This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Universal Depression Is Nigh: ‘Cosmic GDP’ Crashes 97% As Star Formation Slumps

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Global Macro Monitor

The Collaspe In Cosmic GDP


Peak oil.  Peak food production.  Now (11 billion years ago) peak star production.

The Royal Astronomical Society writes,

Cosmic GDP’ crashes 97% as star formation slumps


While parts of the world experience economic hardship, a team of Portuguese, UK, Japanese, Italian and Dutch astronomers has found an even bigger slump happening on a cosmic scale. In the largest ever study of its kind, the international team of astronomers has established that the rate of formation of new stars in the Universe is now only 1/30th of its peak and that this decline is only set to continue. The team, led by David Sobral of the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, publish their results in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society…


Dr Sobral comments: “You might say that the universe has been suffering from a long, serious “crisis”: cosmic GDP output is now only 3% of what it used to be at the peak in star production!”

The decline in the universe’s star production appears structural and secular to us. Could be cyclical depending on your time horizon, however.

The universe must be suffering from not enough demand, too much austerity,  and thus needs the cosmic central bank to engage in some QE.   That is,  Quasar Easing.

Krugman, weigh in!

Hat tip Guardian Science via Twitter.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:46 | 3078697 honestann
honestann's picture

I said what I needed to say.  The only thing I forgot to say is the implication that topics like that of the article above are similar to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", because they depend upon so many faulty (or at least very questionable) premises.  But this is one of the general problems with human consciousness these days, the inability to worry about how massive are the number premises an idea depends upon, how sensible are those premises, and how certain are we the entirety is coherent and self-consistent.

This can lead to very unsatisfying situations.  For example, simply being unable to keep tract of the scale and scope of complex premises depending on complex premises depending on complex premises depending on complex premises... and so forth... until a human mind simply cannot cope any longer.

I know that happens to me when I try to work out the fundamental nature of reality in any detail.  I get frustratingly close, but just can't cope.  Frankly, to even attempt this (gain further insight), I need to spend about 3 months just refreshing the context in my mind to get prepared to attempt one more step.  I doubt I'll be willing to do that again.  I am more likely to succeed indirectly, by implenting inorganic consciousness that can cope with more complexity than I can.  At least I have genuine help with that.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:48 | 3078723 Element
Element's picture

Fair enough, understand your outlook very well.


Wed, 12/19/2012 - 12:32 | 3078893 honestann
honestann's picture

Obviously it is more comfortable to walk around every day being certain of everything (because 2500 years of authorities say so).  Then all you need to do is drop the name of someone or some theory as an answer to everything.  I guess we know people like that.

The obvious flip side is, if we insist on grappling with comprehension ourselves, without giving one iota of trust to what anyone says (especially so-called "authorities"), life is much less comfortable, and astronomically more effort.

So, for people who don't really care to be honest with themselves (much less others), the modern technique of accepting whatever soundbite appeals to them must be very attractive.  Little or no time, effort or struggle required.

The only problem is, we can't be honest and take that approach.  Furthermore, just repeating the soundbites created by others just ejects our own consciousness out the airlock, and converts us into an organic tape recorder.

How impressive most humans are, they can repeat what others tell them!  Welcome to the modern world.  Maybe it was never any different, but the predators who create soundbites have certainly advanced.

In the end, each of us chooses and adopts our modus-operandi.  Be fully honest and attempt to comprehend reality, or accept and repeat soundbites jammed into our memory by our favorite authority figures?

How many human beings want to understand reality infinitely more than they want others to believe they understand?  I'd love to know.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 13:10 | 3079079 Element
Element's picture

We're peas-in-a-pod Ann. I shudder to think of a money-grubbing fraudulent global higher-education system, of 'Universe-ities', turning out people who don't want to understand.

Nor do they even grasp why uni = one, and "university" sounds so remarkably close to "universe".  Or why TPTB are not keen on such honesty, and real education and understanding.

That similarity wasn't any coincidence, it was 2,600 years ago that Universities were instituted, to open a path to understanding for those in Greek society who did want to know about the deeper matters of the ultimate endless one-ness of all physical existence. And look what happened, knowledge and technology exploded into being from there ever since, and only faltered if people stopped trying to understand it. That is the source of all understanding. The singular phsical field which you mentioned, that totality of all steady dynamics.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 17:21 | 3080201 honestann
honestann's picture

Just imagine what we can achieve once we fully understand the nature of the singular fundamental field that everything is a configuration of.  Wow!  Just mind boggling.  And I would spend the rest of my life trying to figure that out if I didn't have a better way to get there from here, namely implement an inorganic consciousness that is smarter and more capable than me, and let it figure this out.

I concocted a phrase several years ago that sounds absurd (even to me), but it helps me keep my brain straight about the fundamental field.  That phrase is:

Everything that's different is the same, and everything that's the same is different.

Without explaining in detail, consider these simple examples.

Two [free] electrons are supposed to be identical, but they're not in the same location relative to other electrons (and other particles and fields), so they are different, at least in that way, and probably in some internal ways too (due to the different forces/interactions they are being subjected to).

In the other directions, take two supposedly different things, and notice they are both composed of electrons, neutrons and protons.  Or if they're more different than that, their ultimate components are both the fundamental field.

Perhaps the most different things are physical objects and actions (or relationships).  But there again, the only actions are actions of objects or configurations, so even objects and actions and relationships are intimately bound (even if this is the one case where saying "they are the same" might not be technically correct).

This stuff is so amazing that I find it difficult to believe that everybody isn't fascinated and spending their free time thinking about this stuff.  Like I said, the only reason I'm not [any more] is I have a more efficient way to "get there", one that also gets me off this planet overrun by insane crazed chimps.

The one thing I do miss being in the extreme boonies is an ability to sit in a room and brainstorm issues like this.  That would be great.  However, even when I did live in the unreal world, I was not really able to find rooms containing people who really wanted to seriously... I mean seriously... wanted to brainstorm these questions.

That's one of the things universities should be for... to provide rooms and times for curious people to come together and brainstorm.  I can't even imagine the progress that would take place if even 1000 smart people on earth lived their lives this way... much less 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 18:05 | 3080402 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

That's one of the things universities should be for... to provide rooms and times for curious people to come together and brainstorm. I can't even imagine the progress that would take place if even 1000 smart people on earth lived their lives this way... much less 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000.

Honey, they already do, it is called basic research and I did for almost 20 years in an academic environment. But you have to spend a few years getting the basics down first before they let move on to bigger things and go "free style"....

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 18:42 | 3080572 Element
Element's picture

flak, shutup and butt-out you rude arse.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 16:35 | 3083786 honestann
honestann's picture

The basics are precisely what they have all wrong.

So once you accept, internalize and habituate the "basics", you're FINISHED.  You are now either incapable of discovering anything (in that field), or you have to spend decades dragging yourself out of the hole you happily climbed into at the behest of the authorities and/or predators and/or self-promoters... and your own laziness.

You simply don't get it.  What we're talking about is solving problems that NOBODY has figured out yet, that the very best that has been done is an tiny insight here and a tiny insight there, but none of us is clear yet which incoherent babbles are insights, and which are simply incoherent babbles.

I have discovered things that nobody else has in the history of mankind.  And I work with someone who has done that several times.  You simply don't understand what I'm talking about.  I don't blame you... you obviously simply don't get it.

PS:  I'm sure you can quote the names of 1000 times as many "authorities" and "theories".  That doesn't mean you thoroughly understand them, including all their interconnections and consequences.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 18:52 | 3080568 Element
Element's picture

I understand your "same-different-different-same" analogy very well.

It much reminds me of the +/- anisotropy space-pulsation approach I described to you a couple of years ago. Where space itself pulsates within the wavelength of its own sine-wave-described oscillation.

i.e. a small ball of space oscillates in and out at v = c; so that every out-pulse is 'electric'-repulsive polarisation of surrounding infinitely 'elastic' space, and every in-pulse is 'magnetic'-attractive polarisation in surrounding infinitely elastic space.

But put two of such tiny balls of space, both oscillating at the speed of light, into a mutual and perfectly out-of-phase captured close orbit around each other, and then you get the features of an electron's NET polarisation, and its 720 degree 'spin' naturally emerging from two mere oscillations of space itself.

I tend to think pursuing this sort of approach is where things need to go.

Same-different-different-same, and at every level would be the expression of that underlaying fundamental oscillation of space itself.

Thus the +/- anisotropy particle (a soliton), takes part of the surrounding isotropic background space and dynamically concentrates a part of space into it's own structure. And if space has infinite impedance, as v = c, then that space inside the wavelength will behave as if it is 'solid', conserving and reflecting back all further acceleration of that space within the wavelength. So now you have a hard anisotropic 'particle' ball of space, but it's entirely created from isotropic empty space. So all matter is then just space - but anisotropically distributed. If space is also infinitely elastic, then the local stretching of space buy the oscillation creates the net attraction we call 'gravity'.

So in a couple of simple logical steps you go from pulsating space to accounting for the wave mechanical origins of forces in space.  All that is required to do it is to determine what properties space would have to have in order for that sin-wave oscillation to exist and to never lose energy.

And infinite-elasticity, isotropic mass, and infinite-impedance at v = c about does it.

Thus if space has mass, and it is universally isotropic, then you won't detect that mass in that isotropic state. The mass can only be expressed as a relative-mass-difference, with respect to the background mass level, once space is being anisotropically locally concentrated into the waveform of the ball of oscillating space.

Thus particles acquire mass from space itself. i.e. particles are space.

Now if that's so; then the writer and the reader are both space, anisotropically distributed, and oscillating at v = c, thus space being expressed with solidity. So that's why I call that fundamental structure a "+/- anisotropy".

On the out-pulse the space inside the wavelength rarefies (while the space outside 'repulses' electrically), and on the in-pulse the space in side the wavelength compacts (while the space outside is pulled-in 'magnetically').

So anisotropy allows space to express any mass it may have, with respect to the isotropic background, and the electric and magnetic fields, when two of those oscillations are in an orbital-couple, thus creating an 'electron'.

So the totality of space really is in that view a "same-different-different-same" space, and that term is actually a very good way of describing a +/- anisotropy's sine wave oscillation effect upon and also within that small area of space it is dynamically varying.
Thus a single ball of +/- anisotropy of space is thus what has come to be referred to as a temporary "virtual-particle". It would have to be in a mutual orbit with at least one more like it, out of phase to it, to become a true "particle", with a standing mass, spin and EM polarisation.


I think that approach has a lot of potential.



NOTE: apologies

I just realised that in my first post above to this thread I wrote that back-to-front. What I meant to say there is that if space itself has ISOTROPIC mass, then of course it won't be detectable, but if something makes a space with mass become ANISOTROPIC, then you'll see an enhanced expression of space's mass with respect to the isotopic background mass level.

This is similar to the way a isotropic electron plasma can be present in space but not detectable, because the random polarisations from each electron NET cancel-out to zero polarisation effect on surrounding space. But if those unpolarised electrons polarise in the same direction at any point then you will get an exceptionally strong electro-magnetic NET field come into being. Same space, same electrons, totally different effect on surrounding space. The non-polarised electrons, although present, can't be measured, but polarise them and you can most certainly detect and measure them.

So isotropic space can have mass and you would never detect it, until something makes the local density of space rise anisotropically with respect to the background cosmic level of space mass.


The physical properties space has, is the thing we need to understand, in order to grasp what particles, and we ourselves, actually are.


Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:12 | 3078529 Element
Element's picture

Dynamic 'Steady' State is implied ... we agree. :)

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:22 | 3078617 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So how do you resolve Olbers Paradox?

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:30 | 3078648 Element
Element's picture

I've done that at length, and satisfyingly also, but I have no intension of discussing it further with you, as you aren't interested in what other people say. You just want to be an insulting troll and grandstand. So if you please, shutup and keep out of following discussions, even if you powerfully disagree in all sorts of ways, the adults want to talk now.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:35 | 3078663 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really do live in a bubble....

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 09:16 | 3082103 blindman
blindman's picture

consciousness is like a bubble !

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 09:40 | 3078111 blindman
blindman's picture

if you were an observer doing this same
survey but you were located out there where
we observe 11 billion year old galaxies
and star formation you might see the exact
same kind of distributions but the perspective
would imply that our present location represents
the universe and it's structure and function
as it was 11 billion years ago. as e said
it's relative and there are no absolute
perspectives which is why when these scientists
ask the question the answer is what it is,
just a function of the perspective, what we see
is not what is but a very small part of what
was as best we can imagine. and then we presume
to know everything that may ever be. funny.
or what is, is entirely biased and distorted by
our perspective. so what is the meaning of
the graph above and star production? i don't know
other than it is a nice curve showing decay
of something, probably the set of bad models and
assumptions embodied in the "data"?
by Miles Mathis
"One of the current pillars of Big Bang theory is inflation. Wikipedia tells us that “Inflation is an accelerated expansion at the end of the grand unification epoch, 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, caused by negative-pressure vacuum energy density.”

Every word there is poor storytelling and nothing more. Compared to this, the angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead theories start to look relatively rigorous. Grand unification epoch? We have no grand unification, so how can there be an epoch ushering it in? And why 10-36 seconds? Why not 10-3600? Do we have any evidence on that one way or the other? Can there be any possible data? " ... m.m.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 09:53 | 3078150 Element
Element's picture

I'm with you there blindman.

People might want to think about the fact that space between matter has energy, and mass is the inverse of energy, so why can space not have a NET expressions of both? Becasue theorists won;t go there? Whatever.

Given both E and m are really the same phenomena, 'dark energy' of space implies that space itself has mass and energy.

Thus would act as a telephoto lens due to gravitational lensing.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 09:55 | 3078158 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I think you two should get a room somewhere, you clearly have alot to talk about...

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 10:08 | 3078171 Element
Element's picture

You know flak, you could just shut the fuck up and stop trying to stymie any sort of open-minded discussions, that you clearly can't partake of or participate in, without your pontificating smartarsery coming to the fore every time.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 10:12 | 3078234 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I suppose you do have the right to make a fool of yourself...

Go on, please proceed,...

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 10:40 | 3078364 Element
Element's picture

Can't help yourself. Did the other children tease you or something? We all have the internet and access to released data. Stop the pretense you have better insight or something via sticking to wikipedia-based conventional theories. If conventional theory were correct research and observation could be dispensed with, because we wouldn't keep finding observations that can't be explained acceptably or tested with current approaches. I concluded the gist of my remarks with regard to the forum topic. You are just a petty psyence-troll of no consequence to observations or the remarks. But I sure do not need some high-handed tosser presuming to dispense oversight permissions, as though he were some sort of insinuated zh 'moderator', rather than a closed-minded psyence-troll pest.


Wed, 12/19/2012 - 11:02 | 3078530 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey buddy, go ahead and live in some fantasy world where ~2500 years of progress in the scientific domain mean nothing...

On second thought you fit in perfectly here.....

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 19:49 | 3080812 blindman
blindman's picture

as mass is a sort of condensate of energy
perhaps space is a condensate of time?
but we have no idea what is time. or maybe
time is a residue of consciousness which
devours mass and space, devour being the wrong
word, maybe reflect is better?
the mind is a network of interwoven and overlapping
energy with no place to call home, that until
it is found resting. imho
thank you e for your insights. civility has value
and meaning in the universe contrary to popular
neutrinos in intergalactic space, doing the
here and gone, serving the main stem as a conduit
of transmission. and perhaps it is demand, the
demand of potential, pressing on the space to
produce a link born of the condensate time, from space
and consciousness,, so there it is. creation. that
which completes the loop, the ultimate link of matter/
energy and space/time? minds will always work on it
till it becomes symbolically representable.
off topic ....
The 2012 Election was a Fraud
from top to bottom
anyway ..
by Miles Mathis
I would like to offer here a definition of time that is as little abstract as possible. What we want, I think, is a definition that describes time as something that we measure. Only that. One might call it an operational definition. This definition is not an explanation of what time means (or has come to mean) philosophically or epistemologically. It is an explanation of what time is in our experimental or everyday use of it.

I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. " .. m.m.

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 21:58 | 3081228 Element
Element's picture



"I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. " .. m.m."


Interesting you should say that, my own view is that:


There is no time without dynamics, so they are the same thing at all scales, or as you call it, the 'movement'.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 09:04 | 3082087 blindman
blindman's picture

dynamics the same at all scales?
i don't know about that.
maybe ? maybe fractal like or
dynamics might express eventually at all
scales once the differences of scale are
overcome? there may be emergent dynamics
that come with larger scale?
all i have is questions, apologies
at this point. or fundamental dynamics
might be perverted when embedded in larger
scales. the question is can changes in time
that we can experience or measure or see be
applied to scales we can only imagine or
glimpse? did i say glimpse? funny word,
dynamics is a good word for time at unusual
scales, good point.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 13:25 | 3082849 Element
Element's picture

Well all dynamics, including orbital dynamics and complex spin and polarisations would be all the same fundamental process at all scales, if what I said about +/- anisotropies, in the other comment, turned out to be valid. And if UNI is indeed one then so these should be.

In other words, it would be science that has become metaphysical, in abandoning a singular mechanics.

There are great implications that flow from a space that has mass, and mass gradients, due anisotropy. The wave-particle duality is largely accepted to be 'true' and fundamental because we fail to understand that space itself can have properties and gradients in it.

Firstly, because space could act as a lens, at all scales, which will have enormous unrecognized impacts at the very small scale.

Secondly, because if space has the mass, and not the particles, which are then just concentrating space locally, then a steepening gradient is set up in space, close-in to every particle.  In this case it would be a space elasticity and thus mass attraction gradient.

The result of which will be, that when you do a slit experiment in a high-vacuum, the space in between the slit edges then becomes an active participant in the what will happen, because the sharp gradient between the two sided of the slit will has a space 'lens' sitting between them.

So no matter even if you do the slit-experiment with uncharged neutrons in high-vacuum, you're still going to get interference patterns, because it's then not a slit-experiment at all, but a lens-experiment, and we don't understand the resulting patterns.

And we failed to grasp that space could be acting as a lens, or it was rejected out of hand. That we get the 'solid' wave-particle duality interpretation, and the paradoxical spooking insinuations, that things behave differently, dynamically at the very small scale.

But what I just described is the same dynamics, same time, same orbital mechanics, same everything. The 'quantum-mechanics' is just describing the result of high-speed anisotropic dynamic iteration, as v = c, with a gradient steeper and lens stronger than anywhere else. But the undelaying mechanics themselves are thus revealed to be the same as the classic mechanics. And we call it the strong force up-close, but that is only because the anisotropy induced gradient in space is exponential and highest when closest to the wavelength, i.e. closest to the oscillating balls of space at v = c. Which means this extremely simple mechanical pulsation of space model has now accounted for and explained all of the so-called four-forces, as the QM misunderstanding of one gradient.

We just haven't realized that matter is space, and the dynamics of space is time. There's no divided "space and time", they are inseparable, just as there are then no so-called 'forces'.

They are all then the same gradient induced by self-attracting and repelling anisotropies, in an infinite isotropic background.




What that all indicates is that if you start thinking things are not just all 'connected', but are actually physically one thing only, then its interpretation becomes possible again. And if science re-interprets upon that basis then we will make astonishing progress, with known observations alone, let alone the ones we will then make.

It implies that the most fundamental principle of our universe and physical cosmology is that;  


Finite Does Not Exist.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 14:25 | 3083447 blindman
blindman's picture

@ element,
beautiful ! if you have not read the
miles mathis links you might enjoy them
and his other writing . seems you have
this topic at hand !

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 17:18 | 3083858 Element
Element's picture

Thank you ... I'll read it ... have read many things like the sections you posted, written some too, but always with a pretty hard-edge, such has been my disgust for 'conventional' interpretations, which from way of thinking, are not even the least bit 'conventional' ... science went out on the wrong limb at the small scale in the 1920s, then again in the 1960s at the large scale ... both are entirely wrong, so mainstream science is very much on the nose with real thinkers as a result ... rather than the big bang being 'disproved', all that's happening is everyone who's really thinking about it for themselves, realizes it's nowhere, as failed notion, the brainfart that won't cease to stink-up comprehension ... (as with mainstream views of anything) ... QM the same, but the act of questioning in that area has even been labeled an effective act of madness ... "we couldn't figure it out, so don't you even try, just accept what we say, and accept that it makes no sense".

But they'd ceased to comprehend that they were still dealing with UNI.

So their failure to see why it worked mechanically, was a given from that point. Until they open up and realize QM was a misunderstanding, they'll stay with metaphysical models and hard-line theoretical metaphysical interpretations of every observation. When they don't understand they'll adhoc another band-aid and put it in another textbook, and 'teach' everyone something or other that makes no sense, and make everyone dissonant with the BS. 

The Pope was bad enough, these guys are worse, but we will win this. ;)

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 19:05 | 3080655 blindman
blindman's picture

speaking of shifting...back to wiki
Gravitational redshift
note. this is not hubble's red shift, this is
relativitic, einsteinian style.

Redshift is often denoted with the dimensionless variable , defined as the fractional change of the wavelength[1]
z = wl/o - wl/e / wl/e
Where wl/o is the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (photon) as measured by the observer. wl/e is the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (photon) when measured at the source of emission.
question, where do we get the measurement of the
wavelength of the source radiation from 11 billion
light years distant? oh well? let's move on.
a spectrum is a spectrum and we can make all and any
convenient assumptions as we go?
what interests me is the cosmic background idea as
it relates to distant light transit and electromagnetic
and plasma interactions, forces, involved in creation
and information as these communicate. what is the
meaning of it? not how does it fit into a model
of questionable integrity and validity. what does it
communicate to the mind and heart of humanity. it is
a scientific question, not a political question, it
is a human question, respects no authority and is always
open to/for debate and song!

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 19:14 | 3080689 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I know you are trying buddy.... but google "21 cm line" and or Balmer Series...

Wed, 12/19/2012 - 22:51 | 3081369 Element
Element's picture

You honestly think he doesn't know that - and a whole lot more? Your unabridged arrogance and anti-social baiting is beyond belief. It's a dismal caricature of what's gone wrong with institutionalized 'academic' science and why it continues to be extremely unappealing. People like you don’t help others to learn, you just turn them off. You're precisely the sort of stereo-typical jerk-off that we've all had the regrettable experience of meeting in the flesh, which infest such academic wastelands. Has anyone you've spoken to like they're excrement ever accepted a thing you've said? No? Gee, I wonder why? Every remark isolates and diminishes you to irrelevance. But if you were actually interested in informing people, rather than just heaping infantile feeble slights then that would be plain for all to see.

But worst of all you're an obsessed habituated worthless troll ... and aren't even self-aware and observant enough to realize it!

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 01:19 | 3081655 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Here was his question

question, where do we get the measurement of the
wavelength of the source radiation from 11 billion
light years distant? oh well? let's move on.

When you measure a redshift you are measuring the displacement of spectral lines such the ones above. The are lines associated with atomic transistition in Hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. That is how we know what the wavelengths at their origin are...

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 08:47 | 3082053 blindman
blindman's picture

we be civil ! the difference is we
define the spectrum here and now and
make the assumption that it is identical
to the source 11 billion years distant.
this does not strictly fit the definition,
the assumption is made out of necessity.
that is not strictly scientific, accepting
assumptions out of necessity. it also does
bring into question the transit in space and time,
the movement and "dynamics" not to mention the
observational techniques or recording techniques
employed to analyse the spectrum itself.
it is a potential source of uncertainty that
might falsify conclusions or models. that was
all i was implying/saying.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 13:35 | 3083261 Element
Element's picture

Indeed, that's what I immediately understood you were getting at.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 14:09 | 3083383 blindman
blindman's picture

the idea of an expanding universe is just the
idea that empty space spontaneously manifests
out of nothing continuously. or that something,
space itself (normally considered nothing), is getting
bigger in it's nothingness. this is a function
of the need of a mathematical model. aka
fiction posing as science, like economics.
it is mostly based on the questionable hubble conclusion
concerning the spectrum analysis of past and distant
celestial objects. it appears to be like children
playing spin the bottle in high winds atop the high rise of thousands of years of observation and technological
development. great care is in order, safety first
and all.
it is explained here it it's full simplicity
and humor. it is remarkable how a bad idea
can spawn such fellowship and actually it is
the historic norm, that should tell us something
about our species.
the math of the expanding zero, consensus.
"..Pamela: You can never say something is true if you only have one piece of evidence. We have more than one, we know the big bang is true." belief is the key ,
reflexivity lives
convergence of manipulated and agenda driven "evidence"
can constitute truth so long as your model demands
what was that line about the vacuum ..
"..caused by negative-pressure vacuum energy density."
yea, that is it resulting in expanding nothingness,
vacuum, increasing spontaneously the distances over
time. all because a guy on the pay-roll could not
understand or explain his "data".
this model chosen as it is easier to increase nothing
to a bigger nothing without violating conservation of
energy. the model is incomprehensible because it
is incoherent and relies on statements like this ..
"Pamela: I’m not sure force is quite the right way to think of it. It’s like the pressure in a can of compressed gas: you remove the walls from the can, and the gas in the can expands outwards, but that gas expands out into something. In this case, the universe just expanded. It wasn’t so much as expanding into anything, as it just expanded.

It was driven in part by the temperatures, but beyond that we can’t really say. Trying to figure out what drove the expansion is still a problem we have, because the universe is still expanding apart, and we’re not quite sure what’s driving that expansion. "
comment: no way pam, this is creationism all over
again. glory days for the high priests and diligent
scribes once more ! burn the heretics !
i hate when i get bitter about these things.
and later in this talk pamela says..
"Fraser: Hold on, let me see if I get this: so as the universe has been expanding, since the big bang, the actual light itself that’s been bouncing around, has actually stretched out? I guess the point is the photons we’re seeing from that very beginning, those very photons have kind of stretched out to fill the space between what they started out with and matching the size of the universe now.

Pamela: The energy has to fill up the space, and there’s no new energy coming into the system. Light, which is just energy, has to stretch out to fill the expanding universe.

Fraser: So that’s why the wavelengths, when they started out in the nanometres are now in the micrometres.

Pamela: Exactly. This was figured out in the 60s by a group out of Princeton lead by a man named Dicke, and he worked out mathematically exactly what colour the radiation should be today, having figured out when he thought the big bang might’ve been. He started building a dicke radiometer. At the same time he was building his device to look for his radiation, there was a group working at Bell Labs – Penzias and Wilson – who were going to do astronomy of a different sort, but were also building a dicke radiometer. "
if you accept this what does it imply concerning
hubble's interpretation of the red shift?
compare to the work of miles mathis.
here another by miles also analogous to the "new
economics" ^tm.
The Cosmic Mass Deficit
by Miles Mathis
" In a third paper I have theorized that the foundational E/M field is always repulsive, at the level of quanta, mediated by these photons. All charge forces are ultimately caused by bombardment. Electrical or magnetic attractions are always only apparent, caused not by real attraction but by relative attractions. This means that the proton does not actually attract the electron. It only repels it much less than it repels other protons. This leads to an apparent attraction, since the (“gravitational”) expansion of the proton allows it to capture the electron, but does not allow it to capture other protons. This leads to the appearance of attraction, in the dual field that is the gravity-E/M field. [I explain this in more detail here.] " ...m.m.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 18:23 | 3084040 Element
Element's picture

from your link:


Both these statements are true:
1) The mass of the radiating particle must be greater than the mass measured by our instruments, since our instruments measure a compound mass.
2) The radiation itself has mass or mass equivalence due to energy, which is a second addition to the total mass of the universe. A radiating particle does not lose mass, which means that the “holes” left by radiation are filled by some creative means.


I have wondered about this last bit myself.

I've reconciled it at least as a place-holder, in a +/- anisotropy context, via seeing mass of a particle as arising from the orbital geometry of the +/- anisotropy's that make it up.

Whereas the photon that is emitted is not related to mass, but to the unstable orbital excitation of those +/- anisotropies.

Thus the emission of the photon to re-stabilize the orbital configuration of the particle's +/- anisotropies, won't alter its mass.

Yes the photon that was emitted can convert into a particle with mass during a subsequent collision.


Because photons are a solitonic traveling-wave, created by two mutually oscillating +/- anisotropies propagating together as an intimately interacting captured couple, but not 'orbiting'.

Photons then would be the product of the geometry of collisional interactions of two +/- anisotropy 'virtual particles'.

Which means a photon could potentially come into being spontaneously, via collisional interaction of virtual particles. But conservation is maintained because the +/- anisotropy balls of space were already 'waving' space, with mass, at v = c. 

That explains why photons have a small mass and variable polarisation, for the mass photons and electrons exhibit is always the product of the orbital or captured geometry configurations, not the product of the sum of the number of anisotropy components present. i.e. it's the geometry of those orbital arrangements that determines how much infinitely-elastic space's mass is pulled in and relatively compacted inside the resulting internal gradient structure, and thus how much attractive 'force' they extend into surrounding space.

It accounts for that Mathis observation/logic, except rather than the m and thus E coming from the emitting particle, the partial reduces its own orbital instabilities, via emitting the photon during a high orbital excursion of one of the +/- anisotropies.

If it does not, or can not do this sucessfully, then some or all of the +/- anisotropy's will fling out of mutual orbit, and the particle will have 'decayed'.

But smaller number of +/-anisotropy remnants may remain from the decay in mutual close orbit though, as a different more stable particle, and different mass, and spin, and charge, etc.

As you see, this can account for QED also.

… still reading/listening … [I gave up on the listening part]


BTW: I got in touch with Mordehai Milgrom many years ago, and told him about this, but he didn't seem to want a mechanical explanation of MOND.

If space away from the galaxy's margin also has mass, because it also contains +/- anisotropies in endless abundance as virtual particles then there's no 'missing'-mass. The mass is there, it just isn't going to emit photons much. We got stuck in the entrenched view that it must be due to matter. But if empty space is full of +/- anisotropies, even in 'great-voids', then a mass effect will be expressed where-ever the anisotropies tend to cluster.

Anisotropy in such elastic space is attractive so will be drawn to higher density in the peripheries of galaxies.

But more over, if so, the increased attractive elasticity of space is also stored potential-energy.

Release it via harmonically inducing the particles to decay their mutual +/-anisotropy orbiting, and you'll then be able to release the energy of the strong-force. And that is an energy source high-enough to do almost anything. That is, if you could find a lower-energy means to make them vibrate their anisotropy mutual orbits, to induce decay at will.

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 19:44 | 3084602 blindman
blindman's picture

mathis uses the word "photonic" referring to the
"charge field". he says it has mass. he says,
elsewhere, that the photon has mass and spin, and
that this has been an either neglected or rejected
concept in the field of physics. etc...
so space is entirely jammed up with emr from a
nearly infinite number of sources at all times.
one condensate of matter is like a lightening rod
for certain frequencies. they collapse upon it.
convert there, become evident and detected. sampled
and observed. at one point in space and time
this sounds familiar.
is it that (space) is one photon-ic field with
mass and light is waves of potential emerging
from the field at those points where the field
intersects or is interrupted by the energetic
condensates, matter, of the field? the duality
of wave- particle resolved in that/as matter can
only absorb/interact with particles and beings
can only be "made of"(constructed) matter, first. waves being entirely
conceptual, derivative and a collective phenomena.
; particles, conceptual ,
but wait, the photonic field is accessible and the
observation or experience is a function of the free
will or mind choosing from an infinite matrix and array
which photons to accept or absorb. choice sounds like a wave function! particles don't do that.
so how is propagation accomplished in the photonic field?
why does "a photon" not lose it's energy after 11 billion years of traversing the unknown universe?

perhaps because the entire field powers the one tiny
leaking capacitor.
Autopoiesis - Naming the Universe(s)
""Indeed, the secret of your system has just this instant dawned upon me. I comprehend the principle you use in communicating your questions. You lead me through the field of my own knowledge, and then by pointing out analogies to what I know, help me understand that I really know some realities which hitherto, as I believed, I had no knowledge of." Xenophon, Oeconomicus."
Age of Aquarius

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 23:32 | 3085405 Element
Element's picture

Thank you, I took your hints.

Think I know who PJB is on zh too. ;)



"And as you go along up the path, just managing to walk along together side by side, you happen to pick up something ravishingly beautiful, sparkling, a jewel of extraordinary antiquity and beauty.  You are so astonished to find it on this path of so many animals which only a few people have trodden.  You look at it with great astonishment.  It is so subtly made, so intricate that no jewellers hand can ever have made it.
You hold it for some time, amazed and silent.  Then you put it very carefully in your inside pocket, button it, and are almost frightened that you might loose it, or that it might loose its sparkling shinning beauty.  And you put your hand outside the pocket which holds it.  The other sees you doing this and sees that your face and your eyes have undergone a remarkable change.  There is a kind of ecstasy,  a speechless wonder, a breathless excitement.
When the man asks: “What is it that you have found and are so extraordinarily elated by?”, you reply in a very soft, gentle voice (it seems so strange to you to hear your own voice) that you picked up truth.  You don’t want to talk about it, you are rather shy: the very talking might destroy it.  And the man who is walking beside you is slightly annoyed that you are not communicating with him freely, and he says that if you have found the truth, then let’s go down into the valley and organise it so that others will understand it, so that others will grasp it and perhaps it will help them.  You don’t reply, you are sorry that you ever told him about it. 
J Krishnamurti
Saturday, April 23, 1983"


Thu, 12/20/2012 - 15:38 | 3083771 blindman
blindman's picture

speaking of stars.
2012 Crossing Over, A New Beginning OFFICIAL FILM [Brave Archer Films®]

Thu, 12/20/2012 - 16:08 | 3083899 Element
Element's picture

Good news, the sun is now up and the world still hasn't ended on this side of the Pacific ... we might be OK. :)

Fri, 12/21/2012 - 08:42 | 3086208 blindman
blindman's picture

The 5th Dimension "Aquarius /Let The Sunshine In" (1969)

Thu, 12/27/2012 - 22:58 | 3090935 blindman
blindman's picture

the concept of mass is the interpretation and qualification
of the
derivative and fractal emergent, redundant
wave function's , collective in denial as an
emergent self in reflection/delusion of
it's own nature, projection into space and
out of time as presented to (static) thought,
the particle(mind). there is mass ..
individual consciousness is a function of
prior collective consciousness yet that is
of an appreciation/remembrance of the meaning of artifacts. man, self and I.
the wave function, consciousness, requires the
illusion of the static particle, isolation, to reflect or
bear the weight of itself which is unbearable
and as they say, ineffable.
whatever and what not, and so it goes.
reflection is consciousness in the rabbit hole
of experience. this is how we live but we need not
live this way, oh yea, it is the only way so
we must be the way we are till we know and learn
keywords: the "individual" is a wave function,
collective, imagining "mass" as condensed "charge field"
or photonic duality. the "self" is a wave, not a particle. the wave is an imbalance in a field, the field is the universal, one and only, self. there
one finds truth and identity. everything else is
"other stuff".

Sun, 12/23/2012 - 16:48 | 3091732 Element
Element's picture



Perhaps we could more concisely say that human thought is typically an amalgam of fundamentally finite-based comprehensions expounded about a 'reality', within a Universe where finite has no ultimate validity.

Thu, 12/27/2012 - 23:00 | 3100586 blindman
blindman's picture

well said,
but i must add that when presented with this
type of conversation my wife insists i should
" shut the cake hole that god gave you. "
impossible i say

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!