It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unified Theory Visual Model Draft ver.9

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:14 PM
Wasn't sure where to put this, it's a work in progress, and it's pretty long, (i'm expecting 24ish posts). I'm just after critism/contributions, it'll take a while to get it all on here, but fire away anyway..


Blind Spots
Patterns Are Everywhere
Compression of Space


The purpose of this article is to put forward a Unified Theory of the Universe, in the form of a visual model, where all the bits fit together. From atoms to black holes, heat, light, mass and inertia, electricity, magnetism, chemical bonds, gravity and dark energy, the 42.

This model is an original and not a re-build of the Bohr atom Universe.

In putting forward this theory the biggest problem of acceptance has been that people don’t want to reject their belief in current accepted science theory models. This model was created out of conflicts in theories where visual models as taught to us since early childhood were in apparent conflict with results causing blind spots.

The perception that some of these visual models create preconceptions and influence ideas that precluded other possibilities, and that the interconnectivity of these perceptions within current accepted science core beliefs makes it necessary to cover them before starting with the model.

History of ideas research is provided; tracking ideas back to their sources as a way of giving a ‘world view’. The initial preparation creates the hole for this ‘Heretic Model’; by pointing at conflicts that the model is later used to explain. So this covers how we perceive science as well as the physical forces that this model describes.

I offer the story of three friends that go out for an evening on the town, when they arrive home they write in their diaries. The following day they exchange diaries to see what each other wrote only to find completely different view points of the same events. One had written about colors, smells, music and architecture. Another had written of people’s tastes of hairstyles, make up, clothes and shoes. The third mentions her friend’s moods, feelings and relationships.

Fair to say in science there’s more than one way to interpret the same set of results depending on preconceptions or models in your head. By pointing at theory issues, biases are revealed in arguments both for and against any concept, where part of the argument is biased or perception orientated. Like a massive equation; history, politics of the day, influences of social standing on the intellectual within society, prestige, respect, money, authority, are all part of it. We all know it, but it’s politically incorrect to comment. It’s an influence.

Despite our not wanting to admit it, biases affect perception, theory and results. It seems to be in mans' nature to question and to follow those with the answers. Religion gives answers to questions that are made about the world, ties communities with common codes of conduct and threads of belief that cross national boundaries and centuries of time. Science is about standardization, in text books, in jargon, in concept, while ever moving forward towards the Ultimate God Particle, turning dirty lead into god like gold, bringing light to the night, cheating death, flying and generally conquering nature.

Knowledge and wisdom being fundamental to the efficient governing of society, education has historically been a privilege of the well off and the religious scribes like Newton, or book binders like Faraday and as such there has always been a grey area often manipulated by the social politics of the day. 60 years ago, you were less socially acceptable work-wise if you didn’t go to church regularly or dress in a certain way. It’s just part of a complex society.

No matter how individual our personal belief systems, they are all moulded and influenced by societies' affirmations of ideas, of behavior etc. Social structures that reward with prestige and influence for staying with the flock. Society doesn’t give up any established ideas easily; thus they affect our perception.

When did religion start to become science? Was it when we recognized that there were seasons, or when we started to count the days and observe the stars, or when math was used to imperially predict coming events?

What about engineering and the arch seen in the top of a cave. Was it the recognition of the strength in the shape or the mathematical development that made it science or engineering? Was it influences of ideas of ‘scientific method’, or social upheaval caused by ideas of evolution versus the religious state, that caused science to be classed as a distinct division? What about communication, and the incredible advancements created by a bigger pool of ideas and the ability to spread these ideas across more informed people in a shorter time?

I suggest that science has diverged in little steps. Just as each religion holds common belief threads that diverge and re-converge with common miracles and character actors with similar names, science has also separated into groups with different scales of measurement and different jargon languages while holding true to fundamental core beliefs, each division having its own specialist; the scientific relative of a high priest?

Additionally many of our scientific models stem from ideas with religious origins and even have parallels. This is not about having a go at religion or science though, this is an example that not all we are taught is 100% accurate, and why. This is a way of reconciling multiple conflicting viewpoints.

The quest to find universal truth, the 42, is one of asking the right questions.
-Douglas Adams

Many questions are unanswered due to a preconception in one area creating a blind spot in another. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle for example states that certain things are fundamentally unknowable except by mathematics, and he made other statements such as -“When it comes to the atom, language can only be used as poetry”, and “Te atom was too weird for any visualization”. Basically he was not a visual model kinda guy, he was a mathmateical genius but he rejected any theory in which the workings of the atom could be visualized. It’s a way of thinking, really it’s a type of thinking, that influences perception.

Concepts of ‘by measuring something you change it’, seem self evident when you consider that, on that scale, our systems of measurement sort of involve ‘planetary canons’, like Schrödinger’s wave model was a visual model of electrons running around a shell driven by a wave, or if the electron could also be perceived as energy movement similar to that of harmonics or patterns on shells. A perception that something can’t be visualized automatically precludes a visual model and limits other arguments.

When Neils Bohr came up with his first planetary system models for the atom 90 years ago he didn’t have the experimental results that we have now have and no advantage of knowing where his model was going to fall down. In 1912 Rutherford’s experiments of deflection and reflection of radio active particles through gold foil had smashed the plum pudding model of the atom, and a planetary system of positive and negative charge was the next best guess.

“Based on the belief that positive and negative are the most fundamental parts of existence…”
-Democritus "Atomism theories of Positive and Negative" (500BC)

edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:15 PM
Quantum physics has advanced this model with neutrons and stronger and weaker atomic forces to describe the observations that did not match the original model, with band-aids like special exception theories, and theories that explain the special exception theories, all wrapped in jargon and lots of special math.

When we are taught all forces have an equal and opposite; up, down, right, left, good, bad, 0, 1, positive, negative etc. When we believe that the most fundamental parts of the universe break down into positives and negatives, it literally pervades our thinking

I suggest that vibration and spin are alternatives to the purely positive, negative view of the atom; polarity is a characteristic of spin and charge represents a relative energy level.

Democritus offered the idea that if you cut something in half, then cut the remainder in half again, and again, and again, you eventually get to the point of The Indivisible, The Atom, (a-tom is literally no-cut in Greek). It was also offered that this would be made up of good and bad, positive and negative.

Plato thought the atom was made from earth, water, wind and fire, the four states of matter; solid, liquid, gas and plasma.

Aristotle thought the atom was made up of base shapes like cubes, pyramids, and cones.

Many ideas have been out there for a long time. Moving forward a bit;

1898 Madam Currie discovers radio active particles coming from radium.

1905-17 The concept of time and space being connected, "Space-time".

1912 Rutherford’s radio active particle experiment leads to Niels Bohr initial model of the planetary atom.

1920 Aston’s spectrograph weighs atoms by deflection in magnetic fields.

1927 First Unified Theory. Englishman ‘Paul Durak’ stated, “The Atom is outside human comprehension” and “A physical model must have mathematical beauty”. It was his polynomial equations with their two possible answers that brought about concepts of anti matter and first concepts of multi-universes

1932 Science announces existence of Neutrons which have same apparent mass as protons.

1933 Leo Szilard's Alpha particles; two protons and two neutrons, ‘pos charge v pos charge’ theory that the atom could be split using the newly found neutrons.


"It's like shooting birds in the dark in a country where there are only a few birds"
-Albert EInstein on man someday harnessing atomic energy, implying that you'd need more energy than what would be released.

1938 Otto Hahn; Germans achieved nuclear fission. Product of Barium plus energy, resulting from Uranium bombarded with neutrons.

1945 A Bomb, Cold war starts

1948 Hale makes statement that the telescope is so big it can possibly see back to view Gods creative works. Some fundamentalists got really pissed by that idea. They had to build an armored train to carry the mirror

1948 Richard P Feynman and Julian Schwinger, Shelter Island, Pennsylvania, Start Q.E.D. Quantum Electro Dynamics Feynman diagrams, proof empty space isn’t empty?

1948 Casimir Effect, insulated plates in a vacuum that both feel a force of attraction towards each other and spontaneously build up charge.

1968 Murray Galmans Quarks' experiments, using Stanford Electron Gun Linier Accelerator, resulting in 6 flavors of "Quarks", never singularly but in groups of mixed types. Since then using variations of these planetary gun or violent train wreck techniques a whole Particle Zoo of other energy entities have been observed or created. It seems uncertain whether any of these energy particles have a life span longer than a few nanoseconds

The following section provides examples of what i percieve as blind spots in fundamental interconnecting theories that affect all areas of science.
edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:15 PM
Blind Spots

The following are a few examples of logic problems contained in conventional science, the interconnection is what is important.

The Big Bang

The concept of the expanding universe coming from a single point has logic holes with everything from gas pressure and energy densities and natures of these densities. You are expected to believe in special rules physics, because that is the official wisdom tied to other beliefs.

Consider the distribution of hydrogen to all the stars in all the galaxies and ask how just the right amount of hydrogen was distributed to all these stars that they should still be burning, or ask yourself where all the hydrogen is that’s going to keep them burning. When we look out in visible spectrum there doesn’t appear to be enough of it, there is no fog. You get fog across the bathroom or down the road so why not over 4 billion light-years?

Without a source of hydrogen an instant conflict is created in regards to theories about the formation of the galaxies, their age, the operation of our sun and its age, and more. The 13.8 billion years old, concept is based of two interpretational bits of science. Hydrogen / Helium ratios and Red shift of the light coming from the stars.

The H, He ratio requires some explaining but the red shift is easier. Light is a wave form that moves as a particle.
Within our known wave sets this gives a limited set of options, all of which change volume relative to the density of space surrounding them due to multiple axes. As it travels from a source to earth it changes frequency, the longer the wavelength, presumably the faster it is moving away from us.

Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields.

It's curious too how easy it is to question the offical numbers on space and time. The offical age of universe is 13.75 billion years, give or take 0.11 billion. The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46 or 47 billion light-years away.

If the (observable) universe which now has an estimated diamter of 93 billion light-years began in a hot, dense state, followed by The Big Bang and has been expanding ever since, and that bang happened 13.75 billion years ago, and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how do we account for the extra 79.25 billion light-years seperating it's outermost observable edges?

13 billion years ago, opposite galaxies whose light is only just reaching us now, were 26 billion light-years apart. Using this model it is obvious that even if you increase the separation speed all the way to the speed of light, you can never see more than half way toward that type of event.

Do atoms wear down? Where do they get their energy? Do they live forever? The Big Bang concept limits volumes of mass to what came out of the singularity on day one. Black holes in the centre of galaxies swallow mass.

If we started with a certain amount of hydrogen mass, and matter attracts matter, and lighter elements fuse to create heavier elements; then we have this huge conflict where iron atoms have only slightly larger diameters but represent 55 times the mass of hydrogen atoms. Hate to point it out but that’s a shrinking universe and conflicts with concepts of expanding suns and hydrogen coming all from one place.

The Bohr atom model with charge particles based on our belief that the basics of the universe broke down into the fundamentals of positive and negative has held sway with only minor alterations to account for mass steps giving the original neutron theory.

The problem of hydrogen having only one proton and electron, and a mass of 1.008 and diameter of 1.58A, while helium has four heavy particles and two electrons, a mass of 4.083 and diameter of 0.98A. Adding charge particles only works out until you factor in the decrease in volume and then the mass changes to silly figures.

How many marbles can you fit in a box if the diameter is 0.98Ǻ versus a diameter of 1.58Ǻ?
With the decrease of volume between H and He, you can get 4.21 times as many He atoms in a box as H atoms, and each He atom is four times as heavy, that’s seventeen times the mass.

Heavy charge particle nuclei concepts are apparently disproved unless people want to argue against quantum formula diameters. This is a simple example found of conflicting ideas where both ideas are considered true at the same time.

Is electricity casued by the movement of electrons? My argument is no, just take a look at lightning.
edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:16 PM
The shells of the magnetosphere charge up with energy from the sun, the energy transfers between these shells. Lightening that we see is light emissions from ionized gas. That’s light, x-rays, heat etc. E.L.F.s come down from somewhere above 100 kms but only become visible as they ionize atmosphere at the 100km-ish mark.

The rarefied gas atoms turn like compass needles and the atoms spin faster and start emitting energy particles of varying frequencies. It is the interaction of the energy flow and the atoms that cause the effects that we recognize as electromagnetism or electricity and not electrons or charge particle movement. The common concept that lightening is electricity caused by electron movement becomes more stretched when electron transfer cannot be the answer in these upper atmosphere lightening phenomenae as above 100km there isn't enough matter nor energy particles to account for the amount of energy transferred.

Energy is clearly transferring from one place to another, but the nature of this energy transfer is different in different media, or on different media. If electron movement does not cause electricity, it hints at there being no protons or neutron charge particles withing the working atom. No Big Bang and no hydrogen to power the ancient stars.

What about light and gravity? We have scientists telling us the time slows down as something moves faster, about alternate and parallel universes and about graviton particles sticking to membranes between dimansions of space.

You and I and the bloke next door are all part of society. Most of society doesn’t care about some silly theory and are quite content with standard science. One of the fundamental arguments against this model is a simple question, "Why does my cell phone and computer work if all the official theory is incorrect?"

The answer is simple but kinda politically incorrect; they were designed and built by engineers, technicians, material scientists and information technologists, not theoretical cosmologists or religious folks.
Engineers improve things and modify their thought processes as they move through their careers by what doesn’t work and what does.

What we are taught in initial training gets modified in the real world and everything builds on that. This knowledge gets taken back to the classroom but is translated into extensions of conventional theory for the purpose of teaching a standardized model. Thus the standard models are mostly right and are always close but get all these conflicts and impossible stories also being presented as absolute fact. The concept that “science has 99% of everything worked out” causes these conflicts of mind when it is pointed out that what we believe is science fact is possibly not.

I offer a simple visual based, physical model that explains all these issues and interactions, offering the reader a universe model based on spin, wobble and vibration of magnetic energy where the X, Y and Z dimensions of space have density; through compression of a magnetic component of space into fractal harmonic patterns of tension, compression and rotation. Suggesting that everything from atoms to electricity can be explained as interactions in the flow of energy and patterns caused by interactions of spin and vibration, volume and density.

The model is designed, starting from how energy particles, atoms and matter can be created in the first place, through to eventual destruction in black holes and the recycling of energy back into the universe. Explanations make the connections between prime atomic numbers and their diameters and diameter shrinkage to mass relationship obvious. Gravity and dark energy becomes so obvious, but that would be spoilers.

It has become clear that to really understand The Universe we must understand ourselves and visa versa. Increases in population, along with communication and the ability to store, retrieve and manipulate information are strong influences on the advance of technology. As are the experiments and the experimental results and observations, as are the social politics and models that influence our views and our expectations.

Quite simply humans wouldn’t be humans if we didn’t have this need to know, a need to understand, a need to put order to our universe, a need to try and improve things. Social politics are part of us, our history, our mythology, pretty or not. Ideas are never new, they build on each other. Ideas will change.

The primary models that we currently use as our first perception of the universe are approximately 100 years old with origins going back thousands. The current experimental result data represents considerable divergence from these original visual models and yet they are still taught from primary school level coloring our view.
New visual models need to be created that reflect the results of the experiments.

Any theory models put forward have to fit known results of physical experiments, plus must have a feasible existence, meaning no magic forces or it'll blow up or run down and also needs a history as to how such combinations of energy can be formed or exist in the first place.

Ultimately truth comes from reality. Modern man started a technology trek 15000 years ago with graffiti in an attempt to understand and record their daily lives using the colored pigments of berries. In the last 90 years this trek has given us usable electricity, atomic theory, the periodic table and spandeu ballet, fridge magnets, anything you want! It’s got to be right, right?

It’s not a religion, it can be questioned without some one being drowned, beheaded, hung, burned or socially crucified by officialdom. 95% of all scientists who ever lived are alive today and 86% of all the engineers who ever lived are alive today. Every thing I have comes from the past, right down to the last screw and micro chip, every bit of knowledge comes from the minds and understanding of previous generations of thinkers, builders and artisans. I revel and am inspired by the cleverness and creativity of my fellow man. Our models are built on what we think we know and the interpretations of the data we have at the time.

I do not claim the following ideas as my own, just this assemblage of separate concepts from the common threads of different models. Pointing to known physical forces that repeat on a number of different scales, and basic maths that works on all scales and geometric shapes, mixed in with modern fractural math concepts of why patterns form within chaos along with observations and ideas of others.

This is a visual model in a ‘3D’ world, based on geometry and trying to fit the pieces together. Jargon will be limited to only the most common terminologies, The math limited to expressions of the physical and only expressed when necessary for explanation of concept.

Affirmations of concept are achieved by pointing directly at natural physical phenomenon of different scales and the known forces that create these effects and compare them to the model where they seem to apply.
edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:16 PM
This model was created within the perception that parts of our fundamental science belief system were questionable. It is tested in this environment to see if it can provide answers to old questions. The model is then tested against an assortment of areas where standard models appear to give answers but clash in some respects to each other or with the new heretic model.

It is expected that the reader will have access to the internet to confirm for themselves the bits of data and official statements haven’t been fudged. This model is about perception and ideas and doesn’t dispute data or experimental results. I offer this model of an atom as a best guess based on a vibration model in a physical universe with no time slowing down as you go faster, no worm holes, no alternative universes, no dark energy or dark matter. No sub atomic train crash stuff of naming debris by which way it lands, but especially no Einstein’s Space Time.

The model is created in three looping (spiralling) passes with different emphasis on each pass. Ideas are covered from many angles with interconnecting paths. The first pass introduces the main concepts, answers a few questions, the second pass develops the model with more explanations and starts the process of paralleling the standard models, giving detailed descriptions of the forces involved and how they combine. The third pass uses the developed model to describe a selection of differing unusual phenomenon.

I do not put forward any suggestion that just because I find huge logic holes in the official theory models, then I must be right. The arguments for this model stand by their own logic. The majority of proofs required for this model only require the reader to look out their window and think for themselves.

edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by mzungu

S and F for the scientific timelines alone, they are a good summary of humankind's inspired thinking and experiments to find out the where and what's and when's of this place we live in. I'll focus on your theory at some point when I do another read. Thanks for the thread.

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:58 PM
Patterns are Everywhere

Patterns exists everywhere and on every scale we know of. Certain patterns appear again and again; patterns of distribution and concentration. Visible in lightening and stress patterns in materials, in the roots, branches and leaves of plants, in the blood vessels, airways and organs of humans and animals alike. The same pattern is seen in water erosion on the small and grand scale.

Eddy currents and turbulences cause patterns that are recognizable in many different scales with distances that range from less than a tenth of a millimeter to thousands of kilometers across, in many different media, caused by differentials in flow rates.

Spirals and helix; geometric repeating patterns that rely on an angle offset, spin or rotation, can be seen in abstractly different places as DNA or the projectile flight of a spinning paintball, a pinecone or the back of a caterpillar, a shell or an ear canal. Broccoli. It's seen in Earth's magnetic field, rebounding raindrops, blue jet lightening and the gas flow mechanics of smoke rings.

Math patterns that tie with nature like the Fibonacci sequence, Mandelbrot Set, prime numbers or natural logarithms, all matching so much of life and death. Doubles and triplet behaviors are common in things like dripping water, harmonics of sound and vibration or even the snapping of a piece of wood. Study of drips from a tap; starting with a very thin stream, the water starts to accelerate downward pulling the stream thin to breaking; the droplets form, shake and split into two’s and three’s.

Math is a sexy beast that adds descriptive beauty and understanding to our world. Math is an indispensable tool of exploration and prediction and proof. Math is also great for magic tricks and for talking over peoples heads and sometimes removes clarity so won’t be used any more than needed for this visual model, in any case, patterns are fundamental to our universe.

How big is infinity? Big? REALLY BIG? Like a scale of a grain of sand relative to all the sand on earth? or a grain of sand relative to the size of the solar system or the galaxy? What about all the galaxies we can see with the Deep field Hubble telescope? Bigger still? How about if you re-scale and treat everything like the grain of sand and then rescale again and again? Is that getting close to infinity Big? “Graham’s Number”?

Apart from being an exercise in imagination, the kicker is to have something infinitely large or big, don’t we also have to have a concept of infinitely small? There isn’t a start point on infinity, is there? Obviously infinite distance and infinite scale have different fundamental properties dependent on preconceptions and different ways of looking at the problem. The example above is used to show how easily we are fooled in the switch between scale and distance. A blind spot. Distance is all one scale, but scale, includes concepts where volume and mass density, change at a different rate to physical size, as in distance measurements.

Scale: An ant can lift 60 times its own body weight, but if the ant was scaled up to roughly the size of a man it would collapse under its own weight. Size and volume change at different ‘rates’, e.g. A cube is 1x1x1, and you scale it up to twice as tall so now it measures 2x2x2 so you now have 8 times the volume and mass you started with.

With the ant example the ant would have to be doubled many times with the creature’s mass disproportionably increasing relative to density, strength or distance. You don’t see many six foot high water droplets either.
If we could scale our bodies down to their scale or smaller, imagine a 20 foot high droplet, what would we think of the barrier between air and water or surface tension? Would we regard it the same as magnetism or something more akin to static charge?

I suggest that on the infinitesimally small scale with incredibly high rotation speeds the aerie fairy magnet flux in space starts to behave more structured, denser, more like a gas or a fluid.

Infinitely small: A trillion atoms in a grain of sand. Are we ready for the concept of infinitely smaller and smaller progressions of pattern? Where the medium of energy represents sets of patterns that we normally associate with matter in the form of solids, liquids, gasses. We have no issues with water being represented as a solid ice, as liquid water, as gaseous steam, as energy plasma – each step representing pattern changing as energy is added or volume changes. A point for the argument of matter being made from condensed patterns of energy.

Consider frost. Is the frost just sitting there looking pretty, a byproduct of pressure changes in an atmosphere or is it a “self assembling fractal energy transfer aerial” (that was a mouthful)? This model suggests that it is both.
edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:12 PM
The argument for this is, the sun has a magnetic field around it that extends all the way past Pluto. (Not talking about gravity). This field comes out of the top or bottom depending on your point of view of what’s up and down, and is usually depicted as a wire frame model like a donut shape and the wires representing flux lines looping from pole to pole (rubber bands).

Using the principle of Force divided by Area = Stress (F/A= ƒ) and the geometric concept of the surface area of a sphere being squared each time you double the radius, you get an effect known as Inverse Square Law where the strength of a field is inversely proportional to the distance away from the source that it is measured from.
To try to represent this field weakening at a distance with the wire frame model might be tricky but the wire frame model does serve to represent magnetic force, rotating with the sun, planet or any spherical or toroid shape. The same model is then applied to all the planets which are of course all spinning within the suns magnetic field?

The image of the sun and all the planets with their wire frame donuts spinning in harmonic unison with each other in a frictionless environment is appealing. All the North Poles are facing up and all the South poles facing down... This is where the basic standard model as taught from junior school onward finishes and where I reckon it gets interesting.

The sun and all the planets except Venus spin the same way, Why does Venus spin backward? Scientists say it had a bad day causing a pole shift, probably a collision. Study of magnetic fields posed a question or two about why it hadn’t reverted to the same pattern as other planets.

I’ll elaborate; when experimenting with compasses, they all point the same way until you bring them into close proximity with each other, when they start pointing north to south with respect to each other. Separated they point along the strongest field again. So what are we all pointing at? Are we pole flipped like a compass like Venus apparently is? Is there a force that is greater than the suns field or is something else going on, a simpler concept like generatation of motor effects maybe? Venus has forces and balances holding it to its current pattern of apparent compass behavior.

The magnetic fields of the planets we know about are not actually centered squarely on the centre of the planets rotation. For example, Earth's north magnetic pole is somewhere between Alaska and Canada and not centered on earths centre of spin. The Sun’s magnetic pole is 2000 miles away from its centre of spin. Caution, we assume the strongest fields are generated from below and not above. But this model is good enough to point to 3 of the basic ways that the electromagnetic fields are moving on and in relation to, planetary bodies. I’m going to make a thing of this concept, you will see several times.

1 Back and forward 2 Up and down 3 from side to side.

This concept of the magnetic pole offset from the physical pole could lead to interpretations of there being three separate forces while the cause is a single source. E.g. 1 could be described as super long compression waves, 2 could be viewed as giant sine waves in space and 3 as other variable rotating vectors. The combination of these 3 group forces represents a rotating vector, which in theory is sufficient to drive a magnetic planetary body like an electric motor, either directly or as an harmonic, add in an emission of charged particles coming out from the sun and self generated fields like the Magnetosphere and you have demonstrations of all the components and principles used in theories behind every electric motor and generator from a Faraday motor and shaded pole motor through to A.C. inductance type motors and generators.

I contend that space is full of electromagnetic force, energy in flow, forces that push and pull, wax and wane, and swirl around. These disturbances, this magnetic flux, (the æther?) acts as a medium, and that radio, microwave, light and energy particles are all different types of disturbance, just as normal sound, smoke-rings and supersonic shock waves are different wave forms that use the air that swirls across our landscape as a medium. I suggest that the mainstream concept of space being a vacuum if it contains no matter, ignores all this flux that clearly exists. This model will explain why the Michelson Morley experiment failed due to the logic blind spot of atom entropy.

It is common thought to think of magnetic fields being generated by mass but what if the reverse is true? What if mass is generated by the electromagnetic fields being spun and compressed into pattern by vibration?

Our eyes, optical & radio telescopes can all see other galaxies using the electromagnetic spectrum, (that’s waves and particles in a magnetic medium).

"The Earth is a conductor of acoustical resonance"
-Nickola Tesla

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:17 PM
Compression of Space

I suggest that magnetic flux is less generated by mass, than it is a disturbance or concentrations in or of the flux that we have become aware of, caused by mass. I suggest that everything from atoms to electricity can be explained as interactions in the flow of energy and patterns caused by interactions of spin and vibration that I will later express as “the elemental components that make up matter”.

If a blanket is folded and wrinkled, doesn’t that represent an increased blanket mass in a physical space? This is a primary concept in this model.

In an energy based universe, pattern represents increased energy density. Fractal geometry and fractal math are family members and a development of Chaos theory and offer concepts of islands of order within chaos (patterns) and order being made up of islands of chaos.

A combination of documentaries on ‘Fermat’s last Theorem’s, Cold fusions cavity resonance techniques (sono luminescence) and stop motion photography of ‘cavitations’ led to the creation of the next part of this model.

I am asking the reader to forget what they think they know about atoms with positive and negative charges and offer the reader a universe model based on spin, wobble & vibration of magnetic energy. A universe model where the X, Y and Z dimensions of space have density; through compression of fractal harmonic patterns of tension, compression and rotation.

Spin Rotation and Wobble: The First Particle?
This is a first attempt to describe in words and pictures; something I can see in my head so clearly. I apologize if the description is disorganized. When is a roller not round?

With the above 3D roller, three points of an equilateral triangle are being bulged at a radius of the point opposite.
A three dimensional roller that can be formed when 2 or more massive forces of energy collide? Perhaps even caused as a natural consequence of large quantities of condensing energy or cooling? Created by shear between flows?

After seeing stop motion photography of super turbulence off high energy water streams, shock waves and cavitations imploding, this shape was visible in several pictures. I liken this phenomenon to the shock wave that forms off the front of a supersonic bullet but with an extra tumble that allows energy to be trapped inside, and with a rotation close to or possibly exceeding the speed of light so that the rotating shockwaves will act as reflectors both on the inside and out.

This is the first concept of a most basic energy particle. A particle must keep moving to survive. An atom has extra properties that allow it to survive in a locale.

Note its rotation is not around its centre of mass like a sphere but wobbles around more like a 3-dimensional version of a Spirograph, both rolling onto energy but also driven by absorbed energy bouncing around inside reflecting off the walls in counter rotation to spin.

A rolling shockwave that absorbs the energy necessary to keep the structure inflated with sufficient energy density, by rolling onto it, compressing it in. A wobble and spin so fast, that each wall represents a harmonic vibration, that’s vibrating light speed across the width of the particle while it rotates. Relating concepts of density, frequency and volume.

Using the concept of space being made from a rarefied ‘ultimate’ non particle gas, certain analogies can be suggested; the first is one of speed, in a still room air has no resistance, but extend your hand out the car window at speed, and air becomes stiffer. Don’t think of this as scientific it’s just an analogy. Think magnetic air pressure on magnetic fields if that helps?

Like air rushing towards a fire, energy will rush towards an atom to be converted. This is a conversion process where energy entering in towards the shells gets concentrated towards the center, and gets converted to spin which in turn has its own vibration components, gravity is caused by these forces, at atom level, and suck towards the centre of the nucleus. (But I get way ahead of myself).

Other models considered but rejected were: an out of balance egg type 3D energy spin, (at close to the speed of light, eggs would blow up or friction would cause the loss of energy, no drive. The reflection / refraction geometry is missing)

Vortex wave forms both standing and ultra fast smoke rings showed promise but were also rejected for missing components for this early part of the model.

It was most important that the particle has a “reflection refraction geometry” and also a potentially “chaotic rotation axis” as primary components.

The jiggle of pollen on water is 3D; visible in speed and distance scales, to the human eye with early microscope. (1827 Robert Brown)

The scale means we’re not looking at the effect of single atoms and there is some type of reduction gearing creating the overall affect.

I offer this as a primitive possible energy particle that will hang around for some time and not self destruct through out of balance components or run down through energy loss and will be able to absorb, store and convert energy, while not repelling or being easily absorbed by other energy particles, due to spin as per the theory of protons, neutrons and electrons.

To stay existing it might need to travel very fast so as to replace any lost energy. Or the forces might create so much spin that a type of complex standing wave would form in the electromagnetic environment around it assisting it to retain energy.

There would probably be many varieties of this type of energy particle, ranging in size and energy and differing rotation dependent on the conditions that they were generated. Just look at large collider results with super neutrinos big as atoms.

I suggest that structures like this would develop in complexity creating sub vibrations within, allowing shorter and shorter wave lengths of energy to be created and allowing a greater energy density.
edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by mzungu

S+F so far. I still haven't "got it" yet but it is interesting so far.

And marking my place, too.

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:20 PM
A More Complex Pattern

Complexity of pattern combined with spin and vibration of electromagnetic energy within a volume relative to surrounding space. Higher densities allow shorter wavelengths to be sustained. As these structures become more complex we regard them as having Mass. A quantity of energy, a direction and velocity relative to something else.

Stable complex ‘stand on their own’ energy particles could be regarded as atoms.

I suggest that even though there is an infinite configuration possibility (like snowflakes), in reality only a very limited number of variations will be stable within a given set of rules / parameters.

This is true ‘Conservation of energy’ on all scales

Output of atom is vibration and spin in the electromagnetic medium. Input is absorbed energy. Conversion process, rotating harmonic vibration. As the shock wave rolls on, energy in space collapses towards it causing the effect we think of as gravity, not Space-Time but Magnetic Space possibly, or energy flux space, or whatever, it represents compression of space; i.e. more patterned.

Black Hole energy converter? Output, beams of dense energy north and south from galactic accretion disc. Input, matter and energy in space falling, sucked along with surrounding space towards the event horizon. Where space is moving faster than light and is no longer able to support the pattern of matter. Matter is stretched apart by shearing forces (expanded) and is reissued at the poles as uncompressed energy without pattern.

I suggest that atoms have shells (with special characteristics) rather than electrons. I suggest the behavior’s of these shells are dependent on the energy particle(s) within, but introduce new physical phenomenon that can be perceived as having characteristics of polarity and possibly providing a further explanation for gravity, basically the characteristics that make an atom an atom.

The arguments for these cover possible natures caused by the energy particle on surrounding space. Why and how shells could, would form and connections to the structures of materials and chemical bonding.

Chaotic Pulses: Random v Organized
I suggest that such a spinning object might not give out regular pulses in any given direction but rather chaotic ones that cover a frequency range. (Part of the concept of the quantum). i.e. at a given radius (R) away from the center of vibration i.e. the surface on a sphere with (R) radius will have an average pressure – collapse cycle, felt over time, while at any given point on the sphere one can perceive that the geometric vibration rotating within will have a particular face facing a particular direction at a particular time and if rotating very fast (speed of light) and in a chaotic manor or slightly less than chaotic manor every face will potentially point at just about every angle below this point on the outer sphere in a time.

At any very short instant of time you could say that an edge, a face, a point is traveling beneath the observer in a particular direction at a particular speed and with frozen moments on both sides and a knowledge of the shape and energy of the harmonic vibration you might predict a moment of pattern then the butterfly effect takes over. (Randomness caused by …) This is also known as the ‘Measurement Problem’.

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:35 PM
If the radius of the imaginary sphere around which is such a vibration is increased in size, in theory the strength of the field will decrease at an even geometric rate. (or would it?) I point to fractal math (chaotic math) part of chaos theory family.

Chaos theory shows that islands of order, form within chaos and visa versa and can be demonstrated. It includes math concepts called ‘strange attractors’ (butterfly effects) a small variation causing a cascade effect toward randomness but the reverse of this concept is also true, randomness can move towards patterned structures; like the ripples caused in sand when water flows over it or sand dunes caused by wind – what starts out as random placement of sand grains turns into pattern even though each sand dune or ripple in the sand is totally unique the pattern is caused by physical rules. (Mathematical limits) These rules and limits are everywhere. Bark on trees, spots & stripes on animals, the winding flow of a river the size of a rain drop.

An experiment performed in one particular doco, had a Perspex cylinder sitting on its end (approx 3.5m in dia and 2.5m tall) – inside was a second cylinder that could be spun. The space between the walls was filled with light clear oil and aluminum powder platelets added into suspension.

As the centre cylinder was turned patterns of light and dark started to appear in the previously randomly suspended particles. Patterns were dependant to the frequency of rotation with entirely different patterns forming at different frequencies. Some patterns moved around the tank in one direction at one frequency and the other way at another frequency, some patterns were static within short ranges of frequencies.

The patterns ranged from vertical interference type grouped wavy lines that ran from top to the bottom of the tank through to small singularly formed, v shaped chevrons. The points taken from this experiment were the large number of different patterns formed out of chaos even though the main set of physical rules stayed the same, (Viscosity of oil and spacing and curvature between walls). While all 3 contribute to the pattern(s) - frequency of rotation / speed of the two faces passing each other, was the changing component.

Real science has no problems describing these forces and effects in detail.

Forces on a sphere.
Spheres have many of the same characteristics of the previously mentioned experiment with the large Perspex cylinder.

If a sphere is cut up into a large number of slices, each slice could be seen to represent a different diameter version of the Perspex cylinder experiment.

Each plane increases in size towards the equator. The rate of increase decreases toward the equator.

The bigger the diameter the greater the circumference and greater the distance ‘a point’ on that circumference will travel per revolution. i.e. the equator is traveling faster than the areas around the poles.

If cut into slices and each slice has a finite / whole number thickness - it can be represented that the surface area of each slice increases towards the equator as well as having a higher relative velocity.
But the slope of the surface areas towards the poles means that the ‘surface areas’ don’t decrease at the same rate as the circumferences (velocity). Graphing as; ‘two different curves’ or a ‘change of balance of vectors’. Driving force is across area and velocity changing etc.

Once again ‘known forces’.

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:00 AM
If an imaginary bubble of atmosphere was placed around the sphere (Earth) it would be thinnest at the equator per slice and thickest per slice at the poles. As per the previous experiment of the Perspex cylinder, each slice represents a version with an increasing speed differential towards the equator (between the walls), a decreasing of wall curvature and a slowly increasing surface area exposed to the atmosphere and of course there’s a decreasing thickness of atmosphere.

Each slice, separately able to set up patterns, some moving forward and some backward, some as interference patterns and some as whatever, each with its predominant set of physical laws governing the action(s) within the slice. where does one slice start and another finish? I suggest they don’t. They just ‘blend’ and in blending cause stresses on the mediums of space around them.

Centripetal forces, surface tension forces, convection forces, atmosphere densities and thermal coefficients, even magnetic effects from the spinning sphere onto the lagging atmosphere, can all be broken down into smaller and smaller component vectors, tensors and phasors until even the most brilliant mathematicians lose the plot. Each new detail and each refinement of measurement, giving the ‘wind from a butterflies wings’ more power to upset the predictions of a mathematical model.

Luckily we have these large spheres with atmospheres that we can observe, called planets. Statistical scale of the variables giving a relatively stable model that can be actually physically observed.

Observations of bands of behavior’s with ‘Trade winds’ traveling against the planets rotation, jet streams of close to a thousand miles per hour, bands of turbulence and intermingling where the predominant patterns change due to the physical variables reaching limits and new physical forces rule the new pattern.

At these points of change there is the greatest amount of slip / sheer, (break down of pattern) possibly suggesting that pattern gives strength to space, like a curved body panel on a car, the compound curve gives strength to the panel. Or the ‘material science’ view point that stresses in a material can add to its strength. This model says more patterned space is denser which changes other properties. Pattern gives strength in particular directions relative to the pattern.
edit on 8/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:17 AM

If you had a ball, and it was covered completely with short hair, if you tried to brush all the hair flat, all away around the ball, you would have a problem at the two poles. One pole’s hair would spiral one way and the other pole’s hair would spiral the other way when viewed from the North and South poles but when viewed from the side it can be seen that both ends are turning in the same direction.

I suggest that North and South on a planet are associated with hemisphere, relative to direction of spin. The Earth is a magnetic ball spinning within a magnetic field isn’t it? The higher the speed of rotation of a ‘ball object’ the more it tries to move the space around it in the same direction, pulling it along with a lag and stress causes stiffening within the surrounding space. The faster it rotates the bigger the distortion in the 3-dimensional surrounding space. So polarity is created when the energy within spins in a less than chaotic manor i.e. when it spins on an axis or a repeating pattern wobbly axis.

I suggest the lower apparent spins represent increased randomness of rotation of direction and axis of spin but not necessarily a representation of the energy contained inside (Protons and Neutrons for example, Neutrons may in fact represent some increased complexity of axis within, but will have low north south polarity and will be less affected by pole charge on more ordered rotating energy structures - "Isospin").

This model does not regard protons and neutrons as part of working atoms. A spinning object in the centre will cause stress in the space surrounding, as the distance is increased away from the source the angle of the stress that’s being applied changes, becoming more parallel to the rotation, further out to some limit caused by slip / lag. The faster it goes the more stress it creates.

This force acts on a mixture of components in entirely different energy levels and medium, the viscosity of the space surrounding, the diameter and rotational velocity of the spinning part and any magnetic field extension acting on the surrounding space.

A chaotic vibration of very small radius and incredibly high speed might cause shorter frequencies to combine as layer after layer of larger, longer frequencies are created and intermix. Frequencies that are multiples of primes are therefore less well represented and this pattern reoccurs each generation of longer frequencies.

Combined with the tendency for prime numbers to cluster and a basis for a clear pattern starts to emerge where the angle of the combined force of stress on space is changing and energy in less represented in certain longer frequencies. (This all becomes relevant shortly).

So ‘vibration’ and ‘combining frequencies’ causing a higher density of space / stiffness that’s poorly represented by prime numbers.

In Fourier’s analysis the theory is that all wave forms can be seen to be made up of multiple shorter waves but, that brings up some questions about frequencies that are prime number based. Primes are only divisible by themselves and 1, they are always odd and tend to cluster in groups of 2 & 3.

The graph above represents Atomic diameters of elements numbered 1 to 72 (Quantum formula).
All max diameters are primes except the 2 marked with green dots.

Also note that all of the local minimum diameters are even atomic numbers. Diameters, volume and mass are linked, just as mass and energy density or pattern link (explained in detail further on).

The argument is that shear planes (Shells) would form at nulls rather than at beat points more like at weak points that the average field can tear at and might in fact form out some distance from the origin of vibration where clusters of primes exist. For a fully chaotic spin particle the shell would have different dynamics and properties than for a particle that has a more defined axis.

I suggest that such a tear would cause fine backward spinning eddy type turbulences that would further isolate the spin component of the ‘energy particle’s nuclei’ but that the longer vibration components would transfer through the shell provided the longitudinal frequency component is greater than the thickness of the shell.

The absorbed shorter combined frequencies would give further rotational energy to the shell (averaged in direction = drag on the stiffened turbulences) and the longer penetrating frequencies would also carry lateral components into the space beyond this first shell.

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:42 AM
I really enjoy your presentation so far, seems like you have a book on go.
Intuitively , scalable symmetry(pattens) ,seems to be universal.
You seem to place a lot of emphasis on scale and rotation, which I feel are interesting.
What if the the extra dimensions that the string theories require are merely rotation and scale as being fundamentally the same as what they consider spacial dimensions.
position: x,y,z (3)
rotation: rx,ry,rz,rw (4)
scale: sx,sy,sz (3)
=10 +t = 11.

Gravity being a trajectory on the scale axis.

In this notion , the metric of rotation seems to have a very observable repeatability.
On planet scales (spherical coordinate systems), the dimension of position is also repeating.
I wonder if the same occurs within scale and time as well.

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by mzungu
Patterns are Everywhere

Consider frost. Is the frost just sitting there looking pretty, a byproduct of pressure changes in an atmosphere or is it a “self assembling fractal energy transfer aerial” (that was a mouthful)? This model suggests that it is both.

Holy #balls, Captain, this is brilliant!

no really.

Reminds me of another post i encountered a few months back that completely turned around my view of how the universe works: pointed to some of the glaring holes in our science logic.

...finally making sense of mass, gravity, and inertia....

As a licensed mechanical engineer, designer and amateur scientist, i have to tell you that i too, have had major issues with much of science 'fact'. You express well many ideas that have been growing in my mind so well: these ideas more like feelings and so are yet inexpressible by me...

thank you for the gift of words that can lend more shape to these feelings.

For myself, i hope that further along you'll discuss the similarities between 'heat' and 'electricity' flow. My specialty is thermodynamics, and my personal amateur science, directed at entropy. What i find very curious is that the equations that describe simple linear circuits are the same that describe 1D heat flow. Further, that materials that exhibit rapid (low resistance) electric flow also exhibit rapid heat flow... except for highly ordered ceramics like diamond, which exhibit very little electric flow and tremendously rapid heat flow. Both are forms of energy flow that may be used to effect an action, and behave very similarly in many materials, yet differently in others. This difference implies an unknown.....

what is the interaction that causes the diference?

Since our entire modern world depends upon the understanding and utility of heat flow (data flow exists largely as a result of this converted heat flow) understanding it's true nature will be very useful.

and we still don't really understand fire

anyway: thumbs up and i look forward to the rest over the next coupla days.

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:58 PM
Wow dudes! Don't want to interfere your mutual backslapping, but...

Where is the theory? What verifiable qualitative or better quantitative predictions does it make?

Btw just because you don't understand the physics behind something or haven't cared to actually look it up does not imply that science has got it wrong.

Look up the terms thermal conductivity and phonons.

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by mzungu

This is similar to a theory I've been formulating

Remember the universe maintains the appropriate balance by taking whatever actions are nessicary for the full frustration of "Fate" and "Destiny" to allow for all possibilities to take place within the 2 immortal eternal and infinite points that give rise to our worlds as 2 they are the same but one is different.


They give rise to the concepts of space~time being = to infinite change



It is what makes space appear to bend and warp

But it is only what occupys space that defines and warps itself within that space


space itself is just space it is eternally infinite and unchanging

only the stored information within space can change it allowing for existence and non-existence


Energy cannot existist without a space to hold it

Allowing for it to change move through from its previous conception and begetting its birth

which is the beginning of its own end point that is only the catalysis for further change


Change is immortal and eternal effecting energys flow within space and without end


Energy is infinite through its ever-changing nature constantly its own make up of information

thru (+/-)energy flow) within the space it occupies which make existence possible


Because Space being unchanging and without energy it would matter not just like without space energy means nothing

like a tree falling with no one to hear it Or

A God saying let there be light without a wise Goddess to listen to Him speak of it

And conceive of its creation through ~ Understanding-Comprehension, determined by its Fate and Destiny

Fate being the force that puts something to a Decision whether it wants to or not

and Destiny being what lays beyond that decisions choice.

Gravity has more to do with time then anything else the more massive an object the faster it moves though and into space that why clocks on the earth surface move at different rates then those in orbit
The 3 other force strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnet force are functions of the conservation of energy against the constant drain of gravity

 The fact is that space can never bend or warp only that which occupies space can bend and warp
The dinosaurs and many other fossils are preserved in the same size they where around the time of their existence
The reason for the large size of these fossils is that the world itself was larger in size
If you can entertain the idea of a shrink state of matter due to the effect of gravity then the size of any past creature could be no larger then you compared to the present size of the earth

Which makes Einstein half right
since time is relative
Working both forwards and backwards
That's why relativity and quantum mechanics don't match up both see the world as forward in its motion
When everything that matters is flowing back within

Life is the struggle against backwards

Like a tape player that finished side A and has started playing side B

 It is rewinding A side as it plays B side

We live on B side but we look out across A side seeing time as moving forward

which to us it is but for the world looked out upon it is truly in reverse

In what way can something be infinitely close and yet infinitely far? _________

The correct answer (in infinite ways )

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
thanks for input guys =)

reply to post by moebius

Wow dudes! Don't want to interfere your mutual backslapping, but... Where is the theory? What verifiable qualitative or better quantitative predictions does it make? Btw just because you don't understand the physics behind something or haven't cared to actually look it up does not imply that science has got it wrong.

i'm not even half way through it yet, jeez.. btw just because you can't wait until it's actually finished before making an arrogant comment about people not understanding physics and questioning a model that hasn't even been presented yet, doesn't make it wrong. by the way, i do understand the physics behind the things i've pointed out, which isn't to say they are wrong, they just don't fit our standard model.

still lots to upload, please be patient guys.
edit on 8/5/12 by mzungu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by mzungu


Gravity to me seem to have more to do with time then anything else but since we consider space time
thus space-time
But space does not dictate time that which occupies it does and the more energy matter mass condensed in a space the stronger gravity and speed of time becomes, as one reaches toward center of mass the faster time moves for them compare to the surface of a spherical object something further outside this sphere time for it moves slower then anything closer to the center

So viewed on the outside down time on the surface appears to move fast since they've slowed
to the surface viewer the outside appears to slow but only since fast like the Pioneer anomaly

The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from predicted accelerations of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft after they passed about 20 astronomical units (3×109 km; 2×109 mi) on their trajectories out of the Solar System. Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small but unexplained acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2.

the closer to the surface or center the faster in time one travels, but to something nearer to the center then to the surface and out it seems slower only because they themselves are faster then the one further from the center while the one further out slows down though not completely but see everything closer to the center appear faster

That's why a clock at the bottom of the ocean appears to move slower then one on the surface and the other in obit will appear to be faster which is due to our concept of time moving forward like your life and its progression until death

What I believe is that time is moving backwards and gravity is the force behind it
meaning that backwards time travel is not possible because you are already moving backwards in time

This is why the only 2 ways to travel through time and space is to speed yourself up or slow yourself down compared to that which surrounds you. A being cannot go backward while alive in this plane of existence that is currently taking everything backwards

A plane in essence is a time-machine by saving ones time since speeds you up above the surface allowing you to arrive quicker then me walking or driving. If you go strait through the earth from one place on the surface to another it takes 42 minutes this works every where on the earth.

In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics, a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies. Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center. The rotation direction is based on how the galaxy was formed. Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" – outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant.

edit on 8-5-2012 by IblisLucifer because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in