ive recently become a fan of this guy...
http://physics.sdrodrian.com/
http://ar.sdrodrian.com/
Gravity As Thermodynamics:
The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian
The IMPLODING universe !
http://physics.sdrodrian.com/what_is_gravity.html
http://ar.sdrodrian.com/ar-10.htm
Gyudon Z either lives in Japan or he just couldn't sleep at all
last night (damn, he posts at nearly 3 AM), so he walked around
and, finally, apparently made it to my front door... where he knocked
(very slowly, like sleepwalkers & other insomniacs are wont to do)...
And then he stood there staring past me with huge, blood-shot eyes
mumbling something (while I was trying to remember where the Hell
I last saw my baseball bat)... so I but think this is what he said:
>>The ONE thing you have to realize
>>is that the modern cosmological constant
>>does NOT come from the discovery of its source:
>>
>>Scientists did not discover the "crazy matter"
>>that produces anti-gravity. The recent discovery
>>that the Big Bang theories are physically impossible
>>(prohibited by the laws of physics)
>
> One would think the Big Bang theory would be less popular
> if it was impossible.
Are you familiar with any form of religion?
> The Clue Meter is reading zero.
You probably need to go to bed now (I wouldn't
necessarily drink more coffee, if I were you).
>>have sent those
>>theoreticians (who still refuse to accept the fact
>>that the ONLY force at work in the universe is GRAVITY)
>
> How is the interaction between charged particles
> the force of gravity?
It is not--Unless you're asking what gravity is: A
force, and I can only describe a force in Newtonian terms
(except to categorically state it is the purest form
of energy we can think of)... know energy is not material
at the level of charged particles of any kind: There is
a potential of energy in charged particles just as there
is a potential of energy in a coiled spring and they can
both be released, but it's useless to speak of either
form of energy as material themselves (this is why it is
possible to speak of gravity/energy/force as truly something
fundamental... because it cannot be further "simplified"):
In the same manner... gravity IS energy AND it is constantly
"at work" (which requires us to believe that gravity "uses
up" energy, or itself--Where then does gravity get its energy
if not from E=MC2?). And if gravity holds the universe together
(the strong force, et al is/are just very localized forms
of gravity)... gravity is siphoning energy/mass from "matter"
... what then must we assume is happening to that matter which
is constantly being shrunk by the subtraction of its mass?
> Or the
> nuclear forces?
All nuclear reactions are the result of the universe's
children (the youngest particles) playing in the yard.
>>scurrying to rationalize a view of the universe
>>which goes against the laws of physics (e.g. how can
>>in an universe in the grips of the force of gravity
>>galaxies be flying away from each other?).
>
> You sound like Ed Conrad again.
I gotta hear this Ed talking! He must be
the owner of a quite mellifluous voice!
> The universe is expanding using momentum alone.
Ah! It was pushed by the Big Bang explosion!
Unfortunately for your notion... the expansion of
the universe is accelerating. And ONLY a continuously
applied force causes acceleration (momentum going
against a force causes anti-acceleration... and
the last time I checked, the universe was in the grips
of the force of gravity). Think! You're talking
physical impossibility here: The notion that the
universe is expanding goes against the laws of physics.
> You remember momentum from physics class, don't you?
Boy do I remember her! Every guy in our class had to
go out with her at least once!
> You did take it, I trust.
I stole it, but it's practically the same deal.
>>Because
>>they do not know (or cannot accept) that all the forms
>>of matter are just that--forms--and believe there ARE
>>fundamental forms of matter... it is hard for them to
>>understand how an imploding universe could escape
>>turning into a great big black hole filled with
>>galaxies flying towards each other.
>
> You have not proven to anyone's satisfaction except yours
> that the universe is
> contracting.
Actually I'm just mentioning that I've discovered
the universe is imploding. Is it a worthwhile mention?
It's a bother, really--What practical benefits can such
a discovery bring for the discoverer? Does such a discovery
validate my own personal existence? Could I really dare
to believe that... had I not lived, humanity would never
have discovered the universe is imploding? Hardly: The
hints are far too obvious! It is true that for thousands
of years people thought the universe orbited the earth
but we finally discovered the truth... and we would have
discovered the truth even if we'd had to wait thousands
of years more. Humanity can wait. Individuals can not:
And so I mention that the universe is imploding, in passing;
and then I will try to get back to my music and my other
sundry hobbies. What I have done is the equivalent of
mentioning the rain falls from the clouds in the sky:
It's totally unimportant to most human beings. But you
are a new-born child, as it were... you've never before
heard that the rain falls from the clouds. You exclaim:
"Ah-uh! No it doesn't!" And so I take you outdoors on a
rainy day and show you it's all true. [All my proofs are
explained with all the simplicity one uses with children.]
Once you see the thing for yourself you will marvel at
the wonders of the universe. And then you will go to other
things... skipping rope, perhaps. And I will remain as if
standing there, in the end, having accomplished not much
in this word by having pointed out to you the obvious:
Do you remember who it was first told you the rain falls
from the clouds in the sky? No you do not (although somebody
did just that). And when everybody knows the universe is
imploding... I'll be left as if standing there too, while
people who recognize me whisper: "Look, that's the guy
discovered the rain falls from the clouds in the sky!"
And the echo that will reply to that will be: "Yeah! So?"
>>Sorry, my man: Einstein knew what he was talking about
>>when he called it his greatest blunder BECAUSE he knew
>>that (like the modern theoreticians who are now grasping
>>at straws by reviving it), he knew that IT SATISFIED NO
>>REAL PROBLEM... Einstein's Cosmological Constant is not
>>a scientific development but comes only from Einstein
>>having thrown his heads in the air and said, "Well, if
>>the universe is static there must be something neither I
>>nor anybody else knows about which must be forcing it to
>>remain static... and let's call that whatever-it-is The
>>Cosmological Constant!"
>
> The universe is not static.
Well, you're too late if you're thinking of emailing
Einstein: Hubble beat you to it.
>> That IS your cosmological constant:
>>"Some'n out there." (Although I have no doubt that the
>>same math guys who brought us the 67 dimensions will soon
>>get to work on 67 reasons behind the Cosmological Constant:
>>It's the Eternal Constant of Human Nature.) BUT:
>>
>>Once you understand what really IS causing the acceleration
>>of the Hubble Constant, you won't need to resort to any such
>>moronic rationalizations as "inflation theory" and the CC.
>
> You haven't really explained the "acceleration"
> of the Hubble constant. Is it
> really changing by units of m/s^2? Because that's
> not just a number shift; it's
> a unit shift.
Try to understand it this way: The universe is NOT
really expanding (I prefer the term exploding), it
is imploding. The Hubble Constant refers specifically
to the recession of the galaxies from each other (which
IS occurring): Therefore to say the expansion of the universe
is accelerating... is misleading and confusing. It is
closer to the truth that the Hubble Constant is what
is, properly, what is increasing. Sorry if I misled you.
>>Sorry, pumpkin, but... apples & oranges: The "apparent"
>>older galaxies (older then the universe) stem from
>>your not having taken into consideration distances/time:
>
> You sound like a creationist in reverse.
Is this the one that cries out: "Satan is King!" Or
the one says, "Elvis is King!" (I haven't scratched out
the record myself.)
>>I am convinced that the universe is vastly older than
>>conventionally thought, but you still have to take into
>>consideration that the "given" age of the universe stems
>>from observations
>
> And what empirical evidence other than empirical
> observations can you bring to
> bear against them?
Let's leave it at the level of a condemnation:
The age (and thereby the size) of the universe
is a factor from a number of assumptions, not least
of which is the running backwards of the cosmic film
all the way to the Big Bang: And if there was never
any Big Bang, all assumptions from it are incorrect.
The same can also be said of calculations made from
naked (albeit informed) guesses about the nature of
distant galaxies/quasars used to gauge/guess distances:
If the assumptions are correct, the results are too.
But we mustn't forget they are, at the bottom of it,
assumptions... however well informed.
>>(and things we have not yet seen, but
>>which may prove the universe much older, do not come
>>into it).
>
> Argument based on something that does not exist
> (as far as we know) is
> logically fallacious.
The distinction between a guess based on circumstantial
evidence, and a guess based upon evidence which cannot
be absolutely and unanimously agreed to be beyond doubt
is... minimal: We all base our reasoning upon every
sort of weird superstition and prejudice to some extent
(which is why I have striven to categorically state
the observations upon which I base my conclusions; and
those notions for which I cannot personally find indisputably
valid evidence--which satisfies me, at least--I have but
mentioned as speculation on my part: you can read, I assume,
read in my quoted statements when I am saying I know
something to be the case, and when I just have an opinion
it may be the case?
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
No comments:
Post a Comment