goes against the laws of physics
(there are many, many more... enjoy yourself finding
a few yourself). There is, on the other hand, so far
not even one, single, solitary, even remotely reasonable
"reason" that can deny my contention of an imploding
universe (to my knowledge). As time goes by there can
only be more and more supportive evidence for it
BECAUSE mine is but an observation of reality as it is
and not a blind guess. The best way to judge the matter
yourself remains to judge the matter yourself. Visit:

thesolutionisthis.com

> the big bang is the best theory
> to fit the observable
> facts.

Sez you, sir. In fact, if that's what you say
it betrays your knowledge as being somewhat below
even the conventional current state of the art. But
keep seeking knowledge and you will acquire it someway,
somehow. (You might have to find your way through a lot
of bad knowledge, true, but the thing's inevitable
nevertheless.)

Good luck,

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com

RE:

> SDRodrian <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8grc43$om2$1@nnrp1.deja.com...

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

From: SDRodrian <phd@quackquack.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 05 Jun 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8hgka8$7p7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8grc43$om2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39315e3d@news.server.worldonline.co.uk>
<8gsepd$f74$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3932cec4@news.server.worldonline.co.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x62.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.157
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jun 05 16:26:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphd_qqc
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <3932cec4@news.server.worldonline.co.uk>,
"john h brockbank" <wagley@wagley.screaming.net> couldn't
believe that people were now suddenly claiming that the
universe didn't orbit the earth after all & wrote to the times:

> If you really are suggesting that you
> actually believe what you posted, then
> perhaps you will explain why, if the universe
> is contracting, objects with a
> red shift showing (using a fairly widely
> accepted value for the Hubble
> constant) a distance of 12 billion light
> years are now, 12 billion years
> later,  approximately 30 billion light years
> apart.  Some contraction.

Glad you asked (love this guy): It's BECAUSE galaxies
REALLY are receding from each other! If one does not
at least try to understand one will never understand
even the simplest of ideas. The solution here is among
the simplest things to understand, and so I will only repeat
this 11,865 more times, so please feel free to understand:

There are no fundamental forms of matter: ALL forms
of matter are but "forms." (You have an object, say
Fuzzy-Wuzzy Bear comes in two sizes, doll size and
life size... they are the same form, you recognize them
as Fuzzy-Wuzzy (who was always a bear whether he's
one-foot tall or six-feet tall... and now you understand
that Fuzzy-Wuzzy is a form and not a bear.) However,
unlike with Fuzzy-Wuzzy, whose "form" you know to come
in various sizes... you cannot so readily see that ALL
the other forms of matter in our universe also exist
only as forms and that consequently we can/will always
recognize them as the same dear old things we have
always known them to be regardless of their "size."
This means that when the universe shrinks at the level
of every "form" in it... it becomes incredibly hard to
"notice" that it is indeed shrinking. Hard perhaps, but not
impossible: The universe drops us many hints regarding
what it's really up to. And it's up to us to pick up on them.

A universe shrinking uniformly at every level of every
form of matter in it must still do so by means of two
distinct and separate actions: First, of course, every
form shrinks "in place" (or, towards its center): This
means, for example, that if the planet earth and the moon
suddenly shrank to the size of marbles, those "marbles"
will be located where now the exact center of earth and
the exact center of the moon are. Imagine how we might
interpret such a phenomenon (and keep in mind that earth's
inhabitants will still be alive after the earth has shrunk,
of course): We shall look at the moon (not knowing that
any shrinking has taken place) and the last thing in the
world we shall imagine is that we've shrunk--the first
thing that shall pop in our heads will be the conviction
that the two bodies must have been thrown apart a huge
distance away from each other in a split second! Were
they? No, they are still the same exact distance from each
other they always were... it's just that all our rulers have
shrunk too, and now it takes many more of them to measure
the same moon-earth distance as it did before the shrinking.

Well, that is precisely what is happening throughout the
entirety of the universe: ALL the forms of matter in it
(and not just merely the moon & the earth but the Sun,
the galaxies, quarks, cars, cats, hydrogen atoms and
photons, electrons, your Aunt Emma's painting, ticks, rats
and totem poles) are shrinking uniformly. So why then
don't people explode in front of our eyes right out of
existence as the atoms in their bodies shrink? Because of
the second action that FOLLOWS the shrinking "in place."
Understand it this way: over the eons, gravity has perfected
a marvelous choreography to maintain the relationship
between all the forms of matter in the universe very nearly
in perfect agreement: As every form of matter in the universe
shrinks "in place" ... all of them rush in (towards each other)
and fill the "gaps" created between them by that shrinking
(with the net result that the universe always shrinks but
it always retains its same old "form" throughout).

From the very earliest moments of the birth of matter in
the universe we can see this grandest of all choreographies
(albeit here of necessity follows a simplified summary):
Before the existence of matter the universe consisted solely
of energy--which then became gravitational in nature.
Because the strength of gravity weakens proportionally to
the square of distance... gravity prefers to interact locally
first to create very localized gravitational systems; and only
afterwards do those gravitational systems themselves interact
with other "foreign.alien" gravitational systems... the result
is that any given gravitational system FIRST shrinks (like
our own solar system coalescing out of the dust cloud from
which it was created) and THEN the sum total of all the
other gravitational systems around it are brought together
by the force of gravity into other, secondary relationships.

From the most primordial first moments of existence (of
the existence of matter in the form of these gravitational
systems)... entire classes of similar gravitational systems
have interacted to create extremely complex super-systems
(just as quarks interacting in 3's to create protons/neutrons
in complex arrangements rather than protons/neutrons simply
being "larger quarks")... Even to this day we can look out
into the cosmos and find super-clusters of galaxies creating
such super-systems... and, in fact, the visible universe has
a "texture" (for us) somewhat like a :soapy foam" throughout
because of the preference throughout by gravity to act in a
localized manner first and only afterwards more generally.

[In fact, if one were to stop thinking of the universe in terms
of galaxies and stars and instead think of it in terms only of,
say, only in terms of atoms... one would discover that the
universe could be understood even at that level also in terms
of "super-textures" (of "atom clusters") ... and so the human
perspective may be a very real "limitation of size" which may
likewise be keeping us from "seeing" exactly what sort of "super
forms" that cosmic "soapy foam" texture (of which we can only
"see" such a tiny fraction) may be "forming" ... Just as, were
atoms our galaxies, it might be very difficult for us to "see" THE
stars & galaxies (and maybe even planets) in the "arrangements"
of "atom cluster textures" throughout the full breadth of that
portion of the "tiny cosmos" which we might then likewise only
have access to visually... from our tiny "atomic perspective."]

In any case, the results should be self-evident: The universe
is in a state of implosion (it is the only state it can be in, given
that gravity is the only "force" acting/active in it--the other
3 "forces" are merely manifestations of gravity at specific
levels of particle existence). Gravity is the "energy" which is
powering the existence of matter AND it IS matter, in fact, so
that (as the universe uses energy/gravity/matter to power ALL
its motions) it moves... exists... and shrinks (E=MC2).

In a truly expanding universe galaxies as they are presently
constituted do not even have enough mass in them for them
to even keep their own stars from flying out into space
(translation: Galaxies cannot form/exist/be found in a truly
expanding universe). Only in the universe as it is (imploding)
can galaxies even exist at all. Ask any astronomer you like
(and even those whose guts you can't stand the sight of).

Because the "forms" of matter FIRST shrink "in place" and only
afterwards move towards each other [were it not so the universe
of matter would now be a singularity of matter instead of the
almost infinite marvelous plurality of gravitational systems in greater
and lesser states of interactions throughout it is]... when we look
out into the cosmos at the level of astronomical distances we
see galaxies receding from each other (remember: the strength
of gravity will always be greater within the "gravitational systems"
than outside them, so the forms of matter FIRST shrink and only
THEN move in to close the gaps created between them). So...

Please remember that the recession of the galaxies is REAL
(it is a real phenomenon and not a visual illusion) from our
human perspective: The Universe is only "shrinking" absolutely
to God (or some such being Who, Him/Herself not shrinking,
could stand outside the universe and notice the thing). To
the rest of us in here, who are shrinking right along with the
universe, the shrinking is irrelevant except to understand the
true nature of the universe without having to do so through
crazy Rube Goldberg constructs like SR/GR. And, finally:

Because the shrinking of the universe is the result of the FORCE
of gravity forever acting upon the universe... the fabulous and
justly famous Hubble Constant will forever truthfully reveal to us
that the very real recession of the galaxies is forever accelerating
(see Newton)... ever has been, and ever will. Period.

Now, tell me true, where else can you get the complete story
of creation, all there is to cosmology (and most of all there is
to particle physics) in one little post this well summed-up! You,
sir, now know more about the universe than all the cosmologists
in our galaxy put together (well, ok, this is all ancient history to
the cosmologists of the planet Serviton, but, as far as most of
the other cosmologists in our galaxy, I assure you, sir, that this
is news to them). Now go out and get drunk!

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
http://answer.findhere.com

OK: I'll repeat (and probably will be forced to repeat again
later): The universe (of matter) is imploding/shrinking at
both the macro/micro levels with an almost perfect agreement
between all its "forms" ... "almost" because, of necessity,
the fact that each shrinking form must FIRST shrink (and only
then creating the "space" which will permit all the "forms"
to move into) means that there is an eternal infinitesimal
"lagging" (of time) between the two actions. In the very short-
term this "hiccup" is so brief that it's seamless; however,
astronomical distances magnify this "hiccup" into the very real
effect of distant galaxies receding from each other (or the
Hubble Constant). This should answer all your questions
concerning red-shifts (so I will save it in order to be able to
reprint it later... when it again becomes necessary to repeat it)

RE:

SDRodrian <don_quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:8gsepd$f74$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
 

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

From: SDRodrian <don_quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 29 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8gsmn4$kbk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <sj3bnu8r5pj35@corp.supernews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x53.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.57
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 03:04:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,rec.org.mensa
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <sj3bnu8r5pj35@corp.supernews.com>,
pumpkin@freedom.net scratched his young head & wrote:

> Twenty years ago the big bang and our theories on
> the creation of the universe
> made sense to everyone, all the observations that our
> scientists made proved it
> true. But within the last 10 years there have
> been many problems associated with
> it, but the biggest problem has just recently
> come up, and that is-the
> acceleration of the expansion?
> I have listed some web page http addresses.
> Pumpkin
>
> So the cosmological constant behaves gravitationally
> like matter and energy
> except that it has negative pressure.

The ONE thing you have to realize
is that the modern cosmological constant
does NOT come from the discovery of its source:

Scientists did not discover the "crazy matter"
that produces anti-gravity. The recent discovery
that the Big Bang theories are physically impossible
(prohibited by the laws of physics) have sent those
theoreticians (who still refuse to accept the fact
that the ONLY force at work in the universe is GRAVITY)
scurrying to rationalize a view of the universe
which goes against the laws of physics (e.g. how can
in an universe in the grips of the force of gravity
galaxies be flying away from each other?). Because
they do not know (or cannot accept) that all the forms
of matter are just that--forms--and believe there ARE
fundamental forms of matter... it is hard for them to
understand how an imploding universe could escape
turning into a great big black hole filled with
galaxies flying towards each other. The answer is at:

thesolutionisthis.com

And if you cannot understand the summary, there are
links there to innumerable elucidations I have been
giving in these newsgroups since the last century.

> The net effect of a positive cosmological
> constant is then to create a repulsive gravitational
> force. This repulsion acts
> to expand the universe.
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/gr.html
>
> The fact that the cosmological constant is still
> debated today, almost a century
> after it was introduced by Einstein, and that
> it lies at the crossroads of
> quantum mechanics and gravity, makes one think
> that it was probably not
> Einstein's biggest blunder, but
> perhaps his greatest legacy.
> http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/blund.html

Sorry, my man: Einstein knew what he was talking about
when he called it his greatest blunder BECAUSE he knew
that (like the modern theoreticians who are now grasping
at straws by reviving it), he knew that IT SATISFIED NO
REAL PROBLEM... Einstein's Cosmological Constant is not
a scientific development but comes only from Einstein
having thrown his heads in the air and said, "Well, if
the universe is static there must be something neither I
nor anybody else knows about which must be forcing it to
remain static... and let's call that whatever-it-is The
Cosmological Constant!" That IS your cosmological constant:
"Some'n out there." (Although I have no doubt that the
same math guys who brought us the 67 dimensions will soon
get to work on 67 reasons behind the Cosmological Constant:
It's the Eternal Constant of Human Nature.) BUT:

Once you understand what really IS causing the acceleration
of the Hubble Constant, you won't need to resort to any such
moronic rationalizations as "inflation theory" and the CC.
The solution to ALL your problems is to be found at:

thesolutionisthis.com

> One of the more compelling evidence for the
> existence of a cosmological constant
> has been the fact that the age derived for a universe
> without a cosmological
> constant is younger that the age derived for the oldest
> stars.

Sorry, pumpkin, but... apples & oranges: The "apparent"
older galaxies (older then the universe) stem from
your not having taken into consideration distances/time:
I am convinced that the universe is vastly older than
conventionally thought, but you still have to take into
consideration that the "given" age of the universe stems
from observations (and things we have not yet seen, but
which may prove the universe much older, do not come
into it).

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com

re:

> Some of the
> universe's oldest stars appear in globular
> clusters of stars. It is possible,
> through theoretical calculations of stellar evolution,
> to date the stars in
> globular clusters. Such calculations historically have
> yielded ages in the range
> of 15-18 billion years. If we assume the universe is purely
> made up of the matter we can detect ( 0.3) then the
> universe is about 10-13
> billion years old. The situation is worse if we
> require a flat, matter dominated
> universe ( = 1), then the universe is only 8-11
> billion years old.
> http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/obs.html

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 30 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8gvfgr$h3q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8gsmju$kao$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000529015957.11446.00001364@ng-ch1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x57.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.209
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue May 30 04:19:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

Gyudon Z either lives in Japan or he just couldn't sleep at all
last night (damn, he posts at nearly 3 AM), so he walked around
and, finally, apparently made it to my front door... where he knocked
(very slowly, like sleepwalkers & other insomniacs are wont to do)...
And then he stood there staring past me with huge, blood-shot eyes
mumbling something (while I was trying to remember where the Hell
I last saw my baseball bat)... so I but think this is what he said:

>>The ONE thing you have to realize
>>is that the modern cosmological constant
>>does NOT come from the discovery of its source:
>>
>>Scientists did not discover the "crazy matter"
>>that produces anti-gravity. The recent discovery
>>that the Big Bang theories are physically impossible
>>(prohibited by the laws of physics)
>
> One would think the Big Bang theory would be less popular
> if it was impossible.

Are you familiar with any form of religion?

> The Clue Meter is reading zero.

You probably need to go to bed now (I wouldn't
necessarily drink more coffee, if I were you).

>>have sent those
>>theoreticians (who still refuse to accept the fact
>>that the ONLY force at work in the universe is GRAVITY)
>
> How is the interaction between charged particles
> the force of gravity?

It is not--Unless you're asking what gravity is: A
force, and I can only describe a force in Newtonian terms
(except to categorically state it is the purest form
of energy we can think of)... know energy is not material
at the level of charged particles of any kind: There is
a potential of energy in charged particles just as there
is a potential of energy in a coiled spring and they can
both be released, but it's useless to speak of either
form of energy as material themselves (this is why it is
possible to speak of gravity/energy/force as truly something
fundamental... because it cannot be further "simplified"):
In the same manner... gravity IS energy AND it is constantly
"at work" (which requires us to believe that gravity "uses
up" energy, or itself--Where then does gravity get its energy
if not from E=MC2?). And if gravity holds the universe together
(the strong force, et al is/are just very localized forms
of gravity)... gravity is siphoning energy/mass from "matter"
... what then must we assume is happening to that matter which
is constantly being shrunk by the subtraction of its mass?

> Or the
> nuclear forces?

All nuclear reactions are the result of the universe's
children (the youngest particles) playing in the yard.

>>scurrying to rationalize a view of the universe
>>which goes against the laws of physics (e.g. how can
>>in an universe in the grips of the force of gravity
>>galaxies be flying away from each other?).
>
> You sound like Ed Conrad again.

I gotta hear this Ed talking! He must be
the owner of a quite mellifluous voice!

> The universe is expanding using momentum alone.

Ah! It was pushed by the Big Bang explosion!
Unfortunately for your notion... the expansion of
the universe is accelerating. And ONLY a continuously
applied force causes acceleration (momentum going
against a force causes anti-acceleration... and
the last time I checked, the universe was in the grips
of the force of gravity). Think! You're talking
physical impossibility here: The notion that the
universe is expanding goes against the laws of physics.

> You remember momentum from physics class, don't you?

Boy do I remember her! Every guy in our class had to
go out with her at least once!

> You did take it, I trust.

I stole it, but it's practically the same deal.

>>Because
>>they do not know (or cannot accept) that all the forms
>>of matter are just that--forms--and believe there ARE
>>fundamental forms of matter... it is hard for them to
>>understand how an imploding universe could escape
>>turning into a great big black hole filled with
>>galaxies flying towards each other.
>
> You have not proven to anyone's satisfaction except yours
> that the universe is
> contracting.

Actually I'm just mentioning that I've discovered
the universe is imploding. Is it a worthwhile mention?
It's a bother, really--What practical benefits can such
a discovery bring for the discoverer? Does such a discovery
validate my own personal existence? Could I really dare
to believe that... had I not lived, humanity would never
have discovered the universe is imploding? Hardly: The
hints are far too obvious! It is true that for thousands
of years people thought the universe orbited the earth
but we finally discovered the truth... and we would have
discovered the truth even if we'd had to wait thousands
of years more. Humanity can wait. Individuals can not:
And so I mention that the universe is imploding, in passing;
and then I will try to get back to my music and my other
sundry hobbies. What I have done is the equivalent of
mentioning the rain falls from the clouds in the sky:
It's totally unimportant to most human beings. But you
are a new-born child, as it were... you've never before
heard that the rain falls from the clouds. You exclaim:
"Ah-uh! No it doesn't!" And so I take you outdoors on a
rainy day and show you it's all true. [All my proofs are
explained with all the simplicity one uses with children.]
Once you see the thing for yourself you will marvel at
the wonders of the universe. And then you will go to other
things... skipping rope, perhaps. And I will remain as if
standing there, in the end, having accomplished not much
in this word by having pointed out to you the obvious:
Do you remember who it was first told you the rain falls
from the clouds in the sky? No you do not (although somebody
did just that). And when everybody knows the universe is
imploding... I'll be left as if standing there too, while
people who recognize me whisper: "Look, that's the guy
discovered the rain falls from the clouds in the sky!"
And the echo that will reply to that will be: "Yeah! So?"

>>Sorry, my man: Einstein knew what he was talking about
>>when he called it his greatest blunder BECAUSE he knew
>>that (like the modern theoreticians who are now grasping
>>at straws by reviving it), he knew that IT SATISFIED NO
>>REAL PROBLEM... Einstein's Cosmological Constant is not
>>a scientific development but comes only from Einstein
>>having thrown his heads in the air and said, "Well, if
>>the universe is static there must be something neither I
>>nor anybody else knows about which must be forcing it to
>>remain static... and let's call that whatever-it-is The
>>Cosmological Constant!"
>
> The universe is not static.

Well, you're too late if you're thinking of emailing
Einstein: Hubble beat you to it.

>> That IS your cosmological constant:
>>"Some'n out there." (Although I have no doubt that the
>>same math guys who brought us the 67 dimensions will soon
>>get to work on 67 reasons behind the Cosmological Constant:
>>It's the Eternal Constant of Human Nature.) BUT:
>>
>>Once you understand what really IS causing the acceleration
>>of the Hubble Constant, you won't need to resort to any such
>>moronic rationalizations as "inflation theory" and the CC.
>
> You haven't really explained the "acceleration"
> of the Hubble constant. Is it
> really changing by units of m/s^2? Because that's
> not just a number shift; it's
> a unit shift.

Try to understand it this way: The universe is NOT
really expanding (I prefer the term exploding), it
is imploding. The Hubble Constant refers specifically
to the recession of the galaxies from each other (which
IS occurring): Therefore to say the expansion of the universe
is accelerating... is misleading and confusing. It is
closer to the truth that the Hubble Constant is what
is, properly, what is increasing. Sorry if I misled you.

>>Sorry, pumpkin, but... apples & oranges: The "apparent"
>>older galaxies (older then the universe) stem from
>>your not having taken into consideration distances/time:
>
> You sound like a creationist in reverse.

Is this the one that cries out: "Satan is King!" Or
the one says, "Elvis is King!" (I haven't scratched out
the record myself.)

>>I am convinced that the universe is vastly older than
>>conventionally thought, but you still have to take into
>>consideration that the "given" age of the universe stems
>>from observations
>
> And what empirical evidence other than empirical
> observations can you bring to
> bear against them?

Let's leave it at the level of a condemnation:
The age (and thereby the size) of the universe
is a factor from a number of assumptions, not least
of which is the running backwards of the cosmic film
all the way to the Big Bang: And if there was never
any Big Bang, all assumptions from it are incorrect.
The same can also be said of calculations made from
naked (albeit informed) guesses about the nature of
distant galaxies/quasars used to gauge/guess distances:
If the assumptions are correct, the results are too.
But we mustn't forget they are, at the bottom of it,
assumptions... however well informed.

>>(and things we have not yet seen, but
>>which may prove the universe much older, do not come
>>into it).
>
> Argument based on something that does not exist
> (as far as we know) is
> logically fallacious.

The distinction between a guess based on circumstantial
evidence, and a guess based upon evidence which cannot
be absolutely and unanimously agreed to be beyond doubt
is... minimal: We all base our reasoning upon every
sort of weird superstition and prejudice to some extent
(which is why I have striven to categorically state
the observations upon which I base my conclusions; and
those notions for which I cannot personally find indisputably
valid evidence--which satisfies me, at least--I have but
mentioned as speculation on my part: you can read, I assume,
read in my quoted statements when I am saying I know
something to be the case, and when I just have an opinion
it may be the case?
 

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 30 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8gvg1e$hfn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8gsmju$kao$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000529015957.11446.00001364@ng-ch1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x57.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.209
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue May 30 04:28:39 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

Gyudon Z either lives in Japan or he just couldn't sleep at all
last night (damn, he posts at nearly 3 AM), so he walked around
and, finally, apparently made it to my front door... where he knocked
(very slowly, like sleepwalkers & other insomniacs are wont to do)...
And then he stood there staring past me with huge, blood-shot eyes
mumbling something (while I was trying to remember where the Hell
I last saw my baseball bat)... so I but think this is what he said
PART TWO:

I wrote:

>>I am poet and musician, painter, historian, scientist,
>>great humanitarian, lover of women and other animals
>>(there are many, many other things wrong with me as well).
>
> But the "poet" predominates.

Thank you. (I am also a psychiatrist, so I will now
analyze you at-a-distance, the way Janet Reno's docs
analyzed Elian Gonzales): You are a man without much
humor (I have you a marvelous opening above to crack
a joke at my expense and you passed it up without even
a notice): A dour person lives not a happy life. My
deep condolences (if it's not just that you need more
sleep, of course).

>>I love poetry! Perhaps I will read
>>Allan Panks's and love it as much
>>as I love Plato's poetry. Who knows!
>
> Read some of Paul Allan Panks' posts before
> you make any judgments on his
> poetry.

Although I have never read his poetry, please be
advised that I am of the opinion that you never once
considered the possibility that you yourself may
not the most competent judge of poetry. This is not
to say you definitely are a poor literary critic;
only that is a character flaw to not consider that
one may be incapable of understanding instead of
that something is impossible to understand.

>>I disagree: I am of the opinion
>>I should observe nature. That should settle it
>>(for most people).
>
> What I meant is you have an opinion
> and search for evidence to support it.

I disagree: My conclusions stem from a number of
observations across many years. You can easily
peruse all my observations at my web site... from
a long-ago question I had about the validity of
the Fitzgerald contraction really being the reason
behind c constancy; to my conviction that one gets
nothing from nothing (and therefore existence, the
universe, must be being fueled by energy not magic),
to my "early" conclusion that if the universe really
is imploding (being acted on by the force of gravity
rather than merely coasting after a BB explosion)
the Hubble Constant would have to be accelerating;
to having worked out a clear understanding of the
method by which such a shrinking could work (e.g.
a realization that all forms of matter are forms
and that none of them can be fundamental)... only
long after having added up enough independent
observations (evidence) did I then (last Christmas
Day) posted my conclusion in these newsgroups.

> You
> do not have an observation, propose and explanation,
> and look for evidence to
> support the explanation.
> It's fuzzy creationist-style thinking.

My one mantra has been throughout: Think for yourself.
Debunk me if you can. I have received much abuse on
a personal level, but I have answered every question
that has crossed my path--Obviously I can't answer
questions I never knew were out there. If I am wrong
all it will take is to point out where even one of
my proposals goes against the laws of physics. But,
conversely, if my proposals cut the throat of some
cherished assumptions out there with Occam's Razor,
then any intelligent person ought to consider them
for themselves (whether they are useful in some way).
A number of posters sometimes reply only to those
portions of my posts they "feel" they have something
powerful to reply with, while I, on the other hand,
almost never censor any post (portions) I reply to.

>>Actually, although you are technically correct, Hubble's
>>constant IS accelerating (if you take into consideration
>>that "the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it's
>>receding away from us" is constantly becoming truer, or
>>changing).
>
> I was more concerned about the fact that
> I've never heard that it was an
> inconstant constant. It's a proportionality constant;
> the distance from Earth
> and the speed are in a certain proportion to one
> another, and the proportion
> had not changed, to the best of my knowledge.

As I said before: You are correct; but as I mentioned
before: It's true that the Hubble Constant measures
galaxies receding from each other, while it is a
misapprehension to say it measures the expansion ofunch
the universe--so I am left with having to speak of
the Hubble Constant (the recession of the galaxies
from each other) as accelerating just so I don't
have to write "the recession of the galaxies from
each other is accelerating" (especially since this
leaves the false impression that the universe is
expanding, when it simply is not). Now I suppose
someone else will mention that the Hubble Constant
is NOT "the recession of the galaxies from each other"
but refers to the fact that "the farther a galaxy is
from some other galaxy the faster they will be receding
from each other" (sometimes one just can never win).

>>You will have to elucidate this statement further:
>>What is the connection between the Hubble constant
>>and the constancy of the speed of light?
>
> The furthest outer dimensions of the universe
> are determined by the initial
> photons departing the site of the Big Bang.

That is an assumption from a false premise
I'm afraid: There was never any Big Bang.

> They form a spherical shell about
> 15 billion light years in radius.
>
>>That I'd really like to see!
>>Do I just have to take your word for this?
>
> Take the logic behind it.

What! no evidence? Et tu, Brutus?

> The photons would have started out at the initial Big
> Bang, and have nothing in the way to block their progress.

Except... where did those photons come from? of
course (that, at least to me, would be a formidable
block... the fact that the only way they could have
come into existence would have been by magic).

>>Ah! You've been at Newton, haven't you, you bad boy!
>>Did we forget to actually apply Newton to something?
>>Or... do we take Newton merely, strictly theoretically?
>
> It's a related-rate problem. Simple derivatives

"for simple people" (yes, I know).

> that apply very well to a
> perfect sphere. The difference between the
> universe's "shell" and a perfect
> sphere is negligible.

I'd have to see if it reflects my face first.
AND if it takes a polish.

>>It's been around for the past two-three years and
>>quite universally accepted for the last 14 months.
>
> If it's so universally accepted, why didn't my
> physics professor mention it. He
> keeps up on cosmology.

I can't answer for your physics professor's
ignorance, I'm glad to report! (Albeit, perhaps,
as a cautious professional, he could have been
bending backwards to try to provide you with the
information least likely to be wrong--and this
usually necessitates using knowledge that's been
around for ages). Good & proper knowledge. (Or
maybe he just wanted to move you the Hell out of his
class no matter what you took with you.) Who knows?

>>Do I?!?! How do you think I can get out of the house
>>a good, solid couple of times per week!?! Can you do that?
>
> Well, from the response you gave, you don't
> understand escape velocity at all.

I always get that! Dear Z, if you understand
that the constant application of a force produces
an acceleration, you understand what happens when
you are moving against a force (a ways from the earth).
Move to something else (it's irrelevant here and
only points out the possibility that ALL you ever took
away from your physics class was the understanding of
orbits... which knowledge you are now eager to display).

> And don't try to redirect the topic;
> people will take you for a creationist.

Ah! You've discovered that I care too much
what people think, and thereby you blackmail me!
Nasty bit of business here, what!

>>"Mass" is a technical term, sometimes used to mean
>>weight. A truer truism is that every particle in
>>existence consists of matter in some form.
>
> Mass is a term referring to how much matter
> there is in a given object.

Then you and I disagree that the neutrino is matter
(for I hear it's talked about as having zero mass):
Any talk about zero mass particles stems from a
superstition that pure energy has physicality.

> I
> haven't used it to mean "weight" for years.

Well, every time I go to the doctor's his nurse
complains about my becoming more massive with time!

>>Your statement is so general that it can mean anything.
>>Consequently it's meaningless.
>
> I question its scientific validity essentially
> across the board. Is that
> specific enough for you?

Let's see... you question EVERYTHING (all of it), and
want me to consider that as being as specific as you
can get? Mmmmm.... yes, that makes sense.

>>Please point to a specific
>>action of mine which is as questionable as you suggest.
>
> Your proposal on the contraction of the universe...
> proposing that seems based
> on faulty science.

Well, how about this: Instead of judging it
on the basis that it "seems" one thing or other,
why don't you actually look in it and determine
definitely whether it's one thing or the other.
It will help you become a better scientist!

>>My point WAS that Einstein did NOT check himself even once:
>>He merely accepted what others accepted as reality
>>regardless of what his numbers told him.
>
> But if the universe is not static, what he's done
> is essentially make a mistake
> on a mistaken premise. Even though he mistakenly
> assumed the premise was true;
> the premise being false makes his mistake irrelevant.

Silly boy! Einstein was, if nothing else, a man
with a good head on his shoulders (he might not
have had access to the knowledge I am others of my
contemporaries have), but he was a down-to-earth
person: Einstein knew that if his numbers proposed
that pigs fly (and then he went out looking for flying
pigs AND found none)... that his numbers MUST be
contain an error. The problem was that the few
flying pigs left in the world were kept in a Buddhist
Temple in Tibet (before they were all killed by the
invading Chinese for lunch). And so Einstein "corrected"
his numbers to reflect what he believed to be reality.
When reality changed again... again Einstein (smart
fellow that he was) changed his numbers to reflect
the new reality BECAUSE in spite of his original error
it will ALWAYS remain true that whenever there arises
a question of whether the numbers reflect reality or
reality reflects reality... it is better to just go
ahead and believe that it is reality that reflects
reality instead of the numbers reflecting reality
(unless you're a politician... then who knows that the
Hell reality is).

>>You can take that
>>to mean that he really didn't believe/trust his numbers, or
>>(as I choose to do) that Einstein was smart enough to know
>>that when the numbers say one reality and reality says
>>something else... one ought to go with reality over the numbers.
>
> I agree. If the numbers do not agree with reality,
> there has been a mistake in
> math.

See: Even you agree with Einstein.

>>A force continually applied will cause acceleration
>>(how soon we forget dear old Newton)...
>
> The essence of escape velocity is that a momentum
> in one direction can prevail
> over a force in the other direction.

You're talking about stopping a cannonball
by attaching a rubberband to it from the cannon
aren't you?

>>Who is they?
>
> The force vector and the momentum vector. I
> would think anyone who's taken
> introductory physics would have been
> able to figure that one out.

Ok, so... who's this "they?" And, by the by:
introductory physics is what we get just from
experiencing life, one studies advanced physics
in some college or other.

>>All of the universe finds itself imploding
>>now. It's the only way to go! It's physically
>>impossible for it to be otherwise.
>
> I don't agree with that. Most
> scientists don't, at last report.

I will record your opinion in the book of
my memory (I'm very absent-minded... my mind
is always somewhere else).

>>FIRST you
>>must propose (opinion) what might be causing it;
>>then (observation) you must find it (the
>>characterization of your proposal will determine
>>where to look, obviously).
>
> You started with the opinion that you know
> more than most of the physicist in
> the world, not with an observation that the
> universe actually is contracting.

Actually I stated with a thirst to know more.
I sought as much knowledge as was made available
to me. This knowledge told me something. Anyone
who studied what I studied would have learned
what I have learned. It is not a matter of genius
but of knowledge: Had Einstein or Newton lived
in the Stone Age they could NEVER have figured out
how to wipe their arses properly and would have
spent their entire lives as a couple of dirty-assed
bastards always trying to sit on your best rocks.

In any case, remember a true genius' admonition:
"Every man, even the humblest man, knows something
I do not... and in that he is my master." --Voltaire.

>>NOTHING in the universe is expanding: Nothing.
>>There is not ONE single reason why it should
>>expand. (And, please: There are never any lack
>>of reasons in the dreamer's dreams.)
>
> But there can be a lack of logic in the
> pseudoscientist's brain. And you have
> not disqualified momentum as the explanation
> behind expansion.

how many times must I disqualify it before you will
considered it disqualified (this might be the 17th
time this post): Recently--if you can call a number
of years--recently astronomers discovered that the
expansion of the universe is accelerating (maybe if
I tell it your way you'll finally get it): Momentum
can NEVER display an acceleration! NEVER. Only
something being acted on by a force can display an
acceleration--ergo: A force is acting upon the
universe. If the universe is truly expanding, that
force is acting at once and the same place as the
force of gravity AND against it (in a most peculiar
manner, for it leaves gravity alone to work short-
term, while gravity leaves this anti-gravity alone
to work long-term!). However if the universe is really
imploding, then the ONLY force required to explain
this acceleration is gravity! Viola! Need anything
more be said? (Yeah, like suddenly you're going to show
everybody a shoe and they will recognize it as a shoe
without having to prove mathematically and with shiny
little mirrors and fireworks that it's indeed a shoe!)

>>Well, I predicted the necessity of the universe's
>>apparent expansion accelerating before it was as
>>universally accepted as it now is.
>
> The expansion of the photon shell is nice
> and constant. The expansion of the
> massive parts of the universe is likely slowing
> down, but that is no reason to
> reduce Hubble's constant. That is a reason
> to change the velocity of recession.

Oy vei! Have you ever heard of Rube Goldberg?
A fellow used to construct the most elaborate
mechanisms (huge monstrosities) to light a match
or switch on a light. Use Occam's Razor, kid.

>>If anything
>>anywhere is ever discovered to be moving faster
>>than the speed of light, Einstein is dead.
>
> But that is an irrelevant assertion, since
> nothing is moving faster.

No... I'm serious: Einstein died some years ago!
I read it in the papers. (By the way: Nothing cannot
move, so it's irrelevant if it's moving faster.)

>>In my own
>>concept of an imploding universe such a find is
>>not only irrelevant but actually expected.
>
> I'm still not quite clear of what this concept is.

That faster than c motion is possible.

>>In addition
>>to this an imploding universe resolves elegantly
>>why the speed of light is always measured as a constant
>>in identical mediums. All which you can check out at:
>
> Not quite. It's only measured as a constant
> in a vacuum.

Sorry kid: It's measured as a constant only in
identical mediums (the speed of light can be
slowed down to 38 mph or less in the right medium).
Any degree of "vacuums" qualify too.

> And I don't see why an
> imploding universe would allow for the velocity
> of anything exceeding the speed
> of light.

No: It would not restrain it (prohibit it).
The prohibition stems from an erroneous assumption
(that matter contracts in the direction of motion:
If you assume the speed of light makes matter
contract to a length of zero, then you can't
propose a faster velocity). But, does matter really
contract to zero if it's traveling at the speed
of light? Really?

>>Please "mention" the exception which so
>>quickly debunked me. I'm very absent-minded.
>
> The observed Doppler effect does not support
> the contraction of the universe.

Oy, vei!  Dear Z, the Doppler effect measures a
REAL phenomenon: The galaxies ARE receding from
each other. It's the interpretation of WHY they
are receding from each other that is an error:
It's NOT because the universe is expanding. The
universe cannot expand because the laws of physics
forbid it: The universe consists only of coalescing
things... the only things which explode in the
universe are bubbles (like super novas & such).

>>The effect is REAL (the galaxies ARE receding
>>away from each other faster with distance).
>>The explanation is in error. As it MUST be
>>because gravity does not repulse: it attracts.
>
> Momentum, momentum, momentum.
> You seem to have forgotten its existence.

Momentum can NOT produce acceleration.

>>As the forms of matter shrink in place
>>gravity brings them together to fill the gaps
>>opened up by their shrinking.
>
> How does this explain the Doppler effect.
> And where does this "shrinking in
> place" theory come from?

It comes from it being the only possible
alternative to magic--simple as that:
Once you remove the Big Bang as driving the
apparent "expansion" of the universe... the only
possible alternative is that the universe
NEVER "expanded" at all to begin with: It did NOT
start out from a Singularity the size of your head
which then produced the universe from that itty
bitty place... but instead it began from an expansion
which encompassed the entirely of existence (remember
that if it don't exist it's not in existence: ONLY
the primordial energy which became gravity existed
and exists and will always exist and has always
existed)... and once you realize that you understand
that they ONLY possible avenue left for an universe
manifesting gravity is to contract/implode. But
gravity is a funny sort of stuff: It has a tendency
to localize, so from the earliest moments of
existence... localized gravitational systems arose
(the first subparticles, in effect) which then
combined with other like gravitational systems
into more complex gravitational systems which then
produced atoms and little trains! All these
gravitational system begin with the highest amount
of energy/gravity they will ever have and begin
losing it... and so they shrink in place, every last
one other, forcing the overall universe to shrink
in place as well... this means that instead of these
individual gravitational systems vanishing from sight
in place as they shrink (in effect, creating distance
between them)... they come together as the entire
universe compresses/implodes/contracts/condenses/shrinks
(only every one of them keeps shrinking in place even
as they all rush towards each other... eventually
creating a seamless balance, since any unbalance
would quickly, naturally create combinations until
a balance was achieved). Think of it this way:
The earth and the moon are shrinking in place, but
they are also moving towards each other is such a
perfectly matched shrinking/moving towards each other
that we never notice it. Now imagine what the effect
would look like if the earth and the moon were shrinking
in place but NOT moving towards each other: To us
it would not seem as if the two bodies were shrinking
at all (if the only two worlds that existed were the
earth and the moon). Instead it would appear as if
the two worlds were moving away from each other as
they shrank in place. (Now do you understand the reality
of the Hubble Constant?) If the only way you had of
measuring the distance between the earth and the moon
was a ruler which like everything else on the earth
shrank right along with everything... it would always
take more and more of these eternally-shrinking rulers
to measure the distance between the earth and moon.
Simple, no? And yet, you'd be amazed how many people
cannot understand this! It'd stagger you (you'd think
we were all still apes hanging from trees or something).

>>Because ALL the
>>forms of matter are shrinking at the same rate
>>we cannot perceive this shrinking (we ourselves
>>are shrinking).
>
> But if all things are shrinking in the
> three dimensions, wouldn't we notice
> that a meter keeps getting longer and longer
> when we calculate it based on the
> speed of light.

Everything inside the universe is shrinking:
The shrinking moon keeps orbiting the shrinking
earth presently, and does not keep the orbit it
was following moments or years ago!

> Or is time contracting as well?

Time is a measuring stick which only has
meaning in the human mind (the hour has no
more meaning to the universe than the inch).

> Because if everything is
> contracting uniformly, we would have
> no way of knowing or caring.

That is quite correct (for once). However,
there are curious phenomena in the universe
which cannot be easily explained (and I
emphasize the word easily: Rube Goldberg
can explain anything, of course). Why
the speed of light should always measure
as a constant in identical mediums is one:
There is no logic or reason for it: NONE.
However, the instant one considers what
might happen if ours were an imploding
universe and the photon a particle in it
which somehow managed to escape the second
action of matter (not the shrinking in place
but the rushing in to fill the gaps)... it
becomes instantly obvious what would happen:
The photon would "seem" to shoot out (away
from its source at incredible speeds--the
speed of light, in fact):

START QUOTE:

Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks"
["in place," in our experience, and never "towards"
a given direction] in relation to x-space [and so
"moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck
to/embedded "more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place"
at/in which it was created (which makes it appear
to us to be moving "linearly" away from the "spot"
in the universe of ordinary matter "where" it
originated); thereby the so-called "speed of light"
remains constant regardless of its
source/origin/direction because "about" the only
connection a photon has with its source is
"orientation" [x-space is expanding equally from/at
all coordinates, so the only quality the photon
creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is
an orientation relative to "himself" --e.g. when
"you" create the photon to the west of "you" that
photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your
west side, and if you create a photon to the north
of you... it will then "seem" to shoot out away
from your north side, since x-space will always take
"you" to be the exact center of its universe]...
Add the proviso that if "enough matter" (a massive
enough gravitational field) passes close enough to
a photon then that photon will suddenly display a
new "linear" orientation vis-a-vis that "matter"
(and this will naturally be "observable" by the rest
of our universe because in our universe the
"orientation" of any & all bits of ordinary matter
with respect to any & all other bits of ordinary
matter in the universe is "recognized" by any
& all bits of ordinary matter, period). There are
other concerns not needed to be discussed here
regarding all other linear motions of our universe
... earth's revolution, orbits, et al; but this
one simple "absolute law" you really have to
understand to avoid having to delve into synonymous
but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
orientation with respect to the rest of the universe
is absolute... so once the photon "adopts" an
orientation with respect to "you" it has
also (de facto) adopted that same ("your") orientation
with respect to
the rest of the universe of ordinary matter.

Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN
NOT be added to or subtracted from the so-called
"speed of light" because obviously the direction
of our "real" motion (x-space = absolute rest)
is never "really" linear at all but always
everywhere "towards shrinking." [And therefore
one is hard put to imagine any bit of ordinary
matter in our universe achieving any true/real
"greater velocity" than the one it already has
when it is at its "greatest rest" ... with
respect to the rest of the universe of
ordinary matter taken as a unit, of course.]

A simple analogy may help visualize this: Imagine
two side-by-side photons "traveling" towards a man
standing next to a woman (neither of whom have yet
been enlightened by me that it is they who are
"moving towards" the photons and not the reverse
--further, I have also never mentioned to them that
the only "real" change in velocity they are capable
of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS of anything they
might attempt in this reality)...

Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman that he
can catch his photon before she can catch hers
and rushes his "approaching" photon at 10 mph;
while the woman (as women will) thinks the bet
childish and tells the man she can wait for her
photon right where she is, thank you: Of course
the man catches his photon before the woman
catches hers; but then something odd happens: [for
the sake of simplicity, here] the man reports to
the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph
and the woman reports to the man that she also
caught her photon at 100 mph?!?!

Why doesn't he report to the woman that he caught
his photon at 100 mph PLUS his 10 mph acceleration?
--Although you already know the answer... it is, of
course, that he "really" wasn't accelerating at all
(because it is impossible to "really" accelerate
in his reality) and what he was really doing was
decelerating (with respect to the photon's "position").
But then why doesn't he report to the woman that he
caught his photon at 90 mph? And the answer is that
if the only two things that existed were he and
the photon they might indeed agree (between photon
& man) on that 90 mph; but it is the woman he must
agree with on the speed of the photon... and that
is where the mystery of x-space forever will confound
them both because even though (in "Paradise") he
and the photon indeed "hit" at 90 mph... in this
world he can never report this to the woman
without factoring in his acceleration of 10 mph
with respect to her!

Time is irrelevant: Let's say the man "takes the time"
to move a few paces ahead of the woman and then stops
(he will catch his photon there before she catches
hers, but you have no problem understanding that they
will both report catching their photons at 100 mph).
The same is true if he "takes the time" to step back
a few paces as well: he will catch his photon after
she catches hers, but you will also have no problem
understanding that they will both report catching
their photons at 100 mph. The matter is not one of
time, but of acceleration/deceleration: The paradox
will always rest with what they will interpret as
acceleration vs what the photon will interpret as
deceleration... and in that "misinterpretation" lies
their eternal impossibility to agree between them
that the speed at which a photon has been caught is
anything except constant regardless of their relative
velocities with respect to the photon!

And there the matter forever rests in our reality:
As far as ordinary matter in our universe goes...
the so-called "speed of light" will always be
measured in this perfectly inversely proportional
manner to be identical (in identical mediums) by
all moving observers regardless of their velocities
(linear) relative to each other: It is an absolute
set value (agreed to) between the man and the woman
(that whichever one of them "hits" a photon at a
"true/real" slower speed will always report to
the other one that he/she hit it exactly that
much faster, thereby canceling out all differences
between them). They have no choice in this agreement,
of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them by the
nature of this reality/existence... and thus too,
along with the man and the woman, every bit of
ordinary matter in our universe has also "signed"
this Absolute Relativity covenant with every other
bit of ordinary matter in our universe. [And absent
a profounder truth the constancy of c is all the
evidence required for/of the reality of x-space.]

END QUOTE

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com

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

From: S D Rodrian <SDRodrian@mad.scientist.com>
Subject: Re: Is The Universe Really Expanding?
Date: 30 May 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8gvg8k$hok$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8gsmju$kao$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000529015957.11446.00001364@ng-ch1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x62.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.209
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue May 30 04:32:20 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmad_sdr
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,rec.org.mensa
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

Gyudon Z either lives in Japan or he just couldn't sleep at all
last night (damn, he posts at nearly 3 AM), so he walked around
and, finally, apparently made it to my front door... where he knocked
(very slowly, like sleepwalkers & other insomniacs are wont to do)...
And then he stood there staring past me with huge, blood-shot eyes
mumbling something (while I was trying to remember where the Hell
I last saw my baseball bat)... so I but think this is what he said
PART THREE:

I wrote:

>>So, at the human level of
>>perception these two actions are seamless; however
>>astronomical distances accentuate the infinitesimal
>>lag between shrinking in place and moving in to
>>fill the opening gaps...
>
> But if things are shrinking, the distance
> between them would be increased, and
> gravity would become less effective at
> pulling together. We would notice
> rotating bodies receding from each other
> in a manner which would be
> inexplicable.

Now you're beginning to understand:
Understand this as well: The strength of gravity
is proportional to the square of its distance
(Newton): As the gravitational systems shrink
they move closer together, so that the effective
strength of gravity never really changes for
them! Of course, when distant galaxies recede
from each other the strength of gravity between
them also weakens, but it's already so weak
between galaxies that it really can but contribute
to the Hubble Constant (the acceleration of
their mutual recessions).

>>with the result that the
>>further a galaxy is from us the faster it will
>>be receding away from us.
>
> Couldn't the expanding universe explain
> that phenomenon much more simply.

Ha! Try the current Rube Goldberg constructs:
An impossible primordial explosion. Inflation
theory (another name for the stupid Cosmological
Constant). And the soon to be proposed theory
of little subatomic elves in several dimensions
using car jacks to force the universe to expand.
I repeat: The ONLY way the universe can "expand"
is if it does do against the laws of physics.

>>The result will appear
>>to be that the universe is expanding (a physical
>>impossibility)
>
> You have not even come close to proving
> that the universe expanding is
> impossible.

Dear Z, must I repeat things 37 times? 67? 102?
The universe is in the grips of gravity (it is
the only force that exists in this universe--the
strong force -et al- is just an extremely localized
manifestation of gravity). If there existed any
kind of anti-gravity in this universe it wouldn't
"expand" ... it would explode until you wouldn't
have even a cloud of dust (quarks or z-particles
or anything else): It would cease to exist. Period.

>>Dear Mr. Z, would you be so kind as to explain
>>how in an universe in which ALL the forms of matter
>>(including the photon) are shrinking at the same rate
>>while retaining the same proportional distances between
>>all its particles... how in the world YOU would be
>>able to tell the universe was changing sizes?!?!
>
> Would you mind explaining how the universe is
> shrinking at all. If all three
> spatial dimensions of the universe were
> shrinking, the velocity of objects
> would suddenly be greater and greater in terms
> of what we perceive to be
> meters.

Don't hurt your brain, Z. Just close your eyes
and imagine the universe is made up of forms which
can shrink and expand at will and that regardless
of how the universe shrinks or expands... every
form in it will keep its form and relative distance
from every other form: Now shrink that universe,
and expand the sucker back up, shrink it quickly
or shrinking it slowly... and remember that houses
in here will not be fundamental and crash against
each other when you shrink the universe but that
they will, along with everything else, shrink and
expand while retaining the same perspective (every
last item of existence in the universe likewise):
Now, tell me true... what difference would you
notice--Anywhere? (No fair peeking at my answers.)

>>Shoot a radar gun at your target, and imagine the
>>entire universe shrinks (or expands, for that matter)
>>while the photons go out to your target and return...
>>what sort of instrument could possibly tell you that
>>anything has changed at all, in the slightest, in
>>the universe?!?!?!
>
> The data received by the radar gun would inform me
> that the object in question
> had grown nearer to me.

Really? How? Considering that the gun and the photons
would shrink as they "traveled" between you and the
target and that proportions would remain unaltered
... how could radar tell you anything has changed?
What would have changed that it could possibly measure?

Instead of breaking your brain with radar/photons,
use a ruler instead: Measure the distance as the universe
is shrinking. And remember that as everything shrinks,
ruler & all, proportions (of distance) remain identical
because as everything shrinks in place everything moves in
to fill the gaps created by the shrinking:

> Yes, the wavelength would have shrank, but the velocity
> would not have.

"Shrunk." But you forget that as something moving shrinks
greater distances might be created BUT the objects
between those distances are also rushing in to fill them
... with the net effect that it will ALWAYS take the
runner four minutes to run the mile regardless of the
shrinking/expanding of the universe. As well: What
orientation would change if the entire universe itself
always maintains its same form? Orbits do not (as some
fools propose) follow invisible channels in space but are
bent to conform to the bodies they orbit (in other words:
gravity really does exist and celestial bodies do not
orbit each other by magic).

>>No, sir, the Hubble Constant and
>>the constancy of the speed of light are about all
>>the peek the universe grants us into its real nature.
>
> Yet, if the only evidence of the shrinking
> universe is that it appears to be
> expanding, wouldn't the fact that it actually
> is expanding be a simpler
> explanation?

I refuse to repeat myself 143 times.
(142 times, ok, but 143 times is too much.)

>>Right now you are obviously very new to this idea.
>>But it is an inevitable idea (like rain falling down).
>>Eventually it will seem so obvious to you
>>you'll wonder that you ever living without it.
>
> The shrinking of the universe is an obvious solution?

Once you see the beetle on your shoulder
it's obvious. Now I am calling your attention to it.

> You must have studied
> hypnotic writing.

No, but I was very good in my youth
at hypnotizing girls. (And cats, by the
way... really odd thing.)

>>Let me just say this: The only fundamental stuff
>>in nature is gravity (it is the energy of the universe).
>
> How is heat energy, or energy stored in spring,

With a lighted match: The energy will travel
from your flame to the spring, and then
travel into the air from the spring (unless
you plunge it into the toilet after it
burns your fingers).

> or in an inductor, or stored in
> a moving object, gravity?

Simple: Move some energy from your muscles
into a bat, then move the energy in the bat
into a baseball... and Presto! You've scored
a home run! (Other absurdities to follow.)

>>All forms of matter are just that: forms which are
>>NEVER fundamental, at any level. And forms retain
>>their forms whether they are one size or another.
>
> This is metaphysics. Not physics.

This is lack of misunderstanding, not understanding.

>>Yes it is.
>
> You've never proven it to be so.

Many times, Z. Many times!

>>Yes they have. We could, I imagine, be much
>>more specific; but if that's the way you play it...
>
> You haven't proven the doppler shift wrong.

Because the Doppler shift is NOT wrong. Duh!

> If everything were shrinking and
> filling gaps, then we would notice a red-shift
> even on Earth, with two objects
> that are not moving at all relative
> to each other. We haven't observed that.

Ah! You are God then, and you can retain absolute sizes
at will, no doubt! But for us mortals, Z, I'm afraid
it's impossible to escape living inside the universe
whatever the heck it might be up to.

>>You know, I too wonder how even today
>>there can live people who doubt evolution
>>and people who swear the earth is flat!
>
> The universe shrinking is not in the same vein
> as evolution and the round earth
> business. You're essentially the only one
> who can find any evidence for a
> shrinking universe.

And I thank you for your recognition: It's
fleeting, of course: Soon everybody and his cat
will be finding proofs of a shrinking universe.
I pity the cats.

>>This is writing (I may write like Ed,
>>but I can only sound like him in your dreams).
>
> I was speaking figuratively.
>
>>Every generalization is wrong in some instant.
>
> If we do not debunk something,
> how can we know that it is wrong?

"DO it. Do it. Don't talk about it." Ross Perot

>>Yes they are. (This could get boring.)
>
> I am repetitive because you have not disproven
> that space might be keeping its
> same size and the universe might actually be expanding.

I doubt I will prove to you
you have ears on your head--Do you?

>>Ah! A literary critic, to boot! (There, you see:
>>I can be as perverse as you, my dear.)
>
> But you combine the steadfast denial of reality

It's the only thing's kept me sane all these years.

> that characterizes Hovind with
> the assertion that everyone in the scientific
> community is wrong and you are
> right; a Conradian measure.

Bully for them! Do they play football?

>>No it did not trip any Einstein sensors: Hubble knocked
>>him up the side of the head and said: "Hello! Anybody home?
>>Are you in there Mr. Einstein? I've got news for you!"
>
> But the point is, we now have a constant constant.

You also have a bugger out the side of your nose:
But does that explain anything (I won't answer
that question because I'm a nice person).

> They are called constants
> because they do not change.

Yeah, that could be the reason--do you
have proof for this?

>>"The force of gravity always attracts, NEVER repels!"
>
> Momentum is what explains the expansion of
> the universe. Not force. Do you
> understand? Not force.

Momentum may explain how you were able to
graduate school (in eight years), but not much else.

>>Any contention that anywhere in this universe there exists
>>a force which, acting at the same time and place as gravity,
>>repels... is going counter to the laws of physics.
>
> No one is contending that. People are contending
> that the universe is expanding
> by momentum.

Well, I always try to keep a distance from
people whose contentions have momentum.

>>"You ought not to" (as I have done it, sir:
>>I propose that you have been debunked).
>
> Saying that you do not have a point is not
> the same as saying that you are a
> clay-brained, lying waste of oxygen.

I don't know... you seem pointless to me (so I
hope you really meant that calling people pointless
is not insulting).

>>Look... you're wasting a lot of time. Why don't
>>you just call me hairy/smelly and leave it at that?
>
> Because you have not said that you are
> smooth-skinned and sweet-scented.

I'm humble too.

> You
> have perpetrated pseudoscience.

I'm a pretty good actor as well.

> And that must be vigilantly guarded against.

Tell me about it: I've had vigilantees
after my hide for years. (Even though it's
a stinking hide and I'm hardly ever there.)

>>Yeah, and when I go pick up my Nobel
>>I'll split a cab with you.
>
> I see you can appreciate the fact that
> the  physicists who review the journals
> will disagree with you as well. And remember,
> these are people who know their
> stuff.

I chew mine myself.

>>Especially the guy with the exploding bottles!
>>I liked him. The geography professor had nothing
>>on him (and all he did was point here & there
>>... and you passed the class).
>
> My point was simply that physics should make sense,

You crazy?! Gods, I mean... if physicists started
making sense in this world, who could understand
the cobblers then?

> not propose elaborate and
> bizarre explanations

Z, if you're planning on pursuing a life in physics
the one thing you will have to understand is that
the only way to be paid to hand around to explain
your work IS to make certain that your explanations
are bizarre and elaborate... otherwise people will
soon realize that you're just sitting around thinking up
bizarre and elaborate explanation instead of doing
any work! Cheeez! Don't they teach these kids anything
in college any more?

> for why the universe is expanding. Momentum is a simpler
> explanation that space contracting.

Foot odor is an even simpler explanation
than momentum: With momentum one has to delve
into Newtonian gravitation & shit like that, but
with foot odor one just takes off one's shoe
and that's all there is to that right there:
No further explanation at all required. Or sought.

S D Rodrian
SDR@SDRodrian.com
thesolutionisthis.com
sdrodrian.com

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

INDEX

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