On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden  
BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>    Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian's piano sonata

http://www.archive.org/details/COMPLETE_MOZART_PIANO_SONATAS

>> Ha! Those are by Mozart.
>> Last time "I" wrote a piano
>> sonata it caused such hysterics
>> (of laughter) that I
>> was briefly held on a charge
>> of attempted homicide
>> (of my listeners).
>
> Sorry... interpretation...
>
>>> I wish we could discuss the relation of
>>> thermodynamics and gravity.

VISIT THOU:   http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

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

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

                http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

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

      Notions of a two-dimensional "object"
      (let alone one-dimensional ones(!)...
      or even multi-dimensional "things")
      are all typically strictly mathematical
      constructs [-only] which do not have
      any "existence" in our reality outside
      the math whatsoever--yet may be
      thought to do so by otherwise quite
      rational-appearing mathematicians
      who eat & drink & drive cars in our
      streets without killing pedestrians
      right & left, as you'd think they might.

      [Even the mere description of a two-
      dimensional object in our reality is
      impossible, and mathematicians'
      pathetic attempts to do so are quickly
      reduced to... objects which both exist
      and have no existence depending on
      how you look at them... or they start
      babbling about projected pictures on
      screens as if the showers of photons
      producing them were not something
      more akin to a shower of asteroids
      hitting the ocean... where, yes, most
      of them would be "absorbed" but
      many would skip & bounce about
      according to their own dynamics...
      and some of them would even bounce
      back and hit our eyes--the photons,
      that is: An object either exists or it
      doesn't, if it's doing both, it's a mere
      hallucination. Sorry.]

    This, of course, kills all those silly notions
    of "gravitons" as "closed strings" which are
    free to roam from dimension to dimension,
    to "conveniently" explain the weakness of
    the "force" of gravity here (I have always
    wondered how these silly theorists manage
    to ignore all the other dimensions' gravitons
    which ought to be drifting into our own, but
    that's just me, I suppose).

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

   Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
          http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The "distance" between two nearby bodies will
  diminish more than/long before the "distance"
  between them and bodies farther afield" (because
  all groups/conglomerations are "moving" ["down"]
  towards the sum of all their mass' centers) and
  therefore away from everything else "outside" them.
   
There is nothing "personal" about this, it's merely
that the universe is "so big in comparison to the bit
under consideration" that, to all practical effects...
every such bit of the universe can be described as its
"center." [The universe is everywhere "shrinking"
towards its everyplace ... not "slurping" wholesale
towards its whatever singular sum center.]

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

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

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

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

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

        And now you can simply Google recent
        proofs which have been confirmed HERE.

    Googling this you will discover, by the by, that
    many physicists (who also dare to call themselves
    scientists) have by an act of unimaginable hubris
    signed a letter of objection to the facts that have
    been discovered AND proven (above)...!!!

      Nothing could possibly tell you more
      about the difference between a mere
      mathematician and a scientist than this.

  The reason why this is so upsetting to physicists
  is that in Einstein's special theory of relativity
  essentially "gravity travels at the speed of light."
  And if neutrinos 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, eh!

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

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

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

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

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

What is gravity really.
What Is Gravity really.
What is gravity really.
What is Gravity really.
What is gravity really.
What is Gravity really.
Yep. Thought I did ...

>> If you wish to plunge into the lighter side of
>> humanity visit:  http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm

> Unfortunately your poem is as long as your treatise
> on gravity and thermodynamics.

And people have forgotten how to read. I know.

> By the time I get a bit of the way through I am
> tired and wish that you could compress the rhetoric
> down to a simplistic construction.

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

> Then there could be a real discussion.

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

> I do not wish to be light. You would like to goof
> around a bit and it is your right to do so.

What else can one do around goofballs?

> You say you are old.

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

> Will your idea of unifying gravity and
> thermodynamics die with you?

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

> Is there even anything substantial there?

For whom?

> Why then would you attempt to force your reader
> through such a long roundabout path?

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

> The direct approach is much more efficient. When
> you have someone offering to be a student why
> would you throw them away?

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

> I suppose you are a man of great variations with
> little basis.

Ah! You have been to:

http://www.archive.org/details/BACH_ART_OF_THE_VARIATION

> I challenge you to present your theory of
> gravitation and thermodynamics in as compact
> a form as possible.

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

Those who truly wish to understand ... will.

> I have a brief theory that predicts that large solid
> objects cannot achieve low temperature.

I think my fridge disproves it already...

> By a natural tendency of matter to cohere as it
> oscillates such a tendency can be intuited.

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

> I admit that my own theory is infantile
> and it needs work. I
> encourage you to present even just such
> a starting point as a kernel
> of development.

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

> Operating by declaration is necessary but the
> quality of the declarations are an open problem.

Isn't that a declaration!

> All human knowledge is
> constructed and as such is suspect
> and therefor open to development.

Another declaration? Will it never end?

> Unfortunately your declarations are
> either nonexistent or lay buried.

Declaration or mere opinion, or both?

> Perhaps you should bury your hard drive
> with you. Or will you be incinerated?

Incinerated: I'm already burnt up.

> Either way your state is presently grim.

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

> It seems you need this reflected.

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

> -Tim (with more retort below)
>
>> There are no atheists in the human species. Anyone
>> sez he's an atheist who then prays/prays and prays
>> that he gets the job is a mere hypocrite (at best).
>
> I am an atheist.

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

> This merely means that I do not believe in God.

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

> Prayer is closer to thought and intention

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

> and may not be far from meditation.

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

> These concepts are not directly tied to the
> three letter word.

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

> If you wish to define an abstract God we may
> come to some resolution

Perhaps when you learn to be honest with yourself
--first.

> but I will prefer the word reality to such a misuse
> of the old egotistical construction.

>>> The Abrahamic religions are false belief systems.
>> Do these religious principles really require that
>> they
>> be correct? I mean, after all: Didn't the Maya keep
>> the world from coming to an end for a thousand
>> years
>> by ripping the still beating hearts out of the
>> breasts
>> of their countless sacrificial victims? These
>> things work.
>
> But do they work well?

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

> The current situation may be dismissed as
> purely political,

You mean this post?

> but are the greivances of the Islamic
> fundamentalists valid?

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

> Their unified mixture of tribal culture,
> religion, and government is old and strong.
> The American attention
> deficit disorder does not allow for such
> consideration.

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

http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm

> The maturity
> of American politics is suspect, especially when
> the leader preaches
> that God is on his side.

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

>>> Perhaps the situation for the individual is of
>>> multiple identities.
>> Don't woik:
>> Multiple identifies = multiple taxation.
 
> Yes. We already have multiple taxation: town, state,
> nation ...

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

>>> So I cannot rule out the media completely.
>> Yeah! Nasty bastards all, who are always bending
>> backwards to try to be unbiased and report only the
>> facts when they should properly be the instruments
>> of
>> OUR propaganda/the voices of our biases/the petards
>> of our prejudices! But, nooooooo!
>
> How often is it mentioned in the media that the US
> is facing a long term foreign policy crisis?

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

> Are we ever reminded that we helped to build the
>Taliban?

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

> That the US and GB armed Saddam Hussein?

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

>> A financial crisis looms and dithering from
>>> external
>>> forces along with
>>> another terrorist attack are a plausible end.

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

>>> It's
>>> not going to be
>>> pretty, but it is perhaps the right thing in terms
>>> of global justice.

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

>> Yes. Well, it's a good thing Russia, China and Iran
>> are there to pick up the slack if the United States
>> falters in this world, no? Ho! Ho! Ho!
>
> The USA has played a large part in how these
> countries that you
> mention have come to be what they are.

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

> Your own sense of hostility is
> exactly the tension of which I have spoken
> elsewhere.

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

>>> Of course, the US could stand down, join the ICC,
>>> stop twisting the
>>> rest of humanity around its interests...
>> And implode into the most monumental economic crash
>> ever seen on this earth since The Flood (which I'm
>> sure won't even blow away a single leaf in the rest
>> of the planet)... Ha! Ha! Ha!
>
> We'll see won't we? At some level we just watch
> and see what unfolds.

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

>>> Morality has been a puzzle for philosophers yet it
>>> is clear to me that
>>> symmetry plays a fundamental role in the supply
>>> of moral values.
>> The more criminals that arise/the more cops we
>> gotta hire: Yes, I'm beginning to see the symmetry
>> of human behavior.
>
> No. I do accept that there are asymmetries in our
> behavior.

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

> But in a
> search for moral principles which we accept as
> ideal symmetry would be
> observed.

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

> It is also a grave mistake to presume that others
> operate exactly as ones self.

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

>>> We must exist in a
>>> culture of false assumptions
>> Who did you say made this unchallengeable judgment?
>
> Me.

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

> You are of course free to challenge it.

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

> It is tiring to preface
> everything with
>    'I think/believe/...'
.
From now on use: "Fuck you/Bite me/..."
They'll pay more attention to you. They might
even throw you in jail (which is like the highest
amount of attention society can pay you).

> So before everything I write you can just insert
> this preface universally.

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

>> Yes. And I know which parts too, but, because by
>> almost universal agreement, we term those parts
>> "dirty," as a gentleman of the old school (in fact,
>> I believe it's been torn down & carted away): I
>> refuse to mention such terms.
>
> This is cryptic

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

> but I suppose there is a lack of tabboo in current
> culture that you find distasteful.

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

> Still the open paradigm is strong
> especially here on this medium which you choose
> to use.

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

Good luck,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

RE:

On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob
<robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> And, of course, to 'prove' that no
> magic is required you need to
> explain (or eliminate) the beginning,
> i.e. how something evolved from
> nothing.  -- Rob

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

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

SEE  http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

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

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

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

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

On Aug 5, 3:31 pm, Chris L Peterson
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> You try to force the Universe to conform
> with the limitations of your
> imagination, rather than trying to
> expand your ideas to encompass the
> reality of the Universe.

   Pardon me for thinking.

> I suspect the Universe is far different,
> and far more interesting, than
> the form you attempt to define
> with your philosophy.

   EVOLUTION

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

> What came "before",
> or whether any such concept as "before"
> even has meaning, is currently
> beyond our ability to know. When
> that question is answered, however, it
> will be by science (not philosophy)-
> and it's perfectly possible that
> the answer will be that there truly was nothing-
> in any sense- before the BB. Chris L Peterson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

             BECAUSE

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

Meanwhile, some fellow in our own universe is
reading http://physics.sdrodrian.com and thinking:
"How can our universe be a mere swirl of energy
"shrinking" at the speed of light?! I'd notice it!"

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

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

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

RE:

On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur
(Bobby > In article <1184873139.211531.245...@d55g2000hsg.
googlegroups.comBryant) wrote:
>sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> writes:
>
> > Existence is absolutely deterministic.
>
> Physicists have determined otherwise.
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada

Don't bet on it, Bobby.

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

START QUOTE

mccarthy@ writes:

Mr. S D Rodrian,

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

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

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

much appreciated,
-eric

******************************************
eric,

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

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

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

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

Good luck,

S D Rodrian

******************************************
mccarthy@ wrote:
To S D Rodrian:

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

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

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

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

thanks again,
-eric

********************************************
mccarthy@ wrote:
Hi, S D Rodrian:

can this double-slit experiment:

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html

be explained by the imploding universe model? 

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

thanks,
-eric

*********************************************
eric,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S D Rodrian

**************************************************
mccarthy@ wrote:
Hi, S D Rodrian:

you wrote:

>> imploding universe, but I just don't
>> have the time now
>> to diagram all the steps.
>> If you would like to, more
>> that's fine; I just wondered if
>> there is some simple
>> explanation using a model we know
>> - perhaps your analogy with cork, helium
>> balloons, drag and so forth...

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

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

*************************************************
eric,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

END QUOTE

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

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

Everything else is lies, lies, and damned statistics.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

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

Here is the text of the articles in question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Aug 7, 7:36 am, "andy" <th...@thought.com> wrote:
> Hello, SDR!
>
> Slight correction - gravity is as a result
> of the energy around us. 

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

> We are
> all part of the same 'mass' of energy that
> was blown apart at the point of
> the big bang. 

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

> It's one of the basic laws, energy
> can not be created nor
> destroyed, it just changes it's state. 

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

> As for nothingness, impossible. 

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

> To
> measure nothingness involves some form of
> interaction, observer and event.

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

> Not possible as event = action and reaction, and
> in the event of nothingness
> the equation can not be completed as you can
> not oberve nothingness.

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


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

On Aug 8, 10:31 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Aug, 12:14, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no magic is
>>> required you need to
>>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning, i.e. how
>>> something evolved from nothing.  -- Rob

START QUOTE

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

                http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

END QUOTE

>> As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
>> yourself
>> must realize: "If Existence had to have had "a"
>> beginning
>> it could not exist."
>
>> In a very real sense: There was always "something."
>> AND/OR what now exists is another version/variation
>> of Nothingness--Something  which some scientists
>> and
>> theoreticians (including myself) like to swear is
>> the case:
>
>> In fact this is what makes it possible for the
>> universe
>> to continue "conserving" the energy of which it
>> is made
>> from larger/slower to smaller/faster ... for all
>> eternity.
>
>> We do not notice this eternal conservation of
>> energy,
>> of course. Except for the "force" we call
>> "gravity."
>
> That, and the argument on your website, is a
> statement of belief.

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

> To
> be a valid scientific theory it needs to propose
> explanations from
> which predictions can be made.

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

> These predictions then need to be
> verified by independent, repeatable experiment.

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

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

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

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

On Aug 5, 6:15 am, BernardZ
<DontBot...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> In article <1186209867.957163.147...@
r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com says...
>
>> Otherwise, what you have there is A THING
>> brought into existence out of Nothingness. Or,
>> "created" by magic (with no connection whatever
>> to the laws of science, of nature, of physics).
>
> The big bang is magic?

Strictly speaking, it is a myth.

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

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

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

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

On Aug 5, 11:04 pm, "'foolsrushin.'"
<dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 03:53, SDR <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com>
wrote:
>
>> On Jul 21, 5:21 am, "'foolsrushin.'"
<dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>
>>> And, so, now, you are going to tell how, quite
>>> accidently, of course,
>>> you came to have your present opinions, God!

>> Sure: I was in the wrong place
>> at the wrong time.
>
> Where should we move you to  - to get the
> correct result?

To the correct location.

Thank you,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

****************************
Jim S wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:35:23 -0700, sdr wrote:
>
> I was going with that until you said
> "BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion"
> 'because of'? Jim S

Yes. "BECAUSE OF"

START QUOTE FROM:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Newton's Three Laws of Motion

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

Newton's First Law of Motion:

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

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

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

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

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

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

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

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

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

END QUOTE

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

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

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

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

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

.
****************************
On Jun 16, 10:07 am, Uncle Al
burst out
of his strait-jacket and began hollering:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> Yet Another SDRodrian Prediction True:
>> Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
>> an attractive force between bodies.

> Convince the moon.

If the universe is a black hole, and everything
in it is forever imploding away from where
the universe no longer is: How would YOU
convince the moon to take a bus OUT of the
universe and stop trying to endlessly "fall
into the earth?" Betcha never thought of that.
As usual...

> 1928-1931 Einstein, M ntz, Weitzenb ck,
> Grommer, Lanczos, Cartan, and
> Mayer formulated teleparallel gravitation,
> "Fernparallelismus," that
> collapsed to General Relativity for
> Equivalence Principle = true. It
> predicted EP violation coupled to
> angular momentum (physical spin,
> particle spin, particle orbit, relativistic
> spin-orbit coupling),
> arxiv:0812.0034 and such.
> Spacetime torsion not curvature.
> Spacetime torsion is trivially testible,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ertor1.jpg
>
> idiot

Dear idiot: Next time try reading
what you "comment" on--it probably
would help (although I doubt it);
and then you wouldn't have to think
of yourself as such an idiot): I did
not say GR was "wrong." I said it was
misinterpreted into nonsense. You
live in a world where everything is
interpreted (by your idols) in terms
of the earth being flat. Move on!
The longer you live... the less time
you have remaining in which to hit
upon the truth. (Were you intelligent
instead of merely nervously clever.)

Dear Uncle Brainiac: I will try to
make it as simple as possible (even
though I acknowledge that, no
matter how simple I make it, I can
never make it simple enough for
you to grasp--not that you're stupid,
but that you are religiously
atttached to the "once" universally
held --and mathematically proven--
theory of Ptolemy that the universe
revolves around a stationary earth
... or something):

Imagine that an earth-bound man
has a rope around the moon (the
moon that wants to fly away from
the earth in a straight line):
Calculate the amount of energy
such a man will have to expend
pulling on that rope in order to
keep the moon from flying away
into outer space: that is the
impossible task you are placing
upon a graviton-based "gravity."
WHERE is the energy the earth
HAS TO BE expending in order
to keep hold of the moon coming
from? Answer THAT, and you
have answered EVERYTHING. Or
go to http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Because there is no traceable
expenditure of energy on the
part of the earth involved in its
holding on to the moon, the
ONLY possible answer is that
the earth is NOT pulling on
the moon AT ALL. [Hint: Why
are we measuring the speed of
spiral galaxy arms as going faster
than their escape velocity?] And
then it must be as clear as such
a fact can ever possibly become
(even to someone as matter-
of-fact dense as you) that the
reason why the moon is "forever
trying to fall into the earth"
HAS to be because EVERYTHING
in the universe is forever "falling"
towards everything else [including
the moon towards the earth, and
the earth/moon system towards
the Sun, and the solar system
towards the Milky Way Galaxy,
and the MWG towards the rest
of the local group, et al], and
it has ALL been doing so from
even before there was "any
thing at all." And THAT is where
the entirety of the universe's
energy comes from--And no
place else. [And now you've
solved the problem with galaxies'
over-energetic spiral arms, and
thereby eliminated most if not
all of the need for black matter.]

The reason why so few of today's
"great minds" understand this
astonishingly simple observation
is the same reason why yesterday's
"great minds" once imagined &
mathematically proved a geocentric
universe, and before that imagined
a flat earth, and before that
imagined Apollo riding his fiery
chariot across the heavens... and
intellectualy flattened with their
marvelously intricate arguments
anyone who dared to suggest
anything different): Trust me, I
have been sadly resigned to "the
human condition" since early in
childhood... therefore I can live
with it: Humanity has grown up
all this time without anyone to
teach it any better. Therefore it
has always been & remains to
this day like a baby convinced of
the most unimaginable nonsense,
and committing the most
unimaginable crimes... without
giving any of it a second thought.

But compare the truth that is the
"evolution" of an imploding universe
to the lovely [Big Bang] fable that
everything burst forth suddenly/
inexplicably out of a magic bean:
The fact is that the universe originates
from an unimaginably vast area of
space which in a thermodynamic
collapse is (even now) imploding
into the "singularity" we know as
"the visible universe." And that is
a truth which is as impossible to
dispute as the fact that the Sun
is at the center of the Solar System
--and no matter how many pretty
fables now, in past, or in future...
superstition may affront reason/
logic with.

>> Ninety years after he
>> expounded his famous theory,
>> a $700m NASA probe has
>> proved that the universe
>> behaves as he said. [read
>> the entire article below]

> 1) Galactic rotation curves vs. radius.
> 2) The Bullet Nebula and gravitational
> lensing absent baryonic mass.
> 3) idiot

But "dear" idiot: I am not denying ANY
observational results, merely explaining
them in light of the way the universe
really works: You keep citing observational
results which are in fact supportive of my
description of the universe as imploding!
I don't think your brains are on right:
Check the mirror. You are suffering from
never-ending terminal knee-jerkiness, you
jerk!

>> ONLY my description of a universe which
>> has evolved across immense amounts of
>> time from unimaginably vast volumes of
>> space could have produced/accumulated
>> the "energy" that today powers it.
>
> [snip more crap]

OMG: You have to cut down on your roughage,
idiot. [... Couldn't explain where the Big Bang
got its energy either, eh. Sure, I understand.]

> 1) Account for the universe's natural
> abundances of hydrogen,
> helium, lithium, and boron.

Certainly: They are the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

> 2) Account for current summed WMAP
observations.

Sure: They are the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

> 3) Account for large scale filamentous
> distribution of galaxies.

Of course: It is all the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com

> 4) idiot

Don't abuse yourself too much, idiot:
It'll leave you blinder than you already are!
How're you gonna find your ass then?
And you in there with a pair of shears!
Ouch!

>> * Space is strictly/only the absence of
>> anything between instances of something.
>> And Time is merely the human mind's
>> attempt to synchronize one or more of
>> the universe's unrelated motions with/to
>> one or more of the universe's other
>> unrelated motion(s).
>
> [snip rest of crap]

There's that over-abundance of roughage
again (and painful deficiency of factual
counter-arguments). Okay. Here we go:

> 1) The momentum four-vector.
> 2) The metric.
> 3) The quantitiative empirical validation
> of all GR predictions.
> 4)idiot.

Not to mention "dropletological constancy"
--the fact that all droplets of rain everywhere
in the world display an eerie predisposition to
fall (down)... AND at the same rate of velocity,
AND with an uncanny equivalency of moisture
that is just NOT to be believed!!! You forgot to
mention THAT (you're getting old, idiot... and
ingesting way, way too much Metamucil).

You're a waste of time, Uncle Al.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.


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

On Jun 16, 10:07 am, Uncle Al
again burst out
of his strait-jacket and began hollering again:

> Aardvark wrote:
> [snip crap]

We'll have to wait until Unk Al
finishes his work in the crapper.
[How he takes a pair of shears
in there with him is a definite
sign of bravery/mental illness.]

>> Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
>> posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?
>
> 1) Volume.
> 2) idiot

Well then: STOP eating so much roughage,
dude. For Heaven's sake: Your production
of crap is unsustainable (by your toilet in
the long run... and really, really choking/
stinky in the short term)~!

>> Because Homer Simpson lives there,
>
> [snip more crap]
> idiot

This might take awhile....

>> Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson!
> [snip more crap]

Doh!

>> Francis Everitt, the Stanford
>> University professor
>> who has devoted his life to
>> investigating Einstein's
>> theory of relativity, told
>> scientists at the American
>> Physical Society it would
>> be another eight months
>> before he could measure
>> the 'frame-dragging' effect
>> precisely.
>
> [snip rest of crap]

Ah! I think we might be getting
to the end of this at last!... But,
idiot: Your argument is with other
scientists on this one, not with me.
I merely quote them. If those
scientists are wrong, then I'll just
have to quote some other scientists
who are right. What's that to me!

> Gravity Probe B was a disaster of
> patch potentials. William
> Fairbanks, also at Stanford, knew
> how to handle patch potentials.

Then he shoulda told somebody--and
saved the taxpayers 700 million wazullas!

Thankfully I have more time to waste on
you nowadays, Uncle Al.

SDR

********************************
RE:

Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.

EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
- SPACE AND TIME BEND

Ninety years after he
expounded his famous theory,
a $700m NASA probe has
proved that the universe
behaves as he said. [read
the entire article below]

Actually, although what this experiment
PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive
force between bodies" [merely], the results
are still misinterpreted here in the usual
nonsensical gibberish of conventional
"physics-talk" of the past century: In effect,
these interpreters speak of "space-time"
bending* because they are not yet aware
of the true evolution of the universe: They
have discovered that the universe behaves
as I describe it does [and which you can
read at: http://physics.sdrodrian.com ]
but they interpret it in their antediluvian
understanding (it's as if the scientists who
once believed that the entire universe
revolved around the planet earth were
interpreting this discovery in terms of that
once so universally-held ancient superstition).

ONLY my description of a universe which
has evolved across immense amounts of
time from unimaginably vast volumes of
space could have produced/accumulated
the "energy" that today powers it. No other
explanation accounts for the prodigious
amounts of energy infused into every
last/smallest bit of the universe's matter.
And not even the pretty fable of a magic
[Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole
of "Creation" ... for no reason at all.

But, of course, this remains for yet another
more impressive understanding still.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
* Space is strictly/only the absence of
anything between instances of something.
And Time is merely the human mind's
attempt to synchronize one or more of
the universe's unrelated motions with/to
one or more of the universe's other
unrelated motion(s). --SDR

START QUOTE

Now the race is on to show
that the other half of
relativity also works--
for decades physicists have
been asking the question:
did Albert Einstein get it
wrong? After half a century,
seven cancellations and
$700m, a mission to test
his theory about the
universe has finally confirmed
that the man was a
mastermind -- or at
least half proved it.

The early results from Gravity
Probe B, one of Nasa's
most complicated satellites,
confirmed yesterday 'to
a precision of better than
1 per cent' the assertion
Einstein made 90 years ago
-- that an object such as
the Earth does indeed
distort the fabric of space and
time.

But this -- what is referred
to as the 'geodetic'
effect -- is only half of
the theory. The other,
'frame-dragging', stated
that as the world spins it
drags the fabric of the
universe behind it.

Francis Everitt, the Stanford
University professor
who has devoted his life to
investigating Einstein's
theory of relativity, told
scientists at the American
Physical Society it would
be another eight months
before he could measure
the 'frame-dragging' effect
precisely.

'Understanding the details
is a bit like an
archeological dig,' said
William Bencze, programme
manager for the mission.
'A scientist starts with a
bulldozer, follows with
a shovel, then finally uses
dental picks and toothbrushes
to clear the dust away.
We're passing out the
toothbrushes now.'

The Gravity Probe B
project was conceived in the
late 1950s but suffered
decades of delays while other
scientists ran tests
corroborating Einstein's theory.
It was Everitt's determination
that stopped it being
cancelled. The joint
mission between Nasa and
Stanford University uses
four of the most perfect
spheres -- ultra precise
gyroscopes -- to detect
minute distortions in th
e fabric of the universe.
Everitt's aim was to prove
to the highest precision
yet if Einstein was correct
in the way he described
gravity.

According to Einstein, in
the same way that a large
ball placed on a elasticated
cloth stretches the
fabric and causes it to
sag, so planets and stars
warp space-time. A marble
moving along the sagging
cloth will be drawn
towards the ball, as the Earth is
to the Sun, but not fall
into it as long as it keeps
moving at speed. Gravity,
argued Einstein, was not an
attractive force between
bodies as had been
previously thought.

Few scientists need the
final results, which will be
revealed in December, to
convince them of Einstein's
genius. 'From the most
esoteric aspects of time
dilation through to the
beautiful and simple
equation, e=mc2, the vast
bulk of Einstein's ideas
about the universe are
standing up to the test of
time,' said Robert Massey,
from the Royal
Astronomical Society.

He said the mission was
'legitimate science' to test
a theory and confirm its
brilliance, but others have
criticised the costs and
length of the study,
claiming that what was
announced had already been
shown. Sir Martin Rees,
the Astronomer Royal, said
the announcement would
'fork no lightning'.

The theory explained

When Einstein wrote his
general theory of relativity
in 1915, he found a new
way to describe gravity. It
was not a force, as
Sir Isaac Newton had supposed,
but a consequence of the
distortion of space and
time, conceived together
in his theory as
'space-time'. Any object
distorts the fabric of
space-time and the bigger
it is, the greater the
effect.

Just as a bowling ball
placed on a trampoline
stretches the fabric and
causes it to sag, so planets
and stars warp space-time
-- a phenomenon known as
the 'geodetic effect'. A
marble moving along the
trampoline will be drawn
inexorably towards the ball.

Thus the planets orbiting
the Sun are not being
pulled by the Sun; they
are following the curved
space-time deformation
caused by the Sun. The reason
the planets never fall into
the Sun is because of the
speed at which they are travelling.

According to the theory,
matter and energy distort
space-time, curving it
around themselves. 'Frame
dragging' theoretically occurs
when the rotation of a
large body 'twists' nearby
space and time. It is this
second part of Einstein's
theory that the Nasa
mission has yet to corroborate.
More at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe

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

On Jun 15, 8:10 pm, dlzc wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:36 pm, Aardvark
wrote: >
>> Yet Another SDRodrianPrediction True:
>> Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
>> an attractive force between bodies.
>
>> EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
>> - SPACE AND TIME BEND
>
> Here is the actual prediction, where
> Rodrian said Eisntein was wrong:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math/msg/1bd728a9d08e959c
> David A. Smith

Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays
when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is
robbing me of all I once was. So I went to
that ancient post to see where I had said
Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an
attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not
find such a statement by me. I can't even
find any discussion of this matter in that
post at all. It would be as unexpected that
I should say such a thing as that I should
say that whales wear shoes! Perhaps you
didn't read the post yourself. So here's a
pertinent quote from THAT post by SDR:

START QUOTE

Thank you, Einstein, for getting rid once
& for all of that goofy 19th Century delusion
... the Ether! Too bad Einstein simply
replaced one myth with another myth
(namely, the delusion that Time AND space
have pertinent/critical existence... while
the truth is that Time only exists in our
minds, and Space is only the absence of
anything existing there--But one can't
have everything, so I give thanks for all
Einstein gave us and ignore the usual
human prejudices inherent to the age one
inhabits).

END QUOTE

It seems to me I am still as consistent as
always. Therefore, trust me: Go thou to
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
and learn the true nature of the universe,
how it all came about and why it works
the way it does. Once you do, all your
questions will be answered at last, all your
quests finally brought to sweet fruition.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

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

Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?

Because Homer Simpson lives there, and then
they would have to imagine themselves talking
with Bart and listening to his mother's shrill
voice ... and that's a bit more than even the
nuts and idiots who become mathematicians
can stomach. But that's THE ONLY reason:
Were it not for Homer Simpson the world of
physics would be polluted with every sort of
nutty/nonsensical theory about two-dimensional
mathematics-only "realities" (because that is
the nature of morons/monkeys who otherwise
become mathematicians)... exactly as the
world of physics is now polluted with nutty/
nonsensical theories about more-than-three
dimensional mathematics-only "realities" which
(like the notion of Time) can only exist in the
human mind.

Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson! Now
let me go shower to wash away all the contempt
that monkey mathematicians make me exude.

S D Rodrian hath spoken.
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

INDEX