Gravity As Thermodynamics:

 The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian

           To understand how the universe works is
           to understand how it came into existence.
           Just as to understand how the universe
           came into existence is to understand how
           it works: The two are the same thing.

          This is the one true equation that describes
          everything (the so-called unified field theory)
           One Single Principle governs the universe,
           gave rise to it, and evolved everything in it
           (just as one single evolutionary principle
           gave rise to every species on earth whether
           still living or extinct). And the solution is this:

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.

    Science is the process of the human mind
     --Its effort to find and confirm the truth.
    [And the truth is the truth--no matter WHO
     brings it to us.]

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 I 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

                  What is Time?

  Motion. The question that answers the question
  is: How fast does time take place? The answer
  to which is: NOT the same for everyone--To an
  earthling walking a mile takes "a certain amount
  of time" (because his clock measures it by the
  24 equal sections into which he divides the
  rotation of the earth). However, the 24-hour
  watch of a Martian walking the same-length
  mile at the same speed as the earthling, would
  record that it took him slightly less time (by
  his Martian watch) because his clock measures
  his "24 hours" by the rotation of Mars (a planet
  which rotates once every 24.62 earth hours).
  Thereby, if it takes the earthling one hour (by
  his "earth watch") to walk the mile, it would
  only take the Martian slightly less than "an
  hour" (by his "Martian watch") even though
  they would have both walked the same-sized
  mile in exactly the same "amount of time"
  (as measured by yet another clock not tied to
  those of earth or Mars). But you can see by
  the need to use THREE independent clocks
  (above) that "time" has no "universal" meaning
  (value) and ONLY has meaning/value/relevance
  in the "minds" of the three clock-makers above.
  So it goes across the entire plane of existence:

  Let's simplify it: Ask a physicist what "time" is
  in a reality (a universe, if you will) in which
  there is no matter (or subparticles of any kind;
  in other words: no motions). And don't let him
  bamboozle you with any gobbledygook [the
  "arrow of time" entropy notion breaks down
  the minute you fill your ice-cube tray and stick
  it back in the freezer].

  That's right: Any and all notions of "time"
  cease to exist where there are no motions.
  Therefore, if "time" does not "exist" where
  there are no motions, why should it even
  be considered to "exist" as a quality of
  motion at all? Who is it that dares to paint
  "time" upon a mere "chaos of motions" in
  the universe in which they tangle & untangle?

  Motions come into existence (in fact, motions
  ARE existence: all that "exists" and nothing
  else "exists" outside/except the motions of
  "matter"), and we humans like to "time" one
  motion against the other, arbitrarily, according
  to our own logic... but always ONLY inside
  our heads. In other words, "time" is merely a
  human idea which only has "existence" in the
  human brain: There is no such "thing" as "the
  past" and there is no such "thing" as "the future"
  (except as humans like to "think them up").

  The universe, outside us (human beings), has
  no connection with "time" whatsoever. The
  universe is composed of a number of motions,
  some faster, some slower, some in one
  "direction," some in another "direction," some
  augmenting each other up, some slowing each
  other down... and our brains evolved to "pick
  up" a given sweep of them we might take
  advantage of and survive. [All our avenues
  to the future are inescapably deterministic.]

  Each of the universe's "motions" can be technically
  considered as independent from all other motions
  in the universe (until & unless any of them comes
  into contact with it): Each "motion" is going from
  "here" to "there" [so its "here" is its "past" while
  its "there" is its "future"]. It's as simple as that
  ... One can not "make up" a "dimension of reality"
  from a mere number of bodies moving independently
  from each other; one may only glance at "a sum of
  them" and (for whatever reason one's own) come to
  believe one "sees" some "recognizable" shape or form
  in them... at any given moment. [That tells you why
  "the Past" and "the future" exist ONLY in the human
  mind. And nowhere else in the universe.]

    Was your dead mother on this earth in the
    past or the present? Yes, we can go look
    at her bones ... and is that in any way
    different than going to look at dinosaur

    The "past," the "present," and the "future"
    have no existence outside the human mind:
    Say you were a child in the past--but YOU
    have just defined the past. Was yesterday
    "the past" or "the present?" (You have
    just defined "the past" again.) How about
    a few minutes ago? If a few minutes ago
    is "the present" for you, then YOU (and YOU
    alone) have just defined "the present"
    (because anybody else could very well
    say that "a few minutes ago" is in "the
    past"). How about a millisecond ago
    --Was that "the past" or "the present?"
    Is NOW "the past" or "the present?" If
    YOU say it is "the present," then a lot
    of people may still disagree with you,
    since the "now" you're talking about NOW
    was clearly definitely a while ago now...

    The past, the future, and the present are
    NOT like three rooms in a row... where you
    can unequivocally "be" in one of them
    (and even move from one to the next &
    back): Those three rooms actually exist
    outside the human mind--and this is NOT
    the case with the mere human notion of

    But, are not hydrogen atoms (say) "keeping
    the same time" across the universe? No they
    are not, because they are moving at different
    velocities relative to one another [and as you
    must know by now: the twin moving faster
    "ages" more slowly]. And if every motion in the
    universe keeps its own "time" [independent of
    the "time" being kept by every other motion in
    the universe] then any notion of there being
    a general concept of "time" itself obviously
    loses all meaning (general applicability). And so
    Time did not "begin" when the universe began
    (because the universe never had a beginning).
    Time began when Man first invented the clock.

  A confluence of coincidences is not something on
  which to base a fundamental principle of science.

               What is the speed of time?

Certainly, the implosion of the universe, as seen from
outside it, must be thought of as something quite
comparable to the flash of any explosion or implosion
in our common experience--that is, something quite
instantaneous. In other words, in its own terms, the
implosion of the universe IS "happening" unimaginably
fast. What then of us, here inside it, experiencing
"time" in human terms? Well, lucky for us (as "time"
does not really "exist")... "time" is only a human
experience. Therefore, for us, here, walking to the
store & back, playing with the dog in the park,
watching a movie, or sitting through a 16-inning ball
game, watching the night sky filled with billions of
"frozen" pops! we call "stars," contemplating the age
of our galaxy, of our universe, or of quarks & hydrogen
atoms--in the human experience, time is "taking place'
at an unimaginably leisurely rate ... and so we humans
& all we experience have existed for countless human
years, and will of course exist for countless human
years to come (in spite of the fact that all of that
existence is contained in but a fraction of a fraction
of a fraction (fractions almost without end) of the
universe's momentary flash! [We only experience the
passing of time in human terms, and in no other terms
except we do so theoretically... as we might imagine it.]

Remember, "Time has nothing to do with the world
& everything to do with your mind: When your mind
is racing Time moves very slowly & when your mind
is moving very slowly Time races by you." This is not
only true for the human mind but also for all physical
processes (such as nuclear motions). Therefore, as the
speed of anything increases (relative to some other thing)
that additional speed puts additional stresses on the faster
moving object than a relatively slower-moving object
experiences. And, because not only does [relatively] the
brain of the faster-moving twin slow down but every
physical process about/around him also slows down: the
faster-moving twin does not notice his own "slowing-
down" (in his experience, for him "time" always continues
at its regular "speed"). It is only when he "looks" at the
slower-moving twin that he "sees" him "moving faster
in time." Just as his slower-moving twin "sees" him
"moving more slowly in time." Real effects, but nothing
whatever to do with "time" & everything with relative

                   What is Space?

  Have 3 Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?

  Space is the absence of matter. *3 Let's simplify
  this too: Ask a physicist to tell you the exact
  mechanism by which "space-time" forces the
  earth and the moon to engage in their orbital
  dance and he will talk to you about a trampoline
  tarp in which the heavier earth creates a
  (downward) "warp" in which the lighter/smaller
  moon rolls because it cannot roll up out of the
  earth's warp, and doesn't crash down to the earth
  because it has too much "spin" (momentum).

  Nice. However none of that tells you one thing
  about what the mechanism is that space-time is
  using to bind the earth and moon together so
  they do not go out searching for other partners
  to "dance" with: Not one thing: If "space" is
  indeed being "bent," then you are going to have
  to go down to the quantum level and describe
  the "gravitons" mediating this dance (quantum
  inch by quantum inch of this "space"), and how
  they are doing it, and why they even exist.

  Otherwise, the description breaks down, and
  you are left with the very disturbing impression
  that when a physicist tells you that space-time
  is the reason why the moon orbits the earth
  he is merely saying that it's "because" (just

  This is like asking for a description of the
  mechanism that is keeping the mime trapped
  inside his invisible box: As there is no such
  mechanism, the only possible answer is
  "because" (just "because") ...

  In both cases, the logical conclusion is
  inevitable: There is no mechanism there
  to describe.

  Space is not being bent anymore than the
  invisible walls of the mime's box are keeping
  him trapped inside: The mechanism is
  something other than the given nonsensical

  ... BUT, isn't the "frame-dragging" effect real,
  and proven? The effect is real, the explanation
  is what is nonsense. For, in a universe that is
  undergoing implosion (like ours), every bit
  of matter behaves as if it were fighting every
  other bit of matter in it to be the first to go
  "down the drain" which describes the universe's

    It is not that space is being bent by its
    proximity to matter but that every last bit
    of matter in the universe is surging towards
    every other bit of matter in it, thereby
    intensifying the effect (of this surging
    towards each other) with proximity.

  Just as Galileo described it perfectly: the
  moon is "eternally" falling towards the earth,
  but at the last minute, the earth moves out
  of the way... on its own way to try to fall
  towards the moon. And this is true for the
  solar system, for the galaxy, for the total
  sum of the universe itself, as well as for
  every last bit of quantum fluff in it. And
  all of it, mediated, not by gravitons, but
  by mere proximity:

  Every "gravitational system" is, in effect,
  describing that bit of the universe "going
  down the drain" [imploding]. And the strengths
  and the weaknesses of "gravitational fields"
  are merely describing the proximities of
  the sums of their masses: Given identical
  "proximities," a cupful will create but a
  cupfull's worth of vortex (whirlpool) as it
  "drains out towards the center," while an
  ocean's worth trying to "drain out towards
  the center" will obviously create one quite
  monstrously powerful "gravitational vortex"
  [most especially of all: the closer all that
  mass is "packed"]. Moreover... given
  increased proximity, the power of the
  vortex will increase proportionally (which
  makes even the smallest "black hole"
  theoretically quite possible.)


  It's almost beneath my dignity to speak of
  so-called "dimensions." The world is not
  3-dimensional (such a thing is a physical
  impossibility: In a 3-dimensional reality
  one dimension could never "connect" with
  another). The notion of describing our
  reality as "three-dimensional" comes from
  a purely mental mathematical short-hand
  (reducing all motion to a simplistic "right/left,
  backwards-forwards, and up-down"). The
  fact is that in reality there is NO constraint
  to the "dimensions" possible in our reality
  (they are of an infinite number); therefore,
  any "number" imagined in the human mind
  for them is a number which strictly only
  "exists" in the human mind and nowhere
  else outside it: And, if there are no "3"
  dimensions then there are no 5 dimensions,
  11, 60k, a zillion, or more--nor fewer:
  any 2-dimensional "reality" is a strictly
  visual mirage, and the idea of a so-called
  "singularity" is utter nonsense... the sick
  delusion of an enfeebled thinker. [A
  Mobius strip is just a twisted strip of
  paper.] By these means can anyone be
  certain that all string theory is humbug
  --as is anything that includes so-called
  mathematical dimensions in it. Call it
  "the Santa Clause" ["If your math makes
  Santa Claus possible, then there is no
  connection between reality and your
  math"]: if your math makes dimensions
  possible or, worse still, relies on the
  reality of dimensions then there is no
  connection between reality & your math.

            Parallel Universes

The notion that somehow there exists a universe
where there is a "you" with the singular difference
that whereas "he" combs his hair one way there you
comb yours the other way here... is inherently a
monstrous violation of any intelligence whatsoever:

Any idea that two universes would produce identical
results except for one sudden tiny insignificant
entirely original innovation after 14 billion years of
existence flies in the face of both the "butterfly
effect" and the inviolable laws of determinism:

Imagine two "parallel universes" identical (from
beginning to now--as they would need to be just in
order to produce two versions of "you"). And then
try to imagine what miracle "you" must be in at least
one of those universes for "you" to suddenly develop
an innovation which is inevitable in one universe but
not so in the other (identical) universe! [If such "a
unique innovation" occurs but once in either universe
even just 1 billion years before "now" the "butterfly
effect" would render the rest of its evolution so
unimaginably different from its [up to then]
"identical twin" that there is virtually no chance
whatsoever two version of "you" could ever be
produced in them a billion years later, obviously.]

No. If there is another, our "parallel universe" if
you will, which is not up to "now" identical in every
way... then even the notion of thinking/talking
creatures as they exist in this our universe might
be called into question. And even if there were such
creatures there then they're just as likely to
communicate by winks & farts! [Were one such
creature to "fall" into our universe I'm sure all he'd
be able to do here is raise a big stink & get himself
shot--which, as you know, is the way we thinking
creatures of our universe communicate: by talk'n &

A deterministic reality does not admit any exception.

And if, in your brainless mind, your reality is NOT
deterministic, then please STOP making assertions
& expressing opinions out of such an insane reality!

Only a deterministic reality can produce logic,
reason, sanity--because of their inevitability.
A reality which is not deterministic [in which you
enter a room and find yourself a dog on a flea,
or whatever] is by definition impossibly insane
or insanely impossible (both are equivalent).

    The Standard Model of Particle Physics.

  In a Big Bang universe the Standard Model
  is filled with seemingly unanswerable holes:
  What causes inertia? How do we square
  gravity with the Standard Model? If we try
  to fit the graviton into the Standard Model
  the results are utter nonsense and always
  make the universe blow up--If we try to
  understand inertia in terms of particle
  physics the resulting elusive/mythical/strictly
  mathematical Higgs boson becomes so
  difficult to actually prove experimentally
  that even if we ever do find a candidate
  for it we will never know with absolute
  certainly whether we might not have found
  something entirely different.

  But now put the Standard Model into the
  Imploding Universe Model, and suddenly
  all the "holes" in the Standard Model aren't
  there any more: Inertia is an inevitable
  result of the laws of motion. (Newton's
  First Law: "Every object in a state of
  uniform motion tends to remain in that
  state of motion unless an external force
  is applied to it.") Well, since everything
  in the imploding universe is already in
  motion (towards implosion), and has
  always been so, it always takes "a"
  force to "move it." [The amount of the
  force needed to move said object being
  proportional to its mass, of course--Or,
  Newton's Third Law: "For every action
  there is an equal and opposite reaction."]

  And same thing with gravity: All the
  effects that we ascribe to "particle" gravity
  are the inescapable result of a universe
  that is undergoing implosion and none of
  it has anything to do with gravitons or
  with "strings" masquerading as gravitons.
  The Standard Model of Particle Physics
  becomes an almost solid orb of perfection
  without any more "holes" in it.

      The so-called "Higgs field" is not
      much more than the latest attempt
      to revive the old ether theory. And
      like the ether theory, it will probably
      live a while (and perhaps for quite a
      while, just like the ether theory). But
      eventually the complicated rationales
      which originally gave it birth will
      themselves make it apparent that the
      more elegant, simplest explanation is
      the correct one... namely, that we live
      in a universe undergoing implosion
      and that this explains away pretty
      much all the mysteries that mystify
      the always mystified.

    It is likely that wherever they look *4
    they will find "a" particle because
    there are no fundamental particles:
    We exist in a reality where ALL so-
    called particles are made up of sub-
    particles (which are themselves made
    up of sub-sub-particles ad infinitum).
    But, whatever particle they do find, it
    will not answer the matter of inertia
    (what gives mass to particles) which
    the imploding universe model answers
    much more simply/directly & perfectly.

    The problem which begs for "the Higgs
    boson solution" is NOT a question that
    Nature asks. Rather, it is a question
    which "may" answer math problems that
    man has thrown up for himself. As such,
    it does not answer "the little matter of
    everything" but only a subset of a subset
    of a subset of the questions Man [not
    Nature] has asked. Only the implosion
    model answers everything Nature asks
    elegantly and with near-perfect finality.

    Which SEE:

         The Double Twins Exegesis

  Let's perform a mind experiment with two
  sets of long-living twins; each set born at
  the same instant in time in their two very
  different universes:

  The first set of twins is born at the instant
  of the Big Bang explosion (it is the Big
  Bang universe, of course), and, of course,
  they have been moving apart ever since.

  (For simplicity's sake let's say that the
  observer twin catches sight of the observed
  twin exactly one billion light years away):
  Now, what exactly does he see? Certainly
  the observing twin himself will be at least
  one billion years old. [And, to make this
  even simpler still, let's say that their Big
  Bang universe has always been "inflating"
  at the speed of light.]

  In this case, since the image of the distant
  observed twin requires one billion years
  to travel back to the observing twin, the
  observed twin must appear to be a new-
  born baby. And this will forever hold true
  no matter how far apart the twins grow
  (how old their Big Bang universe may be).
  Therefore, even in a 14 billion years old
  universe, one twin will "always" be able
  to look across to the other end of the
  universe and see the universe as it was
  "just moments after the Big Bang," no?
  [This is certainly the Big Bang explanation
  for why the farther away one looks in the
  cosmos the younger the universe appears.]

  However, this also happens to be incredibly
  sloppy thinking (and even worse science
  still)... as the above ONLY holds true
  provided that the universe is and always
  has been expanding at the speed of light.
  [Did you miss this? Then you too are an
  incredibly sloppy thinker.]

  If that premise isn't true (and it really
  doesn't matter whether the universe's
  expansion is forever slowing down or
  speeding up, because what matters is
  the TIME it takes the twins to grow apart
  --and whether or not the universe's
  expansion is happening, all speeds added
  up, at least at the speed of light): If that
  premise isn't true, and the universe's
  expansion is NOT at least at the speed
  of light, this is what happens:

    Even if the rate of expansion were
    uniformly to be as fast as, say, one
    quarter the speed of light... you can
    see that it would not have taken the
    observed twin one billion years to
    have reached his position one billion
    "light years" from the observing twin
    but considerably more than this. And,
    in fact, a monstrously huge amount
    more: Our observer twin could not
    possibly be a mere/absolute one billion
    years of age, either--he's necessarily
    billions of years older (if he has to
    wait for his twin to travel one billion
    light years' distance). And, likewise,
    the image he captures of the observed
    twin at one billion light years' distance
    could NEVER be the picture of a
    newborn. At 14 billion light years'
    distance the disparity between that
    amount of time passing and the twins' age
    would necessarily be that much greater.

  And, by the way, if we but just casually
  look at the actual rate that our universe
  is expanding (say, by measuring how
  fast our immediate neighborhood of the
  universe is "expanding") we get rates
  that are so "slow" that they could
  almost qualify as walking speeds! And
  we can hardly assume that the universe
  is expanding horrifically slowly in our
  bit of it and horrifically fast elsewhere
  (just to compensate for our lack of wits).

  But one thing is certain: No matter how
  far away into the distance the observer
  twin looked, he could NEVER spot his
  twin as a baby, because we would always
  have to add to the amount of time it takes
  the observed twin to get "that far" from
  his observing twin the extra amount of
  time his slower-than-the-speed-of-light
  speed added to his journey.

    Thus it is impossible for an observer in
    the Big Bang universe to look far enough
    away (by looking out into astronomical
    distance, or "back in time") to see the
    universe as it appeared immediately after
    the mythical Big Bang. [And since the
    so-called expansion of the universe (the
    Hubble Constant) is "apparently"
    happening not at a quarter the speed
    of light but many & many orders of
    magnitude much more slowly than even
    that... we can be certain that even the
    farthest object we could ever possibly
    see in a Big Bang universe will be
    HORRIFICALLY ancient & haggard
    --and certainly NEVER "very close
    to the moment of the Big Bang."]

    Yet, this is not the case in this our real
    universe, where in fact the farther away
    we look (therefore the further back in
    time) the younger the universe appears!
    And astronomers are now catching sight
    of "extremely distant" regions of our
    universe with "the very first" galaxies
    (made up almost entirely of gigantic
    blue stars which having lived brief
    explosive lives subsequently produced
    all the heavier elements that fill up the
    universe at the present time). This is
    a contradiction which, assuming a Big
    Bang universe, can never be resolved.

    [The point being that in a true Big Bang
    universe, where everything is born at once
    in the same place, there is no way you can
    look at something which is NOW 14 billion
    light years away from you and say that it
    looks 14 billion years younger than you.]

      But now assume a "collapsing" (or
      imploding universe model).

  In "the eternal continuum of eternally
  relativistic densities" there suddenly
  develops (as a result of the thermodynamic
  state of flux its very immensity forces it
  into)... a hollow of lesser density into
  which the surrounding greater density
  is therefore forced to "collapse." (In an
  imploding universe our twins never
  have to "take the time" to travel away
  from each other since they are born
  already the farthest they will EVER be
  from each other.)

  Let's say that theirs is a 14 billion light
  years sized universe. At this moment if one
  twin could see the other: the observed twin
  WOULD look like a newborn to the observer
  twin (and, yes, it would take 14 billion
  years for the image of the observed twin
  to travel across their entire universe--so
  the observer twin would be 14 billion
  years old when the image of his twin as
  a baby got to him.

  Now draw a circle inside the one which
  describes the outermost (earliest) instant
  of our 14 billion years old universe's
  birth, and you are describing not only
  our twins closer to each other, but also
  their having grown older. And this law
  continues for circle after circle within
  circle you care to draw down [and it
  doesn't really matter how "old" the
  universe is--or how many circles you
  draw)... until one reaches the point when
  the observer twin looks out into the
  cosmos upon the moon and Sun of our
  present moment in time... to shake
  hands with his twin (both of them 14
  billion years old... if their universe is
  imploding at the speed of light). Which
  describes perfectly what we observe
  when we look out into the time machine
  that is created by looking out into the
  distances of outer space in our universe.

      In a Big Bang universe, where the
      farther away the observed twin is
      from the observer twin the older
      they will both be... it is a manifest
      physical impossibility for the
      observed twin to appear a newborn
      (or, if fact, anywhere near anything
      smacking of youth) because the
      expansion of the universe NEVER
      approaches the speed of light:

      It is only in an imploding universe
      [model] that the observing twin can
      look out far away into the cosmos
      and see his twin as a baby (regardless
      of their own age). And this is precisely
      what we see in our own universe when,
      looking out into the vast astronomical
      distances of the cosmos we are yet
      able to see our universe swaddled in its
      earliest moments.

   This effectively deflates (gives the lie to) any
   and all inflationary theories [or, nonsense].
   Not to mention that the so-called "expansion"
   of the universe has now been found to be
   accelerating--which means that if one "rolls
   the film backwards" [and monkey physicists
   & astronomers have always accepted "rolling
   the film backwards" to be irrefutable "proof
   positive"-!-]... the universe will then always
   be found to have been "expanding" slower
   and slower the farther back in time we go
   --until it actually comes to a complete stop!
   [This is why "dark energy" was INVENTED
   in the first place, of course... in a desperate
   & most pathetic attempt to avoid having to
   finally acknowledge that any/all inflationary
   theories about this universe are and always
   will be made null & void by every fact that
   reality gives us the time/brains to examine.]

    ... This is also true of why the universe's
    background radiation displays an uniform
    "temperature" throughout: The Big Bang
    proponents give you a twisted reasoning
    about how the universe must have "set"
    this uniform temperature in the first instants
    of the Big Bang (when all the material of
    the universe was theoretically packed close
    enough for this to be feasible). But this
    is just more muleheaded twisting of the
    observations to fit their BB theory--as
    anyone who has observed even the smallest
    explosion understands (from the different
    observed colors exhibited within said
    explosions--depicting the almost instantly-
    arising different "temperatures" across
    them). While the more likely cause of this
    uniformity is that we are looking at a body
    (mass) of material which, falling inwards
    from all points of "the everywhere identical
    pre-universe condition" surrounding us...
    shares -of necessity- the same quite, quite
    unimaginably low [lack-of] "temperature."
    A "temperature" which would then "arise"
    uniformly all around us as a direct result
    of an everywhere identical acceleration
    towards the circuit of our universe (and
    accompanying increasing density): the
    only area with a "different temperature"
    really being here. Or, the very cause of
    our universe's origin "here" to begin with.

     And if this doesn't convince you which
     of these two points of view perfectly
     describes the reality of this our universe,
     frankly I doubt anything else will.

   The Two-Fingered Salute to Dark Energy.

How do we know that "dark energy" is NOT
driving the "acceleration" of the universe? But
perform the following mind experiment:

Imagine that the Big Bang model is the true one.
Then place your two index fingers together and
accelerate one away from the other as if it were
being accelerated by a rocket engine:

If your moving finger's rocket engine fires only for
a second: acceleration stops at that point and there
will only be drifting of one finger away from the
other one from that moment on. This holds true no
matter how far from each other the fingers get: In
order for the acceleration to continue, the rocket
engine must continue to fire. For there to be an
eternal acceleration (as in the acceleration of the
universe's "expansion") there has to be an eternal
rocket firing forever--the instant the rocket engine
shuts down the acceleration will also come to a
sudden & complete stop, and from that moment on
there can only be a drifting apart of your fingers.

Now, consider that your two fingers are moving away
from each other, and that the acceleration is not
being driven by a rocket but by "an invisible amount
of energy" filling out the distance between them
--It shouldn't take much for you to realize that for
that 'amount of energy" to continue to apply the same
force (push) to your fingers it cannot thin out across
that ever increasing space but must continue to fill
every point of that space at the same "pressure."

This is just as true for the "acceleration" of the
galaxies away from each other: The instant "dark
energy" becomes a finite amount in the universe
there can not be any further acceleration [push]
to the ever more and more distant galaxies--if the
"pressure" of the energy which had been driving
their acceleration is itself thinned out in the
increasing space between them: The amount of
"dark energy" which would have to be continuously
being injected into the universe also cannot remain
a finite amount: it must forever be increased AND
at ever more exponentially massive amounts.

This presents a very serious problem for theorists,
because they would have to not only account for the
source of the "dark energy" coming into the universe
continuously, but also for its ever more & more
monstrous increases. Energy is a very precious commodity.
So much so that someone even passed a law sometime
ago that it should neither be created nor destroyed.

Remember: There can never be a finite amount of
"dark energy" in the universe driving its so-called
"expansion" (a finite amount of "dark energy" in the
universe is essentially the same as shutting down
the rocket engine): As the universe expands, its bits
(the galaxies) move away from each other... and the
inverse-square law comes into play, just as it does
for magnetism (and even your theoretical "gravity"),
leaving less and less "dark energy" to do the work.

Every instant that goes by, it takes more and more
"dark energy" being poured into the universe in ever
exponentially increasing volumes just to keep up the
same "pressure" [push], until by comparison the Big
Bang of legend is reduced to such a meaningless
insignificance that for all practical purposes it vanishes
outright and the only thing that matters (remains) IS
that theoretical "dark energy" forever & ever growing
magically (inexplicably) in mass [sourceless/causeless
because its source would not only have to be infinite/
eternal, but also forever increasing exponentially].

For all practical purposes then, the acceleration of
"the expansion of the universe" is a measure of the
amount of "dark energy" that must be injected into
the universe--The instant that "acceleration" stops
marks the instant "dark energy" has ceased being
injected into the universe in forever exponentially
increasing quantities. And as on the grand scale there
is no record that the so-called "acceleration of the
universe" has ceased for long, "dark energy" has
"apparently" been being injected into our universe
(from some unknown source) in exponentially increasing
quantities across all of its aeons.

How/Why/Where Does The Universe Come From?

My guiding principle has been & remains an abiding
conviction that the universe must be the result of a
slow-paced leisurely step-by-step-by-step evolution
[one step immediately and inevitably leading to the
following one] over incalculable time, and NOT the
result of a "special" single isolated act long-removed
from all previous steps leading up to it... which then
inexplicably remains the permanent state of affairs.

The history of the universe we see... everywhere
conforms with the former understanding, and nowhere
supports the latter assumption (except in the fretful
brains of those who make a living from dreaming up
such improbable fantasies). S D Rodrian

      Our imploding universe is undergoing two
      distinct motions: The first one is "in the
      direction of" implosion, a motion which
      creates gravity and inertia (mass). The
      second one is a strictly 3-dimensional one
      (we perceive as the Hubble Constant) and
      which is creating space--a unique feature
      that can only exist IN a universe where
      "solid bodies of" matter exist (objects
      such as atoms, stars, galaxies, & so on).

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 believe
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 one 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
fro, 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

   "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

 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.
My apologies if this hurts the sensitivities of the
superstitious, but in our existence anything
(including in Quantum Theory) outside absolute
determinism can only describe magic or insanity.
[Now, it may be that our universe is magical or
insane, but I tend not to believe that's the case.]

   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."

How large was the scalar mass which eventually
became the material mass of the universe?

Well, imagine that the "density" of this original
scalar mass must have been the greatest vacuum
which has even existed--and then imagine how
large an area this "vacuum" must have been in
order to "contain" all the material mass of the
present "material" universe:

None of this mass ("energy" by another name)
could ever have been created or destroyed. Merely:
The scalar mass has boiled down to material mass.
[The unimaginably large "size of the" area containing
the scalar mass (or, "original vacuum") has become
the unimaginable concentrated material mass of the
present "visible" ("cramped in size") universe.]

And, above all: Nothing created, nothing destroyed.
[The "unmoving" immensity of the original scalar
mass has "conserved" itself into the "ever faster and
faster moving" universe of material mass.]

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 clocks:

   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 Constant).

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 traveling 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 traveling
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

My special objection to the general relativity notion
that as space "stretches" between galaxies light's
wavelengths "resting on the medium of space-time"
are also stretched into a red-shift (or maybe even
blue-shifted as they are compressed along with the
space-time which is compressing between {galaxies}
rushing towards each other)... is made obvious by
one fact alone: A lot of times we may be talking
about the same "piece of space" here stretching AND
compressing at the same time as the light from the
{bits of a galaxy} which are moving away from us AND
those from it which are moving towards us necessarily
travel across the same regions of space-time, say...
or perhaps the gravitational lensing of a red-shifted
galaxy by a blue-shifted one. Are pieces of space-
time stretching AND contracting at the same time?
Is the universe expanding AND shrinking at the same
time, getting all bent out-of-shape? Now THAT's
space-warping! (Or, mind-warping, at any rate.)

  Is it really reasonable to imagine that general
  relativity's new-minted "space-time ether" is both
  stretching AND compressing at once without one
  action nullifying the reverse action?

The annoying (im)practical illustration of space-time
stretching and compressing light waves traveling
through it [using a Slinky] as if light required a
medium (an "ether") to propagate... illustrates the
very logical flaw of it: Simply ask the illustrator to
"create" long (red-shifted) light waves and short
(blue-shifted) light waves WITHOUT moving his
two hands toward & from each other!

   What is the true cause of the red-shift then?

Well, it absolutely does NOT have anything to do
with the imagined "bending" of space. And everything
to do with "actual objects" moving towards/away
from each other (as unwittingly illustrated by the
Slinky illustrator mentioned above).

Why is the speed of light always measured as constant
with regard to every "bit of matter" regardless of the
velocity of that particular "bit of matter?"

Essentially because:

1) the velocity of every "bit of matter" varies only
when measured against one or other "bit/bits of
matter" ...

   "motion" (as well as "speed") is something we
   have always recognized only as a measure of how
   much/how fast one "bit of matter" moves
   (3-dimensionally) with regard to some other "bit
   or bits of matter" only [measuring the "motion"
   or "speed" of any or all "bits of matter" against
   the implosion of the universe will always
   necessarily yield the same identical "speed"
   regardless of the "speed/motion" at which "our
   bit of matter" is moving 3-dimensionally [versus
   "the other bits of matter"] because the implosion
   of the universe is "headed" towards "the center
   of every bit of matter" rather than toward some
   3-dimensionally-recognized direction]

2) the photon "moves" mostly only in the direction of
implosion [although it is "the implosion" which is
really "moving," not the photon]... and that "motion"
is therefore necessarily identical for every distinct
"bit of matter" in the universe regardless of how
"fast" or "in which direction" it/they may be
travelling with regard to each other (or, in the
common parlance, 3-dimensionally).

Note that from the point of view of the "bits of
matter" (the 3-dimensional point of view) the universe
is behaving like an explosion [it is only with regard
to its sum total that the universe is behaving like an
implosion--something which the "bits of matter" can
not easily "see"]. Therefore, no matter from which
"bit of matter" you look, your "speed" versus "the
implosion of the universe" will seem identical, and
it will be a waste of time/effort to try to add or
subtract the "speeds" of any other bit/bits of the
universe's matter to that fundatmental "velocity"
[remember: our notion of measurement is "one bit of
matter" against "another bit of matter"].

Historically we have accepted the "universal truth"
that "velocities" are measurements ONLY between "bits
of matter moving 3-dimensionally;" thereby making a
fundamental error when we used this human form of
measuring to measure something which is not moving
3-dimensionally [or measuring the photon's velocities
in 3-dimensional terms]... giving us counter-intuitive
results that have since unfortunately produced rather
misleading ideas about the nature of reality.

Lesser or greater "speeds" are the result of measuring
"one bit of matter" against "whatever other/s," while
the photon's speed, regardless of which "bit of
matter" it is measured against/from will always result
in the same value: C

Matter may indeed not travel "faster" than C, but only
in the sense that it is rather hard to imagine the
universe imploding faster than at the speed at which
it is imploding!

REVIEW: Every photon "moves" with regard to the
implosion of the universe, while every "bit of matter"
"moves" with regard to/against every other "bit of
matter" in the universe: You can't use the "measuring
mechanism" of the one reality on the other reality
without producing nonsensical results--in which the
photon appears to move with the same "speed" no matter
which "bit of matter" it is measured from/against...
and all photons appear to "move" at the same "speed"
with regard to each other no matter which "bit of
matter" it is measured from/against!   Now,

The speed of light may indeed be independent of its
source, but its red-shift is "a result of" & "a marker
of" an observer's acceleration away from the light
source: It is a measure not of "distance between
source & observer" but of "the relative acceleration
at which the observer is moving away from the light
source" (distance can be brought into the equation
because of the Hubble Constant, and is only

Red-shift increases as the speed of the observer
increases away from a light source because this
increasing (relative) acceleration cancels out an
increasing equivalent portion of the photon's
frequency--resulting in the red-shifting ("decay")
of its light waves. [It is but reasonable to suppose
that the relativistic acceleration between light
source and observer exacts a cost on the photon
--and since the universe cannot exact this "cost"
from the photon's "speed" or "mass" there is very
little place it can impose it outside the red-shifting
of its waves' frequency. Conversely then, blue-
shift reflects the photon exacting a "cost" from
the universe, as it were.]

This is no different than what happens with Einstein's
Twins [except that, as the speed of light always
remains constant with respect to observer, it is not
the photon & us, of course, but the photon's source
that appears to us (as to the photon) to be the
"faster-moving" Twin, as it were]. Therefore, on
the sliding scale of cosmic distances (because "our"
photon's unmoving "c" connection to "us") as the
photon's source's velocity relative to "us" increases:
our photon's "aging" (its frequency--the connection
between the two "twins") slows [exactly as the
"aging" of the faster moving Einstein Twin "slows"
with respect to the Twin that remained where he too
originates]. Thereby, by the magic of relativistic
connections, producing the "increasing" red-shift we

 An interesting factor is: What happens when an
 observer's speed away from the light source
 matches the speed of light? Will the red-shift
 "decay" all the way down to black... never
 "reaching" an observer moving away from the
 source at the speed of light --or, forever
 stranding the observer between two peaks of
 now (for him) theoretically infinite waves?

What the photon is telling us is that [because of
the constancy of the speed of light] "its source" is
"the younger twin that is in greater motion" while
it itself is "the more rapidly aging twin that stayed
behind" [therefore the faster its source is moving
(away) the "older" is our photon].

The farthest "fuzz" of cosmological concentrations
should "fall down" to an almost infinitesimally faint
glow [about 2.76 K~?] before it drops off entirely
into invisibility--Our local concentrations can be as
chaotically lumpy (galaxy clusters/local groups &
regions) as they like, but all will "mesh" into a blur
at the cosmologically greatest distance [the CBR
"horizon problem"]. So that regardless of how
chaotically lumpy the immediate universe is, the most
distant concentrations "look" homogenous & isotropic
(a reflection of the unimaginable immensity of the
universe beyond the stars/galaxies/gas clouds we can
"clearly see" across these few 14 or so billion "light
years"). And this is exactly what one would expect
the imploding universe to be: infinitely bigger/vaster
than anything we poor humans can ever even imagine.


  The reason why any suggestion that anything
  might be discovered traveling faster than the
  speed of light is so upsetting to physicists
  is that in Einstein's special theory of relativity
  essentially "gravity travels at the speed of light."
  And if anything can can travel faster than light,
  why not then "gravity" too? And then perhaps
  gravity even travels instantaneously, as everyone
  believed it did (before Einstein). And then today's
  quest for "gravity waves" is all loused up real good.

     But, not to take anything away from Newton,
     who along with Darwin, was probably the
     greatest scientist {mathematician} of all time,
     of course: The truth is that there is no such
     stuff as "gravity." And that Newton, being
     more of a mathematician than a scientist,
     was "talking gibberish" when he proposed
     that there was "a force" which was "pulling
     down" his apple, just as it was "pulling" on
     all the heavenly bodies [and no matter how
     reasonable this gibberish may be].

      Had Newton been more of a scientist
      than a mathematician perhaps then he
      might have said that "the effect which
      seems to be making the apple move
      towards the earth may be the same
      effect which connects all heavenly
      bodies," instead of stating, as he did,
      that "the FORCE which pulls the apple
      towards the earth is the same FORCE
      that also pulls on heavenly bodies"
      (or some such): The point is that the
      first statement is ALL Newton really
      knew about what he was observing,
      while in the statement which he did
      make Newton makes the unfounded
      assumption that "a force" MUST EXIST
      which he obviously knows absolutely
      nothing about (nor would anybody else
      know anything about "it" for the
      next 300 years... until this present
      text which you are now reading).

      Because mathematicians deal almost
      exclusively in the absolute certainties
      of their math, they have an almost
      pathological inclination to assume
      that they can just as easily make
      equally absolute statements with
      regards to a reality which more often
      than not has proven time & time
      again to share only the most tenuous
      of connections to/with their math.

          In reality there is no "force"
          either pushing or pulling on
          Newton's apple: It is much
          closer to the truth to say that
          the apple itself IS the "force."

"Acceleration is the same as gravity." --Einstein

Unfortunately, because Einstein [nor Newton
for that matter] did not know (and could not
have known) the real reason for this universal
acceleration (gravity), he simply went off on
a tangent insisting that space (and time) are
"somehow bent" by bodies of mass... Still
retaining the same old superstition that gravity
involves "quantities of mass pulling on one
another" (even if now basing it on a brazen bit
of irrational absurdity.) Why not, indeed!

      It should not be called "gravity"
      but "acceleration."

Gravity is the acceleration of quantities of mass
toward one another: The closer two quantities
of mass are to each other the faster they will
accelerate towards each other [Newton's "32
feet per second squared" at earth's surface.]
Therefore any given quantities of mass in
a neutron star will obviously always be a lot
closer than those same quantities of mass here
on planet Earth (resulting in a much greater
"acceleration toward one another" there in the
neutron star than here on earth).

And the reason they are accelerating towards
one another is because our entire universe is
"the mother of all implosions." [Accelerating
against the direction of "gravity" effectively
cancels it--equally gravity & the acceleration].

To call this universal acceleration "gravity" is
a confusing misnomer. It should not be called
"gravity" but simply "acceleration." (Unless
you wish to classify this "universal acceleration"
ever by the vulgar term of "gravity" of course.)

   "You will go farther by crashing a wall
   than by driving away into the distance"
   may at first seem counter-intuitive
   (albeit Heaven IS quite distant), and
   there's a very good reason why 'tis so:
   The human brain has evolved over the
   millennia to become very upset at
   the slightest odor of the irrational.

What Galileo discovered by playing with his
balls at the Tower of Pizza (and with all those
pendulums & inclines) was NOT "gravity" [or,
the Equivalence Principle of Gravity] but inertia's
counter-effects against gravity-like conditions.
--Even if like Columbus, who never knew he
had discovered a new continent, Galileo also
never quite understood what it was he had
discovered... that, regardless of their mass
("weight"), objects tend to "fall" at the same
rate because their different inertia cancels out
"gravity" [their "Newtonian acceleration" due
to the universe's implosion IS as much "an
outside force acting on them as any other push"].

      ... In the case of Newton's arrogant
      assumption that "gravity" IS "a force"
      acting upon masses: it has resulted
      in 300 years of wasted brilliant minds
      and unimaginable resources pursuing
      the idle fantasies of nothing more
      than pure science fiction. [You might
      wonder whether I have misgivings
      about overturning (turning into utter
      waste, really) such staggering human
      efforts. --As, perhaps considering
      the great distress his findings would
      have on his fellows, Copernicus
      forswore their publication until after
      his death--as well perhaps aware
      that there would be many who
      would feel distressed enough by
      his findings to seek his murder.--
      But I am like the first in a planet of
      blind creatures who, gaining sight,
      observes that the Sun is a very shiny
      thing: Soon enough everybody else
      will see this for themselves, and then
      mine will no longer be considered
      such an original observation: Ruling
      out once & for all any notion that
      God had any role whatever in the
      unfolding of the universe (as
      thoroughly as any notion that He
      might have created the bicycle)
      overturns not hundreds of years of
      human thought but ... the ancient
      impression people have had almost
      since our ancestors came down off
      the trees and reasoned to the best
      of their knowledge that the world
      itself MUST also have been created
      [by some primordial God?] exactly
      like they could see all things "created"
      in the world around them: Does this
      mean I advocate demolishing the
      world's cathedrals? Of course not!
      [It wouldn't hurt to see the Pope
      get a real job, though... along with
      a few theoretical physicists.] But
      all these wastes of great resources
      which no doubt would bring much
      greater benefits to man (from costly
      churches to exorbitant departments
      of theoretical physics) are nothing
      less than monuments to our great
      quest to unlock the meaning of life
      from the nonesuch of existence.

    But, of course, the biggest red flag you
    can have that your "truth" may not be
    "all there" is that it offends no one. And
    perhaps the day is not so far off when
    we will finally realize that life (the
    personality of a man), is not unlike the
    roar of a runing motor: When the motor
    is turned off, its roar does not go on
    to a different plane of existence--With
    the only difference between the brain
    & a motor being that after the brain is
    turned off for but a brief three minutes
    you can dump it in the nearest ditch.]

   Yet I believe in God: To me God is the
   universe & the universe is God--We are
   therefore the essence of God, all of us.
   [All it takes is a little bit of wisdom to
   understand this.]

                            To continue:

    In the infamous mind experiment: Yes,
    light takes nearly 8 minutes to reach the
    earth from the Sun, but because there
    is no such "a force" as gravity... if the
    Sun were to vanish, the earth and all the
    planets would indeed "instantaneously"
      lose their "connection" with/to the
    vanished star, and what we would then
    experience from this our planet is that
    suddenly (and for 8 very weird minutes,
    before we at last "saw" the Sun vanish)
    the Sun would appear to "drift" out of
    its expected path (as would all the other
    planets)... maybe traveling from north to
    south now instead of from east to west.

    This has Quantum Mechanics implications
    because it shows that in our universe so-
    called instantaneous (faster-then-light)
    "spooky action at a distance" *5 is just
    as viable on the large-scale world as it is
    on the small-scale one---Even across ALL
    of the universe: In other words, imagine
    two stars each on the opposite sides of
    the entirety of the universe (obviously,
    we can know they share a relationship
    because otherwise they would wander
    off into the void away from each other).
    Now imagine that the universe between
    these two stars suddenly vanishes...
    and, instantly, the relationship between
    them would "change" even across all of
    that distance ... from one seemingly
    having absolutely nothing to do with
    each other to one having everything
    to do ONLY with each other: There
    would appear to have been a change
    which had not really occurred at all!

      [This is because the relationship
      between those two stars has nothing
      to do with distances and everything
      to do with themselves... they were
      both "entangled" even before any
      "measurement" is done---Thereby
      justifying Einstein's faith in the
      ultimate "certainty" of reality: There
      is no uncertainty in our reality--Only
      "our" incomplete understanding of it.]

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 aberrant 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

        - 30 -

Absolute Relativity,
An Essay On The Nature of The Universe / S D Rodrian


ANSWERS from GOOGLE posts by S D Rodrian ...

> maybe you could help Bill out with an answer to the
> question: What the heck causes gravity?


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!

I'm sorry, but, doesn't "gravitational lensing" SEE
dark matter everywhere it "looks" throughout all
the universe? Well, I'm going to give you a simple
analogy, and, hopefully, you will then SEE for
yourself that it's not "gravitational lensing" but
human eyeballs that are "seeing" all that dark matter:

Imagine the photon as two fellows who are forever
traveling on stairs... on two completely (of course
diametrically opposite in nature) stair universes: The
fellow in "the Big Bang universe" is forever traveling
up stairs while the fellow in "the imploding universe"
is forever traveling down stairs. And now you too must
understand that when an [imploding universe] observer
sees a fellow forever going down stairs but is
convinced he is watching him going up the stairs... he
just might come to "the inevitable conclusion" that
our stairs-sliding fellow MUST HAVE a lot more energy
than he really does (and it's going to be hard as
dickens to convince him he's wrong in his assumption).

That is mostly what is happening here: According to
the wrong model [of which universe they're really in]
restricting the thoughts of our observant astronomers...
they are erroneously being led to believe that they are
watching photons [which in our imploding universe
are "really forever going down stairs"] forever going up
stairs. The fault, Horatio, is not in our photons but in

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).

    But, if photons are not affected by gravity
    (no such thing) what about a black hole
    "grabs" them? Well, you have to remember
    that mass is imploding, and "the more mass
    there is the greater the imploding" (and
    since the greatest amount of mass in the
    universe is in a black hole, there will you
    find the greatest implosion velocities): A
    photon may escape implosion outside the
    black hole's event horizon (where the
    universe is imploding slowly enough for
    it to escape implosion), but inside the
    event horizon the velocity of implosion
    is so much greater (i.e. "faster") than c,
    that even the photon too must "move"
    in the direction of implosion (there:
    towards the black hole's "singularity").

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), *6
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.

  Recently enough evidence has come up to
  prove beyond anybody's ability to doubt it
  that the "dark matter" proposal is nonsense;
  something which you can Google yourself HERE.

    Imagine that the photon is a car and
    that gravity is a hill it's traveling up on:

    The bigger the gravity hill then the
    more energy the photon car needs
    to go up on it, right? [When we see
    the photon car struggling to move
    we might think that the gravity hill
    is very very steep.] BUT:

    If the gravity hill were very very
    tiny (or not even there at all) and
    we were watching the photon car
    struggling to move ... we might
    still imagine that the gravity hill
    was very very steep even if there
    isn't really even a hill there at all...!

    The key is knowing why it is that
    the photon car is struggling (not
    simply "imagining" a gravity hill is
    the only possible reason for it)...

  [Although I have no direct evidence of this,
  it's more than likely that the implosion of
  the universe is NOT happening everywhere at
  the same velocity. Therefore it's conceivable
  that the topography of the imploding universe
  is everywhere "pockmarked" with currents,
  eddies, and even counter-currents which might
  mimic the presence of "unattached (to visible
  matter) "massive gravitational fields." And
  this might be one, even if not the only one,
  possible explanation for all that dark matter
  "seen" by gravitational lensing across the

> But why things are imploding and where they came
> from remains unanswered.

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:

>> Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
>> Cosmological Constant (i.e. "Dark Energy") is BOGUS

    Google Link To Threads

>If the available evidence argues that most of the
>matter in the universe is dark and cannot be detected
>from the light which it emits or fails to emit, the
>question arises about how this stuff which cannot be
>seen directly exists at all unless its presence is
>inferred indirectly from the motions of astronomical
>objects, specifically stellar, galactic, and galaxy
>cluster/supercluster observations

"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:

>... or in order to
>enable gravity to amplify the small fluctuations in
>the Cosmic Microwave Background enough to form the
>large-scale structures that we see in the universe

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 Not-So-Strange Matter of "Dark Energy."

  There is, of course, a monstrous stumbling
  block in the rationale for any "dark energy"
  requirement (a notion which only arose
  from the discovery that the universe is
  "expanding" at an ever-accelerating rate)...

  1) the mistaken notion that the universe is
      "expanding" arose out of the observation
      that the galaxies are receding from each
      other at a faster rate (the farther they are
      from each other)

  2) the mistaken notion of a "big bang" arose
      from "the only possible explanation" that
      the universe's expansion had to be due to
      some primordial explosion

  3) the mistaken notion that "the universe's
      expansion must be slowing down"
      developed from fact that all explosions are
      slowed down by [Newton's laws of motion
      --in this particular case... the mistaken
      notion of particle-based gravity]

  4) the mistaken notion of "dark energy"
      arose to account for the discovery that
      the universe's "expansion" is actually
      accelerating, not slowing down, and
      thereby proving that all the above
      sequence of mistaken notions were...

  Only, of course, it's hard for people to admit
  they're whopping morons (don't know why).
  All they had to do was realize that (just as
  with their mistaken notion of a "big bang")
  ANY AND ALL sources of energy powering
  the universe's "expansion" (be it dynamite,
  or "dark energy") MUST BE FINITE. What
  this means is that BEFORE they can be
  named as the source of ANY acceleration,
  it must first be explained how THEY could
  possibly be increasing. [And by the way,
  instead of expecting the whopping morons
  to now admit they were wrong all along,
  expect them to propose next an injection
  of "mystic energy from the twilight zone,"
  or some other such quantum dimension:
  If you know human nature, you know this
  is coming--Oops, already here. SDR]

  --If, like every other form of "matter" IN
  the universe, "dark energy" is finite [E=MC^2],
  then, as the universe expands, it too is
  getting thinned out (diminished, reduced,
  weakened). And, again, this negates any
  possibility that "dark energy" accounts
  for the ever-increasing acceleration of the
  universe's expansion. But, can whopping
  morons ever be expected to see this?
  [I for one have my doubts.]

  The mental confusion of modern physicists
  (mathematicians) is so stunningly self-evident
  that EVEN while they are convinced that
  Einstein's theories of relativity invalidated
  any idea of gravity being a particle-based
  effect, they are still proposing "the pull
  of gravity" as an effect being "countered"
  by their current "dark energy" pet notion.
  [It's hard to imagine "dark energy" as a
  stiffening agent "tempering" spacetime
  back to its original flat shape, I imagine.
  Though I'm sure somebody eventually 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 the 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).

One can always come up with a rationalization for every
insanity. But the best thing is to always try to come up
with a plan, observation, or solution to which it is hardest
to find any objection.

This explains why the flat-earth idea, and the earth-centered
universe notion, lasted as long as they did (and today we
have the case of the Big Bang Theory... every objection to
which is dismissed by ever nuttier & nuttier rationalizations).
These things are not new in the world but have been practiced
by us talking apes for millennia.

Now try to find a worthwhile objection to the Imploding
Universe model (visit Even the
incredible notion of entanglement *7 which can only be
explaine as "akin to magic" under the Big Bang universe model
suddenly becomes worthy of a true scientific consideration
when there is no obvious objection to the idea that the
universe (as described by the Imploding Universe model)
may be "latticed" into some pressure-cooker "quantum force"
quality across "space" that has not yet been fully described
(outside of the density/energy explanation I gave above).

>Yesterday, [January 12, 2006] Louisiana State
>University astronomer Bradley
>E. Schaefer tossed a grenade
>into this debate, ["dark energy"
>or, Cosmological Constant] presenting
>new research to suggest that
>the force dark energy exerts
>may have varied over time.
>That casts new doubt on the
>validity of Albert Einstein's
>"cosmological constant" only
>a few years after astronomers
>rescued the concept from
>scientific oblivion.
>"I'm not pushing this as a proof,"
>Schaefer said in an
>interview at this week's
>meeting of the American
>Astronomical Society in
>the District, where he presented
>his research. "It's pointing
>against the cosmological
>constant, but it's a first result
>describing how dark energy
>changes with time. We need
>more people to test the
>results and get more information."

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.

>Mr. Schaefer based his findings
>on analysis of ultra-bright
>cosmic explosions called
>gamma-ray bursts, detected as
>far as 12.8 billion light-years
>away. He found that the
>most distant explosions
>appeared brighter than they
>should have been if the universe
>were accelerating at
>a constant rate.
>"As you go back in time, the
>universe is pushing [outward]
>less and less," he said. "At
>some point, the pressure of dark
>energy is zero and is exerting
>no force on the universe.
>There is no explanation for it."

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!

>Schaefer's findings, the first
>attempt to use gamma-ray
>bursts to study dark energy,
>produced a result that
>disagreed with accumulating
>evidence gleaned from
>observing a different kind of
>blast -- the exploding stars
>called supernovae. That work
>suggested that the expansion
>of the universe is accelerating
>in accordance with Einstein's
>cosmological constant.
>"The idea of using a gamma-ray
>burst as a distance
>indicator is a very exciting one,"
>said California Institute
>of Technology astronomer
>Richard Ellis, a supernova
>cosmologist. "The trouble is
>there are no ways to check
>the techniques. I'm not saying
>it's no good, but I can't
>believe it's as precise as supernovae."
>The concept of dark energy
>emerged in 1999 as a way to
>explain the fact that the
>expansion of the universe, once
>thought to be slowing ever
>since the big bang about 13.7
>billion years ago, was accelerating.
>That resurrected the
>idea of a cosmological constant,
>introduced by Einstein
>more than 80 years ago as a
>"fudge factor" to explain why
>the universe then appeared to
>be in equilibrium, rather
>than being pulled together
>by gravity.
>A few years later, however,
>astronomer Edwin Hubble
>discovered that the universe
>was not in stasis, after all,
>but was expanding. There
>was no "constant." Einstein
>condemned his own idea
>as "my greatest blunder."

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.]

>That led to the 1999 discovery
>that the expansion of the
>universe was accelerating
>rather than slowing. There had
>to be some "repulsive force"

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

>overcoming the gravity that
>should have been causing
>the universe to come together.
>Astronomers called the force
>dark energy, and "it mimics
>the cosmological constant,"
>said Michigan Technological
>University astronomer Robert
>J. Nemiroff. Einstein may
>have been right after all.

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...!

>Astronomers estimate that
>dark energy makes up 70 percent
>of the universe, but they do not
>know what it is.

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

>Solving the
>mystery is as all-consuming
>as any passion in physics. "It's
>so spooky," said Astronomical
>Society President Robert B.
>Kirshner, a cosmology expert
>at the Harvard-Smithsonian
>Center for Astrophysics.
>"Everybody is looking for ways to
>get at it."

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.


> Janika Rifley wrote:
> I see gravity as a point of balance between magnetic
> fields, not as a force.

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:

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:

> This new modelling of reality brings physics very
> much into accord with the general concepts of
> Process Philosophy.

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 lot 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 theorists 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."

  > If it may be true that the universe is
  > imploding perhaps even faster than the
  > speed of light, why don't we notice this?

  We notice it in a number of ways: 1) the
  effect of gravity, 2) the Hubble Constant,
  3) the speeding up of the so-called
  "universe's expansion," 4) the constancy
  of the speed of light, & 5) the unrelenting
  inescapability of inertia... etc. In sum:
  everywhere you look you find endless
  objections to the Big Bang model, but
  nowhere can you find even one objection
  to the Imploding Model--because you
  are looking at the universe as it actually is.

  What you have to understand is that the
  lifetime of the Solar System is like tossing
  a bucket of water into your wash basin: In
  a moment it's all gone down the drain and
  nothing remains but a memory of it (a
  drying moisture, if you will). And therein
  lie all our own lives & realities.

 It may seem to you as if the few dozen or so
  billion years this brief episode represents
  is a long time, but this is merely because
  the human (animal) perception of the
  passage of time is horrifically sped up with
  regards to the implosion of the universe...
  which is itself really only a "pop" in the
  never-ending continuum of existence.

  Once you understand this, you understand
  everything & then you can go die in peace.

S D Rodrian

S D Rodrian Photo Gallery

Now think on this: Under the current theory of gravity,
if one were to place a ping-pong ball at the exact
center of the earth (in some impossible hollowed-out
center, of course): all the "forces" of gravity would
cancel out and the ping-pong ball would "float" outside
any & all "effects of gravity." AND, were we to slowly
draw that ping-pong ball from there up to the surface
of the earth (through some impossible pipe): the farther
it moved from the earth's center the more it would
"feel" the force of gravity!

What this means is that the closer anything moves
to the center of any celestial body, the less it will
be subjected to gravity. [There's no other possibility
under the current model for the theories of how
gravity works. Period]

But consider this: The only explanation we have for
how stars are able to produce fusion is that THE
EFFECTS ("pressures produced by") OF GRAVITY.

These two theories self-evidently absolutely nullify
each other--Either the current understanding of how
gravity works is right (in which case no star can
produce fusion), or the current understanding of
how stars produce fusion is right (in which case they
must be doing it by some other means than gravity).


NOTE: Unfortunately, what Isaac Newton did in fact
was to observe "the acceleration due to the universe's
implosion" and THEN he ascribed to that very real
effect (which he personally witnessed) his imagined
notion of some mystical "force of gravity" to account
for it. And this, of course, made/makes it nearly
impossible to ascertain a value for one without it
being the exact equivalency for the other.

It is not absolutely impossible, however: In 1933,
Fritz Zwicky, and later Vera Rubin & Kent Ford
observed that the universe wasn't behaving as the
"imagined" rules of gravity said it should when
["Rubin and Ford began making Doppler observations
of the orbital speeds in spiral galaxies... they
immediately discovered something entirely unexpected:
The stars far from the centers of galaxies, in the
sparsely populated outer regions, were moving just
as fast as those closer in."] Of course, instead of
questioning the standard theory (of gravity), assuming
that the only thing which causes the rotation of matter
in a spiral galaxy is "the pull of" gravity: they simply
ascribed their unexpected find to there being 10 times
as much "invisible" mass in those galaxies--something
hard to hide in the real universe, although apparently
much more easily so in men's unfettered imagination!

   This effect, of course, is no different than what
   happens in the spiral of water going down your
   faucet (even though the volume of water closest to
   the drain may appear to be moving out of your sink
   faster than the volume of water furthest from the
   sink (is moving towards it): the volume of drainage
   (outside of an overall increase) must self-
   evidently remain uniform--or we would see a wave
   (splash against the drain) instead of a spiral. [Of
   course, unlike the stars in the outer bands of
   galaxies, droplets of water in your drain are not
   "going down little individual drains" themselves
   just to complicate the math of the simpler drain
   analogy... where ALL the water is going out just
   your one central drain. Still, note that, in spite
   of this (or maybe because of it), we also do not
   see a wave "splash" against the centers of spiral
   galaxies either.]

Assuming it stays an apple, the farther into a 'black
hole" Newton's apple falls the denser it becomes
(therefore the smaller), and therefore "the more
distance" ("space") it must travel [to get to the
black hole's singularity]. At what point does the
"shrinking" trump the "travelling" [the acceleration]
and slows it down? In an absolute sense then:
Newton's apple would not have as much acceleration
over the first few feet it traveled (dropped) from Newton's
hand as it would were Newton to "drop it" from a hundred
light years away (in a mind experiment) even with the
"rules of gravity" in charge of the equation--because the
implosion of the universe is more evenly distributed across
the universe than any "local" so-called "force of gravity"
would be... were it the sole cause of the efffect.

As Einstein surmised in his theory of relativity
(masses of matter warp/shrink space about them).
He was mostly correct about the rate of this warping
or shrinking, although not about what is really
happening (what is causing the "space" to "shrink"
increasingly with proximity to greater and greater

It is the masses themselves which are shrinking,
naturally "carrying away" the space around them with
them (into that shrinkage). Remember that "space" is
ONLY the distance between bodies of matter (masses).

However, even though the closer any two bodies (of
mass) are in the universe, the "faster" the "space"
will be closing between them... in "closer distances"
such as those between the outer planets and the Sun it
is horrifically difficult to see any significant "dark
matter effect" difference which, once you start
talking about 50,000 light years of so (distances),
then do start to become increasingly unavoidable.
[In no small measure, no pun intended, because all
the masses in the Solar system are "shrinking" at
incredibly similar "speeds."] NOTE: The Hubble
Constant does give you an idea of just how "fast"
masses are shrinking in the universe (as we see how
"slowly" the distances between the galaxies are
increasing, considering the vastness of the distances
we're talking about).

Superman and The Sun Experiment.


Higgs field math explains it all quite neatly, except that
what the math explains is HOW it all happens, not WHY:
In other words, why is there a Higgs field at all (not why
it's required ONLY if you find a Higgs boson, but why it's
there for the Higgs boson to latch on to when the Higgs
boson comes into existence--or, what if the Higgs boson
is NOT required for particles to have mass after all). Or:
in the absence of the Higgs boson, what created the Higgs
field itself to begin with--for, if the Higgs boson preceeds
the Higgs field, well, now we've really got a problem!

Higgs field theory is, of course, the mathematical
underpinnings for the Big Bang theory; and, as such,
shares its flaws & frailties:

Foremostly it requires the "Higgs field" to be permeating
the entire scalar pre-universe... exactly like the "ether"
which Einstein killed long, long ago. [The Higgs boson
is a quantum excitation of one of the four components of
the Higgs field.] It makes sense (in Big Bang theory) that
the universe should "begin" as an infinitely dense (infinitely
massive, therefore un-moveable/un-moving) "spot" which
then [because of Higgs field ("decay") changes, or
"instability"] starts to fizz out (like an Alka Seltzer tablet
struck by water) due to some as yet unidentified catalyst
[such as the "inflaton" ... a hypothetical field suggested as
the explanation for "the expansion of space" during the
first fraction of a second of the universe].

Therefore: Higgs theory (like BB theory) violates the
fundamental principle of origin which tells us that
everything starts out from its simplest state AND THEN
proceeds to add complexity: The complexity of the Big
Bang "infinite mass" is absolute (by comparison its
resulting universe is as simple as a bucket of marbles
being rolled out onto the floor): A stable "original" Higgs
"Big Bang Ball" would require the existence "there" of
its every last bit of Higgs complexity already assembled
into its "infinite unmoving mass" already possessed of a
Higgs fields) & accompanying Higgs mechanisms! [Even
now Higgs theorists are proposing 3 more Higgs bosons
to resolve some inconsistencies in their math, and perhaps
will require many, many more... as more inconsistences
arise in future in their math.] Otherwise the "Higgs Big
Bang" would NOT be stable and begin to lose its
particulates at the speed of light, of course, resulting in
the Big Bang.) Higgs field theory therefore describes the
universe NOT so much as a "creation" but as a "de-creation"
from there. [You can already see its contradictions with the
Big Bang theory it attempts to elucidate mathematically.]
And the "Higgs theory Big Bang" requires not only all this
pre-existing Higgs "equipment" but also that certain
unknowable catalyst which triggered its downfall (or Higgs
field "instability") into "the resulting universe", of course.
That's a lot to ask. [Einstein's objection to an origin for
existence requiring "a magical agreement" of multiple
individual values.]

Now, if someone searching for the ultimate origin of
everything believes that God "created" the universe, then
focusing on the origin of any one aspect of the universe
itself would be as irrelevant in the matter as the origin of
the Model-T Ford, and the proper focus of his inquiry
would have to be the origin of God himself--Likewise, as
Higgs field theory posits it preceeds the universe (and, in
fact, "creates" it). And this smells to High Heaven: It
implies that there may be a biological inclination in us to
want to see in Nature a universe resulting NOT from an
inevitable evolution but from a "fluctuant" (even whimsical)
"special creation." A man's math can "create anything in his
mind", and make it all sound "mathematically inevitable."
However, if a man's math is predicated upon some flaw or
error, then all subsequent "mirrors of reality" become
merely a "house of mirrors."

BTW: The "fog" theory sounds very sound when talking
about why "a quantity of light" grows fainter with distance
(according to the inverse square law). But it fails to note
that individual photons never grow fainter [only fewer] as
we necessarily add space along with distance (as when a
bucket of marbles is emptied onto the floor... the marbles
will get more & more distant from each other the further
away they roll from where they were first dropped onto the
floor): The source of light grows fainter because fewer
photons are reaching us, and not because they are getting
stuck in a "fog" permeating the distance between the source
and us. [The more the distance grows between the light
source and the observer... the fewer photons travel between
the two points.]

   Even a laser, concentrating its stream of photons,
   will obey this law, and "grow fainter" with
   distance because its stream of photons will "spread
   out" (therefore fewer and fewer of them reaching
   any given point) and not because the photons
   themselves will grow fainter with distance because
   they have to traverse some "intervening fog,"
   cosmic dust & atmospheric interference aside.

Magnetic field strength* also obeys this (inverse square
dispersal law). While the strong and the weak forces are
"trapped" (captured/held) in their realms, and not punched
into "there" by some supposed "fog force" outside their
realm. That's where one should look for the explanations.
  * In theory, as magnets come in dipoles: their strength
     would still decrease according to the inverse square
     dispersal law if they came in monopoles, of course.

Higgs field math is very neat and very compelling (as "the
math" always is). But I am not convinced; least of all when
there's an even neater & more compelling, simpler & more
straightforward natural explanation. Read on.

Frankly (when it was first "discovered") I may have greatly
overestimated just how long all this nonsense about the
Higgs boson would last: Here are some recent press releases
on the Higgs (as well as on so-called "gravity waves") you
will find of interest...

The Higgs Boson “God” Particle May Still Be Undiscovered

Shocking! CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs
Boson particle after all

Scientists Raise Doubts About Higgs Boson Discovery,
Say It Could Be Another Particle

Minuscule mistake? Discovered Higgs boson may
appear to be a techni-higgs, scientists say

Our universe is impossible and we shouldn't exist,
Higgs-boson scientist says

Researchers claiming evidence of Big Bang foiled
by dust problem

Big Bang evidence now being doubted by scientists

Hadron Collider ‘did NOT find Higgs Boson – but
something else’

Researchers claim Higgs boson still elusive:
What did CERN discover then?

‘CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs Boson’

Particles smaller than Higgs boson?

Higgs Boson Particle Scientist: Universe Should Have
Collapsed After Big Bang

Bicep2: Discovery of Primordial Gravitational Waves
from Big Bang Questioned by Scientist

Also for your amusement:

LATEST: Dark Matter Signal May Have Been Found
In Mysterious X-Ray Data

LATER: Dark Matter -- Still Dark

Big Bang Theory Busted: Universe Created 'When Star
Fell into Black Hole in 4D Bulk Universe'

Collapse of Universe 'More Likely Than Ever And
May Have Already Started'

Black holes will die, evaporate away – so will everything else

   "The Big Bang theory also does not explain why
    temperatures across the universe are almost uniform
    - there would not be enough time since the Big Bang
    for the universe to reach a consistent temperature."

However, if the condition everywhere in the universe were
the same (the universe was everywhere experiencing the
same state, i.e. implosion) we WOULD expect it to display
the uniformity it does, wouldn't we!

Fear not: I'm sure that the scientists & other participating
mathematicians will add any number of other utterly wild
complexities and eventually balance up the Doctor Zeus
model (for a while more)...

As I myself have been stating since the last century:

              The Solution Is This



"Entanglement" or "Spooky Action At A Distance"

If two "particles" within the imploding universe "fix"
ALL OF THEIR INNER-MOTIONS upon each other (in the
absolute direction of motion towards THE CENTER of
that implosion)... in somewhat the same way that the
earth/moon system is fixed upon their "common center
of gravity" (NOT the non-existing totally mythological
Gravity but) the FACT that like everything else inside
our universe: they too are always "moving towards the
closest-available CENTER of that implosion" [or, the
sum total of all earth's mass is always moving towards
"their" closest CENTER and form a sphere, as does the
sum total of the moon's mass, while the two spheres
are always moving toward their "common" CENTER and
form the earth/moon system]... which they can never
coalesce into one sphere because their blessed orbital
velocities forever keeps them apart]... then WE might
conceive of OUR interpreting their "matching" (or
"mirroring") each other's "paths" towards that CENTER
as a "connection at a distance" between them (or
"entanglement"). Or course, the earth/moon "action at
a distance" is rather a simple one to grasp, which is
hardly true of the nature of "particle entanglement,"
something which might be due to an unimaginably
complex matching of their quark movements, or even
of the substructures which make up those quarks... in
which case it will be even harder to figure it all out.

My supposition has to do with the idea that such two
constructs probably coincide with some unknown third
factor, thereby making it "appear" as if there is some
kind of "indirect" connection between themselves, or:
"If A=C and B=C then A=B" (and I suspect that in this
case C "is" the implosion of the universe, as that is
the basic nature of everything here).

The reason the earth's presence has made the moon
always show the same face to the earth is NOT because
they are "physically connected" by some material Gravity
but because they have both been "falling" towards "a
common center of gravity" for so long. The earth is also
affected by the moon's presence just as the moon is
affected by the earth's presence (just each in its own
different way according to their different relative sizes),
and all without "a physical connection." Were both of
identical sizes they might mirror each other exactly,
and changing the vectors of one might then change the
vectors of the other--All without any true physical
connection between them. It would appear (to someone
who is not looking for a sane explanation) like magic;
and the reason it does not so appear so to us now is that
we have made up the superstition (myth) that there IS
a physical connection between them (a non-existent
"force" for which we have made up the term "Gravity").

Thus we might imagine the earth and moon as having
become "entangled" (but for the illusion we have
invented for ourselves that they really ARE physically
connected by our mythological Gravity... and so we do
not recognize them as displaying the notion of "spooky
action at a distance" or "entanglement").

Why doesn't intervening matter affect the entanglement
between particles...!? Could be that it is because they
are essentially "electromagnetic constructs" and the
interplay of their infinitely complex inner "forces" (or,
"motions") overwhelms the "unimaginably weak force"
of Gravity (as you might imagine) for any but a more
direct (material) "touch." [It is possible to disrupt their
"states" ... but only by/with an electromagnetic push.]

Lastly: Is there a "distance" at which entanglement (or
"spooky action at a distance") no longer works? Maybe.
However, as the speed of light is but a measurement of
how "fast" the universe is imploding, and the speed of
light makes the distance, say, between the earth's poles
almost insignificant, it could be that the "distance" at
which entanglement no longer "works" is itself very, very
significant. S D Rodrian


Final Additions, from LATTER-DAY MUSINGS...

              What Is Man?

Consider the high school experiment with a living
sponge, a bucket of water, and a mesh sieve:

As you know, each sponge is "an animal" exactly
as we ourselves are individual animals
. But if one
slowly and gently forces a living sponge through
the mesh sieve (over a bucket with some water at
the bottom) until all the sponge's individual cells
separate and the bucket ends up with a kind of soup
of sponge cells... the curious thing is that you will
not have killed the sponge cells by separating the
animal (the sponge) completely into its individual
component cells--and neither will you have killed
"the animal" (the sponge itself). Leave that bucket
with its soup of sponge cells overnight and you will
wake up to find that the sponge has re-assembled
itself into the animal it was before you forced it
through the mesh sieve. This is because the sponge's
cells are, essentially, almost identical one and all.

In essence that is what all animals (and plants) are:
colonies of living individual cells
... in many stages
and degrees of association, depending on the animal.
The sponge just happens to be the oldest animal form,
with all subsequent animal forms evolving from that
one (including us).

Therefore it is always problematic to think/speak of
such cell colonies as "one" individual (and this also
includes us), given that "a single" individual animal
is more accurately a description of "one" of the many
individual cells in the colony. [The one-cell ameba is
more accurately "a single individual animal" than a
sponge, or a man for that matter.] Since we, exactly
like the sponge, are merely/only complex colonies of
cells--and they (our individual cells) not us, are the
true "single individual animals" one can describe that
way without any further qualifications.

As you might imagine, were one of us humans to be,
like a sponge, to be forced through such a mesh sieve
and end up as a bucket-full of separate individual
cells... we would literally kick the bucket because
there would be no way on earth that our separated
cells could ever re-assemble themselves into the
"individual" we were before our trek through the
sieve. This is of course because unlike the cells of
the sponge our cells are so highly specialized that
none of them can survive very long apart from the
others even if they were otherwise undamaged by
the process of separation.

We very often imagine ourselves as small creatures
scurrying about--when in fact we are unimaginably
expansive ambling colonies of cells (each of us some
37.2 trillion of them on the average
). This gargantuan
aggregate of human cells doesn't even include all the
additional trillions of other (non-human) "creatures"
which find/make a home in the stupendously generous
ecosystem our colony of human cells provides forthem
--estimates ranging from our hosting a conservatively
low equal number of little creatures as we have human
cells to over a 100 trillion of them. So keep this in mind
when you try to think of yourself as some sort of living
breathing Singularity [or Oneness] afoot in the world.

Some people believe that we can just stick a couple of
men & a couple of women into some sterile capsule and
go start another colony of humans in another planet
'out there' somewhere. But [even if cosmic rays don't
cook them], there will always be that 'small matter' of
the trillions of non-human little 'creatures' that make
a home for themselves in the vast ecosystem which
our "cell colony" provides them--tiny creatures with
whom we have evolved over eons (and which are even
part & parcel of our DNA now): living beings which are
[all of them] now essential to our wellbeing and good
heath. So, if we really wish to eventually try to colonize
other planets we will absolutely need to take pretty
much ALL of them with us, and to provide them with a
secure future in which they can survive and thrive
exactly as they now do (and have done here on earth
since our own beginnings): We will have to ensure that
most (if not all) of them continue to exist [with us &
on us, of course] and do not suddenly become extinct
in the future because someday we might just wake up
to discover that we simply cannot do without them.
Therefore, it is not just a couple of humans you are
going to have to stick in that sterile capsule but quite
a substantial chunk of the earth's ecosystem itself, all
the bacterium/viruses we've grown up with over our
time here on earth [dirt, mud, muck in which we still
happily swim--not just plants and all of the other old
familiar beasts, rats, roaches, flies, worms, beetles,
bees, but everything else down to mold, alga, fungus,
yeasts, decay and every other sort of filth and rot
that we know of]. Else we will not last 'out there' as
long as we have lasted 'down here' with their help.

The proper description of a human being is therefore
not as "an" individual animal but, more accurately, as
a "predatory colony of highly specialized cells" (of
cells so highly specialized, in fact, that they can
not survive apart from all the other cells that make
up the colony). And you must always add that we are
"predatory colonies of highly-specialized cells,"
because, like all other animals, we do not manufacture
our own food but must hunt down & devour other lower
(less-fortunate) colonies of cells, such as plants and
other animals--themselves predatory cell colonies).

What does this do to our self-appointed "sanctity of
human life" if we are not much more than colonies
of predatory highly-differentiated cells ... or to "the
divinity of the individual" if, obviously, we are not
really individuals at all?

     What Is Death? or The Humongous Human

What we commonly call/know as "the individual" is
really an unfortunate necessity required by the way
in which animal, plant (and most other forms of) life
has evolved on this particular planet to conquer death:
Individual plants and animals die, of course, but not
before they mature enough to reproduce--to branch
out into the next generation of individuals who will
themselves then branch to other generations of them
on & on essentially without end [for "the real human
creature" in all this... which is the human species].

The death of all those unfortunate individuals (and
the brains they require in order to survive/flourish,
and the attendant consciousness those brains create
in order to better coordinate their mission) does not
affect (in fact, it aids) "the real human creature" in
all this [The Human Species] to endure across time
without fear of a quick/sudden death: Just like that
Humongous Fungus, the Humongous Human species
endures across time without dying by branching out
"individual little colonies" [us folks] of its cells, who
then themselves branch out into other individuals
[little cell colonies] that then branch out into more
& more individuals... on & on for as long as it takes
"the real creature" to endure essentially beyond the
reach of death--We individuals die, of course, but
that is as irrelevant to the survival of The Humongous
Human [being/species] as the "death" of a whole
mess of our skin cells flaking off as dandruff is to us.

              What is consciousness?

Lower animals have a kind of consciousness too...
although we cannot say with absolute accuracy that
it's in any way, shape, or form exactly like our human
consciousness: Dogs may "see" the world (reality) as
something quite unrecognizable to the [our] human
consciousness. Even chimps, so closely related to us,
may be served by a "consciousness" which would be
extremely hard for us to understand/fathom--If we
would suddenly to "get into a chimp's consciousness"
it is more likely than not that what we would experience
would be total & complete insanity, and that very little
if anything of such a consciousness would make sense
to us (viewed from the human consciousness, you see).

But our own consciousness makes sense to us: Its
foundation is already hard-wired into our brains when
our brains are being formed in the womb. By the time
we are born everything about the human world (the
human consciousness if you will) makes perfect sense
to us, and we are ready to learn the behaviors which
will make us successful predatory cell colonies like
our parent cell colonies, including the methods by
which our species' cell colonies communicate among
themselves. So, in the end, consciousness is nothing
other than a strategy for survival: some cell colonies
"grew" a consciousness like other cell colonies grew
wings, legs, lungs, or eyes: The human conscience is
a self-defense strategy (possibly replacing a stinger).

    This confluence of sensations is what we
    perceive as the world we note and feel and
    grasp, and time, love, and make sense of:
    Consciousness creates our personality. And
    in the end that is the real miracle of human
    existence ... albeit dogs & rats also have
    personalities (make what you will of that).

The purpose of "consciousness" (or "the brain") is to
create a map of the world in which we find ourselves
so that we may find our way through it (this world)
with the least number of obstructions/impediments. And
so it makes sense that the human consciousness should
be very different from that of every other species (as
every species has its own very specific way of getting
around the world and therefore each requires its own
specific map). It would make little sense for our human
brains to create a consciousness in which we would run
around in packs like dogs, or slither about the ground
like snakes or snails, or even depended on trees as much
as our chimp cousins still do. But it makes perfect sense
for us to develop "talents" with which we may earn our
living, as it were. [And now you know where poets and
pianists come from, & others with as unavailing talents.]

But, isn't this obvious? Yes, everything is obvious
once somebody's pointed it out.

The side-effects of this marvelous creation (survival
strategy) are manageable: We "believe" many things
about the world which are not true, of course. And we
do have a perilous propensity to make up the first
thing that pops in our minds to "explain" new or rather
unusual phenomena [try to talk somebody who's just
become convinced you're guilty that you are not]...
things which may prove unfortunate or even fatal, yes,
and still: most of the time the miraculous map of our
consciousness guides us about the world with a great
measure of success [or we die and our story is then
told by the archeologists of the successful colonies
of cells whose "maps" have guided them to long-term
success]. But, as I said, most of the side-effects are
manageable (even if, always, some better than others).

Thus, if you are rubbing a couple of sticks together
and manage to produce a flame, it's pretty hard to
reason with someone who suddenly comes along and
claims the flame is some holy manifestation of God.
Even if you blow out the flame it's far too easy for
such a self-persuaded person to just say that the
flame has "returned to God." So imagine how much
harder still [even when you know that consciousness
is but the metaphorical "resulting flame" of millions
& millions of "sticks rubbing together" in the human
brain] to try to argue someone out of the similarly
deluded notion that a consciousness is one of God's

Knowledge is communicable, but not to those who
absolutely refuse to communicate, of course. And the
human species is replete with individuals who will
pretend to listen to the knowledge, but who in reality
have utterly & completely closed their minds even to
the remotest possibility that it may be the facts.

And, for those who will insist that religion is needed
to comfort us, I say: If you are having trouble with
the problems of life & death you are always better off
going to a mental health doctor rather than to a witch-
doctor. Every time, my friend. Trust me on that one.
What is God?

God is the word that causes science/reason to evanesce
like a puff of magic dust vanishing down our fingers into
a breeze of nonsense never again to be grasped by man.
The One True Universal Religious Dictum is & always has
been: "If God wishes to destroy a portion of mankind with
the black plague, say, then men ought not be permitted
to combat it with the unholy scourge of modern medicine
or some other of Man's wicked means: The pious should
spread God's righteousness (no matter how evil it may fall
on men), and not thwart it."
As I have described it elsewhere, the mechanism by
which species maintain their integrity is an extremely
simple one (it would have to be, of course, otherwise
its appearance & persistence in nature would be too
complex for it to become/remain "inevitable"). It is
essentially expressed in this simple principle: "Males
choose first AND ONLY THEN do females choose from
among the males which have chosen them." [This doesn't
mean, of course that there aren't females here & there
which take it upon themselves to choose first, but
this aberration usually ends up either unfortunately
for the precipitous females or for all of their species.]

The attraction exerted by a Black Widow female on
the males of her species could never be claimed to be
"physical beauty" or anything of the like. Rather, it
comes down almost entirely to her patience, for she
can rely on the fact that there will always be some
males of her own species which will have been hard-
wired by nature (by the simple principle I have
described above) to come to her, regardless all else.

And the result of their "union" will be to produce
females exactly like herself PLUS males which, like
their father, will also eventually be just as unable
to resist the "attraction" of her female progeny.

[Various mechanisms exist in the different species to
prevent inbreeding, too numerous to go into here, all
of which work against incestuous relationships which
would result in the genetic degradation of their species.]

But, whichever species you choose to observe, the same
simple principle holds--whether it is the queen bee's
frenzied "fleeing flight" from the drones programmed
to chase after her, or some woman walking into a bar
with a dozen men on the lookout: some of these males
will show no interest in her, others perhaps a little
bit of interest (although probably not enough), but a
few will be unable to keep themselves away from her
[exactly like the Black Widow males]. And from among
those few males who make "the always risky trek" to
"buy her a drink" she will then pick the one she prefers
[and hopefully take a long time killing him]. And by
this simple mechanism the next generation of humans
(and other critters in this wildly teeming earth) will
be peopled by females like their patient mothers and
males like their engaging fathers. So you see: beauty
is not even in "the eye" of the beholder. Sorry.
What is Existence?

The universe is the biggest implosion we know in our
experience. I know this is somewhat problematic for
my fellows to grasp (at this time), but you have to
understand that ALL the universe's atomic particles
[from atoms, protons, neurons ... to photons and to
electrons, to quarks, and beyond] are really nothing
more than "little fields of energy" [foes] and NOT
solid "things" (as we understand a "thing"). Their
solidness is strictly an illusion in the absolute. As
such, their "size" is irrelevant: Today the universe
may be as "big" as all the universe, tomorrow it may
be the "size" of the solar system, in a few seconds it
may be the "size" of a grain of rice [and so on] and
yet it will always remain the same universe we all
love and exist within, because "as long as a field of
energy has enough energy it will continue to remain
a field of energy." And as the universe implodes it
obviously will forever require less and less energy
to maintain its "sameness" (which is why the universe
ever remains "the same" in our human experience).

This, of course, will continue for perhaps trillions
and trillions of years no matter how "small" we get
along the way because the universe is made up of a
vast amount of energy--enough to feed this "illusion
of eternal sameness" practically forever... as "for all
time" those little fields of energy of which the universe
is composed [atomic subparticles] will also continue
to "remain" what they have always appeared to be.

Naturally, the universe gives us many hints of its true
nature, but it does take a great deal of effort for us to
shove the mountains of pretense & superstitions we
have build around ourselves over the years we have
been thinking animals (primarily to feed our egos) in
order to see that they are there (to see them for what
they are): I have written about many of these in lots
of different places, and you can read as many of them
as you like here & there if you wish. Or you can just
get on with your ordinary everyday life exactly as you
have always been living it (as if nothing in it had ever
disturbed your least thoughts). I certainly won't blame
you if you do or don't. Either way our old universe will
continue as it always has, of course: ever unchanging.
One problem solved, another one takes its place:
This is the essence of life.
It is the heights of arrogance for anyone to imagine
that he alone knows which ideas are best. This is why:

   It is always perilous to censor the publication of
   opinions one does not agree with. And always
   preferable to simply encourage the publication of
   opinions with which one agrees.

The reason for the latter is so that the best of them
may thrive in the marketplace of ideas. While all the
rationalizations behind the former always eventually
seem to lead only to failed ideas.

Pointing out the error of an idea is always, always
preferable to the suppression of ideas. Always.

S D Rodrian
Always this remember: If you must 'invent' something
[in order to explain reality] it is NOT reality that you
are explaining; it is purely that singularly inexplicable
invention of your imagination you are "explaining."
What is Time?

Time is a human definition: A measurement from here
to there, and no matter the length from here to there,
the measurement is always a human definition only.

Minutes, hours, years have no absolute value in nature
(apart from our notion of them, all strictly only in our
heads): Nature is composed only of motions, some
faster than others, others slower than the rest. But
none of them defines by itself anything except some
arbitrary idea we have thought up--Even the "speed of
light" defines only "a motion in nature" which bears
no relation to any other of nature's motions except
that, if I am right [in my head], it is related to the
speed at which the universe is imploding. However,
because there are no absolute motions we can't "time"
them by any other motions against any of it: All different
atoms "vibrate" with timings specific to their kinds,
and the human sense of the "normal" speed of life is
timed by motions which are picked arbitrarily by us. In
this sense, all our existence, even the very existence
of the universe itself, takes place in a brief flash: The
universe is an unimaginably brief implosion, and our
"sense" of its great, long age... only a human notion
here inside it created by even faster-moving thoughts.

If there were no humans to define its length(s), the
length of time would have no subdivisions whatever
and therefore the entirety of existence would be an
indivisible One: Undivided by us into whatever sub-
measurements, time would only "measure" (be the
equivalent of) the singular length of its entirety. In
other words, time (as strictly/only/exclusively our
human definition, the notion of) time would be utterly
without any meaning whatsoever. Because of this,
time is without meaning in reality (it only "exists" in
our minds). If time is a singularity its measurement
is pointless, the direction of its degrees meaningless.
This is why all our human measurements of time are
arbitrary & always tied to other arbitrary measurements
such as the arbitrary movements of heavenly bodies
or the vibrations of this or that whatever atom, etc.

When we start imagining time as "occurring" moment
to moment (or whatever other definition we wish to give
"our" imaginary degrees of time's purely human measure)
we can drive ourselves crazy trying to "explain" just how
it could possibly be that each "degree of time" [to which
we are giving independent existence in our imagination]
how each such "degree of time" could possibly connect
with/to every other such measurement of time "around it."
Something truly crazy, if you think about it: "time" pausing
between every such "occurrence" and then "starting up"
again by some miraculous motor/imaginary mechanism].

To reiterate: The "past" & the "future" are "measured"
only by/as "the sum total of existence," and NOT by us:

           It is ONE THING alone & only.

Therefore "we" are forever bound by whatever point
along that sum total length at which existence places
us. [In effect, for "us" there exists no "past" and/or
"future"]: In our minds we may remember "our" past
(NOT existence's past, that is) and imagine our future
(NOT existence's future, of course). But that's about it:
Even when we remember ourselves in our past and/or
imagine ourselves in our future... in reality, there is
no past and there is no future for us. Ha! Sorry. We are
forever trapped where we are/were/will be. Although
we may well ask, "What time is it?" And still get a polite
even if not reasonable reply. [Either from a watch or--]

     Yes, you can not teach physics to dogs:
     They're just not dense enough.

Time is not a line but a dot: In a very real sense, it is
a spot whose motions are all only within the bounds
of its own self: The dot/spot of Time moves neither in
one direction nor the other (as if it were drawing a
line) but only self-convoluting, folding & enfolding &
ever evolving from its many previous shapes into its
many other future shapes completely within itself at it
is propelled to do so exclusively by the laws of motion.

The instant you think of Time as a line you will not
be able to avoid thinking about the possibility of
travelling from one point in the line ["of Time"] to
some other point on that line. Then lunacy! Because
such a "line" has never existed and never will exist
except in the flawed 'magics' of our imagination.

One of the crucial things the brain evolved to do was
to record the shapes of things as they change about:
We and only we remember the shapes that were and
imagine the shapes that will/may be--And although
we too can be the agents of how those future shapes
come about [like all the other agents inside this spot
of Time], never lose sight of the fact that we cannot
ourselves really "dictate" the shape of things to come
and are but merely made to believe such a nonsense
(such a physical impossibility) can be made to happen
[that the human will can create future realities] by the
fact that we do not know when/how our own thoughts
come about, leaving all the room in the world for us to
become convinced that it is we who are bringing them
into being out of the nothingness--And nothing could be
a greater delusion, I'm afraid, however necessary to us.
Time has nothing to do with the world & everything to do
with your mind: When your mind is racing Time moves
very slowly & when your mind is moving very slowly
Time races by you. [Einstein almost managed in several
everyday chintzy metaphors to roundabout explain this.]
Einstein's General Relativity is NOT wrong: Einstein
describes with greater accuracy than Newton the
geometry of the universe. [In other words, "where
everything is."] Using General Relativity you can
pinpoint "something in the universe" (and therefore
also describe its motions) more accurately than simply
using Newton's laws.

But this does NOT mean that Einstein has explained THE
REASON that things are the way they are--Einstein's
theories on gravity do not explain "what gravity IS,"
only how it works. And to imagine that "knowing how
something works" is to know "what it is" can all too
easily give us the mistaken opinion that a man is
nothing more/other than the job he happens to have.

     On the famous clocks experiment:

WHY does the clock at the top of the mountain run
faster than the clock at the base of the mountain?

Because of acceleration (which as Einstein hinted at
in general relativity, IS the same thing as gravity):

The closer something is to a greater amount of mass
the more acceleration it experiences:

It is no different than you and I standing next to each
other and I point to my watch while you press your
fingertip down upon the hands of your watch: Your
watch will run slower than mine. And it has nothing
whatsoever to do with The Dimension of Time (which
does not exist), and everything to do with you and I
manipulating the speeds at which our watches run.

In the exact same way, the clock which is closer to
the greater mass of the earth has that mass "pressing
on its little hands," (as it were)... while the clock
that is experiencing less mass can obviously run
faster (free of the pressure of the extra mass) than
the other clock.

And, again, it has nothing to do with The Dimension of
Time (which does not exist, apologies to Rod Serling),
and everything to do ONLY with the clocks themselves.

Is this the Past or is this the Present?

The minute you eliminate any instance of "the Past"
(by including it in "the Present") you have made ALL
instances of "the Past" merely/only points of reference
in our minds--As in: Obviously I am not saying this in
the Present because I said "this" in the Past. And just
as obviously I do not say "this" in the Past because
I am still saying all of this in the Present (obviously).

The reason we cannot pinpoint "the Past" or "the
Present" is that neither really "exist" outside the idea.

So: Are we in the Past NOW or are we in the Present?

Again: If you claim that "all of the Present" is "now"
then please note that I obviously started my speech in
the Past and am only NOW finishing it in the Present
--Therefore this NOW is either "both the Past AND the
Present" or neither... because it is all taking place
in both realms at once (and what it still taking place
can never be said to be "in the Past"): This is why you
cannot claim that anything taking place "now" is in
the Present (as I very obviously started talking in the
Past). Nor can you claim that my speech "took place
in the Past" (as it is still going on right now). Add to
this that "the Future" can NEVER "exist" NOW (and is
always only a potential) and this is the unnecessary
paradox you create by making "the Past" and "the
Present" real "places" with existence in the universe.

The Past, the Present, and the Future are ALL but mere
points of reference created by the human (but not just
only the human) brain to help us fluid animals move
about from "there" to "here" and then to "over there"
(something which obviously takes some time to do).
However, just because it takes time to move about the
world this does not create the so-called "dimension" of
Time (made infamous by The Twilight Zone)... just as
simply because we measure distances by inches this
does not create the "dimension" of inches, or simply
because we're always moving about this does not
create the "dimension" of there & back [or some such].
Slowly but surely modern cosmology is inching towards
my old realization (at the end of the last century) that
our universe is in/an implosion
; for once modern
physicists exhaust the twin myths of dark energy/dark
matter to explain the observable universe they must
eventually come to the same conclusion I came to then.

Nothing else explains the fact that gravity cannot be
made to fit into the standard model. Nor that the
universe's "apparent expansion" is very obviously
accelerating when Big Bang theory says it should be
slowing down. Nor why/how the ancient homogeneous
universe has developed into the modern one of bits
[clusters/massive structures] building/bunching up:

  In an imploding universe, as more and more matter
  "collects" in a region, more and more of "the center
  of the universe" toward which matter is moving will
  concentrate in such a region of space [or growth!].

Well, in an imploding universe, every last "bit" of it is
"moving" towards every other last "bit." And this means
that even [the smallest, just] one single instability in
the homogeneity must eventually lead to the inevitable
complete collapse of the entire universal homogeneity.
And nothing even remotely as massive as the universe
could possibly ever maintain its uniformity for eternity.

   NOTE: Space is constantly being created inside the
   imploding universe model, as a consequence of its
   every bit of matter "moving" [imploding] towards
   the [everywhere "every center of the universe"].

For "the curvature of space to be uniform everywhere,
and decoupled from matter" the universe must still have
"one general principle" always aside from the way the
"tensions and anomalies" of matter have given it shape.
And there is such "a general principle" in the implosion
model which is present in no other model: That is, the
imploding universe model is always moving the totality
(the actual reality) of the universe toward "a sum of the
total matter in it" [i.e. space does not count for anything
except the distances between matter]. And so, regardless
of where matter is/goes, the overall "curvature of space"
will always be observed to be/must be said to be uniform.
Whom/What to blame.

It's tempting to blame anything and anybody but
ourselves, especially since we know (or suspect) that
when everything is said & done we really can't help
doing what we do. And, as it turns out, that feeling
of freedom from blame is closer to the truth than we
moral creatures would like to admit (however it may go
against everything society would like us to believe).

We, and society, wouldn't mind at all if we blamed our
parents, say. But there we run into the same problem
as before--in that (exactly like us) they too couldn't
help themselves. And so too on up the chain of our
ancestors even unto the first one: Like us, they all
simply did what they were programmed to do.

The master programmer is, of course, DNA (since all
individual creatures [animal, plant, whatever] are
"created" by DNA for the sole express purpose alone
of assuring/enhancing its own chances for survival).
All individuals are created mortal because that's the
best [really, only] way DNA can make sure that its
replication always continues refreshed: There's just
no way that if we individuals lived too long DNA could
avoid degradation/deterioration while in "our" care
--And thereby the simplest solution is to just have us
individuals hold custody of DNA for as little time as
it is conveniently possible (in fact, preferably, only
just long enough to pass it on to the next viable
individual that becomes available). For this reason,
individuals (whether it's individual creatures or even
their individual species) are really of no importance
whatsoever and readily sacrificed by DNA for the
greater good of its own continuation. The evolution
of DNA itself is also irrelevant because DNA cannot
"consider" its uniqueness the way we "think" about
such a vain thing, of course--Therefore DNA doesn't
"mind" that it is "modified" by its process of survival.

Because only those with the ability to tell right from
wrong can be adjudicated blame, DNA is also without
the slightest degree of blame. As it does not have a
mind & therefore no purpose to design: DNA is simply
a mindless flow no different than a stream of liquid.

DNA is also beyond our ability to punish it or even to
destroy it, had we a mind to do so: Asteroids couldn't
do it. Even planet collisions have failed to do so: It
yet surged forth from the caldron of a boiling planet.
And even if this planet fell into the Sun, DNA will
most probably rise again in myriad other planets to
create myriad other forms of individuals to blindly
serve its eternal continuance at their expense until
the end of time itself. If it has not done so already.
What is God?

God is a personification of The Will: We can do many
things, but many more things we can't do however we
may wish to do them--and that's where God becomes
indispensable or we stand there "willing" to do these
things through but the empty power of our naked Will.
It won't work, as you know. And so we create God, and
have Him do these impossible things for us [however we
may arrange it with Him--a bargain maybe, or a bribe,
or some greedy gift begged on account of our pretty
faces). Albeit some people have found a way to make a
career of the God business. And some of those manage
to make a pretty penny at it too (as it is comforting
to have a "representative of God on earth" sign the
bargain, in blood or otherwise, with us... for a fee).

Thereby: What is an atheist?

Simply put: An insult, of course, which we apply to
someone who "refuses" to share our superstitions;
or, especially: our superstitious nature. The proper,
non-insulting term for "a person who does not believe
in gods" is simply "not superstitious." Naturally, the
problem with that term is that it obviously insults
the superstitious... who do not consider themselves
superstitious (because they only believe in one or two
superstitions and not in every last one of them).

Eh, whatcha gonna do!?

Therefore do not insult God with your idle worship.
Do, rather, God's Work on this earth: Those who have
wisdom, let them understand that this is The Golden
Rule: Do good for others, as in doing good for others
it is to yourselves you are doing good. [Help others,
for in helping others it is yourselves you are helping.]
Even the most obvious Truth is not self-evident:
Sometimes it takes a Herculean effort to notice it.
Atheism is not a religion but a confirmation (of the
facts of reality). A religion is always either a never-
ending quest or it ends in a final finding that nothing
supernatural exists: And as all religious quests must
of necessity end in such a finding (or continue the
futile quest for God), that confirmation of reality is
the definition of atheism. --S D Rodrian
The Future has no existence and The Present is but
process. The Future exists only once it has become
The Past. The Past is all that exists: Therefore who
would have us forget [The Past] are nothing less
than trying to raze us all right out of our existence.
The foolishness of war.

Billions invested in the war industry by nations that
will never come under any military threats could be
better spent in those industries which will genuinely
secure their future free of any/every other country on
this earth. Russia and China are the prime examples:

On a track to becoming one of the world's "trusted &
respected" nations after the fall of the Soviet Union
(the collapse of communism), today it's turned itself
into one of the major threats against its neighbors.
And for what gain?... small tiny pieces of territories
which diplomacy would have with time resolved its way
(provided it was the way of decency & justice and not
the way of criminality & outright theft). Foolish Putin!

China is scheming to secure oil & gas supplies from
territories disputed by its neighboring countries, and
investing its treasure in the weapons of enforcement.
When instead China could become energy self-sufficient
with an occasional investment in upcoming technologies
of the near future like the capturing of carbon dioxide
directly from the atmosphere for plane and truck fuel
... which is already in the pipeline and poised for a
quite massive implementation within the next decade.

That is the foolishness of war, as it is implemented by
foolish leaders who cannot understand the mechanisms
of wealth [esp. in the coming years] and only know of
the dated mechanisms of the past... usually most quickly
acquired in sheer naked crime by those who don't know
how to produce it or are too lazy to work for it/at it.

Petty thieves covet their neighbors' brick of gold
while wise men build golden palaces out of sheer air:

At the most fundamental level: ALL our "nationalistic"
disputes are invented & whipped up by foolish leaders
(really but petty thieves) who are convinced that wealth
(usually a neighbors') is something just as eternal and
impossible to "create" as a brick of solid gold--and not
what wealth really is: The human imagination and our
freedom to put human creativity into practice. Wealth
is therefore the inevitable outcome anywhere those two
things are present. And for them to be found anywhere
& everywhere people abide... all one needs to do is to
simply not in any way impede their natural flowering.
In A brief history of gravity, gravitational waves and
Joel Achenbach writes:

   "In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein finally
   came up with an explanation, and it's rather
   astonishing. First he grasped that gravity and
   acceleration are the same thing. His General Theory
   of Relativity, formulated in 1915, describes
   gravity as a consequence of the way mass curves
   "spacetime," the fabric of the universe."

Well, "Things fall on account of they fall" is NOT an
explanation. And neither is "this is how they fall"
(the geometry they trace in their falling): What
Einstein did was what Galileo did before him: they
described the way "gravity" moves stuff (that's all).

   It's all geometry,' Achenbach continues:
   "Objects in motion will move through space and
   time on the path of least resistance. A planet
   will orbit a star not because it is connected to
   the star by some kind of invisible tether, but
   because the space is warped around the star."

To say "there is a wall there" is NOT the same as
describing the material of which the wall is composed.

   “Gravity, according to Einstein, is the warping of
   space and time,” Brian Greene wrote in his book
   “The Elegant Universe.”

"The warping of space and time,” is like saying "stuff
moves." And exactly what understanding does that give
anyone about "the nature of the stuff moving about?"

   "The physicist John Wheeler had a famous saying:
   'Mass grips space by telling it how to curve, space
   grips mass by telling it how to move.'”

This sounds a lot like God's "Gospel Word" doing stuff
out there. And that's never a good thing in science:
It would have been a much nicer saying had it included
even so much as a hint on what the tentacles by which
mass grips space are composed OR pointed out the rope
which space uses to swing mass about. AND, of course,
given an explanation of the ways in which a "curve" is
distinct from a "move."

   "One of the predictions of Einstein’s equations
   (though Einstein himself wasn’t ready to buy in
   fully) was the existence of gravitational waves –
   ripples in the spacetime fabric."

Well, let me assure you: "gravitational waves" do NOT
exist anymore than gravity itself exists. As Newton
said: "It is inconceivable that inanimate brute Matter
should without the Mediation of something else which
is not material, operate upon, and affect other Matter
without mutual Contact." Well, then ("spacetime"):

1) What is "space" if it can be "grabbed" by "mass"?
2) What is "time" if it can be "warped" by "mass"

   "Gravity is so great an Absurdity," concluded
   Newton, "that I believe no Man who has in
   philosophical Matters a competent Facility of
   thinking can ever fall into it."

The Standard Model is essentially a description of the
interaction between particles, and because gravity is
not produced or mediated by particles, the Standard
Model of particle physics bears no relationship with
it whatever, nor does gravity fit in it, nor can it. And
if "spacetime" has no material existence, how then
do gravitational waves "do" it?

The correct interpretation of what they are popularly
vulgarly calling "gravitational waves" is they simply are
"energy pressure waves" inside the imploding universe
--where everything is always moving towards the center
(all the time towards all centers everywhere). In such
a universe a powerful explosion is bound to produce a
powerful "counter wave" (exactly as all explosions will
produce pressure waves, regardless of the power of
the explosion): Here on the earth an explosion causes
energy waves in air, water, soil--Out there, even where
there is manifestedly infinitely lesser/lesser material
(but still some)... the manifestation of an energy power
wave can only be caused by some stupendous explosion
[as, however thin the consistency of space may be,
there's still some consistency to it]. It's the energy
of the explosion we are measuring. Therefore it makes
more sense to describe them as energy pressure waves
than as waves produced by mass-ejection (when there is
no "mass" anywhere near the earth from which they can
be produced): Distant black holes should NOT produce
gravitational waves (according to their own theories)
but on the contrary should simply cease to produce the
space-time distortions which the missing mass would
otherwise be "producing." Describing "gravitational
waves" in terms of a couple of corks atop different
wave peaks moving by turns closer/farther to & from
each other just makes my point for me ["density is
compressed in one direction, and expanded in the
orthogonal directions"] that: energy was pushed out
from this black hole collision, and this "energy wave"
is what was measured--about 3 solar masses worth!

   "According to the equations physicists have
   settled on, gravitational waves would compress
   space in one direction and stretch it in another
   as they traveled outward."

Which is pretty much how an "energy wave" (or, "an
energy-conveying wave") would be expected to behave
in its medium: In other words, NOT causing its medium
to be itself modified (or "permanently shifted out of
the way") but only "passing along the wave's energy"
[the 2 floating corks moving closer/back apart above].
On a "surface" the two corks would bob up and down,
of course, as the wave (energy) passes, which is not
the case where there is no "surface" for the corks to
"bob" upon as the two waves pass the energy along.

The fact that such a pressure energy wave "moves" at
the speed of light is additional proof that it is moving
"against" the implosion of the universe [i.e. it is
the universe's implosion that defines C, or the speed
of light, as its uniquely singular constant].

   "Since they pass through matter without interacting
   with it, gravitational waves would come to Earth
   carrying undistorted information about their
   origin. They could also improve methods for
   estimating the distances to other galaxies."

Obviously this new "pressure energy waves" tool
will be useful to astronomy, just like the "light spectrum
tool" has been. But gravitational waves they are not.

Remember: The greatest impetus [force] that exists in
the universe is its implosion--Gravitational Waves are
a real phenomena [they obviously do exist] but have
nothing to do with "gravity" and are pushback [waves]
against the force of implosion by monstrously powerful
explosions (caused by collisions of black hole stars).*******************************************
Scientists detect signal from ‘cosmic dawn,’ when stars
first lit up the universe

"....scientist proposes that the unexpected size of the
signal suggests it was influenced by dark matter — a
potential new clue to one of the most persistent mysteries
in the universe." --What they have discovered is a "lower
temperature" than expected. The reason for this "drop" is
sheer speculation, not dark matter. [If, on the other hand,
the true reason for such a drop in temperature is that the
gas is dissipating much slowly than the expectation, then
what he's really discovered is one more proof the universe
is an implosion--or, a universe which must of necessity be
forever speeding up as it develops across time and space.]

... "In the companion study, Barkana writes that dark
matter may have interacted with the cosmic gas, cooling
it and allowing deeper absorption." Indeed, the "May"
in that paragraph IS "the discovery" of dark matter.

The belief in dark matter (and it is only a belief)
comes about something like this: You are looking at
a field and suddenly a house in the distance falls
down, so you say "Oh, look, that house just fell down!
It MUST have been because an invisible giant was
striding by and stept on it." And the proof of this
is: "Well, HOW ELSE could that house have just fallen
down like that?" Case closed. That's it: The proof of
dark matter is the inability of its proponents to come
up with an alternate explanation for the phenomena
which they "believe" are being caused by dark matter.

I have the solution, of course. But word hasn't gotten
to them yet:

No matter what the objections to its existence may be,
proponents of dark matter ignore them all (just like
every other proponent of the supernatural). And there
are certainly many such objections--chief of which may
be that if dark matter interacts "gravitationally" not
only with regular matter, but) with itself: Where are all
the dark matter-only galaxies? [What "separates" dark
matter from regular matter?] There are regular-matter
galaxies which even dark matter proponents have to
admit have no discernible dark matter in them. So, as
"they" have proposed that there is substantially a lot
more dark then regular matter in the universe, surely
then there HAS to be that many more dark matter-only
galaxies here than ordinary-matter-only galaxies. But
there "are" none. Surely even one "invisible" dark
matter galaxy might have already been found to be
"interacting" with something/somewhere by now!

And if their mythical dark matter does not interact
with itself the same way it interacts with regular (or
real) matter, why the hell not? Why does dark matter
cloud and real matter lump?
It would be nice to know.
Even if dark matter is exempt from forming "stars"
there should be all sorts of dark matter "black holes"
bumping into things out there, and trillions of dark
matter-only galaxies (if maybe made up only of black
matter black holes) gumming up the universe...

No matter what they tell you... the requirement for
how dark matter interacts with itself cannot be in any
way shape or form different from the requirement for
how it interacts with regular matter IF the one and
ONLY such requirement is "gravity." It's ok if a dark
matter particle repulses every other dark matter
particle at the electro-magnetic level & keeps it all
from forming stars, but how would that prevent the
gravitational formation of "spheres" of dark matter?
Exactly as with regular matter: A "cloud" of dark
matter [obeying the same rules of gravity as a cloud
of regular matter] should still create spheres, not
remain a cloud. We should "see" spirals of dark matter
just like the Milky Way spiral. Shouldn't we? Yes!

But dark matter only seems to "exist" where one of its
proponents requires its "existence" to avoid having to
explain [a previously unexplained observation] by good
ole fashioned persistent perceptive productive hard
work. Therefore, ye blind: Beware of obvious cons!

This is a very old story. We have had this cheap con
played on us a million times before. Its effectiveness
therefore (this far along in the game) might have
something to do with the fact that when it's told to
us by someone whom we otherwise trust or admire,
a friend or some flashy celebrity, we always find it
hard to laugh at it, time & time again, & dismiss it.
Vera Rubin, Astronomer Who Discovered The First
Direct Evidence Of Dark Matter, Dead At 88

More like Columbus "discovered the way to Asia." But
just as Columbus is commemorated for a discovery
which he never realized he had made, one day Vera
Rubin too will be remembered for (without ever even
realizing it) having discovered direct evidence of the
imploding nature of our universe.    S D Rodrian
Any notion of so-called Dark Energy being behind the
acceleration of the universe's expansion runs headlong
into an utterly unavoidable physical impossibility.
That is: There is no way for increasing "distance"
["the ever-increasing space between galaxies as the
universe expands"] to be increasing "pressure" ["the
eternally-increasing amount of energy that would be
required for such an unending acceleration"].

At most, the best that Dark Energy proponents can ever
look forward to proposing is that... "if" there really
were Dark Energy between the galaxies, then yes: the
farther any two galaxies are from each other, the more
Dark Energy there must necessarily be in the space
between them (there being more space there). The
critical problem [in an expanding universe, in which
galaxies are always flying away from each other] is
self-evident, of course: Even if their proposed Dark
Energy is NOT decreasing at every point of/in space
(because of conservation of energy) it also cannot be
increasing [never-mind how it was created in the first
place because quantum mechanics can explain anything].
BUT: Therefore the increasing amount of Dark Energy at
every point of/in space always remains constant--And
that is not much different than saying that at sea-level
pressure on a fish is the same whether it's swimming
in a puddle or out in the middle of the greatest ocean.

--Better go to sea: --- [sic.]

It [that "energy pressure"] cannot be increasing there
without it also increasing here [which see]... just as it
cannot be decreasing there without also decreasing here.
There is a tiny problem with the Higgs field explanation:

Relativity OR the Higgs field--You can't have them both.
As I have stated elsewhere: Higgs is a patently obvious
attempt to revive the ancient dead "ether" theory which
Einstein's work on relativity was supposed to finally kill
once & for all. But apparently hasn't... for some people.

 Does inertia really exist, or is it a misunderstanding?

The crucial question is this: Which came first, "inertia"
or Newton's Laws of Motion? For if the Laws of Motion
take precedence over [rule] inertia then "the resistance
to being shoved around" requires [energy enough] to
accomplish every instance against the energy to shove
things around--something which in our universe we can
readily observe every time without exception [as well
as in every instance of motion being brought to a stop].

My proposal is that due to the fact that there is nothing
inside our imploding universe which is at full stop: ALL
the motions (without exception) in it are relative: Our
imploding universe is not composed of absolute objects
stuck in absolute positions but is instead composed of
all manner/forms of things which because they are in
an eternally imploding universe are therefore always
ALL in motion: This universe obviously can NOT contain
ANY object within it at rest [in some absolute stop]. All
motions in here are always only at some relative stop
or in some relative motion. And this is why it requires an
external force (of energy) to put them into a "different"
motion even when they may appear to an observer to be
already at rest in an absolute position [which additional
motion will then require an equal force to oppose, yes].

On the other hand, if inertia takes precedence over the
Laws of Motion and the Higgs boson is "what ties down
things" [the Higgs boson "dragging" against "the Higgs
field" which supposedly pervades its entire universe
(like some "living dead" ether come up out of its grave)
requiring no expenditure of energy to accomplish this
no matter what amount of energy may be required to get
something moving] then: What (energy) keeps things
moving in this universe--or, the Higgs boson continuing
its line of motion once it is in motion (obviously moving
against the Higgs field' objections) without requiring
any extra expenditure of energy to defeat that "drag?"

For, what we see in the universe is that things always
obey the Laws of Motion in every instance & only move
or stop moving when some external force [i.e. energy]
comes into play and starts them or stops them moving.

  In effect, what "turns off" the Higgs field's drag?

If "the resistance to being shoved around" is due to
the interaction between the Higgs boson and the Higgs
field, why would the "drag" of the ether-rous Higgs
field magically cease of act on the Higgs boson once
it is in motion (something we see every time without
exception as all universal motions always instead obey
Newton's Laws of Motion and continue in motion until
acted upon by some external force)... thereby bringing
all motion in "the Higgs field universe" to a dead stop
without anything but the drag of the Higgs field doing
it--something which WE never see without exception?

And, please... no further impossible "invented notions"
(to rescue the folly of the ether/Higgs field) such as
that the Higgs boson itself "creates" the "Higgs field"
or some such--this would be like saying that someone
working a hula hoop as he walks around creates/turns
off gravity at will: The push-&-pulls of a man working
his hula hoop are all "one internal interaction" and their
"inter"-actions can play no part whatsoever in "their"
struggle to move about as one, or to come to a full stop.
[Or even: Any notion that the "Higgs field" gives rise
to the "Higgs boson" would be even more impossible to
imagine or explain.] So stop dreaming & face the facts.
The importance of Einstein's relativity is that it is
a more accurate way to calculate the effects of gravity
than Newton's classical equations. Therefore, if
you're planning on blowing up the world with ICBMs
you'll be more accurate using Einstein's geometry.

Einstein's relativity writings here are like saying that
your employer cuts you out a check every week and
that that's the nature of what you do for a living: No!
Saying that your employer cuts you out a check every
week doesn't say the first (or anything whatsoever)
about the nature of what you do for a living. What
does saying that "that is how your job works" say
about what your job actually is?!?

Same thing with relativity and the "explanation" for
gravity: Einstein's relativity doesn't explain the
first (or anything whatsoever) about the nature of
gravity; it's only a description of what "gravity"
seems to be doing (not how or why it's doing it).

Only my explanation [at least so-far] is AN explanation
of the nature of gravity (what gravity is), and not simply
just/only what we've been watching it do for ages now.
      Everything has its problem.
      And every problem has a solution.

Intelligence is the ability to see a wide range of
possibilities and to put as any of them as possible
into play on your ongoing range of problems.

Cleverness, on the other hand is the ability to shut
out those possibilities which have no immediate direct
impact on the problem you're currently working on.

This is why [even the most intelligent person] will
find it unexpectedly difficult to beat [a person who
is clever] at checkers. And why they are more evenly
matched at chess. [Computer vs Chess Grandmaster]
Venus' Twin? Earth-Size Planet Is Hot, May Have

Nearby Alien World Discovered

In the vainglorious search for intelligent life "out
there" dreamers have proposed billions & billions of
planets in the Goldilocks proximities to their stars
... all of them teeming with life, of course. All it
takes, apparently, is for a near-earth size rocky
planet to fall into this Goldilocks area, and Presto!
Suddenly there are little green men running all over
it putting up apartment buildings and malls. So
where are all the alien Jack Benny Programs we
should be listening to by now from every point in the
dead silent heavens? Hello! Anybody out there? No.

But, do such dreamers ever really take a hard look at
the facts as they really/truly are? I doubt it. If they
did they'd possibly see that right next to us there is
a near-earth size rocky planet (Mars); a planet which
like Earth also sits right smack in the fabled Goldilocks
zone. But it's quite dead. Why? Because it was never
side-swiped by another similar-sized body in its
infancy, producing a Moon-size satellite of its own
(like it happened to our beloved Earth about a 100
million years after it formed). This hit was crucial.

The consequences for life on Mars of its never having
been side-swiped by such a body were catastrophic:
Mars began its life pretty much as Earth's twin--And
at some point in its past it was probably as wet and
perhaps even teeming with as much life as the Earth.
[Therefore a much more likely candidate even than
Earth to live long & prosper, being further away from
the damaging effects of the solar wind than Earth.]

Yet, lacking its own "just right-sized" moon, unlike
the Earth, Mars never developed a little wobble of its
own, one which has been kept going all these years by
the tug-and-pull between Earth and its Moon, and which
will hopefully continue yet for some time to come too
because that little wobble is probably what keeps the
Earth's insides hot enough for its different cores to
rub up against each other and produce the magnetic
field which reaches out to embrace our planet with its
mantle of protection against a solar wind that would
otherwise (were that magnetic field not to be there)
blow off our atmosphere (oceans and all, and us) and
leave Earth as dead a rock as cold-cored Mars now is.

And, it can't just be a head-on collision (which might
not create a wobble-sustaining Moon at all, but maybe
only a number of smaller planets & somebody else's
moons). It also can't be a side-swipe which would
leave behind the wrong combinations of materials both
for/in the planet and in the moon. No. That "miracle
strike" which created the present Earth and Moon
combination is a "one-in-an" unimaginably improbable
accident which is highly unlikely to have happened all
that many times to all that many of those so-called
Goldilocks planets out there. Or ask Mars; or Venus
for that matter.

Therefore, ye dreamers, take off a few more billions
and billions of "likely candidates" off ye Goldilocks
wish lists. [Not to mention the fact that it's likely
that most everybody else "out there" has been wiped
off entire galaxies at a time by the unimaginably
tremendous blasts of stars powerful enough to produce
galaxy-wide sterilizing events, and which are probably
not all that statistically rare in galaxies big as ours:

Yes: It is highly improbable that our Milky Way Galaxy
(huge as it is) has never experienced one or more of
these tremendous killer starbursts. Something which
certainly makes our continuing presence in it quite an
extraordinary miracle too: impossibly hard to explain,
really: Perhaps the improbable, unbelievable answer
may be that the Sun was originally an extra-galactic
passing star which came to be pulled in here after all
those monstrous Milk Way sterilizing bursts. Or maybe
we really are in "a privileged place" protected from them
enough to experience all those "only" immense die-offs
in our historical past and yet continue to survive to tell
the story of life. Whatever. [This does not bode well
for our future here.] And perhaps THAT is the real story
of life, after all. Who knows. But time will tell, of course.
El Porque de los Porqueses. [relevance = why]

"Why" is strictly a human concern: A shoot sprouts,
grows into a tree, bears branches, foliages, and then
monkeys start jumping all over them--That's "what" &
"how." But, unlike "when" (which does exist in nature
but is unknown without our asking it), "why" has no
reality (existence) or relevance in any way, shape or
form whatever outside the human mind. [redundancy]

Does any of this matter to you? No? Does it matter [to
me, say] that it matters not to you? Imagine you are a
horse in some stable and I come along and show you my
text. Does it matter to "you?" Of course not. And how
then can it matter to me that my text matters not to a
horse? For, it matters exactly the same [to me] that
it doesn't matter to you whether you're horse or man.
You know, reality is a nutty proposition in people's
heads. Humanity peoples a plank uneasily balanced over
a loose cylinder, forever rolling back & forth as we
all rush one way & then the other. One minute some
idiot cries out: "Let's all rush to the sea and drown
ourselves!" And millions will die in the waves. Those
who survive will drag themselves out and ask, "What
were we thinking?" while they dry themselves. Then
hear another fool scream out: "Let's all rush up the
tallest mountain & hurl ourselves off!" And millions
more will plunge off the cliffs. And those who survive
(because they'll land on the corpses of those who went
first) will drag themselves painfully to the hospitals
asking themselves: "What were we thinking?" And on
& on it goes like that, and ever will go, ever unstable
as all our insanities. And so good luck!
In trying to answer the question of how an EmDrive
works, Benjamin T. Solomon also half-hints at a
conventional solution to the question of how it is
that "quantities of matter" might be forced to move
towards each other in the absence of gravity [also:
"Prof. Gerardus 't Hooft had brought up something
interesting in his 2008 paper 'A locally finite model
for gravity' ... that 'absence of matter now no longer
guarantees local flatness...' meaning that accelerations
can be present in spacetime without the presence of
mass"] (--which is the state in which I describe our
--), [yes, accelerations of what?!] this way:

"In my 2012 book An Introduction to Gravity
Modification, I had explained the importance of
asymmetrical fields and designs for creating
propellantless engines. For example, given a particle
in a gravitational field and with respect to this
field's planetary mass source, this particle will
observe an asymmetrical gravitational field. The near
side of this particle will experience a stronger field
than the far side, and thus the motion towards the
planetary mass. Granted that this difference is tiny,
it is not zero..." [Benjamin T. Solomon]

He explains the observation in terms of gravitational
fields, whereas I am convinced the solution is that
[in a universe which is undergoing implosion] every
"quantity of mass" [in the universe] is moving towards
every other "quantity of mass" in it ... and therefore
the greater the "quantities" the bigger the observed
acceleration they will experience towards each other.

This will invariably always produce "quantities of
mass" which in the absence of any other like-/such
"quantities of mass" will tend to become spherical;
which at closer proximities with tend to elongate
towards each other; and which at greater/greater
distances will seem merely to "become mutually
attracted" to each other by the degrees of distances
at which they lie. [Thereby: the greater the "quantity
of mass" ... the greater the attraction--in effect,
the "acceleration" towards each other.] As is always
everywhere the case seen with our material universe.

In this way, an EmDrive may simply be a convoluted
mechanism for turning [solar] radiation into propulsive
[radiation, emphasis on the "radiating"], whereas solar
sails use that [radiation] directly. And thereby the fact
that an EM drive "seems to be more efficient" is that
sail propulsion requires that more mass be "pushed."
Creating a "map" of Dark Matter is like creating a
"map" of where cars are by noting the way "their"
passing moves the wind about: I think I might be
better inclined to assume that there are probably much
better explanations for the movements of the wind than
the moving about of passing invisible cars. But that's
just me: For some people the only possible explanation
for the moving wind can "only" be unseen passing cars.
All talk about singularities is like discussions over
whether Woody Woodpecker is mentally competent:

Size is the greatest, most instant annihilator of any
imagined possible/virtual/theoretical Singularity ...
for if a so-called singularity has ANY size (at all)
then it cannot possibly be a singularity, as it would
of necessity require it to have dimension(s). [If the
Original Singularity exploded into the Big Bang, then
it couldn't have possibly been anything remotely like
a singularity of course, because such an "explosion"
could only have been triggered by the nature of its
inner architectures.] And if any proposed singularity
has dimensions it has sides, and everything that has
sides has different/opposing reasons for one side
being here up against its opposite side, etc.,etc., etc...
[Then again: it's pretty hard to imagine how something
with absolutely no size whatsoever could possibly exist.]
Pure mathematics is numbers multiplied by numbers
multiplied by numbers [until they go on & on & on to
a level at which they no longer stand for any "thing"]
& then the numbers can multiply by themselves up to
"anything." And when something can be anything it's
nothing. ["2 X 2" is not pure mathematics because we
know that it stands for "2 fingers" X "2 fingers"] ...
The only difference between a standup comic
and a physicist is that the physicist's jokes
are only understood by a small circle of people:
"There's something there where there's nothing:
We can't see it, touch it, smell it but we know
it's there because... you see Harry over there? If
there were nothing there then he'd sit down faster,
now, wouldn't he?"
Now, it's possible that the universe is sane & we are
insane. It is a bit less possible that the universe is
insane and that we are sane. And it's least possible
that the universe is insane and we are [also] insane.
What is possible is that we are sane & the universe is
also sane--And that therefore we believe the universe
to be deterministic while the universe is not: Think.
'Darwin's Dilemma' May Finally Have Been Solved

   "Though the theory of evolution has long been
   accepted as scientific fact, scientists have always
   had trouble reconciling Darwin's notion of gradual
   evolution by natural selection with a sudden
   explosion of new species around 530 million years
   ago. Now a University of Texas geologist believes
   he may finally have an explanation for what some
   refer to as "Darwin's dilemma": a major shift in
   the continents, which created ideal conditions for
   complex new life forms to evolve."

This might possibly account for the explosion of new
species, but it would not account for the massive die-
off that immediately proceeds it at the end of the
Ediacaran period 542 million years ago--which I have
always been inclined to believe could have been caused
by a galaxy-wide supernova sterilizing radiation burst.
Life exploded forth again in the Cambrian period until
suddenly (in geological terms) another over 40% of all
species went extinct 488 million years ago in the
almost as large Cambrian-Ordovician Extinction--which
also could have been yet another after-shock of the
original supernova near-sterilization(s) [exactly as the
Ordovician-Silurian Extinction 443 million years ago
and even the Late Devonian Extinction 378 million
years ago]. Note that the cited significant continental
glaciations (as well as associated oxygen depletions)
could even be direct results of biomass removal (since
the earth's biomass plays a critical role in maintaining
the planet's so delightful temperature equilibrium).
However, it can not be ruled out that our great galaxy
underwent a period when large stars of a similar age
reached the end of their life-cycle(s). Therefore I
have always thought the complete explanation more
likely to be supernova near-sterilization(s) of this
part (if not all, or at least most) of our galaxy...
Note that the Milky Way galaxy to this day seems
unusually devoid of the large number of intelligent
lifeforms one would statistically expect just from the
availability of natural resources for them to exist:
Everywhere we look around us there is a deadly telling
silence in a galaxy which ought to be flourishing with
a hundred thousand civilizations at least as old and
developed as our own]. In which case, one or more
galaxy-wide sterilization episode(s) could have occurred
from around 540 up to even 252 million years ago when
the greatest extinction of all --the Permian-Triassic
Extinction-- happened, wiping out 99% of the biomass
on this particularly miraculous planet... for some as yet
unknown reason. However, just one such supernova
episode alone at the end of the Ediacaran might be
enough to have naturally, inevitably triggered all the
other [lucky for us] series of subsequent dieoffs.
The notion that the universe is only as big as how
much we can see of it from here is as endearing as
that of the boy who stands on the roof on his house
and imagines that the world is only as big as how
much he can see of it from up there (with very probably
the reason for one being the same as for the other).
Reality is either deterministic or it is not.
If it is "only a little" deterministic then it's
absolutely not deterministic. I subscribe
to it being deterministic; therefore if you
find here & there instances in which it is
not deterministic then understand that
I'm convinced there is something (about
reality) which you have yet to understand.
Every deterministic pathway through a reality which is
not deterministic can only be attributed to God.
Therefore, either there is a God or every path through
reality which appears to us not to be deterministic is
an illusion. And the belief in God is delusional.
Because ours is a deterministic universe, God
must have a certain and absolute reason & cause
for even the slightest most insignificant detail in it.
Not everything happens for a reason
but we can certainly always come up with
a reason for everything that happens.
The long & boring trek of a beetle--Who I am & what I
do are all the sad consequence of the mechanics of my
robotic being. And those were all designed over
billions of years by the blind requirements of my DNA
[its need to persist BECAUSE it cannot see the end].
Why persist is truly the story of the utter ignorance
& pointlessness of Nature, of life itself. As all our
best/greatest achievements are forever doomed to fall
into the infinite obscurity of the eternal dark which
must be the end of this brief universe engulfing us.

Those needs have produced a creature designed to
perpetuate that DNA being--a task the creature its has
created now finds distasteful, and unethical/amoral: I
shall die soon. And it will almost immediately be as
if I had never been. No comment. Only a weird sense of
strange satisfaction! A mere bug at its locomotion...
But maybe we should continue with this passing thing,
this vast interminable voyage that seeks out blindly but
the very end of time & whatever lies beyond the briefest
of perceived truths [except everything is the vastness
of an even wider imagination to us]: like an angst of
pangs, nothing to nothing & nothings on nothings
until they all mount up to Time's... more nothing.
For a theist, proof of God's existence is as simple
as throwing a rock, or "had it fallen anywhere but
where it did it would have meant there was no God."
The universe is perverse
and full of bugs.
What is God? A figment of our imagination.
The cork with which we plug our ignorance.
God is always the one explanation for what we do
not yet understand: God is one of the endless ideas
that arise out of the unfettered human imagination
when our thoughts are not anchored in firm reality.
I am a Christian not because I believe that Jesus
was God but because I believe that the way of Jesus
is The Way (to the Salvation of the human race).
So-called Christianity was invented (yes, literally
designed) by a Pagan Roman Emperor (Constantine)
to make it easier for him to rule the Roman Empire.
This is why his "Jesus is God" notion is entirely of a
Greco-Roman Pagan god walking around the earth
performing magic tricks, having sex with peoples &
other animals, and sending folks to Hades or Mount
Olympus. [Note that in the Hebrew Bible God never
comes down to earth even to talk to Moses, nor is
there any notion of there being a Heaven where you
can play checkers with God or a Hell in which you &
Allah can enjoy torturing the souls of the unbelievers
and raping their little virgin children, girls & boys...]
You can't understand the world if you only read the
opinions of those who agree with you. In fact, you'll
understand the world much better if you only read the
opinions of those who disagree with you because then
you'll get the more balanced/complimentary views
between your opinion and theirs.

S D Rodrian

Because this document is so important to all mankind,
you are encouraged to set up a mirror of it wherever you like:
Simply unzip this file & upload the directory to your website: