Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets
Star formation is thought to be driven by gravity-induced accretion of material distributed in space. A recent article on space.com titled Jets Spiral in 'Reverse Whirlpool' from Star illustrates this widely accepted but mistaken concept of the formation of heavenly bodies. Space.com's Jeanna Bryner reports that
"Astronomers have observed for the first time a jet of matter spiraling outward from an infant star, as if a lengthy strand of curly pasta. The enormous jet, which shoots out in two directions, is rocketing material away from the so-called protostar and into interstellar space at more than 'supersonic speeds'."
Artist's concept of protostar HH 211, believed to be accreting material from a surrounding disk. - Credit: Change Tsai (ASIAA)
"Stars are thought to form at the center of rotating disks of hydrogen gas and dust", continues the article, describing the theory according to which gravitation is the principal star-forming mechanism. However, there is a problem: "The gas can't fall inward toward the star until it sheds excess spin power called angular momentum". As far as official theory goes, the vortices astronomers observed in HH 211, are thought to dissipate some of the energy of rotation which, it is argued, counter-acts accretion by giving rise to centrifugal forces.
That is the official theory, but this explanation of star formation has several problems.
One obvious question: where does the spin come from, that now needs to be dissipated and more importantly, what use does that spin have in star formation?Secondly, the "jets" observed to accompany the formation of both stars and galaxies and which are described in this instance as "reverse whirlpools" would seem be a very inefficient mechanism if not entirely counter-productive in the formation of a star. Instead of accreting material, they are said to be dissipating both matter and spin.
Thirdly, where there is no accumulation of matter, gravity cannot accumulate more matter. Also, when mathematically modeled, gravitation-induced accretion does not resolve into an accretion disk but works in a spherically symmetric way.
So what are we overlooking here?
In my view, this is one of the important areas where physics has gone down the wrong path in its insistence that gravity "obviously" must be the force that holds everything together, and that thus it is the sole force responsible for the accumulation of any kind of concentration of matter in the universe.
- - -
Vortex as an 'accretion' force
I am proposing a different, more or less diametrically opposed view of star and galaxy formation to the theory held today. Stars are formed by vortex action. It is the spin that initiates a vortex that is the seed for star formation, not gravity.
What is today called an "accretion disk" is actually a sign of dissipation. The work of accretion in star formation is done by the concentrating forces of a double vortex. That vortex accretes interstellar gases like a giant whirlpool and it is vortex action that is causing the accumulation of matter - not gravity as generally assumed.
Spin is the causative force in forming any agglomeration of matter. It is the seed for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Spin forms a double vortex, which is responsible for concentrating matter that is finely distributed in the universe. Spin is also a telltale signature of the energy of life.
Spin stresses and distorts the fabric of space forming a helixactually a pair of vortices. Those vortices, like two huge whirlpools, induce a flow of space and the matter contained in it, towards the center point of torsion, the star seed. At the point of impact of the two opposing in-flowing vortices, incoming matter collides and, in an explosive fireworks display that forms a plasma ball, is thrown outwards in roughly spherical symmetry.
At a certain distance out from this central point of impact - how far depends on the rotational strength of the star seed - the outward motion of the particles accreted by the vortices is now stopped by growing gravitational influence. The matter so collected starts to form a hollow shell of first gaseous and later solid matter. That shell is roughly spherical - with openings at the poles where the vortices are free to bring in further material.
What is generally called an "accretion disk" today is formed by matter that escapes along the shell's equator due to overwhelming centrifugal forces. In the case of a star, this becomes a protoplanetary disk, a flat equatorial disk of rotating matter that provides the material needed for the formation of planets. Planets coagulate around their own planetary seeds of spin, in a similar manner as the original star. A planetary vortex pair attracts matter from the protoplanetary disk to form a planetary shell. This hollow planetary structure coagulates around the point of equilibrium between centrifugal forces and gravity.
Instead of only gravitation, we have several forces at work in star and planet formation: the centripetal (concentrating and accelerating) action of vortex, the explosive, expanding action resulting from two opposing streams of matter violently impacting at the central point, gravitation which tends to stop and compact matter that tries to escape from the exploding center and finally centrifugal force which provides a counter to gravitation, and which is responsible for the formation of any "accretion disk" which is really a disk of matter that escaped gravity through overwhelming centrifugal force.
The firework at the point of impact of the two opposing vortices is a permanent feature, a source of light and other radiation located inside both planets and stars. In planets, it remains a hidden feature only occasionally giving rise to a halo of light we see as an aurora around the polar openings. In stars, that firework is what determines a star's luminosity.
The postulated fusion reaction of hydrogen into helium is not what drives heat and luminosity of stars. It may be a secondary reaction to the real source of the star's luminosity, which is the violent impact of two vortices at the center of the star.
The concept of a "hollow earth" has been around for centuries. Today, it is debunked as a mere scientific curiosity, as in this article by John H. Lienhard, from which also comes the following illustration by William Reed published in 1906.
Is there any evidence for this and why haven't we seen it?
If this line of thought is to turn out correct, we should be finding evidence that planets and stars are hollow shells that possess polar openings and a luminous point at the center. There are some strong indications that this may indeed be so, but it seems that data is not freely released. Where some evidence does become available, it is explained away or simply not discussed - it does not fit the prevailing view.
We should see polar openings leading to the hollow interior of our own and other planets, only we don't - at least normally. Very few published images actually show the poles directly. Many of those present signs of having been manipulated. Try and find images that show the earth's north pole. You will see a blob of "white-out" or the electronic equivalent of it - a white spot that has been airbrushed into the picture.
Here is an example of an image of the north pole, where a large portion of the polar area is covered by ... ice you might say, but it really isn't ice as you can see by comparing the completely white area of the polar ice with the much more structured and darker color ice on adjacent Greenland.
I realize that there will be strong feelings both for and against, but I am bringing this forth as a matter for consideration, and in the firm expectation that time will prove that I am not out on a limb here.
Predictions
If my theory about the formation of stars and planets is correct, we should find evidence of polar "anomalies" on planets and moons, as our instruments get better and as more space probes scout our solar system.
Let me go on record here with some predictions:
We should find that
1) both planets and stars show variously sized openings at the poles
2) a central luminous feature will be visible when looking straight at the polar opening of a planet and reflections of this "internal light source" will cause luminous phenomena visible under certain conditions to observers who are not aligned with the planet's axis.
3) Planets are habitable (hospitable for life) not only on the outside but also on the inside of their "shell".
4) More heat is radiated by planets than is received from the outside.
5) As the planetary vortex continually collects and brings in more particles of matter, planetary shells will be found to be slowly expanding.
Dark Mission - The Secret History of NASA (Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara)
A confirmation (of sorts) for my model of primary influence of vortex action in star and planet formation comes from Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara, who in "Dark Mission" argue that the heat evolved by stellar and planetary objects is in direct proportion to their angular momentum.
"If the ultimate source of planetary (or stellar) energy is this vorticular (rotating) spatial stress between dimensions (a la Maxwell), then the constantly changing pattern (both gravitationally and dimensionally) of interacting satellites in orbit around a major planet/star coupled with its equally changing geometric configuration vis-à-vis the other major planets of the system must modulate that stress pattern as a constantly changing, geometrically twisted "aether". In Hoagland's hyperdimensional model, it is this constantly changing hyperspatial geometry that is capable of extracting energy from this underlying, rotating vorticular aether and then releasing it inside material. rotating objects."
Here is a collection of images from satellites and spaceships that tend to confirm the presence of openings and unexplained luminous phenomena at the poles of several planets and moons.
An image of the earth's north pole where a large area appears "airbrushed" in pristine white - to cover up ... what?
Unexplained halo on one of Jupiter's moons
Jupiter's poles displaying a strange luminous phenomenon
Cloud formations on earth's north pole analyzed by NASA, leaving an unexplained dark hole...
Mars pictured with South pole either cut off (first four images) or covered by a large circular black patch in the last image
Another image of Mars showing a polar feature that is said to be ice, but may well be a polar opening...
Despite more than a decade of winter darkness, Saturn's north pole is home to an unexpected hot spot remarkably similar to one at the planet's sunny south pole. The source of its heat is a mystery. Source: Phys.org
Instruments on the Cassini spacecraft revealed a gigantic plume of gas, water vapor and ice particles erupting from Enceladus' south pole. Here an enhanded colorized image from NASA, published on Science Daily.
What CIRS (the Composite Infrared Spectrometer) saw at Enceladus was a stunner. The team expected to see a relatively homogeneous temperature map, warmest where the Sun's rays strike the moon most directly, and coolest in the night side and at the poles. But CIRS found a whopping hot spot at the south pole of Enceladus. (from planetary.org)
These are only a few images I came across without trying very hard. There certainly will be more evidence out there for the hollow configuration of stars and planets and the postulated heat and light source that should be at the center of each. If you have come across similar unexplained anomalies, please send any links or images you may find.
March 2008: A reader wrote about this article and in some way I felt I should explain more. Here is the exchange, which perhaps crystallizes more clearly what my thoughts are.
Tim writes
Re: Planet Vortex question
First of all I would just like to say how refreshing it is to find a site like yours that deals openly with subjects and ideas which are normally dismissed by others as being nothing more than "Hocus Pocus". After reading your article entitled "Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets" I started thinking about our planet and the idea mentioned in the article concerning the Earth generating a Vortex. If possible I would be very grateful if you could perhaps shed some light on a query I have?
Let's just say for a minute that a Vortex is indeed being created by our Earth... It is my understanding that when a Vortex is created Centripetal and Centrifugal forces are created. If we consider the Centripetal or suctional forces to be gravity, then could you help me identify where the Centrifugal or pushing force may be? I guess what I am trying to ask is is there any point inside or outside of our atmosphere where we are exposed to a pushing force? If I am way off base here then please say, or indeed if my incredibly basic understanding of a Vortex is nonsense.
Once again I just wanted to say what a breath of fresh air it is to have discovered somebody like yourself that acknowledges some of the greatest (yet unknown) inventors/engineers of our time including Tesla and Viktor Schauberger.
In my answer, I try to make the picture of planet (and star) formation more clear...
Dear Tim,
here is how I imagine the formation of a planet or a star.
While it is true that rotation creates centrifugal forces, a vortex creates a strong centripetal force, which overcomes the centrifugal outward directed vector created by rotation. A vortex tends to concentrate whatever is in its reach, and the faster the rotation gets, the stronger the centripetal force and the narrower the spiral path that everything must follow.
In a planetary and stellar context, I see two vortices that enter at the poles, one from the north, the other from the south. Looking at these vortices from "outside" - like you would look into a funnel from the broad end - one of them is seen as left turning, the other as right turning.
Where the two vortices meet, figuratively speaking, "all heall breaks loose". There is a clash of huge forces, and the cosmic particles which the vortex pair brings together (mainly hydrogen) are undergoing very high acceleration/deceleration forces, some of them transforming through fusion events, and they eventually "explode" out resulting in a roughly spheric and rotating "cloud" of planetary or stellar matter. This is matter is largely gaseous in the beginning.
Now centrifugal force starts to play a role. The vortex force and centripetal action nullifies itself at the central point in a great display of "fireworks", but it leaves a rotational component of force intact. The resulting cloud of gaseous matter is spinning. There are centrifugal forces driving particles of matter outwards.
Gravity, which is different from the vortex itself, now starts to play a role. The cloud of matter generated by the twin vortex is a seed for gravitational action, i.e. the accumulated particles of matter start to generate gravitation and they start to attract other particles of matter in the vicinity.
The four forces - two of them inward directed and two outward directed - that now work together, start to form what eventually will become a planet or a star. The vortex pair continues to "bring in" ever more cosmic particles, accelerating them to the central point. The explosive force of the clash is outward directed and seeks to distribute those particles. The centrifugal force that results from the rotation of the cloud thus formed is also outward directed. The gravitational force that is a consequence of the presence of matter (the cloud) is inward directed.
What is formed is a relatively slowly rotating, roughly spherical "shell" of matter with two openings at the poles. This new planetary or stellar body will, with time, become more and more solidified, provided with new particles both from the inside by the vortex and from the outside by gravitational accumulation.
The central point of impact of the double vortex provides a source of radiation (light of all frequencies and heat) which, in the case of planets is not visible for anyone located outside the shell. The accumulated matter shields that source and keeps the light and heat inside.
In the case of larger bodies, the impact of the double vortex is so violent that the radiation cannot be shielded by accumulated matter. The light and heat radiates out into the universe. Se say we see a "star" or a "sun".
By the way, there is no need to postulate a nuclear furnace fusing hydrogen as the source of heat and radiation in stars, although some hydrogen fusion is certainly taking place at the place of impact of the stellar double vortex, accounting for the spectral signature of hydrogen in starlight.
Strange as it might seem, some say that planets are habitable not only on the outside of their solid shell, but also on the inside. This is a somewhat foreign concept for us, as we were raised with the idea that planets are solid and have a molten iron core. But indeed, the shell formed by the four forces I described could very well provide a gravitational force that acts from both sides, that is, things are attracted to the shell both from the inside and from the outside. Consequently, bodies of water exist both on the inside of the shell and on the outside, atmosphere exists both inside and out. And finally, there is a source of light and heat both on the inside of a planet and on the outside.
Strange world...
April 2008: Powerful Black Hole Jet Explained
A recent article on Space.com which references a video of what are called powerful jets, but which seem more like a giant vortex entering the black hole at the poles. The sequence shows huge blobs or clouds of luminosity moving outwards. These are apparently what gives the name "jets" to the phenomenon. But given the astronomical distances and the near light speed with which these phenomena propagate indicates that these outward-moving clouds are not particles but pulses of light moving outwards along the vortex that brings in matter. The pulses of light illuminate sequentially ever more distant parts of the particles contained in the vortex. The fast movement of luminosity outward is misinterpreted as matter moving outward at close to light speed.
Here is a series of snapshots from that video:
The "vortex" nature of the jet is clearly visible here
A double "pulse" of light moving outward along the path of the vortex
Another "pulse" moving outward. The vortex is showing a "nod" as in a standing wave
See also:
Space Vortex Theory: Einstein and Tewari's 'Cartesian Universe'
Physicists Mull Whether Inorganic Dust Formations Could Be Alive
Intriguing new evidence of life-like double-helix structures formed from inorganic substances in space has been reported in the New Journal of Physics. The physicists behind the discovery are now pondering whether extraterrestrial life could be composed of corkscrew shaped formations of interstellar dust.
Apollo 8 and Apollo 16 Photos of Earth, validates Hollow Earth Theories
These Images Now Show a Circular Opening at the North Pole! ... Apollo 8 photos have been out since 1967 but up until now we haven't had any colored photos for the public to view.
Two unusual older stars giving birth to second wave of planets
These two stars have many characteristics of very young stars, Melis said, including rapid accretion of gas, extended orbiting disks of dust and gas, a large infrared excess emission and, in the case of BP Piscium, jets of gas that are being shot into space. Planetesimals, like comets and asteroids, along with planets, form from the gas and dust particles that orbit young stars; planetesimals are small masses of rock or ice that merge to form larger bodies.
Mercury polar anomaly
(from an article about a new NASA mission to explore our smallest planet)
On the closest planet to the sun, where temperatures can reach more than 800 degrees Fahrenheit (425 degrees Celsius), there might surprisingly be ice. Ice is highly reflective to radar, and Earth-based radar suggests deposits of frozen water might be hidden in deep, dark craters at Mercury's poles that have never seen sunlight. This water might have come gassing up from within the planet or from meteorite impacts. MESSENGER will search for hydrogen at the permanently shadowed floors of polar craters.
A Scaling Law for Organized Matter in The Universe (PDF)
Nassim Haramein et al show that a scaling law can be written for all organized matter utilizing the Schwarzschild condition of a black hole, describing structures from cosmological to sub-atomic scale. Black holes are postulated to exist at the center of all such structures, surrounded by a concentric "white hole" accumulation of matter. Spin and vorticity, not gravitation, are the principal drivers of organization. More research papers at http://www.theresonanceproject.org/
By amrit sorli on December 31, 2007 12:50 PM
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
By Eugene Sittampalam on January 1, 2008 6:17 PM
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
By Paramahamsa Tewari on January 7, 2008 8:33 AM
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
By Sepp for Paramahamsa on January 9, 2008 9:58 PM
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
By Colin Gent on January 24, 2008 11:44 PM
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?
By Paramahamsa Tewari on January 27, 2008 6:58 AM
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.
By Sepp on January 27, 2008 12:26 PM
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...
By Colin Gent on February 14, 2008 1:46 AM
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.
By Sepp on March 22, 2008 1:28 PM
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?
By Sepp on April 16, 2008 9:35 AM
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.
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.
By Wade W on April 24, 2008 4:49 PM
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.
By Ernst von Bezold on May 4, 2008 6:25 AM
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)?
By Sepp on May 4, 2008 11:35 AM
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".
By amrit sorli on May 6, 2008 11:29 AM
regarding
Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets
this vortex transforms energy of the space that is gravitational energy into energy of matter
By Dr. Leif Rongved on May 6, 2008 10:44 PM
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.
By Sepp for Johan Masreliez on May 7, 2008 10:45 AM
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!
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.
By Chris Gupta on May 12, 2008 11:30 PM
Thought this may be of interest here.
Spin Science
Listen to or download theTwo 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
By Sepp on May 13, 2008 11:28 AM
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.
By Leif Rongved on May 25, 2008 3:35 PM
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.
By Charles Weber, Hendersonville, NC on June 18, 2008 6:51 PM
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.