Horace Heffner wrote: > 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. >
I don't know. Let's say that I'm not so sure about that. > ... >> 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. > Yes, sorry. That paper is interesting in itself, specially if a relation with the movement of the solar system can be established, but it is not the one I was referring. They are using dirty javascript in their pages. Here's the link to the free fulltext http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1863MNRAS..23..166D&link_type=GIF Where you can find the abstract. Take into account that the abstracts are all scanned together as short notices at the beginning of the journal. The abstract for this paper is at the middle of page 166. > 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. > > I suppose we can always go back to the sources http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1543droc.book/ As I don't read latin, here's fortunately an english version http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html I'll post the excerpt when/if I find it. > ... > > 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. > I agree. That's Livraghi's corolary to the first law "In each of us there is a factor of stupidity, which is always larger than we suppose."
