Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 02/05/05
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Code breakers beat security scheme of car locks, gas pumps"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Wikipedia experiment, my prime counting function"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Next in thread: glbrad01: "Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Reply: glbrad01: "Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:54:54 GMT
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:ydGMd.33295$P04.21311@attbi_s03...
> Stephen Hawking once wrote that there can be nothing below, beyond, or
> inside, the Planck horizon but a miniature blackhole. I don't know whether
> he has since changed his mind (with the advancement in string theory) but
> I think he got it exactly backward.
>
> By all things that are holy to cosmology and physics, I think that if
> that were something like a blackhole inside that horizon then it would
> have been the Big Crunch itself and the horizon, and following it the
> whole of the Universe, should have collapsed into it. It would be a
> monster. The mother of all monsters. It would be the Big Crunch.
>
> So it is not the Big Crunch. Mass wise, density wise, energy wise, and
> heat wise, it should be the exact opposite.
>
> I've wondered for more than a decade where the heat could be that had to
> be in the Universe. Where the scale reached. I mean hot as in
> "unification" hot.
>
> For just about the same length of time I've wondered where the
> non-electric repulsion force could be there has to be in the Universe. I'm
> an anti-expansion man, having realized, at least to my own satisfaction,
> that gravity is at once its own opposer in an (if it is) infinite
> Universe. Like state versus, in opposing position, the individual that
> just happens to the very constituent element of its existence gravity of
> all the fundamental forces has to be its worst enemy, or the opposer in
> opposing position to itself. Not as a repulsion or pressure force but as a
> universal gravity on one rim outside them all in opposing position,
> opposing attraction, to each and every constituent hub or center of
> gravity in the whole of the Universe. What would spring from this mutually
> opposing attraction would be the entity of "space" and otherwise the
> appearance, not any reality, of an accelerating expansion of the Universe.
>
> But even if this were the scenario, it still would be no answer to the
> question of where is the non-electric repulsion or pressure force? In what
> way, shape, or form is it in. I finally realized suddenly--thanks to some
> things Brian Greene writes in The Fabric Of The Universe that pushed me to
> my own visualization of it in my own way--to go small, very small,
> infinitely small, micro-universal, in order to go big, very big,
> infinitely big, macro-Universal, for the answer to both my questions and
> just about my every remaining question, including one more where I kept
> telling myself that the primordial (essentially 'Primordial Wild' of the
> Universe itself) should be as common and constant to the Universe as
> anything is in it. Thus where in heck would it be if it is so damn
> prevalent?
>
> Right where it should be, in exactly the same answer as the answer to the
> rest of my remaining questions, the infinite in the infinitesimal (The
> chicken is from the egg, the egg is from the chicken: The tree is from the
> seed, the seed is from the tree: The creation is [in] the creator, the
> creator is in the creation: and so on along the same line).
>
> To really get an idea of what I am talking about, forget the picture of
> that relative horizon as being one horizon but look to its identical
> twinning to infinity inside an infinity of the
> sub-sub-sub-sub-sub...subatomic in an infinite Universe. Only then you
> might just begin to get an idea of potency that makes the standard Big
> Bang vision pale by comparison. And it is, has ever been, and will ever
> be, common as dirt (relatively speaking). The infinite primordial within
> the infinitesimal within the least horizon within an infinite Universe.
> Mirroring also in opposing distant horizon, the macro-universal, from each
> of all of the infinity of the centers of an infinite Universe (because the
> [relative] Planck horizons and the [relative] 'ultimate monsters' within,
> twinned to infinity as they are, are each and every one of them the true
> "dead centers" of the Universe, no matter any plane of it, no matter.....,
> no matter what).
>
> Brad
The blindly arrogant, stupid, attacks that have followed this take no note
that Stephen Hawking has published several works and articles and that I
either have or have read several of them. So the references I refer to are
readily available to the public in such works as "A Brief History of Time",
"Baby Universes And Other Essays", "The Universe In A Nutshell," and so on.
The savages take no note of the fact that I referred to Brian Greene's "The
Fabric Of The Cosmos", which I have along with his "The Elegant Universe."
The savages take no note of the fact that the Universe does not go from
the Planck horizon in order of magnitude instantaneously in space and time
to formed galaxies and the space and time of the same, but goes from that
horizon to the essential first component order of magnitude of subatomic
structure this (relative) side the event horizon of the Planck mass, Planck
energy, and so on (and the space and time of the same). Greene, in his "The
Fabric Of The Cosmos," and Hawking in his "The Universe In A Nutshell," do
not illustrate this first initial and required step. At least illustratively
they go instantaneously from first, deepest down and in, event horizon of
mass, density, energy, heat, etc., to formed galaxies showing. You can't
skip the stepping up of order of magnitude of component formation, not today
here and now, not 15 billion times 9.8 trillion kilometers distant in space
there and now, nor 15 billion years ago in time relative to the observer on
Earth whether here and then or there and then, all distances that are
matters of strict indeterminacy (strict uncertainty). (Astronomers now
seeing reasonably clearly relatively matured galaxies at distances greater
than 13 billion light years distant relative to us thus a space of galaxy of
an order of magnitude equal to our own, a parallel sequentiality to the
Milky Way and Andromeda and the distance between them, practically as we and
it are now, existing more than 13 billion years ago: as if we were
witnessing a parallel sequential universe back in time and probably actually
distant in space from our own space.)
Greene, in his book, looks to be trying to explain, and also illustrate
with illustrations, such phenomena as indicating the possibility of multiple
Big Bangs, as many as an infinite number of them having occurred here and
there, now and then, in infinities of space from infinities of mass divided
by infinities of time. Considering that we can never see any real space
whose order of magnitude of real time is not indistinguishable from zero,
and that requires the steps of order or magnitude of the subatomic to the
atomic to exist before the molecular or the galaxy, Big Bangs are
unnecessary, extraneous, excessive, and just plain illogical. All the
primordial ingredients and necessities, and constants of the event horizons,
for it all exist everywhere in space and right now in time. Always have
existed, exists right now, and always will exist, constant.
As I've said before, the relativistic mediocrity can never rise to picture
space within space, time within time, distance within distance, mass within
mass, density within density, energy within energy, light within light, and
so on, vertically in space and time, much less picture spaces existing in
parallel, times existing in parallel sequentials or existing simultaneously,
and a whole ever richer panoramic of vaster and ever vaster potential
dimensionality tied to that infinite within the infinitesimal (those
infinities of infinites within infinitesimals).
The relativistic mediocrity will always forget, or never realize in the
first place, that infinite is the root of infinitesimal and that only
relatively speaking, relatively observed, will there ever be difference
between the two. Which of course, existing, proves the physicality of
subjective relativity as an objective compartmented finite part of the
overall physics of an infinity of Universe. Constituent individuality of
object, and therefore subjective observer and that observer's observation to
boot (damnit...inclusive of relativistic mediocrities such as Uncle Al), are
raised by relativity to a [relative] status of full, however mitigated,
equality (as each and everyone being the center--central to...) with the
overall, the entire, infinity of the Universe at large and at small.
Brad
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Code breakers beat security scheme of car locks, gas pumps"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Wikipedia experiment, my prime counting function"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Next in thread: glbrad01: "Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Reply: glbrad01: "Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
