Re: Cosmic Background Gravity, The Infinity Behind It, And Its Mirroring Any Past
- From: donstockbauer@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 6 Jan 2006 04:35:18 -0800
glbrad01 wrote:
> To start, my basic premises regarding the Universe may not be, nor look,
> anything like yours. Therefore the building over them may seem very strange
> and hard to follow. To me, a constant of cosmic background gravity, if there
> is such, would exist if the Universe is infinite but that "infinite" divided
> into local relative universes. The infinity would have and show
> gravitational attraction, but gravitational attraction not to any center of
> gravity at all, but exactly the opposite, a gravity attracting to the
> outside, attracting to the remotest 'rim' horizon from each and every
> center. "Center of gravity" being hub or core and each and every center of
> gravity having a rim, but all rims being merged into one constant of cosmic
> background gravity. It looks exactly the same as accelerating expansion to
> the Universe, expanding away from any and everywhere, but takes the place of
> it. Its farthest rim horizons of attraction to the outside from all point
> centers of gravity, such as the center of the Earth, is not any look of
> beginning time to the Universe, but is the horizon of light, or that portion
> of it that is the speed of light where gravitational acceleration that goes
> away from centers of gravity to distant rim horizons -- instead of coming to
> centers of gravity -- reaches a distant accelerated -- relative -- velocity
> that would finally match the speed of light, merging with the distant
> horizon of light, thus merging with the "timeless infinity of the Universe."
>
> There, would be the distant boundary horizon (fronting the infinity of
> frontier Universe in it, thus beyond it) of all local universes, including
> ours. Also it would have a dual use duality of dimensional character, the
> same as the other local universe bracketing horizon does, the infinity of
> Planck horizons fronting the precisely opposed infinitesimal to infinite --
> as precisely opposed bracket and balancing weight. After all, an infinity of
> infinitesimals eqauls infinite, thus 'infinite' in opposing position to
> 'infinite' ("infinite" in opposing postion to itself. Thus [perfect]
> balance. Also, the fronting remote Horizon facing in opposed position the
> [many] fronting remote horizons which, in the total of them, equal the one:
> Thus still perfect balance, but this time at, in, the constants, and
> constancy, of the brackets timelessly, eternally, bracketing infinite
> numbers of local -- finite -- universes between).
>
> "Dual use duality of Character"?!?! A timeless infinity of Universe never
> permits the [reach to being out of all bounds] "infinite density," "infinite
> temperature," "infinite lumination," or any other infinity bound singularly
> specific matters and/or energies. Physicists have never once in history
> realized all the [rest] of "infinity bound specifics" [cancel] all "infinity
> bound specifics". Whatever it is, it isn't done away with, not in the
> literal sense, but each and every "infinity" is cancelled by all of the
> other "infinities" (put "out of sight, out of mind," so to speak), leaving a
> finite constant (such as distantly collapsed "horizon," such as the "Planck
> constants," such as "local universe and the many of the local universes,"
> such as "cosmic background....whatever," such as "electron," "such as
> "galaxy," such as "appledom," and so on "entity," including indefinitely
> innumerable "entities" both of the stereotypical specific and of the
> generality of all possible specifics (where the infinities "put out of
> sight, out of mind" most WEIRDLY are ("weirdly," as in: unspecified
> generality of all can mean and is all possible weird things: all possible
> impossibly weird "weird universes")).
>
> Even the infinity of "distance-time" is cancelled, collapsed, specified
> into finite, constant -- but infinite in numbers, infinitely variable,
> specified "distance-time" horizons (here meaning, distance-time 'lengthes'):
> all of the foregoing, dual use duality of character (or multi-use
> multiplicity of character. Inclusively encompassing, it matters not which is
> used).
>
> The Planck mass, energy, temperature... constants have duality of
> character by also being islanded, or insular, entity horizon. Since all its
> constants are housed in one difficult to even imagine entity magnitudes of
> orders inside other atomic-subatomic, sub-sub-atomic, and so on, entities,
> it's not that difficult to imagine microscopic entity being a universal
> constant of Little Big Wimp infinitized in numbers of Little Big Wimps deep,
> deep within infinite numbers of the the sub-atomic, progressing up
> magnitudes or orders of levels of higher complexity until, suddenly,
> "infinite mass," "infinite density," is realized to be the ever constant
> norm of the Universe rather than any exception. But that infinite mass, that
> infinite density, is broken into infinite numbers of islanded locals due to
> hard ungiving forever "TIMELESS" finite constants, fractal self-similar hard
> in a counterpart in the top-horizon-down (to its bottom-horizon-up). A dual
> use duality of character.
>
> The top, or outside, "bracket" remote horizon fronting infinite Universe
> (just as the Planck horizon fronts its counterpart infinitesimal Universe is
> entirely self-similar to itself (exactly the same Universe when "NOT
> relative") represented at the bottom, or inside. It not only fronts the
> infinite Universe, but with its dual use duality of character it then [in
> distant local universe horizon] represents the overall constants of that
> vastness of mass, the energy, the temperature.... in full representation all
> in itself, forever constant. All universal horizons, such as the speed of
> light [in hard vacuum] are -- however redundant this sounds -- universally
> constant horizons. This one is, via dual use duality of dimensional
> character, the so-called Big Bang (actually the Big Little Bang), but,
> forever frozen constant in being everywhere.
>
> "Horror of horrors.....how?!?!" Why the "shadowlands" of course. Via the
> shadowlands, the shadowland universes. Where the forever constant of cosmic
> background gravity in representive acceleration of velocities [falling away]
> from anywhere in any local universe however situate will forever constantly,
> finally, match up with and merge with light's constant horizon, its velocity
> in a hard vacuum. Dual use duality of dimensional character (multi-use
> multiplicity of character), "everythingness is nothingness," "nothingness is
> everythingness."
>
> Nothing else but the honorable Mr. Albert Einstein's "mind's-eye trip" to
> the velocity of light in hard vacuum could have caused me to think of
> following him up to see for myself "timelessness," and "infinity." The
> timeless infinity of the Universe. The timeless infinity of Universe.
>
> On the "expansion of the Universe" but not really:
>
> When I took that mind's eye trip to follow up on Mr. Einstein's, when I
> accelerated up in velocity at just a slow one-Earth gravity constant of
> boost, I found my local self and my local means of transportation EXPANDING
> just as has been predicted and illustrated occasionally before (quite often
> humorously by those not in the know of what it really means, or imaginative
> enough to try to realize it). But now we know about the shadowlands
> universes, realizing via indirect observations, and more direct effects,
> that something, SOMETHING!, quite invisible to us, and collisionless with us
> and ours, exists out there. Probable hyper-spatial -- and quite possibly
> hyper-timely as well (probably necessary to be that "as well" also) --
> shadow matter, shadow energy, shadow stars, shadow galaxies, ergo shadowland
> relative local universes.....indirectly noticed to be cross-horizons'
> gravitational in effects, and if so, effectively -- regarding that
> particular effect -- super-conducting "highways" tailor made to
> super-conduct assist inter-(whatever) travelers in travel between far away
> destinations. With all the sledge-hints I've given, have you yet begun in
> your own "mind's eye," like Mr. Einstein's, and like mine, to see the how of
> such a thing? A how that in no way transcends the velocity of light or uses
> so-called wormholes. A how, that here on Earth, [physically really]
> speaking, at once also [relatively] speaking (one and the same), causes the
> effect of so-called "fly over country" beneath a lot of travelers on Earth
> already. The effect of shrinking the remote when going away from it. The
> optical illusory effect of your own expansion up and outward in the
> Universe, increasingly synchronizing expansion with it level by level by
> level, to get anywhere, then shrink back down [toward] your destination
> getting more and ever more relative to it all the time as you shrink
> [toward] it, expanding it proportionately. As far as the velocity of light
> would be concerned, you never once moved from your stand by the side of Mr.
> Einstein's train track, thus it too never once changed its constancy
> relative to your constancy in any way, shape, or form. And never once do
> you, as a 30 year old, ever meet your 80 year old children when you are
> still 30 years old, relatively speaking that is.
>
> Thank you Mr. Einstein wherever-whenever-however you might be, though I
> realize you yourself probably were never aware of the full implications of
> your visualizations and realizations. Certainly your adherents for almost a
> century drew so many wrong conclusions in projection that they could not.
> But, like you, they were not infinity minded; not infinity based; so had an
> absolute handicap, an absolute flaw, they could never even possibly
> overcome. But I would not now be here, in this, if you had not been there
> first (however short of full realization you came). I don't call many men at
> all "Mr." but from now on you are Mr. Einstein. You have my deepest
> apologies for wrongs I've tried to do to your name in the past before I knew
> better 'Relativity'.
>
> GLB
Could you expand on these ideas? They're too summarized for my liking.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: I had a hallucination??
- Next by Date: Re: Cosmic Background Gravity, The Infinity Behind It, And Its Mirroring Any Past
- Previous by thread: Cosmic Background Gravity, The Infinity Behind It, And Its Mirroring Any Past
- Next by thread: Re: Cosmic Background Gravity, The Infinity Behind It, And Its Mirroring Any Past
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
