XPost: miami.general, soc.culture.canada, soc.culture.cuba   
   XPost: soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.german, soc.culture.usa   
   From: pedro1940@progression.net   
      
   SDR...,   
      
   AN EXCELLENT EXPOSITION AS ALWAYS...   
   These  topics  probably are not  uderstood by a majority in this   
   group...however, some might have a clear inside  or picture of what you try to   
   expose.    
      
   MY MOTTO IS :   
      
   BEFORE MATTER IT WAS ENERGY...   
   BUT BEFORE ALL THAT WAS THE  SPIRIT !   
       coined by myself...   
      
   "SDR"  wrote in message news:58087ec7.0   
   02090220.7b69412f@posting.google.com...   
   > .     Gravity As Thermodynamics:   
   >    The Explanation For The Universe. / S D Rodrian   
   >    
   > There is a fear among thinkers too clever for their   
   > own good that perhaps none of them may prove to be   
   > sufficiently smart to understand the universe. Yet,   
   > unsuspected by them, it is not that they are not smart   
   > enough to understand the universe but that they are   
   > too smart... and instead of seeking to understand they   
   > instead apply their nervous creativity to dreaming up   
   > overly-clever (and ultimately purely imaginative)   
   > illusions--an accomplishment which may be the glory of   
   > literary fiction, but is forever the bane of science.   
   >    
   > The purpose of science is to explain the inevitability   
   > of the process--nothing more, nothing less, nothing   
   > else: And not merely/only to seek/to find that   
   > inevitability but to explain it (in effect, to   
   > usefully demonstrate it). And any endeavor which does   
   > not do this is only pastime, merely an entertainment,   
   > a private diversion... but certainly not science.   
   >    
   > Now: It is no great novelty to suggest a relationship   
   > between gravity and thermodynamics nowadays [as with   
   > the thermodynamics analogy of a lightning bolt's "path   
   > of least resistance" later on in my text]. But, to my   
   > knowledge, this is the first ever comprehensive   
   > explanation of the universe in terms of the   
   > inevitability of thermodynamics--or, why and exactly   
   > how it is that "gravity" (the "flow" of energy) is the   
   > inevitable (and therefore perfectly natural) phenomenon   
   > it is in the universe.   
   >    
   > Since I am not here going to give merely one more   
   > description of the visible universe but am actually   
   > going to show the causes behind its observed effects,   
   > there will be no resorting here either to supernatural   
   > interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps   
   > of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations   
   > (the mere reduction of manifest observations to   
   > exacting measurements) behind which the absence of   
   > actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled.   
   >    
   >    There are no mysteries in nature, there is only the   
   >    mystified.   
   >    
   > The first problem to be solved is the prohibition   
   > against the creation/destruction of "energy," as   
   > embodied in the question of what could have "been   
   > there" before there was a universe of visible matter.   
   > And the preferred tool for accomplishing this is the   
   > one which allows us to inquire into levels of   
   > existence outside our physical reach: Namely, an   
   > abiding conviction that the laws of physics apply   
   > across ALL levels of existence and not merely at some   
   > of them while not at others [including the statistical   
   > research of probability & quantum theory].   
   >    
   > But, motion without matter...? Our brains evolved to   
   > "believe" that only "concretely material" or "solid"   
   > objects have existence. Yet our prejudiced sanction of   
   > "matter" alone as the only "solid material" that   
   > "exists" is in conflict with what the universe keeps   
   > telling us "really exists" (or, has real "permanent"   
   > existence). For, insist as we may (to the universe)   
   > that "matter" is "what exists," the universe always   
   > insists to us that "what really exists" (in fact, "the   
   > only thing which really exists") is "momentary"   
   > matter's truly "permanent" constituent: "energy."   
   > ["Matter" can be taken apart, but not so "energy."]   
   > Moreover, now we know that the "solidness" of matter   
   > is an "illusion" created by interactions between the   
   > electro-magnetic, the weak, and the strong "nuclear   
   > forces."   
   >    
   > WE: If it's not "matter" it doesn't exist.   
   >    
   > THE UNIVERSE: The "reality" of matter is no different   
   > than the reality of all those "forms" you "recognize"   
   > sketched in the passing clouds by the power of your   
   > own imagination alone: Just as those "cloud forms" are   
   > in no way fundamental (insoluble & indivisible) and   
   > the least breeze tears them to shreds (into some other   
   > "forms")... none of which has any relevance to the   
   > question of the continuing existence of clouds, so too   
   > ALL "the forms of matter" are but "fortuitous forms"   
   > (so-called "gravitational systems") which can also be   
   > torn to shreds (into other just as "fortuitous forms")   
   > without this having any bearing whatsoever on the   
   > question of the continuing existence of "energy" (or,   
   > the "clouds" from which the "forms of matter" are   
   > made). And this holds true even if the forms are   
   > imposed on you by the universe rather than your   
   > imagination imposing them on the universe.   
   >    
   > This has been the one hurdle that has kept previous   
   > theorists from following the line of inquiry we are   
   > taking here: Just as it was only after mankind finally   
   > accepted the fact that the earth moved (and was not   
   > the fixed center around which orbited the rest of the   
   > universe) that mankind was finally able to achieve the   
   > greater perspective we've enjoyed since... so too, it   
   > is only when we finally give up the human prejudice   
   > that "the forms of matter are absolute" (that they are   
   > the fundamental, immutable & indivisible objects with   
   > whose destruction "existence" itself ceases to be--or   
   > that there are even such things), that it then becomes   
   > possible for us to achieve the next great perspective.   
   >    
   >    This notion that there exist "immutable and   
   >    indivisible objects with whose destruction   
   >    existence itself ceases to be" is an ancient human   
   >    superstition which should have been dropped once it   
   >    was clear that the Greek proposal for just such an   
   >    indivisible particulate (the "atom") was no longer   
   >    tenable. Yet to this day we're still drowning in   
   >    quite unforgivable proposals for exactly such   
   >    indivisible "particulates" (or "strings" now).   
   >    
   > However, had Einstein (at the moment when he was   
   > mulling why it might be that, given the existence of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)