I'd like to start off today with something many of us can relate to. It was a Captain Kangerooo episode with John Provost on it, Timmy from "Lassie" and they were doing a thing on Algebra. And someone asked "What is 5 Q plus 5 Q" and someone else said "10 Q" and then someone else said, "Your welcome". The simple truth illustrated here is that is x is an unknown, and by math convention it should be a lower case x rather than in caps, it represents an unknown. The clear stipulation here is that the second x has the SAME value as the first unknown. This is the key to solving the problem. Then you can bring in that "common denominator" axiom. Because the third x will also be an ammount of that SAME unknown. So, can x be "infinity"? Why not? But with this stipulation. Infinity per se is not a fixed, known value. It doesn't stand for "God" or Nirvana or any of those things "out there" and it isn't a "place". Capish? Good. It's the nature of Infinity that you break down the word and realize it means "NOT a Finite, Stated value. So in this sense it is an unknown. But with computers you can use x as a number if "you know what it represents in the context of your calculation. Simple, huh? But it's like George Bush saying of Al Qaeda "We are never going to win- - IT". Infinity is not some IT all encompasing - - whatever. Any value you would pick for infinity can always have something After it? Capish. Just as a hundred coin flips coming up heads does not inhibit the 101st coin from also coming up Heads. Capish? So to say that Infinity IS "the highest number imaginable" is to use a supurlative where you have no Fixed Value to even BASE a superlative ON.
In September of 2004 I wrote a little piece on WHEN God created the Universe. So many people fall into the Finite trap. They have the meme about them "EVERYTHING has to be Finite" in some way. Why? Who made that rule? Nobody. Infinity is just a concept that is an adaptation - - and as such Infinity is JUST as finite as any other Created Thing of God because since it's a concept BASED on a need of ours- - take away the NEED and you take away the concept. Capish? So I said that we can NOT say WHEN God created the Universe. I added that it is JUST as logical to say the world was created yesterday or "next year" or "one million years into the future" as to say it was created four or twelve billion years in "The past". People are hung up on this whole "starting point" mentality. Unfortunately followers of Einstein fall into this trap. And you have this whole "soap bubble" or "bubble gum" analogy of the Universe like it's somehow a "film" that is expanding "through the fourth dimension" and if you could just rig a math formula you could calculate WHEN the whole thing came into existance in the first place. This whole way of thinking is nonesense and I'll prove it to you in the next paragraph? Are you people ready to have all spring cleaning for all your mis-conceptions?
For years people have talked about a universally expanding Universe but there is an obvious solution that I once called "ether drag" that explained the "dialation of light waves". I also stated more recently that the whole "red shift" is relative and it's possible to use a "motion frame of reference" that reveals the waves from a single light source are NO Different on one side of the source than the other. It isn't a skewed circle with red and blue waves, shorter and longer. Given the SAME stationary frame- - the waves are perfectly circular. I told you that. So the whole red shift is already reduced to a motion "illusion" if you will. Illusions are not imaginary. They have a "reality" about them in that they are observed, but it's a perceptual problem. Now the question is how can the whole Universe "appear" to be moving away from every other point. I told you about the expanding yeast bread dough analogy. This explains how it's even Possible to have universal expansion. Because every point is as it were its own "moving zero" or stationary point. Capish? So those in to what we might call "stationary" vector geometry are not seeing the whole picture, as I didn't for a long time. But the bigger question is whether this whole process is going on at ALL. Remember Einstein's "Out" on this one is that everything involving Light- - - involves Ether (in my view) and Light is ruled and governed by Ether in ways we aren't. Astronomy Cafe says Space is far from "Empty". The idea that Ether or empty space is not really Empty is a concept that takes getting used to. My point however is that light is not the best medium in the world by which to "observe what is really happening" let along try to measure it. We inherently have known this about atomic particles a long time of the lackings of light as a medium. But we have never logically extended this "shortcoming of light" on a macro basis and I propose to do just that. Now here is the key solution to the whole Expansion problem right now. You will remember that Einstein uses the "elevator analogy" problem and as it were "Goes Newtonian on us" to illustrate how gravity Behaves. How does it Behave? It Behaves as though if you are fighting it- - it is AS IF you were continually Accelerating even when you are Standing Still. So in this "relitivistic" sense each and every one of us are constantly Accelerating our whole lives. That is- - we are not in what you'd call a "true" stationary state in that we are not in constant Free Fall. You understand that concept, don't you? Like an elevator with the cable cut. That's the only time an elevator is ever truly "stationary" as Einstein defines it. But the question is if we ARE accelerating all the time- - - - then we Already Are in essence "expanding away from something else'. Allow That one to sink in. In other words something or some Force is constantly Pushing Us to Keep Us Accelerating all the time. We know that newtron stars bend light around them. So light is affected by HUGE and I do mean huge ammounts of gravity. If you want to call it bent space- - fine. Right now that distinction is not worth arguing about. But for light to go Straight- - - past a newtron star it would have to exert some - - outward force on itself like maybe a space ship firing off a steering rocket or something to "keep it on a straight course" left it go around in circles or at least be "bent". So the question is "How much gravity is there in the world- - OK Cosmos. There is a little. And it's evenly distributed to wherever there is Matter. So that is- - - it's a force that light Routinely HAS to overcome in its travels. So what happens to receding light objects? Well- - - the light shift goes Red, that's what. So something accelerating away from another object HAS to - - - shift red. Get it? So then light passing through space is routinely de-facto "slowed down" or we would say "red shifted" or "wave retarded" if you will. This is the illusive "ether drag". We know that there is some symbiotic relation between Ether and gravity. While matter will exhibit universal attraction - - - It also means that to even stay stationary with another object and NOT BE IN Orbit- - an important Caviat - - it has to be 'going away" from other said object- - or as it were "red shifting". Of course space here appears to optically contract or shrink. So if there was some kind of an actual "green grid" the lines would be closer together around a big object. The way I see it Ether taketh and giveth away. It attracts - - - but it also gives the illusion of the opposite. One might wonder on the OTHER SIDE of the Mass continuoum or in concave space where objects are Lighter than Ether whether Ether might behave in an Opposite manner. That is- - there would as it be a universal Blue shift (nirvana for democrats) where everything in the Universe had the illusion like it was Coming Together but really wasn't. (People like George Will are probably thinking, "Yeah- that's the big illusion of the Left all along) So all the laws of gravity would be reversed on this other side of the Mass continuoum. Just chew on these concepts a while anyhow.
The proponent of the string theory of physics as opposed to the particle theory - - of the construction and origen of matter- - wasn't accepted by the bulk of the scientific community till 1973 or something because his theory lacked a mathematical formula. Apparently in classic particle theory of the composition of matter these "particles" are objects in the "zero" dimension. They say that "strings" are one dimensional. If they ocelate they ocelate along at least a "polarized" plane, or they may ocelate in two directions as ordenary light does. On the contrary my view of Concave Space STARTED with a mathematical formula and worked from there. Some say that Feng Chue is based on "spiritual vibes" and others believe it's strictly the science of "object positional placement" affecting the spiritual energy of Chi of the room. Some say that the doctor in the opperating room exerts a greater gravitational field on the baby than the position of the moon, let alone planets. Yet people will tell you that cycles run in all sorts of lengths from the very short to the very long and that they are regular lengths. Whether they set up some sort of "energy ocelations" in space- - is a matter of conjecture. As in the case of sound waves (UHF and VHF and SHF waves too -but no higher) you have interractional phasing and harmonics with each other or "de facto" frequencies - or intervals - and the like setting up sub frequencies obviously based on precise but basic mathematical formulas that are actually rather simple- - that need to be factored in. Astrologers call these "aspects". What the gravity "relativists" are mistaken on is that it takes up a certain amount of mass - - to generate ocelations big enough to change anything- - along the same lines that long wave transmissions need bigger antennas that shorter waves- - Whether "strings" are somehow involved here- is a matter of speculation I'm willing to consider. But the Wickepedia article appears to be going in a whole other direction with the whole concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment