Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

What is Gravity?

What is Gravity? - Physics Forum

What is Gravity? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2008, 02:02 PM
Posts: n/a
Default What is Gravity?

[Only registered users see links. ].br (Rolf Guthmann) wrote:

Yes, you will NOT find a definite explanation
of what gravity actually "is" ANYWHERE in
the annals of conventional science because
up until Mr. S D Rodrian pointed out how it is
that the universe really works NO ONE could
have possibly even imagined how gravity
works, nor what the devil gravity really "is."
[Newton merely wrote out a formal set of rules
covering how gravity appears to be working
--up/down-- "why inertia (mass)" was a complete
& utter mystery to Newton. And Einstein merely
expanded this same exercise of "drawing up
the rules on how gravity appears to act" into
a more useful, and therefore more accurate,
formal geometrical language... neither one of
which explain anything whatever about gravity.]

All this "dancing around the answer people were
really after" was because since the beginning of
time observers had believed that "masses" were
"somehow" attracting each other (and therefore
that "eventually" some sort of "graviton"would
be discovered [today's infamous quest for mythic
"gravity waves" and a "magical particle" which
imparts "inertia/mass" to all the other particles]...
futile quests, of course, because gravity is NOT
the result of "masses" attracting each other but
is in fact merely/solely/only "the way in which
the universe is moving." As fully explained in the
following text from [Only registered users see links. ]

All anyone needs is a grasp of Newton's original
laws of motion to understand, once and for all, why
mass/why inertia exists at all. And it has nothing
whatsoever to do with any "magical" particle:

Gravity As Thermodynamics:
The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their
own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be
sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,
unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart
enough to understand the universe but that they are
too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they
instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up
overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)
illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of
literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.

The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability
of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing
else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that
inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to
usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does
not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,
a private diversion... but certainly not science.

Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship
between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with
the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path
of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my
knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive
explanation of the universe in terms of the
inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly
how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the
inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural) phenomenon
it is in the universe.

Since I am not here going to give merely one more
description of the visible universe but am actually
going to show the causes behind its observed effects,
there will be no resorting here either to supernatural
interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps
of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations
(the mere reduction of manifest observations to
exacting measurements) behind which the absence of
actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.

There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the

The first problem to be solved is the prohibition
against the creation/destruction of "energy," as
embodied in the question of what could have "been
there" before there was a universe of visible matter.
And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the
one which allows us to inquire into levels of
existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an
abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply
across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some
of them while not at others [including the statistical
research of probability & quantum theory].

But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to
"believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"
objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of
"matter" alone as the only "solid material" that
"exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps
telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"
existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)
that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always
insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the
only thing which really exists") is "momentary"
matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."
["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]
Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter
is an "illusion" created by interactions between the
electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear

WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.

THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different
than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"
sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your
own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are
in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and
the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other
"forms")... none of which has any relevance to the
question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too
ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"
(so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be
torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")
without this having any bearing whatsoever on the
question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,
the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are
made). And this holds true even if the forms are
imposed on you by the universe rather than your
imagination imposing them on the universe.

This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous
theorists from following the line of inquiry we are
taking here: Just as it was only after mankind finally
accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not
the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the
universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the
greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it
is only when we finally give up the human prejudice
that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are
the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with
whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or
that there are even such things), that it then becomes
possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.

This notion that there exist "immutable and
indivisible objects with whose destruction
existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human
superstition which should have been dropped once it
was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an
indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer
tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in
quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such
indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).

However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was
mulling why it might be that, given the existence of
gravity, the universe had not collapsed into a pile of
"fundamental matter")... had Einstein been able to
consider that such a "collapse" (implosion) would not
produce anything other than the "forms of matter"
always continuing to adjust to the implosion of the
universe in some relativistic natural process [whereby
"larger and slower" forms forever continue to evolve
(or, "conserve" themselves, their angular momentum)
into "smaller/ faster" ones], perhaps modern physics
might have been spared the last hundred years'
nonsensical excursions into the theatre of the absurd
(with its "time-travel" and "alternate dimensions"
science fiction scripts). And then the unexpected
discovery of Hubble's Constant (that the galaxies are
receding from each other at an everywhere uniform rate
depending on their distances) could have been
understood for what it really is --a clear reflection
on the grand scale of that process of "larger/slower
forms" evolving "smaller but faster" ones which is
necessarily creating distance (or, "space") between
themselves. [As well as hinting that there might
indeed yet be at least one state "at absolute rest" in
the universe... by which (against which) all eternally
shifting local effects might be measured.]

Energy vs. Matter... or, Something vs. Nothing?

Too late for Einstein, we begin here from the specific
proposition that there is no fundamental difference
between "matter" and the "primordial material" (some
may term "scalar mass" or simply "energy") and that
they are but merely two levels of the same single
process of "matter-organization" (simply many orders
of magnitude distant from each other). That ultimately
there are only "relative differences" in "densities"
(or "energy values"), and certainly not a fundamental
shift from "energy" to "matter" as profound as that
from "non-existence" to "existence."

Existence cannot be created or destroyed (exactly
the same as with "energy" since that's exactly what
it is). Existence/energy is all there is, all that
ever was, and all that there will ever be. And only
the laws of thermodynamics convert/conserve/move it
from one form/value/concentration to another

Certainly "the primordial state of existence" (the
primordial "scalar mass" or "temperature" in the sense
of "a given energy value") can never have been an
all-or-nothing (absolute) one, but must have instead
always been an entirely relativistic "state") because
otherwise the outbreak of (to) "existence" requires a
"leap" to "something" from "nothing" (in effect: it
has to be the result of magic). And this is not only a
clear violation of the laws of physics, but
consequently not even a proper subject for science.

The question of "a mathematical infinity" never
comes into what is essentially a choice offered by
the laws of physics (whether or not "something"
can come out of "nothing")... and not the sort of
mathematical game exemplified when, say, a new
guest shows up at, "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" and
the clerk claims that all rooms are full--forcing
the new guest to explain that if the hotel is
"full but infinite" the clerk can simply make the
guest in room 1 move into room 2, move the
original guest in room 2 into room 3, and the
guest in room 3 into room 4, and so on...
depriving no guest of a room but vacating room 1
into which any new guest can then move. i.e. The
supposed paradox (like all paradoxes) is
artificially created when the clerk erroneously
claims that "Hilbert's Hotel Infinity" can ever be
"full." [There are no paradoxes in nature, only in
the mind.]

Acknowledging that "the process of existence itself"
is one of evolution (or, that "existence has always
existed," as it were) eliminates once & for all the
strictly human (mental) "paradox" that existence must
"originate" with/as some supernatural Big Bang
(special creation) miracle.

Let us posit instead a "given volume of space" ("the
void"), its "absolute" energy value (the absolute
density of "its whatever material") being irrelevant
because as long as that density is purely/solely
"relativistic" there can be no "lowest limit" to how
tenuous/sparse it can be and still "exist." And this
then is the "spatial volume" or, more properly, the
"scalar mass" [traditionally termed "the void"]. From
our perspective: about as close to infinitely immense
as such a thought is humanly possible; that is...
without ever permitting time to bring to an end the
process of continuing to imagine its immensity.

It quickly becomes clear how unusual (provided such a
"volume of space" has ANY "energy value" or "density"
at all), how unusual it would be if such an infinitely
vast spatial volume could maintain the same identical
"density" or "energy value" across the entirety of its
unlimited [not to mention: eternally increasing]
vastness... regardless how low that energy value or
density may be "in absolute terms" which do not apply,
remember, because an "absolute" condition of existence
demands some absolute lower limit dropping below which
"the thing" no longer exists. And, since we exist, it
behooves us to assume that the density/energy value of
the scalar mass always had to have been "relativistic"
and never "all-or-nothing" or "absolute." [Not to
mention the fact that to measure anything one must
measure it against "something else," and "existence"
is all that exists, or obviously "the only thing" that

In an exclusively "relativistic" context then (one in
which the "density" of any given "volume of space" is
always merely "relatively" higher or lower than those
of "other" volumes of space, and NOT "absolutely"
EITHER existent OR nonexistent): there will always be
"enough" energy (if you will: "a difference" in
"pressures" or "temperatures") already present in
"even such primordial" a condition to literally "fuel"
everything which may "proportionally" evolve from it
--because it's in the nature of "energy" as we have
come to understand it (and no less in the cosmic
relativity of existence we are discussing here), it is
in the nature of "energy" to be (to also "hold")
purely a thermodynamic "potential" for "work."

More aptly: "for motion" ... replacing the term
"work" with "motion" since we are certainly not
going to speak here of "motion without matter."
[Energy being "what matter does." Remember:
"existence = energy"] Therefore... "if matter is
merely energy, matter is also merely motion" (so
that: "there has always been motion" is what we
really mean when we say that "existence has always
existed"). Again: All "the forms of matter" are
merely "larger/slower" forms becoming/evolving/
conserving themselves into "smaller/faster ones."
Or, from the diametrically opposite perspective
(not an entirely unreasonable one, so we'll be
discussing it later)... all the "forms of energy"
can be thought of as the (denser) faster/smaller
forms of energy conserving themselves into
larger/slower (more dispersed) ones.

As far as the requirements of "motion" go... the
direction of "flow" is irrelevant ("into" will "work"
just as well as "out of"). It's a mistake to belive
that what's thermodynamically required for "energy" to
"perform work" [the term "work" from classical
mechanics' "product of force/distance"], that what is
thermodynamically required for "energy" to "perform
work" is, say, "a boiler-full of heated water" when
the sole requirement (for the universe to "work") is
that a thermodynamic current "flows" (the sole
origin/source of "motion"). Therefore the singular
objection to existence is that it not be absolute (or,
"all-or-nothing") given that "absolute stillness" has
no way of "pushing off" itself, as it were.

In the primordial condition of existence, in which one
single elementary (homogeneous) principle constitutes
the sum total of "everything/the material" from which
all subsequent diversity arises (the evolution of more
complex forms from simpler ones, or even a single one)
existence can only "flow" [note the always inescapable
definition of "existence" as "motion"], existence can
only "flow" from this clearly singularly relativistic
state rather than from being arbitrarily forced by a
human superstition to "flow" from some impossible
(magical) "boiler" [or "Big Bang" furnace/mixture] of
many already complex primordial states (independent
settings) clearly violating creation/destruction laws
of energy in some impossible all-or-nothing universe.

With respect to this principle of evolution: If one
considers the present universe just in light of the
proposed "string" theories: one can hardly help
noticing that the present universe is in many, many
ways a very elegantly simple concept compared to
the notorious complexity of string theories from
which it is supposed to "originate" (from which it
"subsequently evolves"). Something which is clearly
a logical violation of the principle of evolution.

As difficult as it may be to "find" in the primordial
"void" a "volume of space" with a density lower than
that of the rest of existence, in the first place...
that much more difficult is it to even imagine where
and how one might possibly (necessarily) "create" a
volume with an even higher density, to begin with (or,
the infamous Big Bang "boiler" of inflationary
models). So the universe (everything that "follows"
from "the primordial state") is a lot more likely to
begin with the former (or "an evolution" from/of
simpler forms) rather than with the latter (some
"special creation" Big Bang already complex from its
start). And keep in mind that even if one such "Big
Bang boiler" could somehow be "produced" (at the
"onset of it all")... its destiny surely would be
dilution and dissipation, and certainly NOT the
concentration and amalgamation which obviously goes
into the organization of ever more & more complex
forms of matter.]

It is irrelevant whether "the void" comes upon a
bubble/area ("hollow") of lesser density (the
"egg" that incubates our universe of matter) or
such a "hollow" comes into being somewhere within
"the void" (my own preference because this makes
for a balanced/stable universe in which matter and
anti-matter regions balance out each other, making
it easier to understand why it is that one form
predominates in a given "side" of the universe
even as the other form may be the most common one
in the "opposite" side of the same universe.

We will always return to this same point of departure:
All that is required for the homogeneous "primordial
medium" to (perform) "work" [i.e. for "the void" to
produce an already perfect/complete machine] is for
"the void" (no matter how unimaginably tenuous and
sparse its "density") to come into contact with
another volume of space "region" or "hollow" (as we
shall term it here) having an even lower density.

And, for the purpose of illustrating more easily
the "gravitational" evolution of the visible
universe, we will "assume" in this text that "our"
lesser density "hollow" was more or less completely
and entirely (and perhaps even perfectly)
encompassed by the greater density "the void."
Though common sense rules this out (just as, given
their origin, its "discrete bits" could never have
been perfectly equidistant from each other). But we
will still speak of it this way so we may refer to
the universe as having a perfectly spherical shape
it can't in fact possibly have.

As the primordial medium of the "the void" encounters
our "hollow" of lesser density, its greater density
"collapses" our lesser density hollow (collapses into
it, that is), sending (crucially for the creation of
our universe of visible matter at its center), sending
a "shockwave" of higher density "material" into our
"hollow" from every point around it. [This "shockwave"
of inrushing material effectively represents pretty
much the sum total of all the "energy" our visible
universe is ever destined to have, by the way.] This
imploding pressure wave eventually "condensing" into
what we call matter somewhere along the way.

There still being people who think the earth is
"flat" (and many who believe it is the universe
that orbits the earth--and perhaps there are always
going to be such people): somewhere around here
advocates of inflationary models "may be tempted to
think" that the cosmic collapse of the void's
primordial material (energy) into our lower-
density "hollow" may well be describing a rationale
for their cherished Big Bang model... as "matter"
crashes against a pinpoint quantum center and then
erupts/echoes back out like 3-dimensional ripples
following the dropping of a pebble into a lake...
rescuing the ancient superstition that there can
be, after all, some fundamental particle from which
everything else is made... never mind the fact that
this idea leaves us forever unable to explain how a
necessarily mythological fundamental object like
"matter" could have possibly come into being (out
of non-being) in the first place--and "necessarily
mythological" because we can never describe a
particulate of matter in our universe we can with
any degree of certainly assure ourselves is forever
immutable and indivisible (even strings' own theory
places them neither altogether in our universe nor
altogether outside it). But as antidote to this Big
Bang superstition, keep in mind that all the forms
of matter will condense for a brief time and then
"just as quickly" dematerialize. [It's rather
likely that we are at the only point along the
shifting phases of matter-organization from
beginning to end of our universe where life is

By definition, an indivisible body or object is hardly
likely to be made up of two or more bodies or
objects... as this would "by definition" make such a
body or object, at least theoretically, really already
very divisible indeed.

Then again, gravity itself would continue to remain
the inexplicable (seemingly magical) "force" we've
thought it until now--And the purpose of this very
text is to explain how gravity is not some magical
unfathomable "force" (of attraction or of anything
else) but really only the mistaken description of a
perfectly inevitable and natural effect which up to
now remained impossible to interpret perfectly.

What Is The Universe REALLY Doing?

The imploding universe is undertaking two crucial
motions at the same time: an absolute motion and a
relativistic one. We can actually "see" these two
motions in action if we but know from where (from
which perspective) to look:

Imagine the universe to be an earth-size globe. If
we then abstract "ourselves" from it, from now on
forever remaining unaffected by its shifting
sizes, we can "see" both the absolute and the
relativistic motions the universe is undertaking
by considering two men standing on opposite sides
of this imploding/shrinking globe universe.

The globe is shrinking in an absolute sense, so in an
absolute sense the two men are always moving towards
each other. [This absolute motion is very much
apparent to us all because it's the effect we have
come to know as gravity.] However, because they and
everything else in their globe universe is shrinking
everywhere at a constant rate... in the normal course
of events neither of the two men standing on opposite
sides of the globe universe will ever notice that they
are moving towards each other absolutely. Instead they
will forever marvel how/why they seem to "stick" to
the globe as if by magic and not "float" away into
space. [And if they happen to be scientists and
understand the Standard Model they might assume that
gravity must be mediated by gravitons & then they will
waste their lives trying to make up a Unified Field
Theory encompassing gravity and particle forces. But
you can see why the geometry of Einstein relativity
describes gravity better than the forces of Newton.]

The shrinking of everything at an universally
constant rate (so that everything appears to
remain relativistically frozen in place/size) is
itself the second motion: It is nearly impossible
to notice at very close proximities (least of all
by two such beings standing across a common lump
of matter)... but it can certainly be "seen" when
glancing across astronomical distances (and we
call this very visible effect the Hubble Constant,
which makes it appear as if the galaxies are
receding faster from each other the more distant
from each other they are). [Although one can
substitute "time" for "distance" and "witness" it
in practically every object that orbits another

To understand this purely relativistic effect (of
course in reality all the galaxies necessarily must
be "absolutely" getting closer and closer inside an
imploding universe)... one has only to consider the
nature of space (in other words, all ones has to do
is consider it) as the distance between bodies of
matter: Where does it come from? How can there be
any "spaces" at all in the single ("solid") body
which the universe of matter must be from the very
first instants of its "massing" in its cosmic

Well, our universe is very large, and the same laws of
thermodynamics which inevitably create the "hollow"
into which the higher densities of "the voids" flows
now literally tear the "solid" universe into "bits."
And it is at the level of these bits that the body of
the universe continues to implode... so that from here
on out every one of these "bits" begins to implode
away from all the other bits about it forever FASTER
than the single body of the universe itself can
"stuff" those opening spaces: At first there is very
little "space" between the numberless bits, but given
enough time and whatever form the "bits" of the
imploding universe eventually take as they evolve &
revolve in ever more complex interactions (galaxies
in our epoch of the universe)... you can see how the
distances between them can grow to unimaginably
astronomical distances (into a "lot" of space indeed).

At first, the "absolute" (viewed from outside our
"cosmic hollow")... the "absolute" motion of this
thermodynamic "penetrating shockwave"
(flow/current) is undoubtedly always "moving" only
in the direction of our cosmic hollow's logical
center [a "center" which can probably only be
"pinpointed" by quantum theory, since obviously
anything introduced into the "hollow" to measure
the position of its "absolute center" would
necessarily shift it---thereby finally making it
clear that the world of the very big(gest, really)
behaves exactly like the world of the very
smal(lest) except perhaps in small minds]. But now
you understand how without a particle interaction
between them two objects can establish an "orbital"
relationship about a so-called "center of gravity."

To say "the world of the very small" is to say "the
world of the very near." In a universe undergoing
implosion the human perspective stares out both to a
much bigger/distant world and to a much smaller/nearer
one from somewhere in the middle: The more
distant/bigger world always appears to be growing
bigger and more distant relativistically; while the
smaller/nearer world always appears to be growing ever
smaller and nearer in an absolute sense (gravity).

This holds true across the full spectrum of possible
perspectives (the view from within the universe is
also always relativistic, while seen from outside it
the universe would appear to be absolutely "shrinking"
in isolation).

As the observer is also imploding, when he looks at
"the world he's leaving behind" it appears to him to
be big (and the farther away he looks at it the bigger
it appears to always be growing), while when he looks
at "the world into which he is moving" it appears to
him to be small (and the closer he looks into it the
smaller it appears).

Counterintuitively, it appears to us as if the
world of the very small is a chaotic one (forever
shifting its geometric centers), while in reality
it is the one behaving in an absolute way: The
world of the very big may appear to be stable as it
grows bigger and more distant... but in reality it
is growing neither bigger nor more distant at all.

Three very specific basic "motions" will describe the
nature of the universe from the instant "the void"
encounters (one of) these cosmic "hollows" of lesser
density which "nurse" entire universes of matter at
their core. But I do not include one of these three
Basic Motions of Matter (the "pressure shock" of the
general void's greater density "falling" into our
cosmic "hollow" as it is strictly a 3-dimensional
motion towards the "center of "our hollow" up until
such material fully saturates it). Essentially, all
the "falling" primordial material pressurizing itself
"solidly" in place. I leave out this "motion" because
I don't see it playing any further role in the
processes that keep our universe in its continuing
present equilibrium.

At its point (of "highest saturation") this singular
homogeneous "solid" mass (call it a "cloud" or call it
a "body" of energy) destined to become our universe of
visible matter, now finds it has no place to go from
here other than to be (literally forever) squeezed
into an always smaller & smaller volume of space (for
the very reason that, exactly like every other "thing"
that exists... it too is neither fundamentally solid
nor immutable and therefore can not refuse to be so
squeezed)... effectively causing it to "implode" in an
"absolute" sense: forever to grow "smaller & smaller"
as it is forced to occupy an ever diminishing volume
of space--the originally homogeneous "solid" mass now
very much literally tearing itself to bits--that is...
into "discrete bits" (each a self-contained system
forever "winding itself up" in a lifelong strategy
designed by the laws of physics to "conserve" its
eternally increasing angular momentum--which must from
now on always increase, as said before, as larger-but-
slower systems "conserve themselves" into smaller-but-
faster ones)... until they all eventually pay the
ultimate price of dissolution. (But that's far off in
the future at this point.)

Nonetheless: note the origin of "space" as merely the
"distance" between these primordial discrete bits: A
process (of space-creation) which has not stopped to
this day; and which at the topmost level of matter-
organization (that of stars and galaxies) is "easily"
observable by us as the Hubble Constant. But a process
which is forever on-going at ALL levels of matter-

"A" given level of matter-organization is one which
reflects a stage (or state) at which the "local
gatherings of interacting "bits" or "clusters of
them" (or "gravitational systems") nevertheless
begin to behave (or to be thought of) as if they
were one single object (giving the impression of
having no individual constituent parts within it).

We may begin to trace the history of these matter-
organization "levels" from a point where the entire
mass of the "visible universe" could be thought of
as one single homogeneous mass (or "cloud") which
has just completely saturated the "center" of the
cosmic hollow into which the primordial material of
the higher-density "the void" surrounding it has
fallen. (And it's not important for us here whether
the "saturation" fills the cosmic hollow completely
of merely a given area about its center.)

The crucial thing is that it is at this point that
this once "one" solid body begins to "tear itself
apart" (or, more to the point, to "bits"). More
specifically still: necessarily into fully discrete
"bits" (and "necessary" because it's the simplest way
that the resulting sum of all such "bits" [once one
solid body, and before that a "shockwave" of
primordial material falling from "the void"
surrounding our cosmic hollow]... can "squeeze" into
the eternally diminishing area available to it as it
continues its journey toward the center of our cosmic
hollow--And since there is literally nothing in its
way towards that "center" against which to crash (to
stop its journey) except itself (its own nonexistent
refusal to permit itself to be squeezed any
further)... that journey is one which can only end
in/with the utter dissolution of the falling body
("cloud" or "sum of discrete bits").

Crucially, all of those "fully discrete bits" are
tearing themselves away from all the other discrete
bits in the cosmic body (creating "space" between
themselves) as they "implode."

To begin with, once the entire mass (body, cloud) of
our universe consists only (or even mostly) of these
(same-sized or same-wherever) discrete bits, by
definition they will effectively collectively
constitute our universe's first ever "perfected" or
finished" level of matter-organization (the first
generation of matter-organization).

Because of the natural chaos which characterizes any
active thermodynamic system (since evolution never
stands still, in effect): eventually those
"individual" discrete bits will begin to "fall" into
local interactions (systems of "orbits" and/or
crashes) each made up of perhaps only a few discrete
bits (in ever continuing interactions) and perhaps
each of them made up of many and many handfuls of the
"original" first-generation discrete bits... which
will, no doubt chaotically at first (until they "fall"
into whatever "level of stability" is most "natural"
for their "whatever-numbered" interactions) will,
after "the chaos of transition" lifts, will then
create across most of the cosmos a "second generation"
of "gravitational systems" (or "particles") everywhere
of a "similar nature/size/structure or number"
(perhaps, but) all or most of them interacting in some
similarly (in some related) "stable" way.

And note that it is always from this (transitional)
"chaos" that everything in the universe is built
(by/from the interactions this "chaos" sets into
motion... producing "orbits" and/or "crashes"). [There
is no "chaos" in nature, there is only our inability
to understand its laws.] "Chaos" here is only our
convenient description of a nevertheless absolutely
determinate process in which there can never be any
effect without a cause--otherwise "chaos" would remain
eternal, forever precluding our very existence.]

Now: This "quest for stability" also tends to be
characterized by a "scarcity" of free-roaming
"component particles" (of the previous generation)
as these are everywhere quickly incorporated (as
the current generation's "preferred" building
blocks (of the forms of matter "now seeking" their
own "gravitational stability." SEE Standard Model).

Arbitrarily defined as they may be, it is nevertheless
"around" a given "perfected" or "finished" level (or
levels) of matter-organization that we define "similar
forms" interacting 3-dimensionally according to
Newton's laws of motion & universal gravitation. [We
tend to describe "systems" such as atoms, stars, and
galaxies as "objects."] For example: the five or more
of these "perfected" or "finished" levels of
matter-organization straddled by our own existence
(or... that of quarks & gluons, atoms & electrons,
stars & planets, and supermassive black holes & the
galaxies from which they seem to be evolving at the
present moment).

Regardless how brief or long their reign, once
these similar "systems" of interacting discrete
bits achieve their whatever measure of "stability"
as "gravitational systems" across the cosmos...
they de facto become the next "perfected" or
"finished" level of matter-organization.

At this point in this narrative we are at the "second
generation" level of matter-organization ---where it's
now the turn of this generation of "perfected" or
"finished" gravitational "systems" to build their own
local interactions... as either a few or a great many
of these second generation "systems" begin to combine
(no doubt chaotically at first, until they too find
their whatever "level of stability is most natural for
their interactions" and) combine into super-systems...
which, once they too manage to achieve cosmos-wide
stability, also de facto become the (third generation)
"perfected" or "finished" level of

And so on, forever, and so on until the ceaseless
evolution of generation after generation self-
organization of the forms of matter into stable levels
reaches our own "finished" (stable) level(s) of
matter-organization (those of our atoms, stars, and
galaxies). Which is not to say that there might not be
just as stable "finished" levels of matter-
organization "higher" than ours, of course--And quite
entirely unsuspected by us as well.

For now, if only to understand the earliest condition
of our universe of matter, the important thing here is
a realization that fission/fusion "nuclear processes"
only take place at our topmost "finished" level(s) of
matter-organization (that of the Standard Model
"nuclear" particles). At more fundamental levels of
matter-organization (than that of our "particles") the
"decay of energy" does not produce what we would
recognize as "our" heat, light, or any of "our" other
familiar processes of atomic (radio)activity.

Note: Because it does not explain the inevitability
of its "strings" ... string theory only really has
one function: to supplant the Standard Model. And
since that is an unnecessary function by definition
string theory itself is unnecessary. (Gravity is
not a force, therefore there is no need for it to
be "unified" with the 3 forces.)

To continue: if this "hypothesis of eternity" seems to
suggest that the overall density of "the void" is
constantly being "thinned out" by its incorporation of
lower-density regions (like empty "hollows" in some
viscous goo) such as the "hollow" of lesser density
which produces our own universe of matter at its core
(meaning that the bigger "the void" gets, the lower
its overall absolute density value falls)... this is
because that is exactly what must be occurring.

Remember larger/slower "forms of matter" eternally
conserving themselves into smaller/faster ones...
Well, in this sense: motion in one direction by one
part of a body is balanced by another of its parts
moving in the opposite direction. [Newton's Third
Law.] Essentially this is the process of the
greater density "the void" erasing our lesser
density "hollow."

While matter itself is concentrating into "rock hard"
imploding discrete bits (ever tighter, harder, hotter,
and charged up)... "the void" is itself dissipating
into a general inertia as it "grows" (ever larger, and
more tenuous, stiller, colder). The two "different"
parts of the same "one body" (system) are pushing out
from/to exactly opposite directions at once--and we
can think of these two opposite "motions" as really in
the same direction (having the same
energy-conservation objective).

At the end of the process, matter is but motion. So
all the "matter" of the visible universe must
eventually "slow down" (unwind again) and dissolve.

Moreover, just as our hollow of lesser density is very
probably "nothing special" in nature, even our own
local "the void" is proportionally almost certainly
itself also but some likewise pinprick-size "object"
no doubt embedded in the fabric of an even "higher"
level "the void." Although likely this must remain as
hard for us to distinguish, local from general, as
it's hard for us now to distinguish "a" part of
eternity from the whole of it.

And yet, however this line of inquiry may remain
closed to us: the implication remains that vast
regions of "our" local "the void" may be\are very
probably everywhere pockmarked with similar "hollows
of lesser density" (each probably destined to give
rise at its core to a universe not unlike ours... as
they are one by one "collapsed" by the higher density
of "the void" encircling them).

A thought which, by the way, ought to bestow some
measure of respect upon even our humblest virtual
particle. And certainly illustrates the very
persistent "absolute relativity" of existence at any
level... as higher level "the void(s)" balance out
ever-thinner-and-thinner absolute densities with
ever-greater-and-greater absolute expanses--canceling
out everywhere all possible breaches of the law
against energy creation/destruction.

"Nature abhors a vacuum."

The crucial thing is that the absolute energy value
(density) of "the void" always remains an eternally
irrelevant (purely absolutely relativistic) number:
The strictly human question of where/how this
"primordial material" arose "to begin with" is
therefore made moot by its always relativistic nature.
Or: "If in order to exist Existence would have had to
have had a beginning--it could not exist. We exist,
therefore it behooves us to assume that there never
could have been a state of non-existence" (however one
may wish to define such terms as being & non-being).

What is important for us (strictly a concern for the
sentient beings of this one particular universe, that
is) is that the primordial medium ("energy") of "the
void" has come across the next relatively less dense
"hollow" and has given rise here (at the core of this
one particular lesser density "hollow") to the "next"
universe of visible matter... ours, namely.

I know of no requirement that "a" given universe "has
to be" of any specific (purely arbitrary) size: Here,
in this one "cosmic hollow" at whose core our visible
universe resides, it is only necessary that its volume
be "large enough" to produce the observed effects (the
requirements of other universes can be entirely
different, larger or smaller). So we might as well
forget about trying to impose any purely arbitrary
limits upon the "size" of our universe on that
account. And since now we know that there are no
"gravitational limitations," about the only thing we
may say for sure is that our visible universe is many
orders of magnitude larger than what we can "see" of
it (or, that the "size ratio" of our "hollow" to that
of its "universe of matter" was already hinted at by
Einstein's infamous [E=MC^2] approximation).

In any case: Into a "large-enough" lower density
volume (our "relatively empty" cosmic hollow)
"falls" (in quite a "shockwave") a thermodynamic
"current" not all that different in essence from
that of a lightning bolt: More slowly at first and
then faster and faster (an acceleration destined
never to end) as it "falls" in a 3-dimensional
direction towards the center of our cosmic hollow
like some unimaginably rarefied molasses.

It is when we can speak of "matter" as "energy" (or
"motion") that we can finally define existence as "not
either/or" (matter/energy); since obviously anything
"flowing" can only be described in terms of "a" higher
or "a" lower flow, and never as "not flowing."

Even at this our level of matter-organization (so many
& many orders of magnitude removed from that of
"energy"), this in a very real sense "reduction" of
matter to "motion" (i.e. the acceptance of matter as
energy) is what makes it possible to think of "matter"
in almost exactly the same way that we've popularly
come to think of "electric energy" as a "current" or
"flow." Thus it is just as possible to speak of matter
as only a "thermodynamic" current/flow... whose
seemingly permanent "structures" (shaped by the
interactions of the EM/weak and strong "nuclear
forces") are, every last one them, from top to bottom,
really only temporary "eddies" within what is
essentially also only a thermodynamic "current" or
"flow" and, consequently, never can be fundamental,
indivisible (unqueezeable) objects and/or

We mortals, understandably ever in love with just
about any ideal of permanence, will undoubtedly be
emotionally anguished to have to acknowledge that
every last bit of matter (yes, to the very last one)
in our universe is destined to "fade away" without the
least hope of there surviving even the most forlorn
memory of "our having been." But that's the way it is
(and, frankly, I think it rather poetic... this "so
very human" tragedy): The process I am explaining in
this text does describe the eventual "dissipation" of
all the universe's "matter" (if matter is but "motion"
it must eventually, as it were, "come to a stop").

If this continuing process (this eternal evolution)
of matter-organization can be described as "winding
up" (larger/slower forms forever "imploding" into
smaller/faster ones)... what else can its ultimate
consequence be--if not its winding down at last
(T.S. Eliot's "whimper").

And what would the end of a universe in which its
forms of matter had completely "wound up" to the full
extent of their "energy potential" (to do so) be like?

Well, we might consider the one factor which is
evidently "increasing" even as the other two are
"decreasing" in the process described above: The
"matter-making machine" (larger/slower forms of
matter evolving or "winding up" into smaller/faster
ones) "is" of course THE mechanism by which the
finite amount of energy (of the original shockwave)
which has "fallen" into our cosmic hollow conserves
its density (or "energy value") literally into the
forms of matter (and their whatever discrete bits).

So, conversely, this same process by which "the
universe of matter" travels toward the center of the
cosmic hollow (its "singular body" imploding like a
shrinking baseball in front of our eyes) can also be
described as one in which at every step of that
journey "a" volume of space is also growing (out of
it) from a smaller/denser energy/pressure into a
larger/sparser one (or, volume of space) as if the
imploding universe of matter were a pressure wave
after the passage of which the lower density of "our"
hollow of lesser density will be left with a pressure
--an energy value-- equal to the rest of "the void"
surrounding it... thereby also making our cosmic
hollow indistinguishable from/in it:

It will be as if our lower density "hollow" had
never existed at all: So in a very real sense there
is a (thermodynamic) "purpose" to (in) the reason
for all that "space" which is continuously being
"created" inside matter itself: to finally defeat
the instability created by there being such a
"lower density" hollow "out there" to being with:

It remains axiomatic that all motion takes (uses up)
energy. So it is inevitable that "the forms of matter"
should literally consume themselves right up (even
unto nothingness): It obviously takes energy for the
forms of matter to "wind up" into "being" in the first
place--and energy/motion is what matter is "made of."

Although it may appear that (in its journey towards
the center of the cosmic hollow) the higher density
"shockwave" that has fallen into our hollow of lesser
density (to become the universe of visible matter)...
though it may appear that the higher density
"shockwave" is racing against distances, the fact is
that in reality its "forms of matter" are really
racing against time (racing toward their own
dissolution) as they "implode" (or "wind themselves
up")... literally "shrinking" themselves "right out of
existence" with all the irony of the runner in the
so-called paradox who, although running a finite
length, nevertheless can never finish his run because
he keeps switching to running half as fast every time
he gets half way to the finish line: Our universe is
also "speeding up" even as it "shrinks" (so that, like
the runner above, it too finds himself eternally just
as far away from its "finish line" as it ever is).
Even though very few of us until now have ever even
suspected that "we" were either "shrinking" or
"speeding up."

But this is why only when observed from outside
itself (from outside the universe itself) does the
universe implode in a "brief" and "finite" length
of time right down to "nothingness" (as "timed" by
clocks which being outside the universe never vary
during the implosion from its "slower" beginning to
its "faster" ending).

Observed from inside the universe itself (that is:
"timed" by clocks which "in here" are forever
adjusting as "time" itself is changing, i.e.
"speeding up")... the implosion of the universe
(like the "run" of the "eternally running" runner)
is about as close as something can come to seeming
to be eternal without actually being so.

As our clocks here inside the universe "speed up" it
makes the universe appear to us to be "lasting longer"
("longer lasting"). So that, almost nearly as
perversely as is the case with the "eternal runner" of
the story above, although the universe may also always
be running faster & faster, it is also always growing
smaller and smaller... in a quite fiendishly
proportional agreement that forever cancels out what
would otherwise be an all too obvious ever increasing
requirement for more & more energy, for example, just
to feed its same unchanging appearance (speed). Absent
which "missing energy," the universe would very
unambiguously be seen to be "slowing down"
("imploding" more and more slowly with time --or,
since for years we've misinterpreted the universe as
"expanding," we would have interpreted that
misinterpreted "expansion" as slowing down with time).

Instead the universe (its misinterpreted expansion
only as of very recently now correctly interpreted as
"speeding up") will forever be perceived to always be
"speeding up" (from our more recently well-informed
perspective, as over astronomical distances, the
farther away we look the farther back in time we're
seeing)... The universe, in reality imploding faster
and faster with time (as measured also by the Hubble
Constant), will "forever" continue to do so... until
the moment of dissolution when matter runs out of
matter, and "its forms" can no longer "hold their

Note that this is not the same phenomenon of
relativistic time-dilation described by Einstein in
the "twins paradox" where (clocks inside the
universe not being synchronized) the faster any
given bit of matter (the twin riding his rocket)
"moves" the slower his clock (its inner motions)
"runs" and therefore the faster the clocks of the
"slower moving" universe (of the twin left behind)
will run. This being caused by the disruption which
velocity imparts to matter's "inner motions."

Until matter's moment of dissolution, as with the
"eternal" runner (above) who will seem to keep running
almost forever: the universe also will be able to
continue its own "run" seemingly long, long after the
"discernible" limits of its "fuel tank" (almost as if
by magic)... as our unsuspectingly accelerating clocks
continue to unsuspectingly lengthen the "same" stretch
of time they measure.

That is to say: from our perspective, here within it,
the universe's continuing "implosion" will "seem" to
defy definition itself, appearing "never" to reach
that theoretical "smallest-possible size" beyond which
anything must "vanish" completely out of
existence--because, trapped here inside it as we are,
we can not so easily detect either the quickening of
"absolute time" (kept only by clocks outside the
universe itself), or our own dwindling "size"
alongside the ceaseless lessening of everything about
us... the eternal speeding up of the clocks here
within it making it appear to us as if it is the time
that the universe has left that is lengthening, as we
"time" the brief instant left to the universe with our
unimaginably accelerated and eternally accelerating

And so "forever" is really only relative to the
clock against which it is being timed, and not an
absolute term: Our "forever" is someone else's
brief instant in time, just as our own "brief
instant in time" can be someone else's "forever."
[And so no one need put himself in place of someone
outside the universe and, from that position, think
that all we amount to in here is but a brief few
seconds. Rather, it's far closer to our reality to
think that "clocks" outside our universe run so
slowly that they but measure a few brief seconds
during our billions of years.]

Our sole real triumph perhaps being that power of the
intellect to hurdle even the dissolution of all being
itself: here, taking in the entirely of the universe's
lifespan (and knowing how it is only when we set it
against the brief span of our own mortality that the
universe seems "almost eternal")... we can marvel at
last how even the span of the universe is something
not all that different from the so abrupt lifespan of
even the least "virtual particle" in it.

If nothing else: still one more vindication of the
proposition that existence does consistently work
by "one single simple principle" evolving all the
subsequent complexity... after which all such
boundlessly evolved complexities eventually must
decay back to the same "one single simple
principle" from which all came. That is to say:
This is yet one more hint that the laws of physics
work everywhere exactly as they do anywhere.

What is obvious is that to understand the structure of
their cosmos human beings have to divorce themselves
from their however cherished (so exclusively human)
prejudices. And that science really begins with the
quest to identify all such prejudices... because the
human perspective obviously is NOT the most universal
but one produced strictly by the requirements of/for
our existence (required solely for us to survive here
where we happen to live... within the bosom of the
"artificial nature" which is the human condition we've
conspired with the universe to construct for
ourselves). Something which is true for all scientific
considerations (human endeavors), as we continue to
"make" our entire planet into a larger and that much
more fatal a version of what we made of Easter Island.

What all this means is that, for example, the
"speed of light" is NOT "fast" (an absolute term,
from our perspective)... and is only/merely
"faster" (or "slower") in absolutely relativistic
terms: In relation to the size of a man, the speed
of light may indeed be quite "fast." But in
relation to the size of the universe, that same
speed is so monstrously slow as to almost escape
the very description of motion!

While considered from here inside it our "virtual
particle" universe may give all the appearance of
being something almost approaching the eternal (and
thereby making it so difficult for some of us to
"understand" how an "object" can shrink "forever"
unless they first understand that it is their "sense
of time" that is quickening with the ever quickening
universe about them--giving them the mistaken
"feeling" that the measured span of time that is in
reality forever growing shorter & shorter nevertheless
always remains exactly as "long" as it has ever been),
considered from without: the lifespan of our visible
universe may "pop" in/out of existence before even
perception itself may be able to take note of it (were
there "someone" outside the visible universe to "see"
it, of course--and capable of noticing it).

Yet it is only once we grasp such things as how truly
slow "our" speed of light is in "astronomical" terms,
that we might permit ourselves to imagine timing the
orbits even of electrons in terms of our hours, years,
and centuries. And then might we countenance the idea
of all those "material" structures about us (which
have all of our lives convinced us of their unchanging
solidity across untold ages) possibly really being as
"fluid" as is the "flow" of electrons coursing within
the "bolt of lightning."

Then might we grasp how, in the same way that a brief
sweep of sixteenth notes might seem, to some level of
consciousness outside the human, to outlast even the
lengthiest passage of "their" whatever centuries...
even those motions which seem to us to be "the fastest
possible" may to some other level of consciousness
outside the human also seem to outlast the lengthiest
passage of "their" whatever centuries: The quick wave
of one of our hands may "really" seem so "slow" to
them that to their quicker consciousness all of its
"motion" ceases to be motion at all... and turns into
the same "notion" of solidness a bar of iron suggests
to us. Then might we divine "the frozen monsters" that
are all living things in our human perception
(including us, yes)... and recognize at last exactly
how truly solid even our greatest notion of fluidity
really is & fluid even our most unyielding solidness.

In this thermodynamic analogy, then, there is no real
distinction between the thermodynamic current that is
a bolt of lightning and the thermodynamic current that
is our visible universe's "matter." [Matter is energy
and energy is motion, reducing matter to pure motion.]

Keep this in mind (in light of our human notions
and prejudices about the nature of time). By "our
human clocks" the bolt of lightning happens "very
quickly," while the universe seems to be almost
eternal. But this is strictly a "real" distinction
only in our own minds--stemming from our
historically mistaken idea that "fast" and "slow"
are absolute values. They are not. And in the
universe there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow"
or "big" or "small" (only "faster than..." or
"slower than..." or "bigger than..." or "smaller

Living as we are inside the universe, a given rock's
whatever odd shape may seem to us to be almost
immutable to change... even if in reality that rock's
shape (as well as the shape of every other "form" in
which matter happens to exist "at the moment" here
inside our universe) is merely describing the passing
(momentary) state in which "its flow of matter" finds
itself... the ongoing, never-ceasing change through
which it is passing, one shape/form to the next one
--something indeed very much analogous to a current's
eddies as the sum total of the universe of matter
"flows" (not 3-dimensionally, but) in the direction
of implosion.

This is the reason all 3-dimensional acceleration
results in an increase in mass... as matter is
"forced" to move "against" its own singularly natural
direction of motion: the direction of motion in which
it is already moving (or, "implosion").

Note that it's possible for an object to accelerate
while moving at a constant speed... since "speed"
refers only to the magnitude of the velocity, and
not to the direction in which it's moving. So that
an object can also accelerate solely by changing
its direction (even as it maintains a constant

So: Matter's "singularly natural direction of motion"
is "the direction of motion in which all matter in the
universe is already moving." And in which it has been
moving ever since the instant at which "our cosmic
hollow of lesser density" became fully saturated with
the higher density material that had fallen into it
from "the void" ... at which instant the "energy" of
that "shockwave" began to "conserve" itself (its
"energy") into/by its implosion ("larger but slower
forms forever evolving into smaller but faster ones").

"Mass" being a description of the "unwillingness"
of any discrete bit of matter to be "unnaturally"
moved in any 3-dimensional direction (against a
direction of motion in which it already finds
itself moving even absent all 3-dimensional motion
... since all the matter in the universe is already
and always will be "moving in the direction of
implosion"). Which is the explanation for inertia.

Also: all subsequently even greater (proportional to
its 3-dimensional velocity... since it's now
compounded: 3-dimensional + implosive motion)
"unwillingness" of any object/body moving
3-dimensionally to be moved "against" its "additional
to implosion" direction of motion being the
explanation for all additional force (proportional to
how fast the object/body is moving 3-dimensionally, of
course) required to "move" an object which is
"already" moving 3-dimensionally.

And note that Newton's laws of motion do not explain
the cause of inertia (now explained here) and only use
inertia as a point of departure--That is: Newton
confines his famous laws of motion to 3-dimensional
motion alone... since he could not have known that
everything in the universe is "already" (eternally)
moving in the direction of implosion (leaving inertia
an unexplained mystery).

The One Particle That Reveals It All.

At our topmost level of matter-organization (that of
atoms, stars, and galaxies) the photon is a rather
peculiar discrete bit ("unit of mass") whose most
salient characteristic is precisely that its "mass" is
so minuscule that it has even inspired a heated debate
over whether it actually has any mass at all. It has:

"Mass" as a measure of "the inertia of a given unit
of matter" means that there is no practical
distinction between a unit of matter and "an
equivalent" unit of mass--since the force needed to
accelerate an equivalent unit of either is one and
the same [historically "matter" really only being a
dim reflection of how "the structure of its mass"
is "packaged" in a greater/lesser volume].

Therein the above explanation for inertia (since by
definition: all motion NOT in "the direction of
implosion" is 3-dimensional): All 3-dimensional
motion is therefore "against" the direction in
which all matter is already moving--explaining the
"reluctance" of any unit of matter to be moved
3-dimensionally in direct proportion to its "mass."

No matter what the "mass" of the photon is finally
determined to be... its "acceleration" is prodigious.
Therefore its "mass," or "inertia," is correspondingly
prodigiously tiny--although never non-existent, or (to
put it in the conventional lingo)... or photons would
be absolutely immune to "supermassive gravitational
fields" (to which they are obviously not immune).

The structure (or "package") of the photon is very
obviously substantially oversized and, compared to the
other particles, relatively "unstable." That is: it is
"visible" out of all proportion to its mass, and its
"material" is closer to the edge of annihilation than
even that of the far more massive/stable electron's,
for example--though neither electrons nor photons have
the legacy of a long enough evolution--long enough to
have brought to them, as it has to other particles of
matter, enough mass in a "stable enough" structure
(neutrinos too are unstable, changing their "flavor").

The crucial thing at this point is that because of its
infinitesimal mass the photon is able to free itself
almost entirely from one of the two Basic Motions of

Matter's "two basic motions" as the universe moves
in the direction of implosion... one being an
"absolute" motion (which we interpret as gravity),
the other a strictly "relativistic" motion (which
we interpret as the Hubble Constant).

Photons (and other likewise extremely low-mass
particles) do "move" exactly like every other form of
matter that exists here at our topmost level of
matter-organization in one way: They also "shrink"
(thereby seeming to remain the "same size as ever"
relative to the size of all the other objects in the
universe which are also "shrinking" at the same rate).
However, as the entirety of the universe "implodes"
towards the absolute center of its cosmic hollow of
lesser density: the photon seems to be able to escape
the "absolute motion" of all the matter in the
universe (which we interpret as "gravity")... even if
it is true that it does not escape all of that motion
and only just most of it. Self-evidently: the photon
does not fully obey the absolute law of gravity most
of the other forms of matter obey.

Because all matter is everywhere moving in the
direction of implosion but there are no fundamental
objects/bodies anywhere in the universe to
"implode" toward their own "singular" geometric
centers as if they were perfect singularities...
all the objects/bodies in the universe (with the
possible exception of the discrete bits of the
theoretical "first generation" of discrete bits
ever to evolve from the primordial cloud that
"saturated" our hollow of lesser density)... all
the objects/bodies (all the forms of matter) in the
universe are imploding NOT towards their own
geometrical centers but at/toward every and all the
smallest-possible coordinate(s) in/of their matter.

Again: the overall effect of "gravity" is that (at
every smallest-possible coordinate of the matter of
every object/body in the universe)... all matter is
forever (imploding) moving in the direction of the
center of every smallest-possible coordinate of/in
its matter.

The result is that what we see at our topmost level
of matter-organization is a relativistically
"frozen" solid geometry with no easily discernible
directionality in which the imploding Planet Earth,
for example, does not "implode" ONLY towards its
own "singular geometric center" but toward the
"geometric center" of every and all possible
coordinate(s) of its matter... forever giving us a
picture of the eternally always same-sized and
same-shaped unchanging sphere we've always known.

But make no mistake about this: the entire universe of
matter is absolutely imploding at the level of its
every smallest-possible coordinate(s). And, for
example, this means that the Earth is "falling" into
the Sun and that the Moon is "falling" into the Earth
in an absolute sense (exactly as described by
Galileo). Even though, relativistically, the Earth is
also moving away from the Sun, and the Moon is moving
away from the Earth (as described by the Hubble

To better understand exactly what the photon is up to,
let's imagine what a photon (which is after all just
one more "form of matter" among those of our level of
matter-organization)... what a photon would "look
like" if instead of "shrinking" along with all the
other "shrinking" forms of matter, a photon were to
somehow manage to always retain its size even as the
rest of the universe in which it found itself
continued "shrinking" all around it (and, further,
let's imagine this theoretical photon of ours as a
perfectly spherical hollow ball):

From "our" perspective now (unsuspecting as "we" are
that it is the universe that is "shrinking") we would
undoubtedly interpret this "miraculous spherical
photon" as "growing in size" at a quite prodigious
speed (really exactly proportional to the speed at
which the universe is "shrinking")... so that, for
example, in just over eight minutes our spherical
photon would be as big around as is the earth's orbit
around the Sun; and in a mere 50,000 years or so more
it would be the same size as is our entire Milky Way
Galaxy (90,000-100,000 light years across). So that if
the universe really is [for the purposes of this
thought experiment] just under 14 billion light years
across, in slightly over 7 billion years our
theoretical spherical photon would hold within its
"hollow" the entire universe itself).

It is its mass that "drags" matter along (making it
"move in the direction of implosion").

Any "form of matter" that lacks sufficient mass is
able to (proportional to its mass--or, lack thereof),
is able to "resist" being dragged along into
engaging in the Second Basic Motion of Matter... the
one we interpret as the "pull" of gravity here inside
the universe, but from outside the universe would
interpret as the entire universe imploding like any
other conventional single body might implode (and it
is this absolute aspect of the photon's motion which
makes it look to us as if it's "moving" so oddly). It
is the fact that the photon does not move, or moves
very little, that permits it to "behave" both as
particle "package" (in isolation) and as wave (when it
interacts or is "measured").

As I said, the photon still participates in the First
Basic Motion of Matter (implosion at the level of
every discrete bit or unit of mass) because while the
Second Basic Motion of Matter "seems to an observer"
to take place only at "a" fully-constituted (or
"finished") level of matter-organization (its
well-defined "bodies" literally "appearing to be"
interacting among themselves... as with atoms, stars,
or galaxies)... the First Basic Motion of Matter is
taking place at the level of every "least possible"
discrete unit of mass [that is: at the level of the
theoretical "first generation" of such discrete bits
which were the first ever to "tear themselves" from
the "single solid homogeneous cloud" that had fully
saturated the center of the cosmic hollow into which
"fell" the shockwave of "higher density primordial
material" from "the void" surrounding it]. So please
note that, regardless how one might arbitrarily define
such a primordial "unit" ... we say that the universe
is "imploding at every possible coordinate of its
matter," rather than only at the level of any given
"particulate" (or "finished" level of matter-
organization). Therefore the photon, being as much one
of the forms of matter at our level of matter-
organization as atoms, stars, and galaxies... the
photon is also "shrinking" exactly as are all the
other forms of matter here.

But if the photon does not retain its size (appearing
to grow ever larger), and has as little mass as it
does (therefore not being a form of matter which
"moves" along with all the other forms of matter that
are moving in the Second Basic Motion of Matter) and
thereby appearing to us to always remain "where it is"
(appearing forever unmoved amid the flow of
"everything moving together"), what exactly determines
in which direction it will go (or "appear" to go)...?

Well: That "direction" in which a given photon "moves"
is determined only by its orientation to its "source"
at the moment of its "onset" (creation). And this is a
"direction" which can have a completely 3-dimensional
orientation with regard to its source because
(disengaging as it does from the Second Basic Motion
of Matter) the photon's direction of motion instantly
becomes 3-dimensional while that of its source forever
remains (as it has been) a motion "in the direction of
implosion" ... and these are two quite separate and
independent from each other directions of motion.

In this matter the spherical photon analogy above can
serve an important illustrative purpose: Even if,
unlike our theoretical spherical photon, the real
photon is not growing in size... its position at any
given point in time after its "creation" (i.e. after
its "separation" from its source) would always still
fall exactly where the surface of that growing
theoretical spherical photon would fall, given the
passage of equal amounts of time... in any direction
(which, as I said, is determined solely by the
orientation of the photon to its source). Therefore
there really is no practical limitation either to
which 3-dimensional direction a photon can take... or
to its travelling from any point in the universe to
any other point within it--or to points outside the
universe, for that matter... considering that a photon
can move across the universe to (be at) exactly any
point in the spherical surface of the theoretical
photon which is capable of swallowing the entire
universe in our thought experiment.

Think now of the geometrical center of our theoretical
spherical photon: If there were an "ether" at absolute
rest behind the imploding (and therefore "moving")
visible universe... and its "geometrical center" were
fixed on that "ether," then our ever growing spherical
photon would appear to us to "drift" (as the visible
universe imploded towards its absolute center, leaving
behind all things, photons included, without enough
mass to be dragged along)... so that if, say, the
geometrical center of our theoretical spherical photon
(where its source was at the instant of its creation)
were in the Milky Way Galaxy--our entire spherical
photon would seem to us to "take off" now, as it grew,
drifting away from the Milky Way Galaxy. And some
portions of our galaxy could then travel across two
opposing surfaces of this growing spherical photon.

But as there is no "ether" in the real world to which
such a theoretical spherical photon might "fix" its
geometric center... that geometric center must remain
forever fixed to more or less the place where the
photon's source was at the time the photon came into
existence--Meaning that if its source was somewhere
inside the Milky Way Galaxy, our galaxy would always
remain inside the growing soap bubble hollow... and no
portion of the Milky Way Galaxy would ever be able to
cross two of the spherical photon's opposing surfaces
--every point in the galaxy will cross one surface of
our "growing" sphere, but never more than one.

This is something we must grasp in order to understand
why it is that there is no "directionality" to "the
speed of light." Our "growing" theoretical spherical
photon is in a very real absolute sense "moving" along
exactly like (with) the rest of "the entire body" of
the universe as it implodes as a whole)... thereby
effectively frustrating any attempt we here inside the
universe might try to make to establish a
directionality for the "speed of light" since no
matter in which direction a photon may be travelling
it must always "fall" (be) exactly where, in that
whatever direction, the surface of our theoretical
growing (and "drifting") spherical photon would be.
For, remember: the geometric center of our theoretical
"expanding" spherical photon is "fixed" not to some
background ("ether" or whatever) but to "all the other
matter" of the visible universe that is absolutely
imploding towards center (fixed to its "point of origin"
or "source").

So the "explanation" by G. F. Fitzgerald that matter
"contracts in the direction of its motion" [to account
for the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment
which first established that there was no
directionality to "the speed of light"] is now forever
exposed as the misinterpretation it is--As well as is
the subsequent arbitrary limitation on anything being
able to travel faster than the speed of light "because
matter can only contract to zero, obviously, and not

The Michelson-Morley experiment, an attempt to
determine the absolute motion of the Earth against an
"ether" which was supposed to fill all space and to be
at rest was really an attempt to discover in the
universe a state at absolute rest (by having it be the
result of subtracting all possible motion in every

What Michelson and Morley discovered in fact was the
universe's absolute motion in the direction of
implosion by discovering that the photon always
travels in every 3-dimensional direction at the same

It was an experiment doomed to failure by the fact
that it only encompassed 3-dimensional motion in a
universe where 3-dimensional motion is essentially
motion in an abberrant direction (the normal direction
of all matter in our universe being in the direction
of implosion). [If one considers that motion in the
direction of implosion is the same everywhere then you
realize that there is no objection to defining such a
"motion" as the one state in the universe at absolute
rest (since all 3-dimensional motion is motion with
reference to it).

Inspired by Fitzgerald's "uninformed explanation," and
knowing that the ratio of an electron's mass to its
charge can be determined from its deflection by a
magnetic field (as there is no reason to think that as
an electron's velocity increases its charge also will
increase), H. A. Lorentz suggested that the mass of a
particle should increase as the charge of a charged
particle is compressed into a smaller volume. And W.
Kauffman discovered that, exactly as predicted by the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations, an electron's mass did
indeed increase as its velocity increased (an
agreement which improved measurements showed to be
just about perfect)... strengthening everyone's
confidence in the accuracy of Fitzgerald's gross
misinterpretation for why the speed of light lacked
directionality--and, by the way, lending confidence to
one Albert Einstein, for whom this could only mean
that "therefore" there could be no states at absolute
rest in the universe (a thought which eventually gave
birth to some of his relativity explanations). [Never
mind that the "absolute" constancy of the speed of
light, no less than its "absolute" lack of
directionality, should have told Einstein that there
"had" to be some state at absolute rest in "the
equation of the universe" against which such constancy
was being kept constant!

But there it is, of course: the speed itself at which the
universe of matter is imploding is absolute across the
entire universe (or, I should really say: "is of an
equal value where equal conditions (of "pressure")
exist")... since one can also state it as everything
other than that which is moving as "moving" with
respect to it (just as in the description where
someone in a passing train is able to imagine it's the
train station that's passing by instead).

What is this "pressure" in the absence of particle
interaction/mediation (gravitons)...? Well, certainly
NOT the "push" of one absolute body (billiard ball?)
against another physically. Or, from the geometrically
opposing viewpoint: The fact that all the bodies/balls
are (and have always been) moving in the same
direction is enough--Obviously no individual body/ball
moving in such an avalanche of them could possibly
suddenly come up with the impetuous impatience to
speed up (or with any spontaneous sloth, for that matter).

Naturally, once the reason for inertia (given above)
is made clear, it's obvious that all 3-dimensional
acceleration of matter produces pressures ("g-forces"
as it were, or a very real "stress") against its own
inertia (its motion in the direction of implosion)...
these "g-forces stress" increasing with acceleration
make it clear just how massive a force would be
required to "move" even such a trivial "mass" as that
of a photon's across the entire universe in, say, a
fraction of a second--and the "stress" that photon
would consequently be under.

It is this proportional (to 3-dimensional velocity)
"stress" which interferes with the regular/normal
inner motions of matter (matter itself really being
reducible to "motion," which is itself merely another
definition of "energy")... causing the very real rise
in mass of ALL accelerated matter (not just of charged
particles, as Einstein himself showed)... as well as
the "slowing of time" for matter traveling at higher
3-dimensional speed, obviously. [Thereby providing the
real reason for the also very real "twin" paradox
(which like all paradoxes exists only in the human
mind, and never in nature)... while separating this
very real "relativity of time with respect to
3-dimensional velocity" from any notion that time
itself might have accelerated for the twin remaining
"at rest" behind in any "real" sense... outside a
misinterpretation by the "accelerated" twin, from
whose perspective (to whom) the clock in "the passing
train station" (the twin remaining behind) will appear
to be "moving faster") because the matter of which he
(the accelerated twin) himself is made is being
"slowed" by the stresses of its acceleration. But "the
universe's time" (or, the absolute speed at which the
universe is imploding) remains "the time" for the
"unmoving" twin left behind--as long as he keeps still
(and doesn't try to race across the entire universe
in, say, a fraction of a second... because, if he
could find the power to do so, it might be a fraction
of a second to him, but he may find the rest of the
universe aged 14 or more billion years).

S D Rodrian

Please don't ask me to edit this text into a more cohesive or
chronological/logical presentation! Thank God I still have
the mental energy to type it out at all.


ANSWERS from GOOGLE posts by S D Rodrian ...


ALL the effects we ascribe to the "pull of gravity"
are really caused by/because of the fact that the
universe is (and has always been) imploding (yes,
since its origin ... in fact, THAT is its origin).

However, don't try to disprove this by tossing a coin
up "against the pull of gravity" because the "speed"
at which the coin travels "against the direction of
implosion" will be of no consequence whatsoever (you'd
have to throw the coin OUT of the universe to counter
its implosion)...

.... Instead of believing that ours is a
universe as described in the inflationary models
(a universe of immutable forms of matter forever
"expanding" from some primordial magic bean),
imagine that we live in a universe where all the
forms of matter are just that ("forms" composed
of other "forms of matter" which are themselves
composed of lesser/smaller "forms" of matter ad
infinitum) in a universe that is/has always been in

Yes, use the metaphor of a black hole imploding. But:
How long does a black hole take to implode? Well,
viewed from outside it, almost no "time" at all. But
if the entire universe were imploding, we, of course,
would be inside that implosion. If such an implosion
lasted only our "seconds" or even "minutes" or "hours"
or even "days, months, years, et al" it would cause
our "matter" to burst! But, on the other hand, if such
an implosion "lasted" (for us here inside it, "timing"
the whole thing by our "hours, years, centuries," or
even "billions of years"), if such an implosion lasted
for as long as the entire lifetime of our universe...
then "our forms of matter" would have "enough time" to
bend/twist/evolve/adapt to whatever changes were
taking place--And it really wouldn't matter "how long"
our imploding universe took as "timed" by "somebody"
watching its implosion from outside it. The only
"time" that mattered to us... would be the one we
ourselves "timed" by whatever methods we devised.

There is no such thing as an absolute speed (time),
and "the laws of physics" which govern the movement
of "our speed" (time) depend entirely on what the
"mass about us" allows.

As the universe implodes, ever accelerating as it
does, our "sense" of time (of how "fast" the speed
of general motions about us) is also increasing
because "there is no absolute time (speed)" and
instead the "speed" (and therefore the "timing") of
everything (its timing by us) is "absolutely"
relative to "the mass" about it (about us).
Therefore: No matter how "fast" the universe
implodes to "someone" viewing its implosion from
outside it, to us, here inside it, the implosion of
the universe must necessarily seem to last "for as
long as the universe lasts."

The hardest obstacle to realizing that ours is a
universe in implosion may be that, being INSIDE this
implosion, we imagine it's exactly like what happens
in a black hole collapse (destroying all forms of
matter in it & around it in milliseconds ... the sort
of milliseconds measured by our clocks AND the
impossible clock of someone INSIDE the black hole
we're observing... which clocks we assume to be
forever absolutely synchronized).

Rather, think of one of those films of street crowds
which are sped-up and you see streams of cars & people
rushing "through" each other without a single one of
them running into anything... Well, that film is
"sped-up" from our point of view (by us), where we
exist at {what?} speed watching the film--but for
anyone "in" that sped-up scene we're watching
"existence" was unfolding at "normal" speed, and any
idea that they were going so blindingly "fast" that it
may be impossible for them to crash into everything
would seem almost insulting. [ By {what absolute
standard?} do we believe that "our speed" is the
"normal speed" of existence itself?!? ]

.... Rather, the speed of light is "fast" because we
imagine it is (measured against our walking speed).
While the speed of one set of atoms decaying into
another element is "slow" because, again, we measure
it against our walking speed, or the speed it takes us
to eat a bowl of cherries, or to live out our whole
lives, or even the lives of all the generations of
man, for that matter. We find it hard to imagine that
all the generations of man, or all the generations
of all the organisms that ever lived on this planet,
or all the generations of stars, et al, might fly by
in the "time" it takes "someone standing outside our
universe" to glance to one side and notice that it
(our universe, unsuspected by him) has imploded (in
milliseconds, as measured by his watch). But that is
EXACTLY what has happened, will happen, and is
happening: The relativity of time is absolute (and
that relativity extends to outside our universe): The
relativity of "speed" ABSOLUTELY has everything to do
with what the mass around your "watch" is doing (its
"speed" ... in effect, its "time").

I have said it before and I will repeat it endlessly:
"Everything that is now described as "the pull of
gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of
velocity." It doesn't mean that "rocket scientists"
will have to find some other way to "sling-shoot"
their space vehicles (than by gravitational orbits)
--rather, they must eventually come to realize that
what they're doing is the same thing that happens to
a leaf that's sucked into the eye-wall of a hurricane:
The closer to any "point of implosion" anything comes
the greater the velocity it must experience (and those
"points of implosion" exactly coincide with what we
now call "centers of gravity") ... which is identical
to saying now "the greater pull of gravity they must

WHERE are these "points of implosion" located inside
the universe? Well, self-evidently they cannot be
located in the middle of space (space with more space
around them) because space can neither implode or
explode. Therefore, they ONLY exist where the matter
of the universe is imploding (its material substance)
and that boils down to mass, mass, and more mass:
This makes "a" point of implosion absolutely relative
to the mass around it. So that any mass which is added
or subtracted from any "imploding system" (which is
any congregation of matter sufficiently separated from
the rest of the universe to exhibit independent motion
towards its own unique point of implosion, whether it
be the earth-moon system, or the Solar System, or the
Milky Way system, or even the earth-Newton's Apple
system)... any mass which is added to or subtracted
from any "imploding system" has an immediate effect
upon the "location" of its "point of implosion (making
ALL such "points of implosion" then absolutely
relative to the mass about them). [And I certainly
don't want to get any "the speed of gravity" nonsense
here--suffice it to say that if the Sun were to vanish
by some magical miracle, what's to prevent a magical
miracle from being instantaneous across the entire
universe?] However: Since all the mass (matter) of the
universe is moving towards such "points of implosion"
(BECAUSE such "points of implosion" exist in isolation
--from the rest of the universe--NOTICE the "space"
between them) they are all entirely relativistic: That
is, while the moon and earth are "trying" to "roll
down their own mutual/common point of implosion" they
are also, as ONE system/mass vying with the Sun to
"roll down their own mutual/common point of implosion"
and so on: so that NONE of this invalidates Galileo's
marvelous description of "gravitational" trajectories
(loss of momentum) nor Newton's laws of gravitation,
or Einstein's geometrical perfecting of them: If two
bodies approach each other with just the right amount
of momentum away from their "common point of
implosion" they will go into a mutual orbit; and if
they are both aimed straight at their "common point of
"implosion" they must surely collide. And if two
immense bags of those styrofoam packing beans pass
close enough to one another, surely a lot of those
styrofoam beans will not have/or will not be able to
maintain enough momentum away from their "common point
of implosion" to prevent a pileup too.

The point is that the entirety of the universe is ONE
geometric unit. And that the existence (and position)
of every last bit of mass in the universe affects its
entire configuration--which is the same as saying that
the "effect of gravity" extends "infinitely" across
the entirety of the universe. Which is just another
way of saying that the entire mass (matter) of the
entire universe also has its own definite/absolute
"point of implosion" towards which everything in the
universe is "moving" [not because of the mythical
"pull of gravity" but because that is the geometric
center towards which its "body" was "pushed" from
its origin].

And because the mass of the universe does not "ride"
upon some inflexible/rigid aether, naturally the
closer two "bits" of mass are to each other the
greater the acceleration they must experience toward
their common "point of implosion" (the effect is
indistinguishable in practice from the effect
described up to now as gravity, except that for many
hundreds of years scientists used a cosmological
system in which the universe revolved around the earth
to predict with great accuracy the motions of the
heavens... until a simpler, more straightforward
solution was found--a solution which also embodied the
explanation everyone was searching for). And so it is
at this writing, when the inflationary/gravitational
point of view can be used to predict the motions of
the heavens with great accuracy BUT it is only the
implosion model that at last offers the simpler, more
straightforward solution (and also embodies the
answer) everyone is searching for.

Now you know how all that is possible WITHOUT there
being some magical mediating particle (the mythical
graviton) to cross the full length of the universe:
The mass of Newton's apple and the mass of the
earth are "seeking" their common center/point of
implosion (since they do not ride any mythical
rigid matrix/aether)... and they are both "moving"
towards the "center of the universe" both as a
system while being such an infinitesimal portion
of that system that I seriously doubt we will ever
definitely ascertain its orientation. [So you
observe Newton's apple moving towards the earth
with a greater acceleration than the moon is moving
towards the earth, or the earth-moon system are
moving toward the Sun, and the Solar System is
moving toward the "center" of the Milky Way, etc.]

Simply assume that our universe IS imploding...
and begin to re-examine all the observations which
have for the last 100 years (and longer) "argued" for
so many counter-intuitive, and self-contradictory, and
just plain illogical/crazy explanations for/of why/how
the photon "knows" at what speed it should travel and
in which direction? How is it possible for the effect
of gravity to extend infinitely (and WITHOUT any
mediating particle WHATSOEVER--because the proposition
of the graviton's existence is just a guess exactly
like the proposition of "dark matter")? How spiral
galaxies can do what they're doing with only the mass
of their stars! And, indeed, why/how the so-called
"expansion" of the universe can itself be forever
accelerating with no visible expenditure of the
tremendous amounts of energies such an acceleration
obviously requires or we are all mad!

And everything else, to boot: Imagine what some being
riding upon one of these independent systems (say, a
planet), what such a being must think when he looks
out into space and observes all the other systems
"draining" down into their whatever "points of
implosion" ... without suspecting the true nature of
what he is looking at: Let's call such a being Edwin
Hubble, and he notices that there is a "constant"
relationship between the distance from us of "an
object" and the speed at which it looks like it's
receding away from us: Not suspecting that the
universe is in implosion, and therefore that all its
"independent systems" (galaxies, say) are (as it were)
"shrinking into themselves" wherever they happen to
be--that is, not knowing that it's really his ruler
that's "shrinking" Hubble assumed that it is the
distance between all the systems that's "growing" [and
necessarily, the farther a galaxy is from ours the
"faster" Hubble assumed it was receding away from us).

REMEMBER: The closer something is to something else
the "faster" it is imploding. Therefore the
universe is imploding fastest at the quantum level
--if for no other reason than that is the smallest"
(and therefore "closest") level of which we know.

The inflationary models cannot even explain the most
basic phenomena we observe in our universe, such as
WHY/HOW radiation propagates except by gibberish/
nonsense. While in an imploding model the "disconnect"
between massive and nearly-massless matter perfectly
explains why one "moves" and the other does not: If
you are riding the "moving" part of it and you do no
suspect that you are the one moving, you tend to
imagine that the part you are passing by is the thing
doing the moving--

And now you also know why no matter how much the
photon is slowed it must "regain" its full velocity
once it is freed from whatever was slowing it down:
The velocity at which the "more massive" matter of the
universe is imploding must certainly hold very
steadily across a very large swath of the universe
--since it is all governed by the mass (matter) about
it. But, thereby the reason why the speed of light is
fixed.] But I imagine that at some point most thinking
persons will eventually realize that while the Big
Bang (inflationary) models of the universe are
forever drowning in self-contradictions and utter and
hilariously zany science fiction... there is not one
serious challenge to the implosion model that has ever
gone adequately unanswered (even as you can read in
this very text).

Again: ONCE you consider the universe from that point
of view, then ALL the puzzles and conundrums which
plague and baffle us now (causing us to propose
near-or-just-plain-ole magical solutions) to mysteries
such as "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement),
how a single photon can interact with itself, and the
impossibility of making sense of relativity and QM
existing in the same world ... all of them and more
will finally begin to "argue" their own solutions, as
"you" say, despite all our most cherished prejudices.

= Everything that is now described as "the pull of
gravity" must be reinterpreted as the effect of
velocity. This includes so-called lesser/greater
massive gravitational fields as described by\in
relativity theory. OR: If you are "a mile" from a
neutron star you are obviously a LOT closer to the
"point of implosion" of a greater amount of mass
than if you were even an inch from, say, the moon.

The implosion model in no way invalidates relativity;
but, on the contrary it is clear just how remarkable
an achievement Einstein managed while never even
suspecting that the universe is imploding--that he
should be able to describe it with such purely
geometrical perfection... at last putting an end to
the ancient myth of the aether. And without realizing
exactly why it should be that the universe acts rather
more like a geometrical structure than a purely
gravitational one (as previously described by Newton).

If gravity were ANY KIND OF "force" then it would,
by the laws of physics (QM) blow up the universe
to smithereens.

It would ALSO create stars and watery planets with
hollowed-out centers BECAUSE there would be little
or no "gravity" at their centers: Yet, the theories we
have about how our Sun works calls for most of its
nuclear reactions to be taking place precisely AT ITS
CENTER, under the greatest "pressures" therein! And
no one that I know of has EVER proposed hollow
planets (except some laughable comic book I read
as a child, as I recall). Oy! But people don't think.

What then are orbits, galaxies? Use the simplest
of all analogies: In an imploding universe
EVERYTHING is (perhaps not so figuratively) going
down the drain:

Look at the whirlpool that forms as water tries to go
down your kitchen drain pipe (the same thing is taking
place in tornadoes and hurricanes, where pressure in
the eye-wall forces air to "drain" up, sucking in air
from the area surrounding the "funnel"). Why does
a whirlpool form at the mouth of your drainpipe?
Because some water drops, unfortunately for them, have
just enough momentum toward one side to avoid going
directly down the drain. And the more water, the more
likelihood there is of a whirlpool forming...

And whether it's the earth/moon system, or the Solar
System, or galaxies we're talking about... what we're
looking at is "bodies" (the water drops here) which,
unfortunately for them, have just enough momentum
away from the exact/absolute point of implosion (what
we now call their common center of gravity). [And,
such "absolute points of implosion" are completely
relativistic (i.e. created by the very presence of the
mass around them that creates them).] And just as
not every time you open the faucet does a whirlpool
form at the mouth of the drain (it usually has to do
with the volume of water), not every galaxy develops
into a spiral one like the supermassive Milky Way
(something which also seems to have a correlation with
whether it's a massive or smaller galaxy, surprise,

And NONE of it has anything whatever to do with any
"dark matter" or other nonsense like it, I assure you.

No they do not: It is all an inevitable consequence of
the laws of thermodynamics... Think (!) of "the void"
as so immense/vast that at some point or other its
"body" hiccups a wave and presto: thermodynamic
currents/waves back & forth. Is it so impossible from
there to think that somewhere a bubble of "lesser
pressure" arose which then burst, as higher pressures
poured into it--the "concentration" at "its center"
being our "visible" universe...? And there you have
our imploding universe, and without having to have a
single graviton in it for it to work EXACTLY as we
can observe it working all around us.

GO backwards from our universe, and it is a
prick-point in some vaster/more diffuse universe,
which is itself but another prickpoint in some
vaster/more diffuse universe, ad infinitum, and
you can see where it all comes from: All you
really need is "something so very close to
nothingness" as to make the difference negligible
indeed. But then, eventually here we are.

Think! That describes the raison d'etre for the
implosion model of the universe, except that any
notion of "time" is moot: ALL time is relative, just
as Einstein began to understand, and while the
implosion of our universe, as viewed (timed) from
outside it, may look like (and take about as long as)
the collapse of a massive star into a black hole seems
to us... we here inside it (because our SENSE of time
is so humongously "fast" ... AND FOREVER SPEEDING UP)
we here inside the universe will "experience" it like
some "unending" amount of time (or, equal to the
entire length of the part of the lifetime of our
universe in which we exist).

It may be a fact that as we go on there is "less and
less time" of the universe left--because, inevitably,
as the universe continues its implosion (or,
concentration into less and less volume) it must
undergo a general acceleration... but because "our
sense of time" is literally accelerating ahead of the
universe... what is left of the universe will always
be, at least for us, quite a lot (and perhaps even
growing as "we" go on--if I may be so bold as to
include us with the rocks & hydrogen atoms out there).

What will our universe end up as? I certainly don't
have enough information to theorize about it with any
real authority. Although I'd like to think it will all
dissolve into plain ole nothingness. It's still
possible it will also be some massive pile-up of black
holes... or a single one, which may well be another
universe-of-sorts ad infinitum. Who knows. Who cares!
The whole human race will certainly be dead long, long
before then. And all that will certainly be a long,
long, long time in our future, of course.

S D Rodrian

Other Bits & Pieces, Here & There ...

"Immortalist" wrote:
"sdr" wrote:

"Available evidence" (observations) do not "argue"
anything: It is men, such as you and I, who look at
"something" and "see" in it our prejudices: The
"evidence" of a plane flying overhead "argues" one
set of conclusions from a guy in Philadelphia and
quite another from a stone age hunter (as it did
for New Guinea tribesmen, who in the 40s, thought
the American airmen who were landing there to
prepare for battle against the Japanese HAD TO BE
gods and worshipped them as such).

For many years now MANY different forms of matter
(since all matter MUST needs come in some form)
have been proposed and searched for as candidates
for "dark matter." Either none has been found or
contradictory evidence have suggested that the forms
proposed could not exist where they have been
proposed (as required) or in such forms at all.

We have a specific observation (namely, that some
galaxies behave in a way they should not, given the
mass of their visible stars). It is a puzzle. And it
demands theories/guesses. But until we find the
specific reason/cause for this observation ALL our
best theories are mere guesses:

There is NO argument FOR or requirement of any
such stuff as "dark matter." It is simply ONE guess.
Further, it is a guess which has FOR MANY MANY years
been thoroughly explored and which remains unproved.
Perhaps if we had extended but 1/100th the effort in
some other line of inquiry... we'd know the answer

As a matter of principle, I am against killing ANY
line of inquiry until such time as the solution has
been found. But I myself am of the strong opinion
that the search for some/any/all form(s) of dark
matter are a dead end. Why? SEE:

[Only registered users see links. ]

The answer to this mirrors the large-scale structures
of the material universe itself, and the solution is
to be found in the same identical causes which have
given rise to the universe's other large-scale
structures. Namely, the sheer vagaries of matter-
distribution over large scales of time: It is not a
true "random" process, simply one whose dynamics
we have not yet computed (and perhaps never will).


The "proposal" for dark energy is not as a result
of any particular requirement in the Big Bang model;
rather, the real world (the universe) was unexpectedly
discovered to be working in the exact opposite manner
that model says it ought to be working... but rather than
acknowledge the observed facts have invalidated the
model, BB theorists merely now said they thought some
"dark energy" MUST exist which is making the model
work in the exact opposite way the BB model should work.

The original requirement for a "Big Bang" were effectively
nullified by the discovery that the universe is "expanding"
NOT from some primordial "explosion" (Big Bang) but due
to some "other" reason NOT YET UNDERSTOOD. (The
proposal that it MUST BE some "dark force" is somewhat
like people who do not understand how/why planes fly
suggesting that it MUST BE because of some "dark force"
invisibly holding planes up in the air: It is nonsense which
not everyone has yet realized what utter nonsense it is.
And it is utter nonsense because it violates any number of
physical laws, not least of which is that its WORKING needs
LOADS of energy consumption/conversion which no one
has either observed or proposed how it is taking place. The
proposal of a pushing force acting in the same place and at
the same time as the "pull" of gravity simply insults logic.)

Where did the Big Bang model come from? Einstein asked:
"If there is gravity, why hasn't the universe collapsed?"
He thought "there MUST be" some force keeping the
universe from collapsing (i.e. counter-balancing the "pull"
of gravity). He called his "MUST-BE pushing force" the
Cosmological Constant. But then Hubble discovered that
the galaxies "appeared" to be moving away from each
other, and Einstein immediately realized the folly of his
Cosmological Constant proposal. Instead another down-
to-earth bit of nonsense was proposed: Wasn't it the case
here on earth that whenever things expanded from a
common point there had been an explosion at that point?
Ergo, since the universe' galaxies were seen to be moving
away from each other... they MUST be moving away from
some super-ancient explosion (some really Big Bang).

Never mind that all "explosions" require energy. Never
mind that the creation of matter/energy from nothingness
revives the ancient paradox of a First Cause Uncaused (God).
Never mind thinking/reasoning at all. The Big Bang model
satisfied men's thirst for a quick, slick answer. And since
people are lazy at everything, but especially about exercising
their brains... the nonsense's stuck (it's easier to shout down
objections than to think them through seriously).

Well, I for one am glad that it's so darn hard
for so many to let go of their most cherished prejudices
(they were taught to us all by the fools we love so much,
after all), and to actually see what's right in front of
their eyes ... because that way the joy of being able
to keep telling people that I told them so is multiplied
by the number of dense brains there are out there.

NOT in the Big Bang model, certainly. But
consider what the case would be in an imploding
universe: The further back in time you go, the
larger the universe is (i.e. the slower it is imploding).
Now the observation makes sense. And we can
remove all the nonsense about "dark matter."

What "pushing [outward] less and less," in the
paragraph above means is that the acceleration of
the universe's expansion is "less and less" as we go
"more and more" back in time. At "zero point" there
is no "dark force" at all, and ONLY the pull of gravity
is acting on the universe (so we are effectively back
at the point where Hubble discovered the galaxies
appear to be moving away from each other AGAINST
the pull of gravity ... devoid of any reason why/how).
However, now any quick/slick "Big Bang" suggestion
becomes more problematic because most explosions
tend to make things move faster at first and then slower
with time... NOT the other way around, certainly!

Actually, what Hubble discovered was that the galaxies
"appeared" to be moving away from each other.

The idea that this discovery suggested that the universe
is expanding is both reasonable and idiotic, since while
in a very simple way it resembles the way an explosion
here on earth works... it also presents impossible hurdles
to explaining where all that energy came from. [Recently
someone who must have gotten the idea from watching
bedsheets hung out for drying in a yard fluttering in the
wind... suggested the nonsense of "branes" flapping in
the Mind of God or something, which when they touch
create a rupture through which pour all the energy in the
Big Bang--I must say I had to laugh like a mule when I
read it. But that's me, other people actually take this non-
sense quite seriously, I swear to God. Naturally, people
who suggest a God as The Origin "forget" to tell us about
the origin of God, and it's no different here, where they
are happy to explain the origin of our "dimensions" from
some other "dimensions" but they never ever quite get
around to explaining the origins of those other dimensions
--which I assume did not originate from ours.]

It just couldn't be something OTHER THAN
what they were imagining/proposing!

Wonder how many times in all people will repeat
the same error before they finally acknowledge it
as an error and move on to something else...!

Is it some "invisible hand" holding the plane
up in the air?

If all the seekers are searching down the wrong path
the chances of any one of them discovering the truth
are nil, and no matter how many seekers. One lone seeker
searching down the true path is worth all the seekers
in infinity searching down the wrong one.


Explain to me what purpose/point there would be
for gravity AT ALL in an imploding universe ... if
the implosion were the result of a "push" given it
at its very beginning by the "greater pressures'
surrounding the hollow into which those "pressures"
cascaded? (Literally, "by their very weight.")

Read thou: [Only registered users see links. ]

Being a hollow, bubble-like, the outside pressures
which "fell" into it must be "speeding up" as they
concentrate nearer & nearer its geographic center. We
don't notice this acceleration in the normal course of
events, except back around 1998 when two different
groups of astronomers noticed an "inexplicable"
acceleration in a universe which they do not yet
understand is imploding ... and, of course, by one S D
Rodrian, who when years earlier realized that the
universe was indeed imploding deduced that that
implosion therefore had to be accelerating. And,
presto, so it was found to be. Nice. But I don't drink
Champagne (as Dracula once said).

"Dr Nanduri" - wrote:

That must have been what was missing in physics:
Less study of physical phenomena & junk like that,
and more tightening up on abstract thinking about
all sorts of crazy things!

Sir, the nature of science is to make as unbiased
a set of observations of physical phenomena as
possible ... in the hope they one day lead to some
sort of unprejudiced interpretation of reality.

Don't be misled by the fact that people like to guess
where the solution will be found before the solution
is actually found ... don't be misled by this into
believing that science and philosophy mix very well
at all: The history of physics the last century is the
sorry proof they do not (being the result of guessers,
so-called theorists, who will blurt out just about any
guess that pops into their flirty heads, proclaiming
it "the only possible solution in the universe").

A good theorist does not merely propose any ole
elephant as the only possible solution, but FIRST
goes through at least the trouble to see whether
there is room in the room into which he wants to fit
his/her theoretical elephant for it to actually fit in

In other words, somebody tells you there is an
elephant in the matchbox he carried around in his
pocket ... don't waste time arguing the physics of his
claim (how/why there is an elephants in...), just don't.

I tell thee this: There are an awful low of people
nowadays looking at the universe while convinced
that they are looking at something else entirely, and
growing puzzled/confused/baffled (not by the
observations, but by the nonsense theorist are
constantly proposing): Ya can't look at a mule and
believe you're looking at a tornado & not remain
puzzled/confused and baffled by what you "see."

S D Rodrian

POST: What is Gravity? Why/How Does It Work?

On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden
BandTechnology.com" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

[Only registered users see links. ]

VISIT THOU: [Only registered users see links. ]

It's all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:

Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:

[Only registered users see links. ]

Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally
"shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this
is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,
"singularities" are physically impossible in our
reality--all you need do is look around you).

Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to
compare "the size" of the universe... it will
"always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no
matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.

Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
[Only registered users see links. ]

Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect
of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this
shrinking may actually be).

Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there
is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and
drop Newton's apple it will simply "float" in place.
You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at
which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving
away from Newton's apple with a matching speed:

Think of the earth's ground (in the latter case, or #2
above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the
earth's matter keeps it from going into any sort of
"free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens
to an actual black hole star's "ground." Therefore the
falling Newton's apple can only accelerate until it
hits the earth's surface. Why should it/does it
accelerate at all?

The reason for this acceleration is that the
"shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation
engine." [In "shrinking" the universe is forever
hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of
angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one
sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]

The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever
growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower
to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The
entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in
merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the
"faster" it grows smaller... forever.

This is the reason why for a dozen or more
years before astronomers finally discovered
that the universe's "expansion" was
accelerating I despaired of ever discovering
the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD
to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.

If our "Newton's apple" were falling into an actual
black hole star, its acceleration would almost
certainly continue until it very nearly matched that
of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"
only just "nearly."

This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every
point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator
(above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you
dropped Newton's apple it would NOT just float "in
place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."
And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe
as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on
earth's surface, very pronounced on a black hole
star's. Why?

Because this effect/interaction is one which is
strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:

In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is
identical to the conventional description of "gravity"
in any way you would care to measure it: Since the
"universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking
unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers
as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and
not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other
words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,
Newton's apple appears to be pulling at the elevator's
floor and vice versa.

And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is
the center of the universe ["down" is strictly only a
"relative" term], it is "the sum centers of mass" that
are the "points" toward which the surrounding mass
is/are "shrinking" (i.e. obviously, "space" plays no
part whatsoever in "shrinking" ... and therefore the
"illusion" of weaker/stronger "gravitational fields").

The "distance" between two nearby bodies will
diminish more than/long before the "distance"
between them and bodies farther afield" (because
all groups/conglomerations are "moving" ["down"]
towards the sum of all their mass' centers) and
therefore away from everything else "outside" them.

There is nothing "personal" about this, it's merely
that the universe is "so big in comparison to the bit
under consideration" that, to all practical effects...
every such bit of the universe can be described as its
"center." [The universe is everywhere "shrinking"
towards its everyplace ... not "slurping" wholesale
towards its whatever singular sum center.]

Individual stars, planets ... and related/very
close but "untouching" conglomerations will be
"shrinking" into a point "in space" which is the
center of the sum of their added mass: the
earth/moon system, as well as solar systems,
galaxies, galaxy groups, et al ... and so forth
outwards with every surrounding and
correspondingly independent conglomeration of
mass/energy from the smallest subparticle to the
entire universe itself (which you may choose to
call "gravitational systems" if you still believe
in gravitons).

As one continues to pull back one will always observe
all whatever groupings of such conglomerations to be
behaving as if they were independently "associated
super-conglomerations" BECAUSE they will always be
"shrinking" towards the center of the sum of their
total mass. And so it will continue (as you "pull
back") until the entire universe itself will be "seen"
as behaving as if it were one single "associated
conglomeration," [not a "singularity" of course].

The effect can be "observed to be" extremely
subtle or extremely pronounced (depending on the
amount of mass, and its organization, whether
more compact or more spread out/insubstantial.
The crucial factor being the amount of mass in a
given volume observed, and not necessarily how it is
distributed across that volume... again, because
what matters always is "how much mass/matter is
falling towards the sum of its mass' center, or
[see above] the closer a sum of mass/energy is to
itself, the more it will be moving away from
everything else afield.

As the independent conglomerations "shrink into
themselves" the distance between them will naturally
increase ... subtly with proximity and increasing with
distance so that very distant galaxies will seem to be
speeding away from each other at nearly the speed of
light (there is no natural law against something
moving faster than the speed of light,* but "catching
sight of something moving away faster than the speed
of light" is always problematical, even if only

* Einstein's restriction comes from his assumption
that the "Fitzgerald contraction" (that all matter
contracts in the direction of its motion) was true
[as truly a whoppingly moronic explanation of why
the speed of light is constant as is "dark energy"
to explain why the universe's "apparent expansion"
is accelerating]. But having assumed that, Einstein
was left with the fact that this moronic assumption
demanded that matter could only contract "so much"
and then could not possibly contract any "mucher" (a
reflection of his state of mind, I imagine). ergo:
The "numbers" told him that at 7/8th the speed of
light a 12-inch ruler would contract to 6 inches,
and so forth, until at the speed of light his ruler
would have contracted to zero--And, as a ruler can
then contract no further, Einstein left himself no
wiggle-room to imagine any speed greater than that
of light. Neat, eh! Unfortunately for Einstein,
smart as he was, the "facts" upon which he built his
Grand Temple were rotten and, eventually, it shall
all tumble down, I'm afraid. (You will be able to
tell when this is happening by the number of rats
leaving the edifice ... and whether they will be
sauntering out, or scrambling like ... rats).

"But," you might say, a neutron star can still be seen
just as the Sun/Earth can still be seen." This is because,
just like the Earth, a neutron star has reached a point
in its collapse where its "matter" has achieved a
stable framework (exactly like the "matter" of the
earth has achieved a stable framework) and will
collapse no more: The greater speed of its collapse
(of a neutron star's collapse, versus, say, that of a
Sun-sized star, or of an earth-sized planet, for that
matter) could be observed only when its combustion
fuel ran out and it -then- collapsed into a stable
neutron star (when the Sun exhausts its fuel it will
collapse into a stable white dwarf quite gently in
comparison). While, on the other hand, a black hole
star's collapse after burning up all its fuel will be
monstrously spectacular. [Astrophysicists are not yet
sure how to describe whatever "stable" thing a black
hole star eventually collapses to, if any-thing, except
to use the quite "unreal" term of "a singularity."]

Of course, the actual distance between galaxies, as
measured by a yardstick outside the universe, will
actually be "shrinking." But, since we can only
measure such distances with our own "shrinking"
galactic yardsticks... such distances must therefore
forever appear to us to be increasing! An effect which
is clearly discernible to us as the "illusion" that
the galaxies are everywhere moving away from each
other at rates of speed "surprisingly" related to how
"distant" they are from each other.

Needless to say, any silly goose first coming upon
this peculiar motion of the galaxies away from each
other ... with a brain empty of the knowledge I have
just outlined above must inevitably conclude that THE
it were ... oh, I don't know, the result of an ancient
explosion, a really "big bang"). And so, imagine the
surprise of all such "empty brains" when astronomers
suddenly discovered (in 1997 or so) that their UNIVERSAL
(Obviously, a physical impossibility for the remnants
of an explosion.) Oh, I don't know, I suppose they
might be made loopy enough to even grow to imagine
that this inexplicable/completely unpredictable (in a
big bang universe) acceleration HAD TO BE due to some
invisible and undetectable mystical/magical kind of
"dark" energy or something. No, really, don't laugh:
Billions of dollars being dropped down this particular
black hole is more something to cry about.

But that is how man's knowledge advances across the
stumbling nature of his history... from blind guess to
blind guess, I guess.

There, now I've written it so that even a fly can
understand it. But, have I not said all this before?

And people have forgotten how to read. I know.

A kind of Dick and Jane Reader for physicists... yes.

O yeah--yeah--O yeah--yeah--O yeah. Been there.

What else can one do around goofballs?

My bones concur. As well as the last two brain cells
still alive and echoing back & forth to each other in
the otherwise Brain Cells Mausoleum of my mind.

The instant I die the universe shall be swallowed by
eternal oblivion. I should be better off worrying
about keeping a smile on until that instant, don't you
think. Well, perhaps you don't. But that's no skin off
my nose either.

For whom?

Thank me for my least effort. And then move on!
I shall be thankful for your thanks (I do not intend
to take anything with me to oblivion.)

So that, hopefully, a real teacher might catch them.
I am not a teacher but an observer. This is an
interesting planet.

Ah! You have been to:

[Only registered users see links. ]

I have news or you, my boy: It will never be compact
enough for someone or other. Otherwise they would have
surely stopped running the 100-yard dash long ago.

Those who truly wish to understand ... will.

I think my fridge disproves it already...

Now, think about why matter "coheres" and one day
you may yet come to understand that the universe is

Can't: My ancient digestive system can no longer
take corn.

Isn't that a declaration!

Another declaration? Will it never end?

Declaration or mere opinion, or both?

Incinerated: I'm already burnt up.

Don't be too sure: I seem to suffer from incurable
happiness. I think it's genetic. From my father's
side. The curious thing is that I grew up with my
mother's family, grim apes the lot of them... and here
was this jolly kid always having a grand ole time
living among them). It must have infuriated them no
end (something always rather hilarious to me).

I own several mirrors. Albeit I have them all covered
up now so that I can still live the illusion that I am
seven years old! I'll uncover one of them ... last
time I uncovered them was last time I had visitors (on
account of some time ago other visitors accused me of
being Dracula, and I had AN AWFUL time proving to
everybody that I wasn't): Monkeys, can't live with'em-

Hello: You are a hypocrite. Again you weren't reading!

NOTE that you did not say "there is no God."
Trust me: "hypocrite."

When you propose something only God can affect,
you are proposing God. USE YOUR BRAIN, sometime.

When you meditate on things God does,
how could you possibly think you are NOT
medicating [sic] on God?!?

When you use a metaphor that can only be alluding
to God, it is to God you're alluding. How much more so
when you directly allude to God's very name!

Perhaps when you learn to be honest with yourself

Hello! Kept the entire WORLD from coming to an end:
ALL religions are saving Mankind, saving the universe,
preserving existence itself... what more do you want?!

You mean this post?

You mean that non-Muslims are stubbornly refusing to
join the blood-thirsty cult? Sure. Their religion says
that people who refuse to join should be killed,
man, woman, or child. It's the Maya all over again.
Oh no, wait, the Maya only sacrificed enemy warriors:
Islam is a much more primitive sort of barbarism.

You should know: You can't even read a collection of
old jokes....

[Only registered users see links. ]

That's true. I think the President's poll numbers
might improve if he started preaching that he's a
Satan-worshipper instead...

But obviously you don't have a good tax consultant.
You must be one of "the little people."

Like: EVERY TIME. You gotta stop commenting on things
you never see/hear/read about/watch/know the least of!

Every Democrat and independent commentator I ever
saw on every news show repeats it. It's like, "You do
know that bread is made with flour, don't you" Yeah--

I have not heard "we've got ants" mentioned more!
(Green Bay armed Saddam Hussein--? Holy--!
That I didn't know...)

Are you even on planet earth? Prove it: Explain
to me what cows are.

Global justice is what justifies local injustices.
Old as time.

Then they are right to hate us. They're shit.

Elsewhere I have spoken of ducks, and of chickens,
and of ping pong playing wombats...

We do that at every level, the world is a colossal
Colosseum, ain't it.

Where do you get asymmetries from symmetries?
Are you a mathematician?

Because if something makes us feel good, it is
"obviously" good. We are bastards all, yes.

I don't know. Medicine is based on that assumption.

I thought as much, since it is a false assumption!

Okay: "Coke is better than Pepsi." There! I win.

From now on use: "**** you/Bite me/..."
They'll pay more attention to you. They might
even throw you in jail (which is like the highest
amount of attention society can pay you).

You can insert my preface (above) before everything
you write too: I even think it sounds funnier. And
I like that.

Some people just aren't equipt to discern the funny
parts. Sometimes that can be rather funny too.

The only thing I find universally distasteful any more
is cheese: I've eaten too much of it.

She is a good medium. I have already spoken to
everybody I know who's dead (brain dead).

Good luck,

S D Rodrian


On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob
<[Only registered users see links. ].uk> wrote:

As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
yourself must realize: "If Existence had to
have had "a" beginning it could not exist."

In a very real sense: There was always
"something." AND/OR what now exists is
another version/variation of Nothingness
--Something which some scientists and
theoreticians (including myself) like to swear
is the case:

SEE [Only registered users see links. ]

In fact this is what makes it possible for the
universe to continue "conserving" the energy
of which it is made from larger/slower to
smaller/faster ... for all eternity.

We do not notice this eternal conservation
of energy, of course. Except for the "force"
we call "gravity."

S D Rodrian


On Aug 5, 3:31 pm, Chris L Peterson
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Pardon me for thinking.


Horatio, believe Einstein (a very smart
fellow) when he assures you that it is
unlikely the universe began from complexity
and more likely it began BECAUSE of ONE
very simple principle... from which it
evolved to the present level of complexity.

Dear Horatio, the very essence of
analytical thinking is directly involved
with understanding "what came before"
FROM the study of "what exists now."
(Ask your local police detectives & such.)

.... Just as, hopefully, studying present
conditions will tell us what's coming next:
Which is, in sum, why the brain evolved
--aside its body maintenance duties--
in the first place: that is, to predict the
future. "If I jump in the creek the gator
will eat me!"

Even BigBangers understand that "something
can not come out of nothing" and have
thought up all sorts of sci-fy scenarios in
which, for the most part, the Big Bang erupts
(is, in fact, a puncture) from some other
dimension/universe when hanging bedsheets
(banes) "blowin' in the wind" touch the
prick point (Big Bang!) through which it all
then came to fill up our universe! Complexity
creates the universe--Einstein sez, "Nix!"

Unfortunately for them, this marvelous scenario
better than anything I could possibly come up
with (with all my wit), exemplifies the ancient
circular argument against those who claim that
God created the world: That, if God created
the world, then the business of "origins" is no
longer about the world's origin but about God's.

The Big Bangers have themselves made the Big
Bang as irrelevant as the God proponents have
made the world. Please hand out the straitjackets
so we can start arguing which God created God
and which dimension created which dimension
worlds without end. "Simplicity is the essence
of elegance."

Look. Let's be reasonable about this. And let's
try to reduce it to its simplest and most logical
(sanity): The nature of matter speaks about it
being (speaking too poetically perhaps) "a mere
swirl of energy." Everywhere we look into the
subatomic world we "see" horrific/enormous
amounts of energy "bound" in tiny swirls. And
when we look out to the greater universe we
see the unmistakable evolution of "the universe
of stars" into "tighter swirls" called "black holes."

SEE? ... One can look at "matter" as EITHER
Something OR Nothing. Nothing could be simpler:

After there are no more stars (atoms) there will
be no more us. But there will be a universe (of
black holes). In such a universe there may yet
arise intelligent life--since we do not know the
ultimate limitations of life... and it may be very
difficult for those beings, perhaps, to imagine
life (their forms of life, of course) possible in
the universe of atoms/stars which existed before
them. And they will know about our universe


They will create monstrously powerful machines
which will crash black holes (or tear them apart)
until showers of galaxies pour out. In human
lifetimes, these out-pouring galaxies will live for
billions and billions of our years. But for the black
hole physicists they will wink out perhaps after
only a flash of one of their moments.

Meanwhile, some fellow in our own universe is
reading [Only registered users see links. ] and thinking:
"How can our universe be a mere swirl of energy
"shrinking" at the speed of light?! I'd notice it!"

And then after all is said & done, perhaps only
Dr. Seuss's philosophy (from amongst all that
have peopled this noble race of ours) will have
any truth/meaning left at all. Albeit, I doubt
seriously there will be even one "black hole
physicist" named Horton among the lot of'em.

Look for beauty where it exists, Horatio. Close not
your eyes to it and but curse the blackness.

S D Rodrian


On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, [Only registered users see links. ]
(Bobby > In article <1184873139.211531.245...@d55g2000hsg.
googlegroups.comBryant) wrote:

Don't bet on it, Bobby.

Or, before you place that bet, at least consider
THE SORT of "physicists" who have made
the "claim" that there is a portion of existence
where the laws of physics (i.e. determinism)
do not apply. In essence, Quanta Theory is
statistical analysis (it is BOUND to produce
the most informed guess, but it is NEVER looking
directly and absolutely at its subject in its
totality). This explains its many (and continuing)
successes; and why it ought to have no say
--whatsoever-- in any discussion trying to settle
the question of the nature of existence in its sum
total. [You cannot have someone who is but guessing
about exactly what it is he/she is looking at being
the final arbiter of that thing's description--and no
matter how well such a guess works in the meantime.]


mccarthy@ writes:

Mr. S D Rodrian,

I have been reading scientific articles
(i.e. space.com, nature.com,
etc) and following the mainstream
thinking (BB, string theory, QM,
QP, extra dimensions, etc.) for
the last 8-10 years and not
understanding what all the fudge
factors (dark energy, dark matter,
etc.) are all about and why they
were so illogical.

With great difficulty, I managed to
wrap my head around most of it
except that in spite of all I read,
I could never ever comprehend
where a single photon emitted from
a candle gets its insane energy
and acceleration to travel that "fast"
( in all 3 dimensions ) and
always regain its speed after being
slowed down by some medium.
It never occurred to me that a
photon is created, suspended in
'place' while everything else is
collapsing (imploding) towards,
from, away or past this photon -
depending on one's reference point.

Your explanation clicked something
I can understand and comprehend
now in laymen's terms; and as you
said, it should be simple enough
for me to see everything from
hereon out on my own.

much appreciated,


Thank you for your note. I was just now
thinking about the implosion vs expansion
(Big Bang, et al) dichotomy. And contemplating
the endless number of nonsense required for
the expansion model to "work" (not to mention
all the things which actually put it into question)...
while at the same time realizing that I have yet
to find a single objection to my own implosion

I am more than willing to admit that if ever
there is ANY objection (even the slightest), my
entire theory would collapse--and I would be
more than glad to admit it: If but a paperclip
were to cast a doubt on it, that would be enough
for me. And I would let others fight it out from
here on out.

But I have not yet run across even a paperclip
objecting to it. And so I will continue to believe
that the implosion model describes the universe
--And that THAT is why everything appears to
agree with it. Reality agrees with itself.

I believe the world (of men) will slowly but
eventually come around--One can only ignore
the Sun in the sky so long.

Good luck,

S D Rodrian

mccarthy@ wrote:
To S D Rodrian:

....and I appreciate your reply.
I am sure you get enough email to
make it impossible to answer all of them.

I am not a mathematician, physicist
etc., just a plain M.Sc. from a
canadian university. I have been
trying to find some model that
would explain the world around me
for years now. Since "everybody"
was so excited and united wrt the
BBang, strings, "branes" concept,
it appeared they just "must" be correct
even though my logic couldn't
get around all the complexities and
hiccups involved in the BB model.

This may sound silly, however, since
I couldn't possibly get my head
around the BB concept with crashing
branes, multi-dimensions, etc. in
its entirety, I had started
compensating for the lack of logical
flow in the BB th. by thinking about
our universe as a computer
generated, recursive, virtual reality
simulation. The BBang being
"somebody" throwing the switch
and all the inconsistencies and
contradictions in the model being
programming mistakes. I thought of
it all as a universe within universe(s)
with time as such being
relative and irrelevant.

Right or wrong, your theory/explanation
via imploding universe using
laws of thermo-dynamics clicked with
me and the logic of universe
finally flows for me. It just makes
plain sense. The fact I can now
understand why photon behaves the
way it behaves was well worth the 5-
6 hours it took me to read your
material and absorb it. Great stuff.
You certainly gave me a lot to think
about...in a different light.

thanks again,

mccarthy@ wrote:
Hi, S D Rodrian:

can this double-slit experiment:

[Only registered users see links. ]

be explained by the imploding universe model?

How can a photon pass
through two holes at the same time?



I have sometimes thought it very well may. It might,
were the photon to not only not "move" but also not
"shrink" (however, this is self-evidently not the
case, or light could never be "aimed"). But I have
also had to admit that the double-slit experiment is
too subject to interpretation for a slick answer (it's
not just a matter of: ask a child what he/she is
seeing and of course you'll never get the QM answer
.... but that it also depends on a large number of
assumptions about the nature of the photon, et al,
going back to Thomas Young's 1803 version of the
double-slit experiment and Newton's even older
interpretations on the nature of light, all of which
have to be absolutely correct): The QM interpretation
is just that, one interpretation of the light
refraction. And none of the QM interpretations HAVE
TO BE correct: If they are ALL correct, however, then
the answer is either indeed the imploding universe
OR we are all insane. Hard to come up with a third

Take the following quote from the article as the
perfect hint of what quantum fundamentalists
(extremists) are carried away with:

"and ... nothing existing until it is observed,
these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
reality that are consistent with the experiments
and observations."

Every child understand that the answer to the ancient
question of whether a falling tree really makes a
noise if there is no one there to hear it fall is that
YES IT DOES. But QM fundamentalists have not yet
grown up even to the level of children (apparently).
That's saying a lot.

It is merely/purely/only/simply a display of the
heights of human arrogance to claim that if WE cannot
"measure" something "it cannot be measured." And yet
we have made such a claim, as you can see!

The point that "one cannot measure something so
frail/delicate without the very act of measuring it
changing its character/nature/displacement" is
absolutely reasonable. But when one jumps from such
reasonableness to the idea that "something does not
have a definite position at a definite time--and ONLY
the measurement/observation GIVES it that." Then one
are talking logical insanity. One needs a doctor, not
a science journal editor.

Dr. Heisenberg wrote, "Some physicist would prefer
to come back to the idea of an objective real
world whose smallest parts exist objectively in
the same sense as stones or trees exist
independently of whether we observe them. This
however is impossible."

Quanta theory is one of the greatest mathematical
tools ever devised to "peer" into the realms of things
which will never be observed directly. But it is
merely a form of statistical analysis. Period. The
problem is that when QM theoreticians start "looking"
into the world that can NEVER be seen, they start
"seeing" everything in their heads there. And people's
heads are teeming with squirming eecky nightmares.

"Reality is absolutely deterministic." If ever you
hear that "an experiment" has proven this wrong, you
can be just as certain that it is the experiment that
is wrong as if you had heard that the real Santa Claus
was recently interviewed by Katie Curic. And no matter
how much you trust the integrity of Katie Curic.

"There are many ways we could go now in
examining quantum results. If conscious
observation is needed for the creation of an
electron (this is one aspect of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, the most popular version of
quantum physics interpretations), then ideas
about the origin of consciousness must be
revised. If electrons in the brain create
consciousness, but electrons require
consciousness to exist, one is apparently caught
in circular reasoning at best."

The paragraph above is obviously a man struggling with
his sanity. This is not science, this is psychology.

Trust Einstein in this at least: The world is sane,
period. When the "wise-ass kids" who came up with
the "uncertainly principle" and other insanities by
taking Quanta theory to its logical extremes were
being lionized for saying things nobody even bothered
to analyze in the light of day, all Einstein could say
was that "God didn't play dice." In his quaint way,
what he was saying was that "reality is
deterministic." The alternative is "magic" (as
described in extremist QM) and "utter insanity"
(again, as described in extremist QM).

Quantum mechanics, as statistical analysis, will
always produce predictions which will bear out--It's
what statistical analysis does: wear down the numbers
to the most probable results.

NOTE, above all (or, if nothing else) this crucial

"The answer is that each individual photon must -
in order to have produced an interference pattern
-- have gone through both slits! This, the
simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has
been the basis of many of the unintuitive
interpretations of quantum physics."

And there you have one of the greatest examples of how
just one very probably wrongly-interpreted experiment
can lead an entire mob of zebu-people utterly crazy.

The answer is NOT that the universe is magical and
utterly insane. The answer is more likely that there
is a simpler (and sane) explanation, after all.

As I said above, it's very possible that what we are
seeing is the photon acting very normally in an
imploding universe, but I just don't have the time now
to diagram all the steps. If you would like to, more
power to you! It's (probably) very simple--and people
shall laugh at why people should have thought it so
difficult (as people have done since the dawn of time).

S D Rodrian

mccarthy@ wrote:
Hi, S D Rodrian:

you wrote:

Also, perhaps the experiment itself is flawed in
some way i.e. how and when the photon is created,
how it (photon) reacts with the medium through
which it travels, what forces (el.magn.) iterfere with
it when the size of the slits and the material itself
is considered, etc. Anyway, I'd hate to speculate
about something that I cant competently defend.

thanks anyway; perhaps we'll know the answer
in our lifetime...


I actually saw the experiment carried out when I was
very young. (It's actually something of a requirement.)
Einstein was familiar with it too, and I don't wonder
it might have been the reason he never came out more
forcefully against the crazier QM claims. (Apparently,
Einstein's confidence in Reality was only "relative,"
whereas my confidence in Reality is ... absolute.)

I was rather impressed by it myself. And had (have)
no explanation for it (not that I have even given it
any serious time): However, not much later I watched
a lady being sawed in half and was equally baffled.
(And much more impressed... there were screams,
and a gush of blood... and if I'd had a gun with me
I don't know whether I might not have taken a shot
at the bastard doing the sawing.)

Was it all magic? The ONLY difference between the
two "tricks" is that the magician sawing the lady in
half only claimed his "magic" was real in jest. But,
I assume, those who "perform" the double-slit
experiment actually always believe in its "magic."

Ah! Some time later some TV magician explained
how the lady was sawed in half (and was later glued
back up with no apparent ill effects to her health).
And the whole thing was, rather quite embarrassingly,
very childishly simple.

I always regretted Einstein didn't attend that lady-
sawing performance--What might his mind have made
of it!

Will the explanation for the double-slit trick (I mean
"experiment") turn out to be as childishly simple? Who
knows? (I don't.) But, this is certain:

I think I'll wait (until they perform the experiment
inside a Bose-Einstein condensate with the photon
travelling at a few inches per hour or so ... so we
can "see" it go through the two different slits at the
same time and then bounce! against itself) before I
make any real attempt to "explain" an "experiment"
which (like the sawing-the-lady-in-half experiment)
just doesn't seem to square with reality. And reality
is the thing I am more inclined to trust, frankly.

THINK: Were the answer, say, that the photon quanta
is not inviolate and two photons are produced by
the experiment, then a most marvelous violation of
the conservation-of-energy laws would occur, and
by merely forcing a single photon through infinitely
doubling double-slit experiments... we could produce
enough energy to blow up the whole universe if

PLEASE always remember: When you insist to someone
(who asks you whether a tree falling in the forest
without anybody being there to hear it fall makes a
noise) that, yes, it does and he/she then inevitably
asks you: "How do YOU know?!" Don't be shy about
pointing out that "identical conditions produce
identical results" (and that millions of trees have
fallen while people were present--and ALL of them
made a noise of falling). So there!

Similarly, when they ask you whether Schrodinger's
cat is alive or dead. You ask how long it's been in
the box. And if it's been in there a year ... that cat
is dead, baby: "You can bury the box now." And without
having to look inside, either. Some magic tricks are
just easier to figure out than others.

Please forgive me for not having given the double-slit
experiment more thought. But perhaps now you
understand why I never did.

Good luck,

S D Rodrian


"Experiments which produce verifiable results can
not be ignored, as they are the foundation and
sustenance of science. But this does not mean that
our immediate interpretations of those experiments
are and will always be the correct ones." --SDR

Finally: NOTE that the very fact that the double-slit
experiment ALWAYS produces the same results
(and does not merely have a propensity to do so)
is evidence of the deterministic nature of existence
regardless of whatever explanations we may prefer
to give for the results: "Identical conditions always
produce identical results." Period. Modern science
is based on verifiable (reproducible) results.

Everything else is lies, lies, and damned statistics.

S D Rodrian


Here is the text of the articles in question:

Quantum Astronomy: The Double Slit Experiment
By Laurance R. Doyle
SETI Institute posted: 11 November 2004

This is a series of four articles each with a separate
explanation of different quantum phenomena. Each of
the four articles is a piece of a mosaic and so every
one is needed to understand the final explanation of
the quantum astronomy experiment we propose, possibly
using the Allen Array Telescope and the narrow-band
radio-wave detectors being build by the SETI Institute
and the University of California, Berkeley.

With the success of recent movies such as "What the
&$@# Do We Know?" and the ongoing -- and continuously
surprising -- revelations of the unexpected nature of
underlying reality that have been unfolding in quantum
physics for three-quarters of a century now, it may
not be particularly surprising that the quantum nature
of the universe may actually now be making in-roads
into what has previously been considered classical
observational astronomy. Quantum physics has been
applied for decades to cosmology, and the strange
"singularity" physics of black holes. It is also
applicable to macroscopic effects such as
Einstein-Bose condensates (extremely cold
conglomerations of material that behave in
non-classical ways) as well as neutron stars and even
white dwarfs (which are kept from collapse, not by
nuclear fusion explosions but by the Pauli Exclusion
Principle - a process whereby no two elementary
particles can have the same quantum state and
therefore, in a sense, not collapse into each other).

Well, congratulations if you have gotten through the
first paragraph of this essay. I can't honestly tell
you that things will get better, but I can say that to
the intrepid reader things should get even more
interesting. The famous quantum physicist Richard
Feynmann once said essentially that anyone who thought
he understood quantum physics did not understand it
enough to understand that he did not actually
understand it! In other words, no classical
interpretation of quantum physics is the correct one.
Parallel evolving universes (one being created every
time a quantum-level choice is made),
faster-than-light interconnectedness underlying
everything, nothing existing until it is observed,
these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
reality that are consistent with the experiments and

There are many ways we could go now in examining
quantum results. If conscious observation is needed
for the creation of an electron (this is one aspect of
the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most popular
version of quantum physics interpretations), then
ideas about the origin of consciousness must be
revised. If electrons in the brain create
consciousness, but electrons require consciousness to
exist, one is apparently caught in circular reasoning
at best. But for this essay, we shall not discuss
quantum biology. Another path we might go down would
be the application of quantum physics to cosmology --
either the Inflationary origin of the universe, or the
Hawking evaporation of black holes, as examples. But
our essay is not about this vast field either. Today
we will discuss the scaling of the simple double-slit
laboratory experiment to cosmic distances, what can
truly be called, "quantum astronomy."

The laboratory double-slit experiment contains a lot
of the best aspects of the weirdness of quantum
physics. It can involve various kinds of elementary
particles, but for today's discussion we will be
talking solely about light - the particle nature of
which is called the "photon." A light shining through
a small hole or slit (like in a pinhole camera)
creates a spot of light on the screen (or film, or
detector). However, light shown through two slits that
are close together creates not two spots on the
screen, but rather a series of alternating bright and
dark lines with the brightest line in the exact middle
of this interference pattern. This shows that light is
a wave since such a pattern results from the
interference of the waves coming from slit one (which
we shall call "A") with the waves coming from slit two
(which we shall call "B"). When peaks of waves from
light source A meet peaks from light source B, they
add and the bright lines are produced. Not far to the
left and right of this brightness peak, however, peaks
from A meet troughs from B (because the crests of the
light waves are no longer aligned) and a dark line is
produced. This alternates on either side until the
visibility of the lines fades out. This pattern is
simply called an "interference pattern" and Thomas
Young used this experiment to demonstrate the wave
nature of light in the early 19th Century.

However, in the year 1900 physicist Max Planck showed
that certain other effects in physics could only be
explained by light being a particle. Many experiments
followed to also show that light was indeed also a
particle (a "photon") and Albert Einstein was awarded
the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for his work
showing that the particle nature of light could
explain the "photoelectric effect." This was an
experiment whereby low energy (red) light, when
shining onto a photoelectric material, caused the
material to emit low energy (slow moving) electrons,
while high energy (blue) light caused the same
material to emit high energy (fast moving) electrons.
However, lots of red light only ever produced more low
energy electrons, never any high-energy electrons. In
other words, the energy could not be "saved up" but
rather must be absorbed by the electrons in the
photoelectric material individually. The conclusion
was that light came in packets, little quantities, and
behaved thus as a particle as well as a wave.

So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of
unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally
weird. But the double slit experiment had another
trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or
"quantum" of energy) through a single slit at a time,
with a sufficiently long interval in between, and
eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the
one produced when a very intense (many photons) light
was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing
happened. When one sends a single photon at a time
(waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward
the screen when both slits are open, rather than two
spots eventually building up opposite the two slit
openings, what eventually builds up is the
interference pattern of alternating bright and dark
lines! Hmm... how can this be, if only one photon was
sent through the apparatus at a time?

The answer is that each individual photon must - in
order to have produced an interference pattern -- have
gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum
weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of
the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We
can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for
example, that a particle of light is not a particle
until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that
the particle of light is rather a wave before it is
measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave
sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns
out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That
is, the elementary particles making up the trees,
people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are
apparently just distributions of likelihood until they
are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much
for the Victorian view of solid matter!

The shock of matter being largely empty space may have
been extreme enough -- if an atom were the size of a
huge cathedral, then the electrons would be dust
particles floating around at all distances inside the
building, while the nucleus, or center of the atom,
would be smaller than a sugar cube. But with quantum
physics, even this tenuous result would be superseded
by the atom itself not really being anything that
exists until it is measured. One might rightly ask,
then, what does it mean to measure something? And this
brings us to the Uncertainly Principle first
discovered by Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Heisenberg wrote,
"Some physicist would prefer to come back to the idea
of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist
objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist
independently of whether we observe them. This however
is impossible."

Perhaps that is enough to think about for now. So in
the next essay we will examine, in some detail, the
uncertainty principle as it relates to what is called
"the measurement problem" in quantum physics. We shall
find that the uncertainty principle will be the key to
performing the double-slit experiment over
astronomical distances, and demonstrating that quantum
effects are not just microscopic phenomena, but can be
extended across the cosmos.


On Aug 7, 7:36 am, "andy" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Slight correction: Sweat is as a result
of the energy around us.

That is totally meaningless: You are saying:
"Look but do not think!" I hate that.

The universe as a result of an explosion
is putting the horse before the cart. If you
tell me, the universe and THEN it explodes
it might be hard to imagine how, but at least
it would not be counter-intuitive.

Ah! Yet another man who believes there has
always been death and taxes! (Me too!)

Ha! You'd be surprised at how many people are even
now in government measuring nothingness.

Then what are all those strong-muscles gentlemen
who say they're bending space really up to?


On Aug 8, 10:31 am, Rob <[Only registered users see links. ].uk> wrote:


Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:

[Only registered users see links. ]


If I chose to believe in the laws of physics... let
them take me where they're going to take me.

Every prediction I have ever drawn from the
conclusion that the universe is in implosion
has proven true, from why the speed of light should
be constant, to what really causes inertia, to the
1997 discovery that the universe is in acceleration,
and not (as a big bang universe predicts AND was
proven false) in deceleration. Further, an universe as
an implosion makes "dark energy" and "dark matter"
unnecessary. Use the model to come up with a thousand
predictions more, and then watch them all be proven
true. GO: [Only registered users see links. ]

"No matter how you slice it an apple will ALWAYS
prove to be an apple." There will be (and have already
been) countless facts which will baffle/frustrate
people who still believe the universe is the result of
a big bang (no matter how many "proofs" they "find"
to support it). And there has not been nor can there
ever be even one substantial fact ever found which
will contradict that the universe is in implosion:
This is an absolutely black/white either/or matter.

The universe is either the aftermath of a "big bang"
(which contradicts the laws of physics and countless
discoveries about how the universe works) or it is
in implosion, which instantly explains everything
about how it works & why it works that way... with
not a single contradiction.

It is the difference between what is true and what
is not true.


On Aug 5, 6:15 am, BernardZ
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Strictly speaking, it is a myth.

1 a usually traditional story of ostensibly
historical events that serves to unfold part of the
world view of a people or explain a practice, belief,
or natural phenomenon
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up
around something or someone; especially: one
embodying the ideals and institutions of a society
or segment of society *seduced by the American
myth of individualism-- Orde Coombs*
b: an unfounded or false notion

It comes from observing that the galaxies are receding
from each other as if they were the gigantic remnants
of an ancient explosion. ERGO: "Run the film
backwards" and one HAD TO eventually end up at a
"point" where the "big bang" took place. And now you
know how the Big Bang Myth came about. I kid you not.

"running the film backwards" is the experiment which
"proved" the "reality" of the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!!!


On Aug 5, 11:04 pm, "'foolsrushin.'"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

To the correct location.

Thank you,

S D Rodrian

Jim S wrote:


[Only registered users see links. ]

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Let us begin our explanation of how Newton changed our
understanding of the Universe by enumerating his Three
Laws of Motion.

Newton's First Law of Motion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends
to remain in that state of motion unless an
external force is applied to it.

This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of
inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

II. The relationship between an object's mass
m, its acceleration a, and the applied force
F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are
vectors (as indicated by their symbols being
displayed in slant bold font); in this law
the direction of the force vector is the same
as the direction of the acceleration vector.

This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws,
because it allows quantitative calculations of
dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are
applied. Notice the fundamental difference between
Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle:
according to Newton, a force causes only a change in
velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the
velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under
Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is
the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is
only a velocity if there is a force, but according to
Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains
that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an
acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As
we have noted earlier in conjunction with the
discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be
more in accord with common sense, but that is because
of a failure to appreciate the role played by
frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces
acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of
Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found
to be in accord with the observations.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

III. For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off
a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the
direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the
opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water,
if we aren't careful!).


The UNIVERSE' breeding area (the "more tenuous spot"
above) would have been perfectly surrounded by "denser
material" which would have crashed towards its center:

Note that, in response to this motion {Law 3} a
growing greater volume of that "denser area" would
have "become less dense" ... as its "material" moved
towards "the more tenuous spot," [the "area" from
which "the material" was moving would have spread
outwards BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion].

Additionally, the "thermodynamic flow" would have
crashed towards the "center" of the less dense spot.
And, necessarily, all the material flowing there from
the surrounding areas would have had only itself to
crash against (or, "to wind itself up unto itself"
might be a more appropriate way of putting it): An
effect which continues even unto this very day "there"
--or "here," since "there" is the entirety of the/our
visible universe (in other words, the universe of
"matter" which has coalesced into "us").

S D Rodrian
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2008, 02:53 PM
Autymn D. C.
Posts: n/a
Default S D Rodrian shuts down. (Re: What is Gravity?)

On Jan 23, 6:02*am, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

What's the diff? The univers must drive itself with masses, when not
charges or colors.

Neither does the gravitÚn.

This is funny--years earlier I wrote a 101-KB-long treatise called
"Refutation of Thermodynamic Laws", posted on eGroups and then someone
pickd im up on a website. One of the arguments was the creation and
inflation of matter-energy with arbitrary entropy--baruogenesis is a
fasic transition which is one of many law-violators, as it makes a
permanent heat gradiend spontaneosely, where there was none. Gravity
makes such gradiends all on its own, as long as the motes carry mass
no matter their class. Cinetic and fortial arguments abort the laws
of themodunamics. Alan Guth would back me.

No--matter exists; energy insists. Both are mutually complex or

There are no illusions, onely delusions.

Prove they're not.

Yet they work, so they're fine. Above are molecula; between are
quasiparticula. Below is nothing. If you'd like a list of all atoms
and their direct molecula, see [Only registered users see links. ].
It should strike scientists thas the neutrino is a piÚn-elŤctrÚn atom,
or molecul--but they aren't smart enouh.

If only he, and you, knew about quantal rungs. Why else did he think
they clepd hydrogen-1 as "protium" if it weren't fundamental?--at this
T and P, at least.

Time travel is as true as pendula, superconductors, and entanglement.

Fast is not a speed. However I would like to know the mean energy
scale for a dilatÚn.

absolutely relative?

Matter and energy are not levels; they are primitiva, as are the verbs
"be" and "do".

or: no; and: yes

So what--there are no laws, only wrays. Maths trump fusics: 0 = +1-1.

The guest is wrong, not the clerk!

No it doesn't. Is there a half of a person or thing? (Yes there
is.) Is there some finitude of its fitts wherefewer it bodes no
longer? (Yes there is.)

****en retard, learn Latin and HellŤnic: existentia =
a'standingoutsts. energia = workinsts.

You fail English too.


In particular fusics, conservation's laws are regularly breached--too
bad for you.

It doesn't care.

cosmic whimper

a fundamental composite particul, of course

with maths

Everything does not shrink; everything grows: [Only registered users see links. ].
And if everything shrank at nearly the same rate, even the farthest-
earliest galaxies would show a blueshift always.

outside the quotes

Then they are not at the same rate. And if the implosion is relative
to a steady scale, such a scale is artefactual.

This fits the univers-inside-a-black-hole model. But there should be
a radius of inflection, and there isn't, which is one of the two
wherefores I forsook this model. The other is my proof thas black
holes are a fantasy born out of mathematic artefacts.


This implosion is as fantastic as Earth's stack of turtles, or Atlas.

Shut the hell up: [Only registered users see links. ].

Can you even /say/ kaos?

same thing

Yeah it is.

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

[fabricatory] circular reasoning--Ockham's razor slashes your heap of

If the univers has no limit on size, neither has it a limit on
potential; there would be visibil matter at arbitrarily ever-greater
energies and speeds.

no size ratio in E = mcc

Learn how to write.


What unqueezes? If they are all finite, there are some fundamentals.
Otherwise, you write off everything as a Escher staircase.

no reason

But monotonic entropy is bunk, as a Brownian or superconductive spring
cannot wined down tom evenness with nouht. If there's a bot, there
can be a anbound, even if eyes can't see one.


Again, fast is not a speed, and the dot goes outside the quotes. The
still twin's clock runs normally; the swift twin's clock hugs its
lihthorn and thus must drift fleetly outside when lately inside.

[Only registered users see links. ]

Rot in hell, shithead.

Nothing is absolutely exact; varianse are the norm.

You said this already, shithead! You say everything about 2.5 times,
you vile, wicked, cretin! I'll gladly smash your head in with a lead
ball and napalm your whole body. Then I'll cover your a'smouldering
body with poop I find in the park or zoopark.

They do not unchange.

They are not.

trash and puke

Why would a fotÚn hav mass any more than a dollar?

Non sequitur, if a mote's weiht is tiny, its bent in gravity will also
be tiny, but a fotÚn's bent and shift varies with its energy.

It is not a particul.

It doesn't "free" anything; it sets the scale.

The fotÚn does not travel anywhere; it fares as any other wave fares,
such as in watter or loft. The material medium must already be there
to undercarry its wave, which is seldom a solitÚn so it would often be
attenuated unlike a mote with weiht.


What works for one fotÚn cannot work for a bunch of them. A shrinking
can't make the wavefronts of many fotÚns overlap and go yon.

It does not behave as a mote, ever, any more than "6" or "$6" is a


no implosion

absolute relativity

Your being is a very fine proof against God; unless God is as
retarded, demented, and deluded as you, in which case you are wriht.
Those who thank God for anything are known witles, bad, and ligesom
seeds, most likely to end up in jail, janitorial, sports, engineering,
politicking, or mental hospitals.

There are no black holes: [Only registered users see links. ].

1 != 2

blah blah blah, all still wrong

Nope, celerity [and potential] is variant over time and span.

which and what?

So these newsgroups must be full of kids.

You forgot to mention convection also flees the grasp of gravity's


What is this rubbish. In QM, the elŤctrÚn's most likely position is
at the nucleus; it already collapses with its mate mote, and its
orbitals are not hollow.

no proof, no assuranse

There must be gravitÚns as long as there are particula:
[Only registered users see links. ].

infinitum = fścum

They'v found neutrinos and axiÚns.

MOND doesn't work.

not deproved, dolt

dark matter lensing in galactic collisions

The Bernoulli effect /is/ "dark" (clear).

No it doesn't, when it is gravity.

It came from itself.

The speed of sound at heiht is slower than the speed of sound at
ground; so it would be conceptibil for a big and tall explosion to
accelerare after a critical size. The explosion blows out as much as
the loft sucks out. So it's not fusicly impossibil, but a shitheaded,
addlemouthed, mentally-ill, hupergrafic cretin lik you can't shut up,
and must dress your worthles wack-babbling with nonscientific,
repetitive namby-pamby--much lik Brad Guth, the B(r)ad one. A post or
thread is not a snowball, ****en retard.

Someone do me a favor and set the servers a'hosting alt.sci.physics on
fire. Slauhter everyone who "thinks" and jabbers lik Rodrian.

Oh, here you laid a ream of lines as your sig, irrelevant to almost
everything here... But I can say the fotÚn easily goes throuh both
slits as easily as a finger can tap two keys. It's not a bloody mote,
but a wave, so it doesn't go anywhere.

Yet you are most reality-challengede, dolt. You cannot /see/ the
fotÚn lest you wreck its involvement with the two slits. Now the
fotÚn go in your eye, and not in the slits at all.

Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einstein's accelerating rocket and its gravity equivalence withoutthe curve mitchgrav@hotmail.com Physics Forum 4 04-01-2008 04:40 AM
Gravity - Ideas James Allen Bressem Physics Forum 0 01-27-2007 05:30 AM
The mystery of gravity Henry Haapalainen Physics Forum 0 09-20-2006 09:11 PM
The Achilles Heel of String Theory. S D Rodrian Physics Forum 7 07-08-2006 02:40 PM
Question about gravity Greg Merideth Physics Forum 11 01-18-2005 09:15 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.79963 seconds with 16 queries