New Theory-Nature And Origin Of The Universe

[nouveau astronome]

I am going to start by introducing a portion of my work on the nature and origin of the universe.

The universe is filled with galaxies. Outside galaxies, there is not much else but some dust and gas. All most if not all of these galaxies are spinning, spiral shaped (unless damaged from collisions), very flat and dotted with stars and star like bodies. In order to show how these galaxies formed, one needs a paradigm that functions to create these properties every time. This is because whatever created the galaxies did so in a way that created them the same every time in terms of the above properties. Read now a paradigm that creates these properties every time, without fail.

Here are two experiments that show how galaxies may have been created. Keep in mind that the conclusion is that galaxies were not created by a 'big bang'. Instead they were created by a process of slicing pieces off a central core instead of an explosion. Let us start with the first experiment that clearly explains why galaxies are spiral shaped, dotted with stars and are so ubiquitous.

Take a round sponge with a diameter of about 6 inches and placed it on the end of a straight stick about 3 feet long. Impaled might be a better word. As we go along, you may be able to better visualize this apparatus. What you do is place the sponge in water. Remove the sponge from the water and let the excess water drain off. This is the big moment. You may best be outside at this point. Simply spin the stick. You should see, and see every time, is something I call equatorial discharge. The water comes out of the sponge at its equator. This would be relative to the stick of course. What is most fantastic is that it comes out in the shape of a spiral. Equally important is that the water comes out in droplets. Thus the spiral and droplet formation looks so much like our own galaxy that it is the best paradigm that shows how galaxies form I am aware of. If a small electric motor is used to spin the ball, the spiral shape is even more precise, reproducing the look of pristine undamaged galaxies. Representations by programs run by super computers pale in comparison.

If we think of the sponge as a Super Massive Black Hole, like the one found in the center of our own galaxy, and the water that comes out of the sponge as stars and stellar black holes like the ones found in our own galaxy, one can quickly perceive what is being suggested here. That is, instead of black holes being things that consume mass, they are instead the very place where mass comes from. Thus, stars do not get drawn into black holes but instead come out of black holes. This idea is completely opposite to current ideas that things may go in, but do not come out of black holes. It is without doubt a very radical idea to say that stars come from black holes, but the experiment does not lie. To conclude the experiment, three things are evident. 1) The water comes out in the shape of a spiral, 2) The water comes out in droplets and 3) The spiral and droplet formation happens every time.

The second experiment explains why all the galaxies are spinning. Take a small, flat and round refrigerator magnet and break it in two. Push the two pieces together and keeping one piece stationary, release the other at one end. You should see the released piece spin away from the stationary piece. If you consider all the mass in the universe compressed together, and slice off one tiny piece, the tiny piece would spin away from the core at a tremendous speed. This tiny piece would then be an individual galaxy that would go on to expand into the type of galaxies we see today.

The final conclusion is that instead of an explosion, the central core of mass at the begining of the universe was slice apart, likely by electrical discharges from a surrounding plasma field. The pieces then spin away and expelled mass along the way. This is why and how galaxies spin. This is why they are spiral shaped and dotted with stars. If one takes this theory further, this is what happens.

Planets as well are expelled from their host stars. This then completes the understanding of the origin of our existence. As humans, we came right out of the rock planet we stand on, and this planet came from out of the Sun in the middle of our solar system, and that sun came from the SMBH in the middle of our galaxy, and the SMBH came from the 'matter core'. The matter core is defined as all the mass in the universe compressed into a very small, but not infinite space.

As stated above, I suggest here that a plasma field surrounding the matter core built up and warmed to a point where electric discharges occur and strike the Matter Core and slice off small pieces. In this way, the piece is at once repelled by the Matter Core and its tremendous gravitational force, just as a piece would that breaks off a magnet. Not only do the pieces move away from the Matter Core, but they do so in a spinning fashion. This would then explain why galaxies spin why they are in motion.

A quasar is the perfect example of what it looked like at the beginning of our known universe.

At this point let me say and suggest that SMBHs contain matter, but do not contain atoms. They contain tiny particles smaller than quarks or gluons. There size is estimated to be on the order of 10neg35 meters. These particles are arrayed within the Matter Core so tightly that they touch. However within black holes, they do not touch. This is because when the piece I spoke of is sliced off the Matter Core, it fights it way past the plasma field. The plasma field attacks it with more ‘lightening bolt’ like electric discharges and when the piece is past the plasma field, the particles within are now loosened. The piece then spins onward, expelling mass as it goes.

These tiny particles are most likely shaped like the great pyramid of Egypt. This is because that particular shape allows for the particles to fit together and if compressed tight enough, allow for no space to be found in between. When the particles are expelled from the SMBH, they form atoms, photons or run in lines that are magnetic fields and gradational force. When a magnet is dipped in iron filings, it is these particles that make the filings 'do their thing'. I hope we all know what that is. In a similar way, a compass is like a weather vein. The little particles push the needle in the respected direction. When mass comes out of the SMBH, the arrayed particles go through a violent process which weaves many of them into atoms. Just as heavy elements are produced during a super nova, the violent process of mass tearing away from the spinning SMBH is what turns these tiny arrayed particles into hydrogen, helium and other atoms. Again, the tiny arrayed particles found in SMBHs are what become atoms, photons, and run in lines which are called gravity and electricity. Because the arrayed particles within the SMBH are arrayed identical to the particles found in photons, it has led me to name SMBHs 'liquid light'.

Here are some facts that back up these ideas. Our planet, as with all the planets in our solar system are moving every so slightly away from our host sun. If one were to reverse this process one could deduct that the host sun is where the planets come from. Also, what we would expect to see is some sort of evidence on the surface of the sun that is telling of the possibility that the planets came from that very place. Indeed, sunspots become candidates for birthing scars. Prominence flares also look like events that could produce a planet. Let me suggest here that as a planet would spin off of the sun, it would do so in such a manor that would cause it to spin in the opposite direction that the sun is spinning, which indeed most of the planets do. Now, do you see what is happening here?

From an idea starting at the beginning of our known universe comes congruent ideas about the universal ‘here and now’ that are backed up by facts. On the other hand, current theories like the 'big bang' theory do not seem to be backed up by facts and are instead contrary to all facts about the universe. When the 'big bang' theory is taken further, problems occure trying to explain for expamle how the outer planets Uranus and Neptune came to be. Those are two very large resons why the 'big bang' is incorrect.

Finnally, one question that could make or break this theory is, are stars moving away from the center of galaxies? Are the stars moving inward? Are they not moving inward or outward? Consider this one point. Do we not live in an expanding universe? While writing my thesis, The True Nature And Origin Of The Universe 2005, from which these passages were taken, I came upon a funny riddle. Here it is.

What do Sean Connery and the Milky Way galaxy have in common? The answer is that they both have spirals, or 'spy roles'

[BrianG]

Kerr metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It's an interesting theory, may I suggest that you break down your argument into paragraphs? That might help me understand.

[modest]

Folks, I am going to start by introducing a portion of my work on the nature and origin of the universe. Let us see if anything sticks. Here we go!

 

Hello NA. Welcome to Hypography. I'm glad to look at your ideas, but be sure to post links or references, or give some kind of support for any definite claims you make in keeping with the site rules.

 

Let us start by examining an experiment I devised to help prove my theory. What I did was take a round sponge with a diameter of about 6 inches and placed it on the end of a straight stick about 3 feet long. Impaled might be a better word. As we go along, you may be able to better visualize this apparatus. What you do is place the sponge in water. Remove the sponge from the water and let the excess water drain off. This is the big moment. You may best be outside at this point. Simply spin the stick. You should see, and see every time, is something I call equatorial discharge. The water comes out of the sponge at its equator. This would be relative to the stick of course. What is most fantastic is that it comes out in the shape of a spiral. When it comes to spirals, how important is that? By the way, what does Sean Connery and the Milky Way galaxy have in common? The answer is that they both have spirals, or 'spy roles'. Now, if we think of the sponge as a Super Massive Black Hole, like the one found in the center of our own galaxy, and the water that comes out of the sponge as stars and stellar black holes like the ones found in our own galaxy, one my quickly perceive what is being suggested here. Yes, I suggest that instead of black holes being galaxy-eating monsters, they are instead the very place where all the stars come from.

 

Supermassive black holes really are not galaxy-eating monsters. The holes are active and grow while the galaxy is young and mostly go inactive by the time it has matured,

 

Astronomers discover upper mass limit for black holes

 

 

Spiral shapes exist frequently in nature. Instead of the sponge example you might have watched water flushing down a toilet and noticed spirals in the vortex and thought that black holes are quickly eating up the galaxy in a similar fashion. But, spreading an analogy so far in either case is precarious.

 

The spiral case in your sponge example exists because the angular momentum of the water remains constant as the distance of each bit of water increases from the sponge. Yet, we know from observation that stars do not increase in distance from the black hole at the galaxy's core.

 

There was a recent study that tracked the stars near the Milky Way's supermassive black hole for 16 years. They are not moving away from the hole, but are orbiting it as one would expect. Like all massive things, it attracts other mass toward it.

 

Unprecedented 16-year-long Study Tracks Stars Orbiting Milky Way Black Hole

 

Do you have any physics or observations that would suggest things are moving away from the centers of galaxies?

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

A hurricane is another example of a natural spiral, I can't get into your theory, please elaborate the mechanism of stars (or hydrogen for the formation of stars) coming out of a black hole.

[nouveau astronome]

Hello everyone. It feels like home here. I posted on a physics forum and was told they do not accept new theories.

To reply post #2. My work was born of much pain and suffering and many hours of research and thought. Much like Newton. When Copernicus was looking at the solar system model before him and thought ‘maybe the sun goes in the center’. I know what he felt. I felt it when I thought ‘maybe the stars are coming out of the black hole, not getting drawn in. With every prediction I have made, if just one had been incongruent with the facts, I would have tossed it at once. Some parts of my theory have no facts to back it up but no facts to refute as well. The rest is backed up by facts.

Reply post #4 References; I knew I forgot something. I will get right on it. However, if I wanted an example of a spiral vortex, your suggestion would work. ‘Toilet’ might be a better word to describe some of the vortex work of Hawking or Einstein. Nonetheless, (I just gave myself a slap. Sorry). I hear you. All your suggestions and doubts will be considered and/or reproved. If not, my work is worthless. Something I am checking out is, ‘are the stars in perfectly balanced unchanging orbits around their galaxy?’ It seems, off the top of my head, that no orbits are perfectly balanced and unchanging. They should either be orbiting inward or outward, no matter how slight. Like I say, I am checking that out. Great question though! I only know laymen. I can tell you it felt great to hear a question like that. Thank you.

Reply post #3. What a fantastic question! It sent chills down my spine! The mechanism is difficult to explain because it happens at the edge of the event horizon. However, if someone were to examine at a molecular level what is happening when the ‘water’ is coming out of the ‘sponge ball’ in my experiment, we may have our answer. We should see the water acting in a certain way. I love it! Even though with the ‘sponge and water’ we are looking atoms coming out. With the black hole, we are looking at arrayed particles that are spun in to atoms of hydrogen upon exit of the event horizon. Still, I bet there is something interesting going on at the point when the water comes out of the sponge ball. I will find out what is going on there if I have to go the event horizon myself. If I am wrong, we will have a spaghetti dinner with roasted new astronomer.

I am off to give a great thanks for all of you. Paragraphs, references, and answers coming right up!

[jocaxx]

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

 

In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.

 

JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

 

Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:

 

1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)

 

2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).

 

Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.

 

We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).

 

Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.

 

JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).

 

We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.

 

We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.

 

Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.

 

We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.

 

Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

 

Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.