> So this is what I am to understand
> that you have said in part:

You are to understand that, yes.
However, I did not say it--I typed it
on my little toy computer keyboard.

> A: It is the universe that produces
> our thoughts, and not our brains.

Correct: There are no thoughts which brains
did not get stuffed with by the universe:
I spit on brains, messieur.

This is why it's the "brain" (so-called) which
happens to be in the correct spot at exact-a-ment THE
time... which hits upon the thought. BECAUSE it is
not the brain that is important but the conjunction of
the time et loo moment. You could put a monkey's brain
in the place of Newton when that apple fell off the tree
and today we would have a mathematics with more of a
tail to it--Guaranteed! And math would be a barrel of fun.

> B: There are no paradoxes in nature, only
> in the human mind (that's
> the ONLY "place" in which a thought can exist).

Certainly: Thoughts don't exist in Nature! Have you
ever run across a rock with the least thought? (Even
if it had one, how could it publish it in the local
newspaper?)

> Could you elaborate on these two points?

Of course! Let's see... Ah! You have been bitten by a
van-pire, messieur. I recommend you immediately ingest
a steak.

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

> - Eric

Dennis Towne wrote in message
news:<3C166251.712483EF@xirr.com> to Eric...

> SDR is a well known usenet crackpot.

Leave him alone! He may be the person to
finally glue me back up together again.

> You waste your time and ours
> responding to him. FYI.
> -dennis T

But, doesn't that mean that you yourself
waste your time and everybody's twice over
by responding to those who respond to him. FBI

--?!?!

Why is it the guy who calls the other guy stupid
is usually the stupider of the two guys? Because
I say so.

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,es.ciencia.misc,alt.astronomy.s
olar,so
c.culture.china
Subject: Re: Big bang question
References: <9p7rje$q7r$1@ins22.netins.net>



<9v66ru$7fc$1@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.18.19.122
Message-ID:

"tomm-gulland" wrote in message
news:<9v66ru$7fc$1@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk>...

> Yeh, I can see the idea behind your imploding universe. However,

There's always a however. If you handn't placed one there
I would have been forced to place one there myself.

> it
> necessitates, if I interpret you correctly,
> that the outer rim of a galaxy
> (speaking in terms of a galaxy's chief
> gravitational sphere of influence)
> gets closer and closer to the galaxy's centre,

Yep. In absolute terms (that is: from God's point of view).
But you are not God (get over it). Therefore your view is always
relativistic. This means that relative to everything else,
everything always seems to remain exactly as it has ever been.

> so people on the outside of
> that galaxy are in a sense receding from other galaxies.

Please: Don't smack your brain against any walls on my account.
It's the simplest thing to understand...

1) In the beginning you had... the largest expanse.
What is it made of? It doesn't matter. It works whether
it was made of wood or nothing at all surrounded by something.

2) That expanse begins to implode. Why? Gravity.

3) Gravity creates clumps (bits of matter) even as the whole
universe (what was once that expanse) is itself imploding.
God sees it's imploding. He's not shrinking, so he sees that
the universe is shrinking compared to Him. But for the rest
of us the universe is all there is, so it doesn't ever really
change. Why? Because we'd need to measure it against God. And
we just can't see God.

4) The "clumps of matter" shrink (from each other) creating
space (distances between themselves). Even as they continue
to concentrate.

5) After a while... the imploding universe appears to have
achieved an eternally changeless shape (and, in fact, the
only "change" people notice is that "space" continues to be
"created" ... galaxies appear to be receeding from each other).

6) Astronomers evolve here & there and speculate that the
universe "must" have been created in a Big Bang which sent
the galaxies exploding every whichway, since they have no idea
the universe is imploding (how such a thing could be possible).

7) Wiser beings in the future discover that those primitive
astronomers thought with their eyeballs instead of with their
brains and realize that the ancient poet and Usenet crackpot
S D Rodrian was correct after all. Then they go for a beer.

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

>>> [snip]
>>
>> snap
>>
>>>>> Nothing with mass can move faster than light.
>>>
>>> Actually, in GR, *nothing* can move faster than light.
>>
>> Actually, this is inherently upside-down. "Light" doesn't "move."
>> Perhaps this will help: I went to a carny the other day and one
>> of the side-shows involved trying to shoot a 12-inch ruler as it
>> zipped back & forth in front of the shooter. Well, I was missing
>> all my shots, so, suspecting they were zipping that darn ruler
>> in front of me at near the speed of light (so that the ruler
>> compressed to a width so thin that it would have been a miracle
>> indeed if anybody could have hit it with their ole BB rifles),
>> naturally, I complained to the "manager." He just offered me a
>> free shot. (I missed with that shot as well, darn it.)
>>
>> But here's a quick reminder that the notion that "matter compresses
>> in the direction of motion" is NOT the observed result of some
>> marvelous experiment. Rather, what happened was that Albert Michelson
>> and his buddy E. W. Morley used an interferometer to measure the speed
>> of light and found that in spite of earth's rotation (etc.) the speed
>> of light was constant regardless of which direction they measured it.
>> Funny thing, really. They laughed & laughed. The housekeeper didn't call
>> the authorities because she already knew they were mad from long ago.
>>
>> Now, as it usually happens with humans and other apes... instead of
>> trying to figure out the whys of this funny results, an Irishman by
>> the name of G F Fitzgerald was drinking in a pub & he turned around
>> to another barfly and said, "Well I thinks it must be because matter
>> must contract in the direction of motion (or some such) and that darn
>> interferometer contraption must become shorted when measuring c in
>> the direction of motion, I betcha." (History does not record what
>> his drinking companion said to that, but the point is that Fitzgerald's
>> notion stuck.) Fitzgerald even wrote out how much matter contracted
>> at which speed, as he was heard calling out across the pub: "What
>> number do ye like, lads?" (Actually he used very dignified, time-
>> honored mathematical doodles.) Anyhow:
>>
>> We switch next to a Dutchman by the name of H A Lorentz, who was
>> pinning butterflies to a board one day and suddenly came up with
>> a brilliant deduction: "If," said he to his butterflies, "If matter
>> contracts in the direction of motion... then any charge (of a
>> charged particle) which is sufficiently accelerated will also be
>> squeezed AND therefore should exhibit an increase in mass!" And,
>> surprise, using the same mathematical doodles which Fitzgerald
>> had probably used in his own calculations Lorentz came up with
>> results very close to those Fitzgerald had reported for the
>> contraction of matter using these same math doodles. It was all
>> very filling.
>>
>> Now here's the clincher: Lorentz's postulation turned out to be true!
>>
>> Experiments soon showed that (since the ratio of an electron's mass to
>> its charge can be gauged via its deflection in a magnetic field)...
>> experiments soon showed that as an electron's velocity increased, its
>> mass also increased indeed (there being no reason its charge would).
>>
>> At this point it was therefore ASSUMED that the reason the electron's
>> mass increased was because it was being squeezed by its contraction
>> due to velocity (there being no time, I imagine, to try to think of
>> some better reason). ERGO: Contraction in the direction of motion
>> seemed "proved enough" simply by guessing that the Lorentz/Fitzgerald
>> equations were interchangeable! Viola!
>>
>> But is it true? Are they really equivalents? What if there is some other
>> reason for the increase in mass experienced by an accelerated charged
>> particle? [For example, what if all linear accelerations by ordinary
>> matter in our universe are really decelerations (toward absolute rest)?
>> If the universe were to be... oh, say, imploding, that would mean that
>> all its mass was moving in the direction of implosion (that being its
>> fastest-possible speed) and therefore anything we would consider moving
>> was really moving in the opposite direction of implosion (slowing down
>> in the direction it all originally came from, or infinite (spatial) mass)?
>> This would account for the observed increase in mass without having to
>> resort to the notion of contraction in the direction of motion being
>> responsible for the squeezing of the electron. (Increase in mass going
>> with/in the direction of absolute rest.)
>>
>> But, of course, to arrive at that alternate explanation one would need
>> to understand such things as the fact that the forms of matter are NOT
>> fundamental but only forms, and that therefore they do not pile up like
>> neutrons inside a neutron star but merely "shrink without much loosing
>> their forms" somewhat like deflating balloons (which realization no one
>> was seriously advocating at that time).
>>
>> The questionable notion that "nothing can move faster than light" stems
>> directly from Fitzgerald's Lunacy (Contraction) above: "An object moving
>> at seven miles per second would contract by about two parts per billion
>> in the direction of its motion. But at 93,000 miles per second (half the
>> speed of light) it would be 15 percent (a 1-foot ruler moving past us at
>> 163,000 mps would only seem 6 inches long to us). At the speed of light
>> (186,282 mps) its length in the direction of motion would be zero!" And
>> now you know the reason behind the reasoning behind the reasonless notion
>> that the speed of light has a finite upper limit: "Since nothing can have
>> a minus length, nothing can travel faster than light." But it's all based
>> upon a VERY probably false premise to begin with (Fitzgerald's Lunacy),
>> and on a definite logical fallacy (that a relativistic point of view can
>> confer reality upon a perceived effect): Of course, there is no "absolute
>> rest" position INSIDE our absolutely relativist universe (BECAUSE it is
>> imploding, and nothing in it can remain at rest except in relation to
>> something else that's also moving in it)... so the velocities of all its
>> traveling rulers... are ALL OF THEM only/merely relativistic.
>>
>>>> Much confusion
>>>> abounds from the mistaken notion that the second postulate is about
>>>> light. It's not. It's about speed limits. It is, in one sense, merely
>>>> a coincidence that light happens to be able to reach the speed limit.
>>
>> Same thing happens to my ancient and decrepit automobile! It's ALWAYS a
>> coincidence it can usually reach the speeds at which it usually travels.
>>
>>>> Why should "light" move at all?! Everything that "moves" in this
>>>> universe always very strictly follows the laws of gravitation.
>>>
>>> Alas, behind this observation falls the central quandry in physics.
>>
>> Yes: That it is trying to describe the effects occurring IN an universe
>> which is imploding... in terms of an universe which is exploding: And
>> there is NO way to describe effects observed in an imploding universe
>> in terms of their occurring in an exploding/expanding universe without
>> having to resort to the craziest imaginable rationalizations... And,
>> true enough, current physics is practically ALL OF IT invariably (mis-)
>> interpreted in the most nonsensical and counterintuitive rationalizations
>> the craziest Mad Hatter in Wonderland could possibly imagine!
>>
>>> It
>>> is impossible to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics, (QM) given our
>>> current understanding.
>>
>> Fear not, one day, sooner or later, people who are now certain
>> beyond a doubt that the earth is flat (and the rest of it) will
>> stumble into the true imploding nature of the universe. Then
>> it shall all be clear to them. And they will explain it to you.
>>
>>> In QM, all sorts of interesting things happen
>>> that are rather embarrasingly independent of gravitation.
>>
>> Funny, the same thing happens to a lot of people when
>> they try to interpret the work of stage magicians in terms
>> of their magic actually being real!
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> snap
>>
>>>> Consider the one matter of the speed of light: In an
>>>> expanding/exploding universe model it's nearly impossible to advance
>>>> a sane theory (one comprehensively rooted in reality--one which does
>>>> not require that we suspend belief in the reliability of reality
>>>> itself over the long run) as to why a particle supposedly nearly
>>>> massless (the photon) would never (or very seldom really) be
>>>> affected by gravity: It's not merely that the photon refuses to fall
>>>> as even the most massive moving canon ball obviously eventually
>>>> does... but that it almost completely ignores Earth's gravity (for
>>>> example) at all: the photon doesn't even much bend down to it. Add
>>>> to that the quite impossible question on "what is pushing it?" (or,
>>>> "what could possibly be pulling it?"} Really... another way of
>>>> asking what is the source of the energy it MUST be using for its
>>>> propulsion?] And what you have is a recipe for almost certainly the
>>>> craziest "solutions."
>>>
>>> More unfortunate confusion.
>>
>> Have you talked to your doctor about it? Modern medicine is working
>> miracles these days, you know. Tell him there's a fellow insists that
>> planets and moons do not ride invisible channels in space but follow
>> the gravitational laws of Newton (any discrepancies arising from Newton
>> not taking into consideration later discoveries concerning the varying
>> strengths of whatever intervening gravitational fields notwithstanding).
>>
>>> GR does not assume that massless particles
>>> are not effected by gravity. The GR formulation of gravity, in the
>>> form of, say, differential geometry, is *not* the Newtonian form.
>>
>> Translation: Our formulas (they happen to be Newtonian) do not seem to
>> apply exactly to our exploding/expanding universe, so, instead of
>> trying to figure out why (latest knowledge on the effects of "strong"
>> gravitational fields, etc.) let's just throw them all away... and
>> from now on we should assume that the world is a lot crazier than we
>> first gave it credit for being.
>>
>>> The aside about propulsion betrays considerable confusion about
>>> Newtonian mechanics anyway. Once moving at a velocity, an object not
>>> being subjected to other forces does not need any further 'propulsion'
>>> to sustain that velocity.
>>
>> It does not surprise me this poster overlooked the obvious, so I will
>> put it in even simpler terms still (hopefully he will now see what he
>> so obviously overlooked before):
>>
>> 1) Let us assume for a moment the expanding/exploding universe holds:
>>
>> 2) A photon is pitched out by its source with "a" given impetus (and
>> this is a nearly massless particle, mind you, so how it manages to
>> hold on to that impetus is anybody's guess).
>>
>> 3) Suddenly the entire universe about it begins pulling at it from
>> every direction (every dust particle and planet it passes exerts its
>> whatever gravitational tug at it). And, mind you, we know that all
>> other bits of matter tugged likewise would stop to chat with their
>> tuggers.
>>
>> 4) But NOT SO the photon: It very nearly completely ignores all such
>> tugs... even the most astonishingly strong of them (photons passing
>> near massive stars only slightly bend their linear trajectories in
>> response to the astonishingly powerful gravitational fields of those
>> stars!
>>
>> 5) And, most magical of all: The "speed" of photons is independent of
>> source in the absolute. SO a photon with the speed of [a car being
>> driven by a teenager] which suddenly finds itself traveling through
>> a jar of molasses at the "speed" of [a 100-year-old man with a cane]
>> will, after exiting from [the jar of molasses] SUDDENLY regain its
>> previous "speed" as if the teenager had simply stepped on the gas!
>>
>> Such a phenomena is IMPOSSIBLE to explain sanely, rationally. It has
>> the disturbing effect of suggesting that we cannot trust reality. It
>> is extremely unnerving and tends to push people into all kinds of nutty
>> explanations for it. But... now assume ours is an imploding universe:
>>
>> 1) All forms of matter in an imploding universe are moving (in the
>> direction of implosion).
>>
>> 2) The photon, being nearly massless will very nearly escape the pull
>> (of implosion) moving the rest of the universe's mass (gravity).
>>
>> 3) Although, having an infinitesimal amount of mass it will "move" an
>> infinitesimal amount of distance... the photon will remain very nearly
>> motionless while the rest of the universe around it moves.
>>
>> 4) To us, part of the mass of the universe (and therefore moving past
>> the very nearly frozen-in-place photon) it will appear that the photon
>> is the one moving, of course.
>>
>> 5) Remember that infinitesimal amount of mass the photon has? Well, it
>> means that, even if infinitesimally, the photon will react to gravity.
>> And so... when passing through volumes with "little amounts of mass"
>> the photon will be dragged along less powerfully and will appear to us
>> to be moving that much faster while when passing through volumes with
>> "greater amounts of mass" it will be dragged along (with us, remember)
>> more powerfully and so appear to be moving that much slower than usual.
>>
>> 6) Now it becomes clear why it is that a photon traveling through a nearly
>> perfect vacuum achieves its greatest speed. And why when that same
>> photon travels through a "denser medium" it suddenly appears to slow down.
>>
>> 7) And now it becomes clear at last and inescapably inevitable why it is
>> that AFTER having traveled through that "denser medium" and exited it
>> ... our photon again appears to "speed up" when it again begin to travel
>> through a more diluted volume after exiting from the denser volume!
>>
>> There is no magic in the world, you see. Not if you know how it's done.
>>
>>> [snip of much confused nonsense]
>>
>> Well, perhaps you're less confused now (although, I will not be
>> holding my breath... for one's best shot at taking advantage of
>> one's opportunities always depends a lot more on how Fate has put
>> one together than on where Fate has put one at the most opportune
>> moment, I'm afraid). But I do wish you the very best of luck!
>>
>>>> By the way, Einstein's famous light-bending experiment's true
>>>> achievement was to finally kill any goofy notion that the photon is
>>>> absolutely massless (something later again proven by the observation
>>>> that photons cannot escape from the gravity of black holes).
>>>
>>> Alas, this is simply not true. The light-bending experiments are
>>> rather good confirmation that the photon has no mass. (Technically,
>>> they are confirmations that if the photon has any mass at all it must
>>> be less than a very small amount.)
>>
>> Yep: I can see the confusion: 1) The photon has no mass.
>> And, 2) the photon's mass is very small. You can now
>> have your cake and eat it.
>>
>>> GR predicts that even massless particles are effected by gravitational
>>> fields. In this way it differs from Newtonian physics. The various
>>> 'light-bending' experiments would have different results if the photon
>>> had any mass. (Einstein, by the way, was a theory guy. He never did
>>> any experiments.)
>
>>> [snip of the author's thought processes imploding]
>>
>> No. I will not snip it: It is not unusual for most people's brains
>> to implode when they overload on actual information that contradicts
>> the mindless mantras they were taught by rote in their youth.
>>
>>>>> In order for the big bang to have occurred, the resulting
>>>>> explosion would have required mass to travel faster than light in
>>>>> order to achieve escape velocity. How is this possible?
>>>
>>> If there was a big bang, it was not merely an explosion of a black
>>> hole, but rather something wildly different. Unfortunately, it
>>> requires understanding a great deal of mathematics in order to
>>> distinguish the difference.
>>
>> Unfortunately it requires understanding of a great deal less mathematics
>> than you think to lose all touch with reality: Ted Kaczynski, for example,
>> was only a humble college math teacher when all those numbers in his head
>> drove him to become the Unabomber.
>>
>>>> Listen carefully: The Big Bang would have required mass/energy.
>>>> Period. This means that its realization would require an equivalent
>>>> of what the existence of a stick of dynamite requires (as most
>>>> thinking persons should be realizing about now: the existence of
>>>> a stick of dynamite requires the pre-existence of Alfred Nobel
>>>> as well as the whole entire universe... which made him possible).
>>>> Therefore, tracing things back to "a" Big Bang as an exercise in
>>>> trying to find the beginnings of the universe is as self-defeating
>>>> an exercise as seeking the beginnings of the universe by tracing
>>>> the development of dynamite back to the first few nanoseconds after
>>>> Alfred Nobel came up with it. The only difference really being
>>>> that Alfred Nobel really DID come up with dynamite, while the
>>>> universe REALLY never produced any big bangs in any shape, form,
>>>> or whatsoever.
>>>
>>> The sum of all of the energy in the universe is 0.
>>
>> O my God, that equals the sum of all the intelligence in the brain
>> of... (let's be civil now).
>>
>>> This conservation
>>> was not violated by the big bang. There was no net energy before the
>>> big bang. There is no net energy now. The only thing that is different
>>> is that the distribution of the energy has gotten considerably less
>>> uniform.
>>
>> Since you agree with this, why must you propose the universe's creation
>> of widgets and hobbyhorses out of a point in time's explosion, pray tell?!
>>
>> Now look at the inevitable simplicity of the timeless imploding universe:
>>
>> 1) infinite (spatial) mass
>> (what has always been and always will be)
>>
>> 2) the laws of thermodynamics
>> (the result of infinite mass become unstable)
>>
>> 3) gravity
>> (the result of the laws of thermodynamics)
>>
>> 4) the evolution of more complex forms from simpler forms
>> (the result of gravity)
>>
>> 5) Rose Parks refuses to go to the back of the bus
>> (the result of the brain's continuing evolution)
>>
>> At no point in time does any of this require any sudden shift.
>>
>> Now, I ask you: Do you want to know the timeless truth,
>> or do you want to be entertained by the clever creations
>> of someone with great timing?
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>>
>> I can provide you with either or both:
>>
>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>> physics.sdrodrian.com

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
alt.arts.poetry.urban,alt.arts.poetry.comments,misc.writing,rec.arts.poem
s
Subject: Re: Big bang question
References: <9p7rje$q7r$1@ins22.netins.net>



<9v66ru$7fc$1@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk>

<3C3F8EEA.C07700C@petcom.com>


NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.143.113.114
Message-ID:

"Doctor Grimm" wrote in message
news:...
> Let's simplify the concept
>
> Gravity is due to Tachyon Absorption. Little subatomic particles that fly
> around from every direction until they hit matter.

Good Gracious! How did they evolve? Why did they evolve?
And, how come they decided to do that (instead of kissing)...?

> Two objects of matter
> create a mutual tachyon vacuum. thus Gravity is a pushing force, not
> pulling.

I think I saw something like this in a nightmare I had once:
The only two objects in all existence were two Englishmen who
happen to meet: "Fancy meeting you here!" Said the first
Englishman. And, "You're not following me, are you?" The other
Englishman asked... not realizing that it was inevitable
that they should meet eventually. "I certainly hope nobody
invents gravity, don't you?" The first Englishman commented
(and if they'd been Irish they'd quickly punched each other
and gone on their way). But there you have it. "You have the
time, by any chance?"

> Ok say the universe has only two objects in it No matter how small they
> are or how many light years they still create that vacuum between both
> objects. Therefore If they are still, they will attract each other. The
> only way this is not possible is if they are moving away from each other.

Now, why didn't you simply say that gravity is a rope:
Each object holds on to its end of the rope and pulls itself
towards the other. It's short and sweet; and it's just
as lacking of any explanation as to where/how the objects
came to be, and came to be pulling on ropes... & such!

> We are expanding. The moon moves away from the earth
> at the rate of 1 inch
> a year.

Why should the moon bother to do that? when
it's simpler for the earth and moon to shrink
right where they are and give the impression
to impressionable creatures that they are
moving away from each other... Besides, the moon
is simply gathering the energy it will require
to journey into The Unknown (with the guy from
Mission Impossible on board).

In any case, you miss the point: The explanation for
"everything" must not have any STEPS from Nothingness
to Everything: It must be a continuing evolving motion
(yes, evolution, never explosions, locked doors, et al).

There must be... a volume, and then that volume must
evolve (implode) into the universe we know & love.
Anything else requires the intervention of The Creator!

> Other cosmic signs of separation can be proved, but I was
> wondering..... What does this have to do with Poetry?
> Doctor Grimm

ALL, I repeat: ALL so-called explanations of an exploding/
expanding universe are misinterpretations of the observations:

IF it were not the case that they were -- ALL OF THEM --
misinterpretations... I'd have at least "one" doubt that
it may be the case that the universe is not imploding.

All interpretations of the observed facts from a point of
view that ours is an "inflating" universe run counter to
the laws of physics (they ALL require somebody to be blowing
up the balloon)... and they achieve nothing but the requiring
of more and more outlandish nonsense to cover the nonsense of
all such explanations in the first case.

While on the other hand, ALL interpretations of the
observed facts from the point of view that ours is an
imploding universe... lead to sane and conclusive answers
which NEVER leave any loose ends untied for bright and
clever chaps to trip over themselves again & again in future.

And, if the discovery of how it all came about, the very
why and how we are here... is not the grandest poetry of all
then you can always go get drunk instead.

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

re:

> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0201132301.6af85e3@posting.google.com...
>> John Sefton wrote in message
> news:<3C3F8EEA.C07700C@petcom.com>...

>>> Uniform expansion of space between clumps
>>> of matter or uniform shrinkage of matter
>>> amid 'clumps' of space are equally impossible.
>>
>> 1) Gravitational systems (clumps) are never fundamental
>> and ALWAYS in motion about themselves (self-centered).
>> Their "shrinkage" already responds to their surroundings
>> so their surroundings need not respond to them. [The
>> moon's orbit affects comets and meteors traveling close
>> enough to the moon, but it certainly does not affect any
>> bodies orbiting distant stars... to any appreciable degree!]
>>
>> 2) Space (the distance created between "clumps" as the "clumps"
>> "shrink" (recede away from each other as they implode)
>> is necessarily absolutely relativistic [i.e. whatever
>> twisting this forces upon the universe is absolute and
>> therefore the entire universe may have a (one) "spin"
>> ... which would not be the case if all its "clumps"
>> were engaged in a chaos of individual, non-relativistic
>> reactions among themselves--That is what the relativistic
>> nature of the universe's innards is, in fact: glued to
>> a frozen-appearance by gravity... or, basically, all the
>> litt'l clumps are synchronized to look like they're not
>> doing anything at all, albeit they're twisting the universe).
>>
>>> It is why a shell grows in a spiral.
>>> Uniform expansion or shrinkage of both space
>>> AND matter at the same time is the only possible thing-
>>> *without* postulating an edge to space and/or time.
>>> John
>>
>> The phrase "expansion of space" is illogical unless one
>> absolutely understands space to be the mere distance between
>> two objects, and nothing more than that. If one understands
>> "space" to be some sort of "more or less dense vacuum" not
>> necessarily situated between any "things" ... then one should
>> call that region "a more or less dense volume of things" (and
>> any expansion of that as "its things receding from each other")
>> since "space" is not "the substantial nothingness" whose bits
>> of nothingness can ever be measured to be ... let alone to be moving
>> in relation to each other!
>>
>> Understand this: The gravitational systems (or "bits" or "lumps"
>> of matter) are imploding. But space is neither expanding nor
>> imploding... it is nothing. Space is just only the distance
>> created between the "bits" of the imploding universe (because
>> gravity acts locally BEFORE it acts generally, that's all).
>>
>> And, if ever you can measure any distinction in the absolutely
>> symmetrical implosion of the universe... you will have spotted
>> the center of the universe itself! And I doubt you'll ever manage
>> that. But, good hunting, certainly.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>> physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> re:
>>
>>> S D Rodrian wrote:
>>>
>>>> "tomm-gulland" wrote in message
>>>> news:<9v66ru$7fc$1@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk>...
>>>>> Yeh, I can see the idea behind your imploding universe. However,
>>>>
>>>> There's always a however. If you handn't placed one there
>>>> I would have been forced to place one there myself.
>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>>> necessitates, if I interpret you correctly,
>>>>> that the outer rim of a galaxy
>>>>> (speaking in terms of a galaxy's chief
>>>>> gravitational sphere of influence)
>>>>> gets closer and closer to the galaxy's centre,
>>>>
>>>> Yep. In absolute terms (that is: from God's point of view).
>>>> But you are not God (get over it). Therefore your view is always
>>>> relativistic. This means that relative to everything else,
>>>> everything always seems to remain exactly as it has ever been.
>>>>
>>>>> so people on the outside of
>>>>> that galaxy are in a sense receding from other galaxies.
>>>>
>>>> Please: Don't smack your brain against any walls on my account.
>>>> It's the simplest thing to understand...
>>>>
>>>> 1) In the beginning you had... the largest expanse.
>>>> What is it made of? It doesn't matter. It works whether
>>>> it was made of wood or nothing at all surrounded by something.
>>>>
>>>> 2) That expanse begins to implode. Why? Gravity.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Gravity creates clumps (bits of matter) even as the whole
>>>> universe (what was once that expanse) is itself imploding.
>>>> God sees it's imploding. He's not shrinking, so he sees that
>>>> the universe is shrinking compared to Him. But for the rest
>>>> of us the universe is all there is, so it doesn't ever really
>>>> change. Why? Because we'd need to measure it against God. And
>>>> we just can't see God.
>>>>
>>>> 4) The "clumps of matter" shrink (from each other) creating
>>>> space (distances between themselves). Even as they continue
>>>> to concentrate.
>>>>
>>>> 5) After a while... the imploding universe appears to have
>>>> achieved an eternally changeless shape (and, in fact, the
>>>> only "change" people notice is that "space" continues to be
>>>> "created" ... galaxies appear to be receeding from each other).
>>>>
>>>> 6) Astronomers evolve here & there and speculate that the
>>>> universe "must" have been created in a Big Bang which sent
>>>> the galaxies exploding every whichway, since they have no idea
>>>> the universe is imploding (how such a thing could be possible).
>>>>
>>>> 7) Wiser beings in the future discover that those primitive
>>>> astronomers thought with their eyeballs instead of with their
>>>> brains and realize that the ancient poet and Usenet crackpot
>>>> S D Rodrian was correct after all. Then they go for a beer.
>>>>
>>>> S D Rodrian
>>>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>>>> physics.sdrodrian.com
>>>>

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.humor,rec.org.mensa,alt.alt.life.the-universe.and-everyth
ing,alt.a
cme.exploding.newsgroup
Subject: Re: Big bang question
References: <9p7rje$q7r$1@ins22.netins.net>



<9v66ru$7fc$1@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk>

<3C3F8EEA.C07700C@petcom.com>



<3c9203cd$0$233@hades.is.co.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.112.134.2
Message-ID:

"Searcher" wrote in message
news:<3c9203cd$0$233@hades.is.co.za>...
> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0203140119.59796f9c@posting.google.com...
>> "Doctor Grimm" wrote in message
> news:...

>>> Doctor Grimm
>>
> snipped a bit of text
>>
>
> Ok now that we know that gravity is a myth and that the earth sucks...
> Please explain in no more than 200 words, why when a take a air filled ball
> to the bottom of a swiming pool, does it defy gravity and go up until it
> reachers the water surface.
>
> Use this concept to explain gravity where there is no water surface...

Since that question was already addressed by Galileo and
by Galileo (after he became an Alzheimeric), I would like to
find an explanation for a more current puzzle: IF the earth
is round, how come the government wastes all that money and
dirty rocket fuel pushing rockets UP into space (polluting
the atmos more than the Concorde) when they could simply
take their damn rockets over to the other side of the earth
and DROP them DOWN into space?!?!

I am a tax-payer (when they catch me), and I would like to know
the answer to this one. Damn it!

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


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


Max Phillips wrote in message
news:...
> in article bf7b874e.0203152058.6048cd41@posting.google.com, S D Rodrian

at
> sdr@sdrodrian.com wrote on 2002.03.15 8:58 PM:
>
>> "Searcher" wrote in message
>> news:<3c9203cd$0$233@hades.is.co.za>...
>>> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
>>> news:bf7b874e.0203140119.59796f9c@posting.google.com...
>>>> "Doctor Grimm" wrote in message
> news:...

>>>>> Doctor Grimm
>>>>
> snipped a bit of text
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok now that we know that gravity is a myth and that the earth sucks...
>>> Please explain in no more than 200 words, why when a take a air filled ball
>>> to the bottom of a swiming pool, does it defy gravity and go up until it
>>> reachers the water surface.
>>>
>>> Use this concept to explain gravity where there is no water surface...
>>
>> Since that question was already addressed by Galileo and
>> by Galileo (after he became an Alzheimeric),
>
> Where did you say you got your doctor of historicomedicine degree?

Hey, anybody who goes around dropping feathers
and bowling balls on people's heads (while eating
a pizza) is crazy. And no doctor is required to
diagnose the dead (since, if they're not already dead
they will be very soon after they're buried).

sdr


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


From: sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com (SDR)
Newsgroups:
talk.philosophy.misc,mensa.talk.misc,talk.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-the
ories,a
lt.life.universe.everything
Subject: Re: Japan targets 'endangered' whales
References:
<24747-3D24057A-64@storefull-2255.public.lawson.webtv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.238.133.122
Message-ID: <58087ec7.0207041300.5706998a@posting.google.com>

ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
news:<24747-3D24057A-64@storefull-2255.public.lawson.webtv.net>...

> Rodrian:
>
> This is an interesting thread. It managed somehow to get on
> alt.revisionism which is the group I read and post to. First, I think
> you're a defeatist/fatalist as well as polyanna.

Yep, that's me all right (that, and much more).

> You're position is
> eventually man will become extinct (not
> evolve to a more advanced
> biological form) but become extinct.

Correct: ANY and all attempts we make, at this point,
to evolve must be nipped in the bud by the miracle
of genetic engineering (which is designed to keep us
right where we are, thank you). And if you imagine
that human intelligence will be "improved" somehow
... try defining "intelligence" FIRST. You'll be surprised
how hard it is for us to even agree on exactly what that is.

> You're greatest hopes of an animal
> surviving and evolving into a more
> evolved life form is the rat. Are you
> being humorous here or serious?

Well, some people disagree with me and propose
squirrels; but I think squirrels are too mean and fluffy
(I don't see squirrels evolving into smooth-skinned
sensual creatures... which will stimulate the brain):
Rats, on the other hand, are already marvelously
sensitive/sensual creatures... and they haven't even
taken their clothes off yet! No, my money's on rats.

> You are pollyanna because you advance
> the idea after man has become
> extinct all the damage which he did
> to the environment will reverse
> itself. I don't think that is necessarily
> true. Several scientists have
> warned that if man continues to spew
> his poisons into the atmosphere at
> the rate and level he is doing
> there won't be any possibility of life
> because Earth will ultimately turn
> into a Venus like planet.

Bunk, my friend: You'd need a total absence of life
AND a closer position to the Sun: The "hotter" it gets
here the richer & more profuse the life (most of it in
the ocean) removing carbon dioxide, et al. Even as
we speak the greening of the earth is creeping up to
the poles. And if your vision of the earth is one devoid
of life... because of "our" pollution, let me assure you
that there is not a single "chemical" being produced
by us which cannot eventually become food to some
other life-form here (this is the cycle of life I was talking
about). Read more about the "Gaia theory." Talk, if
you like about the possible pollution of the seas by our
nuclear wastes... that will outlive us by a long time, but
the extra radiation will just speed evolution along.

Remember that what is good for us is The Good
and Evil is what does us evil. That's just the way it is.

> So I differ with you in that I believe
> man's destruction of the
> enviornment, if gone unchecked, will
> be even more destructive than the
> possible asteroid which hit earth
> millions of years ago and possibly
> wiped out dinosaurs. I say possible
> because I don't think they know for
> sure how the dinosaurs became extinct.

Maybe they just got tired and committed mass suicide
--After all, they lived for hundreds of millions of years
while we Cro-Magnons've only been around for 70,000
years or so AND we're already getting sick of it all, as
you know). Well, once we find the dinosaurs' Cool Aid
bowl we'll clinch this suicidal theory.

> The asteroid theory is the most
> plausible since it would have sent
> debris into the atmosphere cooling
> the planet and leading to the extinction
> of dinosaurs. But I don't think
> they know 100%.

Well, some people know it 100%, some know it
90%, others 80% ... and then there are some folk
in Arkansas don't know even 1% of nott'n (so they're
busy, busy, busy... explaining their Creationism).

> The "greenhouse effect" or warming of
> the earth, however, is destroying
> the ozone layer of the earth and allowing
> more ultraviolet radiation in.
> I've read the size of the hole in the
> ozone is currently about the size
> of anartica.

Well, you pronounced it right, but spelled it wrong:
Just remember it's crawling with ants (and that's why
they named it Antarctica). No... not the litt'l bugs, the stuff
that crawls all over your body when you're sitting around
down there passing the time with booze and more booze.

We are depleting the ozone layer AND producing
more ozone than ever in the history of the planet
(the danger is that it will not be replenished quickly
enough to save us from skin cancer and crop damage
in the rather pathetically near-term): The real problem
is that we do not have any real crop reserves, but
live planting to planting--But this has always been the
case with us... starvation and famines are par for our
course; and they have long been the ONLY practical
checks on a catastrophic human population explosion.
Look into the number of children that are ABANDONED
by their parents on this earth every year--that will tell
you the true human attitudes toward living within our
resources: We will ALWAYS out-reproduce our available
resources (this is the true "success" evolution has woven
into our story... this is what I mean when I told you that
we are too successful): If we were truly intelligent we
would make the proper calculations & everybody'd
live happily ever after... but the true horror of every one
of us is that the neighbor will have more kids than we.
Our genes work to inherit mankind, no matter what some
people tell themselves. And this (the population bomb)
is even more so the case now that the post-WWII
antibiotic/DDT/and so-called green revolution(s) have
finally driven us to the brink of that population catastrophe.

> As the hole gets bigger and
> more radiation is let in the
> polar caps will melt somewhat and there
> will be an increase in the ocean
> level. Seaboard communities and cities
> will become partially submerged
> and possibly totally submerged. This
> process will gradually develop
> over a long period.

I've got bad news for you; It could happen within
the next couple of days or so: The seas will rise 40 feet
(and you don't wanna live under forty hairy, smelly feet,
let me tell you). But the earth is cooling, not heating up
(it's moving away from the Sun---very gradually, never
fear). The dinosaurs never knew an ice age. And in the
short term we can dump (seed) iron into the oceans...
this will speed up the growth of those little creatures that
take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and cement it
into their little calcium shells resulting in a world cooling
that will more than offset the world warming of our industrial
revolution. Remember: "cycle of life." Accept it, enjoy it.
Take your shoes off. No, wait, that will contribute to the
submersion of Florida (and I own some property there).

> Eventually, it will be rountine for almost
> everybody to wear sunscreen
> because of the damage done to the
> ozone because there will continue to
> be an increase in skin cancers.

All white people have always needed UV protection:
Why do you imagine dark-skinned people populate
the sunnier parts of the globe? It takes a lot of energy
for the body to produce the protection of dark skin, but
if you live in Africa, and you lose that protection, and
become a blonde... you'll soon develop skin cancers
and die, or be killed by your neighbors as somebody
cursed by the gods--people don't like to take chances.

> Also, it is likely there will be more forest
> fires since the earth will
> continue to warm up. Drinking water will
> become more scarce and more of
> a precious commodity.

Nope: It will rain more, and... just remember that there
are very, very, very few forest fires in the Amazon's
"rain forests." It's in the extremely dry forests up 'round
"these here parts" that you see the kind of forest fires
we're now seeing. And ONLY because people do not
let the natural pruning process of annual fires occur
and then years & years of dangerous growth which would
have been safely burned off over many years suddenly
go up in one inevitable, devastating inferno. Your human
intelligence at work.

> That's an interesting statement about
> how man has become way too
> "successful". I disagree. What I think
> has happened is that the genetic
> characteristics which served man
> so well in his early evolution,
> survival, and success i.e., aggression,
> have outlived their usefulness
> and literally threaten the human race with extinction.

Well, I don't know very many really aggressive people
'round were I live... nor that very many successful folk
for that matter: These are mostly dumb, dense, slow-
moving apes (a terrible lot of'em seem to be gett'n run
over by cars, in fact). I often have to go out all hours of
the day/night and move'em along with my broom! No...
I think sex's what threatening us with extinction, we're
just "fussing" ourselves to death. I'm sure of this.

> In man's early evolution aggression was
> encoded on his DNA by Darwinian
> evolution. Millions of years ago man
> lived in caves and had to fight
> extremely harsh elements such as
> the weather, other animals, other
> tribes, etc.

You may be thinking about the Frankenstein monster
there, my boy.

> He had to hunt down animals
> for food to survive and he
> reproduced by killing another
> man and taking his woman.

What kind of people you living among? Are you sure
these ain't dogs you talk'n about? Most people I know
run away like monkeys first you cry out, "Boo!" at'em...

> Such aggression did not threaten
> the human race with extinction until
> the 20th century because up until
> then natural selection worked better
> than it currently does i.e. disease,
> shortened life span, etc. limited
> overpopulation and the science and
> technology didn't exist to
> exterminate the human race.

Hint: The ONLY people who start wars are those
who can stay home. NOBODY has ever started
and NOBODY will EVER start a nuclear war (we are
ALL miserable stinking cowards... you don't need
intelligence to be brave--In fact, it's near impossible
to determine for sure any distinction between bravery
and stupidity). Sex: It's all sex, just as Freud said.

> Today, there are enough nuclear weapons
> to destroy the earth many times
> over and natural selection doesn't
> work as well and there is dangerous
> overpopulation. The aggression which
> served the human race so well in
> its early evolution is definitely a liability today.

FYI: If we exploded ALL our nuclear weapons at once
the thin "nuclear winter" we'd produce wouldn't last
above a month (no matter what anybody tell you): This is
because they're be too spread out. The nuclear winter
produced 65 million years ago probably lasted many
months because the concentration (in one spot) and
the power of the collision pushed material up into orbit
causing a fiery rain of deadly asteroids perhaps for years:
There's even a radical model that suggested a number
of "shading cloud" of "micro moons" might have been
created in orbit which then took a year or more to fall back
to the earth. This is something quite another level from
anything man can produce with his little big bangs: Sorry
to burst your bubble. But man loves to blow himself up. (pun)

> I have hope the this crisis can eventually
> be solved through the use of
> genetic engineering to remove aggression
> from the human DNA. Admittedly,
> this won't happen anytime soon and if
> and when it does it will be a
> gradual process.

If you make man even more passive than he already is
who's gonna remain conscious enough to feed him
during his coma?!?! I mean, most people NOW are
ballooning up to 400 pounds or more from just lying
around sofas watching TV and snacking! You must have
some very strange notion of "aggression" (something
more than that last drop of oomph most people must
reach down to the bottom of their souls just to get up
out of bed in the morning). My friend, we are friendly,
gregarious apes--I give you my word on this: Most
people's worst reaction to somebody else's "words of
anger" is to go, "Aaaaaaw!"

> The unfortunate part is there is nothing
> any of us can do but continue
> to watch the human race destroy itself.

We've already done that tens of time: It's
called science-fiction. Although I believe it's
natural for the human race to destroy itself, I
don't agree with you that we'll do this on purpose!
It's merely a by-product of, yes, not enough brains.

> Things will get worse in our
> lifetimes before they get possibly better.

Yea! As long as they're always better in the end
I got no complains.

> Regarding intelligence I like
> what Hawking said and that is "its
> uncertain intelligence has any long
> term survival value". Intelligence
> isn't the problem. The problem is
> humans are more than just intelligent
> and their aggressiveness may lead to
> their own destruction. Thus, its
> questionable intelligence has any
> long term survival value.

I disagree with Hawking in many other areas
as well (maybe he was picked on as a kid
and it prejudiced him against aggressiveness).
I, on the other hand, am convinced most people
want to live and let live (and are lovable lazy slobs
you gotta pry from any comfortable place their
butts have happened upon). But children can be
hard to put in a place & have'em hold it (but this is
only a reflection of their parents' laziness when it
comes to giving them any interesting task to
occupy their minds). Certainly I don't know of
anybody who was aggressive all the time (outside
of some madhouse).

And I just don't see all the intelligence Hawking
sees in mankind: I have never met anybody whose
intelligence has impressed me all that much... though
I'm still looking for the animal (I met a guy once who
was unbeatable at chess but, he was, pardon, a moron
otherwise). I'd even hate to meet Shakespeare (you
know, I'd walk up to him --or to de Vere-- and he might
take off his hat & cry out: "Howdy, pardner, come on
down'sit'a'spell, take a load off!"). The only historical
person I wouldn't mind meeting is Bach, but certainly
NOT to "chew the fat" with him--I don't think he had
"that" kind of intelligence--no, just so I could listen to him
playing a few of his great works on this/that instrument...
THAT really might be something like the genius of lore.

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





> MR

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


From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
alt.arts.poetry.urban,alt.arts.poetry.comments,misc.writing,rec.arts.poem
s,rec.a
rts.poetry
Subject: Re: Japan targets 'endangered' whales
References:
<24747-3D24057A-64@storefull-2255.public.lawson.webtv.net>


NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.238.133.122
Message-ID:

ragland36@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
news:...

>
> Rodrian:
>
> Although its true you can't tell much
> about a person from a few of
> their postings and its unwise to
> make assumptions, you are definitely
> "one-of-a kind" and are (in a certain
> sense brilliant). Of course,
> you're a satirist in this thread.
> You appear to be of artistic bent
> judging from your website which
> contains your poems and midis of
> classical composers. The midis
> are "fast". Much of the classical music
> played today, even in live concerts
> and in recording is faster than
> the works were originally played.
> Perhaps the neurosis of our age has
> given such masterpieces that
> "critical edge". I prefer the extremely
> slooowwww solo horn of Bartok?
> in the intro to the Shining amidst
> resplendent snow capped mountains,
> winding roads, and a tiny traveling
> volkswagon.

Music is neither fast nor slow, but good or bad.
Just because I have a robust approach to Chopin
doesn't mean that I don't like the radically delicate
approach to Chopin of an Alfred Cortot. Music is,
after all, to be interpreted. And if you're going to have
players sounding like their predecessors, why hear
new players at all?! Great passion in the same music
can be interpreted either powerfully/heroically or
reaching softly/delicately into the deepest recesses
of the human soul. I myself am always most grateful
when I can come across an unsuspectedly novel
approach to a piece tradition has forced everybody
& his cat to play the same "tried & true" way.

> Satire aside, I think what Hawking
> mentioned was accurate.
> Although Hawking has been crippled
> up for a long time and his previous
> wife left him apparently because
> his condition interfered with his
> sexual function as well as Hawking's
> fame and devotion to his work
> created marital problems, he
> found his true calling in life.

I, on the other hand, could understand
how the removal of what are distractions to
one's professional aims, after all, might
have actually proven beneficial to his work
in science, et al.

> Having
> worked with Roger Penrose and
> others and his unique contributions
> regarding the nature of black holes
> which I was not meant to
> understand. Hawking stated once
> he even considered becoming Prime
> Minister when he was young but
> then he saw what politics is and
> quickly devoted his energies
> elsewhere. In regards to PM Tony Blair
> Hawking states, "I think I get more
> job satisfaction and my work will
> last longer." LOL!!! Hawking was
> such an understanding sport of his
> original wife's sexual and other
> needs that he let her carry on a
> relationship with another man
> with his assent. Incidentally, after
> Hawking divorced from his original
> wife after "running off" with a
> caring young nurse his ex-wife
> married this man.

Distractions, distractions, distractions...

> Hawking, like Einstein, even has a son.
>I don't know the whereabout of
> Einstein's son..be it above or
> underground but it was a trip to see
> Hawking at a race car show with his son.

Hope you didn't approach him for an autograph!

> As you're probably aware, much
> of Einstein's social and political
> commentary was seen as unrealistic
> by many. Was it unrealistic or was
> it just that man wasn't advanced
> enough to grasp it. But even Einstein
> knew his limitations and when he
> was offered to be the Prime Minister
> of Israel he politely declined. Thank
> goodness Einstein had such limitations.
> In similiar vein, some of Hawking's
> social and non-physics commentary
> may not be as valued as his
> contribution to physics. But because
> Hawking is a brilliant and world
> renowned scientist, as Einstein was,
> his commentary on other subjects of
> importance besides physics is
> given airtime.

This is the Argument From Authority,
which drives people to ask their dentists
whom they should vote for. It's human
nature, and nothing can fix that. Let's hope
not every person who gets into dentistry
does so because he/she is a sadist. Albeit,
from the people getting elected these days,
it may just be the case. Just a theory.

> On the Larry King show a few years
> ago Hawking actually stated if he
> were starting out today he would
> probably pursue a career in biology.

We live in an epoch of physics which
just "might have" turned into a dead end
by the cleverness of Einstein (and his
contemporaries). Therefore most of
the work which has followed in all the
related fields to date may prove to be
utter nonsense. This is why I distrust
clever persons and other idiot savants:
they give you the superficial appearance
of being just about the most intelligent
creatures around because you just can't
seem to beat them at checkers & so on,
but on closer analysis they invariably prove
to be morons with a highly developed
memory and the ability to carry out computer
calculations in their heads--and, in the end,
with the same intelligence as your home
computers (garbage in/garbage out, but
quite spectacularly presented, I dare say).

The field(s) of physics today are rife with
gibberish that very spectacularly contradicts
the laws of physics. Only, instead of seeking
out a path which does NOT contradict the laws
of physics, the "too clever for their own good"
practitioners of modern physics instead build
more and more complex Rube Goldberg
explanations to explain previous Rube Goldberg
nonsense: Stay tuned, though, because the
rotten edifice is reaching a breaking point
beyond which even the "idiot savants" of
modern physics must find their glib gibberish
too self-evident.

The problem would have been solved
by the discovery and understanding of
black hole stars BEFORE the advent of
Einstein, which would have given him
and his contemporaries the required insight
into the working of the physical universe
that would have made it possible to see
the universe in terms of a black hole model.
Unfortunately, in spite of the entire human
history of time and time again running into
the fact of there being no fundamental forms
of matter... Einstein's solution is a universal
construct of (for all practical purposes, eternally)
fundamental forms (of matter--which do not
"come to be" in one place from some other
places, by the way, as are solar systems
"put together" but which erupt from inside
themselves like rabbits popping up out of
empty space... therefore requiring either a
collapse or an expansion of these "balls"
making up the universe, and making it
impractical for the "little" matter of their origin
to ever be spoken of again since the "direction
of their creation" postulated by this line of
reasoning is one where objects create
themselves from within, as opposed to the
universally self-evident habit all objects in
the universe being never-ending evolving
agglomerations of disparate objects gathered
into one place from many other places): the
result is a (self-) bursting forth fountain of
existence with a specific date of birth and
theoretical date of death. This violates the
conservation of energy rule, of course, but
it's such a clever display of fireworks that it
distracts the audience from that impertinent
objection. (It also makes it appear as if the
universe is some sort of magical "creation"
via some unimaginably complex set of
impossibly felicitous/coincidental circumstances
... which only serves to discourage one from
inquiring into what/where might have made
existence inescapable in the first place.)

However, starting out from a working knowledge
of what a black hole star must be like (a place in
which our Standard Model particles may cease
to exist altogether--making the theoretical singularity
of lore [the spot where all the "matter" that falls into
a black hole concentrates] a complete myth; and a
black hole more itself one single quasi-homogeneous
structure, however "large-sized")... suggesting at once
the folly of classifying any form of matter as fundamental
(indivisible), however "hard" it may be to "split" (or: split
the black hole, and stars and entire galaxies, in fact,
must burst forth from it). And it may indeed be very
hard to split a black hole. Still, this fact does not of the
black hole a fundamental form of matter make.

Back in the sixties I was trying to figure out exactly
what sort of universe would result... if instead of
the "magical" Einstein model the universe resulted
from some sort of simple-to-more-and-more-complex
Darwinian evolutionary process and I tried to imagine
"the" volume of space "in" which the universe formed
as "empty" as I could propose it... and what might
trigger such noid ("emptiness") to literally "move"
out of the way for the universe... when it became
obvious that the bigger such a volume became the
more and more unlikely it would be for it to maintain
an equilibrium of emptiness throughout (or remain
one identical homogenious pressure throughout).

There had to be a finite number beyond which the
laws of thermodynamics would intervene and some
sort/level of ("convection") current begin... which
nothing ever again could keep from increasing:
Literally, volume would become velocity (slow/large
forms would forever become smaller/faster ones),
and no complex origin would be required for the
universe... just only one simple single beginning.
More important still, there would never be an
insurmountable step from Nothing to Something
(you could always just as properly say that "something
has always existed" as you could that "everything
that now exists is in reality made up of nothing" ...
the two would be absolute equivalents. And, sure
enough, all forms of matter can be "split" ad infinitum
(with even the theory of creating a singularity defying
the common laws of physics... being just as impossible
to construct one (notice that even a black hole is
pretty hard to imagine as absolutely structure-less,
being an ever ongoing process), as they would be
impossible to propose being truly fundamental (and
therefore even theoretically impossible of being "split").
And once you understand of what the universe is
constructed, you can test how it acts under "real world"
conditions (pressures):

If the universe is an imploding process, why should it
appear that the galaxies are moving away from each
other? Basically because they ARE moving away from
each other: All the forms of matter (top to bottom) are
imploding, necessarily away from each other... and
self-evidently the greater the distance between them
the more obvious/pronounced this becomes (therefore
the farther away something is from "you" the faster it
will be receding away from "you"). Add to this Newton's
explanation that it is only when/as long as a force is
acting upon "an object" that it can display an acceleration
and you have a testable prediction as to whether the
universe is imploding (since the universe is being acted
upon by the force of gravity, it ought to display just such
an acceleration). Well, it took some time for astronomy
to catch up to theory, but we now know that indeed
the motion of the universe (galaxies receding from
each other) is indeed accelerating (which would be an
illogical/physically impossibility in the Einstein/expanding
universe but is an absolute requirement of the imploding
universe model).

It's not a matter of intelligence that at last yields to us
the true nature of our universe, but the fact that no matter
how intelligent one may be... if one works from insufficient
or erroneous knowledge, one cannot help but arrive at
insufficient/erroneous conclusions. Einstein and his
contemporaries reasoned out the best solutions they
could from what they knew... and were unlucky enough
to lack the pertinent facts of the matter. It was not their fault
they got it wrong, but one can hardly blame them for
letting their facts lead them to their own conclusion. It is
only now that we can make an intelligent assessment of
the whys/hows phenomena such as why the "speed of
light" is a constant in identical mediums (and not everywhere
across/throughout the universe).

which see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com et al

> He stated (I'm paraphrasing) that
> while its quite possible to
> eventually come up with a
> unified theory of the universe there will
> always be endless variations in biological
> organisms.

I have always marveled at Darwin, myself
(and have always been understanding of
why Darwin was not able to see that Nature
acts the same way across the entire body of
existence as encompassed by all our scientific
disciplines). In fact, it is Evolution that is the
elusive Unified Field Theory... it's just that
it was never as obvious as it now is.

> I think another
> reason Hawking stated if he were
> starting out today he would pursue
> biology is because I think Hawking
> realizes human biology is unevolved
> and that genetic engineering is
> necessary to apply to human beings if
> the human race is not to destroy itself.
> Hawking at times seems to
> contradict himself. He knows the
> human race could destroy itself but
> he nevertheless has hope. He
> admits it will be at least another
> hundred years before genetically
> engineering out human aggression is
> even perhaps possible and that in
> the meantime there will be many
> catacyclms, catastrophes, wars,
> etc. He states such genetic
> engineering will change the standard
> of what a human being is but it
> will do it gradually. If the scenario
> develops Rodrian we can expect
> for an extended period of time these
> new genetically engineered human
> beings who don't have aggression
> to be intermixed with the rest of the
> human population "like us". This
. raises all kinds of questions and
> problems.
> First, assuming the science and
> technology exists to do this genetic
> engineering of humans there is
> likely to be public resistance to it by
> certain groups and governments.
> Indeed, even the research required to
> reach the stage where successful
> genetic engineering of human beings
> is possible is being fought and will
> continue to be.
> Second, if there is such a program
> will it be done voluntarily or
> involuntarily or involuntarily in secret?
> Would prospective parents
> agree to have their progeny
> genetically engineered to remove
> aggression?

Do you (or Hawking, for that matter) have
any real notion of what you mean by "aggression?"
Do you understand that what you really mean
is "those acts/actions which you find objectionable?"
That's not what Nature has in mind when it
requires, for their very survival, its creatures be
aggressive: Nature means for a male to have
enough aggression so that when the female he's
after tells him, "Go out with a pus globule like you?!"
he'll think, "Hot dog, a gal with spirit!" There is no
way for Nature to stick her syringe into Hitler
and zap out his willingness to invade Poland,
I assure you! Remove (most probably) what
you imagine you mean by the term "aggression"
from man, and I seriously doubt anybody'd want
even to get out of bed in the morning! Just take
a quick look at the people you see everyday
out in the world seeking out Evil and ask yourself
what it may be that moves them to it: They are
the aggressors on the side of Good, let me tell you.
It they didn't care, then you may well be right and
aggression might always be a bad thing--but they
do, and it is their so-called aggression you'd kill
(which put together with that aggression working
on the other side) constitutes the spirit of man.
What you have to understand is that most people
are intelligent enough to know that what's good
for most men is good for them--and that THAT is
what saves us, in the end, not making zombies
of us all, for Heaven's sake!

> Would there be financial and other incentives?

Nothing can take its place: If we don't care,
we don't care about anything!

> How would
> private organizations and/or governments
> monitor these children? How
> would such children be regarded
> by the rest of society? Isn't likely
> there would be some discrimination
> and resentment towards these new
> human beings at first since it would
> be known they were considered
> superior and were to ultimately replace
> "us"? These are just some of
> the unknowns. This need not be
> a Brave New Worldlian society. Indeed,
> in that satirical novel people apparently
> didn't have aggression
> genetically engineered out
> but received VPS treatments which
> stimulated their adrenalin. And quite
> honestly since Brave New World
> was written by a man whose
> aggression was constructively channeled
> into this work of satire I don't see how
> a future human society where
> aggression has been genetically
> engineered out would resemble it.
> Unfortunately, one of the pitfalls of
> satire is that it is often not
> recognized as such..particularly if
> it is very good satire. I've even
> made that mistake myself at times.

The world is teeming with "geniuses" of every
manner/description. We otherwise call them
"idiots savants." All of them quite capable already
of near-miraculous feats of "intelligence" no
conceivable genetically-engineered person
could ever hope to surpass. Is that what you would
order up from the bio-engineering labs? I doubt it.
Then what, exactly? What is intelligence? How
could you possibly improve upon the humanity
of Stan Laurel?!?! I know I couldn't. The problem
is that those qualities of super-intelligence we
see them gifted with... always work against them
in the real world. So will it always be. We don't
need miraculous increases of this or that intellectual
ability... as much as we need a more nourishing
society/civilization for the humanity we already have
(and that's more the privilege of time than of science).
Advances in science are never miraculous but
always take place in little gradual steps, one after
the other one... after the other one. Trust me on this:
the humble little step I've been proposing for years
now in the field of cosmology is not that big, and yet
most people in the field still find it quite insurmountable.

> At some point in time, however, (not
> in our lifetimes) satire won't be
> enough. The continued abject
> stupidity and destructiveness of the
> human race will reach a point where
> at least certain types of long
> overdue reforms and remedies
> will come about. But it will not come
> about without an awful lot of violence,
> terror, and pain occurring.

That will always occur regardless of which direction
history is taking, upwards & onwards, or backwards
& downwards. We do not have a God to lead us
along the unmistakable path of Truth, so we elect
our own gods whatever, brutes & ignoramuses galore
to lead us down the all the disparate paths of least
resistance. My advice to you is to learn how best to
parry the mobs that suddenly go berserk about you
--Learn to recognize the signs of madness in your
neighbors, and always keep a suitcase packed by
the bed. And remember that too much rejoicing is
the last signal the mob gives before going into a frenzy.

> Similar in some ways to Brave New
> World. People had to be subjected to
> prolonged misery and warfare before
> a Brave New Worldian society came
> about. Brave New World was FORCED
> on them because they had shown they
> were incapable of doing what was in
> their best interests. I would
> personally rather see a society
> voluntarily come about based on
> stability and community but I must
> admit that seems highly unlikely.

The next Hitler will not be someone who
doesn't much care one way or the other
which way things will go. And, never, to my
knowledge, never has the amount of Evil
that has been done in the world match
anything BUT the amount of Good intended
or claimed as the goal: The best politicians,
in my estimation, are those that claim they
will do a little bit here & a little bit there, and
then not for everybody, certainly. I believe
those who say they will turn everything upside
down... and I really and truly doubt my chances
of starting up in the basement and ending atop
the rubble & ruin(s).

> Please continue to make satirical
> fun at humanity. It is fully
> deserving of it.

Well, the world is a funny place, my friend.
I certainly don't always intend to make jokes
on the matter... it just seems to end up that way
out of some natural necessity built into the subject
of life itself. Don't ask me why. But, an unnerving
number of monkeys also like to break out in
laughter "for no apparent reason at all" --Do they
know something we don't, or could they, like us
simply/only be expressing their "funny" genes? (pun)

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


> MR

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


From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,alt.humor,alt.angst
Subject: Re: Japan targets 'endangered' whales
References: <7SpT8.2424$fI2.160247@news02.tsnz.net>




NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.238.133.122
Message-ID:

"RoyBoy" wrote in message
news:...

> SDR:
> ***
> Tell you what, check them ten years from now--provided
> you took extraordinary care of your CDs. In fact, most of
> them will be crap in two to five years. Sorry. A few million
> years from now steel, aluminum, and all the other so-called
> immutable metals of man will be heaps of rust waiting for
> a litt'l breeze.
> ***
>
> This along with the majority of your post this is based on
> half truths.

Only religious nuts proclaim themselves possessors of
The Whole Truth. The best the rest of us poor mortal
creatures can do is to tell the truth most of the time. I am
a mortal man, sir (and getting more and more mortal all
the time, I fear).

> Yes CD's do not last as long as people
> expect...but if one was to take 'extraordinary care'
> of a CD, it could last decades...even approach a century.
> Of course this is assuming that CD readers will become
> more advanced and be able to read increasingly scratched
> CD's...something already occuring.

I am glad to see that even a holder of absolute truths
like you... likes as not to hedge his claims. It's sweet.
However, I am willing to bet you that a century from
this very date... your CDs will be crap. We can play
cards until Time itself decides the bet between us.
Bring sandwishes.

> And now that I think about it I do have CD's that are
> around 5 years old and they still work a charm. Sorry.

No problem. I myself have CDs that are six months or so
old, and I can't find a player that will read them. Therefore
I win, since we're arguing over the short run here.

> Of course I don't use them often at all...but photo albums
> and other archives wouldn't get used often either.

As I understand the matter, from an article in the New York
Times... it matters not, my friend, whether you keep them
in cold storage or play frisbee with them with your dog on
every Friday after work. Some CDs from the same pack may
last a few months while other may last you a dozen years:
I believe the writer said it had something to do with some
sort of magic... or voodoo which is built into the manu-
facturing processes of all modern electronic materials.

> SDR:
> ***
> But the oxygen
> pollution of the atmosphere killed the whole ecosystem
> that had evolved over millions of years up until then.
> ***
>
> I'm intrigued...which ecosystem is this?

According to my long ago extinct fourth grade teacher
(dear old Mrs. Alvano), the earliest geologic era (the
Hadean) did not contain life as we know it, but only of
the building blocks of life (amino acid, proteins, et al).
However the era immediately following it (the Archean),
from about 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, saw the formation
of the first living cells and simple bacteria & plant-like algae
which could actually feed off pure energy in the form of
sunlight. The creatures of this ecosystem became the
building blocks for the evolution of life and the basis of
early food chains in the geologic era that was to follow it
(the Proterozoic), some 2.5 billion to 544 million years ago.

In the Proterozoic era we see the first evidence of oxygen
buildup in the atmosphere--which spelled the death for most
of the earlier Archean bacteria (et al) whose success had
polluted their environment (with their waste, oxygen) ...
apparently having proved as "successful" in their planetary
environment as we ourselves are in ours today, and ...
therefore destroying that environment exactly as we are
destroying ours (presumably, like us, they too couldn't
survive in their own waste, of course).

> Although you may have a point there, I think it is safe
> to assume this (oxygen) ecosystem has far more variety
> promise, and has been evolving far longer than the previous
> one.

Well, we'll soon put a stop to THAT. I am convinced
that we shall soon enough fart ourselves to death, sir.

> To call oxygen pollution is interesting since it is
> obviously extremely reactive...but it kind of negates your
> argument that without oxygen you wouldn't be here
> to make the point. Also something is pollution only so
> long as it detriments life.

Well, since the original pristine atmosphere of this planet
did not contain (as much) oxygen. And since said oxygen
was the waste-product of the creatures then living... I just
don't see what else you could call it (without also making it
impossible to classify our own waste products as pollution).

But I do admire your very traditional attitude that life is only
that upon which WE choose to confer the title (the practice
does come very handy, say, as when we wish to kill a group
of people... you know: reserving exclusively to ourselves
the right of whether to grant them the claim of also being
humans ... like us). Saves a lot of paperwork.

> I think it is obvious that oxygen is beneficial to life...

Well, OUR life, at any rate. Wink, wink. And, after all, WE
are the important ones, aren't we!

> but perhaps I'm missing the story of the oxygen
> precursors...some of whom may still be around
> near ocean vents.

I hate to tell you, but there are some scientists who
believe that life in this planet originated around those
deep ocean vents... and then drifted to the surface,
creating a sort of fungi-like secondary infection which
eventually evolved into you and me. And if you look
down there ... you will find bacteria not that different
from the bacteria of the Archean era which led to us.

> I'm aware non-solar based lifeforms
> are there...but it is still up in the 'air' if they were the
> first lifeforms on Earth.

Well, maybe Mrs. Alvano inhabited the earth back in
the Hadean--she certainly looked old enough to have
made the hypothesis reasonable! And in that case
we are all descended from her, you, me, and the
Archean life forms which appear so disturbingly similar
to those now found around our deep sea sulfur chimneys.

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


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


From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,alt.humor,alt.wisdom
Subject: Re: Japan targets 'endangered' whales
References: <7SpT8.2424$fI2.160247@news02.tsnz.net>





<2R8W8.67223$op.7001560@read2.cgocable.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.238.133.122
Message-ID:

"RoyBoy" wrote in message
news:<2R8W8.67223$op.7001560@read2.cgocable.net>...

> ***
> Only religious nuts proclaim themselves possessors of
> The Whole Truth The best the rest of us poor mortal
> creatures can do is to tell the truth most of the time. I am
> a mortal man, sir (and getting more and more mortal all
> the time, I fear).
> ***
>
> Well you speak as though you hold that truth...and
> it sets me askew when I can do a better job of it.
> I am well versed in many subjects, but especially so
> in the technological field. Yes, I feel my knowledge
> and experience exceeds yours in this area so hence
> my authoritarian objections.

You could be right: I happen to be a caveman (who found
a computer in a city dump near my cave).

> FYI: Just general 'nuts' can proclaim the whole
> truth as well, no need for religion.
>
> ***
> I am glad to see that even a holder of absolute truths
> like you... likes as not to hedge his claims. It's sweet.
> However, I am willing to bet you that a century from
> this very date... your CDs will be crap. We can play
> cards until Time itself decides the bet between us.
> Bring sandwishes.
> ***
>
> Well by that time my information will be on another
> format so it matters little to me...most will be crap,
> but the extraordinary care clause makes me confident
> in their relative longevity.

I prefer to leave my stuff on acid-free paper:
The stuff has been known to last for hundreds of years.

> ***
> No problem. I myself have CDs that are six months or so
> old, and I can't find a player that will read them. Therefore
> I win, since we're arguing over the short run here.
> ***
>
> I haven't had that experience, but I acknowledge that
> is entirely possible if you mistakenly put your CD's
> on a record player. (j/k)

Mistakenly?!

> Yes through abnormal wear and
> tear or substandard quality of a CD, it can become
> dysfunctional in a matter of months, I wasn't proposing
> otherwise.
>
> ***
> As I understand the matter, from an article in the New York
> Times... it matters not, my friend, whether you keep them
> in cold storage or play frisbee with them with your dog on
> every Friday after work. Some CDs from the same pack may
> last a few months while other may last you a dozen years:
> I believe the writer said it had something to do with some
> sort of magic... or voodoo which is built into the manu-
> facturing processes of all modern electronic materials.
> ***
>
> Is this the one?
> January 4, 2001
> Digital Photos: Easy to Take, Not So Easy to Take Care Of
> By KATIE HAFNER (NYT) 1036 words

Nope.

> Ehehehhe...well I am well aware that crazy things can and
> do happen to CD's...there are strains of bacteria that like
> to much on silicon and such. I use old CD's as coasters
> all over the house, which reminds me that with the pace
> of things the software is almost ganranteed to go out of
> date before the CD is irretrievable. I'll conduct an experiment
> with a coaster. ;'D

Yes, but I use then as coaster BEFORE writing on them
(this eliminates the ones that are going to end up as
coasters anyway).

> Okay I cleaned the grime off of it...then i used eye glass
> cleaner to get at the finger print layer, and try as I might there
> are three specs on it of god knows what I can't get lose,
> and I reveal a surface of scratches...lots of them...plenty
> of long scratches...but hundreds of smaller ones...jess looks
> like someone took a SOS pad to this thing...

I have, through trial and success, discovered that
those used as coasters in microwaves are the worst.

> Oh yeah...my DVD-ROM is a noisy bugger...ramps up
> to ludicrous speeds to read CD-ROM's...okay first my
> system stalled for about 20 seconds...claimed it could not
> read the volume, then miracle of miracles it
> actually read the Title of the CD into my file browser:
> MSIE_4_00...sexy! Well didn't get much farther than
> that...looked into a subdirectory but nothing will obviously
> run. Well this CD goes back into well deserved retirement.
> Ahaha...a blue screen later and that's done. Nifty.

I use Windows2000, so I never crash (which is more than
I can say for my car--I lend it a lot). My burner claims
it can burn a CD in seven seconds, but best I've done is
half a day and a 50 pack for one good CD. The only time
I burned a CD under ten seconds was when I ran it through
a blow torch.

> ***
> Well, we'll soon put a stop to THAT. I am convinced
> that we shall soon enough fart ourselves to death, sir.
> ***
>
> Are you farting in my general direction? :')

Where are you now?

> ***
> Well, since the original pristine atmosphere of this planet
> did not contain (as much) oxygen. And since said oxygen
> was the waste-product of the creatures then living... I just
> don't see what else you could call it (without also making it
> impossible to classify our own waste products as pollution).
> ***
>
> Oxygen is pollution for a plant, not for us.
> Dung is pollution for us, not for a plant.

Conclusion: There is no such thing as pollution!

> The whole cycle of life thing. To equate them is interesting,
> but ultimately useless, unless you plan on becoming a plant.

I expect a deep-roots shade tree over my grave, yes.

> Something that may also be confusing you is concentration.

I also have some difficulty setting my airconditioner
either to cycle or to sucker (in air from outside).

> Oxygen naturally diffuses nicely throughout the atmosphere,
> sewage does not...and we produce so much of the stuff in such
> concentrations it kills diversity, higher lifeforms we enjoy
> to hunt and eat, an indirect threat, and it directly threatens
> us with its infections. If we could diffuse our sewage throughout
> the world it wouldn't be as much of a pollutant but it really
> can put things out of kilter and threaten us.

Maybe we can get American tourists to fill their pockets
on their way abroad.

> There is a hellalot of stuff in sewage,

Tell me about it--I have dibs on most of it.

> to compare that very complex brew and its complications
> to our ecosystem with a dead simple O2 molecule that is
> responsible for fueling the very life that created the sewage
> in the first place is silly.
>
> ***
> But I do admire your very traditional attitude that life is only
> that upon which WE choose to confer the title (the practice
> does come very handy, say, as when we wish to kill a group
> of people... you know: reserving exclusively to ourselves
> the right of whether to grant them the claim of also being
> humans ... like us). Saves a lot of paperwork.
> ***
>
> I don't admire your aptitude of reinterpreting what I said
> so negatively, as if I'm stupider than you. Fuck that noise.

Thank you for proving my case.

> I made no assertion that life is narrowly defined by our
> parameters, I love sci-fi and that was a premise I picked
> up before I learned how to drive.

Did we just suggest that learning to drive drove you to
drop what you said you picked up before?

> However the basic
> properties of chemistry does put limitations on life, and
> indeed I've read some recent articles that further examine
> the actual feasibility of say silicon lifeforms.

Is this the one?
January 4, 2001
Silicone Beasts: Easy to Take, Not So Easy to Take Care Of
By KATIE HAFNER (NYT) 1036 words

> Its points like these where I start really hassling you,

THAT must be the hassling I keep hearning behind my ears!

> and question your ability for rational thought.

You're the first person that has ever question a
single facet of my thought--Usually I get the full
spectrum questioning.

> I question
> your thought process because I'm confident you can
> actually read the words I'm typing...

You over-estimate by a whole bunch my psychic abilities.

> but they get muddled
> up in your minds.

Which ones of them?

> (you and Michael Martin are largely alone

Is this Michael Martin the cartoon character?

> in this) Hay I know I'm not the best writter, I review

You're a better speller, I assure you.

> posts and say to myself...I can't even get my tense right...
> missing words...bleh blah...

You also lose the ability to use actual words pretty
quickly!

> ***
> Well, OUR life, at any rate.
> ***
>
> And an extensively successful ecosystem it is.

Wait until the oil/coal runs out.

> ***
> Wink, wink. And, after all, WE
> are the important ones, aren't we!
> ***
>
> Yes, we are important to ourselves.
> I am well aware that microbes rule the Earth.

Oh, you know my boss, I see!

> Any further evolutionary insights?

Yes: 2050 ... Armaggedon.

> You do have a different perspective, which is nice,
> but you seem somehow deluded in thinking that
> having a decidedly different perspective gives you
> some unique insight.

I'm crazy, what can I tell ya.

> Insofar as the masses are
> concerned that notion is justifiable...but watch yourself,
> because your different perspective isn't that great
> to those who've gone through it or can just see through
> it. Don't let your self-important off beat thoughts
> based on poorly connected facts
> fool you into thinking you know something I don't

I can't know what you know I don't until I know it.

> (which you do...but not nearly as much as you think...
> which is obvious from your posts). We do indeed have
> our place of importance.
>
> By leaving this place of our own accord through exercising
> our cognitive abilities, we will be dragging them along with
> us wherever we go, providing new worlds to inhabit.

I'm just going to die, and have my body mailed to
my neightbor on the sonnababitch's birthday.

> Just like parents, I appreciate my archaea ancestors...
> but I laugh at their simple ways...just as I laugh at
> you. Ahahahahaha!

I got some pills that can sure that.

> Ha. But keeping in mind I
> am learning from y'all, and not pretending otherwise...
> however I do wish to give your dumbass additional
> perspective....because lordy you need it.

Can you gimme a million bucks instead? I need that more.

> SDR: "Lookie me...
> I know small things keep the world running for us...
> I am so smart...s-m-r-t...I mean s-m-a-r-t."

Well I have taken a dozen IQ tests (I recommend taking
them from stupid people: they're easier.)

> ***
> I hate to tell you, but there are some scientists who
> believe that life in this planet originated around those
> deep ocean vents... and then drifted to the surface,
> creating a sort of fungi-like secondary infection which
> eventually evolved into you and me. And if you look
> down there ... you will find bacteria not that different
> from the bacteria of the Archean era which led to us.
> ***
>
> I was aware, but nicely written nonetheless.
>
> ***
> Well, maybe Mrs. Alvano inhabited the earth back in
> the Hadean--she certainly looked old enough to have
> made the hypothesis reasonable! And in that case
> we are all descended from her, you, me, and the
> Archean life forms which appear so disturbingly similar
> to those now found around our deep sea sulfur chimneys.
> ***
>
> Those archaea think they're so high and mighty...
> forcing us to rearrange our animal kingdom of 5 into a
> trinity of archaea, bacteria and eucarya, probably all
> from a common ancestor.
>
> Who do they think they are?!?!? :')

Well, I know one of them thinks he's my neightbor.

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


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


From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,alt.humor,alt.angst
Subject: Re: Japan targets 'endangered' whales
References:
<6043-3D287713-524@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.8.238.154
Message-ID:

ragland37@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote in message
news:<6043-3D287713-524@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net>...

>
> Rodrian:
> I appreciate your long and
> thoughtful response and comments.

Don't give it a thought--I know I seldom do.

> As I
> alluded earlier I know very little
> about physics. That doesn't mean,
> however, I can't learn about it and
> express some of my layman views on
> it. I've been on usenet for about
> four years or so and the only other
> discussion I've had with a scientist
> really was with Adam Littman of
> Cornell University. We got into
> an exchange about the possibility of
> extraterrestrial life in the universe
> and what nature it would take. The
> subject hit a dead end but
> it was interesting, at least to me.
> Okay, you asked what either me
> or Hawking meant by aggression. I can't
> speak for Hawking and what I have
> read he has written on the subject is
> extremely generalized. I think it is
> intended that way so people like me
> will be able to grasp it and secondly
> simply due to the fact science
> currently knows so little about this subject.
> I'm not a geneticist but I don't
> think aggression is merely an 'action
> somebody objects to'. Below is a
> study which was done several years ago
> on mice. ( . . . )
> Ted and Valina Dawson of Johns
> Hopkins University were breeding mice.
> They started with five special mice
> lacking the gene needed to make
> nitric oxide (NO), a little molecule
> best known as an air pollutant but
> recently found to exist in the brain,
> too, where it carries chemical
> signals from neuron to neuron.
> The Dawsons were studying NO's role in
> brain damage caused by stroke. But
> often found that one or two mice were
> dead. At first the scientists suspected
> heart attacks. But when they
> looked closely they saw that
> they had been killed by cage mates.

Among humans this is not that unusual
in prison (and marriage either).

> The mutant mice were
> sexual aggressors, too: when put
> into cages with females, "the females
> would cower, sit and scream for
> hours," says Hopkins neuroscientist
> Randy Nelson. "But still the
> males kept mounting them."
> The researchers designed experiments to
> examine how the lack of NO turned
> animals that were downright mousy
> into serial killers and rapists. ( . . . )
> How can the absence of one brain
> chemical produce such psychopathic
> mice? The best guess is that "nitric
> oxide may be the neurotransmitter
> that puts a brake on some
> behaviors" such as sexual and other
> aggression, says Snyder. Once
> the knockout mice start fighting, they
> don't stop. The mutant "doesn't get
> the message of surrender or
> disinterest," says Snyder. Female
> mice showed no such aggression. While
> that may simply prove once again
> females" moral superiority, it may
> instead be because female mice
> fight only to protect newborns.
> At this point scientists usually
> caution that the findings are years
> away from being relevant to
> people. But curiously, given the passions
> aroused by any whisper of a link
> between genes and violence, the authors
> declare that NO may shed light
> on "the biological determination" of
> "sexual and aggressive behaviors
> . . . in humans." Snyder goes further.
> "What we might have here is an
> example of serious criminal behavior that
> can be explained by a single gene
> defect," he says. Which leaves other
> scientists aghast. "Remember,
> these are knockout mice, not knockout
> men," says neuroscientist Craig
> Ferris of the University of Massachusetts.
> But I can see the headline now:
> ARE SERIAL RAPISTS MISSING THIS GENE?
> Ferris finds it plausible that
> some patients hospitalized for
> uncontrollable rage have a genetic
> predisposition to violence even,
> perhaps, an NO deficit. But that
> explains almost nothing about
> garden-variety violence. And it
> doesn't mean that providing NO would
> cure men given to violent rage: lack
> of NO may have irreversibly changed
> the wiring of their brains, and there's
> no guarantee that NO is the
> only, or even the primary,
> reason for their aggression.
> When it comes to explaining
> criminal aggression, it's way too early to
> just say NO.

Nifty, but the use of terms such as "moral" and "criminal"
as applied to non-humans is irrational. We define behavior
which may only be insensitive or embarrassing as either
"immoral" or even "criminal" which Nature may have a very
good reason for including in "our" behavioral repertoire.

I'm not going to go into the particulars here because this
is going to be read by very "moral" and "righteous" people
who will debate to death that Nature ever made men bad
(the devil-made-them-do-it mob). In some societies even
looking at a woman is considered criminal behavior. But
what Nature is interested in is reproduction--who/how they
get together is more often than not arranged by some feat
of very brutal strength... so that the next generation inherits
a propensity for uncompromising brutality and savagery in
the face of an uncompromising brutal/savage world. [But
evolution doesn't work toward the improvement of its little
creatures... just toward their survival (the improvement bit
is a coincidence created by environments which remain
stable over prolonged periods of time, permitting evolution
the freedom to adapt the animal even better & better to its
environment and thereby raising its chances of extinction
if that environment should suddenly vanish--a case could
be made that this is what's happening to us: our intelligence
is helping us adapt our environment to us more and more
... but at the cost of eventually destroying that environment).]

Sensitivity and that eccentricity we call intelligence are odd
accidents made possible by the coincidence that "some"
intelligence is good (too much intelligence may eventually
prove counter-productive for survival): Just as if ever there
comes a time that human females become reluctant to mate
the very survival of humanity may fall into the hands of our
rapists, if ever we become so intelligent as to find it absolutely
immoral to keep bringing children into this world... the survival
of the species will depend exclusively on those individuals too
stupid to understand this. And we're not that far from there now.

[Besides: What is intelligence? What if it's just some fatal
illusion peculiar to us poor homo sapiens sapiens sapiens?
After all, dogs don't know they're dogs--only we think them
dogs. Dogs themselves are probably convinced they're
the highest form of life on this planet and that we humans
are just weird-looking dogs. If aliens from another planet
landed here and were observed by dogs, you think "them
dogs" are gonna go out & fetch the president of the United
States or something? No. They'll go up to the aliens and try
to talk'em into the idea that they are the owners of this planet
or bite their asses... which is all they really know how to do.]

It's all too easy to pass moral judgments upon animal behavior
we may find objectionable, but Nature teems with behavior
which, looking to us every inch uncompromisingly savage/brutal,
serves the purpose of survival well enough (yes, strict moral
and judicially righteous behavior would work as well, but you're
wasting your time trying to teach dogs to refrain from eating
their prey until the poor prey animal is dead). And people are
animals too: Chimp societies (which also include us) are never
monogamous, but try to tell that to a judge! So millions of men
and women are forced to live--by themselves, mind you--in the
same stupid cave with nobody to talk to/throw things at but each
other! O the carnage!

> The article can be directly accessed at
> http://www.people.virginia-edu/~rjh9u/nomouse.html
>
> Obviously, this study of the effects of
> missing NO in these mouse brains
> is extremely modest and inconclusive
> regarding the complex causes of
> aggression in human beings. The
> POINT, however, is that it has been
> scientifically demonstrated mutant
> mice which have had their NO
> transmittor knocked out turn into
> extremely violent serial rapists and
> killers.

Well, nobody I know loves rapists, but I never knew or
heard of an army recruiter specifically asking for killers.
And yet that is precisely what all armies want: killers.
Only, instead of collecting killers and putting them to
work on what they do best, they instead demand that
their recruits be persons of such high morality that they
be awestruck by the mere mention of a brutal act (or
thought). And then, what happens? They take these moral
lads and teach them to become uncompromising killers!
And God forbid these young men should refuse to kill,
for then they are to be hanged or shot on the spot. Ah,
say you, but they are pushed to kill for a good cause! Ah,
then, say I ... does this mean that you would approve
of whole armies of rapists going about their job provided
they found a good cause for which to rape?!?! (And the
really ironic thing is that I would much rather be raped
than skewered.)

> How can one define such aggression
> as merely an 'action one objects to'
> when it is scientifically shown that
> the lack of a chemical in the mouse
> brain turns it into a violent serial rapist and killer?

I think you are missing the point. Which chemical
in the cat's brain drives it to kill all the kittens not
sired by him? Is this not a monstrous crime?! But
all cats do this, it's normal cat behavior (lions do it
too). Shall we deem cats too immoral and criminal
to live and execute them all? I rather suspect we
shall continue to love cats and excuse their
unimaginably horrendous viciousness. We ourselves
are creatures marked above all by hypocrisy--it is, in
fact THE principal human trait: Like love to fool others
almost as much as we love to fool ourselves.

This then be Nature's judgment upon the human race:
If two men be courting some woman or other, let the
fellow with enough aggression to beat the other into her
father her brats... that they don't prove as lacking in
aggression as the guy who was beaten out. And Nature
will beat your every scheme to remove that aggression
from us, my boy: Every generation you leave without
aggression will wipe itself from the book of life... and open
the way for any individual left who may still be aggressive
enough to continue his-story.

Otherwise what you're talking here is what I told you
before: You're trying to find a way to genetically engineer
the complaint away from whoever you've cut in front of
in the line (notice that YOU are quite satisfied with yourself
... it's the other guy that's got to be dominated & gagged).
Otherwise where's the conflict if you have no intention of
cutting in line in front of him? Certainly I can't imagine
you'd want to have the complaint genetically engineered
out of you in somebody cuts in in front of you. Or, how
you're going to genetically engineer the guy's willingness
to cut in in front of you WITHOUT also zapping out his
willingness to stand by you if some third guy wants to cut
in ahead of every-body--I'll never know! Frankly, I wouldn't
get in such a line if my life depended on it... and it wouldn't
surprise me one bit if the only reason you guys were
standing out there in that line in the first place weren't to
wait for somebody to try to cut in in front of somebody else
so you could start a general brawl. Why, I'd never heard of
such a thing! I'd rather just go home and watch TV in the
peace & quiet of my own house, if you asked me. Like
I don't have anything better to do than to be carted off to
some hospital, for Heaven's sakes!

> Granted, we're talking about a genetic
> defect in mice here and not
> supposedly genes which mark the
> Darwinian evolutionary level of micedom.

What do you mean "defect?"
What would you expect a naked man
to think if he were suddenly placed
among a number of beautiful young
naked women? And what do you
imagine triggers THAT reaction in him?
It this a "defect" in the man's brain?!?!
Suppose you then re-create THAT same
reaction in that man by pumping the
chemical associated with THAT behavior
in the guy's brain even though he might be
at his company CEO's dinner party...!
You're talking cops, police brutality and
videotapes here, my friend.

> So my intention isn't to compare this
> one mouse study to my hopes for
> genetically engineering out human
> aggression from our DNA but simply to
> show how biology, in this case mouse
> biology, can under certain chemical
> conditions (i.e. lack of nitric oxide)
> produce extreme aggression.

It produces laughter in most people:
What you do is let in a little at a time into
a confined concentration of very serious
persons... and ... well, we won't go into
all the details.

> If certain mice lacking a chemical in
> the brain can become serial
> rapists and killers then why is it not
> possible certain humans may lack
> a certain chemical(s) in the brain
> which make them abnormally
> aggressive?

Because murder is not an abnormal behavior.
It's only criminal if you murder the wrong guy
at the wrong time in the wrong place. But
every cop in the world is given a gun so he
can murder the right guy at the right time in
the right place (unless some motherfkr's
running a videorecorder in the vicinity... and
folk believe the video instead of the cop).

> I'll mention here my belief Hitler was
> the human equivalent of one of
> these mutant mice. Not that he was
> necessarily missing nitric oxide in
> his genes but that something was
> amiss genetically in him which made him
> abnormally aggressive.

If you must learn one lesson in life let it be that
"ALL bullies are cowards." The reason they bully
is to discourage others from bullying them. What
you want is to make people like Hitler and other
bullies... have enough self-confidence and courage
to not fear the world around them... so they can live
and let live.

PLEASE NOTE that ALL the armies on this planet
are under their respective DEFENSE departments!
This is not some marvelous coincidence but a
reflection of the fact that it is some real or perceived
FEAR that pushes the fearful to start wars.

You want to make the world more peaceful give
people more courage, enough courage in fact to
permit them to live in such a world... free of the fear
that drives them to arm themselves against the
"threats" around them.

> If the human species gradually eliminated
> aggression from human DNA to
> the point (far off in the future relatively
> speaking) a human like
> Hitler would never come into being.
> Not to mention all those currently
> in the world like him but don't have
> the reigns of power he had.

Hitler was afraid of the vulnerability of Germany
after her defeat in WWI. Stalin was afraid of his
own personal vulnerability. The American Black
Muslims are afraid of their vulnerability in a white-
dominated society--that is the root of their
aggressive posture. People who are not afraid
to be alone do not gang up. Live and learn.

> For this to come about it would seem
> necessary for human reproduction to
> become a more scientifically controlled affair.

True. That way we would soon all turn into Bill Gates.
And all it'd take to conquer the planet would be one
tough hombre from outer space (or from the Ukraine,
I haven't made up my mind on this one way or the other)...

> By continuing to study the violent
> mind this may eventually lead to
> scientific insights and knowledge
> which lead to a better understanding
> of the genetic basis of aggression
> in human beings generally. Once we
> reach that point is when the possibility
> of successfully genetically
> engineering out aggression will be possible.

Those with broken brains are in the asylums already.
Otherwise you can't separate violence from frustration,
frustration from (most of the time)... lack of money, and
then do you propose to genetically engineer everybody
that falls under a certain income level? I'm really asking.

> Hawking himself stated it would be
> at least one hundred years before
> this was even "maybe" possible.
> If you're curious you can read the
> Hawking interview at

http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/cnn.html

I distrust a guy who comes to an interview with all his
answers already written down AND stops to think
before answering the questions...!?!?

> What I'm trying to say is if you asked
> Hawking what is aggression he
> would not be able to give you a scientific answer.

Maybe he's just embarrassed to be hypocritical.

> I'm speaking for
> Hawking here and I could be wrong
> but I don't think so. Science
> currently knows too little about
> aggression to 'define' it in scientitic
> terms.

Every baby born knows the humanity to which
he/she is born without having to define any part of it
in scientific terms... at least until the age of consent
(to do so).

> Even the most renowned
> geneticists can't pinpoint the genes
> responsible for human aggression.

They're the same responsible for making you
get out of bed in the morning... every morning.
Zap them out and... why should you get up
in the morning? I know if I couldn't watch my
neighbor stepping in the little gifts I've trained
my dog to leave for him in his lawn... I don't know
it I'd even want to get up at all in the morning.

> You mention how science advances
> in tiny little steps gradually over a
> period of time. As an example
> you mentioned your own 'little'
> contribution in physics which
> many still find insurmountable. I'm sure
> it will be the same way in the field of genetics.

Mine is an astonishingly tiny step: Some years ago
there was an Anglican Bishop who added up the ages
of the patriarchs in the Bible and came up with the exact
date of the creation of the world (some 4,000-some odd
years ago, by his count). This is obviously religion, not
science. And intelligent persons eventually came to
understand this. [It did take some time.]

Well, in cosmology, some years ago, some other "bishops"
(perhaps even Anglican as well) observed that the galaxies
were receding from each other... and calculated the age
of the world (the universe) from "the amount of time it must
have taken" for the galaxies to travel from where/when they
must have all "been" together in one spot! This too is
religion, not science. But we live in a time when there are
as yet not enough intelligent persons to understand this.

In the two related religions above the assumption is that God
created the world (necessarily somewhere/at some point in
time). But science is, rather, a study of the process of evolution
(the evolution or "putting together" of the stuffs that exist).

Life/reality/existence/the universe as a process of evolution
can have NO beginning (since God making something implies
at some time/place), unless it is a religion. This should be
extraordinarily simple to understand, and yet not everyone does.

All Big Bang cosmology is religion. Period. Just as ALL
"scientific" derivations of the age of the World from
"adding up" the ages of the Biblical patriarchs... are religion
pure/simple: ALL "scientific" derivations of the age of the
Universe from "adding up" how far galaxies might have
"traveled" across the cosmos from their imagined origin
are also religion...

The universe may indeed be going to/ward "one" place,
but its origins were "everywhere." And to speak of time
is pointless because the universe is always accelerating
everywhere at the same rate (this makes it impossible
for us to "see" time as anything other than forever running
at the same rate start-to-finish).

Remember: Before... slower/larger. After... faster/smaller.

However, pull out your watch and it seems to be running
at the same "speed" as ever. Measure a mile an hour now
and it will forever remain a mile and hour unto the centuries
because every bit of the universe INSIDE the universe is
"imploding" at the same rate as every other bit, and so here
inside the universe... everything is absolutely relativistic.

So it has always been. So it will always remain. Until the
universe completely runs out of energy/matter (it's just that
imploding as it is, the less energy/matter there is to it... the
smaller it is, and so no appreciable difference can ever
appear no matter how long it goes on spending its energy).

Simple, no? The universe is an evolution, an evolution is
the universe (that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need
to know). And yet the old religion of the Big Bang is still
practiced by most so-called intelligent persons (even as
they continue to call themselves scientists).

> But even if Hawking can't scientifically
> provide the genetic causes of
> human aggression I think both of us
> can agree it very much exists and
> that too often we experience the
> effects of it either as recipients of
> it or perpetrators of it.

You and Hawking maybe. He is also a very religious man.

> And much time, money and energy is
> spent combatting the effects of human
> aggression.

Indeed there are a lot of very aggressive
people working there!

> Around the clock 24/7. And despite
> many people who are not
> evil and even some who truly
> care for their fellow man, its not enough
> Rodrian. It's a constant fight to attempt
> to keep this human beast in check.

Evil is impossible without Good,
Good impossible without Evil
because if there were no Evil
in the world it would be impossible
to describe it as that exception from Evil
we now describe as Good (just as,
were there no Good in the world,
it would hardly be expected that what there was
... could be described as Evil, being all there was).
This pretty much precluded Heaven AND Hell.
Pretty much. We have Heaven and Hell here,
with us, among us: We either make one or the other,
or perpetuate the ones that we inherit. Albeit, that's
certainly not all there is to that, since we could
prove ourselves aggressive enough to change things
here & there, now & then. According to our desires
& scruples.

> History has shown its impossible
> to keep this beast in check
> permanently. I post almost
> exclusively to alt.revisionism. Think about
> it. The Holocaust happenned less than
> 60 years ago. It happened in a
> modern Western industrialized
> nation. Not too long before Europe was in
> the 'Age of Enlightment' and in the 'Age of Reason'.

Well, a nifty little holocaust happened to the Tutsies
not a couple of years ago. And famine, AIDS, and
overpopulation are wreaking horrors throughout
planet Man even now. Hard to tell is anybody's
really at fault in any of these catastrophes because
it always seems to boil down to their being caused
by apathy, ignorance, and distrust of others (our so-
called fellow men).

> All the science and technology of Nazi
> Germany was utilized for the most
> bestial, primitive and aggressive
> purposes and resulted in one of the
> biggest blood lettings in recorded human history.
> Despite education about the Holocaust
> there is no evidence humans have
> really learned anything from it in
> terms of preventing something like it
> from happening again. Look at
> the genocides which have occured since
> then such as in --LOTS--
> Look at the countries which have severely
> oppressed and butchered their
> own people --LOTS--
> Look at all the trouble spots in the world
> Israeli-Arab conflict --LOTS MORE--
> Obviously, if one concentrated on
> this all the time they would go
> insane. My point is not to show
> how I'm carrying the world on my
> shoulders (I think that is too big
> a task for anybody) but to point out
> that this state of affairs can't
> continue forever or it will result in
> humanity being destroyed.

There I quite disagree. If you could point
to a time in human history when there wasn't
all that (and worst, since the holocaust by
the Muslims against non-Muslim makes
the NAZI holocaust of the Jews, et al, pale
in comparison). The study of history has made me
rather optimistic about the human race, if you want
to know the truth about it: I am quite convinced
things are getting better with time for us. I would
NEVER dream of traveling back in time, but
forward! (It's my dream, after all.)

No question mankind faces some
fearsome problems in the short term
(overpopulation and running out of
natural resources). But the principle
that the individual's human rights ought
to be respected everywhere by everyone
is a phenomenal/unimaginable accomplishment
in human history--Nothing like it has ever been
seen before in the world. And I think we can
build on that principle unto Heaven itself...
your very own universal outrage is to me
a good sign.

> To keep a sense of balance I've been told it
> helps to imagine yourself being like
> a detached scientist and looking
> down at the world through a microscope.
> I admit I have a hard time doing that.

It helps if you become a citizen of the moon (or,
lunatic), like me.

> Rodrian, I think it is a misconception
> to think genetically engineering
> out human aggression would
> result in a person being a "zombie".

Not from where I'm sitting (pretty): Yes, a lot
of people do a lot of harm in the world. But
the same thing that drives them to do harm
drives many others to do good. And I believe
most people, the grand majority of people,
are good. And will be driven to do good
aggressively in this world. See if I'm wrong--
How many people do you admire? I look out
over mankind and see millions doing good
for their neighbors (it's only a handful of
sonnababitches like me like to trip their
neighbors just for the Hell of it, after all).

> I think
> its very difficult to picture ourselves
> in another person's genetically
> engineered shoes. I acknowledge such a person
> would no longer be a human
> being as we currently understand it.
> This is no cause for anguish though.
> As I mentioned before such a
> transition would be a very gradual
> process so it would not be abrupt.
> Yes, we are dinosaurs in a sense.
> We will either destroy ourselves and
> become extinct or we will genetically
> engineer ourselves to a higher
> evolutionary level. Either way,
> human being as they are today are
> already gone. The sun is setting Rodrian.

It may be setting (or not), but we will have as little to
say on whether we live or die as the dinosaurs: It's
SILENCE (and the theme from Monty Python): You
over/AND/underestimate our control over our destiny
as if there were no problems in the world caused by
our inability (for whatever reason) to fix them! Look and
learn, my boy: You see all those intractable problems
we "caused?" Well, their existence speaks against our
succeeding at anything completely, including killing
the human race to the last bugger out there: Isn't it
wonderful!

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

PS From the AP wire:

Scientists Have Constructed a Virus From Scratch
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Experts can now download
a genetic blueprint from the Internet and use mail-order
materials to assemble a deadly virus, say researchers
who made a synthetic polio virus in the lab to demonstrate
the threat. ``The world had better be prepared,'' said
Dr. Eckard Wimmer, leader of a biomedical research team
at the University of New York at Stony Brook where the
virus was assembled. The researchers made the virus
in the laboratory using data from the Internet and tailor-
made sequences ordered from a laboratory supply
service. They injected the virus into mice to show that
it worked. The animals were paralyzed and then killed.
``The reason we did it was to prove that it can be done
and it now is a reality,'' said Wimmer, senior author of
a study appearing Friday in the journal Science. This
approach has been talked about, but people didn't
take it seriously,'' he said. ``Now people have to take it
seriously. Progress in biomedical research has its
benefits and it has its down side. There is a danger
inherent to progress in sciences. This is a new reality,
a new consideration.''


> MR

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

Subject: Re: Japan targets 'endangered' whales
Date:
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:44:28 -0500
From: Matt Hanson

S D Rodrian wrote:

> Mine is an astonishingly tiny step: Some years ago
> there was an Anglican Bishop who added up the ages
> of the patriarchs in the Bible and came up with the exact
> date of the creation of the world (some 4,000-some odd
> years ago, by his count). This is obviously religion, not
> science. And intelligent persons eventually came to
> understand this. [It did take some time.]
>
> Well, in cosmology, some years ago, some other "bishops"
> (perhaps even Anglican as well) observed that the galaxies
> were receding from each other... and calculated the age
> of the world (the universe) from "the amount of time it must
> have taken" for the galaxies to travel from where/when they
> must have all "been" together in one spot! This too is
> religion, not science. But we live in a time when there are
> as yet not enough intelligent persons to understand this.
>
> In the two related religions above the assumption is that God
> created the world (necessarily somewhere/at some point in
> time). But science is, rather, a study of the process of evolution
> (the evolution or "putting together" of the stuffs that exist).

Hmmm.... I've never seen any scientist term it that way. Even so,
there's no concensus on Science as a whole, as your views clearly
indicate. (I like to entertain all views, and decide for myself)


> Life/reality/existence/the universe as a process of evolution can have
> NO beginning (since God making something implies
> at some time/place), unless it is a religion. This should be
> extraordinarily simple to understand, and yet not everyone does.

Since you've taken a break from traditional science, doesn't that make
your views religious? It sounds an awful lot like New Age theology to
me... (especially your implication of this all being "so simple to
understand, and yet not everyone does")

I'm sorry, I haven't got my third eye opened yet.


> All Big Bang cosmology is religion. Period. Just as ALL
> "scientific" derivations of the age of the World from
> "adding up" the ages of the Biblical patriarchs... are religion
> pure/simple: ALL "scientific" derivations of the age of the
> Universe from "adding up" how far galaxies might have
> "traveled" across the cosmos from their imagined origin
> are also religion...
>
> The universe may indeed be going to/ward "one" place,
> but its origins were "everywhere." And to speak of time
> is pointless because the universe is always accelerating
> everywhere at the same rate (this makes it impossible
> for us to "see" time as anything other than forever running
> at the same rate start-to-finish).
>
> Remember: Before... slower/larger. After... faster/smaller.
>
> However, pull out your watch and it seems to be running
> at the same "speed" as ever. Measure a mile an hour now
> and it will forever remain a mile and hour unto the centuries
> because every bit of the universe INSIDE the universe is
> "imploding" at the same rate as every other bit, and so here
> inside the universe... everything is absolutely relativistic.
>
> So it has always been. So it will always remain. Until the
> universe completely runs out of energy/matter (it's just that
> imploding as it is, the less energy/matter there is to it... the
> smaller it is, and so no appreciable difference can ever
> appear no matter how long it goes on spending its energy).

So that's it? The end of the debate about how matter came into being?
The end of people making that "ridiculous" assumption that something
can't come from nothing?

What about those who believe that everything was created as a mature
entity? After all, do Christians not say that Adam was created as a
mature man, and not a child? Religion or not, supposing this *were*
possible, what would prevent the same creation from being constructed
with the time/space relationships already established?


> Simple, no? The universe is an evolution, an evolution is
> the universe (that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need
> to know). And yet the old religion of the Big Bang is still
> practiced by most so-called intelligent persons (even as
> they continue to call themselves scientists).

This is the only point that I really cared to comment on originally -

If this is such a simple concept, how is it that God, a creator without
creation, is a contradiction, (or religion) and your Universe that
always was, is not? After all, religious people say that God had no
beginning, and no end. This sounds like a repackaging to me. (that is,
same stuff, different bucket) Or, to put it simpler, a religion. Your
belief is no different than that of religious person, taking faith to
support it.

Before you rush to conclusions about my personal views on the subject,
please note that I'm not defending a position - only pointing out an
inconsistency...


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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
alt.lifestyle.all-faiths,alt.religion.mormon,alt.religion.asatru,alt.reli
gion.wicca,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:







<5f9uiu8lbgd60m4usgldh0fv0j7rkgfnhg@4ax.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.167.107.7
Message-ID:

Not only can religion explain the dinosaurs
but religion can explain EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN
(including everything merely imaginable AND
everything that can be imagined or we might come
across in the near/distant future)... because
Religion's explanation is utter gobbledygook, and
what can one NOT explain with gobbledygook?!?!?

"Why this & that?" "Gobbledygook." "Ah! I see."

It is science that cannot explain everything because
science actually requires that the explanation be the
actual explanation... not merely only as far as we know,
but also as far as every cross-checking we can design
to test the explanation sez too.

That is much harder to do than to just make up any
explanation that matches the sense of humor of the
fellow explaining things. And I should know.

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
nz.soc.religion,soc.history,talk.philosophy.humanism,fr.sci.philo,alt.pol
itics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:





<5f9uiu8lbgd60m4usgldh0fv0j7rkgfnhg@4ax.com>



NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
Message-ID:

"Sheryle Kolar" wrote in message
news:...

> I would like to add that although religion's explanations for
everything
> under the sun may or may not be accurate, they serve as peace of mind.
> Isn't that what really matters?

You may wish to explain that to the hundreds of
millions of persons who have been murdered throughout
human history by Muslims because of Islam's neat
explanations of why God/Allah not only sanctions but
demands much mass murders. (This is just a rhetorical
sentence, by the way, since most of those murdered
persons are probably dead now.)

The problem with all such (religious) "explanations"
is that THERE IS NO GOD... and it's just some con man
(or more usually, some madman) standing behind the
curtain cutting off all questions as to why God/Allah
would command such idiocy/evil with the impossible to
question: "Because God said so: I was there & I heard Him."

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.afghanistan,soc.culture.kuwait,alt.politic
s.democr
ats,soc.culture.filipino
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:



<5f9uiu8lbgd60m4usgldh0fv0j7rkgfnhg@4ax.com>





NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.222.69.150
Message-ID:

Barry R. Reef wrote in message
news:...
> On 13 Jul 2002 14:43:59 -0700, sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian) wrote:

>
>>"Sheryle Kolar" wrote in message
>>news:...
>>> I would like to add that although religion's explanations for
everything
>>> under the sun may or may not be accurate, they serve as peace of
mind.
>>> Isn't that what really matters?
>>
>>You may wish to explain that to the hundreds of
>>millions of persons who have been murdered throughout
>>human history by Muslims because of Islam's neat
>>explanations of why God/Allah not only sanctions but
>>demands much mass murders. (This is just a rhetorical
>>sentence, by the way, since most of those murdered
>>persons are probably dead now.)
>>
> Hundreds of millions? Where and when?
>
> I know of the hundreds of thousands of people who were killed by the
> Catholic Church during the Inquisitions, but haven't hear about
> comparable slaughter from Islam. Can you post verifiable links to
> support your statements?

No problem there. Make sure the entire following URL
goes into your browser's search window/box:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=rodrian+genocide+durant&hl=en&lr=&ie=
UTF-8&safe=off&scoring=date&selm=bf7b874e.0111290335.76d093da%40p
osting.google.com&rnum=4&filter=0

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.sci.physics,alt.chaos,alt.astronomy
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:


<5f9uiu8lbgd60m4usgldh0fv0j7rkgfnhg@4ax.com>






NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.8.12.103
Message-ID:

From: Big Bird (condor@biosys.net)
>sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian) wrote in message

>>[...] And down to the last iota: Nothing, and
>> I repeat NOTHING can exist in this reality/universe
>> which is not a caused effect.

>Yes, it can.
>OK, there's two claims up there. Yours and mine. They are mutually
>exclusive, i.e. they can not both be correct.

Superman! Even Superman can exist in the mind.
And that's where your self-delusive paradox "exists."
In the mind: Two horses can stand in the same place
at the same time (you heard it here, so it's SO), but
just try this in reality, and it's quite another story.

This type of paradox is what is commonly referred to as
"a lie." Now do you understand? You can lie to your
heart's content, but it's (in reality) all meaningless (all
"only in the mind" existence).

> Here's what we do in *science* to distinguish which of these claims to
> trust: we perfoem an observation. An experiment. And per the
> observation (in form of the Aspect experiments) we know that there are
> no "hidden parameters" and thus that all that is outside the grasp of
> an algorithm is, indeed, random.

You can know what you do not know--Is that it?!?!

Well, in my book, one either knows something or
knows it not. But perhaps in your universe it is
possible to know what one does not know after all!
If you know that no parameters are hidden "there" ...
surely this means you must have looked "there"
--no? Well, perhaps you didn't bother to actually
look "there" and just ASSumed there was nothing
"there." Scratch my horses and sub your ass.

> The universe is NOT deterministic. Period. No "reasoning" necessary,
> really, simply the willingness to perform a simple observation.

Simple as pie, I see! Your name wouldn't happen to be
Simon da Pieman, by any chance?

>> In terms
>> of physics I prefer to see it [...]
>You do NOT see anything whatsoever in terms of physics: you are merely
>a religious wacko trying to impose his dogma over and above

In nomine Pater, Figli, and Spiritu Sacti!

>*observations* that we can all perform and confirm. You have abandoned
>physics completely, entirely and irrevocably -- UNLESSS you are
>willing to abandon your claims to a "deterministic reality" (NO MATTER
>what kind of 'reasoning' they're based on) as they are in
>contradiction with *observation*.
>In physics it doesn't matter how smartly you can argue a point: if it
>disagrees with experiment, it is WRONG. End of story.

Well, tell that to the acolytes of the Big Bang theory:
Inform them that the recession of the galaxies is
accelerating--This is a physical impossibility in an
"explosion" against the pull of gravity (and, while
you're at it, please ask them to stop proposing that
"therefore" --unseen by us-- God must be farting
His invisible/unfathomable "dark matter" into it and
making it accelerate that way). Just take Einstein at
his word that his Cosmological Constant was the
greatest blunder of his physics career & let it die.

>> The universe
>> does not originate from any magical Big Bang,

>Fortunately, nobody in physics claims that the universe originates
>from anything "magical" at all.

Certainly not THAT openly!

>There's nothing "magical" about the Big Bang -- you'd just need to
>take the time to confirm the piles upon piles of *observations* that
>the Big Bang notion is based upon. But of course it is so much easier
>for you to drone on about your religion of the "deterministic
>reality"...

Well, unlike you, I have the knowledge of human history
pressing upon me: For far much longer than we have
deluded ourselves with the religion of the Big Bang we
deluded ourselves with the religion of the universe orbiting
about the planet earth. And tons upon tons of evidence
and predictions which checked out with marvelous
mathematical precision PROVED that it was correct!

The end always comes NOT when your marvelous theories
are no longer supported by piles upon piles of your mistaken
"observations" (the Big Bang theory has been in trouble for
decades) but when a new theory is finally devised to better
explain the "observations." Well, read it here: The universe
is imploding. It's the only thing it could be doing. And, unlike
the exploding Big Bang model, ALL the consequences and
outcomes that should result from an imploding model are
identical with the observed facts in our universe: ALL of them.

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.logic,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electro
mag,sci.phy
sics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:








NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.204.141.110
Message-ID:

> From: Bruno Carneiro da Cunha
> (bcunha@nospam.ameritech.net)
> Date: 2002-07-14 22:02:08 PST
> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0207141453.229b7e4a@posting.google.com...
>> [...]
>> Well, tell that to the acolytes of the Big Bang theory:
>> Inform them that the recession of the galaxies is
>> accelerating--This is a physical impossibility
>
> Funny calling a natural phenomenon "physical impossibility."

It's either a physical impossibility OR a natural phenomenon:
Some "physical impossibility" you believe to be real
"don't count."

>> in an
>> "explosion" against the pull of gravity (and, while
>> you're at it, please ask them to stop proposing that
>> "therefore" --unseen by us-- God must be farting
>> His invisible/unfathomable "dark matter" into it and
>> making it accelerate that way).
>
> This is no proposal: it's a fact based on experimental
> evidence. Just as
> the existence of the electromagnetic field.

The electromagnetic field is real: We can measure its effect.
"Dark matter" is unreal: There is no "real" need for it (it only
exists in the brains of those who mistakenly see a need for it).

>> Just take Einstein at
>> his word that his Cosmological Constant was the
>> greatest blunder of his physics career & let it die.
>
> I guess you'd pay everybody a favour
> by researching into this before
> blabbering nonsense again. A lot of water
> has passed under the bridge
> since 55, and not all of it was foul.

I cannot speak for your city's water-filtering system.
I can only tell you that if there is no need for God
ALL propositions that God is required are false. This
should be supremely simple to understand, but I will
understand if you cannot understand it.

Long before the discovery that the recession of the
galaxies is accelerating (a physical impossibility for
the Big Bang model of an exploding universe) I had
proposed an imploding model of the universe, and
because the continuing application of a force (is what)
produces an acceleration... I stated that either what
the universe was doing (the recession of the galaxies)
was accelerating or the universe could NOT be imploding.

Well, guess what: Astronomers have now discovered
that the recession of the galaxies IS accelerating. The
imploding universe model is the one that agrees with
the observation, not the Big Bang one. Sorry.

Those who are either not "quick" enough or just too
stubborn to accept the inevitable implication of the observed
facts... have embarked upon a desperate, last minute flurry
of speculation that this acceleration "must" be caused by
some weird and wonderful "form of matter" which even
though it does not seem to register physically YET "must be"
causing that physical effect! This, sir, is the ONLY source
of knowledge people have or can have of the fabled
Cosmological Constant... a requirement for it which exists
ONLY in their brains (math) and not in reality. While those
of us who understand that the universe is imploding know
there is no requirement whatever for the nonsense, and
therefore it's utter and complete and absolute nonsense.
Period.

>> Well, unlike you, I have the knowledge of human history
>> pressing upon me: For far much longer than we have
>> deluded ourselves with the religion of the Big Bang we
>> deluded ourselves with the religion of the universe orbiting
>> about the planet earth. And tons upon tons of evidence
>> and predictions which checked out with marvelous
>> mathematical precision PROVED that it was correct!
>
> Huh? Even if that was true -- which I doubt very much --

Well, perhaps you might be better served by reading
a bit of the history of science in the Western civilization
(it's been written about in several different books even).

> one is just
> supposed to take this argument and
> disregard a pretty good working
> theory because "we deluded ourselves"
> in the past? Please.

No: Because we have deluded ourselves in the past
... we must now show a bit more rigorous a discipline.
Good science ought not just merely to require that the
old mistakes producing accurate predictions be replicated
... good science requires that, regardless of how accurate
the predictions produced by a given theory be, if there
arises a question (any question) about the theory possibly
violating the laws of physics... that we NOT try to "invent"
ways to circumvert the laws of physics BUT that we
instead make a serious attempt to get to the "accurate
predictions" through some other theory. This is the ONLY
way we poor mortals have of at the very least minimizing
the chance of deluding ourselves for centuries!

If the model of an imploding universe gets at the predictions
with the same accuracy as the Big Bang model universe,
then there ought to be a controversy as to which is the true
model. But, as is the case, if the Big Bang model creeks
under the weight of innumerable instances in which it just
cannot possibly agree with physical reality (except by
further & further Rube Goldberg mathematics-alone
solutions)... while there is so far not even a single physical
objection to the imploding universe model, then it's
starting to get awfully close to that time when we should
be seriously questioning our emotional attachment to the
Big Bang model & the damage keeping it may be doing
to modern physics.

>> The end always comes NOT when your marvelous theories
>> are no longer supported by piles upon piles of your mistaken
>> "observations" (the Big Bang theory has been in trouble for
>> decades) but when a new theory is finally devised to better
>> explain the "observations." Well, read it here: The universe
>> is imploding. It's the only thing it could be doing. And, unlike
>> the exploding Big Bang model, ALL the consequences and
>> outcomes that should result from an imploding model are
>> identical with the observed facts in our universe: ALL of them.
>
> Blueshift?

Sir, the galaxies ARE receding from each other.
This is NOT an illusion. In our imploding universe
matter (which is NEVER under any circumstances
fundamental/immutable but always a construct of
energy, E=MC^2), "divisible" matter ... is imploding:

Do not begin from a mental attempt to "see" a
hydrogen atom imploding! Aside the fact that
everything INSIDE the universe is imploding at
the same rate (the same amount of matter being
equal to the same amount of matter throughout
the universe), and therefore everything INSIDE
the universe always having been and always
remaining absolutely relativistic... the present-day
universe of "atoms" is the end result of an
unimaginably ancient process of evolution
(which is ongoing AND as eternal as its
expenditure of remaining energy can sustain it).

Rather, think of a universe made up of "clouds"
which begin to implode (away from each other)...
As they implode they create (open up) distance/
spaces/volume between them. But gravity next
begins to force the clouds together: Yet, no matter
how fast the clouds are "bunched up" by gravity
they will forever implode faster still (the space
between them will never cease to grow or increase
... and, naturally, the farther any two clouds are,
the more space will open up between them). SO
even though, in an absolute sense, all the clouds
are always getting closer and closer... in a relativistic
sense they will be receding from each other.

The farther away any one cloud is from any other cloud
the faster it will recede from it. Literally, if a cloud is twice
as far away from another cloud than a third cloud... it will
be receding away from it twice as fast. And now, hopefully
(on my part) you understand that the galaxies really ARE
receding from each other (even if only relativistically) even
as AND, really, BECAUSE the universe is (not relativistically,
but in the absolute) imploding. [And because everything
INSIDE the universe remains relativistic, the also-imploding
photon very truthfully informs us that the galaxies ARE
indeed receding.]

This is also why you cannot really speak rationally about
"time" ... because the universe has always moved and
will always continue to move faster and faster (even if we
will NEVER notice this here INSIDE it). Remember, the
"motion" of the universe is from larger-and-slower to
smaller-and-faster. [And this is also why the universe will
pretty much remain "nearly eternal" regardless of the fact
that it consists of a finite amount of energy.]

>> S D Rodrian
>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>> physics.sdrodrian.com
>
> This is actually rich... Imploding... Not
> actually original, but rich. To
> the record, Physics (Cosmology, to be
> precise) as it stands today can
> explain the history of the universe up
> to the point where the volume of
> the observable patch was about e^(180)
> times the Planck length cubed
> (roughly the volume of the nucleus
> of the atom).

That doesn't even begin to match the degree
to which the Bible can explain the same thing:
You can only explain it "to a portion of an inch"
while the Bible can explain it unto The Mind of God!
You're just playing with yourself (with words).

> Many things are included,
> like the abundance of the light elements
> (H, He, Li and the like), barion to
> photon ratio (roughly the distribution of
> energy of the universe into matter
> and light), and the cosmic microwave
> background CMB.

In an evolutionary process many very
ancient species are contemporary with
a new species like man. In the universe
very ancient forms of matter (quarks and
hydrogen atoms) are contemporary with
black holes. [PS. look for some other
source for the CMB than the Big Bang,
baby.]

> It says nothing
> of what has passed before (although
> Inflation has picked up some
> consensus because of the problems of
> homogeneity and some minutia
> of the CMB), and the reason for it is
> basically because whatever came
> before has to be a product of microphysics

Sez you? Dear God. No--I'm serious.

> which is beyond the reach of
> our theoretical understanding as it is today.

Wow! Sounds like you suspect you're one
primitive theorizing human.

> Talking to a cosmologist about
> those questions is the farthest you can
> get from a bunch of priests vomiting
> dogmas.

I have news for you: "Theories are proved
and disproved by observations, and NOT
by additional theories." There you have in
one sentence the failure of modern physics,
ironically, to agree with the laws of physics.
[This does not mean quantum theory is
"wrong" since, at its humblest, quantum
theory is/ought to be merely a statistical truth.]

> B.

> P.S.: BTW, it is "In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti",
Amen.

Ok: You get the pig. [A priest being assigned
to a very isolated parish found that almost no one
could say it properly and offered a pig to the first
person who got it right the following Sunday. Well,
this farmer practiced it & practiced it until he could
say it backwards & standing on his head and was
so confident he was going to walk away with the pig
that he showed up in Church the next Sunday with
his boy carrying a sack in which to carry off the pig.
Well, when he got to the priest he said, "In the name
of the Father and the Holy Ghost." ... "And where is
the Son," asked the priest. "I've got him outside
wait'n with a sack for the pig, Father!"] Sorry, but
somebody had to mention it, and it just happen 2 vu.

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.logic,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electro
mag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:









NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.204.141.110
Message-ID:

"Dana" wrote in message
news:...
> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0207151036.4830bce@posting.google.com...
>>> From: Bruno Carneiro da Cunha
>>> (bcunha@nospam.ameritech.net)
>>> Date: 2002-07-14 22:02:08 PST
>>> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
>>> news:bf7b874e.0207141453.229b7e4a@posting.google.com...

>>>> [...]
>>>> Well, tell that to the acolytes of the Big Bang theory:
>>>> Inform them that the recession of the galaxies is
>>>> accelerating--This is a physical impossibility
>>>
>>> Funny calling a natural phenomenon "physical impossibility."
>>
>> It's either a physical impossibility OR a natural phenomenon:
>> Some "physical impossibility" you believe to be real
>> "don't count."
>>
>>>> in an
>>>> "explosion" against the pull of gravity (and, while
>>>> you're at it, please ask them to stop proposing that
>>>> "therefore" --unseen by us-- God must be farting
>>>> His invisible/unfathomable "dark matter" into it and
>>>> making it accelerate that way).
>>>
>>> This is no proposal: it's a fact based on experimental
>>> evidence. Just as
>>> the existence of the electromagnetic field.
>>
>> The electromagnetic field is real: We can measure its effect.
>> "Dark matter" is unreal: There is no "real" need for it (it only
>> exists in the brains of those who mistakenly see a need for it).
>>
>>>> Just take Einstein at
>>>> his word that his Cosmological Constant was the
>>>> greatest blunder of his physics career & let it die.
>>>
>>> I guess you'd pay everybody a favour
>>> by researching into this before
>>> blabbering nonsense again. A lot of water
>>> has passed under the bridge
>>> since 55, and not all of it was foul.
>>
>> I cannot speak for your city's water-filtering system.
>> I can only tell you that if there is no need for God
>> ALL propositions that God is required are false. This
>> should be supremely simple to understand, but I will
>> understand if you cannot understand it.
>>
>> Long before the discovery that the recession of the
>> galaxies is accelerating
>
> How far away is the observation point.
> What is the distance to the galaxy in question

Thirty-seven inches. Now do you understand!

> (a physical impossibility for
>> the Big Bang model of an exploding universe) I had
>> proposed an imploding model of the universe, and
>> because the continuing application of a force (is what)
>> produces an acceleration... I stated that either what
>> the universe was doing (the recession of the galaxies)
>> was accelerating or the universe could NOT be imploding.
>
> Well since as far as we know the universe is still expanding.
> But let me diverge here and ask a question. What is meant
> by the universe is boundless.

It has no bounds.

> Lets think about this, They claim that the big bang started it all,
well
> that would imply that there is some kind of wave action at work, hence
we
> have a wave front. Being that we are within the area the wave has
passed,
> and they say that we are still expanding, does not the wave front imply
a
> boundary, that outside of which the expansion has not yet reached. So
going
> along these lines, what may be beyond the boundary of the wavefront?

The beach.

>> Well, guess what: Astronomers have now discovered
>> that the recession of the galaxies IS accelerating. The
>> imploding universe model is the one that agrees with
>> the observation, not the Big Bang one. Sorry.
>
> If the regression is accelerating, IE the
> galaxies are moving farther apart
> quicker, how could that be an implosion.

Think! What is an implosion if not that the bits
in it are imploding (ergo... away from each other
as they implode into themselves)...?! THAT, by
definition, means they are moving away from each
other relativistically: Oh... the whole universe
is shrinking (as a whole), but only a God standing
outside the universe would see this--Here, inside
the universe, we ourselves are also imploding and
thereby the only thing we notice is that the galaxies
are moving away from us. IF they were not also being
pulled towards each other by gravity, by now "we"
would be so isolated in space we couldn't even suspect
there was ever a universe "out there" in the voids at all!

>> Those who are either not "quick" enough or just too
>> stubborn to accept the inevitable implication of the observed
>> facts... have embarked upon a desperate, last minute flurry
>> of speculation that this acceleration "must" be caused by
>> some weird and wonderful "form of matter" which even
>> though it does not seem to register physically YET "must be"
>> causing that physical effect! This, sir, is the ONLY source
>> of knowledge people have or can have of the fabled
>> Cosmological Constant... a requirement for it which exists
>> ONLY in their brains (math) and not in reality.
>
> They think brown stars and white dwarfs may hold some of the answers.
There
> are scientific instruments being prepared for launch into space to help
> figure out the question.
>
>> While those
>> of us who understand that the universe is imploding know
>> there is no requirement whatever for the nonsense, and
>> therefore it's utter and complete and absolute nonsense.
>> Period.
>
> Who thinks the universe is imploding.

Only those persons who do not believe that the universe
has a birthday coming up (the birthday planners are
out hiring the clowns).

> Most science
> I have seen still says we
> are expanding, and that as the galaxies spread
> apart, there may not be
> enough gravity to cause an implosion at all,
> that our universe will just
> keep on expanding.

That would be in a universe composed of billiard balls-like
forms of fundamental (indivisible) matter... a magical
universe where matter is created NOT as the result of an
evolutionary process but out of a Big Bang, fully formed
and framed by the magician's waving banners (so the audience
cannot see exactly where the matter really came from).

visit thou: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

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

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


From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.astro,tw.bbs.sci.physics,sci.math,alt.astronomy.solar,alt.sci.time-tr
avel
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:
<5f9uiu8lbgd60m4usgldh0fv0j7rkgfnhg@4ax.com>







<1026871778.793012@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.204.141.110
Message-ID:

"Chris Franks" wrote in message
news:<1026871778.793012@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>...

> "S D Rodrian" wrote
> The universe is imploding. It's the only thing
> it could be doing. And, unlike
>> the exploding Big Bang model, ALL the consequences and
>> outcomes that should result from an imploding model are
>> identical with the observed facts in our universe: ALL of them.
>
> How does an imploding Universe explain
> greater redshifts and decreasing
> luminosity with increasing distance?
> Wouldn't we see bigger blueshifts?

No: The galaxies really ARE receding from each other
IN our imploding universe. The galaxies are ALL THERE
IS (there is no "dark matter" or other "gods"), therefore the
galaxies are the things imploding into themselves (of course);
but not at the relativistic (atomic) level (which would turn
them into goops of exotic energy/black holes)... but at the
absolute level: The only "effect" visible at the relativistic level
is that "space" (or the distance) between galaxies is being
created (or: it increases)... because the rulers with which
we measure distances are also "shrinking" and there never
is a moment during which the "same" distances between
the galaxies does not require many more rulers than ever
before.

In my opinion this is exceedingly easy to visualize: As the
galaxies "shrink in size" (where they are) space/distance
is created/increased between them. Result: What we see
when we look out into the cosmos: if a galaxy is twice as
far from us as another galaxy... then twice as much space
(distance) if being created between us than is being created
between us and a galaxy which is only half as far from us:
Map this out for entire the visible universe, and you have
the recession of the galaxies exactly as they appear to us.

I repeat: The galaxies really ARE receding exactly as they
appear to us to be doing. The difference is that this is THE
reason they are so doing AND NOT because of some dated
explosion in the past which can never account for the
origin of matter--Think: ANY explanation which might seek
to explain the origin of matter/energy IN the Big Bang would
necessarily account for matter throughout ALL of "space time"
and therefore WHY would it Big Bang where it did at all?!?
And why would space-time not Big Bang all around us now?

The photon is just as much a matter/energy construct as
the electron, and therefore it is imploding like every other
bit of matter IN our universe--Therefore when it tells you that
it is red-shifted (and has traveled an immense distance)...
believe it. And when it tells you that it has diffused across
larger volumes of space created by greater distances:
Believe it. (Force a cat to travel ten yards one moment, then
shrink it to the size of an ant and force it to travel those same
exact ten yards... and you have one tired tiny cat that will
swear to you he has traveled a lot longer distance than just
only ten bloody yards!)

In fact, the whole crux of my argument is: "Believe the laws
of physics." And if any contradiction arises between your
theories and the laws of physics... it's much more likely that
your theories are wrong than that the laws of physics are the
ones that are wrong. A more reasonable wish there could
hardly be in this universe that is our human experience!

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.logic,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electro
mag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:
<20020716005810.02926.00000670@mb-ce.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.23.172.142
Message-ID:

> From: GFostel (gfostel@aol.com)
> Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
> Date: 2002-07-15 21:59:28 PST

> S D Rodrian wrote:
>>
>>The electromagnetic field is real: We can measure its effect.
>>"Dark matter" is unreal: There is no "real" need for it (it only
>>exists in the brains of those who mistakenly see a need for it).
>
> [Your] ignorance of physics is unfortunately common
> on NG's like this.

If you had praised my knowledge it would have been as if
the devil had praised the Good in me. Thank you, dear Gary.

Children, please note how Gary will now illustrate my point
(above) that the existence of "dark matter" is merely assumed
from mistaken observations (rather than "discovered" growing
in some pot in a lab somewhere, then weighed & measured):

> Without getting mired in the issue of what is "real"
> I'll simply note that there is pretty good evidence
> that [there] is a lot of gravity inducing stuff hanging
> around outside most galaxies. This is a conclusion
> drawn from actual measurements. Briefly, it is supported
> rather specifically by anomlies in the orbital speed of stars
> on [the] outer fringes of galexies. Orbital speed is
> related to mass of the body being orbited, and the mass of
> galaxies is not enough and not in the right place if you limit it
> to the stars and gas clouds we see. Ergo, there is more mass,
> and since we can not see it with any of our telescopes we've
> built, it is reasonable to call it "Missing Mass" or "Dark Matter."

In other words: Cosmic bodies are not behaving as
the exploding/expanding model of the universe predicts
they ought to be behaving... "therefore" it is not the model
that is wrong, but that there "must be" pixies in the mix
(putt'n in the fix) to drive us to tears! [This is a classic case
of if one's theory contradicts the laws of physics, it is the
laws of physics that are wrong... and one must therefore
invent/advance all sorts of nonsense/science fiction to
make one's theory agree to that/those instead of to those
laws of physics. This is why we have today the disgraceful
spectacle of so-called physicists proposing that their so-
called experiments have proved time-travel and other
gibberish.]

I shall put it in so simple an analogy that even dear Gary
will find it a tough job to fail to understand it (although
I am by profession a pessimist about the ability of human
beings to surmount their pet prejudices):

1) Imagine a whirl of dust trying to maintain its delicate
structure inside an ongoing explosion: Think of the
forces working against it doing so.

2) Now imagine if that explosion were running backwards:
You would see such whirls of dust everywhere forming
throughout it without any difficulty at all whatever (or just
picture the many whirls of water going down your drain)
as they are squeezed into themselves by their implosion:

Is it any wonder that the "dark matter" priesthood requires
that as much as 95% of some galaxies be "dark matter"
and only 5% of that galaxy be the galaxy (that is there)?
[Or, there should be approximately some... nine more
"invisible" solar systems' worth in our Solar neighborhood
to prevent the Milky Way Galaxy from spinning itself apart!]

They are looking at these delicate dustwhirls inside the
imploding universe while believing that they are in an
exploding/expanding universe! Therefore they cannot
fathom how such fine/delicate "galaxies" could be found
in even the most "ancient" parts of our universe... and it's
not merely a matter of applying the same "volume laws"
of the "dust devil" skipping down your street to a galaxy
not just because your "dust devil" is protected from the
effect working on galaxies by rules to be found in Einstein's
general relativity (effects of powerful gravitational fields), but
because your "dust devils" are powered by atmospheric
convection currents rather than by gravity fields alone, duh.

> It would be more accurate to say it does not exist in the minds of
> those who mistakenly do not understand what they are talking about.
> ---garyFostel---

I'm afraid I must disagree there too, my boy; for I think that
you mind is full of "dark matters."

In any case: About the time that Einstein abandoned his silly
cosmological constant explanation for why the universe
was not imploding as it ought to have been doing (given
that it was unexpectedly found by E. Hubble that galaxies
were receding from each other--suggesting offhand that
at some point in the past they had all been together and
that we were looking at the aftermath of an explosion
--by applying the experience of an earth-bound explosion
to the riddle of the cosmos!), "quantum mechanics was
establishing a theoretical foundation for the cosmological
constant: According to quantum theory, empty space
should be foaming with temporary particles and their
cumulative energy would outweigh the matter in the universe,
including "dark matter," by 120 orders of magnitude—that
is, a factor of 10 followed by 119 zeros. At that level, the
force of the vacuum would either have crumpled the
universe or blown it apart before even an atom had the
chance to form. The fact that the universe is in fact
"puttering along" rather gently suggests that there is
something fundamental about physics and the universe
that physicists still don't know. Dr. Steven Weinberg, the
Nobel Prize-winning particle theorist at the University of
Texas, has called the cosmological constant "the bone
in our throat." If the "dark energy" really is Einstein's
cosmological constant, then physicists have to answer
questions like why it is so small—roughly comparable,
in fact, to the density of matter in our own epoch."

The problem is slightly more fundamental than just merely
Einstein's perplexity as to why a universe which ought to
be imploding ... is not doing so (his inquiry into this riddle
having been effectively cut short by the discovery that the
galaxies were in recession). Up until that time there was
no need for anyone to suggest a "Big Bang" explanation;
and from that point on there was also as little a need for
anyone to give the basis for the "stability" of the universe
any more thought... so let us then go back to that moment
in history and pretend that astronomer Hubble has never
discovered the red-shift which indicates that the universe's
galaxies are in recession (therefore there continuing to be
a need to think on why it may be that a universe whose
nature requires it to be imploding... doesn't appear to be
doing so). Einstein should go first:

As you saw from the quantum mechanics mention above
Einstein's "little joke" about a purely mathematical fudging
of the numbers (his cosmological constant) to account for
why the universe was not imploding simply does not hold
water, and would have eventually been dismissed outright.
[As a daring act of genius it is in the same nature as Darwin's
"daring" proposal that whales evolved from land animals
--What is so daring about proposing that... when all mammals
evolved on land and whales are mammals? Likewise Einstein
could see that the universe was not collapsing... and all the
"genius" he needed to produce his cosmological constant
was the same as that of an abstract modern artist who, knowing
there must be "some unknown thing" standing in the way
there, gives that "unknown stuff there" some commercially
creative name like ... "The Cosmological Constant" and then
"cooks the numbers" to account for "the stuff."]

So if the magic of "cooking the math" would not have solved
the riddle of why the universe was not imploding as it surely
ought to be doing (as easily as it does now in our more
credulous age where so few objections arise whenever
science mixes with science fiction)... how might a physic(al)
solution been arrived at?

Suppose that Einstein (or some other of his contemporaries)
been smart enough to follow the facts to their own conclusion
and allowed that the universe WAS imploding after all: How
would that account for the observed fact that the universe was
not a boiling white-hot mass of colliding galaxies by now?!

Well, certainly one would have had to have asked what these
galaxies are: What are they composed of; and where do they
originate? ... Even if someone might have proposed that even
though the galaxies had not yet collided into one super-gigantic
goo... ought they not have "come from" somewhere "out there"
(and thereby simply suggested a Big Bang theory in reverse)?

We shall never quite know that, however: we know a little bit
about galaxies' most basic building blocks, namely subparticles:
For as long as man has thought about what the world might
have been constructed of, he has settled on the notion that
there must be some fundamental (indivisible) material of
which everything else is made. Thousands of years ago man
proposed a theoretical element "ball" he called an atom. But
now we know that not only is the atom divisible, but that every
proposed constituent of the atom (we know of or even just
merely only propose exists) "must" also divisible. [So far this
knowledge does not seem to have suggested to man that
all such theoretically fundamental subatomic constituents
must also be divisible, so we find many forms of proposed
fundamental "things" such as "strings," "one-dimensional/
singularities," & "planck-lengths," et cetera. But ... this does
not mean that in Einstein's less credulous age someone
might not have hit upon the notion that there really is no
--zero-- fundamental forms of matter... that all forms of matter
are forever divisible.] This is crucial because once you get
rid of the notion of fundamental/indivisible elements "balls"
piling up somewhere (and thereby raising Hell), you can
then take a cooler look at why it is that a universe that is in
implosion isn't firing up its central furnace by rubbing its
galaxies together into a Big Fireball--And to understand this
one must 1) have a good picture of exactly what it is that the
galaxies are made of at their most fundamental, and 2) how
those fundamental materials are put together.

The universe does not begin with fully formed galaxies OR
with any other "modern objects" like stars, planets, rocks, OR
atoms, quarks or gluons either. These modern-day "items"
are the result of an evolutionary process that has produced
a finite but unknown (to us) number of "generation" of matter-
organization bits ("particles") going back over unimaginable
mountains of time. [In fact, there may be so many such
"generations" of matter-organization bits between the first few
such generations and the present ones of atoms/galaxies
that just the number of "generations" may be quite staggering:
The age of the universe is not to be measured in human years
but in these generations of matter-organization (at the present
time we seem to be shifting/evolving from the atom/galaxy age
to the age of the black hole, for example). And to know the
"exact" number of such generations is to have a truer grasp
upon the "exact" age of the universe than one could have by
any other means/methods.]

Rather, begin by thinking of "an early" universe which is rather
like an almost infinitely large cloud that (very slowly) begins to
implode. At first there are no spaces inside that cloud. However,
necessarily... its homogeneous nature begin to be "torn to bits"
as sections by turn experience densities and thinning out: Spaces
(or, distances) begin to develop at the spots of thinning between
such "bits of densities" until instead of one solid cloud what you
have is a huge number of "bits" of the original cloud organizing
themselves (under the weight of their own gravity) into discrete
fragments separated from each other by growing distance (or
that lack of intervening connecting cloud-material we call space).

Let's call these discrete bits of the original "cloud" the "first-
generation" of matter-organization (the "first particles"). [We
know that there is a very strict mathematical set of rules as to
exactly which patterns of self-organization all subsequent
combinations of matter-organizations must fall into/are
allowed (no different than the proposed number of quarks
requirements for hadrons, say), though we don't have an
inkling what those rules may have been here at the earliest
moments of the universe... but it's very likely that any such
"rules" were supremely lax/chaotic.] However, this stage did
set up the nature of the universe as it would forever remain
from then on: Its bits of matter are forever in implosion away
from each other even as they continue to interact over longer
and longer distances (spaces). [In fact, it is those distances
which eventually grow to define the nature of all such interactions
via solid geometry's classical definition of the inverse-square
law of gravitational strength (weakening over a distance), and
which also applies to many other things such as magnetic
and electrostatic attraction and the intensity of light, and not
just only to gravitation).] But because the overall "cloud"
continues to implode in an absolute sense, its continuously-
compacting bits display a tendency to appear (to each other)
to remain the "same size" they've always been (in other
words, they have acquired a relativistic quality and even
though they are "shrinking" they are also moving towards
each other with just enough "speed" to forever make it
impossible for any of those "bits" to tell that they are imploding
--shrinking into themselves--simply by looking out at its cosmos).
The fact that space exists between them at all... means that this,
as it were, collective bunching up is lagging behind the
implosion of the "bits" (however infinitesimally), and therefore
it accumulates over greater and greater distances [so even if
a sentient "bit" may never see any difference in its cosmos
except that all its bits are receding from each other (at an
extraordinarily identical rate throughout the entire cosmos)...
if it thinks hard enough about it... it may eventually realize that
the creation of space between all the cosmic "bits" means
that even though a universe which must be imploding DOES
NOT really require the intervention of any magical "dark energy"
to keep its bits from collecting at its mythological center in one
huge pile. But, of course, some bits are simply brighter than other
(bits). [In fact, eventually an imploding universe must end up
made up of very isolated cold bits of ash indeed.]

And now you too know that the galaxies do not originate either
"outside" and then "come in" or "inside" and then "move out"
but (approximately) right where they are and have always been.

Again: no matter how fast the cloud bits are "bunched up"
by gravity they will forever implode faster still (the space
between them will never cease to grow or increase... and,
naturally, the farther any two "cloud bits" are, the more space
will open up between them). [By the way, conservation of
energy means here that gravity itself functions as the conduit
by which what we think of as "matter" (the mass of/in the
cloud "bits") transforms into the very energy that is driving/
fueling the implosion itself and which eventually returns that
energy again to the volume which originally produced the
"primordial cloud" or our universe of matter... and this is why/
how our universe will end up not in a fireball but in a cold,
dark empty void which must then against give birth to the
next universe/cloud (our spent universe having moved
out of the way for the next universe that's waiting to follow
on its heels).

SO even though, in an absolute sense, all the cloud bits
are always getting closer and closer... in a relativistic sense
they will always be receding from each other. In the end
they will be absolutely closer than ever although relativistically
farther than ever from each other... and then, in the end, the
universe will be very small indeed, and its "bits" very diffused
indeed as well... so much so that gravity will no longer work,
and the implosion will forever come to a dead halt. (But by
that time I'll probably be dead, so who cares.)

And since I very much hope I do not have to repeat this,
I will repeat it here: The farther away any one cloud bit is
from any other cloud bit the faster it will recede from it.
Literally, if a cloud bit is twice as far away from another
cloud bit than a third cloud bit... it will be receding away
from it twice as fast. And now, hopefully (on my part) you
understand that the galaxies really ARE receding from
each other (even if only relativistically) even as AND,
really, BECAUSE the universe is (not relativistically, but
in the absolute) imploding. [And because everything
INSIDE the universe remains relativistic, the also-imploding
photon very truthfully informs us that the galaxies ARE
indeed receding.] This is also why you cannot really speak
rationally about "time" ... because the universe has always
moved and will always continue to move faster and faster
(even if we will NEVER notice this here INSIDE it). So,
the "motion" of the universe is from larger-and-slower to
smaller-and-faster. [And this is also why the universe will
pretty much remain "nearly eternal" to its denizens (in it)
regardless of the fact that it consists of a finite amount of
energy.] There are no "fast" or "slow" things INSIDE the
universe... only "faster" and/or "slower" things: If the
birth-to-death of our Solar System may be a very long
affair by our human clocks and it's a flash by some other
clock ... it really doesn't change anything for us.

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups: alt.writing,alt.prose,rec.arts.prose,alt.humor,alt.angst
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:








<3d3928ea.3019824@news.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.204.141.110
Message-ID:

boblaranja@vegetarians.com (-BobLaranja.) wrote in message
news:<3d3928ea.3019824@news.newsguy.com>...
On 20 Jul 2002 00:43:48 -0700,

sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
wrote:

>>>> Dear Bruno: Your brain is a cracked coconut. It cannot
>>>> hold water, my friend. I can tell you this because,
>>>> frankly, you are a stranger to me and I don't need to
>>>> humor you. But get some psychological help and you may
>>>> be able to live some time without thinking about things
>>>> and gibbering too much. I really mean this.

>>> Faced with arguments so powerful as
>>> "my brain cannot hold water", I can only
>>> resign myself to my own insignificance.
>>> Now I see that you are the rightful,
>>> o master. Apart from that, I have to
>>> recognise the really great skills you
>>> display in a discussion. Especially
>>> pacience and the utmost intelligence in
>>> cooking up arguments to defend your point.
>>> B.

>>Ok. That's better. I'm glad you see the light now.
>>Take a cookie and go to bed like a good little fellow.
>>sdr
>
> Face it. You lost, Mr. SmartAss.
> -BobLaranja.

Well, we won't go into my ass' I.Q. here. But it's really not
a matter of winning or losing. It's that Bruno is obviously
a little short on the ability to reason lucidly (although I do
understand it if you cannot, on the surface of it, see this).
[Now I remember, Lionel Trilling wrote the classic case
in a marvelous piece of short fiction... "Of This Time,
Of That Place." Which see.]

And it's not merely his calling Stephen Wolfram a crank... for
which anyone more interested in protecting his/her iron rice bowl
than in advancing science might be "forgiven." (Writes Bruno:
"Some people have evolved and found new types of cranks to laugh
about. I, out of stubbornness, keep tackling the old ones.") But that
given the chance to make a lucid comment on a monstrously
simple group of sentences, he finds himself as monstrously
incapable of doing so. In every one of my posts (on the subject)
I state monstrously unambiguously that the galaxies ARE receding
from each other. And what does Bruno ask?...

> Perchance you are saying that the *measured* acceleration
> of the redshift of the galaxies is an illusion ... ?

( . . . ) I state: "Dark matter" is unreal: There is no "real" need
for it (it only exists in the brains of those who mistakenly see
a need for it)." And Bruno is:

> ... again confused. The measurement is clear:
> both sides of the equations of
> evolution of the space-time (assumed so far
> to be Einstein's equations with
> zero cosmological constant) were
> found to *disagree*. This is the result of
> experimental evidence and is as model
> independent as one can make it
> (remember Popper, no measurement is
> truly model-independent). The mismatch
> was named "dark matter" for lack of a
> better name. It is not know as of now
> what it is composed of. If you have
> a better idea that encompasses the
> sucesses of the present theory *and*
> explains this phenomenon, I'm all ears.

I could've sworn THAT's exactly what I did
in the post Bruno was commenting upon!

( . . . ) When I write: "I can only tell you that if there is no need
for God ALL propositions that God is required are false." Bruno
"reasons it through" this way:

> I truly fail to see your logic. If there's no need for a shoe, ALL
> propositions that a shoe is required (like, for instance, in a fancy
> restaurant) are false?

In other words, sez he: "Are you saying that if there is no need for
whatever, then somebody saying there's a need for it is wrong?"
Yes, Bruno, if your restaurant doesn't require shoes then
anybody who tells you shoes are required is wrong. I'm sorry,
but one can only deal with this level of mental incompetence
for so long. Muses Bruno, his eyes on all the stars of the night:

> Ah, the joys of the supreme...

I've been around guys who have gone into
these kinds of rhapsodic (rambling) digressions,
and more often than not they precede some
descent into violence and firearm violations.

( . . . ) I write: "Well, guess what: Astronomers have now discovered
that the recession of the galaxies IS accelerating. The imploding
universe model is the one that agrees with the observation, not the
Big Bang one. Sorry." And Bruno NOW replies:

> Maybe it's because my lack of understanding
> of English, but do you care to
> explain what on Earth you mean by
> "imploding". I got the Webster's definition:
> Main Entry: im·plode
> intransitive senses
> 1 a : to burst inward b : to
> undergo violent compression
> 2 : to collapse inward as if from external pressure; also : to become
> greatly reduced as if from collapsing

i.e. Bruno actually FINDS an appropriate definition, AND
not only does he quote it BUT he quotes it as suggesting
that it could not possibly mean anything like what it means!

( . . . ) Bruno writes, again and again:

> Now would you care to explain how a universe
> implodes and yet, at the same
> time the recession of the galaxies is accelerating?

Dear Bruno, THAT is what I wrote in the post. THAT is all
I wrote in the post: IT IS ONLY IN AN IMPLODING UNIVERSE
THAT SUCH AN ACCELERATION COULD EXIST...

If the universe is exploding, some nonsense like "dark energy"
is indeed required to account for it accelerating against gravity.

If the universe is imploding then the presence of gravity can
ONLY produce an acceleration (see Newton on what is THE
ONLY thing that produces an acceleration). Cheeesh.

Therefore the most straightforward solution is that the universe
is imploding, accelerating as it is (but I will not mention here that
I predicted the universe would be found to be accelerating BECAUSE
it was imploding). I am a very humble person.

The introduction of "dark energy" to account for the universe
accelerating... is like saying that the fellow who entered an elevator
on the ground floor and exited the elevator on the twentieth floor
"must have" been beamed up there by Scotty. All I am saying is that
it's much more likely that the elevator took him up there--Could I be
wrong? Possibly, indeed. But not very bloody likely (probably not).
In any case... until such time as Scotty comes back from the grave
and we can ask him what he was "up" to ... it's safer to assume that
the most self-evident answer is likely to be THE answer (and even if
it turns out to be wrong). This is because if we assume the universe
works in the exactly opposite manner that it really does work... we are
likely to misinterpret a heck of a lot many more observations than if
we assume it works the way it actually really does work.

Not to mention the fact that we end up with scientists who, thinking
they live in a crazy universe in which all sorts of crazy impossibilities

seem to be possible... no longer feel they need be restrained by sanity
and begin to propose (AND WORK ON) all sorts of impossible
fun-house lunacies! [Hint: That's the state of affairs in physics now.]

>> Those who are either not "quick" enough or just too
>> stubborn to accept the inevitable implication of the observed
>> facts... have embarked upon a desperate, last minute flurry
>> of speculation that this acceleration "must" be caused by
>> some weird and wonderful "form of matter" which even
>> though it does not seem to register physically YET "must be"
>> causing that physical effect! This, sir, is the ONLY source
>> of knowledge people have or can have of the fabled
>> Cosmological Constant... a requirement for it which exists
>> ONLY in their brains (math) and not in reality. While those
>> of us who understand that the universe is imploding know
>> there is no requirement whatever for the nonsense, and
>> therefore it's utter and complete and absolute nonsense.
>> Period.

> There are a number of ways to grasp
> physical effects of the Cosmological
> Constant. What there is not, and you
> seem to be unaware of it, is a way of
> reasonably arguing that the Cosmological
> Constant should be zero (or very
> close to it.) No sir, there are a number
> of puzzles of modern Cosmology
> (like the dark matter itself, or why
> the balance between energy
> distribution -- baryons, photons and
> vacuum -- is drastically changing over
> our epoch). There is a plethora of
> phenomena to explain, and, as I said
> before, you're all welcome to try.

One word, Bruno: "E-vo-lu-tion." The evolution of the universe
has never ceased, will never cease. Perhaps the universe will
evolve next into a condition that does not permit life to exist... so
enjoy yourself while you may. (You may not be around a trillion
years from now, after all.)

>>>> Well, unlike you, I have the knowledge of human history
>>>> pressing upon me: For far much longer than we have
>>>> deluded ourselves with the religion of the Big Bang we
>>>> deluded ourselves with the religion of the universe orbiting
>>>> about the planet earth. And tons upon tons of evidence
>>>> and predictions which checked out with marvelous
>>>> mathematical precision PROVED that it was correct!
>>>
>>> Huh? Even if that was true -- which I doubt very much --
>>
>> Well, perhaps you might be better served by reading
>> a bit of the history of science in the Western civilization
>> (it's been written about in several different books even).
>
> Now would you point to me where a
> "mathematically precise" PROOF of some
> physical phenomena presented in the past
> turned out to be wrong?

Well, Bruno, perhaps you still believe in "the ether."
Oh, well ... why bother to point out that practically
every advance in history has been the correction
of some previously more inaccurate computation!
Shall humanity achieve perfection? Who knows; but
it's a fairly safe bet that if we ever do... it shall be something
much more "mathematically precise" than the sum of
our present, so chaotic bunch of (roundabout) guesses.

> Heck, just
> give me any "mathematically precise"
> PROOF of anything in Physics!

Sure: "At any given moment the moon is precisely X inches
from the earth." Anything else? Well, 1+1=2: A law of physics
which is not unequivocal is dubious (by definition). I am merely
trying to stop people from "bending" the laws of physics until
they break into a million little tiny "dimensions."

In fact, there is even "mathematically precise proof" that life is
unfair (given that identical caloric expenditure is not rewarded
at the same rate across the spectra of human endeavors, even
if such unfairness is supremely desirable ... of which there is
also "mathematically precise proof" in the GMP comparisons of
socialist vs capitalist countries). And there you have still one more
instance of a "mathematically precise" proof, which, with further
input... becomes even more "mathematically precise" still. Now
just try to imagine what the future will bring!

By the way, "mathematically precise proof" is not the same thing
by a long shot as is generally the nature of "mathefiction" [a "paper
reality" which only requires "mathematical consistency" among
its parts ... in the same sense that "science fiction" only requires
that, say, a story character who's 40 years old in act 1 doesn't show
up in act 3 as a 30 year-old without further "fictitious" explanations].
In mathefiction, as long as there is "further mathefictional
explanations"
any insanity goes (and in fact, even becomes desirable/elegant).

>>> one is just
>>> supposed to take this argument and
>>> disregard a pretty good working
>>> theory because "we deluded ourselves"
>>> in the past? Please.
>>
>> No: Because we have deluded ourselves in the past
>> ... we must now show a bit more rigorous a discipline.
>> Good science ought not just merely to require that the
>> old mistakes producing accurate predictions be replicated
>> ... good science requires that, regardless of how accurate
>> the predictions produced by a given theory be, if there
>> arises a question (any question) about the theory possibly
>> violating the laws of physics... that we NOT try to "invent"
>> ways to circumvent the laws of physics

( . . . ) Bruno writes: " Funny suggestion coming from someone
claiming that "galaxy recession is accelerating, ergo, the universe
is imploding." ... "

This even AFTER I made it painfully obvious to him that it's Newton
who claims this, not I. Look, Bruno: If the only force acting upon
the universe is gravity, and Newton sez that the only thing which
can produce an acceleration is a force... then (this was all I could
predict), then it is Newton sez the universe must either show an
acceleration or its motion is not just the result of a force (gravity)
acting upon it (i.e. it's being moved/pushed against the force of
gravity by the Big Bang explosion). Well, guess what: Astronomers
now have "seen" that the universe is accelerating. So: Big Bang out
--Implosion in. You can stay in denial as long as you wish, really...
reality can alwats wait (it's not likely to change tomorrow just to fit
your state of denial). Sooner or later what we think is there agrees
with what really is there. It's just a matter of time... your time.

>> BUT that we
>> instead make a serious attempt to get to the "accurate
>> predictions" through some other theory. This is the ONLY
>> way we poor mortals have of at the very least minimizing
>> the chance of deluding ourselves for centuries!
>>
>> If the model of an imploding universe gets at the predictions
>> with the same accuracy as the Big Bang model universe,
>> then there ought to be a controversy as to which is the true
>> model. But, as is the case, if the Big Bang model creeks
>> under the weight of innumerable instances in which it just
>> cannot possibly agree with physical reality (except by
>> further & further Rube Goldberg mathematics-alone
>> solutions)... while there is so far not even a single physical
>> objection to the imploding universe model, then it's
>> starting to get awfully close to that time when we should
>> be seriously questioning our emotional attachment to the
>> Big Bang model & the damage keeping it may be doing
>> to modern physics.

The following is a typical Bruno gobbledygook interpretation
of some "mathefiction" he must have got hold of one night
(not unlike indigestion, I imagine): "Infinite..." "singularity,"
"assumptions are expected to hold," "time..." (well, any time
you hear these terms being "thrown out" you can bet that
if you rummage through the trash pile you'll also find "sanity").

> I would advise you to revise the assumptions behind the recent claims
of the
> "dark matter"... The point taken here is the proof -- by Hawking and
> Penrose -- that a dynamical system obeying Einstein Equations with
matter
> obeying certain characteristics (abided by all kinds of matter known to
> man), in which an observer regarded the distribution of matter as
receding
> at a particular time, would have to come from what is called a
> singularity -- a point of the universe with infinite density of energy,
> which happened at a finite time as measured by any observer in the
universe.
> Whether that has anything to do with the real world is a matter of
> discussion, but all assumptions are expected to hold -- and in fact
have
> been tested -- up to the time where the average energy of the particles
of
> the universe were of the order of what is achieved in the accelerators
> today. Whether there was a real "Big Bang" is not known, and the only
one I
> see claiming that must be the case the way the status quo understands
it is
> you.

THAT, Bruno... is the case ... for the same reason that if
one speaks in depth with God's acolytes they quickly begin to
back-peddle on exactly what this God they claim exists may be
no matter how firmly they claim to be His advocates. ( . . . )

>>>> The end always comes NOT when your marvelous theories
>>>> are no longer supported by piles upon piles of your mistaken
>>>> "observations" (the Big Bang theory has been in trouble for
>>>> decades) but when a new theory is finally devised to better
>>>> explain the "observations." Well, read it here: The universe
>>>> is imploding. It's the only thing it could be doing. And, unlike
>>>> the exploding Big Bang model, ALL the consequences and
>>>> outcomes that should result from an imploding model are
>>>> identical with the observed facts in our universe: ALL of them.
>>>
>>> Blueshift?
>>
>> Sir, the galaxies ARE receding from each other.
>> This is NOT an illusion. In our imploding universe
>> matter (which is NEVER under any circumstances
>> fundamental/immutable but always a construct of
>> energy, E=MC^2), "divisible" matter ... is imploding:
>
> Forgive me for being "slow" but I truly fail to see how the matter is
> "imploding" yet galaxies are receding from each other.

Oy vie! You can read it again below, dear Bruno. But
it's not because it's self-evident I repeat it and repeat it.
It's because it is ONLY in the imploding universe model
that the origin of the galaxies is self-evident (in an exploding
universe model one always must pile up galaxies/matter
somewhere to send them/it flying, usually via some complex
mathefiction--Is there any mathefiction NOT complex?)... it
is the ultimate proof that reality is not some complex "trick of
magic" but an inevitable evolutionary process (from the most
simple homogenic state to the most complex present state).

>> Do not begin from a mental attempt to "see" a
>> hydrogen atom imploding! Aside the fact that
>> everything INSIDE the universe is imploding at
>> the same rate (the same amount of matter being
>> equal to the same amount of matter throughout
>> the universe), and therefore everything INSIDE
>> the universe always having been and always
>> remaining absolutely relativistic... the present-day
>> universe of "atoms" is the end result of an
>> unimaginably ancient process of evolution
>> (which is ongoing AND as eternal as its
>> expenditure of remaining energy can sustain it).
>>
>> Rather, think of a universe made up of "clouds"
>> which begin to implode (away from each other)...
>> As they implode they create (open up) distance/
>> spaces/volume between them. But gravity next
>> begins to force the clouds together: Yet, no matter
>> how fast the clouds are "bunched up" by gravity
>> they will forever implode faster still (the space
>> between them will never cease to grow or increase
>> ... and, naturally, the farther any two clouds are,
>> the more space will open up between them). SO
>> even though, in an absolute sense, all the clouds
>> are always getting closer and closer... in a relativistic
>> sense they will be receding from each other.
>>
>> The farther away any one cloud is from any other cloud
>> the faster it will recede from it. Literally, if a cloud is twice
>> as far away from another cloud than a third cloud... it will
>> be receding away from it twice as fast. And now, hopefully
>> (on my part) you understand that the galaxies really ARE
>> receding from each other (even if only relativistically) even
>> as AND, really, BECAUSE the universe is (not relativistically,
>> but in the absolute) imploding. [And because everything
>> INSIDE the universe remains relativistic, the also-imploding
>> photon very truthfully informs us that the galaxies ARE
>> indeed receding.]
>>
>> This is also why you cannot really speak rationally about
>> "time" ... because the universe has always moved and
>> will always continue to move faster and faster (even if we
>> will NEVER notice this here INSIDE it). Remember, the
>> "motion" of the universe is from larger-and-slower to
>> smaller-and-faster. [And this is also why the universe will
>> pretty much remain "nearly eternal" regardless of the fact
>> that it consists of a finite amount of energy.]
>
> "slower" and "faster" are concepts which
> are tied to velocity and hence to
> time, which you said cannot be spoken of "rationally."

You can see Bruno has no inkling what the hell was
so plainly and transparently said above. [Bruno, "slower"
and "faster" are concepts of relativity. And "time" is just
some unimportant creature lost in the universe "timing"
the rate of one irrelevant motion against the rate of some
second irrelevant motion... the distinction is that relativity
applies throughout the entire universe, while the "accuracy"
of "time" is one of the most local of all local-only phenomena.

The Twins Popsicle Paradox!

A retelling of a traditional fairy tale for Bruno
that he may go to bed & fall asleep sooner
(rather than later):

Once upon a hot Summer morning there were two
identical popsicle twins. And while one twin popsicle
waited on the sidewalk under the hot Sun, the other
twin popsicle took a ride inside the ice cream truck
around the park. Well, what do you imagine: When
the two popsicle twins (there might've been more
than just two twins but we don't want to complicate
matters for little Bruno)... when the two popsicle twins
met again the twin that had remained under the Sun
was almost half melted and soggy... while the twin
that took the ride around the park inside the ice cream
truck was still frozen stiff! How do you explain this? It still
boggles the mind, frankly, of thinkers like little Bruno.

( . . . ) Writes Bruno: "This is actually rich... Imploding... Not
actually original, but rich. To the record, Physics (Cosmology,
to be precise) as it stands today can explain the history of the
universe up to the point where the volume of the observable
patch was about e^(180) times the Planck length cubed (roughly
the volume of the nucleus of the atom)."

>> That doesn't even begin to match the degree
>> to which the Bible can explain the same thing:
>> You can only explain it "to a portion of an inch"
>> while the Bible can explain it unto The Mind of God!
>> You're just playing with yourself (with words).
>
> Good for the Bible. As for any practical purpose, can
> the Bible explain why 25% of the matter of the observed
> universe is made of Helium?

No more, I imagine, than science can explain why after
witnessing all the miracles performed by Moses, any Hebrew
would still listen to anything Edward G. Robinson might have
had to say, I say!

>>> Many things are included,
>>> like the abundance of the light elements
>>> (H, He, Li and the like), barion to
>>> photon ratio (roughly the distribution of
>>> energy of the universe into matter
>>> and light), and the cosmic microwave
>>> background CMB.
>>
>> In an evolutionary process many very
>> ancient species are contemporary with
>> a new species like man. In the universe
>> very ancient forms of matter (quarks and
>> hydrogen atoms) are contemporary with
>> black holes. [PS. look for some other
>> source for the CMB than the Big Bang,
>> baby.]
>
> As I said before, the CMB falls into the
> phenomena we can actually explain
> using knowlegde available today. It comes
> from the shape of the plasma that
> pervaded the universe before recombination.
> That happened a tad after the
> big bang. Again, if you have anything
> better, please share, baby.

Certainly, honey: Surely SOME aspect of an imploding
universe ought to be causing a temperature rise... surely.
One day we shall know, not assume, whether the CMB
is really decreasing or stable across all time (you know,
sort of like.. whether the recession of the galaxies is slowing
down or speeding up). Place yer bets!

>>> It says nothing
>>> of what has passed before (although
>>> Inflation has picked up some
>>> consensus because of the problems of
>>> homogeneity and some minutia
>>> of the CMB), and the reason for it is
>>> basically because whatever came
>>> before has to be a product of microphysics
>>
>> Sez you? Dear God. No--I'm serious.
>
> Sez the community.

Is this the same community which was so certain once
that the entire universe orbited litt'l ole Planet Earth? (Or
were you talking about Martians perchance?)

> Repeating myself, you'd do everybody a favour by learning
> the physics you are trying to tear down (with no impact
> so far, I might add).

Cookie, Bruno. Think cookie... and bedtime.

>>> which is beyond the reach of
>>> our theoretical understanding as it is
>>> today.
>>
>> Wow! Sounds like you suspect you're one
>> primitive theorizing human.
>
> I guess you think of yourself otherwise.

You need not guess, Bruno. Oh, wait a minute:
I forgot I'm a humble chap there for a sec.

>>> Talking to a cosmologist about
>>> those questions is the farthest you can
>>> get from a bunch of priests vomiting
>>> dogmas.
>>
>> I have news for you: "Theories are proved
>> and disproved by observations, and NOT
>> by additional theories." There you have in
>> one sentence the failure of modern physics,
>> ironically, to agree with the laws of physics.
>
> I don't have the slightest idea why you think this is news to me.

Well, there was a hint of it in the sentence by U to which
my comment commented, Bruno. (But, I don't suppose
this will point out anything in particular to Bruno either.)

> AND, there
> was never any *theory* of physics being disproven by another *theory*.
> Theories have been found to be incorrect by direct confrotation with
> experiments, believe it or not.

That, of course may be... provided it is not the Big Bang theory
which now suddenly runs into the physical impossibility of its
"explosion" accelerating, of course--In this case apparently one
does not throw out the Big Bang theory but merely introduces a
further theory... that there "must be" some "magical force" called
"dark energy." [Or maybe the "outer vacuum" is hollower than the
"inner vacuum" and THAT must be why the galaxies are being
sucked out faster and faster!] Is there any end to our human
imagination? Hell, buy your comic book's next issue and SEE.

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

... and on, and on ...

> Apart from that, theories have been superseeded by other
> theories, but never "disproven."

Typical of a flat-earther, say I.

> You seem to forget that
> "dark matter" is a ill-defined notion that,
> among other things may or may
> not have anything to do with "matter",

Yikes! You may be confusing the proposed "dark matter"
and its proposed "dark effects" there Bruno.

> and whichever explanation you hear
> for it is model depedent. Models can be
> right or wrong without disproving
> the theories on which they are based upon.
>
>> [This does not mean quantum theory is
>> "wrong" since, at its humblest, quantum
>> theory is/ought to be merely a statistical truth.]
>
> It is a tad more than that. Not much more, but there is
> some interesting subtleties.
> B.

.. of that time, of this place ...


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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
alt.arts.poetry.urban,alt.arts.poetry.comments,misc.writing,rec.arts.poems,rec.arts.poetry
Subject: Re: Can religion explain the dinosaurs?
References:



<5f9uiu8lbgd60m4usgldh0fv0j7rkgfnhg@4ax.com>




<191511d4.0207231406.b9d7daa@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.3.144.105
Message-ID:

news:<191511d4.0207231406.b9d7daa@posting.google.com>...

> For someone who thinks science
> requires proof that something is true
> in order to say it is true,

Science demands an honest inquiry only (its history
is one of unrelenting error after error and mistake after
mistake... admited, at last... and corrected); and then on
to the next admission of mistake. The bane of science
is dishonesty--certainly NOT being honestly wrong. And
its ruin is, therefore, knowing you're wrong, and hiding it
whether for personal profit or pride or any reason, really.

> you have
> a lot of nerve to say "THERE IS
> NO GOD" when you can't prove it.
> Doesn't it bother you that people may
> laugh at you for making such an absurd statement.

I've made even more absurd statements than that
certainly! "There is no Santa Claus." And, "There is
no Easter Bunny." As well as the cretinous, "Mickey
Mouse is not alive." And the obviously moronic: "Lassie
can NOT read his/her published autobiography!"

I am just being honest.

I don't know... there are some negative statements
which I feel just don't merit anybody having to
prove they are true. And the notion that the universe
is the magical creation of a really really super super
great ape from Planet Earth... is not worth wasting
too much time about (unless the Planet Earth monkeys
who believe such nonsense also get it into their heads
that The Great Baboon would like them to throw me
off the highest branch of the Tree of Life or something
... after the usual really really hysterical chase, of course).

> I can say my house is blue but you can't deny it just because you've
> never seen it.

Sir, get over it: There is NO WAY on earth
that your house could be blue (any more than it
could be happy or glad or aristocratically serene).
Except in the warped perceptions of your prejudiced mind,
of course. (Think happy thoughts & your house will
"get over" being blue. Give you my word on this.)

Look: I don't know... there are some positive claims which
are so goofy in & of themselves that I just don't feel that a
negative denial of their being true requires that anybody
prove that such a negative denial be also a positive truth. Or
something like that.

And the notion that the universe is the magical creation
of a really really super super great ape from Planet Earth
... is not worth wasting too much time on (unless the
Planet Earth monkeys who believe such nonsense also
get it into their heads that The Great Baboon would like
them to throw you off the highest branch of the Tree of Life
or something... after the usual really really hysterical high-
pitched screaming, everywhere-leaf-raining chase, of course).

> Wow!

Are those your initials... or are you just
happy to read me?

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

re:

> A. Trinosi
>
>
> sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian) wrote in message
news:...
>> "Sheryle Kolar" wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> I would like to add that although religion's explanations for
everything
>>> under the sun may or may not be accurate, they serve as peace of
mind.
>>> Isn't that what really matters?
>>
>> You may wish to explain that to the hundreds of
>> millions of persons who have been murdered throughout
>> human history by Muslims because of Islam's neat
>> explanations of why God/Allah not only sanctions but
>> demands much mass murders. (This is just a rhetorical
>> sentence, by the way, since most of those murdered
>> persons are probably dead now.)
>>
>> The problem with all such (religious) "explanations"
>> is that THERE IS NO GOD... and it's just some con man
>> (or more usually, some madman) standing behind the
>> curtain cutting off all questions as to why God/Allah
>> would command such idiocy/evil with the impossible to
>> question: "Because God said so: I was there & I heard Him."
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>> physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> re:
>>
>>> S D Rodrian wrote in message
>>> news:bf7b874e.0207130929.121f2bd3@posting.google.com...
>>>> Not only can religion explain the dinosaurs
>>>> but religion can explain EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN
>>>> (including everything merely imaginable AND
>>>> everything that can be imagined or we might come
>>>> across in the near/distant future)... because
>>>> Religion's explanation is utter gobbledygook, and
>>>> what can one NOT explain with gobbledygook?!?!?
>>>>
>>>> "Why this & that?" "Gobbledygook." "Ah! I see."
>>>>
>>>> It is science that cannot explain everything because
>>>> science actually requires that the explanation be the
>>>> actual explanation... not merely only as far as we know,
>>>> but also as far as every cross-checking we can design
>>>> to test the explanation sez too.
>>>>
>>>> That is much harder to do than to just make up any
>>>> explanation that matches the sense of humor of the
>>>> fellow explaining things. And I should know.
>>>>
>>>> S D Rodrian
>>>> poems.sdrodrian.com
>>>> physics.sdrodrian.com

re: is an egyptian god, by the way (in Aida?)

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.logic,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electromag,sci.phy
sics.fusion
Subject: Bruno's Dream PART 1 of 2
References:








<3d3928ea.3019824@news.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.238.133.122
Message-ID:

Bruno's Dream PART 1 of 2

"Bruno Carneiro da Cunha"
wrote in message
news:...
> Not surprisingly, the answer comes only when a third
> party has hinted him
> that his ego may be hurt before the eyes of the
> audience. Also of little
> novelty it the type of "counter-arguments" -- twisted,
> ad-hominem attacks.

See: That's why I prefer to fight inside a paper bag
and away from an audience. (My favorite tactic is
biting two or three ears off my opponent--the third ears
always leads to a lot of confusion on his part.)

> Oh well, as I said before, I am a stubborn fellow
> (with a DOE report to

Dead On Errival?! or Emailing?

> write, you may also add irresponsible to the list).
> Nonetheless I'm growing
> weary of toying.

Oh-oh. This could be serious. I've seen
porn Mafia movies that start like this. (Can I have
the toys after you finish with them, Bruno?
I have a lot of time on my hands.)

> As to why Mr. S R Rodrian is a crank, in the usual
> sense, here it goes:

Gee, Bruno, such a huge post dedicated exclusively
to why litt'l ole moi is a crank?! (I guess Freud was right:
You ARE confessing that your ego's been bruised, and
everything else your transference unto me talks about.)
I already know why I'm a crank: Old age and slow waitresses!

> 1) Has little or no grasp of modern physics,

Can you blame me: with so much of modern physics
being virtually all virtual (and no meat)...?!

> and, even
> worse, refutes to
> understand it. Viz. my explanation of Hawking-Penrose
> theorem, dismissed as
> "gobbledygook interpretation of some 'mathefiction'." (in
> fact the theorem
> is 28 years old and, as I stated before, it is *measured*
> to have a broad
> range of application)

The "flat earth theorem" is many more years older than 28
but that doesn't mean it's improved in truth with the years.

In circumstances where he does not know the nature of
reality (worse, where he imagines it can never be known),
the mathefiction writer (like the science fiction writer who
does not feel himself constrained by having his creations
conform to reality)... the mathefiction writer too does not
feel himself constrained to only propose those "realities"
which are possible in the real reality. In the imagination
of the writer of both sorts of fiction everything imaginable
is quite acceptable/reasonable as a real possibility:

Hawking, like Einstein (nearly 100 years ago now) and
Penrose and whatever other name you'd care to drop
simply does not know the nature of reality (of the universe
he inhabits)... no matter how much OTHER STUFF he
knows, when he muses upon anything whose accuracy
depends upon it being accurately based upon reality...
he'll likely produce bunk, just like every other ignoramus.

[A classical example of mathefiction can be fashioned even
from the innocent little syllogism: "If A=B and B=C then A=C"
where all its internal parameters are internally consistent and
demand unquestioned acknowledgment of its inner logic ...
it's just that once the mathefiction writer begins to "assume"
its use in connection with "real things" the connection of its
inner consistency with general reality start to break down, as
in (as I said years ago): "if A= Life & Death, and B = Change;
and C = Putting on a pair of socks" then "Life & Death = a
change of socks." "Many a truth is said in jest;" but, at its heart,
this is how mathefictions are usually constructed by persons
who arbitrarily simply substitute the inner logic of the equations
for the insanity they perceive in the real world... and try to make
sense of that perceived insanity this brand new crazy way.]

The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems are an attempt
by these ivory tower theoreticians to account mathematically
for the Big Bang singularity (thereby "proving," mind you, its
reality ... mathematically, of course). "Lord what fools these
mortals be!" [Astrophysicist Kip Thorne said, "Hawking and
Penrose in 1970 proved--without any idealizing assumptions
--that our universe must have had a space-time singularity
at the beginning of its Big Bang expansion."] Perhaps so, in the
math--which is "slightly" more complex than a chess game
(use an analogy not unlike having a chess game prove the
reality of the Big Bang by a very very clever checkmate). It's
just that IF the reality of your mathefiction is constructed
upon the premise that Mickey Mouse is a living, breathing
person ... then please don't expect me to take your numbers
(or chess moves) seriously--and no matter how brilliant they
may be. You fight it out with critic Berlinski: "The concept of
a singularity belongs essentially to mathematics. Singularities
are not experimentally accessible objects. They cannot be
weighed, measured, assessed, replicated, balanced, or seen
by any modality of the senses. Within certain mathematical
contexts, the concept has real content. An ordinary curve goes
up one side of the blackboard and down the other; it changes
its direction at a singular point. There are singularities
within the calculus, and singularities in complex function
theory where imaginary numbers loiter, and singularities in
the space of smooth maps. There are singularities within
general relativity as well, but the term covers a variety of
cases, and the singularities within general relativity are
distinctly odd. In most mathematical theories a natural
distinction is drawn between a figure and its background:
a curve arcs within the broader ambit of an enveloping
space, a mapping is easily distinguished from the spaces
it connects. Typically, it is the figure that admits of a
singularity: the curve changes its direction or the mapping
breaks down, while the background stays the same. But
in general relativity, it is the background that suffers a
singularity, the very fabric of space and time giving way
with a rip as curvature zooms off to infinity and space and
time contort themselves. For the purposes of describing
such singularities, the usual mathematical techniques are
unavailing."

Carried to a (physical) logical conclusion, a singularity
can be described as an object with only one side only
(without the up and down, right and left, front and back...
of our usual three-dimensional objects). Mathefiction
inventors, who instinctively (if no other way) know the
utter insanity of this try to hide singularities in the realm
of "the so very small that" our 3D reality can ever hope
to "touch" them, so "no sense looking for them--just
trust our math that they're there." Their assumption is
still there for anyone with at least two cents' worth of brains
to take note of, however: A one-dimensional object
existing without explanation in a three-dimensional reality!

Now you try to make such an ideal concept part of your
kitchen decor. [Even though it might be better to speak of
ours as a "spherical dimension" rather than as just "three
dimensional" ... we still understand that this term "three-
dimensional" is "shorthand."] You can make a piece of
paper with only one side yourself by taking a trip of paper,
twisting it, and gluing its ends together... now if you run
a pen down one of its sides you'll discover that the end of
your ink line will meet its beginning without your ever
having lifted the pen from the paper--obviously your strip
of paper has only one side: But does it really? ... Or is it
just only what your senses tell you it really is?... namely, a
kind of physically impossible "mathefiction" whose "fiction"
(that it is possible/real) depends on our ignoring (or being
ignorant of) the fact that only three-dimensional objects
are possible in our three-dimensional reality NO MATTER
how clever anybody's "proofs" may be to the contrary.

"That having been said, here is what Hawking and Penrose
brought under the control of a mathematical demonstration.
The setting is FL cosmology and only FL cosmology. There are
three kinds of universe to consider, and innumerably many
species within each type. Those that are open and forever
gushing into the void are called hyperbolic. Within almost all
of those hyperbolic universes, almost all processes begin at
a point in the past. Within the two types of universe that remain,
there is bound to be at least one process that has begun
somewhere in the past. Despite the tics--"almost all," "at least
one" the Penrose-Hawking theorems do indeed demonstrate
that some universes begin in an initial singularity. But the light
thrown by the Penrose-Hawking theorems flickers over a
mathematical theory and so a mathematical universe. The
universe that we inhabit is a physical system. Nothing but grief
can come of confusing the one for the other. FL cosmology
requires the existence of space-time singularities, but there is
nothing in the Penrose-Hawking theorems to suggest that a
space-time singularity corresponds to an explosion, or marks
the beginning of an expansion, or describes an accessible
portion of space and time, or connects itself to any physical
state of affairs whatsoever. Mathematical concepts achieve
physical significance only when the theories in which they are
embedded are confirmed by experience. If a space-time
singularity is not a physical event, no such confirmation can
logically be forthcoming. With the argument rolled backward,
it follows that if these mathematical theories are not confirmed
by experience, then neither have they achieved any physical
significance. It is Einstein who expressed the most reasonable
and deeply thought views on this matter. "One may not therefore
assume the validity of the [field] equation for very high density
of the field and of matter," he remarked, "and one may not
conclude that the beginning of the expansion must mean a
singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is
that the equations may not be continued over such regions."
The sharp, clean, bracing light that the Big Bang was to have
thrown on the very origins of space and time lapses when it is
most needed. The relevant equations of general relativity fall
silent at precisely the moment we most wish they would speak."

Alex Harvey objects: "... the singularity theorems provide
precisely the connection between the mathematics of the
physical source terms (i.e., mass and radiation) of the Einstein
equations and the curved, dynamic space in which and with
which they interact. The theorems imply that, traveling directly
backward in time, one will encounter a point beyond which
one cannot proceed. That (singular) point is approached with
a simultaneous approach to infinite density of the sources.
These theorems, then, though they do not prove the existence
of the Big Bang, are perfectly compatible with it."

Note the assumption by conventional astrophysicist Alex
Harvey that the universe IS the result of an explosion. Therefrom
if one runs the explosion backward one MUST end up in some
mythical (mathefictional) singularity: It is upon this unreasonable
assumption (circular logic, or, "if we assume this then the Big
Bang is real, and if the Big Bang is real, then the assumption must
be true): The circular reasoning within the "reality" of this fiction
is flawless: Yes, indeed you must absolutely end up in some sort
of "singularity" following that mathefiction storyline... it's just that
the universe happens NOT to be the result of the assumed
(really physically impossible) explosion but is instead the result
of the natural implosion that results from ALL manifestations of
matter/energy WE KNOW OF in our reality (and therefore if you
run the film of reality backwards you do NOT "really" end up in
any mythological singularity but in conditions of ever thinning and
thinning concentrations of matter/energy)... something about which
we do NOT have to make any assumptions because it is the natural
state of real things all about us.

Berlinski: "Cosmologists have been unable to describe the
singularities of Einstein's theory in a way that is mathematically
natural, plausible, elegant, and persuasive. They still cannot.
Mr. Harvey is convinced that the original Hawking-Penrose
theorem arose from very plausible physical assumptions, but
this is a mistake. Theorems 1 and 2 of Stephen Hawking's and
G.F. Ellis's The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time contain
complex mathematical assumptions about the structure of a certain
differential manifold. Their proofs are long, clumsy, and, as some
mathematicians have maliciously suggested, perhaps fully
comprehensible only to their graduate students. Still, there is no
question that under a number of problematic conditions,
singularities figure in general relativity. I never said otherwise.
General relativity is completely a mathematical theory, one
containing a number of physical parameters. In this respect
it is no different from any other theory within physics. Such
theories confront the physical universe as an idealization; but
very often the idealization, however plausible, is simply wrong.
The angles of a triangle in the real world sum to more or less
180 degrees. More or less: there are inevitable errors of
measurement. In the case of local Euclidean geometry, we
accept those errors as small, and move on. But the singularity
theorems confront us with something entirely different:
predictions that to this point have made no physical sense.
Thus, Hawking and Ellis very sensibly conclude, after
eliminating a number of other possibilities, that "one can
regard a singularity as a point where the Einstein equations
(and presumably the other known laws of physics) break down.
This was Einstein's conclusion, too. Physicists cannot have it
both ways. They cannot say, as does Joseph Silk, that terms
like infinite density are absolutely unacceptable as physical
descriptions, and then argue that general relativity predicts
their physical existence. The matter is one of logic, not
mathematics. If Mr. Harvey is in a position to extend the field
equations so that in the context of singularities they make
reasonable physical sense, I wish him well. So far, no one has
done so, virtually the entire community of cosmologists
agreeing with Einstein that under singular conditions, general
relativity fails as a physical theory. If the field equations (and
everything else) break down within a singularity, and if the
concept of an initial singularity is incoherent, as, given our
present understanding, it surely is, what precisely remains of
the Big Bang hypothesis other than the putative fact that the
universe is expanding? To say that the conclusions of the
singularity theorems are consistent with the hypothesis of the
Big Bang is only to say that something we do not understand is
compatible with something we cannot describe."

Bruno continues, S R Rodrian (for he cannot even keep straight
in his head something as simple as that it is SD Rodrian!)...

> 2) Offers no factual evidence that a working model is wrong

Bruno, if your automobile model requires tires to work, and
everybody agrees it has no tires (and somebody proposes
that "therefore" it will probably move by floating upon some
mysterious/unfathomable "dark energy")... all I am saying is
let's take the two minutes it will take to get it some tires, and
not just push the jalopy off its prop in the belief that it will float
on all these "dark matters" of mathefiction.

> and expects
> everybody to believe it. His dismissal of the Big Bang model
> based on the
> acceleration of the redshift of distants galaxies is
> laughable.

1) Big Bang is the explosion powering the universe.

2) An explosion is required because otherwise gravity
would make the universe implode.

3) All explosions push "matter" for a while and then run
out of energy and the "matter" drops "down/back."

4) The so-called explosion of the universe seems to be
picking up speed (instead)... this does NOT make sense.

Sorry, Bruno: I don't see where the idea that the Big Bang
explanation does not fit the observed reality is unreasonable,
let alone laughable...

I do see where the idea of "funny energy" (et al) might be
reasonably expected to raise a chuckle or two, though.

> If anything,
> the present acceleration would mean that a Big Bang -- by that
> I mean the
> singularity predicted by Einstein's Equations -- was *bound*
> to have
> happened in some point of the past. But, as I said before,
> Cosmology does
> not yet know if in fact it happened or not. The only one
> claiming that it does is Mr. S R Rodrian.

It's been in all the papers, Bruno. You do know how to read?
You put your lips together and blow (for the paper boy).

Bruno: The Big Bang theory comes NOT from a direct
observation but "from an assumption from a misinterpreted
observation" (seeing the recession of the galaxies)... that it
"must" have been caused by a primordial explosion: ALL
mathefictions invented to "prove" this erroneous assumption
"must" be true (no matter WHO invents them) are wrong,
and no matter how otherwise brilliant they may be (dentists
or phycisists). And because they are misinterpretations of
reality, ALL their subsequent assumptions about the nature
of reality based upon this mathefiction will have to be violently
twisted to fit reality (if somebody actually bothers to request
that they fit reality, Bruno... something which is not always
demanded in this climate where we don't like to offend folk
by telling them THEY'RE WEARING NO CLOTHES actually).

It is only those assumptions about reality which agree with
reality that will result in easy-flowing, natural, elegant,
straightforwardly simple and inevitable explanations of reality.

ALL assumptions employing fewer and/or more dimensions
than just only merely the "three" of our actual reality are by
definition mathefictions: Mickey Mouse is NOT a living two-
dimensional creature; and ALL universes/objects proposed
to people "his" two-dimensional world are mathefictions
(dreams) only. This is just as true of single-dimensional
mathefictions... and of multi/infinite-dimensional ones too:

If there is no need for God, please do not invent one (naturally
immediately followed by the mathematical rationale for Him).

> 3) Offers evidence of the *collapsing of the building of
> stabilished
> science* based on "facts" learnt of popular science magazines.

Little Lulu comic books actually, but do continue. God help me
if ever I have to reply to somebody with some actual brains,
Bruno... you I enjoy corresponding with immensely!

> The use of
> half-facts about "Dark Matter", which is in itself an
> incomplete model,
> created basically to refer to a new unexplained phenomenon,

I'm only objecting to the explanations, if you actually read
what I wrote, that is.

> is also
> symptomatic of someone who read an analogy (or metaphor) in
> the science
> column of the NYT and keeps bragging on how that must be
> rubbish.

Well, the NYT usually ends up as rubbish in my house,
Bruno: Do you enshrine your copies or something in yours?

> Usually
> uses some comment from a translation of the works of some
> great
> physicist/philosopher (Newton, Einstein and Kuhn are the
> preferred) of the

Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't know 2+2=4 had been repudiated now.
I'll make a note for future reference. Thank you, Bruno.

> past to "prove" his point -- as if in science one is supposed
> to weight an
> argument as much as a prediction.

Well, I did predict in specific language (albeit more in the
language of an argument): "If the universe is imploding then
the recession of the galaxies must eventually be found to be
accelerating. Otherwise I won't be able to be as smug about
my being right while the whole world's wrong... as I'd like to
remain. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...!" When it was found to be doing so
(in 1998), I was very happy indeed (to be able to continue to
act as smug as ever). Everybody else was most disturbed ...
because they were all wrong and only I was right. Please do
forgive me for being right--I forgive you for being wrong (NOT).
In your face, baby!

> But the crank usually takes
> the new
> phenomenon not as the boundary of present knowledge, rather it
> is the patent
> proof that "he was right all along,"

I told you so!

> yet not surprinsingly, the crank does
> not show how exactly his "model" predicts the new phenomenon
> qualitatively

I was absolutely (100%) right. Everybody else was absolutely
(100%) wrong. What can I say.

> (because of his mistrust of mathematics, the crank does not
> lend to
> quantitative predictions.)

If there's really a duck there, I rather just see it there (than have
its existence proved mathematically). This comes from having
had some run-ins with flim-flam duck-selling mathematicians
here & there throughout my life. Am I wrong in this? (Okay, I've
sold a few ducks this way too--but a guy's gotta make a living,
you know... even a mathematical one: "If the math sez it quacks
like a duck, and the math sez it walks like a duck--gimme your
money.")

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

continued in "Bruno's Dream PART 2 of 2"

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.logic,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electro
mag,sci.phy
sics.fusion
Subject: Bruno's Dream PART 2 of 2
References:






<3d3928ea.3019824@news.newsguy.com>


NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.238.133.122
Message-ID:

Bruno's Dream PART 2 of 2

"Bruno Carneiro da Cunha"
wrote in message
news:...
> To everybody genuinely interested
> in the subject
> of dark matter I encourage the reading of:
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0107259
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204059

I, on the other hand, advise you not to jump into the quagmire
of propositions for the existence of mythological ghosts for
which there is no need whatsoever. Simply: Learn the nature
of reality; and open your eyes and SEE what is there (and if
you cannot correctly interpret what is there to be seen, then
simply keep looking ... DO NOT begin to invent every crazy
impossibility in your imagination as existing there, scaring
yourself into the superstition that life is a lot more mystic and
mysterious and incomprehensible than it really is). Life is simple:
Eat, crap; wake, sleep; screw, get a second job to feed the kids.

> 4) Offers an alternative "model", but vaguely enough that
> nothing concrete
> can be said about it.

Say what you want to say--Who's stopping you?! I thought the
whole idea of Usenet was to get whomever to say whatever
about whathaveyou! Visit thou: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

> The "receding universe" is not actually the best one
> I've ever seen. I remember this guy who claimed that quantum
> mechanics could
> not be right and actually gave a well constructed argument
> (= the falacy was
> sufficiently well-hidden) to show his point. Mr S R Rodrian
> doesn't even get
> close. a) Doesn't say exactly *what* is receding --

the galaxies

> are they
> the fundamental
> particles that compose an atom?

the standard model ones ... (why does gravity act over
so-called infinite distances while the other forces do not?
because while all the other forces are only an exchange
of energy, gravity is actually a net loss (e=mc^2)... that is:
not ever compensated for again. this is what will eventually
cause the universe of matter to return to the "sparseness"
from whence it came... and conclude its implosion). and
now you know all there is to know about the universe. SDR

> If so, does the "empty space"
> between them
> also "imploding"?

gravity acts locally first, and then more generally with
distance (see Newton's inverse-square geometry explanation)

> If the empty space between them is
> imploding, why not the
> "empty space" outside the atom? Why not the "empty space"
> outside the Earth?
> If so, why not everything? But, if everything really does
> implode, photons,
> wavelengths, atoms, people, Mr. S R Rodrian's brain and the
> Local Group of
> Galaxies, how can we perceive it?

I gave you the answer: The recession of the galaxies (space
between them increasing throughout the universe at extremely
even rates). The speed of light in identical mediums (pointing
out that there is a very solid reason why the photon can again
accelerate AFTER having traversed a more solid medium...
which thus has more to do with the mediums than the photon).
A much better explanation for the Fitzgerald-Lorentz equations
than the "Fitzgerald contraction" which misled Einstein into
thinking the speed of light cannot be exceeded. Many more.

EVERYTHING does implode. But gravity acts elastically (in
accordance to the so-called inverse-square law), which explains
why matter clumps into stars & planets... instead of diffusing
absolutely evenly across the universe (you may have heard
of this effect, Bruno). Nevertheless, yes, even objects as
"close" to each other as the Sun and Earth must show some
effects of the universe's implosion eternal creation of distance
(space), even if not on the same level as that between galaxies
because, Bruno, the Sun/Earth are tied together much more
strongly than any two galaxies (including ours & Andromeda).
Now try to imagine how strongly two quaks can be tied up.

> b) And, what is
> scientifically a disaster,
> doesn't give any hint on how this "model" can be tested
> experimentally: are
> we supposed to measure the receding distance between the Earth
> and the Sun
> (you may use any two bodies you find appropriate) with an
> "imploding" ruler?

EVERYTHING inside the universe is in an absolutely relativistic
relationship (and the Planck-Length is forever becoming smaller
and smaller). But will you find the number of Planck-Lengths
between the neutron and the electron to be increasing more
slowly than between the earth and the moon? That's going to
be a problem all right. Although not a problem about which
anybody is going to lose any sleep, given how apparent it is
that our light-years can measure the implosion of the universe
by the Hubble law quite nicely, thank you.

> 5) Which is tied to 4), the crank doesn't offer any testable
> prediction of
> his "model".

Well, this crank did. And I still do in many other instances.
Which see.

> One of the most recurrent themes of the usual
> cranks: distrust
> of mathematics as the alphabet on which the language of nature
> is written.

Look for the actual duck, say I. That is true.

> Despite all the evidence coming from 3000+ years of related
> advances in both
> areas, the crank usually dismisses any mathematics more
> sophisticated than
> his own knowledge,

Well, it seems to me that it's a poor judge who judges
anything he can't judge. Perhaps Bruno has had a
different experience. But I applaud the crank here.

> repeating what they consider to be an
> argument, like
> "physics is not mathematics", or, even more frequently "the
> stabilishment
> has given too much weight to mathematics to the point where
> they think that
> an equation has a physical existence."

Well, I try to stay away from such conclusions until after
I have rendered them self-evident/inevitable. Which see.

> The aforementioned
> 'mathefiction' is
> not unusual amongst cranks.

Rats! And I though I'd coin the term!

> This ties a loop beginning with
> 1): the crank
> does not understand modern science because he/she does not
> want to learn the
> new mathematics often necessary to it. Consequently, it

He!

> refuses to
> understand any calculation based on modern science. From there
> to take a
> crazy axiom (viz. "the universe is imploding") on faith and
> claim to the
> four winds that the stabilishment is rubbish, and he/she holds
> the key to
> the true secret of the universe is not actually a giant step.

Well, I do fail to see what good would come from studying
the minutia of mathefictions built upon the assumption that
Mickey Mouse is a real living/breathing person, frankly...
but I certainly do not ask anybody to take anything I say merely
on faith! In fact, my cranky crusade is against the Argument
>From Authority: I advise folks to think for themselves. Can't
remember ever having claimed the universe is imploding
because I say it is. (I might've said it to my dog, but it was
just to stop him barking--could hardly make out what he was
asking.)

> 6) Vanity. The usual crank is naturally tied to his "model,"
> and does not
> take criticisms lightly (viz. the brilliantly cooked argument
> that "my brain
> doesn't hold water" following my message.)

I know there was a reason for that (and that it was not that
your coconut doesn't hold water--I take it you now have
experimental evidence of this and are not just making an
emotional claim not backed up by evidence). Show me
the water--I once spent a couple of weeks in Missouri.

> Not seldom, the
> crank stops
> demeaning and starts attacking verbally what he considers to
> be his
> opponent.

You dirty rat! I knew you'd say that.

> This has all possible ties with the points above: he
> does not
> speak the same language as scientists do,

Me speako Esperanto. Do you speako Esperanto too?

> has an innate
> distrust for what he
> does not and want not to grasp, and usually has nothing but a
> crazy axiom

Hair grows up in the sunshine, down in the shade.

> and no evidence to offer.

If it were not against the law in most states... I would.

> Because of all it, his interactions
> with the
> stabilished scientists -- when the ego of the crank allows for
> peer review
> (the word "peer" has a special significance for the usual
> crank)

Those are the feces-pitching monkeys one's expected to
hand one's very neatly typed manuscript to?!?!?! HA! Sir, ha!

> -- are not
> surprisingly accompanied with grief and misunderstanding which
> causes
> generically a substancial amount of rage from the part of the
> crank.

Grrrr! Grrrrr! Argh! Scratch, scratch! Flick a tick!

> Also
> coming from it is the fact that the usual crank usually
> believes that he/she
> understands perfectly all physical phenomena, be it time,
> space or the fate
> of the universe, as opposed to the "dogmatic",
> "mathefictional" scientists
> who can only complain about how little they understand Nature.

I have advised God on several projects (and I have noticed
that only those projects have produced perfect results). This
could be coincidental, but I DON'T THINK SO.

> The loop 1)-6) then closes, and the crank does not ever get
> out of it, not
> even when faced with an amassing amount of evidence that his
> ideas cannot work --

Well, I know of many reasons why the inflationary model
cannot work. Do you know of any "one" why the imploding
model can't? No, I've covered that one, go thou to:
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

> which is bound to happen, since the usual crank, as any vain
> person,
> likes to propagate his self-acclaimed wit to everyone he
> meets.

Excuse me, we've never met, but, have I mentioned yet
why it is that the chicken crosses the road? [Actually, Bruno,
where there are reasons to counter your opponent's argument
... you give them yourself, old boy. It's only when one has no
reason [sic] that one then engages in antics like calling one's
opponent a "crank." Otherwise one lets one's reasons reason
the thing out. But do continue...]

> Recently
> with the advent of USENET the usual crank found a new weapon
> to promote
> her/himself: cross-posting. When faced with arguments that he
> cannot bend,

And those unbendable arguments are...? (absent from your
arguments, obviously)

> it is all blamed in the "opponent", who cannot understand the
> crank's
> brilliancy, or the "stabilishment", which recites their
> "self-important
> mathematics" to a "dogma." Well, I could go on forever, but
> you see the pattern here.

Yes I do, Bruno: You're calling people names instead of
enumerating arguments which may support your position. That
says it all.

> Faced with all of above, it is not difficult to understand why
> the
> "stabilished scientists" don't in general waste time with
> cranks. There are
> way too many unexplained phenomena in Nature, and too little
> time to waste on rubbish.

You should try to work on things of scientific interest
and not just on rubbish, Bruno!

> Ok, back to work.

Don't forget to put your gloves on--Some of that
garbage sticks to the skin a long time.

> B.
> P.S.: I guess we had some affairs in the past, Mr. S R
> Rodrian. I remember I
> put you in my kill-file. Maybe I should not have formatted my
> hard drive,

Yes, perhaps you will do that next time instead of formatting
your brain again, Bruno.

> but at any rate this is a mistake that is easily corrected.
> Goodbye.

Thank you, Bruno, for confining most of your response to
a personal attack on me: If you had used your vast scientific
knowledge to refute even one of my propositions... I just don't
know what I would've done. But, all sarcasm aside: Science
as a culture must eternally remain self-critical, dear Bruno: It is
by confronting and surmounting all objections that its principles
manage to rule the physical world. What religion does, on
the other hand, is to simply forbid discussion of its basic claims
and thereby rule the world through tyranny and intimidation.
So whenever you see an attempt to hush/censor anyone
instead of countering his/her arguments (whatever their tenure)
... you can bet the argument has pushed a button, because
usually the easier an argument is to rebut the readier you will
see people killing themselves trying to rush out and rebut it.

Usenet has opened up the marketplace of ideas as never
before in human history. This is something all honest holders
of good and solid-based principles/ideas should welcome/hail.
Only those persons who guard untenable/dubious/questionable
notions should fear their notions being questioned.

You, of course, may not realize it, Bruno, but the object of
your choosing to refrain from addressing the matters of science
in this discussion and concentrating instead exclusively on
defining crank (and me as one--such a waste of time, given my
penchant for classifying myself as a whopping crank)... could
hardly be a greater admission by you of your lack of interest in
the science.

Bruno: You just have no faith in the goofy tenets of your own
superstitions. If you devoted one tenth as much time/effort to
actual scientific definitions as you devote to defining cranks ...
O what marvelous nonsense might you not produce!

See ya in the funny papers!

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

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

From: sdr@sdrodrian.com (S D Rodrian)
Newsgroups:
talk.philosophy.misc,mensa.talk.misc,talk.atheism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.life.universe.everything
Subject: Re: Bruno's Dream PART 2 of 2
References:




<3d3928ea.3019824@news.newsguy.com>



<2S%%8.1276$KM6.914699@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.136.13.252
Message-ID:

"Bruno Carneiro da Cunha"
wrote in message
news:<2S%%8.1276$KM6.914699@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>...
> "S D Rodrian" wrote in message
> news:bf7b874e.0207251352.5645dd7e@posting.google.com...

>> Bruno's Dream PART 2 of 2
>> [snipped a lot of crazy ideas which I don't have time to argue
about]

What did you do with the crazy ideas you were anguing with?
(This could be taken two ways, you know.)

But I do accept your generously conceding the points to me
with grace and reverence (on my part ... for what your feelings
must feel like at this painful moment of concession. Thank you.

> Sir, you are indeed the quntessencial crank.

I thank you again (and to show you I bear you no ill will
I will slip you a little advice under the table here: Learn to spell).

> "Gravity acts elastically,
> which explains
> why matter clumps into stars & planets"
> (what the hell is that supposed to
> mean?)

It just means that the strength of gravity decreases with
distance (as one chews gum--you needn't make too much of it)
exactly in the opposite manner that a rubber band acts
when you stretch it out of your mouth as you're chewing it.

> Jeans must be spinning in his grave.

Ha! Sir: I am WEARING Jeans. And my pants are
sitting down perfectly still (as they have been ever since
I was hit by extreme old age, unfortunately).

> But the "Hubble Law" being
> *evidence* that the universe is
> imploding is quite comic.

Yes, I thought so too. Again: Learn to spell,
please (it's "cosmic").

> Ok, party's over.

If you say so, then the party must be
just now beginning!

> Instead of just wasting your language
> skills on this diatribe,

Stop right there! My language is never just wasted
(it's usually wasted in conjunction with something else).

> just trying
> to answer the questions below:

Ah! Finally a worthwhile challenge!
Slip me those questions under the table
if that makes you feel more comfortable then.

> 1) Why the universe looks so homogeneous at large distances?

Myopia, of course. (I suppose next you'll be telling us
you never heard of the homogenized Milky Way!)

> 2) The universe as we see it is bathed in radio wavelength radiation at
> exactly 4°K. Why is this radiation so uniform around the sky?

Because of the design of the showerhead. (And
"somebody" must like very very very cold showers).

> 2a) Why are the little anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background
> peaked around lumps of about 1°?

That's small pox for you (for a long time it was thought to be
chicken pox, but as everybody knows when you hit a chicken
the lumps usually swell up to 11° or more). It's small pox all right.

> 2b) What is the polarization structure of those anisotropies?

Extreme (they hate each other like there's no tomorrow).

> 3) Why are there so much cosmic rays at energies larger than 100 GeV?

Because Ray happens to be the name most popular
for the sons of the most energetic Don Juans in the cosmos...?
The rest is genetic inheritance, just as you might expect.

> 4) Why does the universe -- as far as four dimensional curvature is
> concerned -- look so flat today?

You'd look flat too if you were as old and bent as the universe.
Next question.

> 5) What mechanism was responsible for the genesis of quarks and leptons
as
> we know it?

The Quark-Lepton Maker, patented in 1982
by Lenny Lepton and Benjamin Norton Quark.

> 6) What are the abundance of the light elements, as we see today?

What other elements would we see today
except those we see with light?!?!? I mean,
I don't see nothing at all without some light at least
and no matter how heavy it may be.

> Deuterium,
> Helium-3, Helium-4 and Lithium-7 would be a good start.

Sorry, sorry, sorry: I only drink the good stuff (none of those
off-brand liquors of yours for me). But you can start without me.

> 7) Why are the Local Group of Galaxies and the Virgo Cluster hurtling
> towards something we can't see -- the so-called Great Attractor?

That is the famous star Klark Gaybol (in the consternation
of O'Brian the infamous Universal agent). [Could it be because
"we" don't have enough mass to go our way 'spite it?]

> 8) Why are the Milky way and Andromeda
> rotating at velocities larger than
> pure gravity could hold together?

To make the perfect Martini.

> 9) Why the measured gravity of the universe
> is two times stronger than what
> we would expect based on the matter we can see?

Because it's always pushing it (if it'd take a load off
now & again... it'd only be half, if at that). Although all that
boozing probably isn't helping either.

> 10) Why six quarks and leptons?

Because it's easier to juggle three quarks
if one has at least three leptons to stand on
(everybody knows that).

> 11) Why four forces?

Because five forces would have been ... too much.

> 12) Why one time and three spacial dimensions?

Because that's the limit on the number of dimensions
one can get to at one time (without having to stretch the
lie to your wife about where you were that one time
too much).

> If you get any of those based on your model, please reply to
> The Norwegian Nobel Institute
> Drammensveien 19,
> NO-0255 OSLO
> as I am as of now unable to receive any further messages from you.

So! They finally got wise to you and cut off your
email privileges, eh! I knew it'd happen the minute
they caught you emailing all those Martians.

But ... why you should get it in your head that I have any
objections to the Standard Model particles...? O wait a
minute: I do recall saying that I had no objection to the
Standard Model--Ergo, as expected, you must have
understood from this that I was saying I objected to it
somehow. Yes: That must've been it! In other words:
One has to understand you in a most confused way!

Now I understand.

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







> B.

**************************************
Subject: Re: Big bang question
Date:
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:53:41 -0600
From:"supernews"

a few paragraphs later

"S D Rodrian" wrote in message
news:bf7b874e.0202051956.3b68afa5@posting.google.com...
> "Adam Marczyk" wrote in message
> news:...
>> S D Rodrian wrote in message
>> news:bf7b874e.0201190100.15cadaac@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> Now just what was that intended to do?
>
> It is called an U-R-L and one pastes them into one's browser's
> search box. [The particular URL above is the post I was answering
> in case you thought it was all in my mind... waitaminute: It IS
> all in my mind, as my toe seems to have contributed very little
> to this entire affair. So I've never understood why black people
> assume almost everybody has an ass. AND I've always wanted to see
> a Disney movie where a mule-skinner cries out to a donkey-rustler:
> "Hey! Get your hands off my ass!" ... among other things...]
>
>>>>>> S D Rodrian wrote:
>>>>>>>1) Gravitational systems (clumps) are never fundamental
>>>>>>> and ALWAYS in motion about themselves (self-centered).
>>>>>>> Their "shrinkage" already responds to their surroundings
>>>>>>> so their surroundings need not respond to them. [The
>>>>>>> moon's orbit affects comets and meteors traveling close
>>>>>>> enough to the moon, but it certainly does not affect any
>>>>>>> bodies orbiting distant stars... to any appreciable degree!]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't tell that to Einstein. After all,
>>>>>> the big-bang theory (which we have
>>>>>> very compelling evidence to its favor)
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually there is NO conclusive evidence of the Big Bang:
>>>>
>>>> Other than, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation,
>>>
>>> Which is indicative of the rising temperature of the universe,
>>> not its falling one, certainly!
>>
>> It's only 2.7 degrees above absolute zero and the universe is
billions
of
>> years old. If things are heating up, they're certainly taking their
time
>> about it.
>

sage: sage@lucidthought.net
OK. if and only if the tempeture of 'this' universe is rising
(absolutely)
then we must be within a closed universe or universe pocket. Which is to
say that we have enough mass within a local density to acheive the so
called
'black hole' (which I call closed-pocket-universe) within something I
would
call
the omni-verse supplying our energy increase and increasing our ambiant
temperature due to mass at our event horizon or tacyons from other cpu's.

Is the omni-verse closed? Who cares? Closed Pockets U. may collide.

(which I suppose our temperature will increase till we have our mythical
hell.)

I get the feeling I'm three months behind background radiation and
closing.
Any suggestions on how to skip ahead time wise when in a CPU?
Also, has anyone ever had an original thought?

JogorNot: I'm half as old as my father. When am I older?

I'M BACK!!!! (yes,I expect answers)

> Time, like all things IN the universe (including chewing gum)
> is relative. And "temperature" (being, in physics, more like
> the description "radioactively hot" by the way) really only refers
> to the concentration of subatomic particles: It is the heights
> of folly to assume that a given concentration of anything(s) points
> to a rising rather than a waning concentration of them WITHOUT
> FIRST taking a sufficiently long-term measurement to determine
> with some degree of certainty whether we are looking at a filling
> or a leaking barrel. Your assumption that the CBR is a remnant
> of some primordial Big Bang is an arrogant assumption at best.
> Moreover, ALL "particles" of matter are the matter that's imploding
> in our universe (and that includes photons and sparticles and
> other SUSY's).
>
>>>> the observed
>>>> distribution of elements,
>>>
>>> Putting side the fact that the percentage of the universe
>>> we observe (or will ever likely observe) probably falls
>>> below POINT something something something... at any given point
>>> in the EVOLUTION of the "universal black hole" one is likely
>>> to expect conditions which at such point(s) only permit the
>>> arrangements of matter-constructs POSSIBLE in its conditions
>>> (this means that the universe is moving from "particles" which
>>> can no longer exist here for very long... to particles (black
>>> holes) which will likely make our "atoms" appear to be virtual
>>> particles in the comparison). The point is that it's not very
>>> likely you will find the same region of the universe inhabited
>>> by particles diverging in their nature by all that much AT THE
>>> SAME TIME.
>>>
>>>> the observed expansion of space,
>>>
>>> Space (get it through your head) is just only merely the
>>> distance between objects (such as between "some" people's
>>> ears):
>>>
>>> An expansion of absolute (indivisible, in your lingo) bodies
>>> caused by some primordial Big Bang (however caused) could ONLY
>>> either collapse or gradually slow down. PERIOD.
>>
>> It's nice to know you've ruled out the future discovery of any new
forces
>> and decided exactly what it is the universe can and cannot do.
>
> Since the beginning of the universe--Nay, since long, long
> before then there has been but ONE force here. And that's
> the force of gravity. And since I am not particularly inclined
> to believe in magic, I am fairly certain that there can NEVER
> arise either a force or a miracle here which is not a direct
> derivative of the force of gravity (just as are the strong force
> and the weak/electromagnetic "forces").
>
> If but tomorrow today's physicists would cease believing in magic
> that would be the salvation of physics right there right then.
>
>> I'll be sure
>> to tell this to God or Santa Claus or whoever else it is that's
running
>> things around here.
>
> I can't say I know the name of the particular establishment
> in which you find yourself. But seek out a "head nurse."
>
>>> The observed
>>> recession of galaxies from each other (with farther galaxies
>>> receding faster than nearer ones) is ACCELERATING. Just bury
>>> your primordial inflationary theories, please! It's the 21th
>>> Century, already! Oooops, I spoke too soon. Pardon my audacity.
>>>
>>> [Add to this the physical impossibility of absolute anythings:
>>> ... monopoles, homogenous singularities, unisex, you name it...
>>> one-dimensional spheres! and other lunacies are the direct
>>> consequence of believing in fairies and other "absolutes"]. If
>>> one cannot sunder a thing, how the *#@$!*# could such "a" thing
>>> ever be "put together" in the first place: Do the impossible
>>> FIRST, and then call it possible. [Ya can't have sanity at once
>>> from looniness.]
>>
>> Is this anything other than an argument from ridicule?
>
> The best argument is always the one that best suits one's
> opponent. And I always tailor mine to my opponents at the time.
>
>> You know current
>> theories must be false because they use so many big words?
>
> No sir: I only know that if a theory goes against the laws
> of physics, it's suspect. This isn't the stuff of genius:
> In fact, I have nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't
> at the least follow this simple bit of wisdom.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> None! This is because ALL the so-called evidence FOR the
>>>>> reality of all inflationary theories can exist alongside
>>>>> "that evidence" being "evidence" of something other than
>>>>> a Big Bang. Worse: There is a body of indisputable facts
>>>>> which make Big Bang explanations a physical impossibility.
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to your "incredible shrinking universe"
>>>
>>> Come one! Come all!
>>>
>>>> hypothesis, which merely
>>>> violates the law of conservation of matter,
>>>> not to mention the square-cube
>>>> law and a whole host of other things.
>>>
>>> Ignorance can also be bliss: Enjoy yourself!
>>
>> Square-cube law. Simple. Surface area decreases by the square, but
volume
>> decreases by the cube.
>
> I see you've suffered through a great many deflations in
> your life. Here's a hint: The universe, perhaps the most
> perfect sphere of all, is nevertheless slightly larger than
> your litt'l pet balloon.
>
>> If we kept shrinking while the relative strength of
>> gravity remained the same (which we know it does from independent
checks),
>> before long we'd have way more muscle tissue than was needed to
support
our
>> own weights, and we'd all become human powerhouses capable of leaping
tall
>> buildings in a single bound, and so on.
>
> Godhavemercyuponmysoul, old boy! You really are behind even the
> most basic of scratch, aren't you? Well, here's primer to the
> 21st Century for you in a capsule:
>
> 1) ALL forms of matter are "forms" and not "fundamental."
>
> 2) Gravity is energy, energy is motion.
>
> 3) The force of gravity creates matter (all matter is
> is motion).
>
> 4) As the universe implodes, its forms of matter "evolve"
> from slower but larger motions INTO faster but smaller motions.
> However, all things being relative INSIDE the universe...
> nothing appears to change that much here.
>
> 5) AGAIN: Energy is conserved both INTO and OUT OF matter.
>
> 6) At any given point in this process ALL matter is equivalent
> or, "just as evolved" ("runs at the same speed" as) ALL other
> matter (in the same universe).
>
> 7) RESULT: The universe may be imploding in the absolute (and
> God may be watching IT shrink away into nothingness right in
> front of His eyes), but for us here inside... everything is
> absolutely relative. And the ONLY effect we may ever notice
> is that the "bits of matter" are shrinking faster than they
> are bunching up [i.e. the Hubble Constant Effect, cosmologically]
>
>> [snip]
>>>>> Exactly the same "presumptions" (that unproved guesses however
>>>>> informed are the equal of indisputable evidence) also applies
>>>>> to the question of Big Bang "proofs." Just as there has never
>>>>> been any evidence actually found of the existence of Dark Matter
>>>>> (nor can there ever be because... the whole notion is just plain
>>>>> silly and self-contradictory, and Rube Goldberg), so too there
>>>>> has never been any conclusive evidence of the Big Bang actually
>>>>> found (nor can there ever be because all inflationary theories
>>>>> contradict very fundamental physical laws). And that is a leap
>>>>> nothing can breach nor will ever--
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you would care to tell us which
>>>> physical laws you had in mind,
>>>> rather than merely asserting that they exist.
>>>
>>> Did. (Above) or see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>>
>>>>> Evidence is something quite distinct from guesses which may/may
>>>>> not have any connection to the matter at hand: Astronomers found
>>>>> that the galaxies are receding from each other and clever guessers
>>>>> very quickly tossed out the (clever?!) guess that they were
looking
>>>>> at the aftermath of an explosion (clever chaps those, no?):
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is no direct and inevitable connection between the
>>>>> observation and the guess it elicited (certainly as long as
>>>>> any number of other guesses may be just as valid as the one
>>>>> first jumped at by chaps more clever than intelligent). Even
>>>>> as a child I understood that if matter were imploding uniformly
>>>>> across the universe (and therefore gravitational systems were
>>>>> "shrinking away from" each other)... it would be as impossible
>>>>> to tell whether the universe was exploding (a la Big Bang) or
>>>>> imploding... as it would be unnecessary for the average architect
>>>>> to take into consideration that the earth is not really flat
>>>>> when he composed his blueprints: The earth is simply too large
>>>>> to make any difference in the area most architects will work; and
>>>>> the universe is also too vast to make any appreciable difference
>>>>> that obvious in the area most cosmologists will examine.
>>>>
>>>> If galaxies were genuinely shrinking, it
>>>> wouldn't be long before all life,
>>>> including us, would be fried by radiation
>>>> from the galactic center - said
>>>
>>> You really must stop thinking that matter is absolute
>>> you know: It's not, and, by the way, that also applies
>>> absolutely, here inside the universe: There is nothing
>>> absolute here... everything inside the universe is relative
>>> in the absolute. Put it to the test.
>>>
>>>> radiation now having a much shorter
>>>> distance to travel and thus
>>>> comparatively more power when it
>>>> reaches us. We do not see this radiation
>>>> becoming comparatively more intense over time.
>>>
>>> You're still abiding by primitive mythologies, my boy:
>>> Centuries ago now the Greeks imagined fundamental particles
>>> and called them "atoms." Now even you know atoms are not
>>> fundamental. Modern primitives are still coming up with
>>> fundamental bodies ("strings" and other uni-dimensional
>>> pixies). I hope they have fun: They're very clever, but
>>> hardly intelligent (they create marvelous puzzles, but
>>> explain nothing really). I think they ought to be given
>>> baubles (like the Nobel Prize, etc.), because, frankly, what
>>> else could they achieve on this planet?
>>>
>>> But, about your comment on time: As the universe implodes,
>>> ALL the relative (remember that word) factors are forever
>>> readjusting (relative to each other): Our measuring devices
>>> are shrinking right along with everything they measure...
>>> I assume people about me never cease to grow more and more
>>> brilliant (and yet they always seem to remain the same
>>> stupid apes they've been all along). What is time, really,
>>> if not a number of cesium atom vibrations equaling that
>>> which an accident of history has come to name "a second?"
>>
>> Now this we *know* is untrue, precisely
>> because physicists and cosmologists
>> have been searching for a *long* time
>> (Dirac first proposed this in the
>> 30's) for evidence of the change of
>> the physical constants that govern our
>> universe. So far, the best they've found is
>> a *possible* change of about one
>> part per 10^15 per year in the fine
>> structure constant, and that's not
>> nearly enough for what you need. Let me
>> quote from a post on the t.o.
>> archive:
>
> Ay Chiguagua! Reread the following: We do not synchronize
> our clocks to God's pocket watch (but to the relativistic
> motions of this universe's "other" motions). And, if you
> can manage to remember that this universe's atoms are INSIDE
> this universe (and that everything INSIDE the universe is
> absolutely relative)... you may realize that if ALL the atoms
> in the universe speed up at the same time... exactly HOW is
> ANYONE INSIDE the universe to notice that they have done so!
>
> Do I really have to point out that the earth would revolve
> about its axis faster in perfect symmetry with its orbiting
> the Sun faster (so the year would last as many days as ever)?
> Really... if I wanted to teach this to third graders I'd've
> at least opened a private school somewhere to do so!!!!!!!
>
>> "For instance, if you suppose the speed
>> of light varies, that affects
>> spectral lines in distant stars.
>
> Provided it varies relative to something else INSIDE
> the universe! If nothing varies relative to anything
> else IN the universe IT's all remaining the same (by
> definition)...!
>
>> It affects different lines in different
>> ways, and so would be easy to see....
>> You can try to compensate by allowing
>> the charge of the electron to vary in synch
>> with the speed of light. But
>> that requires that the charge of
>> the proton must vary as well, since
>> otherwise hydrogen gas wouldn't be
>> neutral (which would have dramatic and
>> easily observable effects). But if the
>> charge of the proton varies, the
>> rates of nuclear reactions will change,
>> affecting the production of energy
>> by stars in a way we don't see. You
>> might then propose that the strength of
>> the nuclear interaction could change
>> exactly in synch with the speed of
>> light and the charge of the electron
>> and proton. But nuclear interactions
>> affect neutrons as well, and again you'd
>> end up with drastic changes in the
>> behavior of stars that we would see (and
>> don't). People have gone through
>> this kind of argument carefully and
>> quantitatively. It just doesn't work."
>
> People, or baboons? Are you certain YOU know which?
>
>> Absent a whole slew of incredibly fine-tuned
>> changes in every physical
>> constant and equation there is, each
>> changing in different ways at different
>> times so as to give the perfect illusion
>> of nothing happening at all, you
>> can be sure the constants are staying
>> the same, and that means the
>> incredible shrinking universe is dead.
>
> Your report of its death is highly encouraging
> of its probable long life.
>
>> If everything was growing smaller,
>> the absolute distance (which you can
>> measure as a function of lightspeed)
>> between us and the galactic center,
>> or other sources of high-energy
>> radiation nearby, is growing smaller,
>> while their actual radiation flux
>> would be staying the same (since we don't
>> see stars become steadily less
>> luminous over time, even if they're
>> shrinking they must still be putting out
>> the same amount of energy). Therefore,
>> the dose we get should be growing,
>> and it's not.
>
> You know, I keep saying EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE
> and you keep talking about the universe as comprised
> of absolutely isolated portions which are yet able
> to communicate. We are obviously at cross-purposes:
>
> The universe is ONE. The thing that makes it ONE
> is that everything IN it is in an absolutely
> relative state with respect to each other. If you
> remove that from the universe, then you'd have
> absolute things scattered here & there all over
> the place. And THEN, and only then, would you have
> Absolute Rest here, something BIG there (not bigger
> than something else), and a truly constant speed of
> light.... instead of the really, really, fast one we
> have (which is only identical in identical mediums).
>
> I wouldn't like that sort of universe (absolute muscles
> rippling out of our shrinking skin & all, as you put it).
> I evolved to understand our absolutely relativistic
> universe, and find it comforting that mine isn't any much
> bigger or smaller than most other men's).
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> In fact there are many reasons which directly contradict
>>>>> any possibility that the Big Bang guess could be the true
>>>>> explanation (the clearest one being that the so-called
>>>>> "expansion" of the universe is accelerating... which I am
>>>>> certain no one has to explain to you is a complete physical
>>>>> impossibility in a Big Bang scenario and contradicts it
>>>>> out of hand).
>>>>
>>>> Only if you make the naive assumption that
>>>> the expansion of space itself can
>>>> be the only force contributing to the universal
>>>> expansion. The universe *is*
>>>> expanding faster over time, and how do *you*
>>>> explain it? Or do you think any
>>>> problem in the current theory somehow makes
>>>> yours win by default, regardless
>>>> of whether it has an explanation or not?
>>>
>>> Dear sir; Study a fellow called Newton (the continuous
>>> application of a force produces an acceleration--It is
>>> the ONLY thing in the laws of motion/gravitation that
>>> can produce an acceleration (act)---Remember: the "force"
>>> of gravity is forever in application across this universe).
>>> Now, answer me truly: What could ANYTHING this universe do
>>> without it displaying an acceleration? [Now you know so
>>> much about why all inflationary theory is bunk... and
>>> not even the first thing about how to go about disagreeing
>>> with your fellow monkeys without their taking great offense
>>> at your doing so.] Duck, you dog!
>>
>> I can't even parse that.
>
> Well, see if you can you wear it as a mustache...
>
>> There are a few contenders for dark energy - one
>> that I know of is zero point energy coming
>> from quantum fluctuations.
>
> Dear me! Some people think it's all in finding
> a goodly number of quantum particles with enough mass,
> others think it's hidden in the stuff of loggias.
>
>> The
>> problem is that the force that provides is
>> way too big, not too small - it
>> should have blown the universe apart before
>> any kind of structure could
>> form. If we could find some opposing
>> force to cancel out most of its
>> contributions, what was left over would work nicely.
>
> You're gonna keep smoking this until it blows up
> in your face, aren't you? Well, good luck! [Hint:
> Give it a rest already: Even the numbers say there
> ain't no dark matter, brudder--Look for some other
> solution. And this is coming from somebody who is
> absolutely convinced that, "The only good mathematician
> is the musician." --S D Rodrian]
>
>>>>> Were it not for the historical accident that
>>>>> so much time/money and reputations have been invested in
>>>>> the Big Bang scenario... no one would seriously consider it
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in hearing what credentials
>>>> you actually have to make this
>>>> statement, as opposed to the credentials
>>>> of thousands of trained
>>>> astrophysicists and cosmologists who
>>>> apparently have overlooked the numerous
>>>> absurdities in the Big Bang that your
>>>> penetrating insight detects so
>>>> clearly.
>>>
>>> Ah! A faithful acolyte of The Argument From Authority!
>>
>> In this case it is valid,
>
> What kind of faithful acolyte would you be
> if you didn't agree with it!?!?!
>
>> because there are many experts in widespread
>> agreement with the proper credentials
>> to make this sort of statement
>
> ... "The earth is flat!" Columbus's pawn broker.
>
> "The universe revolves about the earth! And if it
> were not so AND all the astronomers of the last
> thousand years not worked under the assumption that it
> IS so... they could NEVER have amassed such a body of
> accurate predictions for the movements of the heavenly
> spheres!" --Some goomer who heard about Copernicus.
>
> "Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton will go down... as the
> two greatest presidents of the 20th Century." --A Democrat.
>
>> (namely, that the Big Bang and inflation
>> are correct). When you feel sick
>> and go to your doctor and he makes a diagnosis,
>> you don't reject it because
>> it's an "argument from authority".
>
> Nope: I accept it because I've looked into the matter
> personally (otherwise I'd go to witchdoctors, who are
> tons cheaper). But I know plenty of doctors who are
> such ignorant morons you wonder if they know which
> city they're in--And plenty of people who ask their
> doctors whom they should vote for & how they should live
> their lives!
>
>>> Congratulations, my boy! You have chosen not to waste your
>>> precious time/effort thinking things through for yourself:
>>
>> I *have* thought things out for myself. As I explained above, your
>> hypothesis doesn't hold water.
>
> Well, old boy, I don't know how you got it into
> your head it was supposed to hold water (or wash out
> your socks); but we were talking about the universe
> & stuff like that---You must've hit yourself on the head
> or... or... something. I'd advise you to see a doctor
> (just don't go visit one--something which I did the other
> day and came away with a $400 bill... and mine was only
> a social visit, forGod's sakes).
>
>> [snip]
>>>> Yes, and our instruments and the laws
>>>> of physics tell us there's matter
>>>> there we can't see.
>>>
>>> Marvelous instruments those, old boy: Every instrument
>>> of which I know is merely an enhancement of our senses
>>> (with the exception of Quantum Theory, and even QT obeys
>>> the First Rule of computing: Garbage IN, garbage OUT).
>>>
>>>> If there isn't, the galaxies would fly apart under the
>>>> speed of their own rotation.
>>>
>>> Ah! There is your stated reason why you think there must be
>>> all that dark matter out there. The unstated one, of course,
>>> is that you believe the galactic cowboys are spinning their
>>> lassos IN an ongoing explosion: But, now, imagine your cowboys
>>> trying to spin their lassos inside an ongoing implosion... and
>>> boy, they'd sure have to spin'em lassos fast to make'em go!
>>
>> The Big Bang has little or nothing to do
>> with dark matter. Galaxies are
>> rotating. Whether they happen to be
>> moving in a linear direction
>> simultaneously or not is irrelevant
>> to their rotational velocity. The
>> evidence tells us that if the visible matter
>> was all there is, the galaxies
>> are rotating too quickly for gravity
>> to hold them together; they should have
>> flown apart. Therefore there must be some
>> matter there that isn't luminous,
>> that we can't see but that exerts
>> gravity to hold them together.
>
> 1) Galaxies are NOT composed of "fundamental" bodies
> in a universe where the ONLY factor that is increasing
> is the distance between galaxies.
>
> 2) From start to finish, our universe is composed of
> "larger but slower motions evolving into faster but
> smaller motions."
>
> 3) "Smaller" = Galaxies spinning "fast enough" to fly
> apart would be doing so in your "absolute" universe
> but in our relativistic universe... the salient feature
> is that all the forms of matter (including galaxies)
> are imploding:
>
> Planet Earth itself is on the outer rim of one of these
> spiral galaxies, and if there were any "dark matter" to
> be found anywhere in the Milky Way the solar system would
> be just the place to be teeming with it...
>
> "What are you doing?"
>
> "I'm looking for dark matter."
>
> "How will you know the stuff when you see it?"
>
> "You can't see it."
>
> "Ok, where are you looking for it then?"
>
> "In neutrinos. If we find that neutrinos have mass
> it may be that the missing "dark matter" is in neutrinos."
>
> "I see! So... you have all that "dark matter" IN neutrinos
> which... do not interact too well with matter?"
>
> "That's right. Well... very seldomly."
>
> "Where'd neutrinos come from anyway?"
>
> "Well... stars... you know: the Sun."
>
> "So, basically, they're draining mass from the Sun
> and (I imagine we have neutrinos from far-off galaxies)
> removing it from galaxies?"
>
> "That's right."
>
> "Doesn't that mean that your "neutrino dark matter"
> would be more in the nature of how galaxies lose mass
> rather than how they are storing it...?"
>
> "Physics is full of contradictions and puzzles. It
> wouldn't be physics if it weren't so. In any case,
> while neutrinos are on their way... out of a galaxy...
> they're still INSIDE the galaxy, so they still qualify
> as barrels & barrels of "dark matter."
>
> "I see."
>
> "Where?!"
>
>> This isn't
>> brain surgery.
>
> You've noticed that, doctor...?
>
> S D Rodrian
> poems.sdrodrian.com
> physics.sdrodrian.com



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

INDEX