Why galaxy is flat (2D not 3D)?

[sucahyo]

To answer you in short, sucahyo, nobody knows.

Agree .

Still, the assumption that I have issue with is that the current state of things is the end. The fact is, the entire universe didn't exist solely to get to where it is now, it is constantly changing. We are not at the end, what we see at any point in time is a snapshot of the changing universe.

Ok. Star will keep born and dies.

It is like evolution in animals. We, as humans, have certain qualities and traits. But, we must understand that we are still evolving. We will always be evolving. Just like the universe, our 'shape' just fits into what is true right now. As things change, we will change.

I don't believe evolution, but believe in adaptation. We change because the environment change. Maybe human will be big again if the environment is the same as ancient time, or animal will look like the fossils if the environment is same as the fossil era.

As we all know, we cannot orbit the sun forever-- all orbits deteriorate. For large bodies with much speed, like planets, it would take so long to deteriorate to the point of being swallowed up by the sun that it is actually a moot point (because the sun will become a red giant and explode before that could happen).

The cause of deterioration may also be something else too while getting swallowed is a good probability. Is there a photo of planet getting swallowed up by a near dying star?

PS: quit using the term "centrifugal force." It simply doesn't exist. There are few forces, and "centrifugal" is not one of them.

centrifugal movement then?

Do you want a scientific answer, or religious answer?

Both, religious answer with real world analogies or scientific answer with clear assumption definition.

I believe macro also mimicked in micro. From religious base, I believe everything follow the same rule, with several independent subset rule on each level or group.

[Raui]

Let me add what Walter Russel has to say about this;
"Disintegration of suns and planets by radiation is
accompanied by flattening at their poles. Spheres come
into being by prolating and go out by oblating. Ever
increasing speed of rotation around shafts is the cause of
this phenomenon. Inner planets rotate very slowly upon
their own shafts because they are so close to their moth-
er shaft in the sun, but they revolve very swiftly in their
orbits around the sun."


Which basically says the faster a sphere spins the more it turns into a flat disk, atleast that's how I interpreted it which makes sense to me

Also, I think you should be a little more specific in the type of answer you want. Do you want a scientific answer, or religious answer? You've gotten a mixture of both so far. I went to science (as I am not religious), but some chose to answer with religion (using religious terms like "Aether"). I'm just curious.

I don't think that the term 'Aether' is religious. It's a medium which mainstream science once embraced and now doesn't. That doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist it just means they didn't detect it.

Raui

[seth]

Also, I think you should be a little more specific in the type of answer you want. Do you want a scientific answer, or religious answer? You've gotten a mixture of both so far. I went to science (as I am not religious), but some chose to answer with religion (using religious terms like "Aether"). I'm just curious.

Aether is less ''religious'' than mainstream concepts such as ''dark matter'' or ''dark energy'', and on a same par as ''antimatter''. All 4 have never been detected....but at least some scientists have had a go at describing the properties of aether or antimatter. ''Dark Energy'' or ''Dark Matter'' are invisible by definition, and just left to fill in the blank spaces in our knowledge. The fudge factors. Somewhat similar to how Newton ended up explaining gravity and its action at a distance......he turned to God.

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.[8]
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[4]

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors


Science and religion are never far apart.....although i am also an odious athiest, i feel this needs to be pointed out.

[future pather]

I don't understand all of this but I think the answer may be in Nassim Haramein's relatively (punny, lol) new paper.

The part he teaches that I understand is that planets do not rotate around the sun the way we are taught.

They move in spiral form bc everything is moving.

"A New Spin on Einstein’s Field Equations

Director of Research Nassim Haramein and scientists at the Resonance Project Foundation have found a new solution to Einstein’s field equations which incorporates torque and Coriolis effects. Furthermore, calculations were rendered to describe the collective and coherent behavior of the plasma dynamics of ergospheres orbiting the event horizons of black holes demanding a highly structured polarized vacuum, resulting in an alternative view of black holes where the exterior white hole portion surrounds the interior black hole singularity."

----

"After some 20 years of tireless dedication to his in depth research on unification, Nassim Haramein’s most recent scientific paper, “The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms."

The Resonance Project :: Best Paper Award

[Harvey]

It is believed that very dense objects form inside hydrogen clouds and as particles are accelerated toward those dense objects their kinetic energy strikes the object momentum is added or subtracted from the object. Spinning of the dense object begins when one area receives more impacts than another at some angle. Eventually all impacts add kinetic energy in a particular direction because first they must follow a spiral curve do to interference of other particles in their path already trapped in the spiral. This is called accretion.

eventually what is formed is an accretion disc and out of this a Galaxy develops.

According to my theory on Gravity, very dense objects have even more gravity than the sum of there mass would dictate because they also have a different atomic oscillatory function which places them in a greater period of spatial displacement. So these 'black holes' as they are called can actually form right there in the particle cloud without the need for any prior stellar collapse. It is simply a function how the base atomic constituents interact with space and time in that region.

The less dense objects can develop into stars within the spiral and various interactions can occur that lead to a variety of Galactic bodies.

Because the initial spinning involves a form of gravitational curvature of space-time, the structure takes on a disc like shape.

[sucahyo]

Thanks everyone .

About walter russel, this image is shared by esaruoho:




About aether, there are people who believe aether is not involved in real physics, and there are people who believe aether by the name of orgone can run an engine or can change weather.



Nassim Haramein also propose that inside of each planet or star is black hole that supply their energy.



I think we need to also observe how in reality light matter can form a heavier matter if it combined with other matter. Molecule of water, for example. And the opposite how heavy matter can fly when combined with less heavy matter.


But Harvey, I am not clear, what do you mean by dense? A collection of molecule with small atomic number or a collection of molecule with high atomic number (assumed that both have the same number of electron) ?



BTW, I am very interested to know if anyone can replicate my ice experiment. The closest image that resemble the air pilar helix formed on ice is this:


It start from the middle of the ice and end up creating whirpool at the ice surface top. On cement it may look like this:

[Harvey]

. . .But Harvey, I am not clear, what do you mean by dense? A collection of molecule with small atomic number or a collection of molecule with high atomic number (assumed that both have the same number of electron) ? . . .

Density is the relationship between mass and space. The more mass in a space, the higher the density.

Atomic nuclei are considerably more dense than the surrounding atomic structure. This is due to the strong nuclear force which I agree with Nassim Haramein is really full gravitational potential. There seems to be an emergence where we are waking up to the reality that Gravity is not constant relative to the mass only, but there is a transitional variable where Einstein placed a constant. Astrophysicists have been playing with that constant, putting in positive numbers to get the equation to balance to the observed reality. I truly believe that once they realize that these core particles are not in a consistent mass state and are transitioning in an oscillatory manner between matter and energy at frequencies we are yet to determine, then perhaps the real unification will begin. This has been the subject of my posts for several years now and it makes me feel good that others are finally seeing what I have seen for so long.

When the gravity is increased between atomic particles in specific material, the density increases and the 'weight' measurements can give higher than expected values due to an increase in spatial curvature around the material. It may be difficult to truly identify the actual number of atoms in such a configuration because the normal methods for determining that will be skewed by the increased gravitational response.

Very dense objects attract matter gravitationally and can alter the heartbeat of the nucleus of attracted matter thereby increasing it's gravitational value without actually increasing it's mass. However, it will appear that the mass has increased at the atomic level when in reality all that has increased is the time period that the already existent mass displaces local space.

[sucahyo]

Density is the relationship between mass and space. The more mass in a space, the higher the density.

Sorry, I still don't get it. What is the state of densest matter? is it above gas or bellow solid? Is it still in atomic form?

Very dense objects attract matter gravitationally and can alter the heartbeat of the nucleus of attracted matter thereby increasing it's gravitational value without actually increasing it's mass.

Just to clarify, you think it is not non gravitional potential density that attract other?

[Harvey]

Sorry, I still don't get it. What is the state of densest matter? is it above gas or bellow solid? Is it still in atomic form?


Just to clarify, you think it is not non gravitional potential density that attract other?

Actually the material state is independent of the density even though they are generally coincident. You can have an extremely dense plasma or gas and a very low density solid.

Density = how many atoms occupy a volume of space.

Gravity = how long (time interval) a mass displaces space (thereby curving it)

Mass = how much space is displaced by the envelope of matter (regardless of what is inside that envelope)



=============

There are electric, magnetic and gravitational attractions. It is my belief that the strong nuclear force is gravitational at a specific phasing that is set apart from that of the rest of the material. The local time in the vicinity of the nucleus is quite different than that of the next atom over. So while the attraction between two Neutrons for atom A will be very good and the attractions for two neutrons in atom B will be very good, the time constraints prevent the neutrons of A from being attracted to the neutrons of B.

[sucahyo]

I see, thanks, I understand your point better now .

So, where do you think planet get its energy from?

[Harvey]

I see, thanks, I understand your point better now .

So, where do you think planet get its energy from?

When you say energy, are you referring to the Magma?

If so, I believe that there are many particles that do not pass through the Earth the way neutrinos do, but instead are absorbed. In addition to this, there is a fair amount of radio active decay that is occurring in the Magma and this adds to the energy content. The Earth also has a built in particle trap that grabs high energy particles from the solar winds and detours them into the magnetic poles. Of course a great many of them never make it due to interaction with our atmosphere (we call it the Borealis)

But of course the greatest source of Energy for the Earth, is the Sun. It has been stated* that about 1300W of solar energy per square meter exists in space before reaching our atmosphere where it is reduced to about 1000W /m² at the peak of the bright day. So the Earth keeps a mean thermal energy level of about 288°K **.

The Earth also has kinetic energy in both its rotation and revolution and energy is passed back and forth between the lunar orbit and the earth as they wobble around their barycenter in their symbiotic path around the Sun.

Of course the ultimate answer to your question is that all matter and energy originated from a single source, and I know that source to be Jehovah (as his name is pronounced in English).


* How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

** What is the mean temperature of earth in kelvin? - True Knowledge

[sucahyo]

Ok thanks .

What kind of energy do you think exist in a solar wind? Because I now believe in orgone energy too.

[gasman]

Aether is less ''religious'' than mainstream concepts such as ''dark matter'' or ''dark energy'', and on a same par as ''antimatter''.

1.All 4 have never been detected....

but at least some scientists have had a go at describing the properties of aether or antimatter.

2.''Dark Energy'' or ''Dark Matter'' are invisible by definition, and just left to fill in the blank spaces in our knowledge. The fudge factors.

Science and religion are never far apart.....although i am also an odious athiest, i feel this needs to be pointed out.

Thanks for your post. I was not very clear with that, and if you wouldn't have pointed it out I might not have noticed.

so to clear it up...

On 1. That is not true, and it is also very misleading. 2. is also misleading. Google is a good start for searching for current status and specifics, but Aether is not in the same category. The others are science because they are plausible (expected in current theories), and/or detected. Whether or not something can be detected by use of the visible spectrum is irrelevant. There are more ways that "stuff" interacts with other "stuff" than by means of the visible spectrum. Aether was once science, but was ruled out. Much like the ancient field of alchemy, or early theories about the earth or Sun being the center of the universe. Once there is evidence against something, it is no longer science. Until then it can live on unless something else better comes along. Continued belief in disproven theories is not science. The words that people use to describe these no-longer-science ideas varies from person to person. Personally, beliefs that people hold on to after they've been disproven, or beliefs in unfalsifiable claims, are under the category of religious beliefs. But that's just how I use the term.

That being said, it doesn't make those ideas wrong. (ok, hear me out, lol) If God existed, for example, then all theories can be true at the same time (or false at the same time... or both). And that goes for all religions and ideas, no matter how disproven or impractical. Why? Because if God exists, he simply has that power. If he didn't, he wouldn't be God. Yes, science and religion are very close. In fact, they can be parallel (different explanations of the same event). But, even so, one does not necessarily contradict the other, even if it seems like that at first glance.

For example, look at a sine wave. If you see a graph of one, what is the formula? Most will give the simplified version. But you could also offset it by 2pi and it would look identical (same results). In programming, you can write two different codes to have the same results exactly. If you look at the results of the code, maybe you will find the simplified code, but not all possibilities (which are usually infinite). For example, Here you will find over 1000 codes that do exactly the same thing, down to the individual character (which can be found Here). You cannot tell which code made the result just by looking at the result of the code. Perhaps something like this could happen with reality itself. Personally, I think there is one set of rules, and that science will find it. But, I cannot rule out religion... it is unfalsifiable. And since I don't like believing in things without evidence to back it up, I cannot believe that God doesn't exist. But, I can be (and am) pretty confident that he doesn't.

ok, sorry for the interruption, back to the topic

[sucahyo]

On 1. That is not true, and it is also very misleading. 2. is also misleading. Google is a good start for searching for current status and specifics, but Aether is not in the same category. The others are science because they are plausible (expected in current theories), and/or detected.

Can you give some link example? Because I also think dark matter is an assumption / theory which is the same as "scientist believe that". Not much different from religious believe. This is based from what I read before on those subject.

I think that is only a new assumption based on difficulty to explain experiment that deviate from current assumption. An attempt to revise flawed theory.

How can you tell that dark matter is not one of aether? Can you describe what dark matter and aether is to you? Because I think they maybe the same thing.

Aether was once science, but was ruled out.

Remember that aether is ruled out by conclusion based on experiment based on assumption. What if the assumption is wrong?

There are scientist that believe the existence of aether. Dr Harold Aspden is one of them.



Example of conflict:
Aether theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p.49]"

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation.....Some alternative theories have been proposed to explain these observations without the need for a vast amount of undetected matter."


If Aether is rejected because it is unobservable, then dark matter should too. But that would make current non aether theory wrong...
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter."

[sucahyo]

just showing ice

Ice showing how energy flow sometime. Maybe we can find some way to mimic galaxy shape on ice?