|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Infinite Universe versus volatile Universe
An infinite Universe could only be the ultimate in the balance of nature,
immortally incapable of any overall imbalance and/or volatility. The ultimate in the order of disorder. The more I try to reach to infinities the more I realize leveling overall. Infinity can be reduced via a constant reduction. But without infinity, there is no reduction. There are also no mutual cancellations of it without it. No such thing as cancelling it without it. I still read physicist authors claiming infinity to be meaningless. Why if it weren't meaningless the Universe would fry itself from infinite lumination, or close up to a point from infinite density and gravity, or some such hogwash. As if one infinity does not cancel another infinity everywhere locally, relatively speaking. As if infinite and infinitesimal do not cancel each other out realizing the entity of "finite"...also the entity of "constant." Also what would be the dividing line between infinite and infinitesimal, the deciding decision point between what is infinite and what is infinitesimal except finite and finite's relativity to the two. We say that such and such can become infinitesimal or infinite. "We" must stand between the two deciding which is which. "Finite" stands between the two, the only gauge of relativity that infinite is indeed infinite and infinitesimal is indeed infinitesimal. The only point or line between the two making them two. And of course there is the point that every point in the Universe is the center of the Universe. How many points are there to the Universes? An infinity of points. In more than one book I've seen universes (plural) illustrated like galaxies, as if they might exist in just a larger space outside our own universe's space -- like the galaxies we see. They would not exist like that. The vacuum, or nothingness, of space should be where everythingness would reside. Everythingness and nothingness being one and the same. Meaninglessness? No. Somethingness is the relative "other" to everythingness, to nothingness, as finite is the other to infinite, to infinitesimal. Speed, actually constant acceleration in velocity, is the only highway between universes. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. Acceleration in velocity by you or me in a vacuum wouldn't change the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Since it wouldn't what is left is to leave this our own local universe for some other. Essentially become less and less relative to it and more and more relative to some other, probably seamlessly. The Universe is nothing but mass, nothing but energy, nothing but space, nothing but time, nothing but life, nothing but death, nothing but position, nothing but velocity....and nothing but mutual cancellations of infinities, mutual cancellations of absolutes, locally that is...with regard to every foreground (versus all background) that is...or relatively speaking. It wouldn't be the first, or last, time for the universes something went to seeming nowhere or came out of seeming nowhere. It wouldn't be the first, or last, time universes lost something to seeming nothing, or gained something from seeming nothing. It happens all the time...is as common a thing as dirt -- so to speak. Our view of [universe] is a view of acceleration's constancy, plus the speed of light's constancy (13.7 billion light years to the horizon of relativity : 13.7 billion years to the horizon of relativity, 1:1, reduces or averages to the speed of light). A view of the road itself so to speak. If an infinite Universe is infinite in the number of its hydrogen atoms, just how many oxygen atoms does that infinity of hydrogen atoms permit to an infinite Universe? Answer, an infinity of hydrogen atoms permits an infinity of oxygen atoms to an infinite Universe. Rather an infinite Universe permits both infinities, just as it permits all other infinities for it is the infinity of infinities. We measure all gravity according to one Earth gravity. Going up from one Earth gravity all gravity is in whole numbers and fractions. Going down from one Earth gravity all gravity is in fractions of one Earth gravity. Thus a heavy gravity being in another galaxy measures his or her or its own gravity by that universal standard measure we on Earth set for the entire Universe. In other words every heavy gravity being through all space and time will measure two gravities as being two gravities relative to one Earth gravity. No heavy gravity being anywhere in the Universe will measure his or her or its own planet's gravity as being one (X) gravity ("(X)" in place of that planet's, or whatever's, name). Not unless that planet has exactly the same measure of gravity as our Earth. Nor will any light gravity being measure his or her or its own gravity as anything but a fraction of one Earth gravity. Even in saying "heavy gravity" and "light gravity" I've assumed the guage of all measurement of all gravity everywhere in the Universe to be from, or relative to, one Earth gravity. They will then of course measure every weight there is and every mass there is relative to the physicist's measurement of it while standing on this one planet of ours in some facility next to some railroad track (Albert's railroad track). On Earth a one troy ounce block of gold has the weight and mass of one troy ounce of gold. Thus a being from another galaxy who was born or hatched on that planet, a two gravity planet relative the one Earth gravity, will -- in addition to measuring that planet's gravity as being two gravities rather than one -- measure a one troy ounce block of gold (relative to one Earth gravity) as having the measure of mass and weight of [two] troy ounces. They will say it, "Its weight is two troy ounces," just as they will say this, "The gravity of our planet is two gravities because the physicist on Earth within that other galaxy has set the measure, rather the gauge, for the entire Universe as being an absolute rather than a relative. Therefore we are more massive, and are shorter and thicker too, than we might think we are." "I weight three hundred pounds here relative to one Earth gravity, so if I landed on Earth in that other galaxy, I would weigh what?, one hundred and fifty pounds relative to one Earth gravity?!?!" "But I would still be very short and very thick, and very massive, none of that having changed at all?!?!" "Earthmen think me a virtual Hulk -- comparitively speaking, and I would still remain that Hulk, even gain in being that massive Hulk-like super-creature, upon Earth while then being one hundred and fifty pounds in weight in that Earth gravity?!?!" Not going any further with that, of course the reality should be that if he steps on the scales on his world he should see his weight to be 150 pounds per (X) planet gravity. And if he steps on the scales on Earth he should see his weight to be 150 pounds per Earth planet gravity. He couldn't leap twice the distance up, or do twice the work, on Earth that he could leap or do upon his own planet. A 150 Earthling on Earth stepping upon the scales of planet (X) would weigh 150 planet (X) pounds. If planet (Y) were ten Earth gravities in gravity (relative to one Earth gravity), that 150 pound man on Earth, from Earth, would still weigh in at 150 pounds on planet (Y) -- per the scales upon planet (Y). And the one troy ounce block of gold he took with him to planet (Y) would still weigh in -- per planet (Y)'s own weights and measures [on] planet (Y), under planet (Y)'s gravity -- at one troy ounce of gold. GLB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Infinite Universe versus volatile Universe
G. L. Bradford wrote: An infinite Universe could only be the ultimate in the balance of nature, immortally incapable of any overall imbalance and/or volatility. The ultimate in the order of disorder. The more I try to reach to infinities the more I realize leveling overall. Infinity can be reduced via a constant reduction. But without infinity, there is no reduction. There are also no mutual cancellations of it without it. No such thing as cancelling it without it. Meaningless garbage. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Infinite Universe versus volatile Universe
"Vert" wrote in message oups.com... G. L. Bradford wrote: An infinite Universe could only be the ultimate in the balance of nature, immortally incapable of any overall imbalance and/or volatility. The ultimate in the order of disorder. The more I try to reach to infinities the more I realize leveling overall. Infinity can be reduced via a constant reduction. But without infinity, there is no reduction. There are also no mutual cancellations of it without it. No such thing as cancelling it without it. Meaningless garbage. Not quite. Cancellations of infinities are a mathematical construct for artificial reasons. Infinities remain the nature of the actual. Sort of like your lawn grass being artificial and those infernal weeds that are forever cropping up natural. You believe your lawn is evolution of nature and those weeds the primitive you are making extinct. One problem, your lawn does not expand into the wild ever to take it over, but the wild is forever at expanding into your perfect lawn to make it extinct and displace it. You and all the energy you must expend on it to keep it alive is all that keeps it from dead certain extinction. Your closed but expanding, absolutely finite Universe -- therefore there being no such thing or concept as "open" -- is an ultra-single sided (no other side whatsoever) artificial construct. A purely arrogant and stupid construct. Your Universe contains only the Earth alone, since there is no other side or entity to it but pasts or histories. One light second (one second past. One second ago in history). One light hour (one hour past. One hour ago in history). One light year (one year past. One year ago in history). Ten billion light years (ten billion years ago in history). There is no present, or now, anywhere at all, anywhere whatsoever, to your entire Universe but this Earth. There WERE galaxies ten billion years ago, but ARE there any galaxies ten billion light years away from Earth? You probably are like most people, most especially including cosmologists, having no conception of any difference existing between WERE and ARE but I ask the question anyway. ARE there any galaxies existing ten billion times nine point seven trillion kilometers distant from Earth in SPACE rather than SPACE-TIME? WARNING! Remember before answering that the establishment has stated flatly that the Universe is FLAT! SPACE-TIME flat! Flatly SPACE-TIME! So if you could get up the speed necessary to travel a distance of 13.7 billion light years from Earth in your lifetime, you would be blasted by the Big Bang beginning as there would nothing there, nothing whatsoever to the Universe, but you and the Big Bang. SPACE-TIME is single-sided only with regard to the present or now. One single arrow of time. Only the Earth exists in the present, as the present Universe. You would have to travel back in time to travel out into the Universe, the Universe shrinking back -- the arrow of time shrinking back -- toward the Big Bang around you. So I ask the question once more. There WERE galaxies ten billion years ago, but ARE there any galaxies ten billion light years away from Earth? To mean: ARE there any galaxies existing ten billion times nine point seven trillion kilometers distant from Earth in SPACE rather than SPACE-TIME? Let's make the distance a little closer. Alpha Centauri. Would you travel to the star we observe or to a star invisible to us? Would you become invisible to the observer on Earth? Not because you shrank with all distance gained from Earth out, but because you got way ahead of the speed of light bringing information back to the observer on Earth. Remebering of course that you can never get out front in space and time of the observation of an observer on Earth. Time slows for you so that he can continue to observe you in realtime at all times. It's an absolute of relativity that you aren't one light month out from Earth until the observer on Earth observes that you are. In the intervening one month that it took light to bring that information to the observer on Earth, no time passes for you, you do not progress one silly millimeter on your way into your voyage. You aren't one light year out in your voyage until the observer on Earth observes that you are. In the intervening one year that it takes light to bring the information to the observer on Earth that you are one light year out from Earth, no time will pass for you, you do not progress on your way into your voyage during that entire year. Time will really slow for you as will your gain in distance in your travel. You do not arrive at Alpha Centauri until the observer on Earth observes that arrives. It doesn't matter that Alpha Centauri is four plus light years from Earth and that it takes light four plus years to come to Earth from Alpha Centauri. You did not arrive at Alpha Centauri until the observation of such arrival would arrive to the observer on Earth. It simply does not matter that it should be four plus years after the fact that the observer on Earth should have observed the fact, if the observer could observe the fact at all. There is no mathematical compensation in the math for the observer being four plus years behind the times. No mathematical compensation in the math for the observer being one year behind the times. No mathematical compensation for the observer being one month behind the times in having observed a traveler to be one light month out from Earth. There is no mathematical compensation for the observation of the observer progressively falling farther and farther behind the real time and space of the traveler in time and space. It is that way with cosmologists and physicists on Earth and things in general in the Universe at large as well. Exactly the same way. GLB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Infinite Universe versus volatile Universe
Compared to the age of the universe our life span is shorter than a fly's.
-- Two ways to improve your life. 1. Turn off the TV. 2. Throw it out the window. Vlad the Impaler |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 37 | December 14th 04 11:45 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Policy | 0 | May 21st 04 08:00 AM |
Infinite Universe Theory | Vikram Arora | Amateur Astronomy | 75 | January 6th 04 10:16 PM |