Off-topic - Split from: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Off-topic - Split from: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby SpaceTravellor » Sat May 30, 2009 8:09 am

(From a mail correspondence with Dr. Pavel Kroupa)

Dear Pavel Kroupa, (and colleges)

I´ve just read this article:

Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis (May 5th, 2009 in Physics/General Physics/"dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way".

and I want to give my feedback to you and your colleges.

- As a Natural Philosopher, using the best from Astronomy; Cosmology and Mythology, I just want to express my natural views of Cosmos, and ask these questions:

1. What if it´s all much more simple and the scientists just are complicating everything by their hypothesis and equations?

2. What if the Newton and Einstein "laws of gravity" right out have turned the understanding of Cosmos all upside down?


1. An example: It´s said that we have a "black hole" in the middle of our galaxy, supposedly sucking all light and matter towards and inwards the hole.

2. Now, what if the movement in the Milky Way is quite the opposite, going outwards from the center? Looking closely to the structure of a bar galaxy, the galaxy arms shows an abrupt 90 degree angle movement close to the ends of the bar. This abrupt movement should not be possible on an ingoing suction.

3. But if the movement is going outwards, this can easily be explained with an early explosion in the pre-galactic molecular cloud of gas and dust, first being accelerated into a compressing whirl/whirls by some kind of star explosion in the surroundings of the cloud.

4. When enough compressed and heated, the whirling cloud melts complete together and explodes suddenly out, forming the bars - and because of the still swirling center, the arms are formed at the ends of the bar, moving further and further out from the center in the spiral form.

5. Regarding the dwarf galaxy companions in the Milky Way galaxy, this could also be very easily explained by an outgoing movement. The original movement is swirling, naturally causing more swirls in the surroundings, forming the companion dwarf galaxies.

6. The attached ancient spiral pictures could very well tell of an Ancient knowledge of this creation, but in order to accept such a thing, we have further difficulties than "just" scientifically understanding the movements of Cosmos and "gravity" - then we also have to accept the possibility of grasping the knowledge of Cosmos by pure intuitive perception and even spiritual travelling in out of body experiences.

7. Well, that just what Shamans all over the world is supposed to have done - and I believe this fully because that´s just what I have done myself some few times.

OK, if I´m right:

1. The movement in our galaxy is going outwards.

2. There is no black hole in the middle of our galaxy. It´s just a galaxy eye as in the Hurricane eye.

3. Everything in our galaxy is born right out from the center of our galaxy. There´s still newborn stars in the middle.

4. Our Solar System is not created from a local pre-solar molecular disc which "suddenly collapsed by gravity", it´s basically born directly out of the center of our galaxy and afterwards slowly modified.

5. All Mythological stories and ancient symbols of Creation tells of this movement going outwards from the center of our galaxy, being "expelled OUT from the Garden of Eden, leaving the Tree of Life in the middle", floating out on the 4 rivers (galaxy-arms) of Eden.

"Gravitational matters":

1. "Planetary Gravity": The planets in our Solar System are balanced by 2 main forces of which NONE are attracting. There is an outgoing force from the Sun pushing the planets outwards in the solar system - and the outgoing force from the galaxy center pushing outwards at the Solar system. These 2 interactive forces create the eccentric orbit plane.

2. "Moon gravity": The Moon is not pulling on the Earth. The tidal force is created by the bow chock when the Earth rotates in is orbital plane and by the Sun pushing at the oceans and the tidal waves changes when the Moon periodically "shades" the Earth from the outgoing force from the Sun.

3."The Pioneer gravity anomaly": The braking effect originates from the decreasing push from the Sun and the increasing push from the center of our galaxy, when the spacecrafts leaves the Solar System border, causing a braking force "in the direction of the Sun" as it is said and written in many scientifically articles.

4. General "gravitational matters": The cosmic movements go both ways: Inwards and outwards. That is: "Gravity" goes both ways: Infolding and outfolding of swirling masses, creating further local swirls in both overall movements.

In the matter of galaxy creation, it´s just a question of judging "the age" of an actual galaxy by either a barred structure with an outgoing direction or a smooth inwards ´direction of the spiralling arms in order to decides which way the movement goes in an actual galaxy creation/age.

- On my websites and all my natural philosophical views can be studied, and I wish you all very welcome to have a look.

- Pavel Kroupa, feel free to distribute this mail to all your colleges if you judge the content to have some scientific interests. Please include me in an eventually maillist if you do.

(Thinking on the big troubles of traditional scientifically problems in Cosmology and Astrophysics, every new thoughts must be very welcome in the scientific society and cannot be binned without some further discussions, right?)

I´m looking very much forward to some reactions on this matter.
This mail was sent this date and I´m waiting for some answers.

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat May 30, 2009 11:01 am

Hi Ivar,
Excellent post. Please post the reply from Kroupa, if he does reply.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby SpaceTravellor » Sat May 30, 2009 12:12 pm

Hi Grey Cloud - and thanks for the response!

- As you well may know, I´m shooting with alternative spread-sheat cosmology and mythology ammunition at all traditional scientifical directions - sometimes I get feedback and many times I don´t - but I promise to post if I do in this case.

All the Best from Ivar

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby emery » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:23 am

To the memory of Max Planck

Emery F. Red
Theory of the correlation system. The quantum theory of existence as Max Planck dreamed it.

The diversity and variegation of the pictures about the surrounding Universe shot in a more and more expanded spectrum of electromagnetic radiation by Hubble space telescope and other telescopes launched into space replacing it, enchants astronomers and the fans fond of the sights of the sky. Human mind cannot get enough of this beauty. Our intellect seeks to see more and more and farther and farther of this wonderful surrounding world.

Human mind is just as enchanted by this miraculous phenomenon of existence as it was in the Antiquity. Under the circumstances of the Antiquity the then-living man was lucky because the observation of the phenomena of the sky and their changes were not restricted by air pollution. There were no factories vomiting smoke, there was no lighting at night. But there were astronomers recording the phenomena of the skyline as part of their job, and scientists seeking the phenomena of nature and the causal correlations of events. Let us not get corky by thinking we can disdain the knowledge of the Eastern and Western scientists of the Antiquity compared to our official knowledge today.

The scientist of today still does not know what the reason is for the existence of matter, what matter is and why continuous change is, just like the scientist of Antiquity. The scientist of today does not know what the reason is for life, what the creating and sustaining process of life is, just like the scientist of Antiquity.

Wise is the scientist who at least remains silent about the truth that our unanswered fundamental questions prove the fact that each piece of our knowledge about which many-many people say we have proven objective cognition in one subject or another, should be taken with a grain of salt. It would be desirable if all those, who have something to do with education, research and the spreading of knowledge, applied the simple, but clear principle about the content and validity scope of theoretical and practical subjects separated from each other, during his or her activity. This is put in words the following way by Albert Einstein in his book titled ‘How I see the World’, in Chapter Five (Science), in the document called ‘What is relativity theory?’:

’In physics we can identify different theories. Most of them are constructive theories. These aim to create images of more complex phenomena from a relatively simple formalism… When they say they succeeded in explaining one group of the phenomena of nature, they always mean that they created a constructive theory that includes the phenomena in question.’

Among leading theoretical thinkers (mainly thanks to the newly discovered strange speed of the expansion of the Universe, with continuously increasing value, and the speculation of the cyclic Universes independent from one another’s effect as an idea of the range system for the space of existence) such as Stephen W. Hawking, Paul J. Steinhardt, the classic theory of ‘the Big Bang’ had been questioned a long time ago. (Steinhardt developed the expanding Universe theory with Alain H. Guth.) They are aware of the fundamental shortcomings of the theory I mentioned above. Additionally, they are aware of the unanswered relations and correlations of that fundamental problem area, concerning the space limit of the opportunity of filling a volume of space needed for one single unit of existence (entity), the parameters of the beginning and threshold status, furthermore Infinity as an essential relative system giving place (space not filled by a single entity) for all these changes.

Why am I writing about these and connect these subjects? Because I want to make my standpoint clear about the fact that if we see, look at, observe, group, classify and admire the astronomic phenomena of the skyline as an astronomer, then we fit in Einstein’s separation methodology for constructive theory content. But the astronomer (or anyone else with good faith) should not refer to such theoretical details which theoretical physicists working in international research laboratories are still seeking the proper answers. I can mention the preparations in progress at CERN.

Researchers and employees of research labs, university departments looking for the answers to the fundamental theoretical questions do not believe an easy and simple answer can be given to the essential questions of existence highlighted by me above. They do not believe in it, especially following those prequels telling who and for how long had been thinking thoroughly about them without any success so far. We know and capable of doing so many things in the fields of science and technology. We know and apply so many things we could not carry out without an adequate harmony between our deeds and the content of the single process of existence. We know many details. How, under what circumstances chemical elements with higher and higher atomic number are formed. How stars born. Where the huge amount of energy hides inside the atomic core. How we can create atomic power station and atomic bomb, to handle the processes in accordance with our goals. The only thing Nobody knew was: what is the origin of such a tremendous amount of energy stored inside the nuclei? That stored energy is taken - according to our theory at present - to the environment by the elementary particles forming the nucleus when they are exploded at nuclear fission. If this theory based on experience would be clear, there were no need for the experiments planned at CERN. Because experience coming from the particle accelerator experiments so far is not clear. A clear conclusion cannot be derived from the local hit-disintegration events. It cannot be decided whether some kind of process modulation chain reaction is happening or the movement of particles leaves a trace in the reaction chamber that can be photographed. On top of this, they are going to look for the elementary particle called Higgs-boson which in an interaction gives the mass characterizing the matter and had given during the big bang to the local interactions. In my opinion it is an absurd theory, because during any kind of physical interaction the change caused by modulation occurs, so there is no need for a third transmitter particle. Of course as things are at present, matter does not come from nothing. That is why scientists are so keen on finding that ‘something’ that can play this role. Once we live in a Material World…

But do we need to stick to this theory? Can’t we change this world born in a big bang (later on in the distant regions of the galaxy several similar bang happened in a cyclic way escorted by similar phenomena) to something else, something rational, that is appropriate for nature just the same? I realized there is an alternative solution. Following each discovery it is a common habit to say: Why haven’t we thought of it earlier? That is the situation at present, too. What is it about?

I cite from the book of Albert Einstein again.
"According to my belief all those definitions and statutory relations that serve as the key for the understanding of the phenomena of nature, can be found purely by mathematical constructions. Though practical mathematical definitions can be approached empirically, but they cannot be derived from experience. The only criterion for the applicability of the mathematical construction in the case of physics is experience of course. But the actual basic principle is hidden in mathematics. So from a certain point of view I deem possible that clear, unbiased thinking alone can perceive reality as the elders had foreseen."

We can be sure that man could not give an appropriate and final answer to the question of existence so far, because for some reason always and somewhere went past the door hiding the answer. There is a consensus already that everything is related to everything in this world, subatomic existence is an interactive system of energy field processes, instead of being a cluster of separate particles. Just ass well according to quantum theory we are not talking about particle, but a wave-pack. The principle of relativity connects each event, anything changes anywhere in the world. Matter is a system of relations. What relates the single entities to the Entirety, and what is the effect of that and its theoretical and practical significance, is the following:

Here is this sentence in the Einstein citation: ’ Though practical mathematical definitions can be approached empirically, but they cannot be derived from experience.’ Well, I am going to prove the opposite, furthermore, its proving significance, all that has been ignored by the physicists of the world till now.

Another citation from the book of Albert Einstein, from his speech given on the 60. birthday of Max Planck:
’The major purpose of the physicist is to do research on those general elementary laws, from which – using pure deduction – one can create the world view. However, to these elementary laws not a logical way but intuition based on experience leads’.

I am not entirely sure that the translation to Hungarian is accurate in the case of these two sentences based on the book published under the title MEIN WELTBILD in Amsterdam in 1934. Because – imagining myself in Einstein’s shoes as he composes these sentences at his desk – I would have noticed the antagonism between the content of the two sentences, concerning the use of concepts. Namely according to ’the way of pure deduction’ mentioned in the fist sentence (you know what deduction means: it is a conclusion from the general to the specific case) I would not deny the demand of ’logical’ conclusion of the intuition based on experience in the second sentence. All of us would, not only me. Since Einstein was a human being himself, he could be wrong as well, he also went past the door hiding understanding…

Let’s step on the logical way of empirical observation. Astronomers put a lot of energy in discovering and mapping the part of the Universe surrounding us that can be reached by our devices, the visual phenomenon and the position of the objects of the galaxy. From this map only one thing is missing that would raise the physicists interest the most: the spatial data of the motion vector vector-flow stocks found in the objects belonging to one given point in time. According to the measurements repeated today there is a trouble with the big bang. Instead of the decrease in the speed of the moving farther away of the galaxies from one another, this value is increasing. With our devices we see farther and farther into the depth of the Universe, and because of Einstein’s threshold on the maximum speed of matter movement, we are forced to reduce the Hubble data marking the speed of moving away. If the speed of the moving away of the galaxies from one another is constant on a linear scale, then the move-away speed data of the galaxies detected in the distant space would have exceeded light speed many times. Our experience biased by wrong theory indicate serious antagonism: if we think of the entirety of existence that is unforeseeable for us, then the Hubble data should decrease close to nil.

It is obvious that physics and cosmology is wrong. Especially with the idea of cyclic Universes. It must be admitted that we do not have objective knowledge covering everything. Or is there a solution we did not consider sp far? Yes, there is an alternative solution.

We experience in our environment that in all kinds of movement, in the crash interaction occurring during movement, in the movement of planets and their moons, in the movement of spacecrafts there is an order and system. The order of these movements was described for us by Newton in an everlasting way. We are mistaken to limit the unlimited validity scope of Newton’s mechanics, because existence is built up of fundamental entities, it is their growing set remaining on the system side, their system of relations, their organic organism connected in a matrix field that meets the criteria of quantum mechanics (as a constructive theory) and relativity theory in a causal process. All we need to know is what this entity is. The fact in itself that it has not yet been discovered till today cannot be a reason for exclusion.

We are wrong if in existence we separate „matter” particles, objects that seem separated by our sensory organs, from not visible space filling in the single cosmos. The volume filling of the single existence system side of cosmos is one and the same quality. It would be absurd to label one part of its volume existing, and the other part non-existing by itself. According to our objective knowledge a single entity volume phenomenon free of status change cannot exist in nature, the limits of which could not be expanded. This phenomenon could not possibly be idle. Let’s not forget that the matter of a comparison system is inevitable even for existence, so compared to what it does exist and compared to what it does not.
It is not appropriate to claim that nothing should exist. The matter of comparison is not insignificant for nature either. It is only a fake sensation induced by our sensory organs in our mind that there is only emptiness in the cosmos other than the volume occupied by visible matter. According to braver people the space among objects is filled by electromagnetic radiation. Even braver people dare to say that the two kinds of filling are the same form of radiation, but at one spot there is a condensation in this process, at another spot the construction of the process is open.

Even Hawking asks himself the theoretical question in his famous book titled ’A Brief History of Time’: „Can it be that only radiation exists?” People even braver then these deemed to know the key for the solution (it is a pity that they were frightened away by the proximity of recognition). Such as Geoffrey Chew, who developed his ’bootstrap’ theory in the first half of the 20th century (!). It starts from the idea that nature cannot be deduced to fundamental entities: for example to particles and fields. Nature should rather be understood by its correlations, because each of its elements correlates with all the other elements and itself. Cooperating with some physicists in this sense he worded the specific model of particles in the framework of the S-matrix theory.

The nature approach coming from quantum theory, shows its best form in bootstrap philosophy in the centre of which is the recognition that each part of the world interacts with all the other parts. The dynamic feature of this view follows from the relativity theory.

If Chew and his colleagues had recognized that essential thing that connects the system according to experience in the complexity of the mathematical and physical content, they would have reached their goal.
Instead of this they got caught in a trap set by themselves. Because bootstrap theory denies the existence of the elementary ingredients of ’matter’, is not willing to accept any kind of fundamental entity, let it be a law, an equation or a principle. With this he puts that idea to an end which was an important part of natural science for centuries. Quantum mechanics rejected Newton’s mechanics, bootstrap theory rejects both. The point of their mistake is that they should have reconcile these theories.

The link connecting everything

Naturally, as anyone else, I spent a tremendous amount of time on seeking the answer that can be given to this question. Finally I succeeded in finding the thing that made the air turn frozen around me. I will get what I deserve for turning against Einstein, the idol. How dare I to state that restricting the speed of movement (the speed of a matter in motion cannot exceed the speed of light)? Furthermore that light quantum has taken quantum physics off the road. That is okay that it is an ‘energy-pack’, but basically it was not suitable for Max Planck either, did not fit in his solution of hypothetical particle quantum entity.
As we know, he had doubts about it until the end of his life. He probably felt Newton’s mechanics may still have a role in the description of the carrier of the energy quantum. It is certain that for the durable modulated change of the basic state of a thing (to kick out one electron from the surface of a metal sheet) a given energy quantum is necessary. The uncertainty of this situation is well-presented by the work of scientists (Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrödinger) doing further research in this field. Meaning that quantum physics put into orbit by Einstein has expanded to a special constructive theory.

Our existence is one single system. I thought about it: everything is in motion. I stand upon the surface of the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun, the Solar System is at the known location of our Galaxy, our Galaxy moves along with its nearby neighbour galaxies as part of a Metagalaxy towards the system called the Great Mover and so on. At my determined site I am in the state belonging to the observed point of time as part of the larger and larger systems up to the Entirety that cannot be understood by us. It means: my body contains the motion vector stock that is contained by the entire system at that time. This fact also means that it is not necessary to scan the remote distances of space with a telescope, not needed to wait at the window of the reaction chamber of the accelerator, only to use common sense on the path of logical deduction.

Newton’s First Law states: every object keeps its linear and even movement till an outer effect forces it to change its status of motion. It is the Law of Inertia. So, the direction and value of motion vector stock stored in me is an absolute value, a finite value so as a conclusion I am a data carrier of an absolute system. If I could draw the 3-dimensional picture of the motion vector flow figures of my body in any chosen range, a strange picture would appear in front of my eyes. In certain local range units only a one-piece motion direction (and its value) could be seen, while in other local positions a multi-modulated direction changing process would appear. In other words: at those locations where the direction of the vector sections is spreading apart, something special is happening what is worth examining in more detail. Where the direction of the vector sections is gathering, pointing in one direction, there is surely a specific local collision.
When I look at it from a bit further, it looks as if I saw the interacting construction of the local process. But it is that, the S-matrix field! What can be the explanation for the local spots containing one single section? There is only one logical conclusion: at these spots – since there is no filling material movement into these locations, cosmos at these spots is forced to expand its existing volume. As I mentioned above, on the ‘existence’ system side nature does not make a difference like one part of a content can exist as ‘matter’ but the rest cannot, there can be nothing. In the relativity system of nature the filling up of the ‘existence’ system side is the same single entity being completed continuously. In the local collision interaction occurring later in the process the consequence is the same as if it had been there from the beginning of time. We considered among these as ‘matter’ only those which showed up in the receptors of our sensory organs and devices. In the comparison system of nature the other side of the system that is not positioned in the existence side is the inexhaustible source of expandability. Mathematicians can imagine the inexhaustibleness of this side of the system. All they need to do is to think about the expandability of the outer margin of a filled volume. So, these alternating local events are repeated in the entirety change process, in this constantly repeated local starting and threshold state. The cosmos was not created by someone at some time, this is a permanent phenomenon.. The Law of Constant Matter is in effect, the system gains and expands. In some areas as a result of the energy surplus of the outer processes some contents are beaten and excluded, such as the proton, the nuclei of the chemical elements, the molecules, the stars, the planets, the galaxies and so on. The system is complete. That is why galaxies are moving apart from one another, not because of the big bang. That is why we see newly developing areas besides elder formations variously in the cosmos. The „matter stock” of the system is growing, so in this sense we can talk about a constant cosmos. Where we „see” emptiness (of course we might find dwarf galaxies, hydrogen gas clouds here as well) this process is in progress even there, with an outcome of building given by the feature of the construction.

The question arises why all this happens, why this specific process is not free of interaction (matter).

And now we turn to mathematics for proof.
Actually I am forced to go against the convention of mathematicians. In nature there is no congruent volume, chance for symmetric local repetition (identical reproduction). It cannot exist, because - this is the mathematical proof – for nature the identity up to five or umpteen decimal fraction is not a solution. Complete uniformity would be necessary to have the chance of an idle state circumstance. Mathematics is negligent in this matter. This situation - coupled with varying motion vector contents – sustains continuous asymmetry, our circumstance of existence.

As a closure I note – getting back to the error of bootstrap theory – matter particle entity does exist in the position of local extension quanta. Without this there would not be electromagnetic radiation with constant traits, with a speed of the spreading of modulation considered to be a physical constant. Because not ‘photons’ flow through space, but the entire system is in a specific process bootstrap state with changing content. That is why the long-term accuracy of the atomic clock possible. The space of the ‘Universe’ does not empty with expansion. This concept introduced and used a ‘spooky’ amount of other concepts in its expanded meaning as well, exceeding the needs of applied sciences. It is a conscious state that the partial result of each effort so far is a ‘brick’ in the building of complete exploration. Whereas as it turns out to the ultimate question “What is existence?” we basically suppose to get a one sentence answer. The recognition comes from the solution that our mind has a major role in dividing the one visible process of existence into comprising elements according to the demands. The scientist had fallen into the trap of doing the inventory and classification based on concepts about the elements of the pseudo-phenomenon. For instance into the trap that ‘time’ as a concept is in reality the synonym of ‘change’. The time for the local change is different for the expansion quantum volume entering the system than that of the entire extending set of existence. The concept of ‘space’ is the summary of the local finite starting and threshold events put into a set by our minds. Geoffrey Chew writes the following about the role of the human mind in the process of understanding: ‘If we think the bootstrap theory over logically (the S-matrix theory was originally developed specifically for the description of strong interaction – the author) then we find that the existence of mind - with all the other aspects of nature – is necessary for the entirety and the mutual harmony of the elements.’ S-matrix theory also becomes complete: Ether exists as a double interactive matrix bootstrap process, in which one of the S-matrix fields is the network of the local collision interactions, while the second S-matrix is the set of the positions of the quantum of local extension, in the same point of time chosen by our mind (with a synonym concept: in the state of change)..

April 2009, Szeged
(summary of the research material of the author that can be found at

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby SpaceTravellor » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:37 am

Tanks for your post here!

As a layman I have some difficulties grasping all the "scientifically stuff", but have I understood the quote below here that you are describing "a general law of creation that works in everything"?

From your website:
Our scientists do not know the reason why "symmetry", right and left spin occurrence in nature. All these phenomena occur due to the presence of the onefold filling. Just imagine the change of content taking place in a two-dimensional plane. To keep it simple I am going to use the points of the compass. The space quantum particles move to eastern and western directions. Among them there is a single expansion existence where a quantum enters either from the north or from the south causing fission. There is not a swinging or squeezing possibility due to the supporting of the onefold presence which is in an opposite direction. We have to understand this fact: our mind can not accept this onefold filling as a result of the misleading sham phenomenon. The result of the local topological examination is as follows: the motion vector values of the cut space quantum particles will obviously increase to east west direction, while a decrease can be detected in north-south direction. As this phenomenon is general, it is a natural consequence of the spin effect in form of space curve modulation because of the local asymmetry of Euclidéan geometry.

Questions: (If correct understood):

1. What determs what causes a clockwise or anticlockwise horsontal turning?
2. Does your theories includes both an assembling and a distributional effect as in a kind of cyclic movement?
3. How do you describe the creation of our galaxy, using your principles?
4. In which actual state of devellopment do you think our galaxy is?

NB: Excuse me if I got my reading all wrong.

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby StevenJay » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:20 am

Emery and Ivar - I noticed that neither of you made any references to the roles of electric currents or plasma anywhere (or maybe I just missed it). So, the electric universe enthusiast in me is wondering, how does all of this jive with the EU Model? :?
It's all about perception.
User avatar
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Off-topic(2) - Split from: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby emery » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:31 am

Well, I'd like to give a short answer for your questins, as 1. What determs what causes a clockwise or anticlockwise horisontal turning?
I'd like to give a short answer for your questions because your question determines the all effect in the single existence system.
When a local extension particle bursts by an external cause (penetrate) thus those are changing the motion vector values on one and more vector lines with a +/- values in the burst parts. These local changes are adding into a resultant effect system. These local +/- changes on the vector are determining the directions of following interacting causes. The local processes are polarizated with these in the local and the full system. For it is turning every in the existence. Simply, it happens an adding up the changes of measurable things.
That in which actual state of development do I think our galaxy is, well, it is an unimportant matter. Our galaxy is in a stabilized state.
Sincerely: Emery

Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby SpaceTravellor » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:09 am

Emery and Ivar - I noticed that neither of you made any references to the roles of electric currents or plasma anywhere (or maybe I just missed it). So, the electric universe enthusiast in me is wondering, how does all of this jive with the EU Model?

Steven, you are right for my part, sort of. Although I´m not a specialist in the EU, I expected that Emery maybe would use the EU and PC terms when answering my questions.

Thanks for the reply.
When a local extension particle bursts by an external cause (penetrate) thus those are changing the motion vector values on one and more vector lines with a +/- values in the burst parts. These local changes are adding into a resultant effect system. These local +/- changes on the vector are determining the directions of following interacting causes. The local processes are polarizated with these in the local and the full system. For it is turning every in the existence. Simply, it happens an adding up the changes of measurable things.

I would very much appreciate if you somehow could incorporate your explanation to, lets say, a clockwise rotating galaxy. Such an explanation could maybe also ad up to the actual topic of Cosmology in Crisis -Again.
emery wrote:4. In which actual state of devellopment do you think our galaxy is?

I asked this question in order to get an explanation to clockwise and anticlockwise galaxy rotation. If our galaxy is rotating clockwise, what implications can you then observe from your ideas/theories?

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Goldminer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:49 am

SpaceTravellor wrote:
emery wrote:4. In which actual state of development do you think our galaxy is?

I asked this question in order to get an explanation to clockwise and anticlockwise galaxy rotation. If our galaxy is rotating clockwise, what implications can you then observe from your ideas/theories?

Isn't "clockwise and anticlockwise" relative to the point of view?

If I take a motor with the shaft protruding out both sides, I will have; say, clockwise rotation on the left. If I turn the motor around so that the power cord exits on the front instead of the back, I will have counter clockwise rotation on the left.

How do you know if you are viewing the top or the bottom of a galaxv? It's not like you can determine the sex of a galaxy! :o
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests