Below are some comments based on the gravimagnetic viewpoint, as
described here:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf
On Oct 11, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Hi Horace
Since cataloguing (even galaxies) is not on my list of 'most
enlightening things to do during the weekend', I'll present some
alternatives.
Yes, doing science can be very boring and tedious. It is the results
that are exciting.
Here's a paper on galaxies I've found on the web recently:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3793
I think there may be a major flaw in the basic premises of this
paper. It says: "Unlike many other properties of galaxies,
handedness is unaffected by gravitational gradients, incompleteness
of surveys, or atmospheric effects." The author is unaware of the
effects of gravimagnetism, which, was present from the time of the
creation of the universe and which is handed just like magnetism, nor
of the fact that virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, and
thus that black holes are highly magnetic, further providing a
handedness to galaxy rotations and interactions, at least locally.
This relates the kind of thing for which the Galaxy Zoo is gathering
data. See what has been discovered and disclosed by the effort so
far here:
http://www.galaxyzoo.org/story
"Thanks to Galaxy Zoo's database of volunteer-generated
classifications, we now know that spiral galaxies do not have a
preference for rotating clockwise or anti-clockwise, and that for the
time being at least, our current theories of how the Universe works
are still valid."
"This may be something of a disappointment, but in another paper we
were able to look at how neighbouring galaxies spin. It turns out
that two galaxies which are close together are more likely to spin in
the same direction than the opposite — and that tells us about how
they start spinning in the first place."
The "Mystery of the Voorwerp", uncovered by Galaxy Zoo, is rather
interesting. See:
http://www.galaxyzooblog.org/2008/01/31/the-mystery-of-the-voorwerp-
deepens/
http://tinyurl.com/5zgmjs
I think it is more interesting the origin of strong magnetic fields
in the voids between galaxies, where there are no stars, but that is
outside the scope of Galaxy Zoo.
And here's valuable and relatively rare information on the the solar
system movement:
http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1863MNRAS..23..166D
(I couldn't find the paper, but the abstract is very valuable in
itself.)
When I pull up the referenced paper I get a paper from The
Astrophysical Journal, 223: 589-600, 1978 July 15 titled: "Is the
Solar System Entering an Interstellar Cloud?", by Audoze et al.
Perhaps I have made some kind of mistake obtaining the paper.
The paper notes the cloud is a "... few hundredths of a parsec
away.", and that such clouds move at "20-30 km/s". A parsec is
3.08x10^16 m, so it is about 10^16 m away. It thus is (3.08x10^16 m)
*(0.03)/(3x10^4 m/s) = 3.33x10^9 seconds = 104 years away.
Something that is notable from a gravimagnetic perspective is that
the lack of D is attributed by the article to separation by UV
radiation. However, the gravimagnetic theory predicts that black
holes, i.e. the center of galaxies, including the Milky Way, are
sources for emission of high energy mirror matter. Mirror matter
weakly couples with ordinary matter, and thus can transfer momentum
to hydrogen much better than to the twice as heavy deuterium. This
could significantly reduce the estimated overall lifetime of the
cloud, and increase the radial (with respect to the galaxy center)
velocity of the could.
That last paper is from 1863. William Herschel was the first to study
those movements, in the 19th century. Have you ever heard about
Copernicus third law?
I'm not familiar with any of the three Copernican laws. The
following gives 7 assumptions of Copernicus':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
Athough we're now used to the Copernican system,
we disregarded his third law completely.
Solar system motion was described by Kepler's laws. I'm not sure
where Copernicus fits in except historically for laying the
background of a non-geocentric universe.
Curious, isn't?
I wonder how much longer this information will be ignored/concealed.
It's not very well concealed anymore. Not to me, at least. And I've
found it using plain old googling. I wonder how much can I find when
searching the deep web
http://www.fravia.com/deepweb_searching.htm
And talking about all things real, and the nature of reality, you must
be interested on his page on 'reality cracking'
http://www.fravia.com/realicra/realicra.htm
Don't forget to take a look at the priceless (and timeless?) 'basic
laws
of human stupidity'.
Looking at that:
http://www.fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
"The First Basic Law prevents me from attributing a specific
numerical value to the fraction of stupid people within the total
population: any numerical estimate would turn out to be an
underestimate. Thus in the following pages I will denote the fraction
of stupid people within a population by the symbol σ."
This law is self-inconsistent. For example, my estimate is rho = 1,
i.e. all people are stupid. Rho cannot be higher than 1, so that is
an estimate which can not turn out to be an underestimate.
My feeling is we all are stupid at various points in life. That is
because we have free will. Free will means some percentage of time
everyone engages in sub-optimum choices. We are free to make bad
choices so sometimes we do. If this did not happen then creativity
would be highly limited, and that in itself would be grossly sub-
optimum. Stupidity then may be sub-optimum on individual or small
group levels, but it makes us adaptable, and that is a necessary
feature of life. Individuals must pay the price of stupidity for the
value of the population's survival.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
