The Hows and Whys of Happenings... Shaking up conventional thinking.
And because things do Happen as they do, they vindicate OUR thinking.
As of course it was all based on pure science to begin with.
These are a few items that we think are interesting. In no particular order...
WATERFALLS AND SPEEDING TRAINS
Faster moving atoms attracting slower moving atoms are seen throughout nature. The phenomenon of feeling drawn to a large waterfall is not in your mind. You who are not moving are being pulled to that large mass of water rushing past you. It is the water's extra gravity doing that. You will also feel it standing 20 ft from a massive iron freight train that is speeding by you at 80 mph. That isn't suction or draft. It is gravity pulling you towards the faster moving mass.
FLAMES AND SOAP BUBBLES.
With more ‘normal’ fires burning carbon based fuels and such, the messenger photons are produced that hit and then reflect and/or refract their waves from the hot combustion gases as they rise upwards, mixing with the cooler air around them as they do. This mixing gives them their movement and wispy look..
It is the otherwise invisible densities of heat from the ‘flame’ structure, that the photons come up against. Similar to the multiple colors swirling around the film of a soap bubble with its various and always changing angles and thicknesses.. The messenger-photon’s outgoing EMR waves are disbursed, refracted, and reflected through and from them. The same as messenger photons hitting a prism to produce a rainbow., but fire of course is a much more fascinating display....
Higher velocity atoms produce more gravity than slower moving atoms. This holds true in all cases, even to the extent of water wearing away rock. Water does not cause a sandpaper grinding effect on the rock. The atoms of the water and rock never touch. It is in fact the faster moving stronger gravity atoms of the water pulling atoms from the stationary bedrock, trying to bring that rock 'up to speed'. Slowly of course, but over a million years or so we see a significant lessening of rock.
Since there are only a certain number of moving and/or at rest atoms involved with straight line starting or stopping, of an elevator cage or automobile for instance, they work as a self contained whole. They contract and release each other in turn, in what is called potential and kinetic energy exchanges. Again, I call it storing and releasing gravity. Or, as I believe more correctly now, creating and releasing ‘positivity’. Each atom becoming more or less ‘electrically charged’.. So with this exchange nothing is lost. But in cases of the top most atoms of a rock undergoing a continuous and never ending attraction by a faster moving and much higher gravity flow of more positively charged atoms, the individual slower stationary atoms of the rock are finally overcome and are carried away. And another bit of erosion occurs...
One way I believe all of this can be proved would be to hang a weight on a string on the outside edge of a centrifuge disk or table... A spinning something with a fair amount of mass... And the pendulum enclosed in glass to prevent drafting or breeze from disturbing it... Take a photo of its position with the centrifuge at rest.., and another with it at full speed... One should see that the pendulum was pulled toward the spinning disk. I’m sure it can be done and would show a deflection.
This should have been done in some way and already known... All I read is that it’s called a relativistic increase... So what..? The train is shorter... But we’re still being pulled to it... That’s a name for what’s happening but not the reason...
There are billions of billions of them in the cosmos. Each comprised of billions of stars, planets, moons, etc. circling a center, and most if not all of these objects appearing to be spiraling in toward the center of their particular galaxy in a whirlpool type movement. It has been believed that at the center of galaxies there are super strong gravity objects called black holes that suck in all the surrounding stars and such into itself. That the suns and such on the outside edge would be slowly drawn closer and closer, moving faster and faster into that 'black hole' center. But what is known to have that much gravity..? And isn't it said that black holes tear atoms apart? Since atoms produce gravity but they’re torn apart, where would the a hole's gravity come from? Even with some massive sun's compression to the size of a golf ball, and if the atoms were still somehow working, how is it possible for that golf ball to have any more gravity than it did when it was still the original giant star or whatever to begin with. I mean from its center out measured to another large body... What would change..? And why..?
In any case.., why would those incoming suns need to ‘get in line’ so to speak... If it were gravity pulling them would they not come directly in from wherever they were in the first place..? Or to at least form their own decreasing orbital plane around the hole irregardless of it’s aspect to the hole..? . What would cause an incoming sun to divert its course in order to align itself with the flat plane of the black hole’s universe..? To cue up in other words..? And of course how did the suns come to be there in the first place?. :)
Another big problem with the whirlpool idea is that recently the furthest out spiral arms of galaxies were found to be rotating at the same speed as those closer to the center. In other words there is no real indication that the outer suns etc. are actually being drawn faster and faster to the center. In fact, it indicates quite the reverse. More that galaxies are moving as a whole.., more like a solid disk.
More like the spinning sprinkler on your front lawn. With a center nozzle spewing water out as it spins around. All the droplets of water being thrown straight out from the center and in the process forming the appearance of spiral arms... With every rotation forming another spiral that joins those already moving outward.
Lastly it is known that the further out one looks.., ie, the further back in time.., galaxies generally appear to be smaller. Obviously we are seeng the younger versions of them before the light of their of their current size has had a chance to reach us...
This idea is supported by our own sun. It emits 'solar wind'. Solar wind consists of electrons, protons and other parts and particles that atoms are built from. So it is not a big jump to believe that much more massive sources of solar winds have been spreading the building blocks of atoms in much the same way as your lawn sprinkler spreads the water. These components then come together in ways to make atoms, which build suns, planets, which in turn form a ‘galaxy’ around that source.
So are there really any black holes..? Might they be better called white holes? Creating galaxies that are expanding and growing larger..? I think so...
It is circling the earth and traveling so much faster than the earth. Its size is 1/80th that of earth, yet because of its speed it has a, full, 1/6th earth gravity. This is velocity induced stronger gravity pulling on the earth to come after it. It producing tides and causing the earth to wobble in its attempt to bring it up to speed. While at the same time the much stronger gravity of the cosmos is attempting to pull the moon into a straight line path, and is in fact pulling it away from the earth at the rate of an inch and a half a year, which surely is ever increasing. Eventually the moon will fly off in a straight line. Or perhaps go directly into the sun.
With the cosmos pulling on everything outward from every point in the cosmos at once, as earth does from its own center and the moon does to earth, the cosmos is the outermost and strongest attraction. It is outward gravity from our POV, or from any other in the cosmos. That which keeps things moving in a straight line in whatever direction they were first propelled. Straight until they come close to large enough gravity source that can cause a deflection. Inertia is an objects gravity in balance with the gravity of the cosmos...
One major effect the earth has had on the moon is to create the large mares or seas on this side of the moon, but not on the other. The moon has cooled now but at one time its core was molten. Those mares or seas are very large areas of lava flow. Lava obviously pulled to the moon’s surface by the earth’s gravity on this side as opposed to the other. The dark side of the moon is a continuous landscape of overlapping craters...
CLOCKS FASTER ON MOUNTAINS
It has been found that when sitting in a valley a clock runs slower than if it were at the top of a mountain where it is under less of earth's gravitational pull. The cesium atom vibrations said to be the most precise clock possible shows a difference between these two heights. But as the distance above the earth increases, the faster clock will begin to slow again.
In other words being close to the earth the clocks are affected mostly by earth's gravity and not the cosmos. The clock on the mountain is further away from earth's gravity but still traveling at pretty much the same velocity as the clock in the valley, so it simply runs faster.
But as the clock on the mountain is raised higher, it begins to slow again. Its atoms become more and more affected by the cosmos's gravity as well as its own. At a distance above the earth equal to 1/4 the radius of the earth and traveling at an increased speed to keep it geostationary, the two clocks will be running at the same rate. The effects of the cosmos and of the earth on their respective clocks will be equal. Going still higher with the mountain clock will create still more gravity and continued slowing because of its increased geostationary velocity.
To sum it all up, it is well accepted that gravity originates in the atom and that its strength increases as its velocity increases. And also that an atom's electrons take on longer orbital paths as velocity increases. That in turn slows its internal operation accordingly. These observations are seen but understood to be caused by ‘time’ slowing or stretching. But there is no time. It is obviously a physical slowing of the atom's operation inversely proportional to its velocity and other gravity fields it encounters. People need to heed and to learn to live with the facts.
Such groups of atoms moving together are deemed to be 'at rest' with each other. It matters not the number of atoms nor their arrangement. Look back to those circular strings of atoms spinning on a disk. Each circle considers itself at rest, with all other circles inside or out aging faster or slower.
Time does not stretch, but atoms can operate and age slower. In case I haven’t mentioned it elsewhere, all atoms moving together at any particular velocity through the cosmos will all run at the same internal speed, and so anything they comprise will also operate and run at that particular speed. Clocks.., rust.., human mentalities. Everything will be equal, on average, within any particular inertial frame of reference. All mass and gravity will increase or decrease, producing physical relativity, compared to other frames... But no difference will be felt or seen or measured within any particular frame.
But we do notice something going on when we’re *changing* frames. When we store or release gravity. When we’re accelerating or decelerating.
Keep in mind that even within a particular inertial frame such as earth, there are other movements. Each of those movements has its own frame or 'aging' difference compared to the whole. Everything that moves faster in relation to something else, or has more external gravity applied to it, will be aging slower than that something else. Yes, I know some points made are often repeated here, but it's to bring home real facts that prove time is not real. As opposed to circumstantial evidence that lead us to simply believe or hope that it is. :/
An example I’ve heard of someone standing next to a pyramid, and it causing time to slow for that person as he watches his friend down the hill moving around quickly in his faster frame. But that does not relate to time stretching at all.., as was held. There is no time difference going on. The person down on the road may see the person at the pyramid moving slower, but when that person comes back down the hill to his friend on the road neither will be answering questions before they were asked or any other display of time delay taking place for one and not the other. What happened to the time gap? Nothing happened at all. There is no time to have a gap. The two people were always in sync. The person who stood by the pyramid will just live longer now. His bodily functions and perception and watch were slowed a bit for awhile. That's all. Time, in whatever form one wants to imagine it, played no part at all.
But I think I've already said that. :)
With the Earth's crust floating on magma and that crust and the cosmos's gravity pulling outward, it is the earth’s continuous outward attraction, or pull from its center, that causes the movement of the tectonic plates on the surface. The earth swells towards the greater attraction of the continents.., as is also being done at our equator with it’s higher gravity because of its higher speed.. So, the crust is rising, floating, and rolling over. One obvious result of this is in the Atlantic.., where previous to the Atlantic being there.., one of early earth's major land masses concentrated a major upward pull under itself and distorted the earth enough for it to swell up and separate north to south... Most likely starting at the equator and going towards the poles in each direction. It separated the Americas, from Europe and Africa. As the Americas were pushed away and the large mass of gravity divided, causing much less gravity in the original center, the concentrated upward pull subsided. What was left of the crust sunk and the Atlantic Ocean was formed.
What is left of that original split is still seen at the bottom of the Atlantic.., perhaps still in its last throws of rising.., or settling... With much less gravity pull from the ocean above it may eventually heal over and stop. If it hasn’t already done do. Not to mention the sub-ducting going on at the west coast. California may not fall in to the Pacific after all. The earthquakes going on out there now may just be the immense gravity of the mountain ranges causing a similar attraction from below. There is a lot of hot spring activity around their edges. Or, it may just be that the mountains themselves are still trying to ease their own internal pressure, caused by the original separation pushing them against the wall, before they broke it down and went under.
There is also the indication that at least some of these upheavals happen quickly and that the splits separate the land masses very quickly... Can I say extremely and violently so...? Perhaps within a days time..? Moving large land masses from one climate to another... Causing frozen Mammoths to be found with buttercups in their stomachs. A lot of theories on how that might have happened.., none satisfactory. Mine is yet another.. But it fits well...
And lastly.., do you think volcanoes happen because all that magma/lava is being pulled inward..? Not..!
As described in the chapter on the Atom.., atoms become more and more positive the faster they move. With the earth turning on its axis the atoms at the equator are traveling over a thousand miles an hour. This velocity gives the atoms at the equator a higher positive charge than those poking around the center axis.
This results in a difference of potential from the center to the outside of the Earth. So we can see how an electromagnetic field might be developed. And of course we know the earth does have one. So we find, as all good electromagnets do, that the earth is attracting iron. There being a very large quantity of solid iron at the very core of the earth. It apparently taken from the magma by electromagnetic attraction. There are in fact relatively minimal amounts in the magma, lava, etc. now. So it seems with the tectonic plates continuously feeding more iron to the magma from the crust, and it being quickly transferred to the center, it's likely there will be a time when there is no more iron left on the surface. It will all be at the core.
But I don't think that will be a real problem. Because there are already predictions that at the current rate of consumption, and increasing by 2% a year, there are only 60 some years of usable iron left on the surface.
But of course by then we will have figure out how to draw iron from the center of the earth. Are we not smart viruses like malaria that have devised many ingenious ways and means to stay viable..?
I’m betting they do not exist. At least not to the extent they are left over artifacts of the big bang.. Which of course never happened either... But now what are thought and said to be gravity waves have been recorded. Slight increases and decreases in gravity occurring as binary stars circle each other and line up with each other and in line with the LIGO's here on earth.
Did we really need to prove it would happen..? So as the LIGO’s sweep past them with the motion of the earth they will last only for a few minutes... But gravity itself is instantaneous. If it was not, and there were waves running back and forth around the cosmos, they would surely develop a resonance that would cause our destruction. You can see what happens with waves mixing with light’s twin slit experiment... That in the cosmos..? Whoa... Talk about rock concerts. lol
We submit that LIGO will never detect true gravity waves. So called left over waves from the Big Bang... As there was no big bang and gravity is instantaneous... Even if they were there the LIGO’s are pointed to compare just two directions out of 46,656,000 that are available at any one time..
Ok, so they’ll sweep around to other points as the earth turns, etc.., but doesn’t that give another problem? They will be sweeping across varying strengths of gravity that are occurring naturally in particular directions. They will appear as waves.
The results of 3 years spent at the Antarctic looking outward and finding a glow is thought to be the remnants of the big bang. But since there was no big bang, it has another explanation. In that the cosmos is being found to go beyond our visible portion, and in fact being virtually endless, what was seen is more likely just some of the rest of it.
Dark matter is the name given to the extensive but invisible mass and gravity that science has measured in our cosmos. They base this partly or mostly on the fact that galaxies rotate as a flat disk, instead of earlier thinking that the outside edges were slower and continuously speeding up as they moved toward the center.
But this has been explained in the section on Galaxies. That Galaxies are more likely created in a similar manner to lawn sprinklers throwing the makings of atoms outward in spirals as the center rotates. As such, it would not be a reason for suspecting the presence of invisible matter. But the idea that invisible matter is out there does make sense to me.
This is only an ‘educated guess’ now, because science doesn't seem to know much either. Science is still in the dark....., matter.
If there IS extreme mass and gravity being detected but not known from whence it comes., I certainly expect it is from the extreme size of the cosmos that cannot be seen. I and others now expect the unseen universe to be a size that exceeds comprehension. And if so we certainly should be including the mass and gravity from the invisible afar in our calculations. Gravity never drops to zero. And it will grow in strength by combining all the minimal strengths from all the very distant individual sources. As I’ve said elsewhere.., the entire cosmos is attracting everything outward with its extremely powerful total gravity.., and many of those other frames out there will have masses that go well beyond our earth bound thinking...
There is this snip from Wikipedia…
“Dark matter is invisible. But based on the effects of gravitational lensing, a ring of dark matter has been detected in an image of a galaxy cluster ‘CL0024+17’ and has been represented in blue.”
Here’s the link to that photo. http://www.deletetheweb.com/unstuck/archives/dark-matter.jpg
That was the claim.. While I wonder how they can color something they cannot see I’ll accept the claim at face value. Gravitational lensing seems to be focusing stuff from an extreme distance, compared to a point light source within our visible universe.. That closer light which also disperses itself with distance.... This blue looks more like a vague circular cloud encircling the galaxy cluster at an extreme distance out from it. As if there is no actual point source.
And that it is blue, if not digitally colored, may well represent the energy behind those photons., emitting them with more force to travel faster, creating blue shift.
But as for dark matter itself..,, the understanding that there is much more universe out there than we can see, and that photons may continue to travel after they have stopped working, it may be that what is being measured is the mass and gravity from that unbelievably larger unseen cosmos.., including the passage of all the now dead, unable to produce visible light, ‘photons’ continuing through our visible universe.
The gravitational lens effect seen in the photo seems to indicate the incoming is from a very large original area and that the lens is focusing a small part of it to the circular ‘cloud’ we see in the photo.
And I’m going to stop there.., before I get myself in trouble. lol
Where is it..? It is claimed that there is a small amount of anti-matter coming out of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. But it is also claimed that the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is a dead black hole. Hawkins and I both seem to wonder if black holes even exist. (And by now he should know they don’t.) Especially with the idea that galaxies are more likely formed by white holes… To top it off the idea of anti-matter seems tied into the big bang theory which surely didn't happen.
They (science, tv shows, ‘go with the flow’ speakers, etc...) theorize that in the early universe each particle had an anti-particle but that they all quickly destroyed each other. Except for a small number of excess matter particles that were left over to form the estimated 10 billion trillion times larger universe than we can see. I don’t think so...
That non-provable time based idea goes on to say there were atoms with negative protons and positive electrons. Even if these anti-matter particles were around long enough to form anti-matter atoms they then say that opposites attract so they annihilate each other. ?? Opposites..? Wouldn't anti-matter atoms be electronically neutral within themselves as matter atoms are..? Which attract each other by their greater positiveness attraction over lesser positive atoms..? Gravity IOW..? Now we’re getting into magnitism of course...
But as for anti-matter’s gravity wouldn’t they be producing anti-gravity and not necessarily attract each other as matter atoms do..? My last question is if they did come together, either particles or atoms.., being energy ‘opposites’., why would they not simply and quietly snuff each other out into nothingness..? Where is all that energy coming from that is said to happen when anti-matter meets matter and they ‘neutralize’ each other...?
It makes no sense to me. Of course I have read there are such things as positive electrons called positrons.., and perhaps a negative proton too..? So I'm going to leave it at that for now. That nature can be modified on a small scale. It's been done before. Two headed sheep and the like... But true anti-matter..? It seems just more dizzyland fantasy......
THE BIG BANG
One of the more recent scientific estimates that have been made is that the universe is 10 billion trillion times the size of our visible portion of that universe. Did you think it was big before..?
I'm not going to say any more. The big bang just didn't happen.
The universe is steady-state and so we best get back to reality.