Enslaved, But Saved?

A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE:

No philosophy is very new, if all it does, is to tenderly stroke the minds of the past, and their pet theories.

It is a given that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a black eye for Western Civilization. Does that hold under hyper-critical scrutiny? A few remarks:

1) It’s plutocrats who organized the slave trade, not “Western Civilization”. The average European knew nothing about slavery, as it had been unlawful in (what the Franks called) “Europe” for a millennium. Plutocrats organize a lot of things nowadays, far from prying eyes.

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

2) It is better to (let) drown Africans by the thousands as they try to reach Europe, as is practiced nowadays? Is it worse to be put in chains, laying on one’s back like sardines, rather than drowning in the Med? And on this latter point, we can’t say we never heard about it.

3) At least, indeed, slave traders were keen not to drown their expensively purchased slaves.

Let’s dig in the slave logic.

The claim is generally made that 11 million Africans were transported in slave ships, from Africa to the Americas. Once arrived there, they were used as living robots. They were moreover generally submitted to racism, the idea that they were not quite human. Accordingly they were treated inhumanly.

Between 650 CE and 1920 CE, 18 million Africans were transported to Muslim countries. Many were castrated, and suffered high death rates, so the slave population did not increase much. Islamist jurisprudence frowned upon enslaving born Muslims (and initially Jews and Christians, except if captured in war; however, that was rescinded soon).

The transatlantic slave trade was organized by pretty satanic individuals.

However, differently from slaves in Muslim countries, American slaves were not castrated, and however inhumanly treated, not only suffered much lower death rates than in Muslim countries, but grew and multiplied.

African slaves in the Americas were never treated so badly that they engaged in as a large scale rebellion such as the Zanj (= East African Great Lakes Bantus). 500,000 African slaves captured the large port of Basra in Iraq, and fought for 15 years. (The largest North American slave rebellion involved barely more than one plantation, and killed a few dozen people… Who all knew each other.)

The slave population in the Americas augmented rapidly… From doing what comes naturally when conditions are not so bad.

But let’s reconsider the basic point. How did Euro-American plutocrats get their slaves? By buying them. (Europeans hunting Africans down was tried a bit by the Portuguese early on, but proved way too expensive and dangerous, past the first element of surprise.)

African states and empires were well armed (with native steel arrowheads). Starting in 1300 CE, in the empire of Senegambia and Mali, one third of the population was enslaved. Slavery does not have to do with riches: the emperor of Mali went to Mecca and blinded all the Arabs with his incredible wealth (Mali was full of gold and slaves to extract it). He was probably the Earth’s richest person.

In Madagascar, half of the population was enslaved. In Zanzibar, 90%. Slavery was all over Africa, and it had nothing to do with evil white men.

And the natural question is this: had these slaves not been sold, would they have lived?

Africa was crisscrossed by wars. Ever since the Carthaginians, white men had been unable to conquer it, because Africans were expert at war, and mastered steel technology. It’s only after 1850 CE that Europeans achieved military technology so advanced that they made local, African soldiers into conquering armies (or, at least, that’s the way the French did it; the British used their own soldiers and suffered two tremendous defeats, one in West Africa, the other at the hands of the Zulus).

So would have these prisoners of war and other criminals live, but for the slave trade?

The observation is the perennial one, the great enforcer of the Dark Side in the human species: the first thing humanity always had to kill, was overpopulation.

Bartolome’ de las Casas stopped all by himself the Conquista of the Americas by Spain (he did not like the genocide and persuaded Charles V). He also condemned the African slave trade, pointing out that it “incited Africans to sell their own children”.

A fine, very humanitarian, cute and cuddly argument, but is it really true? Could one cut and paste European ethical logic onto Black Africa?

In truth we know that mass human sacrifices as happened during the “Customs” in Dahomey were stopped, because the captives got sold as slaves instead of being chopped into bits.

It is no accident that, shortly before its civil war, Rwanda was the most densely populated country in Africa. 20% of the population was killed. In three months. (And the story is more complicated, and troubling, than usually told, as it seems a majority of the people killed were Hutu, not Tutsi, as supported by the evidence that the “genocide” happened during the invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi “Rwanda Patriotic Front”.)

Morocco closed its last slave market in 1920. It helped that it was under French supervision. Saudi Arabia made slavery unlawful in the 1960s. (Islam, by giving a precise legal framework to slavery, allowed it to fester forever.) Mauritania, a country of ineffable charm, which I have resided in, criminalized slavery in 2007. 600,000 people, 20% of the population, are currently enslaved there (the French had abolished slavery in Mauritania in 1920, but the country became independent in the 1960s, allowing to re-establish slavery).

A well-known reason brandished to justify the invasion and occupation of Africa by European powers was the presence of slavery in Africa (the source of the Transatlantic Slave Trade). That argument failed in Christian Ethiopia, which, although attacked by Italy, was never conquered… But also was never part of the slave trade.

Amusingly, as “passengers” are packed like cattle in planes nowadays, getting strokes by the thousands, as a result, nobody points out that slaves at least enjoyed flat beds. (I had still another friend who died, yesterday, from a stroke within days of flying; not a subject airlines and their sponsors are keen to examine.)

Once transported to the Americas, slaves were branded, and treated worse than 3,500 years prior in Mesopotamia. Well, that was a problem with the inhuman character of the laws in the Americas. And yes, it is unforgivable.

However, as far as the slaves were concerned, enslaving them may have saved their lives. I am not saying that this is sure, obvious, and proven.

Just, that it seems likely. Reality is harder than fiction.

Think, but verify.

Meanwhile, please consider the possibility that the situation with thousands drowning in the Mediterranean is actually worse than the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

41 Responses to “Enslaved, But Saved?”

  1. gmax Says:

    Busy making more friends? ;-)!
    I read the last, much more biting version, thanks!

    Descendants of slaves should feel much better, now that they know they were rescued by the white man! No, seriously! I am not being ironical. Telling all blacks, beiges and browns their ancestors were slaves, misses the main point

  2. dimvisionary Says:

    Scathing indictment and insightful. Thank you for a history lesson on slavery. The frequent use of the word slave seems to sweep aside the biological fact that these are humans, people of the one species of planet earth. Your commentary also seems to ignore the greed and violence involved with conquering and enslaving and the dark poverty of soul that implies. At what point in human growth do we learn not to conquer, enslave or mutilate our fellow Homo
    Sapiens Sapiens? Cheers!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Dimvisionary!
      As I tried to say in passing, I thoroughly condemn slavery as practiced in the Americas.

      However, forced labor with deprivation of liberty can be viewed as honorable: after the Nazis’ Afrika Korps (elite Nazi soldiers long headed by Desert Fox Rommel) was captured in Tunisia, it was sent to forced labor in the American South. And then the weirdest thing happened: the hard core Nazis, after a few years of denial, started to feel their BLACK watchers were…. mistreated by the whites (!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

      Many Nazi soldiers spent many years in captivity, often working for free. In the USSR, most died. In the West, most survived.

      My point about atrocity is that, ultimately, it’s often forced by the conflict between human demography and ecology. A lesson for “climate change”, “sea rise’, “acid ocean”, etc…

  3. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    A clear eyed view of a politically touchy subject.
    One way to both defuse the issue somewhat and clarify it further would be to try and place it in a larger physical and biological context.
    Consider one of the points I keep trying to make; That energy and order make two sides of a larger dichotomy. Be it the arrow of time for energy points to the future, while the arrow of time for static order points to the past, to the sociological observation that civil order and cultural customs are the defining structures pressing down on and giving form to an ever expanding sea of human energy.
    Then the issue of slavery as an inherent economic device of forced rent extraction fits into the larger social and biological feedback and economic bootstrapping the lifts the lives of some, at the expense of others.
    We like to believe, even if subconsciously, or atheistically, that there is some benevolent deity who will rescue us from the/our darker elements, but they are an integral part of nature and if we can ever learn to face them, we might better learn to manage them, or at least open our eyes more.
    Grounding it in terms of the physics might take some of the sting out long enough to see a little further.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear John: The physics we know is tiny, most probably, as I advocate in the Mathematical Mind Hypothesis. Thus existing known physics (addressing just 4% of known mass-energy) is insufficient to get into the Dark Side. Opening our eyes more is necessary, as you say. That’s what I am trying to do.

  4. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    For which I highly commend you. Given the difficulty of being heard over the cacophony of competing interests, it does seem futile on occasion, but one can only guide ones’s soul by seeking truth. Everything else is distraction.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Brodix! Some people told me personally that the essay was excellent, important, etc. I like that, all the more as others, much less intelligent, told me I condoned racism, anti-Semitism, slavery, abuse, blah blah blah.
      The argument about talking too much about slavery is similar to the one I make against Chomsky: talking too much about what’s irrelevant… Thus avoiding the real levers of power.

      Actually here is the comment Scientia Salon consented to publish on that:

      Professor Chomsky’s all too often imbalanced, ill-informed, exaggerated and wrong-headed positions help the establishment by discrediting straight and true establishment hyper-criticism of a much deeper and devastating type.

      In other words, Chomsky is a professional red herring, very useful to paint serious critique into something nobody looks at, as everybody gets mesmerized by his hysterics.
      Besides, his linguistics does not resist examination (I think, and so does a young linguistic professor from France/Italy I know; she gathers experimental data).

      This being said, notwithstanding these reservations, I support what he does and MIT keeping him as a misleading establishment pet.

      Now on the issue at hand, targeting deliberately, and bombing a pharmaceutical factory is a war crime, and the Clinton’s administration ought to be put on trial for this crime against humanity (there is no prescription). Even, as seems likely from what Doctors Without Borders allegedly said, there was no significant augmentation of mortality they noticed.

      Another detail: Al Qaeda’s principals did not expect the towers to collapse. Bin Laden, a civil engineer, thought only the floors above the impacts would collapse, others were less… sanguine.
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/chomsky-mit-bimbo/

      • brodix Says:

        Patrice,
        After thousands of years, the establishment develops many supportive feedback loops and these never go away. The only real hope for the truth is to broaden people’s basic understanding of the dynamics, so they don’t get too quickly ensnared again.
        Such by predatory commercial banking. Like monarchy and slavery, it served its function and now we have to grow beyond it.
        Hopefully we don’t have another Clinton in 2016.

        I managed to break a collar bone yesterday and have more interneting time, but less enthusiasm.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Yes, one’s health has an effect on one’s brain, and one’s desire… Sorry for the collar bone. I nearly broke a knee, a foot and an ankle last week, so I empathize even more (I am a mountain runner trying to get back in shape).

          Yes, well, Clinton. I detested the Clinton, mightily campaigned for Obama way early on (he is a personal friend, that’s why I say a lot of bad things about him, them being the truth, it’s a gift from me to him…). But then, in the end, I wonder if Mac Cain would have been really worse (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Romney, yes, was worse, but Obama just implemented Romneycare, so….

          So if not Clinton, then what??? At least she is a woman (I’m pro-woman, affirmative action in early stage is OK with me). And not necessarily as rotten as Bill…

          • brodix Says:

            Patrice,
            As you say, the ideas rule, not the people. When it is billions of people, the system selects for the people to fill the roles.
            Think of the country as a large old tree that is rotted on the inside. Much of the outside is still healthy, but the further inside you get, the more termites, bugs, fungus, mold, etc. have eaten it out.
            So a healthy system selects for those interested in the health of the whole, while an unhealthy system is ruled by self interest. Large systems tend to fragment, like the Tower of Babel, because there are a multitude of points of view and they start moving in different directions.
            Nature’s cycles of expansion and consolidation, building up and breaking down, coming and going, God as past, present and future.
            Pain is a pain, but those are the breaks. I’m starting to get old.
            Lucky the horse’s head didn’t hit me in the face that hard though. Hopefully the surgeon can put the pieces back together. She is the Ravens team orthopedics doctor. Shoulders are tricky though. My other collar bone has been displaced since about 14 years ago. That was a motorcycle.
            My guardian angel likes to smack me down on occasion.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Are you butting heads with horses? ;-)?
              In a park out of my door a mighty, 100 foot tree broke. Its five feet across base was fully rotten inside. The rest of the tree was very healthy, and it looked young and strong (it belonged to one of the world’s highest and biggest tree species). When it fell it made a huge noise, and I thought there had been a terrible car accident, but the direction of the sound made no sense.
              A parable for our world?

            • brodix Says:

              Patrice,
              I try getting inside their heads/space, but sometimes there is a misjudgment. 😦
              It is being hollowed out to make it seem more impressive on the outside. These situations rarely end well. 😦

    • brodix Says:

      I would say though, much of that presumed missing 96%, dark matter and energy, are fudge factors to fill in gaps between theory and observation.
      If redshift is an optical effect and not this cosmic Genesis story, the acceleration of the redshift, for which dark energy is proposed, is really a factor of the lensing, not some force propelling the galaxies apart.
      As for dark matter, it is evidence our theory of gravity, this geometry of spacetime, is incomplete and that could as well be overlooked factors, not just missing ones.
      What if gravity were a composite effect, across a range of attractive and repulsive forces, rather than its own force?
      When energy is released from mass, mechanical, chemical, nuclear, the result is pressure because it occupies more space. So wouldn’t the opposite be true, that energy coalescing into mass creates a vacuum, eventually leading to that vortex at the center of galaxies. M=e/c2.
      Most of this dark energy supposedly exists on the perimeters of galaxies and there are lots of cosmic rays, gases and other particles out there. Might there be some interaction among them that we haven’t yet figured out? As you say, what we do know is tiny.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dark Matter is no evidence for the geometry of spacetime being incomplete. (My hunch is that Quantum Mechanics incompleteness causes Dark Matter.)
        https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/flat-universe-flattens-twisted-logic/

        Dark Energy is an on-going debate, but, if true, as it seems, the greatest experimental discovery since QED 9anti-matter, spin, etc.)

        View story at Medium.com

        • brodix Says:

          And if redshift is not due to those distant galaxies actually receding….
          As I keep pointing out, they really cannot use the premise of spacetime to argue space expands, when the speed of light/clock rate doesn’t increase to match. If it doesn’t remain constant, how can it be relativistic?

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            dear John: The redshift fits the Cepheids and Novas, and many other things light curves. So they are truly receding.

            I don’t understand what you say. Are you saying time ought to run slow in distant galaxies, because they are moving away from us? But that it does not look so?

          • brodix Says:

            Patrice,
            It is much simpler than that. One of the first patches for the Big Bang theory occurred when they realized there was little to no lateral motion to match the redshift. So if these galaxies were receding, the effect appeared to be that they were all receding directly away from us, as though we happened to be at the center of the universe.
            So rather than it being a normal three dimensional expanding sphere, the argument became, using the premise of spacetime, that it was space itself that was expanding and so every point would appear as the center.
            The problem with this, that I keep pointing out and no one seems to be able to explain why I’m wrong, is that for it to be truly relativistic expansion, the speed of light should increase to match, in order to remain Constant to this expanded dimension of space.
            Remember that Einstein said space is what you measure with a ruler and the ruler of interstellar and intergalactic space is the speed of light. So if those galaxies are moving away and it takes light longer to cross this distance, as redshift requires, that is not stretching the ruler of space, only using more units of this measure to cover the distance.
            For instance, if you walk away from your computer, you are not stretching space, but moving in stable space. Similarly these are stable units of measure and it takes more to cover this distance. So that is not space stretching, only movement in stable space.
            Then if there is that stable space and those galaxies are receding in it, it would have to mean that we are at the center of the universe.
            Now we are at the center of our view of the universe, so it seems worth considering that there might be some optical effect creating this redshift. Or, at the very least, leave the issue open.

  5. Kevin Berger Says:

    Looking at this from my narrow vintage, I can’t help but think about the Taubira oft-repeated quote about her pet slave trade memory law (I sadly didn’t source it last time I read it in a decent enough publication, and nowadays it seems to be found mostly in the wingnut blogosphere), and why it didn’t mention the arab trade : “today’s young Arabs should not have to carry the burden of their ancestors’ misdeeds”, or something to that effect.
    Young (ethnic, I guess one may write in that context) French, on the other hand…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Although I approve(d) of a lot of the Taubira laws, I can’t stand her personally. She is the personification of invented victimhood, hiding the fact that, for more than 15 years, she has been continuously a great aristocrat, not to say plutocrat, of the so-called “Republic”. She is actually a racist and oppressor disguised as its opposite, like the Polar Bear, Ursus Maritimus, is disguised as pure snow, but is the exact opposite. One can’t even insult her as she deserves, it’s against the law (incredibly!)

      … Otherwise, one would get Dieudonized, I guess…

  6. Kevin Berger Says:

    But then again, victimhood is a good racket; speaking of slavery, white guilt(tripping) and the opening of this Pandora box by Jewish special interests groups, this reminds me of Dieudonné, who is now fully immersed in that mindset (or has found a profitable niche – mleh, it’s a living -, if one wishes to be less indulgent), after his “Black” victimhood losing in a dick-measuring contest he foolishly engaged with his former “good causes” buddies.

    Anyway, the modern, current French National myth is toxic, anathema to the idea of France itself, and already has poisoned much of the recent history (if only through the likely adverse effect it has had on the assimilation of migrant populations), and it will wreck a different kind of havoc once it’s gone, as the older generations who rode it to power and through relatively peaceful and prosperous times die off, and the younger ones have to make do.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      To counter-balance I proposed to roast Jehanne of Arc (for betrayal, high treason), earlier…
      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/joan-of-arc-roasted-too-late/

      She was indeed like Petain, but without the excuses… Funny how that correct reading of history has been buried…

      For recent immigrants, they plugged in the “multiculturalism” as an excuse to not educating them. It was sheer racism, disguised as its opposite. Then Obama comes and gives lessons to France (with his probable CIA family background). But the USA, in absolute numbers has just a SMALL fraction on the Muslim population of France. And also the USA fracks… Because the USA that’s 10 million square kilometers favored by the gods, twenty times France…

  7. The Art Of Plutocracy | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Morality Without Intelligence Makes As Much Sense As Will Without Mind. Intelligence Is At The Core Of Humanism. « Enslaved, But Saved? […]

  8. Laurent Coq Says:

    Taubira – Obama same world? Same combat ?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Obama plays on a world scale, he has the world around his little finger, or so all too many feel, and he has foiled even Raoul Castro (who claims to believe Obama has modest origins, ha ha ha. Modest relative to the Kennedys and Bushes, but that’s saying much…) Out of the francosphere, nobody knows who Taubira is…
      I guess what irritates me most about Taubira is that she gets extremely angry about nothing. Instead of making real reforms that will give the old Cathos something to get really infuriated about…
      Obama would never get angry…

  9. Laurent Coq Says:

    It is said that Obama made fortune speculating on Chicago Exchange which is bread & butter when it comes to every single world’s famine as you know…

    Taubira?
    Last quote from Taubira : “Il ne faut pas trop évoquer la traite négrière Arabo-Musulmane pour que les jeunes Arabes ne portent pas sur leur dos tous le poids de l’héritage des méfaits de Arabes”
    – “Do not mention too often the Arab-Muslim slave trade for young Arabs would have to carry on their backs all the weight of the Arabs harm legacy”

    She is a self-made revolutionary. Globally a French hater French, involved in serious politically lucrative masonic associations. She very certainly holds in secrecy loads of files incriminating loads of French politicians as well as prominent figures, this giving her the right away…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There are too many people in France in leading positions (they could be just intellectuals, not necessarily politicians) who hate the French, and France. It is a curious, yet traditional, difference with the USA.
      That worked as long as many young French citizens were taught 3,000 years of Gallo-Roman-French history. However, with the latter faltering…

      I personally, am guided by truth. Taubira is guided by the Politically Correct. However it does not help people of Arab or Muslim, or more exactly, Salafist descent to lie about their ancestors’ practices.

      I personally vomit condemn a lot of “great” historical figures of France (Napoleons, petits et grands; Louis XIV, Louis IX (Saint Louis), Saint Bernard). Even De Gaulle I intensely detest (although I approve quite a few of his decisions as president, I have one drastic difference). I also hate Catholicism, as practiced during most of the Middle Ages after 1099 CE… And so on. Still that does not make me a French hater, or carrying on my back Saint Louis’ hysterical religious fanaticism…

      Anyway, thanks for the Taubira quote. She is even more crazy, idiotic, culturally and mentally retarded, and despicable, than I thought.

      BTW, the Maghrebins are not Arabs. They just play some on TV. They learned to talk Arabic, after being dispossessed of their original Latin and Berber… Genetic studies have confirmed they are mostly Europeans living in North Africa, with even more Neanderthal genes than average Europeans… So much for the Arabicity… (Or would Segolene call that the Arabitude?)

  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    @ Brodix:

    Dear John: two points:
    1) the ruler of spacetime is light itself. There is no other ruler to measure it by (at least in known physics). So one cannot say that light “NEEDS” to speed up…

    2) the speed of light is constant, as a HOLONOMIC notion (local, even infinitesimal loops only). In General Relativity the speed of light is not constant (as Einstein himself remarked).

    • brodix Says:

      Patrice,
      1) Yes, so if space expands, wouldn’t the measure of that space expand to match? It would seem that if the ruler remains stable and so it requires more of these units to measure that expansion, then space itself is not expanding. There is just more distance between the points. If you walk across the room, does that expand space, or simply change your position in it? What are the units of measure? They don’t change. If it takes the light longer to cross the space, the ruler is not stretched, so space is not stretched.
      2) Won’t that be the speed of light in a vacuum is constant? Obviously it changes under other conditions. General Relativity has to do with the effects on both the speed of light and the structure of mass, being composed of energy, being affected equivalently, under conditions of gravity and acceleration. Thus distance and duration are affected equally, resulting in the measure of light remaining constant.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        1) Space between galactic groups stretches (discovery of the 1910s and 1920s, best summarized by ex-lawyer Hubble). We know this from increasing Doppler Shifts toward the red. This has been amply confirmed in the last 90 years. Secondly by studying Cepheids stars, and then Supernovae.

        Measures of space can be made absolute by taking space-like hypersurfaces of real space, using them as a foliation, and immersing them in a higher 2×3 + 1 dimensional space… (To be technical.)

        2) Speed of light is H O L O N O M I C: it’s about infinitesimal loops. It is NOT constant in vacuum. For example, light can orbit a Black Hole.
        A detail: in the Einstein Gravitational equation, curvature equals energy-momentum.

      • brodix Says:

        Patrice,

        This is still a quite simple point. We don’t even need absolute measures of space, nor is the speed of light the actual issue.

        “Space” expands, but the “ruler” used to define it does not. So is Einstein wrong? Is space something other than the ruler being used?

        Also, the Doppler effect is based on motion in a stable frame. If the light really did speed up, there would be no Doppler effect, since the distance might stretched, but if the light speeded up proportionally, it would still arrive at the same rate.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          A 4 dimensional real manifold such as spacetime can be embedded in a (2×4 + 1) real manifold with the usual metric. That allows to define a distance (= “metric”). Then the space submanifolds can be compared one with the other. That’s why the “ruler” does not expand.

          The Doppler Effect has to do with the source fleeing (say). That extends the emitted waves. Anyway, as I said, distance is measured in different ways too.

          You know differential geometry is difficult. It was in part developed to describe gravitation with geometry. I studied it for many many years. The embedding theorem is understandable for a math major by the senior year. Other notions, such as the holonomy group were developed when Einstein was on his way out.

          You obviously would gain to know the notion of connections (Levi-Civitta, 1917) and the one and only compatible with the metric, etc.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartan_connection

  11. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this. Quite a lot of complex and very effective geometry was developed to describe a geocentric universe as well. Yet that another patch could be constructed to fix any issue didn’t resolve the basic flaw.

    As you agree, the Doppler effect is due to the source fleeing. That presumes to have some more objective context to measure this motion.

    So there seems to be a stable metric defined by the speed of intergalactic light and an expanding metric defined by the redshift of the very same light.

    By my elementary math, that would make the metric defined by the speed the denominator and that defined by the shifting spectrum the numerator, because if we were to use the redshifted metric as the denominator, then we wouldn’t be talking about space expanding, but the speed of light slowing, since it is taking light longer to cross this space, denominated in units defined by the redshift.

    So if we are to use the metric defined by the speed of light as the denominator and that makes the redshifted metric the numerator, than this expanded dimension would be an increasing amount of stable space, just as the Doppler effect requires.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear John: with all due respect, you are trying to do differential geometry… with “elementary math”. The problem is that differential geometry a la Elie Cartan-Charles Ehresman, with its “connections”, was invented three centuries, 300 years, after Fermat (also French!) invented calculus. However, full understanding of “connections” REQUIRES mastery of partial differential equations.

      This being said, let me try to get it. The Doppler Shift defines a distance: OK.
      The (ONE WAY) “speed of intergalactic light” does not define a distance (it’s completely impossible to measure, even with the procedure suggested by Poincare’ now attributed to Einstein). “Speed of light” is something that has to do with LOOPS.

      As I indicated with the link, the “moving frame” theory launched by Elie Cartan is extremely elaborated. If you knew it, many of your questions would get answered.

      Make no mistake: I am answering you, or trying to, in detail, because I think cosmologists are making as trivial mistakes as you are (due respect again). I have explained this in my “100 million years universe”.

      • brodix Says:

        Patrice,

        An idea to consider;
        http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I can see why you like this paper. It seems to imply that light will redshift as it travels the universe.
          However, the situation is more complicated than that.

          This being said, I think the entire evolution of physics, in the last 80 years, applied most thrust in the wrong direction. WAVE MECHANICS (original name of the Quantum Mechanics in French) is where the future lays. But the mathematics have not been developed. The experiments (in France! Not coincidentally…) have started, though.

          I do believe Quanta are wave phenomena of a not-guessed-so-far type… From that, Dark Matter (so I predict conventional theories of DM are false).

          • brodix Says:

            Patrice,

            One other point I like about it is the example of a simple factor, such as applying lessons learned from single spectrum tests, being assumed to fit multiple spectrum examples and then science rapidly moves on, leaving the issue to bubble along, unrecognized, giving that slight swerve in the trajectory that is magnified over time.

  12. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    I certainly admit I’m operating with elementary math.
    For instance, the first time it ever occurred to me to even question the idea was learning “Omega=1,” as described in Hawking’s original A Brief History of Time. The premise that the expansion of space is inversely proportional to the effect of gravity.
    Since Einstein effectively describes gravity as the collapse of space, it seemed logical to assume these would be counter balancing effects. Sort of opposite sides of a cosmic convection cycle, where the dimension that is expanding between galaxies, is matched and negated by the dimension of what is falling into them.
    Now the reason Einstein describes gravity as collapsing space(in my simplified view) is because it is treated as a measurement and what there is to measure is mass points. To balance this causing all of mass and thus space to collapse to a point, he added the Cosmological Constant.
    Now it seemed to me that if the CC were to do what Einstein wanted it to do, balance gravity, then this expansion of intergalactic space, inversely proportional to gravity, would be exactly that! So galaxies don’t have to fly away from each other in absolute terms, because they are absorbing this expanding space.
    Now if we want to put it in physical and not just mathematical terms, mass contracts and radiation expands. We know energy released from mass expands, creating pressure, so what if gravity is not so much a property of mass, as the effect of energy coalescing into mass and further concentration of it? The vacuum to match the pressure of expansion.
    Then if radiation travels as waves, not point particles, its expansion would create redshift on reception, since collecting the quanta to be absorbed would take longer than if it were just a particle of light having traveled for billions of years in a very straight line. It also would seem much more likely that light as a wave would sustain its focus much better.
    It seems so many of the parts are already there. Most, if not all the energy falling into galaxies eventually gets radiated out, or cycled back into the galaxy, so there doesn’t seem to be any real need for a black hole to carry it further into other dimensions.
    I could keep going, but having argued this a lot before, I realize I am stepping on toes, though it does seem as though all these parts that are actually seen and measured, fit together in a much more compact fashion, without all the Big Bang/Inflation/Dark energy/Dark matter to explain all the loose ends left in its current construction.
    As it is, given all those loose ends in current theory and the enormous patches currently applied to keep it together, I do feel the proper scientific attitude is skepticism, not blind faith.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear John: Funny you hit very close to my main idea about the red shift! 😉
      This is reassuring, it means it’s close to common science sense…

      I certainly advocate skepticism. Blind faith is perfect, as long as the scientific principles are NOT in doubt, WHATSOEVER. But those are much less than usually assumed. And the cosmological craziness does not belong to it… Indeed.

      • brodix Says:

        Patrice,

        They are stuck in a rut.

        It ties into my point about time too. Energy expands, mass contracts. So the energy is going onto future forms and building up the new, until the wave reaches its apex and then the energy goes onto others, past to future. As these forms come into being and fade, future to past.
        Einstein’s gravitational contraction is the arrow of time for mass, contracting. While the expansion of space is Hawking’s arrow of time for the expanding universe.
        Yet neither are absolute. They cycle back into one another.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: