> 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?"