Sure, gravity is a main power into formation of stars and universe itself.
Gravity is a force of space but generated by stellar objects.
We publish on Sepp home page about a-temporal gravity......

yours amrit

Hello Sepp!
Perhaps your readers here will be interested in the true structure of our observable universe (1). Refined observations, such as the one here, go only to increasingly buttress the model.

For the overall and ultimate concept propounded here on the nature of things, they may find the short (2½-page) preprint in (2) to be a worthwhile port of entry now. The response from Physics World to this submission has since been negative, leaving the monetary offer therein for its refutation still open! Would anyone take up the challenge?

The person has only to get a university physics department head to be the moderator and judge here (holding the minimum cash of US$25,000 in hand!). Moderator's fee, too, will be paid by me in advance. No joke; no scam; just an earnest appeal to all to resolve this matter for me early – not to my satisfaction but to that of the physics head alone. (The money offered is the least I could do in gratitude. It would be worth every penny for me considering the time I would otherwise be wasting in trying to flog a fundamentally flawed worldview.)
Thanks and all the very best for the New Year.
Eugene

(1) www.sittampalam.net/StarFormation.htm

(2) www.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.pdf

As per Space Vortex Theory by me, there is a through and through hole of 2.95 km diameter along the axis of the sun ---through which jets of matter must shoot out at speeds close to light speed. This is because at the Sun's center space vortex-cirulation of space reaches speed of light.Similarly, at the center of our galaxy, a spherical volume about 203000 times the Sun's radius, space vortex circulation reaches speed of light, thus creating matter and ejecting the same out as hydrogen jets at light speed. Matter is create from (mass less) space -circulation. Jeanna Bryner seems to be right in conclusions.

Paramahamsa

Sepp adds: See also an earlier article on Tewari's Space Vortex Theory

A comment (by email) from Paramahamsa Tewari:

Jeanna Bryner reports will be a historical fact for all the time to come . I had been looking for the polar view of the Sun and the planets for almost a decade by now. The attachment, taking the example of the Sun, reveals that space vortices enclosing the cosmic bodies with axial rotation in general, create gravitation (inward force) that compresses matter of stars and galaxies on their spinning space surfaces.

Best wishes,

paramahamsa

What possible interest could be served by keeping the hollowness of the earth a secret? How long do you think it would be before someone let the cat out of the bag? (For example, the graphic artist who was asked to airbrush out the Hole at the Pole.) It's all another unspecified conspiracy by a shady cabal bent on evil, I suppose? It usually is.

How thick are you claiming the Earth's crust is then?

Mass of the earth, when calculated taking note of the interaction between the space vortices enclosing the sun and the earth (leading to electrical repulsive forces between the sun and the planets), comes to 2.66 time less than the presently accepte value. The density of the earth comes to 1.85 gram per cm cube.[This is close to the average density of the earth's crust]. This precludes any possibility of an iron core at the earth's center because the magnetic effets are explained by the ionospheric current driven by the space vortex around the earth.Calculations show that vortex circulation at the earth's center reaches speed of light-- showing the possibility of continuation of matter creation there. But how large is the hollowness at the center seems to be difficult to predict even under these new principles of space vortex theory.

To Colin:

let's not talk about conspiracy. There may be good reasons, as far as those keeping this secret are concerned, for doing so. We simply don't know.

I'm really just pointing to an alternative way of seeing the genesis and configuration of planets and stars. The details are not fully accessible to us yet, but there are lots of indications here and there...

Sepp,

I am not suggesting a conspiracy. It is the only inference to be drawn from what the author states in the article when he talks about airbrushing the evidence out. If such statements are made, they have to be substantiated with some theory (e.g.Military, security or commercial interests being served by the concealment). No such evidence is brought forth. Furthermore, the existence of polar holes has not been reported by mainstream researchers despite numerous expeditions/ overflights to the poles by many nations, some of whom are ideologically opposed to each other and thus unlikely to participate in any conspiracy to conceal such holes.

Finally, my understanding of the Earth's density is that it is close to 5.25 grams per c.c. The genesis of stars and planets may well be different from the accepted model, but the fanciful and incomprehensible theories being advanced here have yet to undergo a stringent examination and remain in the realm of speculation for the time being.

I came across a strange item of news today:

Boomerang returns, even in space

In an unprecedented experiment, a Japanese astronaut has thrown a boomerang in space and confirmed it flies back, much like on Earth.

Astronaut Takao Doi "threw a boomerang and saw it come back" during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station (ISS), a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said.

Mr Doi threw the boomerang after a request from compatriot Yasuhiro Togai, a world boomerang champion.

"I was very surprised and moved to see that it flew the same way it does on Earth," the Mainichi Shimbun daily quoted the 53-year-old astronaut as telling his wife in a chat from space.

The space agency said a videotape of the experiment would likely be released later.

Doi travelled on US shuttle Endeavour on the March 11 blast-off and successfully delivered the first piece of a Japanese laboratory to the ISS.

- - -

Could vorticity be a cause of this certainly strange effect?

This is a comment from a new energy list I am copying here as very relevant to the subject:

The statement is I suppose referenced to the Sun. The basic assumption for the past about 80 years has been that the sun was doing thermonuclear fusion. Unfortunately there is absolutely no data to back this up. Here goes for the proofs.

(1) If the sun is a thermonuclear fusion furnace as postulated it will produce the neutrino output associated with the reactions. (The have not been found. I know the excuses but fudging doesn't fix a theory!)

(2) If the sun core is the source of solar heat, it will be hotter near the core and cooler as one extends outward. (In fact the sun gets hotter going out towards and past the photosphere. The temperature of the surface that is seen is about 5,000 C to 10,000 C. The corona temperature reaches 2,000,000 C. The heat is going the wrong way folks! )

(3) If the sun core is the source of solar heat, the "solar wind" will be fastest as it leaves the sun and slow down as the ionized material exits the sun and goes far into space. This is defined by the laws of motion and by the laws vapor pressures, ionization etc. (In fact the solar wind accelerates going outward to a great extent. The solar wind varies but has been observed to leave at about 10,000 km/hr and to pass earth going about 83,000 km/sec. The same event saw the material pass Saturn going nearly 150,000 km/sec. And yes I do know that the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec.) -- That ain't possible by the fusion theory of the sun!

So we have 3 big undeniable violations of the process. But it gets deeper. The concept of the construction of a star by nebular condensation which follows the rules in (3) says that as soon as a star went critical on its fusion reactions, the result would blow the star to bits. We would never see anything but a trivial emission from a star because it would stop collecting matter if it cranked up.

Now the spectrograph has actually told us quite well what the sun was for 250 years. It is in fact a body largely of Iron and Nickel with a thin Xenon atmosphere with hydrogen and helium in it. Thin here is relative to size.

The issues then come up. How do we power the sun and what evidence do we have of this power and then what are the results of it.

If you divert to the FARADAY basic design for a generator you find that you have the basic prototype for any body in space that is spinning. It generates current centered on a mid latitude band near the equator and at both poles. These currents will enter the disc as vortex structures of plasma. This is exactly what we have seen with the Stereo B mission to the Sun. It is exactly what we see with the aurora on earth and it has been observed on the sun as the concentration of the opposite charge appears on the polar zone also somewhat separate of the pole. This is typical plasma physics. The only problem with the Faraday design is that it provides a massive torque load on the spinning body. However; De Palma solved this in the 1950's. If the magnetic field bias is allowed to float with the spinning disk, you get all the current and none of the torque loading. So now you can get the energy of a spinning earth, sun or whatever without a torque stopping the spin. This is the observed Storms and Aurora on the earth and is the observed sun spots and polar aurora on the sun. It has been observed on Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus.

This predicts the flow patterns observed and temperatures observed. The surface of the sun would be much cooler as it would actually have little current passing it. The exterior would be hotter and the solar wind would sustain increasing velocity so long as it is connected to the disc. Similarly the earth would have such high altitude heating and ionization. It does!

The sun and all bodies in the universe operate the same way and this is standard electrical physics and plasma physics industrial rules. This explains a lot and doesn't need the funky physics and dark matter etc that says we cannot see what is going on.

Now there is only one problem with this prediction set. According to the Gravity theories of the Universe, the high mass of the sun predicted by the intensity of the discharges on it and the mass predicted by the spectrograph demands a mass of the sun be about 100,000 times that observed. This would seem to be a theory killer until you run into the work which has been experimentally demonstrated and is published on CERN. This is the work of Fran De Aquino of Brazil. It turns out that these massive plasma flows in space gravity shield the mass of the sun from us. As a result the sun can and probably does have 100,000 times the observed mass by Gravity effects.

Thought you might like to know. There is absolutely no evidence to support the nuclear theory of stars. I know that this blows up nearly all the pet theories of cosmology and such. But it opens the door to understanding the structure and operations of the universe. This is what Tesla called the Wheel Work of Nature.

One of the curious facts of Gravity shielding is that the inertial mass of an object is proportional to the G. That is if you shield to 1/100th G you have 1/100th inertial mass. The oddity here is well described on Fran De Aquino's website. If you read it, it tells how to build an interstellar space ship motor and power it. This is pretty simple stuff so don't get lost in his heavy math.

The rendering bares a striking resemblance to that of a "black hole" surrounded by a collapsing gas cloud. I agree with you observation on gravity as the binding force of the universe as observed in the physics of black holes which have to jet.

The Russian astrophysicist N. A. Kozyrev who observed an active volcano on Earth's moon ("The Secret of the Aristarchus Crater") and offered an explanation for the aurora borealis of Venus, published a paper in the Bulletin of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory (ca. May 1949, as I recall; print references here are as recalled) on a Theory of Stellar Energy and the Internal Structure of Stars [in Russian] which was abstracted in the Harvard Observatory Bulletin. In that paper (one of two cited later by A.P. Levich at http://www.chronos.msu.ru/ ),
as abstracted and as far as I can make out from the original, he proposes that the main source of solar energy is the the passage of time. See also the experimental findings, discussion and bibliography in Kozyrev, N. A. :Possibility of Experimental Study of the Properties of Time, in: Zeman, Jiri: Time in Science and Philosophy An International Review of Some Current Problems. Academia, publisher of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Prague, 1970; and 1975, 1982 Kozyrev papers cited by Levich (op. cit.).

Rudolf Steiner referred to the etheric or life organisation body (a distinct structural field surrounding and interpenetrating the physical body; cf. Chinese: j'ing and ch'i; European: facultas formatrix and elan vitale, and, e.g., the Kirlian electrophotograph of the "lost leaf" effect showing the complete "energy" field image of a leaf a part of which had been cut away, on the cover of the Jan/Feb 1974 issue of The Sciences Journal of the New York Academy of Sciences) the "time" body.

In your view can these stellar double vortices and related astronomical phenomena also be interpreted as, equivalently, on the one hand, etheric (W. Reich: "orgone") or on the other hand, time-energy, manifestations of universal energy flows (compare for example A. P. Levich)?

Kozyrev does talk about a state of "non equilibrium" in the context of physical universe.

In my view, the double vortices are etheric in origin, in that a vanishingly small influence on a non equilibrium aether can start the dance of stars and planets which in physical terms would first manifest as a vortex and later as an actual celestial body formed at the "seed point".

One could also follow Kozyrev's reasoning that it is time-energy, because time, in a physical context, is motion of matter in space. So anything that would start a rotary motion would also be starting "time", which in turn quantifies the resulting "energy".

regarding

Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets

this vortex transforms energy of the space that is gravitational energy into energy of matter

The treatise is based on one fundamental assumption. Namely, if aether exists its differential elements must recede from each other in accord with Hubble’s law of the recessional motions of the galaxies of the universe. Light propagation in a Hubble expanding aether has never been analyzed because the problems involved seam insuperable. An exact solution [1] of Euler’s nonlinear equations for the monatomic adiabatic ideal fluid bypasses all insuperable problems. The solution is an intrinsic part of the Hubble expansion. It determines in general the nonlinear interactions between the Hubble expansion of this fluid and any fluid motions superimposed on it. The nonlinear interactions are identical for all superimposed motions. Moreover, they are stated precisely without any knowledge of the mathematical description of the superimposed motions. One finds that Hubble’s law, as it now exists, is only a small part of an extended Hubble law, called the pervasive Hubble law, which resolves outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzled and irritated scientists for many years.
The extended Hubble law does not change solutions of any law of physics at the present time, t = 0. Moreover, over historic times it changes solutions of order one parts in 10.5 billion parts per year. The changes are unobservable when calculations and observations extend over time spans of a few decades or less. They begin to reveal themselves when such time spans exceed several centuries or more. They increase without limits when t approaches minus the present Hubble age of the universe. One retains Einstein’s law, E = mc2, except that the light velocity, c diminishes with time by about three cm/sec per year. There are no relativity principle, twin paradox, curved and four dimensional spaces. A PDF format of the treatise is available on the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.

[1] Rongved, L. "Fluid Dynamics of an Expanding Ideal Fluid", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. XLVII, Num. 4, p 735-745. 1980.

Johan Masreliez (jmasreliez@estfound.org) says in relation to vortex action:

Let me offer a possible explanation to vortex action. Recently I published a paper in Physica Scripta (an official organ for the Nordic countries Academies of Sciences), proposing that Inertia is a curved spacetime phenomenon. Inertia might be caused by contraction of the metrics of both space and time during acceleration. This contraction occurs via a scale-factor that multiplies all four metrics of the Minkowskian line-element. This inertial scale-factor is 1-(v/c)2, which we recognize from Special Relativity (SR).

With this dynamic scale-factor, which is a function of velocity, all accelerating motion becomes motion on geodesics of GR. This means that the inertial force is of the same kind as the gravitational force; they are both caused by spacetime curvature.

This also means that there is connection to SR, but since all inertial frames by SR have the same Minkowskian line-elements, SR cannot explain inertia. SR is based on the Lorentz transformation, but there is another transformation that actually preceded the Lorentz transformation (LT), which was published in 1887 by Woldemar Voigt.

Here comes the interesting part! Voigt’s transformation works as well as the LT but unlike the LT it is consistent with the dynamic scale that explains Inertia!

Lorentz did not know about Voigt’s transformation (VT) and admitted that he would have used this instead of his own had he known about it. Check this letter!

H. A. Lorentz to W. Voigt Leiden, July 30, 1908

Dear friend,

I would like to thank you very much for sending me your paper on Doppler’s principle
together with your enclosed remarks. I really regret that your paper has escaped my notice.
I can only explain it by the fact that many lectures kept me back from reading everything, while I was already glad to be able to work a little bit.
Of course I will not miss the first opportunity to mention that the concerned transformation and the introduction of a local time has been your idea.

Sincerely,

Your H. A. Lorentz

The VT differs from the LT by a constant scale-factor γ, which in the LT has the effect of restoring the Minkowskian line-element, thereby hiding the scale adjustment that models Inertia. The two transformations are physically equivalent and work equally well in Maxwell’s equations as well as in physics in general, since they are scale-equivalent. It is ironic to note that if Lorentz had adopted the VT, Einstein might perhaps have chosen the VT instead of the LT in his SR-paper, and the origin of Inertia might have been found a long time ago.

Based on this we may conclude that the LT actually represents the VT combined with a scale adjustment that changes the pace of time, with the implication that two coordinate frames related by the LT have different metrics! This would resolve a few problems with SR, for example the Twin Paradox; the twins see different time intervals simply because they use different temporal metrics.

Inertial field energy generated by acceleration

Now to vortex action. Since the metrics contract during acceleration there is a corresponding energy-momentum tensor of general relativity (GR), by which under certain conditions the energy density of spacetime becomes negative! This inertial field energy density is proportional to the mathematical divergence of acceleration, which can become negative during inwardly directed acceleration. This explains vortex action as being associated with the generation of negative energy, which has to be balanced by positive energy somewhere else. The vortex becomes an engine!

Inward acceleration might also explain the operation of several over-unity machines. This is new insight is valuable since it provides a theoretical justification for over-unity operation. I will send you a supporting paper if you promise to publish it prominently on the Internet and communicate it to people in the free energy field. It cannot be published in peer reviewed journals because they have not yet caught on to this new development.

Thought this may be of interest here.
Spin ScienceListen to or download the mp3 or Ogg files. (what's ogg?)

Two examples of vortices found in nature, courtesy Concordia University Back in the 19th century, many of the world's leading physicists became extremely interested in vortices. Everyone's seen a vortex. It's the centre of a hurricane, or the whirlpool that forms in the centre of your coffee cup when you stir. But to the physicists of the 19th century, the vortex held the key to the mysteries of the atom. Complex equations were developed to describe the vortex and what happens when the speed of rotation was increased. However, for all the equations, no one actually looked at a vortex to see if the theory matched reality. That is, until Dr. Georgios Vatistas came along. He's a professor of mechanical engineering at Concordia University, and in his lab, he's been able to prove that the equations of the 19th century perfectly describe what happens in a vortex. This knowledge will help explain everything from the structure of the universe to how to quiet the rotors of a helicopter.
Related Links
Concordia news releaseProfile of Dr. VatistasPhysical Review Letters

This is indeed interesting, Chris.

The observation by Vatistas of stable geometrical patterns at the bottom of a vortex gives new meaning to the persistent hexagonal cloud formation on Saturn's north pole found first by Voyager in the 1980's and then confirmed by the Saturn-orbiting Cassini probe.

Nasa's description of this image makes reference to a strong vortex on the planet's south pole and says the hexagon visible on the north pole has been stable for at least 20 years.

The hexagon rotates, indicating that it is indeed caused by an exceptionally strong vortex. There are short video sequences available here:
Bizarre hexagon spotted in Saturn’s clouds
Astronomers can’t explain six-sided pattern at planet’s north pole
and here:
NASA - Spinning Saturn

... all in confirmation of the general hypothesis of vortex involvement in forming planetary bodies in the way described in this article.

Leif Rongved wishes to make the comment that nucleons and electrons, which are the makeup of stars and planets, are various kinds of looped vortex singularities.

Astronomers forget that, since light bends near mass, our perception of what goes on will be distorted. I suggest that a quasar's light is actually derived from the opposite jet for the most part, greatly magnified by a huge mass at the center. You may see this discussed in the URL in the box above.

Hi Sepp, You have some great pictures of vortical structures that show hyperdimensional effects taking place between large scale interactions. First of all, mass does not create itself and requires an outside energy source. Galaxies to form require quasar antimatter ejections from cores of parent galaxies. What is really going on here is that gravitons are moving around the ecliptic at HFTL [higher frequency than light] speeds towards the massive central black hole. Flipping takes place at the event horizon, whereas there is an antimatter core that is moving in the opposing direction. This core dynamic is what drives the entire dynamo creating an hour glass antigraviton radiation and antimatter magnetic field above and below the ecliptic that is repulsive and that is why clouds of antimatter are found pushed against the outer galactic gravitomagnetic shell.

The core vortex is moving at faster than light speeds, yet observable motion has been measured at 4.4 million miles per hour while the galaxy itself is moving through space at 1.4 million miles per hour. Mass forms in arms of galaxies from spin off from central black hole of gravitomagnetic fields of captured gravitons that are cycling around mass forming magnetic fields and virtual electrons. Protostars memic black holes with antimatter induction taking place causing antimatter jets. Matter dominates in forward time, whereas Antimatter dominates in reverse time.

Gravitons originate from Reverse Time. John Rickey

Hi Sepp,
Perhaps you have forgotten, it's been a few years, but I first proposed the very same theory to you in a comment I left with this very same website. You need to go back and check your records. My comment was in response to an article you published by Tewari which discussed electron structure.
It remained under your website comments for quite a while and then it must have been removed. I developed that theory in 2003. I still have my original notes. It has also been published and presented at other websites. Here is a copy of what was published in January 2009, more than a year ago;

1 | Wyzical
January 2, 2009 at 12:44 am
The depressions at the poles of any planet are evidence in support of Dugan King’s theory that planets are aether vortices. Note the funnel shape of the depression. As the Aether flows into the north and south poles of the vortex, the outer invisible streams create the magnetic effect. As the flow begins to enter into the poles it condenses to form auroras. As the Aether continues to flow and spin into the core of the planet, the two streams collide around the vacuo or black hole at the core where they condense into a winding helix of plasma. The turbulent helix of plasma breaks down further into tinier vortices which form into the basic atoms or elements of the periodic chart. This is the fusion process which creates the illusion of matter, but each particle is nothing more than spinning Aether. All natural phenomena in the universe are sensory illusions created by the electro-magnetic flowing of the metamorphic Aether. When the Aether flows into a vortex, with a low pressure zone or vacuo at it’s core, it creates the particle effect, whether atom, planet, star or galaxy. When the vacuo is extinguished, the vortex achieves equilibrium and ceases to spin. The illusion ends and the particle vanishes. The Aether also flows in waves and currents to give us the electro-magnetic spectrum. When the Aether returns to rest, it defies detection by our sense organs and mimics emptiness. But the Aether fills the entire universe with its primal substance and can morph into universal forms and incredible creations. The Aether is the Infinite Spirit which flows to create all things.

Sepp, I'm happy that you agree with my theory. Perhaps it remained subliminally in your memory. But I would appreciate it if from now on you would mention my name as the originator of the theory. I also have a new theory of gravity which falls right in line with this theory.

Hi Sepp,
I just went through my notes and found the copies of our exchange regarding my vortex theory which you published as your own theory. You responded to the comment I left under your site in response to "Vortex Theory: Einstein and Tewari's 'Cartesian Universe'". Your e-mail to me was dated Fri,17 Dec 2004. Do you still have that on record.
Regards,
Dugan King

Dugan,

I am happy to know that you thought about vortices as far back as 2003 and that you were commenting on one of my articles in 2004.

That doesn't necessarily mean that you are the originator of thought on vortices, or even on the thought that vortices form not only particles of matter but heavenly bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies. A little research will convince you that there have been - through time - numerous scientists who were convinced that matter was arranged in vortical patterns.

Even Rene Descartes, as far back as the 1600's was describing the world of physical manifestation in terms of aether vortices.

My own thoughts on the matter go back to the 90's and have been available on my www.hasslberger.com site for more than a decade.

So I agree with you that vortices play a large role in physical manifestation, but I don't agree that you are the originator of that concept. For that reason, you will no doubt appreciate, it would be difficult for me to ascribe such a role to you.

Sepp,
You are right that people like Pythagoras, Aristotle, Descartes, Huuygens, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla and Schauberger originated many of our fundamental ideas about aether vortices. I'm not making any such claim. I'm referring to the additional theory of a flowing aether, or what Einsteinians call the fabric of space, streaming down into the opposite magnetic poles of a star or planet where it condenses to form aurora rings, polar jets, polar indentions and where the two streams eventually collide at the core to form a helix of plasma a.k.a fusion chamber which slowly accretes a surrounding sphere of atomic elements. That is a new development in vortex metaphysics which originated in my mind as a result of much study and analysis and was shared with your website as a comment to Tewari's article in December 2004. I have a print out of our exchange. The theory is a fundamental key which logically evolves to clearly define the force of gravity. That is a part of the theory that I purposely held back and which you or Newton or Descartes or Einstein have yet to fully comprehend. The part of your theory that I did not propose is the part about life existing on both the exterior and the interior of the earth's hollow shell. That is an old literary myth which has no part in the logical progression of the aether vortex theory. But I do agree with you about the apparent attempts to suppress public knowledge concerning the polar indentions of the Earth and the planets. I've noticed it myself. Maybe it's something that our government wants to keep top secret. I can see where such knowledge would be dangerous if it was placed in the wrong hands. Tesla's advanced knowledge of aethereal resonance and magnification laid the foundation for top secret, Area 51 experiments involving free energy, invisibility and antigravity. It also appears to this investigator that Tesla accidently destroyed the Siberian wilderness of Tunguska when he fired up his Wardenclyff Tower in an experimental attempt to excite the aurora borealis during Admiral Perry's polar expedition of 1908. And then there was Tesla's involvement in the Philadelphia Experiment. Dangerous stuff. That is a plausible reason for suppressing any visible evidence of an aethereal vortex. It also has a lot to do with nuclear weapon development. Keeping Aethereal attributes under a wrap is probably a good thing. My aethereal explanation of gravitation completes the theory and will be presented at an appropriate time under copyright.

Hi there!

We don´t know what is inside planets, moons and stars. I have considered there might be gas and dust deep down, like interstellar clouds but denser and pressurized. Or perhaps "sand" or porous rocks. Some theories propose an inner sun. Anyway,whether the Earth is hollow or semihollow I don´t see the need of polar openings towards the "inner world". Are a sort of service for us so we can go inside? The poles might be special in some way but I don´t think are entrances to the unknown.