NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction
Robert Irion, SCIENCE Vol.300 April 11,03 pg.233
Do Some Galaxies Lack Shrouds of Dark Matter?
Slow-moving planetary nebulae on the outskirts of M105
suggest the galaxy has no dark matter. [illustration]
In a challenge to the idea that all galaxies
contain
far more mass than meets the eye, a novel
survey has
turned up three galaxies that seem barren
of cocoons of
dark matter.
[What will obviously have to be explained is the existence
of these galaxies WITHOUT "dark matter" given the assertion
by dark-matterers that the visible galaxies are like the
foam on a glass of beer (first the beer and then the foam).
Well, here's three foams without no beer, dear intoxicant
dark-matter barflies. SDR]
"This is surprising, and we're a little puzzled
about
it," says astronomer Aaron Romanowsky of the
University
of Nottingham, U.K. But other researchers
say it will
take stronger evidence to change their minds
about how
massive galaxies form.
[You think! The entire damaged structure of a branch of
science is poised upon a rotten trunk and is about to fall
... very likely hitting a number of squirrels squarely
"where they live." And good riddance: It's only by burning
away the old growth that new growth may live--and more often
than not this is accomplished by a bolt of lightning. SDR]
For decades, astronomers have gauged the heft
of
galaxies by examining how fast they spin.
In spiral
galaxies like our Milky Way, gas clouds far
from the
galactic center orbit at the same rapid pace
as those
in the inner sections. That points to a strong
gravitational pull in the outskirts--far stronger
than
stars and gas alone can produce. Astronomers
explained
the motions by invoking massive shrouds of
dark matter,
containing perhaps 10 times more mass than
we can see.
[In an expanding universe "model" all these notions/nonsense
of ghostly "dark matter" and later "dark energy" may be
needed to make the observed facts fit in with the mistaken
theory that it's all happening in an expanding/exploding
universe (along with twisted/demented explanations for
EVERYTHING from the constancy of c in identical mediums to
the nakedly creationist/magic Big Bang theories)... when the
truth is that ALL WE SEE is all happening inside an
imploding universe--employing which model makes the observed
facts self-evident & perfectly natural/inevitable. visit:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com SDR]
That technique fails for the giant, featureless
blobs
of stars called elliptical galaxies. Ellipticals
have
little gas, so astronomers must try to track
the
motions of their stars. That's hard to do
when
starlight grows faint in a galaxy's outskirts.
An
alternate method, as Romanowsky reported this
week at
the U.K./lreland National Astronomy Meeting
in Dublin,
Ireland, relies on locating planetary nebulae.
These
puffs of gas, which middleweight stars like
our sun
eject at the ends of their lives, are full
of excited
oxygen atoms that make them shine like beacons
at a
single green wave-length. By measuring the
motions of
the nebulae, astronomers can trace the overall
distributions of mass far from the galaxies'
centers.
Using a specialized spectrograph at the 4.2-meter
William Herschel Telescope in La Palma, Canary
Islands,
Romanowsky colleagues have discovered three
galaxies
that contain scores of surprisingly slow-moving
nebulae
in their remote outer regions. That dawdling
pace
suggests that no hidden mass tugs the nebulae
along.
"There's nowhere near as much dark matter
as one would
expect, and the motions are consistent with
no dark
matter at all," says team member Michael Merrifield,
also at the University of Nottingham.
Other scientists are intrigued but skeptical.
Only
ironclad data will make astrophysicists believe
that
ellipticals are naked, says Joshua Bames of
the
University of Hawaii, Manoa. Many planetary
nebulae, he
notes, may swoop through space on highly elongated
orbits that only make it appear as if their
galaxies
lack dark-matter shrouds.
Still, astronomers are taking note--especially
those
who control access to the Canary Islands telescopes.
"They were sufficiently shocked and horrified
by what
we were finding," says Merrifield, that they
gave his
group's proposal the highest ranking for more
observing
time. The team expects to study 22 more ellipticals
within 2 years.
SDR: Under "dark matter" theory it would not be all that
surprising to find collections of "dark matter" without any
visible galaxy; but visible galaxies without any dark matter
at all are almost as unacceptable to dark matter theory as
gravity-less stars/planets. Yet, still deluded/misled by
erroneous inflationary models, theorists continue to think
up warped/twisted explanations to fit mistaken models of the
universe. [THEIR unreachable hurdle has been with us since
the time of the Greeks: the eternally stubborn conviction
that there are forms of matter that can never be "split"
inspite of ALL we have learned in the past century!] It
never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent persons
can seriously propose such a contradictory model as the dark
matter/dark energy one: 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter
still leaves us with a 50% dark energy universe after they
(ought to but don't) cancel themselves out. And such a
universe would still blow up exactly as the earliest quantum
equations would have it do (with even less "dark energy"
pumped into the equations... while yet leaving the spin of
galaxies as baffling as ever.
AGAIN: The explanation for the observable galactic spin IN
our imploding universe is the dynamics of such galactic spin
INSIDE an imploding universe (given, yes, the huge distances
taken up by these galaxies AND the balance in our imploding
universe between its "absolute implosion" and the Hubble
Constant--the creation of space/distance, which see below)
AND NOT any proposed "dark matters." Otherwise spiral
galaxies would NOT exist at all, and instead we would have
supermassive black holes with clearly-defined "rings" of
stars--exactly like the rings of Saturn... for the same
reasons those (so very stable) rings came about and live.
And the explanation for the observed Hubble Constant (the
apparent "motion" of galaxies away from each other faster
with distance) is because in our imploding universe ALL
visible matter is imploding AT EVERY LEVEL of its
organization (BECAUSE E=MC^2 does not cease to be true at
some imagined fundamental level)... thereby relativistically
"creating" space/distance between themselves even as the
entire universe itself implodes in a profoundly absolute way
we may never fully understand... here, inside the univierse.
Recent COBE and WMAP data only "proves" this even more
strongly and thoroughly than ever: To put it so simply that
even ants will be able to understand this: "The smaller an
explosion the more structural;y homogeneous the organization
of its results will be."
As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a
"singular" Big Bang episode (and demands impossible warped
and twisted explanations placing galaxies within 1/2 billion
years from the Big Bang, among other things). HOwever, our
cosmos is completely consistent with a universe that
"begins" with/from an "infinite" (for our purposes here)
spatial expanse and over unimagiably immense distances of
time (not just 13 lousy billion years) contracts (or,
implodes) into what we "see" today.
Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe IN
SPITE OF THE COBE/WMAP RESULTS [Now, from the Roentgen
Satellite, or ROSAT (an X-ray astronomy instrument has been
mapping the sky with a sensitivity/resolution far superior
to previous X-ray instruments)... START QUOTE: ROSAT has
detected extended blobs of X-ray emission that lie between
the discrete X-ray sources. Hasinger* and Truemper* propose
that these blobs are actually clusters of quasars so distant
that ROSAT cannot separate the emissions of individual ones.
Assuming the universe is about 13 billion years old, these
clusters appear to be some eight to 10 billion light-years
distant and 15 to 30 million light-years across. This is
troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]
No kidding.
But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
"dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. It's almost as if
their greatest fear is that were the universe to be
explained in all its elegance once and for all... they might
lose their jobs. And, unfortunately, their jobs happen to
converge with their authority. [Might be why the greatest
changes seem to happen with the changing of the guard.]
S D Rodrian
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
* One of the goals of the mapping has been to resolve the
X-ray background into discrete components and determine
their nature. On January 15 at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in Philadelphia, Joachim
Truemper and Guenther Hasinger of the Max Planck Institute
for Extraterrestrial Physics told scientists that ROSAT had
revealed far more quasars than could be detected before
--about 100 quasars per square degree. This implies the
presence of about four million quasars over the whole sky,
enough to account for 40 percent of the X-ray background,
Hasinger estimates.
***********************************************
From: Rodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.philosophy
Subject: Re: NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian
prediction
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:57:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 257
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <e4651058.0307121301.570d2065@posting.google.com>
References: <e4651058.0307101616.37f9107f@posting.google.com>
<bemko9$soc@library2.airnews.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1058043450 38713 128.100.83.246
(12 Jul 2003 20:57:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:57:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.37.211.85
"dustbird" <dustbird@cross.wind> wrote in message news:
<bemko9$soc@library2.airnews.net>...
> > And the explanation for the observed Hubble Constant (the
> > apparent "motion" of galaxies away from each other faster
> > with distance) is because in our imploding universe ALL
> > visible matter is imploding AT EVERY LEVEL of its
> > organization (BECAUSE E=MC^2 does not cease to be true at
> > some imagined fundamental level)... thereby relativistically
> > "creating" space/distance between themselves even as the
> > entire universe itself implodes in a profoundly absolute way
> > we may never fully understand... here, inside the universe.
>
> I don't understand it. If the galaxies are stretching further
apart,
> creating an illusion of expansion,
It is not "just" an illusion but really happening: The galaxies
really ARE racing away from each other. See below.
> does this mean that the galaxies are
> speeding up as they get closer to the "center"?
Whether in the Big Bang model or in my own Imploding
Universe model... any talk of a "center" is beside the point:
Think of galaxies in the universe as a mass of bunched kids'
marbles... in either model they are all moving away from
each other at the same velocity so that no matter where
you are inside the universe (usually on one of those galaxies)
any marble twice as far will appear to be receding twice
as fast; but you can see how hard it would be to ascertain
an absolute center.
There are many problems with the Big Bang model, not least
of which is that it doesn't explain anything (the origin of matter
itself). And that it makes it appears to be a gigantic stoke of
luck that we have come into existence within the "small"
lifetime of this BB universe. [A major problem as well is that
the layout of our cosmos is very lumpy (not very uniform at all),
makes it hard to account for its evolution from the supposed
homogenous "bunched mass" of the Big Bang from which it
supposedly began.]
By contrast, the Imploding Universe model begins from a spatial
mass too huge to even begin to speculate about its immensity. It's
just a "sheerness" of existence so close to "nothingness" as to
defy our ability to tell them apart. But however you wish to look
at it (sheerness OR nothingness), THAT was/is/ever will be the
entire essence of existence: All you need to understand now is how
hard it is for such a huge expanse to maintain a homogenous
pressure (temperature) throughout, and this must tell you that as
soon as there is a difference in values... a current must flow from
the region of higher pressure/temperature to the regions of lower
pressures/temperatures. This is what we normally understand to
be (behind) energy: And once it manifests it is extremely difficult
to make an end to it---it will tend to shift from one form to another
(like those toy rows of hanging balls you strike with the left-most
only to watch as only the right-most seems to respond to the force).
[You can propose a "graviton" for the "flow" of gravity, but this
is misleading because matter as we understand it is many, many
generations apart from the nature of the "true" graviton... as
evidenced from the fact that gravity is unaffected by nuclear activity
and works as well for/from a black hole as for a hydrogen atom.]
In the same manner the "primordial force" trying to achieve
equilibrium in that spatial mass will tend to overshoot its mark
and concentrate itself: That concentration is the germ of our
universe of matter. It will immediately respond back, only too late:
It will forever continue to concentrate (implode) even as it
"returns" the energy it's been given back into the surrounding
spatial mass. [The concentration of energy "creates" matter,
its return to "spatial mass" creates "space." Which see below.]
At this point you can call it a defused cloud forever imploding.
And as it implodes, gravity (really only a current, just as electricity
is a current) will tend to tear the cloud apart into discreet pieces
(thereby for the first time "creating" spaces/distances inside the
universe--the cloud). The "bits" of cloud matter are beginning to
organize themselves. And this process will continue across many
generations of organization until we end up where we now are:
All that we are, all that we can "touch" is the universe of weak
force/electromagnetism poised between the universe of strong
force subparticles and the extremely weak gravity universe of
stars/galaxies: We shall never be able to go down beyond the
subparticles of matter, by definition, and we shall never be able
to step outside our universe... except with our imagination.
But this we can know: The process is an evolution of the
organization of matter and NOT a magical fountain sprouting
the universe from some mythical Big Bang already fully armed.
[Born from this immense expanse, and having evolved over
unimaginable ages, the cosmic lack of uniformity we see in our
universe is rather to be expected.]
Its two salient points are: The organization of matter AND the
creation of space/distance between its forms/bits of matter. The
creation of ANY space at all immediately tell you that by necessity
the former comes first. This is of importance because it will forever
remain true (that is, regardless how fast all the "bits" of matter
attract each other ... their implosion/shrinking will outpace their
gravitational attraction just enough (on the micro level this will
hardly be noticeable, but with astronomical distances the effect
will become astronomically magnified into the Hubble constant:
the space/distances between the galaxies will be growing with such
absolute consistency that a galaxy twice as distant will always be
found to be receding twice as fast).
What is also happening in our imploding universe is that as it
"shrinks" it is consuming its energy (the Big Bang model is a never-
ending morass of violations of the energy-conservation law): But,
because our universe is really imploding, it is unlikely that we will
run out of energy any time soon: As in the children's paradox (in
which a runner of a finite length can yet never finish his run when
he
switches to running half as fast every time he gets half way to the
finish)... the universe is forever "shrinking" (requiring less energy
as it continues). It's as if the runner may be running faster and faster
with time but growing smaller and smaller. [The effect of this
"application of the force of gravity" in our universe was recently
discovered in the counter-intuitive (if you think ours is a BB universe)
find that the Hubble constant is accelerating: but now YOU, at least,
understand why it is that the acceleration of the universe is required
--by Newton's law that it is ONLY a force --here, gravity-- that produces
an acceleration.]
And now you know why "time" is absolutely relativistic: As the
universe continues to implode it is speeding up, and therefore it
is impossible to absolutely "relate" one of our "minutes" with a
"minute" from the long ago: To some god-like being looking at
the universe from its starting point (timing it by "his" stopwatch)
the entire lifetime of the universe would look like a firecracker
going off... while to such a being looking at the universe from its
"concluding end" it would appear like a stack of eternities: Their
stopwatches could never be reconciled under any compromise.
> But, if so, why have some
> astronomers concluded that the astronomical objects are
> speeding up in their
> expansion? Can't they tell the difference between
> expansion and contraction?
They indeed recently found was that it appears that the
expansion of the universe (they erroneously assume it is
expanding because at the beginning of the 20th Century
theorists assumed that the forms of matter (atoms) were
fundamental--or, that their subparticles were fundamental,
a superstition dating from the Greeks which is still the basis
of conventional theory to this day... as in string theory): they
recently found was that it appears that the expansion of the
universe is speeding up:
The inflationary theories for the universe say that some time
in the past there was a Big Bang which imparted enough
energy to the expansion of the universe... and that the universe
has been coasting ever since, slowed by gravity. There was an
ongoing controversy between gentlemen cosmologists who
thought there was enough mass in the universe to reverse the
expansion and create a big-crunch (remember they think matter
is fundamental and must therefore pile up in a Big Heap), and
other gentlemen cosmologists who thought the expansion must
continue forever because there just wasn't enough mass to the
universe for the Big Crunch to take place. Then came the
discovery that the so-called expansion is actually accelerating!
Well, since the reason why the Big Bang was assumed at all
(nobody saw it--well, some people claim they saw it, but you
know some people)... the reason the Big Bang was assumed at all
was because it was the only engine they could assume for the
expansion of the universe... an accelerating expansion meant
that there could be SOME OTHER ENGINE for the expansion
of the universe!!!! It means the Big Bang is irrelevant!!!! But,
since a lot of careers are based on "discoveries supporting the
Big Bang" ... all sorts of fantastical alternatives have been
proposed to be behind this acceleration (including a mysterious
"dark energy" ... which, for the life of me, I still can't exactly
explain why they haven't just replaced the Big Bang universe
model with the "dark energy" universe model... but I suppose
they will eventually--Big Bang and "dark energy" being equally
incompatible with the laws of physics/energy conservation but
theoretical equvalents--that is, the Big Bang magically creates
energy from a single point somewhere while "dark energy"
magically creates energy from every point everywhere... but
the distinction is pointless)
> > As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
> > structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a
> > "singular" Big Bang episode placing galaxies within 1/2 billion
> > years from the Big Bang, among other things). However, our
> > cosmos is completely consistent with a universe that
> > "begins" with/from an "infinite" (for our purposes here)
> > spatial expanse and over unimaginably immense distances of
> > time (not just 13 lousy billion years) contracts (or,
> > implodes) into what we "see" today.
>
> So everything began as a shell, like the surface of a sphere,
instead
> of from a point?
Sir, the only thing that ever begins from a point is an opinion.
> > Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
> > microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
> > uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe . This is
> > troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
> > hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
> > could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
> > existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
> > pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
> > Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]
>
> If everything begins in/from an unimaginably distant spatial expanse,
> then why are "clumpy/lumpy" galaxies and quasars suddenly acceptable?
Imagine an explosion beginning from a very tiny spot: It will have
very few features (or fewer than)... then imagine a whole building
exploding: Such an explosion will have a huge number of features
(sinks, toilets, tea cups flying every whichway). I assume you now
understand: The cosmos is horrifically full of complex and lumpy
features (galaxies are not uniformly distributed but strewn all over
the place with great featureless expanses surrounded by latticeworks
where gobs of galaxies are concentrated): and this suggests a messy
--unbalanced-- explosion. (An implosion is simply an explosion going
the other way, but you can see the distinction reflected in either
a more or less homogenous beginning and results.)
> Does
> this mean that a universe that began from some far distance did not
begin
> simultaneously?
Nature abhors a singularity.
> Then when did it "begin?"
See above: But remember that our notion of "beginning" does
not apply: Existence is never-ending. Existence does not properly
begin at some point, nor will it cease to exist at some other point:
Everything is in transition from one form to another form: There is
no "past that no longer exists" nor some "future which will come
into existence." The only thing that exists is existence: And Abe
Lincoln exists right here with us right now (although I don't think
they will let you see him). And that fellow which you will grow to
be
in the future?... Well, keep this is mind: You are what you eat.
> > But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
> > many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
> > out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
> > rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
> > "dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. >
>
> Right on! I'm working on it. Maybe if the universe is analyzed
> mathematically in terms of 4 or more spatial dimensions, then some
of this
> stuff might make more sense, even if it is perhaps impossible to
image
> visually?
Ours is a three-dimensional universe (this is strictly mathematical
short-hand, since there are an infinite number of directions). And
general/special relativity can be summed up as a slightly more refined
set of factors than "gravity pulls" and "you are here... now."
S D Rodrian
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
*****************************************
From: Rodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,gac.physics.astronomy,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Subject: Re: NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian
prediction
Date: 17 Jul 2003 14:35:56 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 505
Message-ID: <e4651058.0307171335.34a391df@posting.google.com>
References: <e4651058.0307101616.37f9107f@posting.google.com>
<bemko9$soc@library2.airnews.net> <bemlfo$6mv5c$1@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>
<ben3rm$i5f@library1.airnews.net> <3F126706.3000603@fy.chalmers.se>
<bev2o4$qdo@library2.airnews.net> <8ad2cfb3.0307150659.18172856@posting.google.com>
<bf1pa9$jgl@library2.airnews.net> <8ad2cfb3.0307160042.72b0b6ba@posting.google.com>
<en5ahvo25149cr70j8q4e1fppqeahm8e4m@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.221.30.167
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1058477756 27679 127.0.0.1
(17 Jul 2003 21:35:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jul 2003 21:35:56 GMT
Martyn Harrison <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<en5ahvo25149cr70j8q4e1fppqeahm8e4m@4ax.com>...
> From the title of the thread, "No Dark Matter" is more than just a
failed
> prediction, it is an ignorant one.
>
> Between the stars there is almost certainly material, at least something
like
> hydrogen gas. This is "dark matter". It's dark because it is not
emitting
> enough light for us to be able to see it. All the planets around
other stars
> are dark matter, black holes are dark matter.
>
> Basically, there is udoubtedly dark matter out there, the only debates
in
> proper astronomy are about how much there might be.
There unquestionably is much matter in space which is
not easily "seen" with telescopes (et cetera). But the
discussion here centers on the "dark matter" proposed to
"correct" the otherwise inexplicable anomalies seen in
the spin of galaxies. Perhaps you'd care to contribute
your own ideas (or interesting sources) on this subject.
SDR
re:
nick.keighley@marconi.com (Nick Keighley) wrote in message
news:<8ad2cfb3.0307140633.6f1245da@posting.google.com>...
> Rodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR) wrote in message news:<e4651058.0307121301.570d2065@posting.google.com>...
> > "dustbird" <dustbird@cross.wind> wrote in message
news:<bemko9
> > $soc@library2.airnews.net>...
> > > > And the explanation for the observed Hubble Constant (the
> > > > apparent "motion" of galaxies away from each other faster
> > > > with distance) is because in our imploding universe ALL
> > > > visible matter is imploding AT EVERY LEVEL of its
> > > > organization (BECAUSE E=MC^2 does not cease to be true at
> > > > some imagined fundamental level)... thereby relativistically
> > > > "creating" space/distance between themselves even as the
> > > > entire universe itself implodes in a profoundly absolute way
> > > > we may never fully understand... here, inside the universe.
>
> so if we measure the distance between points the distances get larger
> (because the measuring stick gets smaller). It appears we are in
an
> expanding universe even though it is actually shrinking. What operational
> test would you apply to distinguish your incredible shrinking universe
> from a big bang universe? Or in other words what measurement would
> you make to distinguish between the two universes?
Doing this is the key to finally spreading acceptance of the "true"
theory: That is, instead of trying to fit observations to a theory,
follow the theory's predictions wherever they lead. Inflationary
theory has led to contradictory interpretations and observations
which can only be "explained" by science fiction and magic (that
is, violations of the laws of physics). It's time to begin from an
implosion model and see where that leads. For example:
If a particle could be proposed which would have so little mass
that the pull of gravity would be infinitesimal (proportional to
its mass, obviously)... such a particle might illustrate the motions
of the "rest of the" matter which makes up the universe--by its
escaping all but the most infinitesimal effects of gravity: Happily,
such a particle actually exists in our universe. We call it the photon.
Because, like all the other particles, it too is a construct of matter,
it too is individually imploding exactly like all the other constructs/
particles of matter (i.e. individually shrinking). But because of its
infinitesimal mass, the photon does not "move" exactly as the
other (more massive) particles move--all of which particles are
"moving" collectively (the entirety of the universe) in the direction
of implosion (rather than right/left/up/down). Therefore the "speed"
at which a photon is "left behind" by this motion in the direction
of
implosion is also a measure (actually just a hint, for reasons not
requiring inclusion here) of the present speed at which the universe
is imploding.
Just note that (the upper limits of ) this "speed of light" is NOT
constant everywhere across the entire universe, but only CONSTANT
in identical mediums: This immediately tells us that when it's moving
through stronger/more resistant fields it's being dragged along/slowed
down. We see this effect in how light is slowed down when crossing
a
"heavy" medium and then speeding up after exiting the denser field
(seemingly violating conservation of energy law, if interpreted as
happening in an inflationary universe). But it self-evidently makes
no
such a violation, when viewed as happening in an imploding universe
model (in which it is not the photon that's moving at all but the rest
of the universe), when it has merely finished passing by/through a
stronger field and exited, newly freed of its "slowing/grabbing" effect.
A "closer" measurement of the imploding universe can be "seen"
in the gravitational instability it imparts to galactic structures:
If there indeed were "dark matter" causing the observed anomalies
in galactic spin... one would expect it to be at least as consistently
spread as other galactic matter (stars/dust clusters, et al): One
would then observe galaxies which would attain structures stable
enough to match those of solar systems (some of them no doubt
even developing "shepherding" black holes that would produce
stable "rings" of matter--not unlike the rings of Saturn).
Spirals
form because of gravitational instabilities in galaxies which are
undergoing implosion and their material is spread over distances
just large enough to be also displaying a tiny but significant Hubble
(constant) effect... An effect which makes the farthest stars/clouds
manifest their inability to escape the galaxy into a conservation of
their angular momentum--the same effect of the spinning skater
drawing his arms closer to his body: The outer stars do not fly off
from the galaxy yet still "speed up" ... and this instability sweeps
inwardly from the galactic outer regions, evidently NOT in an
absolutely stable gravitational curve (no pun) that creates the
"bunched up" sweeps of spiral galaxies (mixing faster with slower
moving objects). [Ellipticals and other atypical galaxies may be
explained by anomalies such as collisions or the galactic age/stage
of their evolution, but at least the implosion model does not have
to
account for a uniform law of gravitational stability ... which the
"dark matter" proposition does require but yet does not advance
--i.e. the crucial factor is that "dark matter" galaxies should not
produce spiral arms, implosion model galaxies must produce spirals.]
There are many such measurements which make the implosion
model and real-world observations mutually supporting. Real-world
observations not only do NOT support the Big Bang/inflationary
model but actually contradict it across an increasingly surprising
number of disciplines---forcing its acolytes into ever more twisted
and convoluted, counter-intuitive rationalizations to accommodate
the two together ... every one of them growing ever more and
more
logically warped/warping with time... "dark matter" / "dark energy"
... multi dimensions, string theory, time-travel and other nonsense
being just the latest mathematical-only "truths" advanced in support
of this demonically-(en)forced agreement.
> > There are many problems with the Big Bang model, not least
> > of which is that it doesn't explain anything (the origin of matter
> > itself).
>
> I don't think it was intended to.
At its roots, cosmology seeks to research the origins of the
cosmos. And the cosmos is made up of matter in all its forms.
The origin of the universe is the origin of the subatomic particles.
To understand something is to understand how it came about:
If you do not understand that, you're just a pictures-drawing
artist... and not a true scientist. [This is the failing of conventional
relativity: It is a very useful map, but cartographers can never
tell us how the Prussians came to be Prussians--I might agree
with you (conventional relativity is not incorrect). But I do not
think we should replace our scientific quest with elegant maps:
Conventional relativity fails as a forensic science and my interest
is in understanding the universe, not mapping it.]
> > [...] And that it makes it appears to be a gigantic stoke of
> > luck that we have come into existence within the "small"
> > lifetime of this BB universe.
>
> you think it more likely that we'd come into existence when the
> universe wasn't here?
The Big Bang model posits a "life time" of some 13 billion
years. This reminds me of when theorists used to believe that
the universe was 4,000 years old.
I say to you: Bunk! Posit 13 trillion years and then we'll discuss
it: This 13 billion years or so absolutist depiction of "time" defies
real-world observations about the effect of a continually-applied
force (gravity): which we are now "seeing" in the discovery that
the so-called (interpreted only) "expansion" of the universe as
speeding up! [Time is a human/arbitrary compromise/measurement
of any number of arbitrarily-picked local motions against some other
arbitrarily-picked motions... all of then necessarily picked from/in
the "present" .... but the motions of the universe, as you must
know by now from the hints provided by the speeding up Hubble
constant, are speeding up in ways which we can no longer assume
only apply to the Hubble constant: "Time" as we measure it
today is most probably impossible for us to relate to "time" many
billions of years ago or many billions of years from now. It would
be safer to assume that, if some "motions" of the universe (the
Hubble constant) are NOT stable across "time" then many more of
them are also not stable, and perhaps all of them are not stable. And
since we measure "time" by arbitrarily picking "this" motion and
"timing" it against some other such motions... "time" becomes
meaningless as soon as we start talking about applying it across
time.]
This "meaninglessness" of time has one crucial implication: It
tells us that the universe does not have to be "infinite" in order
for it to approximate infinity: Finally we have a model of existence
(the universe) which does not violate the conservation of energy law:
Think of it in terms of the old children's paradox (in which a runner
of a finite length can yet never finish his run when he switches to
running half as fast every time he gets half way to the finish)...
the
universe is likewise forever "shrinking" (requiring less energy as
it
continues). It's as if the runner may be forever running faster and
faster with time but also growing smaller and smaller. [The runner
himself does not know he is running faster, since "fast" is a "timing"
between motions which are adjusting (speeding and slowing all about
him in perfect harmony/agreement for the most part)... so it will seem
to him that the universe (his course, or lifetime) is a steady eternity,
or pretty close to it--although we "god-like" beings know it's not.]
It is only if he could check his watch against watches billions of
years old that he would realize that he had\is speeding up with time.
Yes, it will remain a seemingly finite distance to run. And looking
at the universe from the perspective of some god-like being
standing at the "beginning" of the universe... the entire lifetime
of the universe might seem like a flash in the night. But looking
back from the finish... it will seem an eternity: We will yet still
"vanish into nothingness" eventually (the universe really being
a finite quantity of energy/matter that is forever being spent)...
it's
just that you cannot take your present-day watch and glibly say,
"13 billion years from now" because your present-day watch can
not measure "past time" just as it can not measure "future time."
[Think clearly/clearly understand.] Apparently unsuspected by him:
the watch of the imploding little runner is speeding up exactly as
the so-called "expansion" of the universe is speeding up.
But whether you think of it in terms of "time" or in terms of the
Hubble constant: This means that 13 billion years (our billions) is
just a few "ancient" minutes (their minutes). And here only is
where an entire universe can finally fit quite comfortably within
the laws of physics... without pushing luck (coincidence) too far.
> > [...] [A major problem as well is that
> > the layout of our cosmos is very lumpy (not very uniform at all),
> > makes it hard to account for its evolution from the supposed
> > homogenous "bunched mass" of the Big Bang from which it
> > supposedly began.]
>
> look up inflation
Rather, smell it. That might not be your brain acting up.
> > By contrast, the Imploding Universe model begins from a spatial
> > mass too huge to even begin to speculate about its immensity.
>
> you think it's a long way to the chemists but...
You needn't get into hard drugs: Any anti-gas pill's do ya.
> > [...] It's
> > just a "sheerness" of existence so close to "nothingness" as to
> > defy our ability to tell them apart. But however you wish to look
> > at it (sheerness OR nothingness), THAT was/is/ever will be the
> > entire essence of existence: All you need to understand now is
how
> > hard it is for such a huge expanse to maintain a homogenous
> > pressure (temperature) throughout, and this must tell you that
as
> > soon as there is a difference in values... a current must flow
from
> > the region of higher pressure/temperature to the regions of lower
> > pressures/temperatures.
>
> right, so there was large expanse of space filled with lots of tenuous
> matter that collapsed into galaxies.
No, not "space" but a "mass" (infinitesimal maybe, but
substantial enough to make up the universe of matter).
> 1. where did the mass come from?
From pill-making: It's all a matter of squeezing structure
from available resources. [Hint: Most particles are "space."]
But seriously: Existence is all that exists (it's neither created
nor destroyed). Matter is, in our experience, the stuff we touch
(and so you're talking, E=MC^2, about stuff made up of so much
concentrated "primordial spatial mass" that there's really no
hope of us ever "touching" (upon) any of it). Therefore, it doesn't
really matter whether you speak of "something always having
existed" or say "our everything really consists of nothingness"
as long as you keep the notions constant and separate from each
other (that is: whatever exists has always existed; and Something
has never come into existence from Nothing, Something will
never become Nothingness).
You can still understand the mechanism that HAD TO have
produced matter (the part of the universe we can touch) by
understanding the laws of thermodynamics... and refusing to
let fools tell you that the laws of physics cease to apply
here/there.
> 2. why does this explain lumpiness better than conventional cosmology?
For the reasons discussed before: The imploding universe "begins"
from a larger region (already), and this will tend to be able to
achieve more "lumpiness" (a richer structure) than if it began
from a pin-prick area (Big Bang). Is this really that hard for you
to understand, old boy?!?! Once we started to find complex structures
within sight of the so-called Big Bang... it should've told so something.
> <snip, you go on a bit don't you?>
As long as you require me to go: It's really up to you, you know. [See,
this is why I'd shoot myself rather than go into the teaching profession!]
> > [You can propose a "graviton" for the "flow" of gravity, but this
> > is misleading because matter as we understand it is many, many
> > generations apart from the nature of the "true" graviton... as
> > evidenced from the fact that gravity is unaffected by nuclear activity
> > and works as well for/from a black hole as for a hydrogen atom.]
>
> what?
Think "evolution." From large and diffused, slow-moving
structures ... to tiny and concentrated, fast-moving ones.
Now you understand the only required principle to understand,
to grasp the reason why there is at all a universe.
Virtual particles in the present universe are those which are
so short-lived as to "seem" but virtual. [Remember our "clocks"
discussion? Well, the first generation or so of "particles" in
the new-minted universe that managed to organize themselves
into relatively stable existence... that was the generation of our
theoretical "gravitons." [Virtual particles that do not really
emerge from Nothingness, but which achieve stability long enough
to be said to "exist" ... The interplay of gravitons is beyond our
ability to understand: mysterious gravity at their level is a simple
matter of currents.] Everything is still made up of gravitons but
if you know anything about nuclear processes you know nuclear
processes takes place only among the top-most "nuclear" sub-
particles: This interplay of fission/fusion never affects those
theoretical "gravitons" (which is why gravity is unaffected by any
nuclear processes... and stars, moons, and black holes display
proportionate gravitational effects). "Currents" of those gravitons
are gravity. They're also something else in terms of quanta: Energy
"bits." But not "nuclear energy" ... the fundamental "energy" that
drives the "force" of gravity.]
> > The inflationary theories for the universe say that some time
> > in the past there was a Big Bang which imparted enough
> > energy to the expansion of the universe... and that the universe
> > has been coasting ever since, slowed by gravity. There was an
> > ongoing controversy between gentlemen cosmologists who
> > thought there was enough mass in the universe to reverse the
> > expansion and create a big-crunch (remember they think matter
> > is fundamental and must therefore pile up in a Big Heap), and
> > other gentlemen cosmologists who thought the expansion must
> > continue forever because there just wasn't enough mass to the
> > universe for the Big Crunch to take place. Then came the
> > discovery that the so-called expansion is actually accelerating!
>
> as I understand it there is a long range force (a form of gravity?)
> that is pushing things apart. Ok, sounds a bodge. But you are
left
> explaining why everything is getting smaller! Isn't that a greater
> bodge?
Think of the universe as the mother of all black holes: What
sort of structure would it have? Look about you: That's it.
The universe is imploding, but because the forms of matter are
NOT fundamental (fundamentally as solid as a glass marble is
to us) they are all in flux ("evenly" losing gravitons): Yes the
universe as an absolute whole is shrinking, but at the level of
every construct of matter inside it. This means that to us here
inside the universe... everything will seem to remain pretty
much the same relatively.
Simply put: The laws of universal gravitation/motion forced a
thermodynamic current to crash at some point (it could only crash
against itself) into a structure we call the universe. And the same
laws of motion/gravitation are now everywhere squeezing out
the gravitons that are its bricks in currents we clumsily know only
as "the effects of gravity." Eventually we shall run out of gravitons
(bricks) and the universe will cease to exist as matter (that super-
concentrated structure, E=MC^2, built of the primordial bricks).
But meanwhile, because this "squeezing out" is occurring from
every bit of matter at every level of its organization, relative to
every other bit of matter in the universe... every last/least bit of
it
will forever "appear" to remain the same "size" and pretty much
at the same "place." Until such a time as there simply will not be
enough graviton bricks to keep up the appearances (although by
then it shall be too late... and the universe will be populated by
abysmally-distant/diffused bits of whatever "matter stuff" remains.
The one great hint of what's happening comes from the fact that
once the primordial spatial mass began to obey the normal laws
of motion/gravitation ... it began to tear itself apart into discreet
"bits" (or particles, if you wish), necessarily creating "space" (really
nothing more elaborate than "distance" between themselves). [And,
as anyone with the least amount of intelligence must realize: If all
the "bits" of matter are creating space between themselves at the
same rate... then any "bit" twice as far from us will be creating twice
as much space between us as another "bit" half as distant from us
is creating between that "bit" and us: The farther apart any two
"bits" of matter are... the more "space" (distance) there has to be
between them. This is a process that has never ceased across all
the generations of matter organization and can be seen with great
awe today magnified by astronomical distances into the "Hubble
constant" (particular generations of matter constructs, or particles,
may put the process on temporary hold or slow it down but should
not stop it altogether... because of conservation or energy reasons).]
This is also the beginning of chaos and the "lumpiness" of matter
distribution across the cosmos.
> > Well, since the reason why the Big Bang was assumed at all
> > (nobody saw it--well, some people claim they saw it, but you
> > know some people)... the reason the Big Bang was assumed at all
> > was because it was the only engine they could assume for the
> > expansion of the universe... an accelerating expansion meant
> > that there could be SOME OTHER ENGINE for the expansion
> > of the universe!!!! It means the Big Bang is irrelevant!!!! But,
> > since a lot of careers are based on "discoveries supporting the
> > Big Bang"
>
> no. As distance increases red shift increases. It appears things
> are moving apart.
I shall never understand the inability of some people to fail
to understand something as simple as the fact that the implosion
model explains HOW and WHY the galaxies are moving apart
and does NOT say they aren't moving apart!
Sir: The galaxies really ARE moving apart. The red-shift is
real and is but one more proof the implosion model is true.
> And the further apart they are the faster they
> are separating. This means that is the past they were closer together
> than they are now. This leads to greater and greater densities
> as you go back in time. This is why the BB. I notice you havn't
> mentioned Cosmological Background Radiation. BB has an explanation.
> Do you?
START QUOTE
Recent COBE and WMAP data only "proves" this even more
strongly and thoroughly than ever: To put it so simply that
even ants will be able to understand this: "The smaller an
explosion the more structurally homogeneous the organization
of its results will be." [Explosion/implosion are here equal.]
As all astronomers know... our cosmos is about as lumpy as a
structure can get. This is absolutely inconsistent with a "singular"
pin-prick Big Bang episode (and demands impossible warped
and twisted explanations placing galaxies within 1/2 billion years
from the Big Bang, among other things). However, our cosmos
is completely consistent with a universe that "begins" with/from
an "infinite" (for our purposes here) spatial expanse and over
unimaginably immense distances of time (not just 13 lousy billion
years) contracts (or, implodes) into what we "see" today.
Sure enough: The COBE and WMAP "picture" of the cosmic
microwave background radiation show a universe nowhere as
uniform as Big Bang theorists would have you believe IN
SPITE OF THE COBE/WMAP RESULTS [the Roentgen
Satellite, or ROSAT (an X-ray astronomy instrument has been
mapping the sky with a sensitivity/resolution far superior
to previous X-ray instruments)... START QUOTE: ROSAT has
detected extended blobs of X-ray emission that lie between
the discrete X-ray sources. Hasinger* and Truemper* propose
that these blobs are actually clusters of quasars so distant
that ROSAT cannot separate the emissions of individual ones.
Assuming the universe is about 13 billion years old, these
clusters appear to be some eight to 10 billion light-years
distant and 15 to 30 million light-years across. This is
troubling news for cosmologists. They already have their
hands full explaining how clumpy structures of galaxies
could have evolved from a presumably smooth big bang. The
existence of large, organized clusters of quasars "would
pose an even bigger problem for big bang cosmology,"
Hasinger notes. END QUOTE]
No kidding.
But let's not doubt for an moment that there are already
many superbly mediocre theorists working overtime to spew
out of their "dark" little minds explanations and other
rationalizations as magnificently twisted and warped as the
"dark energy" and "dark matter" ones. It's almost as if
their greatest fear is that were the universe to be explained
in all its elegance once and for all... they might lose their jobs.
And, unfortunately, their jobs happen to converge with their
authority. [Might be why the greatest changes seem to happen
with the changing of the guard.]
* One of the goals of the mapping has been to resolve the
X-ray background into discrete components and determine
their nature. On January 15 at the annual meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in Philadelphia, Joachim
Truemper and Guenther Hasinger of the Max Planck Institute
for Extraterrestrial Physics told scientists that ROSAT
had
revealed far more quasars than could be detected before
--about 100 quasars per square degree. This implies the
presence of about four million quasars over the whole
sky,
enough to account for 40 percent of the X-ray background,
Hasinger estimates.
"Now you tell me how you know that the cosmic background
radiation is a decreasing effect... and not a temperature rising?"
END QUOTE
> > Ours is a three-dimensional universe (this is strictly mathematical
> > short-hand, since there are an infinite number of directions).
>
> go and learn some simple maths.
Stick your hand into The Eighth Dimension, pull out a
Haklemock Monster and let's dissect it, Mister Spock.
(The easiest way to cheat somebody is with numbers.)
> > [...] And
> > general/special relativity can be summed up as a slightly more
refined
> > set of factors than "gravity pulls" and "you are here... now."
>
> wow, Nobel Prize material.
Never mind Nobels. Just refrain from showing me the
instruments of torture... and I'll be happy enough.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
*******************************************