In article <137-39AA67DC-12@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

> Well now for the electons motion.
> There are many reasons why that the
> revolving of the electron around
> the nucleus has been droped.

Mainly because it looks/acts more like a wave than a particle.
Although folks have settled on the "cloud" description by now.

> Particles vibrate to create and give of
> a charge.QM goes so far as
> saying a particle is a wave fuction.

The description of a particle as a wave is always
a function of the fact that the description can only be
an approximation.

> In the nucleus of the hydrogen atom
> you have the quarks that are trying to get out,

Actually, Herb, quarks will tend to "pull" towards
each other the farther apart they are; and then, when
near enough to each other, tend to "lie" quietly
next to each other harmoniously exchanging energy.
This explains conservation of energy in particles
to some extent. And, to some other extent, hints
that the "pull" of gravity is a one-way energy flow
(out-flow) at a distance (which is "conserved" with
nearness.

> and that makes them
> vibrate for the gluons are continually pulling them
> back to the center.

Actually, the "gluons" are merely "returning"
to them the energy flowing out of them (which
they can do most efficiently with nearness).

> It is this motion that gives the quarks
> there charge to match the one
> unit charge of the electron. I don't think
> any particle revolves around
> other particles,as the planets revolve around the sun.
> That I think has
> been given up,it just don't fit in the submicroscopic level.

"Revolve" has a "roundness" connotation. Actually,
some folks even suspect that the electron "breaks up"
into a "shot of energy" which then "coalesces" all
about the nucleus (at the appropriate "orbit/value").

> At its rest energy the photons that make
> the electron are vibrating in
> their plane of the spherical triangle
> in harmony with the vibrations of
> the quarks.  Herb

Instead of trying to figure out what geometrical
designs matter "draws" at such levels, Herb, why not
try to answer a more pressing question such as:

Why does gravity "pull?" Or,

Why can't the photon stand still?

We know why the electron moves from ground to cloud,
or from cloud to ground, or cloud to cloud. However,
regardless whether you advocate mass for the photon
or not: its motion is not unlike that of an ordinary
air-filled balloon which is suddenly found to be
traveling five-feet above ground at 100 miles per hour
eternally around and around the earth (provided it
doesn't crash into a wall). AND if it's passing through
a hurricane it slows down (maybe even to 1 or 2 miles
per hour) BUT, as soon as it gets through the hurricane
it again speeds up to 100 mph!

The advocates that it does so by magic will tell you
the balloon is being pushed by some quality of the air
or that it's an optical illusion (and the balloon is
really appearing and disappearing in different places
creating the illusion that it is the same balloon moving).

My own contention is that the answer is simple
and natural. (see: http://web.sdrodrian.com)

What's yours, Herb?

S D Rodrian
sdrodrian.com
answer.findhere.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all? [Was: Structure Of The Electron]
Date: 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8ojpf8$7ds$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8oe5pt$ikv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8893-39AC2F59-64@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x56.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.220
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Aug 30 20:06:18 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <8893-39AC2F59-64@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>
> Hi S.D.Rodrian  That thought you have with quarks
> liking to stay close
> does not cut it with like charges.

Not my thought, Herb. It's called "asymptotic freedom." A term
used to describe "the observed decrease in the intrinsic
strength of the color force between quarks as they are brought
closer together. At asymptotically small separations, the quarks
are virtually free. This is in contrast to the electromagnetic force
whose intrinsic strength increases as two charged particles approach
each other. This is an Orwellian liberty enjoyed by quarks, which
move freely when close together but are reined in by an increasingly
powerful strong nuclear force whenever they begin to drift apart. [e.g.
A force of interaction between particles is said to be asymptotically
free if it becomes weaker as the energy of the interacting particles
increases.] Empirically the force between-quarks in a proton or neutron
is found to be asymptotically free, a feature that can be explained by
assuming that the force is described by a Yang-Mills theory." The
quotation is from the so-called Astronomical Glossary at:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_A.html

My own application to gravitational theory is analogous. And you
could put it this way: The "force" of gravity is understood as
a "flow" of energy "out" of "matter" (not into other matter, which
would be a "conservation" of energy, but) into a dissipation
across "space" (or into so-called infinite scalar mass). This
explains why gravity "seems" to be able to act at "infinite"
distances: Apply Newton's laws of motion, and "matter" is really
being "pulled" into space even if there isn't other matter close by;
the practical effect of which is to "close the gap/space" between
matter. (And when there IS other matter close by then the "pull"
increases even more as the two masses of matter establish an
exchange of gravitational energy. Anthropomorphically, you could
say that "quarks" seek each other and when three of them find
themselves together they become a new particle (the exchange of
energy between them becomes to harmoniously that it is "conserved"
... as all matter "seeks" to best conserve its energy). [It is only
at the level of "proximity" experienced by quarks in the proton and
neutron, say, that one might see asymptotic freedom develop. EM]
But by this analogy one may apprehend why it impossible for a
single quark, say, to exist anywhere in the universe for long.
The electricity analogy being that the current of energy/gravity
always seeks the path of least resistance. [Is there a "mediating"
"particle" for gravity? The question is moot for us because
we will always understand "particles" in terms of "gravitational
systems" so much "bigger" than any possible "graviton" that any
"true" graviton is likely to forever elude any human attempt to
quantify it--It might be billions of times "smaller" even than
a Planck length and thus better simply described as the theoretical
minimum unit of a "force."]

Why can't the "flow" be "into" matter? Because even the smallest
imaginable value for any so-called "gravitational constant" would
result not in a gently expanding universe but in a violently
exploding one (and matter could not exist in such a universe). Never
mind explaining a mechanism that creates energy from nothingness!

The implications are: There has to have been a "time" when the
universe was ONLY energy, so that the laws of thermodynamics
could have "created" matter (since matter immediately begins to
return/lose/dissipate its energy... and the sum history of matter
is an eternal struggle to conserve its energy... forever doomed to
succeed but temporarily). Such a homogeneously "expanding" universe
of energy would be able to achieve a volume quite beyond human
imagination (so that when it turned in on itself--manifested
gravity--the amount of matter it was able to produce was also
"quite substantial" ... which speaks for the idea that "our"
universe, the universe of matter, is probably a lot older than
we give it credit for being, and will probably last a lot longer
than we imagine). But, also, this means that the universe of matter,
however long it lasts, is in the end but a momentary (dissipating)
ripple running across the universe of energy. And that existence is
ALL that exists and ONLY that: All that existed and all that will
exist is/are but the identically same thing in different forms/shapes.

> That air filled balloon does not cut
> it with me,no way.

It's an analogy photon/balloon: No one has proposed even a theory
as to why the photon MUST move. Yet all photons move (without
much logic to their movement). Whether you advocate they move in
a straight line ot not [either an expanding or and imploding model
must take the movement of the galaxies into account], you must yet
acknowledge that they can travel for billions of years (without any
"visible" means of propulsion). If you stare at the setting Sun you
are intercepting photons which are able to travel in a straight line
at five or six feet distance from the earth past it(yet Einstein's
famous light-bending experiment shows that the trajectory of photons
traveling close to the Sun are slightly "bent down" by enough gravity).
This means the photon is not a "visual" ghost but a real, substantial
particle like all other particles (albeit one which does not obey all
the laws of gravity other particles obey... merely some), et al, others.

So I repeat the analogy: What explanation might you propose if
you came upon an ordinary air-filled balloon forever traveling
five or six feet above the ground at whatever speed? And in a
dead-on straight line... it's not as if it were bouncing about!
It is not being pushed by anything we can detect. It's unimaginable
that its motion has anything to do with inertia (the fact that
it's traveling through air tells us so: whenever it hits a head-on
breeze it slows down, and then speeds up when it's past that
squall... suggesting that if it were to travel a vacuum its speed
would increase tremendously). Such is the case with the photon:
We have stumbled upon a "particle" exhibiting exactly those
qualities. [The photon slows down when traveling across air
and then speeds up again when it exits it and enters a vacuum.]
And yet it's as if this miraculous behavior by the photon
were something quite common and every-day: The result, so far,
has been a slew of propositions from conventional physics akin to
suggesting its movement is due to magical qualities of the
volumes it's traveling across. I do not concur. My view is that
the entire thing can be most logically and naturally explained
by looking at the entire problem from a new and unbiased
perspective, which see: [ http://answer.findhere.com ]

> you ask me why gravity pulls things together.The
> answer is its a particle attraction.

Herb, that is so meaningless that you might as well say
"particles come together as they fall in love." One not only
has to describe what is happening but also describe "the" (or
at least propose "a") mechanism by which it is happening.

> Like magnetizum only it attracts all
> particles.

If you wish to try to understand it that way, you may:
Think, and you will notice a "flow" (or magnetic current).
Thereby, even if you do not "notice" a "flow" in other
particles (because man's instruments are not fine enough)
why not assume it's there yet... and that it's NOT happening
by magic!

> Where are you coming from? Herb

Patience. And a willingness to consider any and all
possible solutions, not simply the politically correct ones;
always regardless how unpopular they may be at the moment.

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
sdrodrian.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8okc7q$tki$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <26244-39A68228-34@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<137-39AA67DC-12@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <8oe5n3$ijh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<39AD989B.BB4BA3BB@xs4all.be>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x62.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.50
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Aug 31 01:26:36 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 <39AD989B.BB4BA3BB@xs4all.be>,
Hayek <hayek@xs4all.be> wrote:
> hi sdrodrian
>
> I read your theory about the 'imploding universe'.
>
> Should we be seeing blue shifts from other galaxies
> then.

No we should NOT. The universe is imploding, but
all forms of matter are "shrinking away from each
other." [Imagine the earth and the moon were to
suddenly shrink in place (toward their center of
gravity)... if we did not know
they had shrunk we would interpret the effect as
the earth and moon having suddenly moved a great
distance from each other: thereby, "distance" is
continually being "created" in an imploding universe
where all the forms of matter are necessarily
"shrinking in place." [The reason we cannot notice
this is because the forms of matter in our universe
are continually moving toward each other and filling
the gaps created, thereby making the universe retain
its form even as it shrinks/implodes.] Ours is
therefore an imploding universe where NONE
of the forms of matter in it are fundamental (if
any of them WERE... what we would "see" would be
an accumulation of them: something not that
differently from what happens in a dying star which
collapses into a neutron core. What we have is a
universe "of matter" which will forever (as long as
it has enough energy to continue) shrink without
changing its form/shape.]

But the result (see web.sdrodrian.com) is that galaxies
really ARE moving away from each other, or red-shifted;
and this is NOT merely some sort of optical illusion.
It's a bit more complex than the way I've put it here
but I have striven to express it in ordinary English
at my web site (to the best of my ability, of course).

> 1.they would be moving towards us

Galaxies really ARE receding from each other! But
just as only in an imploding universe would galaxies
(or any other form of matter) be possible at all...
they are ONLY receding from each other BECAUSE ours
in an imploding universe. In a true expanding universe
(where matter might be able to be forced to exist
by magic)... the only way one could make galaxies go
against the force of gravity would be to use jacks.

> 2. the light we see from them would be accelerated to
> blue
> because it fell towards gravity for such a long
> distance.

Photons, like every other known form of matter
in our imploding universe, are also shrinking
(all forms of matter MUST shrink as their energy is
dissipated BY gravity): This makes it impossible to
use photons to directly "see" the effects of implosion
and of the shrinking itself: Photons, however, give us
an insight into the true nature of the universe
by the manner in which they behave: c constancy is
the single most telling proof that ours is an
imploding universe (which see  web.sdrodrian.com ).
There are others, of course, the latest one of which
fulfills the requirement that the so-called (interpreted
as) "expansion" of the universe ought to be accelerating
(something physically impossible in a true expanding
universe, but an unescapable requirement in an imploding
universe as the force of gravity accelerates the implosion).

Godspeed,

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com
www.sdrodrian.com
www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> greetings
>
> J.Roberts
>

****************************
 

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8olsj8$kig$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <26244-39A68228-34@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<137-39AA67DC-12@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <8oe5n3$ijh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<39AD989B.BB4BA3BB@xs4all.be> <8okc7q$tki$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39AE105A.420F8ACD@xs4all.be>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x53.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.58
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Aug 31 15:11:56 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 <39AE105A.420F8ACD@xs4all.be>,
Hayek <hayek@xs4all.be> wrote:

>> S D Rodrian wrote:
>> Photons, like every other known form of matter
>> in our imploding universe, are also shrinking
>> (all forms of matter MUST shrink as their energy is
>> dissipated BY gravity): This makes it impossible to
>> use photons to directly "see" the effects of implosion
>> and of the shrinking itself
>
> It is imploding, gravity increases then, matter shrinks,
> fotons also, thus they become more blue, added to the
> fact they were already blue,
> and accelerated to us, blue again, so it is blue
> allover. there is no compensation to the red..., the red
> we so abundantly measure.

ONLY if YOU weren't shrinking too.
ONLY if SOMETHING weren't shrinking too.
But everything is shrinking at the same rate
and has been doing so since the beginning
of the manifestation of matter in the universe:

Understand this: On earth, a mile will ALWAYS be
a mile to the photon! [Regardless of the fact that
that mile is "really" constantly shrinking: BECAUSE
the photon is also shrinking with it--Keep in mind
that there is NO change in a photon over time due to
its shrinking BECAUSE the rest of the universe keeps
its perspective (shrinks at the same rate) too.]

To all practical effects, the disposition of the
universe never changes with regard to its form and
shape due to its shrinking: NEVER (with 1 exception).
Matter shrinks in place AND "rushes in" to fill the
"gaps" (space) created by the shrinking, so to the
photon, say, any given amount of "distance" on earth
always remains the same moment to moment (if it must
travel a mile (on earth)... a mile is what it will have
traveled once it does so). However there IS one caveat:

None of this is being done by magic. It is a physical
process, and as such, it requires that its steps
follow in sequence: 1) energy/gravity flows out of
all forms of matter 2) all forms of matter shrink
3) all forms of matter rush in to fill the gaps
created. [This means there is an infinitesimal delay
between one step and the next: At the human level,
here on earth, this delay is too brief to notice:

Are we fast or slow? Vibrate your hand and you think
you're doing it rather quickly, but in the few seconds
it took you to do this a photon traveled hundreds of
thousands of miles. Is the speed of light fast or slow?
It takes the photon nearly eight minutes to travel
even a tiny, insignificant distance as that from the Sun
to the earth. Ants move a lot faster than we, but to
their brains they're moving at a "normal" speed and
it is we humans who are slowly lumbering about: In an
objective reality it is therefore possible to speak of the
human experience (of reality) as very probably an illusion
of "normal speed" ... and that, in contrast to the rest
of the universe's "speeds," we are existing/moving at
super-slow motion (our illusion of running being fast, for
example, mocked by a greater reality in which we are
as if marble statues flinching a bit every hundred years).

Because of that "brief" delay, step to step, there is
an effect which is magnified over astronomical distances:
The farther galaxies lie from each other, the faster they
will recede from each other. This newly-minted "distance"
is one which the photon WILL need to travel as it increases
moment to moment (if the photon must travel a million
light years... it will have traveled many more light years
than just one million once it has reached the other side).
That information is the only information the photon will
be able to tell you (the Hubble Constant), as a red-shift.
(A blue-shift tells you its source is moving in our
direction, of course.)

> Imnsho.
>
>> Photons, however, give us
>> an insight into the true nature of the universe
>> by the manner in which they behave: c constancy is
>> the single most telling proof that ours is an
>> imploding universe
>
> It is exactly c constancy that causes the blue shift....

It is the stability provided by c constancy which makes it
possible to discriminate between photons reaching us from
sources receding or approaching us. This is all: As I said,
it is only over astronomical distances that the effect of
the delay between shrinking in place and THEN rushing in
to fill the gaps is sufficiently magnified for us to
notice it... otherwise, that aside, the universe retains
its form/shape so perfectly that it is impossible to tell
it's imploding (and, necessarily, shrinking as it does)
unless we use our brains.

Godspeed,

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com
www.sdrodrian.com
www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8on5p5$71o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8olsj8$kig$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <19851-39AE9D06-49@storefull-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x66.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.59
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 01 02:54:36 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 <19851-39AE9D06-49@storefull-134.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
oldcoot@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> Again, to post 'The Question' that the 'Shrinking
> in Place' model has
> yet to answer:

Again, to answer it (again)...

> Suppose from within our galaxy, galaxy 'A',
> we're looking out at a
> another galaxy, galaxy 'B' which happens to be
> tipped 'almost' edge-on
> to us but not quite, so we can see its far rim clearly.
> Both galaxies are 'shrinking in place'
> about their common
> centers, their rims shrinking inward toward
> their cores.

Is that the only "shrinking" they're doing?
Or, is EVERYTHING shrinking (every last form of
matter in the universe--most important of all:
including the photon) AND then it's (ALL of it)
rushing in to fill the gaps created by all this
"shrinking towards centers?" This is crucial.

> As we look at
> galaxy B, its far rim is moving towards us,
> and its near rim moving away
> from us, rendering a red/blue differential
> between its far and near
> edges. And if 'shrinking in place' is true,
> the two galaxies don't even
> have to be at a high-redshift distance.
> This red/blue differential
> would be MANDATED, even in observing
> nearby galaxies tilted near-edge-on
> to us.

I'll make it simple this time, Bill: In a universe where
EVERYTHING is shrinking (so that the universe NEVER
"seems" to change ANY of its shape) your two galaxies
will never distort (in each other's "view") but will
remain/look the same as always: The photons which carry
the red/blue-shifted info WILL NEVER KNOW there is
any such shrinking taking place (any more than our eyes)
and will not be able to tell you a word about this.

There is no way for a photon traveling from the near-rim
of galaxy B to the far-rim of galaxy A to tell that the
distance has increased/decreased due to the shrinking of
the universe BECAUSE the photon too is shrinking [so that
regardless of whether (to God or some such absolute
perspective standing outside the universe) the distances
are really increasing or decreasing... for the photon
the distance forever remain the same: For the photon to know
(remember c constancy) the TIME must change and IT DOES NOT:
all the photon knows is that it travels the distance in
an hour AND NOT that it traveled half the distance faster
than the other half: There is no way for it to tell us that
because even though it absolutely did, reality inside our
universe is relativistic.] READ web.sdrodrian.com

The effect you're describing can ONLY occur if ONLY
your two galaxies shrink in place (and the photon does not
shrink). However, the journey of the photon inside our
universe tells us a lot about the nature of the universe:

Say it must travel a mile in one hour. But the universe
is imploding (and therefore the mile soon becomes an inch).
But the photon too shrinks proportionally (so that it yet
travels that inch in one hour). As far as that photon knows
nothing has changed (only you and I and God know better).
But the photon has just revealed to us the eternity of
the universe in that one simple journey. Consider it this
way... remember the old game where every time you reach
half way through your journey you cut your speed in half?
(How long will it take you to finish your journey?) Well,
the photon tells us that as the universe implodes and there
remains less and less of it (energy)... less and less energy
needs to be expended for everything to remain the same! And
this means that our universe will continue as it has been
AS IF (in our experience), AS IF it were expending no energy
at all--It will never "seem" to wear out: In reality it is
expending/dissipating its energy, and the end will come
when it completely runs out of energy, of course. But until then
we cannot (never) "run out of gas" so-to-speak.

> But no such differental between far
> and near edges has ever been
> observed -  even though red-blue difference
> between the SIDES of the
> disc due to the galaxy's rotation IS observed
> and accurately measured.

> The explanation offered by Dr.
> Rodrian previously was -
> instrumentation is not sensitive/accurate
> enough to detect the red/
> blue diffrential in high-redshift galaxies.

You will have to find that quote for me, Bill:
I can't imagine I'd ever offer such an explanation
(closest I've been to something "like that" was
when I recently stated that we would never have
instruments fine enough for our eyes to "see" "a"
"graviton" although our Mind may yet behold one
or something like that).

> But it should be patently
> present and observeble in nearby galaxies
> IF 'shrinking in place' is true.

It is observable, Bill. But you're not God
or some such other creature standing outside
the universe (and capable of commanding photons
not to shrink on the way to your eyes).

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com

>
> oc
>
>

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8ommom$m1e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8olslq$kjl$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000831134832.26508.00001157@ng-fu1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x55.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.190
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Aug 31 22:38:16 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <20000831134832.26508.00001157@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> From SDRondrian:
> <snip>
>>Understand this: On earth, a mile will ALWAYS be
>>a mile to the photon! [Regardless of the fact that
>>that mile is "really" constantly shrinking: BECAUSE
>>the photon is also shrinking with it--Keep in mind
>>that there is NO change in a photon over time due to
>>its shrinking BECAUSE the rest of the universe keeps
>>its perspective (shrinks at the same rate) too.]
>
> However, the velocity of a photon would remain
> the same despite its shrinking,
> as would any moving object, (in the absolute,
> rather than the shrunk frame of
> observation) and if the photon and everything
> else were shrinking, its velocity
> would get greater and greater.

Sorry, Mr. Z, but the "velocity" of everything IN
the universe is relativistic ONLY. (If an object be
moving at a million times the speed of light across
the universe and suddenly the entire universe were to
vanish... though our object never applies its breaks
it would nevertheless instantly stop "moving." And, in
fact, nevermore could it be described as moving again.)

PS. In fact, for an absolute observer OUTSIDE the
universe, say, God: the photon would in fact be
forever slowing and slowing. Think of it this way: If the
photon had been crossing the mile in an hour, once
that mile becomes an inch AND the photon still takes
an hour to traverse it... add it up yourself.

I trust you completely to do this because
You have always proven an intelligent fellow!

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8on7d8$91j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8olslq$kjl$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000831134832.26508.00001157
@ng-fu1.aol.com> <8omms4$mb4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39AEEDDE.4E54C4A4@cswnet.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x72.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.59
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 01 03:22:32 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 <39AEEDDE.4E54C4A4@cswnet.com>,
Richard Perry <rper@cswnet.com> wrote:
> SDRodrian wrote:
>
>> In article <20000831134832.26508.00001157@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
>> gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>>> From SDRodrian:
>>> <snip>
>>>>Understand this: On earth, a mile will ALWAYS be
>>>>a mile to the photon! [Regardless of the fact that
>>>>that mile is "really" constantly shrinking: BECAUSE
>>>>the photon is also shrinking with it--Keep in mind
>>>>that there is NO change in a photon over time due to
>>>>its shrinking BECAUSE the rest of the universe keeps
>>>>its perspective (shrinks at the same rate) too.]
>>>
>>> However, the velocity of a photon would remain
>>> the same despite its shrinking,
>>> as would any moving object, (in the absolute,
>>> rather than the shrunk frame of
>>> observation) and if the photon and everything
>>> else were shrinking, its velocity
>>> would get greater and greater.
>>
>> Sorry, Mr. Z, but the "velocity" of everything IN
>> the universe is relativistic ONLY. (If an object be
>> moving at a million times the speed of light across
>> the universe and suddenly the entire universe were to
>> vanish... though our object never applies its breaks
>> it would nevertheless instantly stop "moving." And, in
>> fact, nevermore could it be described as moving again.)
>>
>> PS. In fact, for an absolute observer OUTSIDE the
>> universe, say, God: the photon would in fact be
>> forever slowing and slowing. Think of it this way: If the
>> photon had been crossing the mile in an hour, once
>> that mile becomes an inch AND the photon still takes
>> an hour to traverse it... add it up yourself.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> answer.findhere.com
>> web.sdrodrian.com
>
> I have perused your web site and have read several of your posts. I am
> replying to this particular post, not because it is special, and not
> because you have completely missed an essential point contained within
> it.
>
> How do we measure time? Isn't time a function of distance? And if so,
> then you have effectively created a static rather than a collapsing
> universe from the frame of reference of one of its inhabitants.

True: START QUOTE

Say the photon must travel a mile in one hour. But the universe
is imploding (and therefore the mile soon becomes an inch).
But the photon too shrinks proportionally (so that it yet
travels that inch in one hour). As far as that photon knows
nothing has changed (only you and I and God know better).
But the photon has just revealed to us the eternity of
the universe in that one simple journey. Consider it this
way... remember the old game where every time you reach
half way through your journey you cut your speed in half?
(How long will it take you to finish your journey?) Well, here
the photon is telling us that as the universe implodes and there
remains less and less of it (energy)... less and less energy
needs to be expended for everything to remain the same! And
this means that our universe will continue as it has been
AS IF (in our experience), AS IF it were expending no energy
at all--It will never "seem" to wear out: In reality it is
expending/dissipating its energy, and the end will come
when it completely runs out of energy, of course. But until then
we cannot (never) "run out of gas" so-to-speak.

END QUOTE

> However,
> from an outsiders point of view the photons are continually
> decelerating, but only because the outsiders' universe is "not"
> shrinking, and neither is his second. The result is that we may claim
> either shrinking time or shrinking distance and get precisely the same
> result. So if I begin posting threads that claim the non linearity of
> time then please don't contradict, since you will be contradicting
> yourself.;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard

Richard, I shall not contradict you. Promise. However
you must realize, I'm sure, that I have many times
repeated the mantra that IN an imploding/shrinking
universe it is highly difficult for us to tell (to "see")
that "distances" are shrinking [we can deduce it,
certainly, but rarely "see" it--in fact, the illusion
(the Hubble Constant) points in exactly the opposite
direction of what is actually really happening!]
Therefore I must ask you:
How will you tell whether time is remaining the same
or speeding/slowing down as we "shrink" along? What
are we to "look" to ... for the answer?

But first off you must understand the nature of time
not as some "force of nature" but as what it really is:

START QUOTE

... the common superstition that Time
has any meaning (existence) outside the human mind: We
measure time as one arbitrary motion against another
arbitrary motion only: The universe is a closed system
in which chaos has broken out (chaos in this sense is
a huge number of independent motions, each one of which
is at any given moment either speeding up or slowing down
.. and if you set your watch to any one of them you will
eventually discover that your synchronization is forever
falling apart). Only Newton's laws of motion have any
meaning in this chaos: One motion may be sped up or
slowed down by some other motion (with repercussions to
that "other motion" as well, of course).

END QUOTE

Good luck,

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8oon39$v2q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8omms4$mb4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000831232931.08433.00000827@ng-da1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x67.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.92
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 01 16:56:21 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.usa.misc,sci.logic,talk.religion.misc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)

In article <20000831232931.08433.00000827@ng-da1.aol.com>,
gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> Tell me, SDRodrian: Do you have any evidence
> for the shrinkage of the universe
> apart from the alleged nonconstancy of Hubble's constant?

Go thou to http://answer.findhere.com  Some of it is there.

I cannot be expected to find all the proofs there are, but
the fact that the speed of light is always reported the same
in identical mediums regardless of observer and/or source is
the most telling evidence that ours is an imploding universe
(in fact, I would be hard put to explain any sort of radiation
at all being possible in a true "expanding" Big Bang universe:
I cannot conceive of a mechanism to make radiation possible).

But the most powerful proof comes from the total inability
of conventional physics to account for the energy which the
universe MUST be expending even merely only in its own existence
(never mind even in gravitational interactions)... if we
considered ours an expanding universe there is NO place in it,
NONE, where stores of the energy that is being devoured by
the existence of the universe (which is, remember, merely an
interaction of motions) where such energy stores are... that
we could go there to see the "gas tank" going down as it
fueled the existence of matter. While, on he other hand, the
model of an imploding universe requires that the energy fueling
the implosion be "siphoned" from the ONLY source of energy we
know of (E=MC^2), or... matter itself, resulting in matter
shrinking because of it--but. more importantly, finally
accounting for the fuel AND the motor powered by it.

Such an idea could never have occurred to anyone 80 years ago
(even though most scientists "suspected" the atom was not
fundamental, it would have been a huge leap from that to the
conviction that there are NO fundamental forms of matter AT ALL).
The discovery of the Hubble constant pretty much sealed the
case for an expanding universe model, moreover (forcing even
Einstein to deny his own erstwhile equations). Besides, if one
believes (as most persons did then) that existence was some
sort of miraculous creation (whether by God or Big Bang) one
did not inquire into the fundamental question of where matter
came from (and therefore how it came to evolve). While biology
was finally coming to grips with evolution, it was still very
common to believe that God had created "stood upon" the universe
and pushed (against it) forth the "seeds of life." The result
was a "history" of matter which directly contradicts its origins
(as described by conventional physics): "There is an unexplained
explosion which spews up the constituents of matter, and,
miraculously, even as things are flying apart... matter begins
to assemble! (We have therefore galaxies within the first
billion years or so after Big Bang WHEN it is still impossible
to explain how some galaxies can hold together in the PRESENT
universe--but "there must be" some "dark matter" in them which
although invisible and not registering anywhere, yet exerts
gravitational forces like ordinary matter, of course). Of
course! Go on: Set off a stick of dynamite and then expect fine
porcelain figurines to assemble themselves IN the explosion."

> But where does the energy go? Is there an answer
> consistent with the first law of thermodynamics?

Where does the energy flowing out of matter go? Basically:
Where it came from (energy cannot be created or destroyed).
To speak of the "volume" of the matter-less universe is to
speak of its energy contents because the true void would have
delimited the finite amount of energy inside the universe.
One might therefore speak of the universe of energy-only
as a homogenous and unimaginably "big" volume. This would
have been the only true possible primordial Singularity. And
although to say that this Singularity must obey the laws of
thermodynamics is to assume the authority of God, it's still
necessary to say that it probably obeyed the laws of
thermodynamics (e.g. the "voids" evolved into a "singularity
of inner stresses"): Thereby giving rise to "regions" of
contrasting values/densities [and once that happened, of course
... a "flow" or "current" was inevitable; with the result that
there must have occurred a monstrous collapse immediately
thereupon into a chaos of competing vectors (what we presently
understand as gravity) or, immediately thereafter, innumerable
independent collapses into individual gravitational systems,
or "the forms of matter"].

Energy into matter, matter into energy completes the circuit.
It is possible to speak of the universe of matter which was
born here as imploding as soon as it was born (it could not
have been otherwise). The universe of matter implodes BUT
because none of the forms of matter are fundamental one does
not have a collapsing-star effect (with some grand & vast
compacted accumulation of "hard/unyielding" particles at its
core)... rather, the universe retains its form even as it
collapses AS it returns the energy in matter back to the
universe of energy. It is also possible to speak of the
universe of matter as a ripple "ironing out" the universe
of energy as it "runs through it" (the universe of matter
might have "begun" with the same volume as the universe of
energy and then collapsed/imploded down from there). [By the
way, the language above does not imply that the form of the
universe stays the same, as you can see for yourself; merely
that it is very hard for it to change its form, however
inevitable it is that all things change.]

In any case, by now (whenever) the universe of matter is
"shrinking through" the universe of energy... leaving behind
that energy which it's using (up) to fuel its existence. The
more it shrinks the less energy it has, but the less energy
it needs to use (and now you understand why the universe of
matter may not only be a lot older than previously imagined
but will probably "go on and on" a lot longer than we might
possibly dream it could "exist"). And, what happens after it
ceases to exist? Well, the universe of energy will still remain
intact, and so too the laws of thermodynamics.

Only one... "moral" question remains: Does the primordial
Singularity implode exactly the same way every time? If it does
(if it's truly homogenous before it implodes) then we must relive
our lives exactly and identically every time the universe of
matter reaches us, over and over again and again throughout
eternity (see essay at: http://theory.findhere.com  which I wrote
many years ago, contemplating exactly this "remote" possibility).

Best,

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com
www.sdrodrian.com
www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8opde9$q5g$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8oona3$vci$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000901175439.21069.00001194@ng-cm1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x51.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.251
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 01 23:17:45 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 <20000901175439.21069.00001194@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
  gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> From SDRondrian:
>
>>In article <20000901013437.26078.00000025@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
>>  gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>>> From SDRondrian:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>And
>>>>this means that our universe will continue as it has been
>>>>AS IF (in our experience), AS IF it were expending no energy
>>>>at all--It will never "seem" to wear out: In reality it is
>>>>expending/dissipating its energy, and the end will come
>>>>when it completely runs out of energy, of course. But until then
>>>>we cannot (never) "run out of gas" so-to-speak.
>>>
>>> But where does the energy go?
>>> Is there an answer consistent with the first law
>>> of thermodynamics?
>>
>>ANSWERED:
>>
>>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=665219116&fmt=text
>>
>>SDR
>
> Very interesting. But does matter (which is energy,
> I'm sure we can agree)
> consume itself in order to
> maintain its own existence, as you seem to suggest?

That is too anthropomorphically put: It's better
to say that all the forms of matter are gravitational
systems, and that energy is best conserved in such
systems. But energy does not form such systems (matter)
because it knows that's its best scheme for survival.

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
answer.findhere.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8oqv0o$ebo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8opdgk$q6e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000901232300.02614.00001254@ng-bh1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x73.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.70
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 02 13:23:45 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 <20000901232300.02614.00001254@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
  gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> From SDRodrian:

>>>>>>And
>>>>>>this means that our universe will continue as it has been
>>>>>>AS IF (in our experience), AS IF it were expending no energy
>>>>>>at all--It will never "seem" to wear out: In reality it is
>>>>>>expending/dissipating its energy, and the end will come
>>>>>>when it completely runs out of energy, of course. But until
>>>>>>then we cannot (never) "run out of gas" so-to-speak.
>>>>>
>>>>> But where does the energy go?
>>>>> Is there an answer consistent with the first law
>>>>> of thermodynamics?
>>>>
>>>>ANSWERED:
>>>>
>>>
>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=665219116&fmt=text
>>>>
>>>>SDR
>>>
>>> Very interesting. But does matter (which is energy,
>>> I'm sure we can agree)
>>> consume itself in order to
>>> maintain its own existence, as you seem to suggest?
>
>>That is too anthropomorphically put: It's better
>>to say that all the forms of matter are gravitational
>>systems, and that energy is best conserved in such
>>systems. But energy does not form such systems (matter)
>>because it knows that's its best scheme for survival.
>
> And that didn't anthropomorphize unduly as well?

Well, perhaps our human language
will always tend to do that!

> A supposedly shrinking photon's energy is still
> determined by its frequency
> alone; and its frequency doesn't change
> regardless of how long a meter is
> supposed to be. How can one avoid the
> conclusion that the photon's energy
> really isn't being dispersed?

As far as I can imagine the thing: There are no
forms of matter in the universe whose energy
isn't being dissipated by the outflow of gravity
(including black holes, otherwise the connection
between their insides and outside would be cut
and it is not, as you can see for yourself if you
ever venture close enough to one).

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
answer.findhere.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8ori1j$2nt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <8oqv2u$ec0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000902123103.18512.00000362@ng-fg1.aol.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x67.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.47
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 02 18:48:24 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsd_rodrian_i
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories

In article <20000902123103.18512.00000362@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
  gyudonz@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> From SDRondrian:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> A supposedly shrinking photon's energy is still
>>> determined by its frequency
>>> alone; and its frequency doesn't change
>>> regardless of how long a meter is
>>> supposed to be. How can one avoid the
>>> conclusion that the photon's energy
>>> really isn't being dispersed?
>>
>>As far as I can imagine the thing: There are no
>>forms of matter in the universe whose energy
>>isn't being dissipated by the outflow of gravity
>>(including black holes, otherwise the connection
>>between their insides and outside would be cut
>>and it is not, as you can see for yourself if you
>>ever venture close enough to one).
>
> I know; we discussed the matter at length. But you
> still haven't answered how a
> photon changes its energy without
> changing its frequency.

Simply: The photon does not change its frequency
because gravity saps its energy (for us)... it's a
function of nuclear process (interactions between
particles). In effect: As the universe "shrinks"
the relative energy values of all the particles
remain the same with respect to each other. To
put it musically: An A-flat will always sound
like an A-flat to your ear here inside the universe
in spite of the fact that its absolute pitch must
sound to someone outside the universe (who could
hear such a thing) like the bellow of an elephant
turning into the shrill of a mosquito.

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8opci8$p5j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <8omms4$mb4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000831232931.08433.00000827@ng-da1.
aol.com> <8oon07$v09$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39b02327.34347141@news.btinternet.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x55.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.251
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 01 23:02:43 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 <39b02327.34347141@news.btinternet.com>,
marcus.webb_home@btinternet.com (Marcus Webb) wrote:
> I Know that I am going to hate myself
> in the morning, but I just
> cannot resist this:
>
>>I cannot be expected to find all the proofs there are,
>
> Well certainly not if you want your
> theories to be taken seriously....

The child who points out that the emperor hath
no clothes is hardly after being taken seriously.
I doubt "he" even cares what the crowd thinks of him.

>>But the most powerful proof comes from the total inability
>>of conventional physics to account for the energy which the
>>universe MUST be expending even merely only in its own existence
>
> Have you considered the possibility that
> statement may contain a flaw
> in its thinking?

Sure. "A flaw in its logic," or "it's just
plain wrong" might have been better put. But
let's see if you spotted either of those things
in it, I have a kupie doll all polished up for you!

Marcus: it serves no useful purpose to merely say,
"I think you're wrong." It's much more useful if
you might advance some contradictory evidence, or
at least some just as reasonable logic which points
away from the conclusions drawn by your opponent.
In fact, Marcus, if I have failed to tie any loose ends
it would be helpful if you pointed out even that for me.

>> While, on he other hand, the
>>model of an imploding universe requires that the energy fueling
>>the implosion be "siphoned" from the ONLY source of energy we
>>know of (E=MC^2), or... matter itself, resulting in matter
>>shrinking because of it--but. more importantly, finally
>>accounting for the fuel AND the motor powered by it.
>>The discovery of the Hubble constant pretty much sealed the
>>case for an expanding universe model, moreover (forcing even
>>Einstein to deny his own erstwhile equations).
>
> Aren't these things contradictory if,
> as you state, Hubble's constant
> isn't constant?

[Been here, done this!] Say Hubble's Constant
just claimed that (as a general rule) the farther
a celestial object is from us the faster it's
receding from us: This "constancy" never changes.
What we've talking about here is the discovery that
this recession is "mysteriously" picking up speed:
We all know the acceleration brought about when
a "motion" is being acted on by a force (Newton);
but an expanding universe model claims the Hubble
Constant means the galaxies are going against
the only known force acting throughout the universe
(gravity)... for us to now suddenly discover that the
recession of the galaxies is actually accelerating
"as if" a force were being acted on that is rather
liable to push some expanding universe advocates
into nutty proposals (such as, oh, I don't know...
that it's being caused by some "funny energy" or
"oddball matter" which acts in the opposite way
gravity acts, you name it). In this context, it
behooves me to point out that the model of an
imploding universe actually demands that the force
of gravity be THE (one and only) force driving
(and constantly acting on) the recession of the
galaxies. (see  web.sdrodrian.com ) And therefore
that recession MUST be found to be accelerating.

>>In any case, by now (whenever) the universe of matter is
>>"shrinking through" the universe of energy... leaving behind
>>that energy which it's using (up) to fuel its existence. The
>>more it shrinks the less energy it has, but the less energy
>>it needs to use (and now you understand why the universe of
>>matter may not only be a lot older than previously imagined
>>but will probably "go on and on" a lot longer than we might
>>possibly dream it could "exist"). And, what happens after it
>>ceases to exist? Well, the universe of energy will still remain
>>intact, and so too the laws of thermodynamics.
>>
>>Only one... "moral" question remains: Does the primordial
>>Singularity implode exactly the same way every time? If it does
>>(if it's truly homogenous before it implodes) then we must relive
>>our lives exactly and identically every time the universe of
>>matter reaches us, over and over again and again throughout
>>eternity (see essay at: http://theory.findhere.com  which I wrote
>>many years ago, contemplating exactly this "remote" possibility).
>>
>
> And if this is the case and as you postulate in previous postings to
> this newsgroup and others; if everything is collapsing at exactly
> proportional rates how is it possible to measure such things as every
> measuring device would therefore logically be reducing itself at the
> same rate.

I get the meaning your statement above is trying to hint at: And
the answer is that... no instrument (as we commonly understand
that term) can do so. However, the human mind is our greatest
and finest instrument... and with that instrument we may probe
far, far beyond even the merely physical aspects of existence.

>> Best,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> answer.findhere.com
>> web.sdrodrian.com
>> www.sdrodrian.com
>> www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> Sailed off the edge of the world recently?

Always, my fellow: There are things there
undreamt of in your philosophy. The willingness
to consider more... is what enriches life.

> or did the fact that it was
> banana-shaped mean that you ended up
> roughly where you thought you
> ought to be?

Yes! Indeed! I always seem to end up
having to feed bananas to the monkeys
... right here.

SDR

> Regards
>
> Marcus
>
>

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8oq0ru$f5b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <26244-39A68228-34@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<137-39AA67DC-12@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<8oe5pt$ikv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <399A5078.4BE98C23@onr.com>
<8ojsaf$b14$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <2b23d7cd.ba64e1e3@usw-ex0109-069.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x54.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.119
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 02 04:49:07 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 <2b23d7cd.ba64e1e3@usw-ex0109-069.remarq.com>,
John <Jo10bi12NOJoSPAM@aol.com.invalid> wrote:

> You say that the universe was at one time nothing but
> energy.

Actually, that's all it's ever been or can be: Existence
is all that has ever existed, exists, and will ever exist.
"If, in order to exist, existence would have had to have
a beginning... it could not exist," (meaning that "something
cannot come out of nothingness"). Existence exists, therefore
it has always existed. [Albeit, as you will see... It might
be the better part of wisdom to merely think of it as:
"nothing exists" and let it go at that.]

> The generally accepted definition of "energy"
> is: "the ability to do work".

You left out "in our universe" (the universe of matter,
that is): And that is precisely what the universe of energy
does... its "work" is (becomes) matter: matter-less energy
is vectorless--you could even describe it as "repulsive"
and therefore capable of "defining" an unimaginably huge
volume: What would there "be" to stop it doing so? What could
possibly limit it? [Think of a growing volume with literally
"nothing" in it... growing in limitless voids.] But there are
no infinities in nature, and at some point it (or a part of
it) becomes as "stretched out" as the proverbial rubber band
... and manifests gravity (or, "a" flow/vector/current). [At
some point it ceases to be homogeneous as it becomes too large
for all its "parts" to continue agreeing in harmony.] And it
is enough for the slightest difference to arise to give the
laws of thermodynamics the opening they need to create a
catastrophic collapse of that primordial harmony throughout
(the "rubber band" will snap back, so to speak) into currents
(vectors)... Gravity is nothing more than [the means of again
harmonizing the whole] that same primordial energy which first
built up its potential... now flowing from a place of higher
value to one of lower value again: The highest amount of matter
which will ever exist is created by gravity at first and then
gravity immediately begins to return the energy which it gave
to matter in the first place back to the universe of energy
(from where it came). The universe of energy (infinite scalar
mass) remains (in) "absolute rest" while matter "moves" away
from it (shrinks as its energy is siphoned out of its forms).
Remember always: All the forms of matter are only "gravitational
systems" ("mere motion" in which energy is "conserved" for a
while)...

> Who or what actually did the
> work involved in creatind the universe as we know it??
> Are we to assume that the universe is and / or was nothing
> but ability??
> Regards,
> John

You are trying to work backwards FROM a strictly human bias:
The first thing you have to understand is that the physicality
of matter is an illusion. Run your finger over a piece of
marble and it feels solid, but this is only an illusion created
by the chemistry of the electromagnetic forces which make
the atoms in the marble and in your fingers stick together
(neither you nor the marble are fundamental forms of matter,
and neither are the atoms, nor their constituent subparticles
ad infinitum). The "fundamental" truth is that all matter is
mere "motion." And here, in this sense, to insist one cannot
have "motion without something moving" remains forever self-
defeating (because everything is made of motion). Therefore
the meaning is and ever will remain that the universe does not
"understand" what you're talking about when you inquire of it
about "solid matter" ... and, perhaps justly so, as we ourselves
may never really "understand" what the universe is telling us
about the "force" of gravity/energy (which, in the end, is the
only fundamental "thing" the universe "knows"). So if you ask:
"What particle mediates the flow of gravity/energy?" That is
a meaningless question to the universe (even if we do invent
the mathematical (theoretical) quantity of a strictly mythical
"graviton" ... strictly, for our own amusement).

Hope this helps "some,"

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
web.sdrodrian.com
www.sdrodrian.com
www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8ojsbc$b2p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <26244-39A68228-34@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<137-39AA67DC-12@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <8oe5pt$ikv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<399A5078.4BE98C23@onr.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.220
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Aug 30 20:55:18 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/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)

In article <399A5078.4BE98C23@onr.com>,
root <tcobb@onr.com> wrote:
>>
>
> I apologize if this note seems off subject, but I was intrigued by the
> header "Why doth the Photon move at all?"
> Perhaps it doesn't, at least from the perspective of the photon.

You do not know how right you might be!
See: web.sdrodrian.com

> If one
> accepts (as I do) the general precepts of Einstein's theory of special
> relativity,  from the photon's viewpoint there is no distance between
> the point of its generation and the point of its absorption by . . .
> whatever.  I have read that if one had a spaceship that could
> accelerate
> at 1g that the occupants could (assuming they commenced deaccelerating
> at midpoint) reach the core of the milky way galaxy in 20 years
> (ship's
> time).  Of course,  since the core of the galaxy is much more than 20
> light years from earth the only way this can happen, from the
> perspective of the people on the spacecraft,  is that the distance of
> objects  in the direction of travel diminishes as one approaches the
> speed of light.  Taken to the extreme.

That is already extreme enough! What you've stumbled across
is Fitzgerald's infamous delusion that matter contracts in
the direction of its motion [Einstein accepted this as true
and thereby set the speed of light as the maximum speed
allowed because any speed higher would require that matter
contract below zero, a physical impossibility, of course.
Fitzgerald proposed this Alice-in-wonderland solution when
he found that the speed of light measured the same regardless
of which direction he measured it (whether with or against
the earth's spin). Einstein accepted Fitzgerald's nutty
proposition NOT because there could ever be "proof" of it,
but because Lorentz DID prove that the mass of a charged
particle does increase with velocity (and the "numbers"
seem to reflect a corollary between the two effects).] But
this was really Einstein's true greatest blunder (there's
a slew of tantalizing hints of greater than c velocities
currently being discussed); and this shows that The Great Man
was human after all.

> that is the speed of light, as a photon does,  there is no distance
> between generation and absorption.  All interactions are essentially
> simultaneous.

You're also mixing in the common superstition that Time
has any meaning (existence) outside the human mind: We
measure time as one arbitrary motion against another
arbitrary motion only: The universe is a closed system
in which chaos has broken out (chaos in this sense is
a huge number of independent motions, each one of which
is at any given moment either speeding up or slowing down
... and if you set your watch to any one of them you will
eventually discover that your synchronization is forever
falling apart). Only Newton's laws of motion have any
meaning in this chaos: One motion may be sped up or
slowed down by some other motion (with repercussions to
that "other motion" as well, of course).

> At least for photons, this might explain the "spooky action at a
> distance" phenomenon.

START QUOTE:

In article <8893-39AC2F59-64@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>
> Hi S.D.Rodrian  That thought you have with quarks
> liking to stay close
> does not cut it with like charges.

Not my thought, Herb. It's called "asymptotic freedom."
A term used to describe "the observed decrease in the intrinsic
strength of the color force between quarks as they are brought
closer together. At asymptotically small separations, the quarks
are virtually free. This is in contrast to the electromagnetic
force whose intrinsic strength increases as two charged particles
approach each other. This is an Orwellian liberty enjoyed by
quarks, which move freely when close together but are reined in
by an increasingly powerful strong nuclear force whenever they
begin to drift apart. [e.g. A force of interaction between
particles is said to be asymptotically free if it becomes
weaker as the energy of the interacting particles increases.]
Empirically the force between-quarks in a proton or neutron
is found to be asymptotically free, a feature that can be
explained by assuming that the force is described by a Yang-Mills
theory." The quotation is from the so-called Astronomical Glossary
at: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_A.html

My own application to gravitational theory is analogous.
And you could put it this way: The "force" of gravity is
understood as a "flow" of energy "out" of "matter" (not into
other matter, which would be a "conservation" of energy, but)
into a dissipation across "space" (or into so-called infinite
scalar mass). This explains why gravity "seems" to be able
to act at "infinite" distances: Apply Newton's laws of motion,
and "matter" is really being "pulled" into space even if there
isn't other matter close by; the practical effect of which is
to "close the gap/space" between matter. (And when there IS
other matter close by then the "pull" increases even more as
the two masses of matter establish an exchange of gravitational
energy. Anthropomorphically, you could say that "quarks" seek
each other and when three of them find themselves together
they become a new particle (the exchange of energy between
them becomes to harmoniously that it is "conserved" ... as
all matter "seeks" to best conserve its energy). [It is only
at the level of "proximity" experienced by quarks in the
proton and neutron, say, that one might see asymptotic freedom
develop. EM] But by this analogy one may apprehend why it
impossible for a single quark, say, to exist anywhere in
the universe for long. The electricity analogy being that the
current of energy/gravity always seeks the path of least
resistance. [Is there a "mediating" "particle" for gravity?
The question is moot for us because we will always understand
"particles" in terms of "gravitational systems" so much
"bigger" than any possible "graviton" that any "true" graviton
is likely to forever elude any human attempt to quantify it
--It might be billions of times "smaller" even than a Planck
length and thus better simply described as the theoretical
minimum unit of a "force."]

Why can't the "flow" be "into" matter? Because even the
smallest imaginable value for any so-called "gravitational
constant" would result not in a gently expanding universe
but in a violently exploding one (and matter could not exist
in such a universe). Never mind explaining a mechanism that
creates energy from nothingness!

The implications are: There has to have been a "time" when
the universe was ONLY energy, so that the laws of thermodynamics
could have "created" matter (since matter immediately begins to
return/lose/dissipate its energy... and the sum history of matter
is an eternal struggle to conserve its energy... forever doomed to
succeed but temporarily). Such a homogeneously "expanding" universe
of energy would be able to achieve a volume quite beyond human
imagination (so that when it turned in on itself--manifested
gravity--the amount of matter it was able to produce was also
"quite substantial" ... which speaks for the idea that "our"
universe, the universe of matter, is probably a lot older than
we give it credit for being, and will probably last a lot longer
than we imagine). But, also, this means that the universe of
matter, however long it lasts, is in the end but a momentary
(dissipating) ripple running across the universe of energy. And
that existence is ALL that exists and ONLY that: All that
existed and all that will exist is/are but the identically same
thing in different forms/shapes.

END QUOTE

> If, from the photon's perspective, it doesn't
> go
> anyplace at all, any photon that it is "entangled" with is still right
> there, so to speak.
> They are not really reacting with one another simultaneously from
> across
> vast distances, from their perspective they are still very physically
> connected to one another.  They haven't gone anywhere, despite what an
> outside observer might see.

BEFORE trying out fantastic mind-blowing explanations,
it is always better to consider the most direct and
transparent ones. THEY are, for the most part, the ones
most likely to be correct.

S D Rodrian
answer.findhere.com
sdrodrian.com
web.sdrodrian.com
 

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

From: SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Why doth the Photon move at all?
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8oruia$g3d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <26244-39A68228-34@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<137-39AA67DC-12@storefull-135.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <8oe5pt$ikv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<399A5078.4BE98C23@onr.com> <8ojsaf$b14$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<2b23d7cd.ba64e1e3@usw-ex0109-069.remarq.com> <8oq0sh$f5e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8oqilf$c3b$4@lure.pipex.net> <8oqvst$f92$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8orlqa$5bc$1@lure.pipex.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x58.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.101
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Sep 02 22:22:15 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 <8orlqa$5bc$1@lure.pipex.net>,
"franz heymann" <franz.heymann@care4free.net> wrote:
>
> SDRodrian <Don_Quixote@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8oqvst$f92$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8oqilf$c3b$4@lure.pipex.net>,
>>   "franz heymann" <franz.heymann@care4free.net> wrote:
>>> Please make up your mind which newsgroup
>>> to use for conducting this
>>> conversation.
>>> (Preferably not sci.physics.particle, as the particle physics
>>> content is
>>> negligible)  In sci.physics.particle it
>>> appears as an unintelligible
>>> monologue conducted by one SDRodrian.
>>>
>>> F.F. Heymann
>>
>> In that case, Mr. Heymann, if you cannot understand it
>> please do not stick your nose in it: You are committing
>> the very sophomoric mistake every baboon makes of
>> believing that simply because you cannot understand it
>> it cannot be understood by actual people.
>>
>> Most of our discussion here has had to do with
>> particle physics, in fact: A fact which would have
>> been readily apparent to you... if you were able to
>> understand what we are talking about.
>
> Mr. Rodrian, in case you haven't noticed, all
> that has lately appeared in
> sci.physics.particle in this thread, apart
> from my previous complaint, is an
> unbroken sequence of 7 posts, all in your
> name.  If the whole thread had
> appeared here, I might have been able to
> follow it.

Although yours is a naively self-serving boast,
you obviously are too dense to realize that my posts
are answering previous posts (hint: the previous
posts are INCLUDED in my posts). If you cannot even
understand something as simple as that, I prey you, sir:
Cease and desist sticking your nose in discussion to
which you are not competent enough to add anything to
(there are plenty of comic books and romance novels
out there to fascinate and entertain someone of your...
intellectual and educational "limitations"). Read those.

> Admittedly with
> difficulty, because crap is difficult to swallow
> if you don't have a taste
> for it.

I must take your word for that, sir. Perhaps
you will follow up your field of expertise and
personal experience with a "tasteful" article
in alt.crap.eating ...?

> Your latest post, for example,
> contains items with no less than 6
> ">>>>>>" with no indication of who said what.
> How am I supposed to know who
> is saying what to whom"

> Franz Heymann

Sir, sir! Although I sympathize with your love for
celebrities and their prattle (no doubt), a scientific
"fact" does not care who establishes it--it is either
correct or not: If it is your superstition that some
fact or other you read in these newsgroups is incorrect
"everyone" would appreciate your reasons why it is your
superstition it's so. But I appreciate that you are not
interested in the matters we are discussing and would
rather merely root against this or that poster (incapable
as you obviously are of contributing anything of interest
or value on the subject--judging from the sum total of
you contribution to this 1 thread)... therefore, could you
please refrain from merely posting your asinine opinion
of which poster you love and which you hate: Your "merely"
emotional partisanship is a needless distraction (and,
besides which, you are obviously too slow-witted a fellow
to even so much as notice that this thread has pretty much
run its course and it is only sheer wicked playfulness
keeping it alive even unto this very post). Please... The
"argument from authority" has throughout human history
been the principal cause of most of the ills mankind has
been forced to endure: So, sir, it's time to let go of it.

Think before you post,

S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
wisdom.findhere.com
answer.findhere.com

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

INDEX