| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate whi |
|
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| a_plutonium |
 Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I posted to several newsgroups a few minutes ago, especially
sci.geo.geology since this topic started from a discussion over plate
tectonics in geology. So let me repost the gist of this issue as to the
*origin* of spin or rotation in astro bodies:
--- quoting from a different thread ---
I am going to have to start a new thread as to the question of the
origins of rotation or spin in astro bodies. This is a topic which is
critical and crucial to whether the Big Bang theory is true or false,
as to whether General Relativity is true or false, and as to whether
the Atom Totality theory replaces those two false theories. Both the
Big Bang and General Relativity are deaf dumb and silent as to the
origins of intrinsic spin or rotation. Linear Momentum of astro bodies
are commonsense explained. But Angular Momentum and why astro bodies
have spin and rotation is very much a profound question. General
Relativity would lay the blame on gravity as the cause of Angular
Momentum.
The Atom Totality theory would lay the blame on the fact that every
proton, every electron and every neutron has intrinsic spin and when
mass is conglomerated into a astro body, the spin or rotation that
results is a result of the total vector of every one of the elementary
particles within that astro body, yielding a rotation or spin.
In other words, the fact that Earth rotates or Mars or Asteroids or
Comets or Stars rotate is fundamentally a result of the fact that
electrons and protons and neutrons that compose those astro bodies have
spin angular momentum.
--- end quoting ---
The main point I am addressing above is that we all can conceive and
see in our minds eye how Linear Momentum can originate in physics and
how Big Bang and General Relativity are okay with Linear Momentum.
However, on the subject of Angular Momentum and the rotation and spin
of all Astro Bodies in the Universe, that both Big Bang and General
Relativity collapse into fakery.
The Atom Totality theory however is comfortable with Angular Momentum,
spin or rotation of astro bodies. Comfortable because in the Atom
Totality theory, it is electricity and magnetism, not gravity that
dictates what mass exists and how that mass moves in the universe. It
is electricity and magnetism that creates all the mass we see and tells
how that mass moves.
So why does every astro body have a rotation spin? The answer is that
every elementary particle such as electrons, protons, neutrons have
*spin*. And when you conglomerate these elementary particles into a
astro-body such as the planet Earth or a comet or asteroid or our Sun,
then the vector sum of all those elementary particles confers a
intrinsic Spin or Rotation or Angular Momentum over the entire astro
body.
P.S. Personal Note: for 13 years now of my Internet posts on science,
it is a post such as this one that has scared me the most. The reason I
say scared is that of all the science I have worked on and have
accomplished, it is the simple and easiest and plain and simple in
front of my eyes that I was scared have overlooking. Example:
Archimedes of Ancient Greeks accomplished so much, but he failed to see
a simple thing as the decimal system. How much greater would Archimedes
accomplishments have been if he had not overlooked a way of writing
numbers as decimal representation. Another Example: How much more
simple would it have been for Darwin with his theory of Evolution to
have incorporated genetics of Mendel. Instead, Darwin overlooked
genetics. What I am saying is that the discovery of a new and true
theory of science is often the case where the most obvious and plain
facts are overlooked. Another Example is Special Relativity which was
discovered by many people such as Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein. But the
simple fact that a magnet through a wire yields current and a current
through wire yields magnetism is the end result. So what scares me is
to discover the Atom Totality theory and then overlook some of the most
simple and obvious facts. And one such fact is that in the Atom
Totality theory we explain Angular Momentum, but the Big Bang and
General Relativity are deaf dumb and silent.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| xray4abc |
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:c4848b4530]I posted to several newsgroups a few minutes ago, especially
sci.geo.geology since this topic started from a discussion over plate
tectonics in geology. So let me repost the gist of this issue as to the
*origin* of spin or rotation in astro bodies:
--- quoting from a different thread ---
I am going to have to start a new thread as to the question of the
origins of rotation or spin in astro bodies. This is a topic which is
critical and crucial to whether the Big Bang theory is true or false,
as to whether General Relativity is true or false, and as to whether
the Atom Totality theory replaces those two false theories. Both the
Big Bang and General Relativity are deaf dumb and silent as to the
origins of intrinsic spin or rotation. Linear Momentum of astro bodies
are commonsense explained. But Angular Momentum and why astro bodies
have spin and rotation is very much a profound question. General
Relativity would lay the blame on gravity as the cause of Angular
Momentum.
The Atom Totality theory would lay the blame on the fact that every
proton, every electron and every neutron has intrinsic spin and when
mass is conglomerated into a astro body, the spin or rotation that
results is a result of the total vector of every one of the elementary
particles within that astro body, yielding a rotation or spin.
In other words, the fact that Earth rotates or Mars or Asteroids or
Comets or Stars rotate is fundamentally a result of the fact that
electrons and protons and neutrons that compose those astro bodies have
spin angular momentum.
--- end quoting ---
The main point I am addressing above is that we all can conceive and
see in our minds eye how Linear Momentum can originate in physics and
how Big Bang and General Relativity are okay with Linear Momentum.
However, on the subject of Angular Momentum and the rotation and spin
of all Astro Bodies in the Universe, that both Big Bang and General
Relativity collapse into fakery.
The Atom Totality theory however is comfortable with Angular Momentum,
spin or rotation of astro bodies. Comfortable because in the Atom
Totality theory, it is electricity and magnetism, not gravity that
dictates what mass exists and how that mass moves in the universe. It
is electricity and magnetism that creates all the mass we see and tells
how that mass moves.
So why does every astro body have a rotation spin? The answer is that
every elementary particle such as electrons, protons, neutrons have
*spin*. And when you conglomerate these elementary particles into a
astro-body such as the planet Earth or a comet or asteroid or our Sun,
then the vector sum of all those elementary particles confers a
intrinsic Spin or Rotation or Angular Momentum over the entire astro
body.
P.S. Personal Note: for 13 years now of my Internet posts on science,
it is a post such as this one that has scared me the most. The reason I
say scared is that of all the science I have worked on and have
accomplished, it is the simple and easiest and plain and simple in
front of my eyes that I was scared have overlooking. Example:
Archimedes of Ancient Greeks accomplished so much, but he failed to see
a simple thing as the decimal system. How much greater would Archimedes
accomplishments have been if he had not overlooked a way of writing
numbers as decimal representation. Another Example: How much more
simple would it have been for Darwin with his theory of Evolution to
have incorporated genetics of Mendel. Instead, Darwin overlooked
genetics. What I am saying is that the discovery of a new and true
theory of science is often the case where the most obvious and plain
facts are overlooked. Another Example is Special Relativity which was
discovered by many people such as Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein. But the
simple fact that a magnet through a wire yields current and a current
through wire yields magnetism is the end result. So what scares me is
to discover the Atom Totality theory and then overlook some of the most
simple and obvious facts. And one such fact is that in the Atom
Totality theory we explain Angular Momentum, but the Big Bang and
General Relativity are deaf dumb and silent.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
[/quote:c4848b4530]
"Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate ".......????
Wrong, it does!
LL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So let us have some plain talk about Big Bang, General Relativity and
Atom Totality theories as it relates to one of the basic motions of the
Cosmos-- that of spin, rotation and angular momentum.
Both the Big Bang and General Relativity are fine and dandy and okay
when it comes to Linear Momentum because both of those theories are
grounded and grown from Linear Momentum. The Big Bang is a linear
momentum cannon so to speak, unless you want to rifle the barrel of the
cannon in order to lend some spin to the projectile. An explosion is a
linear momentum event. Explosions do not involve Angular Momentum. So
the Big Bang is deaf, dumb and silent as to how Angular Momentum
becomes established. And why every astro body from that of a galaxy on
down to a comet has Angular Momentum.
General Relativity would say this widespread Angular Momentum occurs
due to gravity that as a planet grows from the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory or as a star grows from a Galactic Dust Cloud that the accretion
process of growth begins the spinning or rotation of the growing of the
new planet or new star. The accretion in towards the center of the
planet or star or galaxy stars a rotation motion. Trouble with this is,
is that Angular Momentum is more widespread than that of Dust Cloud
Coalescence. And that the spin of planets from dust cloud coalescence
would be strictly a math relationship of size of astro body with
rotation and that is not what is observed in our own solar system.
General Relativity is a theory based on Linear Momentum in the first
place and is very much lost and out of place with Angular Momentum.
Mass bends space and follows the curvature of that bent space is very
much solely confined to Linear Momentum and out of place with Angular
Momentum.
The Atom Totality theory begins the discussion of Angular Momentum by
noting that every proton, electron, neutron has an intrinsic spin and
so every astro body is a vector sum of its elementary particles Angular
Momentum. So it is not a question of where does Angular Momentum arise
in an astro body, but a question of the vector sum of the elementary
particles spin translates into the spin rotation of the astro body. But
I am not trouble free in explaining why two almost identical stars or
two almost identical planets would have vastly different rotations or
spin angular momentum. There are some stars formed after a supernova
which ended up with vastly different spin rotations. Somehow, there is
a mechanism for which I am not privy to at this moment in time. Some
mechanism for which the distance of a planet to its star system that
gives rise to its actual spin or rotation. Something about electricity
and magnetism that determines angular momentum.
Something like the Titius Bode spacings of planets that determines
revolution distance but also characterizes spin angular momentum.
Because, as I have characterized the above, planet Earth could be
spinning so wildly that it would not hold together. For there is a
range of possible rotation speeds. That if every elementary particle of
Earth of electrons protons and neutrons were so aligned in their spin
that the vector sum of those spins would be a Angular Momentum that the
gravity of Earth could not hold together this planet and it would fly
apart. This is the mechanism I am unclear about.
And we have signs of this mechanism on a cosmic scale for we notice
many old remnant stars of supernova explosions that have enormous spin
angular momentum. Some astronomers have even called for microsecond
spins but I doubt the veracity of such reports. Those stars did not get
that spin from the supernova explosion because that event is a Linear
Momentum event. So how did they thence acquire the huge Angular
Momentum.
I maybe very much premature with a guess as to the mechanism. But guess
I will. And I sense a mechanism with that of neutrinos. Neutrinos in
the Universe are so abundant that we could call them in physics as the
"fabric of space itself, or table on which the rest of physics is
worked out". Give me a new planet or star and place them on the "table
of physics" of this constant bath of neutrinos that coarses through
every mass and those neutrinos would somehow determine the vector sum
for the spin angular momentum.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Volker Hetzer |
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
I still remember you from when I was a student.
Surely this was before dejanews?
Why don't you get on with your life too?
Lots of Greetings!
Volker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It is often good in science to narrow down a thought into its most
primitive and basic form. And the stripped down form of this thread
comes to this. That the spin of a astro body is the result of the fact
that the Elementary Particles that compose the astro body have
intrinsic spin angular momentum.
So let us ask the question in various ways. Can you have a object in
space composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, each of which has a
spin, and yet the object not have spin?
Asked in a different manner; because the particles that compose all
matter has a spin angular momentum; does that necessitate every object
in the Universe must have a net overall spin angular momentum?
Because all elementary-particles have spin, can you have an object
without spin?
In the history of physics, we have come to know that planet Earth has a
spin rotation because of when it was formed from a Nebular Dust Cloud
that the forming of Earth would begin to translate some of the
gravitational force into that of spin rotation. But is that a
satisfactory answer to why all astro bodies have spin rotation? Of
course not. One can simply observe supernova explosion remnants which
were never formed in a Nebular Dust Cloud yet those objects of spin
rotation.
When the Moon collided with Earth many billions of years ago, the
collision would have destroyed the spin rotation of the Moon and
translated it into linear momentum. When a spinning baseball is hit,
it's spin rotation is translated into linear momentum.
Astro bodies all have spin rotation, and so the explanation as to why
they have such would rely more on something intrinsic to the particles
that compose all matter, and not rely on something as feeble as a Dust
Cloud that aggrandizes matter.
Besides, if Dust Clouds were the sole answer to why astro bodies spin,
then through time, all astro bodies would lose their spin due to forces
of friction. But we never see a slow down of spin angular momentum. And
we know for sure that spin angular momentum of electrons, protons and
neutrons never slows down.
So I am making the case, that spin rotation or spin angular momentum
that is widespread throughout the Cosmos of its astro-bodies is tied to
Elementary Particles that compose those astro bodies. And because
Elementary Particles have a spin angular momentum that never decays is
the reason all astro bodies have spin angular momentum.
P.S. I already made the argument that if you accept as truth,
Superdeterminism, then Angular Momentum would be a parameter that has
to be controlled completely by the Atom Totality, because
Superdeterminism means complete control over every single Elementary
Particle and fundamental properties such as spin angular momentum.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
An instant proof of the claims of this thread-- that the rotation of
planets, stars and galaxies are mostly due to the spin angular momentum
of the Elementary Particles that compose those astro bodies.
But here is a instant proof. We take a rocket or spacecraft and launch
it. Once the fuel is depleted the spacecraft is left wandering space.
It had no spin angular momentum the moment it was launched to the
moment it used up all of its fuel.
We observe the spacecraft years later and we find it, rather
miraculously with a spin angular momentum. Curiously we ask why and how
did it acquire such?
Well, according to this thread, all mass objects are composed of
Elementary Particles which have intrinsic spin angular momentum and
when in space those particles begin to line up their spin angular
momentum and cause a "rotation" in the object.
So, curiously, has anyone noticed a spin angular momentum from any of
our spacecraft abandoned in space?
Now I did some looking up of rotation periods for the Sun and the
planets and the Sun is approx 25 days. Mercury is 58 days; Venus 224
days reverse; Mars 1.03 days; Jupiter 0.4 days; Saturn 0.4 days; Uranus
0.4 days reverse; Neptune 0.6 days.
Again, I want to emphasize, that if rotation is caused by Nebular Dust
Cloud coalescence of matter and where gravity causes the spin rotation,
then that data statistic should be a linear relationship. But instead
it is too random. Especially the fact that Venus and Uranus are reverse
spins relative to the others. So this tells us that the Nebular Dust
Cloud theory of planet origins is probably another one of those fake
theories.
The highest spin angular momentum in our solar system is Jupiter;
indicating that Jupiter is growing mass via Cosmic rays (Dirac's new
radioactivity accretion)
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
[quote:c567151900]
Now I did some looking up of rotation periods for the Sun and the
planets and the Sun is approx 25 days. Mercury is 58 days; Venus 224
days reverse; Mars 1.03 days; Jupiter 0.4 days; Saturn 0.4 days; Uranus
0.4 days reverse; Neptune 0.6 days.
[/quote:c567151900]
Now the Moon rotates in approx 27 days and is the slowest rotator
except for the satellite Iapetus of Saturn of 79 days.
What do I make of this? Well, considering that the Moon collided with
Earth some 4 billion years ago, I would think that all of its spin
rotation would have been lost or transferred into linear momentum by
the impact and that the Moon should not have any spin now according to
present day physics and what is taught in present day astronomy.
So the Moon according to present day physics and astronomy attitudes
would be a nonrotating entity, having lost its ability to spin rotate
because of the collision. Now why does Iapetus have such a slower
rotation? Was it also a collision casualty of long ago?
But why the Moon even has a 27 day rotation would be explained by me as
a result of the total mass of the Moon in communication with the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality that the streams of neutrinos that course
through the Moon each and every second, and ordering or
superdetermining the alignment of each and every Elementary Particle
within the Moon (its protons, electrons and neutrons) to orient each
such particle so the end result is that the spin rotation of the Moon
is 27 days and likewise for Earth that it ends up as 1 day (or 24
hours). In this viewpoint, Angular Momentum is the bulk Momentum of the
Universe and where Linear Momentum is rare. Linear Momentum occurs
where radioactivity takes place for the particle that emanated due to
radioactive decay is emitted with Linear Momentum.
In physics and astronomy before the Atom Totality theory, was based on
Linear Momentum for the Big Bang and General Relativity is all based on
Linear Momentum. But the Universe is all about rotation-- rotation of
planets and stars and galaxies. And revolution is merely another form
of rotation.
So, has anyone observed any one of our abandoned spacecrafts that we
sent on some long ago mission which had only Linear Momentum during its
useful-life and which surprizingly is now rotate-spinning? You see, the
explanation for why this old lost spacecraft is now rotating-spinning
on some axis is because the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is sending
neutrinos through this old antique (can I call it an antique
spacecraft) and those neutrinos are telling each elementary particle of
the spacecraft how to align its spin angular momentum and thus
producing a rotating antique spacecraft. So, has anyone observed such a
case?
For the Moon should have next to 0 rotation but it has a huge 27 day
rotation.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Randy Poe |
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:11ef35398f]For the Moon should have next to 0 rotation but it has a huge 27 day
rotation.
[/quote:11ef35398f]
Two words for your googling pleasure: "tidal locking".
- Randy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(some snipping)
[quote:92c47c101b]
In the 20th century, gravity was explained in the culmination idea that
"mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space". The trouble with that idea is that space is an entity for which
General Relativity never addressed. And General Relativity is founded
on Linear Momentum that the Earth has Linear Momentum and just wants to
travel off in a straight line to infinity but because the Sun is
massive it bends space around Earth and thus Earth is haplessly caught
up in this bent space and has to move around (revolve around) the Sun.
The trouble as I mentioned is that General Relativity does not address
what is SPACE, for it is an entity if you say that "mass bends space".
Here is where the Atom Totality theory addresses the problem of what is
Space. The ATom Totality theory accepts the idea of gravity that "mass
bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space"
only the Atom Totality says what space is. It says that SPACE is what
Dirac used to call the ocean-of-positrons. In the 20th century it was
found out that space contains an infinite amount of energy. For when we
do experiments to obtain the positron we pluck out of space a hole and
that hole was filled by a positron. So, according to Dirac and 20th
century physics, space is just a vast ocean of POSITRONS.
[/quote:92c47c101b]
Now today I spent some time figuring what neutrinos would do if they
were counted as Space, since neutrinos flood the Cosmos in huge
numbers. Trouble is that neutrinos could not be the Space for which
mass bends space.
But Positrons as the ingredient that composes Space makes a complete
picture. In that gravity would then be of the very same formula as the
Coulomb force for EM. And so positrons as Space yields a Unification of
gravity with EM.
And it is a satisfying picture because when our Sun travels in space,
it sort of etches out space or we can say it plows a pathway for the
planets to then follow that pathway. When we first learn of the General
Relativity gravity we are given the model of an ashtray in which the
sun is at the center and bending space as the sides of the ashtray and
which the planets then are made to follow the curved edge of the
ashtray. But instead of an ashtray, I assert it is the old Dirac ocean
of Positrons.
Now why positrons? Why not some other particle? Well, the Atom Totality
theory works best with positrons as Space because all the matter and
mass of the Observable (note Observable) Universe are the electrons of
the Atom Totality and gravity is only a attractive force and never
repulsion, so that is why Positrons work the best.
And also, Positrons work the best because as I noted many years ago,
for this quest to fully understand gravity has been ongoing since late
1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory and because it so very
difficult that it has taken me until now, some 16 years to finally find
the picture. And as I said so often in those 16 years that the
mathematical formula of Coulomb force matches the formula for gravity
when we replace charge with mass. Only gravity is about 10^40 weaker in
strength than Coulomb.
By making SPACE an ocean of positrons, and as mass moves through this
space it bends the space because the positrons are attracted to the
moving mass. And this attraction is 10^40 weaker than the normal
Coulomb force.
So I have in a sense connected gravity to Electromagnetism. This
picture is a Unification of the force of gravity with that of Coulomb
force in Maxwell theory.
Many people before me have noted that connecting gravity to EM has one
big hurdle in that EM is both attract and repel whereas gravity is only
attract. So I have overcome that one problem by saying all mass that we
see is electron-mass of the Atom Totality which rides over a Space that
is an ocean of positrons. And positrons attract electrons since they
are oppositely charged.
In the Big Bang theory allied with General Relativity, this unification
could never occur because all mass is not electron mass. And the flaw
of General Relativity is of two kinds (1) based on Linear Momentum
whereas most of the motion we observe is Angular Momentum (2) and the
largest flaw of using the concept of Space as an entity and never
really telling what do you mean by "space" such as in the statement
"mass bends space and other objects follow the curvature of that bent
space"
Now there should be future experiments to prove me correct or wrong for
the claim is that Space is an ocean of positrons and that gravity is
merely the bending of positron-space. That idea would have vast
experimental implications and would even have some implications on the
Maxwell Equations. Even though gravity would thence be seen as merely
the weakest form of the Coulomb force.
And I suppose that a massive body that is highly charged would have a
different gravitational pull the the very same amount of mass with net
overall charge of 0. For example, a proton moving in a space of
positrons would have a different gravity than a negative charged ion of
the same mass.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:2a134b1760]The timing of my thread is spectacular because last night on the
Newshour was report of fixing the Hubble telescope to be active for
another 5 years. And an interview with a Hubble scientist who
proclaimed words to the effect " The Hubble telescope gave us pictures
of the center of galaxies and proved the existence of black-holes."
I buy the idea that the Hubble telescope gave us the very best pictures
of galaxies, but I doubt that the center of galaxies harbor
black-holes. And according to Quantum Mechanics, black-holes are
nonexistent. Quantum Mechanics would have supernova as the last outcry
of matter squeezed together. Black-holes violate the Pauli Exclusion
Principle and almost every principle in Quantum Mechanics. Black-holes
were offered in a century, the 20th century when physicists became
exceedingly sloppy in logic and thought. A century where General
Relativity was touted above quantum mechanics and thus chimeras and
fakery physics was borne.
Now the Hubble telescope shows us the center of some galaxies. And let
me offer this as an alternative to galaxies harboring a black-hole in
its center. What if I said that there exists a Hubble picture of where
the center of a galaxy is "empty space" and so empty that one can look
through that center to a far off distant galaxy. Let me explain below.
In the 20th century, gravity was explained in the culmination idea that
"mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space". The trouble with that idea is that space is an entity for which
General Relativity never addressed. And General Relativity is founded
on Linear Momentum that the Earth has Linear Momentum and just wants to
travel off in a straight line to infinity but because the Sun is
massive it bends space around Earth and thus Earth is haplessly caught
up in this bent space and has to move around (revolve around) the Sun.
The trouble as I mentioned is that General Relativity does not address
what is SPACE, for it is an entity if you say that "mass bends space".
Here is where the Atom Totality theory addresses the problem of what is
Space. The ATom Totality theory accepts the idea of gravity that "mass
bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space"
only the Atom Totality says what space is. It says that SPACE is what
Dirac used to call the ocean-of-positrons. In the 20th century it was
found out that space contains an infinite amount of energy. For when we
do experiments to obtain the positron we pluck out of space a hole and
that hole was filled by a positron. So, according to Dirac and 20th
century physics, space is just a vast ocean of POSITRONS.
Now when you combine the two pictures of the Atom Totality with space
being a cosmic-ocean of positrons, we end up with a very nice clear
picture of gravity. Remember that in the Atom Totality theory, Earth
and Sun and stars and galaxies and planets are all pieces of the last 6
electrons of 231Pu. So that our planet Earth was a fragment of the last
6 electrons of 231Pu. All mass and matter that we see in the cosmos are
fragments of the electrons of 231Pu. Now combine that idea with the
idea that "space" is a cosmic ocean of positrons.
So, now, let me repeat the great idea, although flawed, about gravity
of the 20th century modified to the ATom Totality theory: "Mass and
matter of the Observable Universe is fragmented pieces of the last 6
electrons of 231Pu which is immersed in a Cosmic Ocean of positrons
that constitutes SPACE, and for which MASS bends this positron space
because they are opposite charge, and subsequently or consequently
other mass and matter follows the curvature of that bent space."
So, if my above is correct in part or whole, then the interview last
night of a Hubble scientist on the Newshour claiming that the center of
galaxies harbor black-holes would be false. The center of galaxies
harbor empty space, empty positron space and that one should be able to
find a Hubble picture where we look directly through the center of a
galaxy and are able to see a far off distant galaxy.
According to the Atom Totality theory which is based on Quantum
Mechanics, the center of galaxies as a ocean of positrons would funnel
mass and matter directly towards the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and
the nucleus would spit out that energy into the form of cosmic rays.
Sort of a recycling system is our Cosmos. Perhaps like Earth with
volcanoes spewing out interior matter and subduction (if it exists)
transporting back into the interior.
So the question is open, do we have a Hubble picture of a galaxy where
we can see straight through the center and for which we can see some
far away more distant galaxy? Indicating that there is just empty space
in the center of the galaxy.
[/quote:2a134b1760]
I did some searching on Google to see if the Hubble has already spyed a
galaxy for which its center is nothing but open Space and which it has
stars and no black-hole.
This website about M31 seems to fit the description:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0512.html
So what will eventually happen, ironically, is that Hubble will prove
that there are no black-holes. And that the center of Galaxies are
either regions of a plethora of stars or a region devoid of all matter.
That black-holes do not exist because if ever a situation occurs where
alot of mass comes together in any one place, what happens is that the
mass converts into energy such as X-rays and/or sinks into the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality to be spewed out in the form of Cosmic rays.
I was not able to find a Hubble picture of a galaxy with an alleged
black-hole for its center, yet which has the appearance of a bright
spot of another different galaxy. Such a picture would be the
death-knell-tomb for black-hole enthusiasts. Because such a picture
would point out that every alleged black-hole is nothing but empty
space.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster wrote:
[quote:140e6e1879]I was appending unrelated thread from another OP,
the loosey-goosey *literateur* of "MDT." anyway,
why would interstellar or intergalactic space consist of positrons,
not electrons ... and associated antiprotons etc.?
[/quote:140e6e1879]
Protons are what we usually find that effect conservation of
charge and that is within the realm of a something derived from
Coulomb force as the subject line suggest.
Sue... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If any one of us plays around in physics long enough it will make every
one of us an "ironic fool". I say this because for some ten or more
years I have been preaching that Black Holes cannot and do not exist.
But what I have come up with in the past few days with this gravity
unification to coulomb force; as space is an ocean of positrons, that
I seem to be hinting of black-holes. When I want to get far away from
anything that smacks of black-holes.
So what happens if gravity becomes very enormous with the Space as
positron theory? Would not the positron space envelope the huge mass?
Would the enveloped mass be enclosed?
Well one thing for sure is that positrons are antimatter to normal
matter and thus energy would radiate from a positron enveloping of a
huge mass.
So the disc of blue stars in the M31 galactic center is indication of
antimatter to matter conversion.
But would the center of galaxies envelope completely a massive star?
And where would the energy go?
Some of the energy would be radiated into space, and perhaps much of
the energy is radiated into the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
But would the space of enveloping look like "empty space" again?
I do not know. From indications of M31, apparently an enveloping mass
could look like empty space.
What we need now is a Hubble picture of the center of a galaxy which
has what appears to be simply normal stars. Such a picture would
indicate that black holes are fakery because all galactic centers would
have alot of mass.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
[quote:4b67d8904b]To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.
[/quote:4b67d8904b]
Read what the Tajamr and de Matos papers have to say
about the Gravito-magnetic London moment and
coherent matter.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| malibu |
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sue... wrote:
[quote:0b37bf40d6]a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
To have a correct theory of what gravity really is, has to connect with
very many other features of physics. And the Feynman model and the two
models you refer to connect with nothing else in physics.
Read what the Tajamr and de Matos papers have to say
about the Gravito-magnetic London moment and
coherent matter.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
[...]
Hey, Al....!!!!![/quote:0b37bf40d6]
I know you're lurking you old perv...........
Evgeny Podkletnov..........is that name vaguely
familiar?
Wait til we get magnets rotating/precessing at speed
and see the gravitational effects.........the ratio is 1:2
John
Galaxy Model
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:06 pm
|
|