My research is telling me that these entropic dark matter particles are streaming throughout this universe between gravitational bodies and through our atmosphere creating the major low pressure systems in our atmosphere through thermodynamic condensing and collapse and seismic events thru beta decay in the Earth. So yes, thermodynamics is very important. I believe hurricane sandy and Isaac were triggered by these orbiting particles spit at Earth during CMEs last summer. They orbited for approx 3 months and approached large beta decay sinkholes as did Ike, Eduardo, Irene, Dennis, Beryl and others.
If you do not think that is strange then take a look at some of those electromagnetic crop circles over the past 20 years and you will realize that this is what they have been telling us all along. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sunday, January 20, 2013, David Roberson wrote: > Well, this is the kind of input I was hoping to stimulate. You should > remember that every field of science is in a state of limbo most of the > time. New theories come along from essentially nowhere to challenge the > currently held theories and many times it is the result of an outsider that > is not firmly entrenched with the most recent ideas that perform this > service. > > If I recall Einstein was not well known when he proposed the theories of > relativity and they were not immediately accepted. The theory of plate > tectonics was laughed at for many years before becoming accepted. Cold > fusion is still considered bunk after over 20 years of proof. The list > goes on. > > It would be in your interest to open your mind and consider the > consequences of my hypothesis before dismissing it off hand. I agree that > it is a long stretch, but there most likely are scenarios that can not be > explained still remaining in astrophysics. > > I have a feeling that it would be difficult to explain how dust > particles can actually collect together without being torn apart by > extremely minute collisions unless magnetic or electrostatic fields are at > work. Would you offer an explanation as to how this happens in simple > terms without a force stronger than gravity? I will be interested to hear > such an explanation. > > And, perhaps the first stars were only built by the influence of > gravity. That was a long, long time ago and most everything has happened > since that epic. Someone might ask an embarrassing question as to how > black holes form in the first place since stars of far less mass explode in > super novae. Does the current theory demonstrate this satisfactorily, > differential equations and all? > > So, all I ask is that you and others keep your minds open and think > about the idea without prejudice. Build upon the parts that make some > sense and perhaps the whole might appear. > > For example, you suggested that there were no natural magnets throughout > space in the many dust clouds that stars spring from. An atom of iron is a > magnet by itself. A collection of these will stick together due to this > attraction but not by gravity. The random collection of iron atoms in this > supposed mass might well tend to cancel out each others magnetic fields. > But if a large electrostatic discharge occurs nearby, or I could speculate > on other drivers, then the fields of the individual iron atoms could line > up and make a larger net field. > > Thanks for the input, but please do not claim that the science is > settled as that is likely wrong. [image: ;-)] > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Jan 20, 2013 1:25 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational > > Our days astronomy is a very developed science. People make full fledged > simulations of star and planetary disk formations. They use hydrodimanics, > magnetodynamics, gravitational theory, depending on cases special and > general relativity and as much physics you want to include. The models are > solved using differential equations and very powerful computers. > > They account for possible subtle effects created by magnetic and > electrical fields all the time. There is really no space for > "revolutionary" ideas of planetary formation due to some magnetic dust in > space. > > Even if this group is by default a supporter of amateur science, there > is a reason why it takes almost a decade of graduate studies to understand > a particular subfield of modern science. > There is nothing wrong with citizen science, in fact, it is a beautiful > idea but you would not walk on a professional basketball field and play > basketball on a world championship without hesitation or being completely > mad. > > Giovanni > > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Giovanni Santostasi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > There are many problems with this theory. > One even if all these ideas would hold they could be applied only to later > stages of the universe life because iron and nickel are created by massive > stars and then released into space when they died as supernovae. > > Also consider that iron and heavy materials are very rare exactly > because only very massive stars can produce these materials. > Furthermore what you call natural magnetism is not something that occurs > so naturally for dust in space. > On earth natural magnetized material become magnetized because of the > Earth magnetic field. Look up how magnetic rocks get magnetized in wiki: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_magnetism#Thermoremanent_magnetization_.28TRM.29 > > You need a huge dynamo magnet like the one at the core of the earth to > magnetize small things like rocks. > > The dynamo magnet is created by plasma that rotates at the center of the > Earth and creates by induction a magnetic field. The fact that there is > iron at the core helps to make the magnetic field stronger and helps to > carry the electrical current of the plasma but it is not the source per se > of the magnetic field of the earth. The sun doesn't have iron at the core > and it has a very strong magnetic field. > > The iron ended up at the core of the Earth because it is heavier > than silica and the other lighter elements that make the earth crust. > > Gravity is the dominant force at astronomical scales because it acts on > everything not special materials (like in the case for magnetism). Yes, it > is weak but when you are dealing with huge quantity of stuff that dominates > all the other forces in particular because electrostatic charges tend to > neutralize themselves coming in pairs and magnetic forces are produced by > moving charges and decay rapidly. > > And so on... > The theory makes not much sense in physical terms. Sorry. > Giovanni > > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > > The vortex-l group of individuals have a great deal of knowledge and open > minds that I enjoy prodding on occasions. This morning an unusual concept > came into my mind which resulted in a hypothesis that I would like to put > forth. > > Suppose that the universe is organized by the influence of magnetic > attractions between materials such as iron and nickel that can be pe > >
