A fan group for Robert Anton Wilson

robert anton wilson, robert anton wilson quotes, robert anton wilson books, robert anton wilson explains everything, robert anton wilson audio, robert anton wilson illuminati, robert anton wilson maybe logic, robert anton wilson prometheus rising

Archive for June, 2010

raw email

Can anybody let me know the e-mail address of R.A.Willson?
Tnakx.
Bororo

viagra .
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Heavy dudes in the room

I am starting to copy some of the postings to Works files because they’re so
daggone subtle and chewy that they’re worth further study, like Stanislaw Lem
stories or books on Zen.
For example, I saved postings from RMJon23 and Cliff Stabbert, among others,
and am getting some exciting insights therefrom. Kansan1225′s latest posting is
hilarious, either a crank masterpiece or 152 proof satire. If the latter, then
a Good Friend. The RAW=Kansan1225 hypothesis grows on me.
Tom Buckner

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (5)

What a weird posting: IF AOL WAS A CAR

After a string of humorous (if acid-dipped) darts at AOL, there follows what
appears to be a poem in code. What gives?
Copy follows:

Subject: …,,..IF AOL WAS A CAR..,.,.
From: LeeIac…@ogdpod.gov
Date: Fri, 07 January 2000 01:00 PM EST
Message-id: <8B0A30C2896.woxruibw@luvbk.gov>

1.  The AOL car would have a TOP speed of 40 MPH yet have a 200 MPH
Speedometer.  

2.  The AOL car would come equipped with a NEW and fantastic 8-Track tape
player.  

3.  The car would often refuse to start and owners would just expect this and
try again later.  

4.  The windshield would have an extra dark tint to protect the driver from
seeing better cars.  

5.  AOL would sell the same model car year after year and claim it’s the NEW
model.  

6.  Every now and then the brakes on the AOL car would just "lock-up" for no
apparent reason.  

7.  The AOL car would have a very plain body style but would have lots’a of
pretty colors and lights.

8.  The AOL car would have only one door but it would have 5 extra seats for
family members.  

9.   AOL car mechanics would have no experience whatsoever in car repair.

10. If an AOL car owner received 3 parking tickets AOL would take the car off
of them.  

11. The AOL car would have an AOL Cell phone that can only place calls to other
AOL car cell phones.  

12. AOL would pass a new car law forbidding AOL car owners from driving near
other car dealerships.  
13. Younger AOL car drivers would be able to make other peoples AOL cars stall
just for fun.  

14. It would not be possible to upgrade your AOL car stereo.  

15. AOL cars would be forced to use AOL gas that cost 20% more and gave worse
mileage.  

16. Anytime an AOL car owner saw another AOL car owner he would wonder,
M/F/age?  

17. It would be common for AOL car owners to divorce just to marry another AOL
car owner.  

18. AOL car owners would always claim to be older or younger than they really
are.  

19. AOL cars would come with a steering wheel and AOL would claim no other cars
have them.  

20. Every time you close the door on the AOL car it would say,"Good-Bye."

Clsepmt estbf fyfa bgl feas fafk
mial spl dprf eysk oneel
ncr hefa papq vfrsm
ufet umv sep a psg leisp.

Orntai fsixk jsbnje ikwm y cu
ukwl keezl lkf wml aaqu emf.

Y ivgar a fi pfku lgt dvelf
yjlef tvie uqrl srax offm
acibg pby rdw lx
drmtb kaff pklo eapp
sf kv lspb brl gfm
efegtl xunam efsry nd sulek
ey rdlk ebc eub al tc!

Ezoabe sanhmal jemr lifqig fi
yubzke xalj bfmu dflr bc nee!

Pdnntn stnzfr fedodlv nqbde.

Rafs oh ljb emi aab
kro a nbby cto ike
igpdfcr pllkall kfrs yifuaop secfl tex
ebr dei jp bks
emdol ij eipmz bdz xeugy.

Etefo poul yei flspe
oey ybzezil ell rbbcdde zyliu
tetyffs ptt labcnpb ibwjep zym.

Arsl a lnb y efmiyl mcdsa scy cfo?

Olms kfww ijen ps?

Ebeume lf ud rcyh dkibl dx
vse vcvf pmv egt eusd
rek brme gid irsl i evbsm
ecp pfe udr tjb abe a sp
jxclse mas fgp impmb rbsy a mi
sohmpfs flmpi elslk bllnlcr neatk kt
iidz clf aie ef
oes pmqdi elet earrq sxei jr
wvl lsfd cnpoz nceu a les o byl
fkeeh eipke qfbze liplri lb?

Lpisldsb enyk kbgkbf uokr
lnw hf dpmu le iibh!

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

jung & sex-magick?

Found in alt.psychology.jung today; I’ve snipped somewhat to highlight
the interesting bit. :

   Subject: Re: Introduction to Jung
      Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:35:17 -0500
      From: "Malcolm Timbers" <mtimb…@rcn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.psychology.jung

AlbanBurger <albanbur…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20000108233438.21392.00000995@ng-cl1.aol.com…

<snip – cps>

> An example of a Sphinx:

> I never connected concubines with the father imago…unfortunately
> Jung said that it was an anima projection to deal with Toni Wolfe so
> I assume there was somethng like tantra and ritual sex going on

Now you are getting the gist of the Mysterium Coniunctionis. The moral
police, or more like: those who play moral police in order to
surreptitiously appeal to the fundamentalists community and Oedipal
complexed men, use what they don’t understand and twist it into a
free-for-all hatchet wielding party to discredit Jung.

In my opinion, I suspect that Jung wanted to try out his "mysterium
coniunctionis" theories and he need someone compatible on a similar
level of individuation to experiment with. Call it ritual sex or
whatever, we are not qualified to citizen Jung on this account, because
we do not understand, nor are we capable of understanding. The mysterium
coniunctionis is not about sex per se, it is about a psychic
correspondence better know as ESP. Women will have a better
understanding of what I am saying than the average man. Men are really
dunces in this area of relating.

Malcolm Timbers

<snip – cps>

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (9)

neophile communes

Prompted by some recent discussions here, my mind was pondering
wandering wondering…

You know how back in the ’60s some people started those "back to nature"
communes? They got sick of what they saw technology doing, how it was
being used to dehumanize people, etc.

Well, I was thinking about how and why people familiar with or working
in technology or science tend to overestimate how rapidly we’ll
progress. E.g., RAW’s predictions in Cosmic Trigger, Arthur Clarke’s
2001, etc.

One of the factors, I’m sure, is the SNAFU principle. (Excellent
examples of this principle in action can be found, BTW, in the most
edifying Digests of the comp.risks newsgroup at
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks ).

However, in many cases it appears there are other factors involved. To
take an example from the computer field: a lot of computer technology is
"less advanced than it could be" due to the requirement of being
"backwards compatible". For instance, a current PC with Windows 98 will
still run DOS programs from way back in the day – and this is possible
because they’ve kept changing little bits while keeping the old core
intact, often at great efficiency expense. From one point of view this
is a Good Thing, but from the point of view of advancing technology it’s
a pretty Bad Thing. (There have been and continue to be attempts to
break free from this (e.g., BeOS) but by and large they fail to catch
on.)

This principle of being "backwards compatible" works in lots of other
areas as well; better TV technology has been feasible for a long time,
better videotape technology has been available for a long time, etc.
etc. (The question of installed base and infrastructure has a lot to do
with this, e.g., laying fiber optic cable worldwide to everyone’s door
might take a little while, but I’m simplifying.)

Another principle besides SNAFU and compatibility issues is the
technology-defeating-itself aspect. For instance, I have a "cable-ready"
TV and a "cable-ready" VCR, and I have cable coming into my home…but
to receive programs I need a "cable box". The signal coming in over the
cable is scrambled in certain ways to prevent piracy or whatnot, and the
cable box is "necessary" to descramble it. The consequence, however, is
that I cannot record from one channel while watching another (which
would be possible if the signal were not scrambled), I have one more
piece of equipment, and the circuitry in both my TV and VCR that is
dedicated to tuning into different cable channels is completely wasted.

Now, one can follow the chain of reasoning which would make all of this
appear plausibly "logical". However by "zooming out" and looking at the
situation as a whole it becomes obvious that there is no "logic" to this
(we can falsify the conclusion, therefore one of the arguments or its
premises must be false). All sorts of energy is being wasted: signal
scramblers are being built, cable signal descramblers are being built,
"cable-readiness" features are built into VCRs and TVs but never used,
etc. We’re building machines part of whose energy is purely spent on
defeating each other.

So. With the above in mind, and seeing & knowing some kids who are
growing up in "today’s world" – kids who are more familiar with
technology at the age of 5 than some of us will ever be, kids who grow
up already expecting & familiar with a rapid & accelerating pace of
change in every area of culture & technology[1] – I’m wondering if at
some point we’ll see the "opposite" of back-to-nature communes: neophile
communes.

A neophile commune would be a group of people seceding from the rest of
us in order to no longer be bound by the chains of backwards
compatibility, entrenched technology and standards, and social inertia.
They would consist of neophiles technically capable and smart enough,
and having done enough spiritual/psychiatric work, to not get caught up
in endless SNAFUs. Perhaps there would be a number of these, sharing
technology with each other & the world through the Open Source paradigm,
building Bucky-style housing and Tensegrity Space Ships…

One of the reasons I’m positing this possibility is because I myself
certainly get impatient often enough when it comes to technology and why
certain things aren’t "allowed" to advance faster – and I know that a
lot of "techies" feel the same. I get the feeling this may reach some
sort of critical mass.

Note that I’m not advocating this or proposing to start such a commune
or anything, I’m just speculating that at some point the tension between
those who just wanna Go, Go, Go! and the rest of society will become too
large to stand.

cps

[1] I sometimes wonder whether ADD – Attention Deficit Disorder –
    _is_, indeed, a disorder or a new evolutionary trait born out of
   the necessity to be able to multi-task or context-switch really
   really quickly. Maybe ten years from now, those previously
   considered to have this "disorder" will be the only ones capable
   of keeping up with anything at all, at all, while we stay locked
   in our apartments watching old movies from a little disc called
   The Complete Archive of Twentieth Century Film and TV.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (4)

Ayn Rand?

     I was re-reading Cosmic Trigger 2 the other day.  The chapter where
RAW meets the queen bitch Mrs. Rand, always makes me laugh.  Does anyone
know the details of what happened when he met Rand?  Also, I know my man
RAW is getting along in the years, but – does he still toke the accursed
and blasphemous Devil Weed?

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Re: Time and Stuff

In message
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=5&mhitnum=157&CON
TEXT=947520734.592314408

Dave Oldridge wrote:

 >>>http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=568686838&fmt=text
 >>
 >>>I took a look at the model you describe here
 >>
 >>The full model (did you understand it? can you
 >>explain it back to me?)???????

 >You are telling me the universe is contracting, not expanding.

Imploding not exploding, but, yep, that’s about it.

> And that everything in it is accellerating toward some center.

Only gravitons ("gravity") is doing that: This is because
all "forms" of matter are "forms" of matter and NOT
fundamental. "Forms & shapes" are "shrinking." Gravity
is lessening (gravitons are becoming fewer), the universe
is growing colder, we are all growing older (some of us
are growing wiser)….

>To me, this implies that our sky should be polarized,

To you it would, I doubt it not.

>with fully one half of it occupied by redshifted galaxies,
>while the other half shows a distinct pattern of red and
>blue shifts.  This is not happening.  Can you state why?

That is not happening. Here’s why (and excuse me
if I quote one of my previous replies to some
previously equally unwilling to understand fellow):

BEGIN QUOTE:

… Let me explain it
so even you might understand…. Ah… Well… err… Do you
have a two-year-old in your house (and absent that, could you
peek out your front door and see if there’s a two-year-old
passing by)? … Now, please bring him/her to the computer:
I will explain it to him/her and then he/she can explain it
to you at your leisure…

Now, darling, we’re going to explain to Daddy (?)
the difference between things moving towards/away from
each other AND things shrinking:

Tell Daddy to imagine a planet which consists of nothing but
balloons upon which "exist/are painted" only two "huge beings"
(a triangle and a square): The balloons are the gravitons and
the two "shapes" will represent all "forms" of matter in this, our
pretty little 2D analogy.

Now: Both those "beings" are pretty much the same "body" size
and they are separated by one "body" length (which is all they
"know" of their "planet"). Suddenly, for whatever reason, balloons
start bursting throughout the "planet" at an even ratio. (Our two
beings do not know this, remember. That’s right, just like Daddy.)

Notice: Only the balloons will move toward each other (as space
becomes available where balloons burst).

Only the "shapes" will shrink (although they will never understand
they’re shrinking).

Yes, darling: to us it will seem as if these two beings are shrinking,
but the two beings themselves will look at each other and still see
that they remain as they have always been (both a "perfect" triangle
and a "perfect" square, both pretty much the same "size" they
have always been, and both still separated by one "body" length).
An agreement between them which will continue until there just aren’t
enough balloons left for their "planet" to maintain their "existence,"
no matter how "small" they become in our God-like eyes.

And the same is true with all "us" "shapes & forms" of ordinary matter
in our universe (only with slightly much more complexity, of course).

Like the balloons, the gravitons do not shrink (all they do is move
toward each other). Like the balloons, gravitons do not engage in
nuclear processes (they merely cease to be gravitons, become
oppositons, cancel out each other, "pop off," or, otherwise… as
our imploding universe lives out its existence gravity becomes
lessened throughout the entirety of our universe ).

Like the triangle/square "shapes," our universe’s "forms of matter"
do not really ever move towards each other (all they do is "shrink"
in an "almost" perfect agreement with the rest of the "also shrinking"
universe. [About the only hint that ever filters down to us that all
this "shrinking" is taking place is when we look out into our 3D
cosmos and notice that those "shapes & forms" of matter furthest
away from "us" appear to be moving away from us "faster" than
those "shapes & forms" of matter closest to us. Do you know why?
Tell Daddy to ask the Big Bang people: They have it all written out
and it works the same way for a Big Crunch, pretty much.] But:

1) Yes, the universe has "a" center: It’s just that it’s "a" center
   only the gravitons recognize.

2) Ordinary matter (all us "forms and shapes" built (painted/drawn)
   upon the gravitons) can only move towards "shrinking" (with
   that singular exception which results in the optical illusion
   of an expanding universe when we look out into the cosmos).
   Tell Daddy to please remember that the "stars" ar really moving
   away from each other, it’s just our interpretation’s upside-down.

3) Because the gravitons of which all the "shapes & forms" of matter
   are composed do not engage in nuclear processes but "become
   oppositons" instead, "we" shall continue "shrinking" until "we"
   exhaust those little darlings the gravitons "which hold our shapes."
   But tell Daddy not to worry… our universe  has enough gravitons
still left in it to last billions and billion of years more, thank you.

And now… did you understand all this, darling? Good! Now go on
and explain it to Daddy. Nite, nite, darling! Be patient. Kiss, kiss!…

> Or is the above nonsense all your whole answer to the problem?

Oh no, I have a lot more nonsense to answer the problem.

> Basically, I think you have tunnel vision.

That’s what my optometrist told me. And so I told him:
"Let’s see your bill."  [insert skit here]

> And no, I don’t understand your model.

The first step towards understanding something
is admitting one does not understand it: Congratulations!

>It isn’t logical in view of the data.

Excuse me while I regain my seat (I fell off it laughing).

> I doubt if YOU understand it either.

There is indeed a LOT I do not understand; Buttons
and bows, to name just two….

>Some models are just not understandable.

Some models are intended only for flying outdoors.

>They also don’t model anything real.

Ah, I see you are familiar with the magic of mathematics!

S D Rodrian
s…@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

REMEMBER: If you want to see it… you will~!

>  Dave Oldridge

ALSO (just in case–to avoid even more posts):

> Ok, so what you’re saying is that the universe is collapsing and that
> the
> galaxies closer to the centre are accelerating more than galaxies
> further
> away.

Yes. Now, doesn’t that make much more sense that the Big Bang
proposition that an explosion is driving the expansion of a
universe… which actually seems to be accelerating its expansion?

> Therefore, if we are somewhere in the middle, all the galaxies would
> seem to
> be rushing away from us because we would be pulling away from the
> outer
> galaxies, due to our greater gravitational acceleration.

> Is that it?

It’s not as easy as that because galaxies are not fundamental
particles. Only the gravitons are fundamental: They would be
what is accelerating at greater velocities nearer the center.
(simply  = "gravity is more powerful where more matter" )

(And by the way, it’s not "would seem" but "are" receding.)

The principal obstacle most newcomers to this idea face
is when they try to "picture" galaxies "falling into the
center of the universe" … this is not what’s happening!

1) All "forms" of matter are only "shapes and forms" made up
   of gravitons. Only the gravitons/oppositons are fundamental.

2) As these "forms" (constructs) of gravitons "shrink" (as
    the gravitons come closer to the center of the universe)
    they lose their gravitons BUT retain their "shapes & forms."

3) The overall result is that "shapes and forms" of matter
     will not accumulate at the center of the universe. (How
    could "shapes and forms" accumulate anywhere?!?!).
    Lord, even gravitons are incapable of accumulating
    because they merely represent the force of gravity, and
    are not subatomic particles like quarks and/or protons!

       –PLEASE NOTE THIS for future reference.–

4) But where do the gravitons "go?" Into their opposite
    nature (they will become oppositons). Remember that
    gravitons/oppositons are not particles but merely represent
    attraction/repulsion. In other words: Gravity will unravel
    and "cease to exist." At which point repulsion will take over
    and, "Yara, yara, yara…" eventually recreate the gravitons
    and then we will have another universe. (But don’t guess:
    read my text–And, by the way, if you can express all this
    better than I have there, then I’ll consider myself your
    student and take up working with needles and cloth.)

You don’t have to warp your brains to think anything new
here: You can understand it all by using your old Big Bang
suppositions: But whereas galaxies furthest from us would be
receding faster in the BB universe, galaxies closest to us are
receding much more slowly in the imploding universe. Duh!

They are still receding in the exact same way in both cases;
it’s just that in the case of an imploding universe, the acceleration
of the implosion is to be expected, while in an exploding
universe… such an acceleration would be incomprehensible
and most counterintuitive.

> Assumption 1 – We are actually shrinking (at the speed of light?)

Read my Text: That would be wrong. Understand the
following four fundamental "speeds" …

1) absolute rest (or, x-space) –please, no quibbling–
2) the photon’s speed with respect to "absolute rest"
3) "our" (the) speed (of ordinary matter wrt absolute rest)
4) the photon’s speed with respect to "us"

"Absolute rest" is the place from which we are moving.

I have no idea what "our" speed is with respect to absolute rest
(but it is a lot "faster" than the photon’s speed with respect to it).

I have no idea how fast the photon’s speed is with respect to
absolute rest, but it is a lot slower than "ours."

I

read more »

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

The secret of Monica "S". Lewinsky

      The secret of Monica "S". Lewinsky is finally revealed in the January
2000 issue of "Contemporary Indications of a Conspiracy", available for $3.95
from:

      Kansan1225
      Dept. J
      P.O. Box 840395
      Houston, TX 77284

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (8)

Coincidance bib?

I am in search on the bibliography that RAWilson used for his Joycian essays in
his book, Coincidance.  Robert, if you are out there surfing the stratospheres,
whilest thine helpest me?
Thank you.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (11)

Why C is constant (from alt.chaos)

Subject: Here’s Why C is Constant (1 of 3)
From: sdrodr…@aol.com (SDRodrian)
Date: Fri, 24 December 1999 10:38 PM EST
Message-id: <19991224223804.00493.00000446@ng-ff1.aol.com>

POST 1 (of 3)

The problem with conventional physics is that it’s begun to more resemble
religion than science (worse, religion going by the name of science); and the
inquiry into more and more basic subatomic particles is beginning to look like
some medieval inquiry into higher & higher orders of angels: It’s all very
lovely, but as it goes along it ultimately explains very little, if anything.
So let’s put aside SR/GR for the moment (for the sake of argument say that it
was a misinterpretation of the observed reality): Spacetime is merely a
convenient set of coordinates and does not explain anything, just merely paints
a topography we can already "see" without having to describe it as "spacetime."

Here then is the real solution to the riddle of existence for you–a solution
which was all along everywhere we looked (and that is why we failed to see it
for so long). Perhaps it is simply just too obvious.

One may begin here: A bullet traveling (say, through a perfect vacuum) "knows"
why it travels at the speed it does: The amount of gun powder in the bullet
casing tells it (+/- the gun’s velocity). But how do all photons know why they
must, every last one of them, travel at the "speed" they do when no photon can
be given less or more impetus by its source/creator? The most immediate
("only") possible answer is that the photon is not traveling (moving) at all!
[And when you come up with a more elegant solution, do tell.]

Posit that "space" is expanding (x-space), and that were it not for gravity &
the strong force ordinary matter would ride x-space (expanding space) into
nonexistence (or, "explode," by our ordinary common understanding). However, as
we all know, ordinary matter is being kept from "exploding" by the combined
energy-conservation tactics of the four forces with the net effect that, for
all practical intents & purposes, the universe of ordinary matter is
"shrinking" (approximately) at the same rate space is expanding. [Keep in mind,
however, that the universe itself is not shrinking towards its center, like
some collapsing star–Such a linear implosion would, of course, make it
impossible for a photon "shot" across the center of the universe to ever cross
over to the other side of the universe!–Rather, space is expanding "from"
every imaginable/conceivable coordinate.] This means that, as far as we’re
concerned, the so-called "speed of light" is {in my opinion "only
approximately," as I shall tell you later} the rate at which space is expanding
[albeit, as I said, I believe this is only a very clumsy approximation].

According to Newton’s 1st Law of Motion the ordinary matter of our universe
would be at rest were it not being acted on by an "unbalanced external force"
(i.e. the four forces): Consequently, "absolute rest" is not "with" the sum of
all the ordinary matter in the universe (which = our universe acting/considered
as a unit) but with the sum of every "position" of x-space (given the
proposition that space is everywhere expanding equally "in all possible
directions" at the same rate).

In relation to x-space, therefore, ordinary matter itself is what is "in
motion" [this is not a linear motion, remember, but a motion "towards" a
"shrinking" which only x-space "recognizes"]; considering which ought to make
it instantly obvious that any & all "ordinary-matter objects" in our universe
which "appear" to be linearly accelerating (up towards the so-called "speed of
light") are "in reality" [in x-space's reality] decelerating (down towards
absolute rest)… and the faster an object made of ordinary matter travels
linearly in our universe the closer it moves to absolute rest. [Why we need to
accelerate objects in our universe to increase the force with which they clash
linearly is of course, made obvious by picturing a group of men playing
baseball inside a moving train: the train’s "speed" is irrelevant to their
game.]

The photon is still part of the ordinary matter of our universe, of course;
it’s only that the photon is a matter-construct that exists almost infinitely
free from the common everyday effects of gravity [it’s just a matter of
expressing out the proper equation.] Unlike "most" other constructs of ordinary
matter, the photon "appears" (to "us") to ride x-space (i. e. achieve "nearly"
infinite rest "as soon as" it comes into existence). [One may describe the
photon as an almost perfectly massless bubble of energy–which might help to
understand how photons are able to "carry energy from one particle to another,"
whether it’s at infinitely close and/or at cosmological "distances." It remains
to describe the ways the photon behaves differently inside the atom vs in outer
space… although this note is not the vehicle to posit any so-called "greater
c" inside the quark vs in outer space.] One thing seems clear: All constructs
of ordinary matter in our universe must be made up of gravitons at the most
basic level.

One hint that this is the correct model comes from the fact that there is no
absolute/perfect vacuum (one even devoid of gravitons)… and yet the apparent
speed of light is always constant in whatever identical medium. [To posit such
a perfect vacuum theoreticians must say that the graviton simply does not
exist, and that therefore gravity acts purely by magic at a distance! Of course
they use the term "spacetime" to escape straitjackets.] In any case… such an
universally constant "speed" might be understandable inside a perfect vacuum
perhaps, but outside a perfect vacuum a moving photon MUST experience a
permanent drag, however infinitesimal [and since c is really a very, very slow
speed in cosmological terms… that drag should become appreciable at some
point]: The same "moving" photons traveling first through a vacuum A, then
through air, and then through another vacuum B… when measured at vacuum B
ought to reflect the "drag" they "acquired" when passing through air (and not
"return" to the same "higher speed" they had in vacuum A). The only possible
explanation is that while air adds a slight "push" to the photon (remember that
this "air" is the one "moving by" the photon)… once the "push" of air is no
longer there, the photon "returns" to the same (greater) degree of rest it had
when passing through vacuum A. Any other explanation would require a Rube
Goldberg construct–And many a permeability/permittivity Rube Goldberg
construct have I waded through indeed, or… eternally tireless Tarzan-like
photons swinging frictionlessly from out on one limb to the next! [I also
enjoyed Neil Bates’s recent usenet posts on, "the problematical nature of
photon spin" < to be found at:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=555136364&fmt=text > and his
correspondents’ replies; all which marvelous hint at the truth, but all which
was not unlike watching a room full of blindmen trying to find a fly with their
canes.] But, to continue…

It takes light nearly eight minutes to travel even such an infinitesimal
cosmological distance as that one from the Sun to the earth, after all. So, to
account for it being the photon that is "moving" we would not only have to
account for what gives it its initial "push" but we would also have to account
for what keeps that momentum from decaying–and quite appreciably, given the
relatively slow speed of light. [The only other alternative being that the
photon is expending its "pool of energy" in propulsion–something which is
nowhere apparent.] On the other hand, if we think in terms of it being we [the
universe of ordinary matter, excluding the photon] who are traveling at
(approx.) the so-called "speed of light" instead of the photon… we can more
easily account for a drag (on us) on many, many levels of understanding (the
universe might be cooling down, the expansion of the universe might be slowing
down, et al).

Whether the reason the photon "disconnects" from "us" is because of its
"quantum masslessness" or because of some special protection (from gravity)…
its special construct [say, the pitch/spin its vibrations set up?... etc.] will
be answered when we can say for sure what it is the photon would "look" like
were we to "photograph" it (rest frame).

But, if the photon-construct doesn’t change "size" with relation to all the
other ordinary matter-constructs (and obviously it does not), then the answer
is that the disconnect from the rest of ordinary matter, as profound as it may
"look" to us, is not absolute: The photon is still "shrinking" right along with
the rest of the universe’s "matter" (at most… all it has done is, let’s say,
sort-of "moved to a thinner atmosphere" –using the analogy of a helium balloon
rising from sea-level). This (only slightly) complicates reasoning out its
linear trajectories with respect to our universe.

Say radiation means that although photons retain a very subtle "connection"
with/to ordinary matter… photons become "mostly" [although, really…to what
extent?] exempt from full compliance with the laws of gravity at the instant of
their creation: We can still "see" the photon, "feel" it, after all, so it does
still obey [some of] the laws of gravity–only it does so infinitesimally–and,
remember that it is still a construct of "ordinary matter." But the net effect
is that whenever a photon is created it (almost) instantaneously loses [most
of] its connection with/to ordinary matter–And it will then "seem to drift"
away from its source (at a quite phenomenal rate, in our everyday experience:
the so-called "speed of light," of course).

Say that the universe of ordinary matter "shrinks" ["in place," in our
experience, and never "towards" a given direction] in relation to x-space [and
so "moves through it"] while the photon remains stuck to/embedded
"more-or-less" in the (approximate) "place" at/in which it was created (which
makes it appear to us to be moving "linearly" away from the "spot" in the
universe of ordinary matter "where" it originated); thereby the so-called
"speed of light" remains constant regardless of its source/origin/direction
because "about" the only connection a photon has with its source is
"orientation" [x-space is expanding equally from/at all coordinates, so the
only quality the photon creator/source can impart unto "his" creation is an
orientation relative to "himself" –e.g. when "you" create the photon to the
west of "you" that photon will "seem" to shoot out away from your west side,
and if you create a photon to the north of you… it will then "seem" to shoot
out away from your north side, since x-space will always take "you" to be the
exact center of its universe]… Add the proviso that if "enough matter" passes
close enough to a photon then that photon will suddenly display a new "linear"
orientation vis-a-vis that "matter" (and this will naturally be "observable" by
the rest of our universe because in our universe the "orientation" of any & all
bits of ordinary matter with respect to and & all other bits of ordinary matter
in the universe is "recognized" by any & all bits of ordinary matter, period).
There are other concerns not needed to be discussed here regarding all other
linear motions of our universe… earth’s revolution, orbits, et al; but this
one simple "absolute law" you really have to understand to avoid having to
delve into synonymous but much more complex geometry equivalents: "your"
orientation with respect to the rest of the universe is absolute… so once the
photon "adopts" an orientation with respect to "you" it has also (de facto)
adopted that same ("your") orientation with respect to the rest of the universe
of ordinary matter. Now…

Moreover, the "speed" of the observer CAN NOT be added to or subtracted from
the so-called "speed of light" because obviously the direction of our "real"
motion (x-space = absolute rest) is never "really" linear at all but always
everywhere "towards shrinking." [And therefore one is hard put to imagine any
bit of ordinary matter in our universe achieving any true/real "greater
velocity" than the one it already has when it is at its "greatest rest" …
with respect to the rest of the universe of ordinary matter taken as a unit, of
course.]

A simple analogy may help visualize this: Imagine two side-by-side photons
"traveling" towards a man standing next to a woman (neither of whom have yet
been enlightened by me that it is they who are "moving towards" the photons and
not the reverse–further, I have also never mentioned to them that the only
"real" change in velocity they are capable of is "slowing down" REGARDLESS of
anything they might attempt in this reality)…

Now, the man (as men will) bets the woman that he can catch his photon before
she can catch hers and rushes his "approaching" photon at 10 mph; while the
woman (as women will) thinks the bet childish and tells the man she can wait
for her photon right where she is, thank you: Of course the man catches his
photon before the woman catches hers; but then something odd happens: [for the
sake of simplicity, here] the man reports to the woman that he caught his
photon at 100 mph and the woman reports to the man that she also caught her
photon at 100 mph?!?!

Why doesn’t he report to the woman that he caught his photon at 100 mph PLUS
his 10 mph acceleration? –Although you already know the answer… it is, of
course, that he "really" wasn’t accelerating at all (because it is impossible
to "really" accelerate in his reality) and what he was really doing was
decelerating (with respect to the photon’s "position"). But then why doesn’t he
report to the woman that he caught his photon at 90 mph? And the answer is that
if the only two things that existed were he and the photon they might indeed
agree (between photon & man) on that 90 mph; but it is the woman he must agree
with on the speed of the photon… and that is where the mystery of x-space
forever will confound them both because even though (in "Paradise") he and the
photon indeed "hit" at 90 mph… in this world he can never report this to the
woman without factoring in his acceleration of 10 mph with respect to her!

Time is irrelevant: Let’s say the man "takes the time" to move a few paces
ahead of the woman and then stops (he will catch his photon there before she
catches hers, but you have no problem understanding that they will both report
catching their photons at 100 mph). The same is true if he "takes the time" to
step back a few paces as well: he will catch his photon after she catches hers,
but you will also have no problem understanding that they will both report
catching their photons at 100 mph. The matter is not one of time, but of
acceleration/deceletarion: The paradox will always rest with what they will
interpret as acceleration vs what the photon will interpret as deceleration…
and in that "misinterpretation" lies their eternal impossibility to agree
between them that the speed at which a photon has been caught is anything
except constant regardless of their relative velocities with respect to the
photon!

And there the matter forever rests in our reality: As far as ordinary matter in
our universe goes… the so-called "speed of light" will always be measured in
this perfectly inversely proportional manner to be identical (in identical
mediums) by all moving observers regardless of their velocities (linear)
relative to each other: It is an absolute set value (agreed to) between the man
and the woman (that whichever one of them "hits" a photon at a "true/real"
slower speed will always report to the other one that he/she hit it exactly
that much faster, thereby canceling out all differences between them). They
have no choice in this agreement, of course: It is a covenant imposed upon them
by the nature of this reality/existence… and thus too, along with the man and
the woman, every bit of ordinary matter in our universe has also "signed" this
Absolute Relativity covenant with every other bit of ordinary matter in our
universe. [And absent a profounder truth the constancy of c is all the evidence
required for/of the reality of x-space.]

Moreover, note that this cosmic ballet may be further complicated, in my
opinion, by the notion (philosophical prejudice?) that the photon never really
goes all the way down to absolute rest [as I feel I must equate absolute rest
with absolute zero/infinite mass/none-being/etc…. and therefore one can
hardly have a photon "lying about" there].

More properly, think of the analogy of a helium balloon released at
sea-level… where the photon merely gets appreciably closer there (to absolute
rest) than the rest of us (ordinary matter in our universe). [And since this
summation is intended for laymen as well as scientists, please forgive my
repetions:] Let’s first begin, though, with the analogy of a ship traveling
through an ocean devoid of gravity, and from which ship a sailor casts off a
cork: As soon as the cork hits the water it will lose its connection with the
ship and will effectively come to a dead stop: Since this ocean has no gravity
the cork will always remain at rest more or less where it is unless acted upon
by some other force [Newton].

No known force is acting on the photon (cork) outside "some very negligible
effect of gravity" once it is assembled/created (cast off the ship)… except
that, unlike the cork, the photon retains an infinitesimal connection with the
ship and thus "goes along with it" a little bit.

However, just as there is no way for the ship to impart "much" of a push to the
cork, there is no way for the photon creator to give "much" of a "push" to his
photon; so a photon (perhaps the most monumentally simple/easy subatomic
matter-construct (particle) to "put together/assemble" on the human level,
whether naturally-occuring or man-made): a photon is "manufactured" in "a
place" ["where" it "pretty much" remains (approximately) stationary–remember:
only in relation to all other ordinary matter of our universe considered as a
unit–while the source that created it continues to ride x-space (expanding
space) away from it–making it seem, from the photon creator’s point of view as
if it’s the photon that’s "suddenly" moving away from "him" … in the same way
that a sailor on that ship would "see" the cork he cast out from the ship
"moving" away from him–albeit he would be a little more perceptive than we
perhaps and realize that it’s the ship moving and not the cork]… the rate of
speed at which the cork is moving away being equal to the velocity of his
ship–in this simple analogy.

[But don’t forget that in the photon’s case, the speed ("of light") does not
perfectly equal absolute rest even though it is that much closer to it with
respect to the "speed" of ordinary matter: The simple "cork" analogy above has
to be fine-tuned, of course… The photon does not really come to a "full stop"
but only decelerates (tremendously/precipitously) in that direction (with
regards to us): Perhaps a closer analogy is the releasing of a helium-filled
balloon at sea level: The balloon will "shoot up" with greatest velocity
achieved very near where it was released and afterwards decelerate as it nears
an altitude where it achieves equilibrium between inner/outer pressures…
lingering there without ever escaping the earth or falling back down. So too
the photon will decelerate towards absolute rest but never really get as far as
that (if it did it would, in my opinion, literally cease to exist in what we
would interpret as an "explosion," rather than the radiation effect). The
"speed of light" is therefore not a measure of "our speed" vs absolute rest but
only a reflection of "our" much, much greater velocity than that of the photon
vs absolute rest (so what the photon is doing is really more akin to what the
helium balloon does than what the "cork" does).]

Just Only Some Rushed Deductions & Other Just-As-Hurried Speculations
(occasioned by the fact that the above notion of Absolute Relativity instantly
leads to them)…

Photons are truly spectacularly unique "forms" (constructs) of matter: Although
they yet must have enough ordinary matter to them to make them "seem to us"
like one more of the particles of ordinary matter [the photon "shrinks with us"
even though it doesn’t fully retain the greater sense of unity all the other
constructs of ordinary matter in our universe do]… Photons are still [super
massless enough?] to disconnect "substantially" from the rest of the ordinary
matter which sums up our universe. [Does the incredibly high rate of expansion
of x-space (tugging at one end, while the "four" forces –really, gravity/the
strong force– tug at the other end) mean that particles with a likewise lesser
ability (than the more stable constructs of ordinary matter) to counter the
tearing-apart effect of x-space display/express more "excited/charged" [pitches
of vibration/frequencies/etc.]…? Or, perhaps one may simply say that the
photon-construct is "suddenly" faced with having to handle a spectacularly huge
gain in mass–however massless is remains in "our" eyes.]

Why is space expanding? It has long been difficult to conceptualize space
without mass, and now we can just go ahead and say that infinite space =
infinite mass and be happy. And it is not that x-space (expanding space) is the
fifth force but that it is the only "force" (if one couples it with the
graviton’s opposite reaction to it). You can just as well say that matter is
contracting as that space is expanding, but since all "matter constructs" are
really only "safeguarded pools of energy" (a conservation of energy) it’s more
elegant to view it from the perspective of the more "creative" force of
x-space. In terms of particle physics:

the oppositon = infinite mass = absolute rest = absolute zero =
(distance/scalar).

the graviton = infinite energy = infinite velocity/motion = infinite
temperature = (nearness/vectored).

One of the most crucial first steps in our understanding of how reality works
is always the elimination of human prejudices (which naturally cloud our
sight): And there is probably no one single greatest obstruction keeping modern
science from a more profound insight than the self-defeating attempt to apply
the always misleading and confusing human notion of time to reality: The
absolute relativity of reality naturally calls for a picture that corresponds
absolutely to reality; and ours is an absolutely three-dimensional reality,
period (whether one describes x-space as "the aether" and "sees" gravitons as
merely another form of fixed coordinates, and then talks about all matter
taking the form of "waves" through this "aether").

The so-called "speed of light" may indeed "come close" to answering the
question, "What time is it?" for the universe as a whole, but never for any one
given point along its lifetime. [i.e. posit that "time" is the rate at which
gravitons are turning back into oppositons… but since this process will
always be greater at the beginning than at the end {in a descending graph), it
is not easy to determine at any given point exactly how far along (down) the
descending line in the graph that point is [how fast time is "going"] when all
one has to go by are the very inexact approximations conjured up by someone
inside the closed system itself: In such a closed system time moves very
quickly at the beginning but hardly at all at the end–and, in absolute terms,
it may take as "much time" for the last two gravitons to "die" as it did for
all the other gravitons put together since the "beginning of time" to die].
This is why scientists find themselves needing to say that "more" happened in
the history of the universe in its first few nanoseconds (after Big Bang) than
"since" and/or hereafter. We can, however, draw up approximations from the
"current" (apprehended) "speed of light" & such [say, since we can "estimate"
that (at this point in time) the "speed of light" is very very slow in
cosmological terms, then our universe must consequently be very very old–&
such–or, far along (down) our line on the graph–providing c is really very
very close to absolute rest, of course]. Only if we knew the exact "size" of
the universe would we be able to know its exact age, because in the beginning
(not the "current speed of light" but) the greatest possible "speed" would have
been instantaneous from one end (or, "side") of the universe to the other (when
the entire universe = absolute rest). [Unfortunately for us, "size" is also a
purely human idea, and "the inch" has no more real existence than "the minute"
outside the human mind … "tsk tsk"]

But therefore the one thing that must be removed from the model (and which a
model of absolute relativity does) is a time-coordinate: Time can only have
existence (meaning, relevance) in a closed system in which all its components
can agree with each other (are synchronized): In a closed system where chaos
(misnamed "randomness," although it’s really "absolute ignorance") has broken
out time is meaningless. [The only meaning time has to such a chaotic system is
outside that system–i.e. from when the system was created (the highest degree
of chaos) to when it ceased to exist (chaos came to an end); and only to
"someone" outside the system itself–possible, in this case, because the human
mind can do just that: It can step entirely out of this universe and consider
its entirety.]

But if you (who are inside such a closed system) personally want to "use" the
idea of time here inside our universe at its most applicable… synchronize
your family’s watches so you can all agree whose turn it is to use the
bathroom, and leave it at that. The only knowledge "we" have "here" with
respect to time is that the universe (chaos) "seems" to be moving from
beginning to end–an educated guess, really–but because chaos will be greater
at the beginning than at the end (i.e. because time will move slower as time
goes on and we can only momentarily synchronize our watches to bits of the
chaos which are themselves eternally becoming less and less chaotic over the
long haul)… it is impossible to say (at any given "time") with any degree of
accuracy how far along that process we are (and so we can’t tell what "time"
the bits of chaos we have synchronized our watches to have themselves
synchronized their watches to ad infinitum).

How many gravitons to how many oppositons create a balanced 3-dimensional
matrix (beehive?) structure? And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the
"three-dimensional" construct, like "the four points of the compass," is
strictly a human (mental) one: In reality the compass has an infinite number of
points, and, in reality, our reality has an infinitely-dimensional depth
towards/from every possible coordinate. But it is still convenient to speak of
reality as "three-dimensional," and I will do so here:

Although ours is a 3-dimensional reality, for the sake of a quicker
understanding let’s posit it as a two-dimensional one in an analogy which would
be like a paper (volume) overwritten with squares (where the crosses are
gravitons and the empty boxes oppositons): Crumple an area of the paper and you
increase the number of squares and crosses in that volume even though you
really don’t move the crosses any nearer each other on the actual surface of
the paper. Cease crumpling the paper and the paper’s native tensile strength
will make it bounce back to try to return the paper to its previous flat
nature. In this sense when we look out into the cosmos what we are watching
(figuratively) is the paper uncrumpling. [And, oddly enough, an uncrumpling
paper will also uncrumple faster at first than at any time thereafter–but this
is just a coincidence.]

continued on POST 2/

full text: http://members.aol.com/prebigbang

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments