Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 02/06/05
- Next message: CWatters: "Re: Buoyancy on a submerged block on bottom of tank"
- Previous message: CWatters: "Re: Magnets near a black hole"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:26:14 GMT
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:29cNd.50163$IV5.45743@attbi_s54...
>
> "glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:ydGMd.33295$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
Last but not least. Subjects dealt with but not mentioned specifically as
such. Negative gravity. Built in base constant that denies entropy's
achievement of equilibrium forever, leaving it nothing but an ever
continuing potential of equilibrium's achievement forever. An equilibrium
already achieved, pre-conditionally, is not one that then can be achieved,
just as infinity already achieved, pre-conditionally, is not something that
then could ever be achieved.
Brad
- Next message: CWatters: "Re: Buoyancy on a submerged block on bottom of tank"
- Previous message: CWatters: "Re: Magnets near a black hole"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Re: Primordial, The Infinite Within The Infinitesimal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
