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.

Continue reading "Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets" »

Posted by Sepp at 08:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

Space is a-temporal, which means time does not have physical existence. Building on that premise, Davide Fiscaletti and Amrit Sorli develop a model of the universe based on quantized space. These basic units - quanta of space - can represent either empty space, matter or electromagnetic energy, depending on their frequency of vibration.

The highest frequency is that of space without any matter. A lower frequency corresponds to sub-atomic particles, and a yet lower frequency represents electromagnetic waves.

The universe postulated by Fiscaletti, Sorli and their group is constantly renewing itself. Active Galactic Nuclei, giant black holes at the centers of galaxies, incorporate matter from stars and planets and transform it into quanta of space. The transformation eventually results in the emission of gas which, in time, forms new celestial bodies.

M 96 - Just another galaxy? - See story and credits at NASA's Picture of the Day.

Gravitation is a function of the density associated with the quanta of space. The presence of matter increases the density of its corresponding space quanta, and in the manner of "like attracts like", the denser parts of space are attracted to each other, thus matter appears to attract matter.

Chemical and biological evolution tends in the direction of higher and higher frequency of vibration, eventually approaching the basic frequency of space. Consciousness is associated with frequency and appears to develop as frequency increases. Pure consciousness has the frequency of empty space.

Entropy is associated with matter and energy, but is counteracted by the extremely high vibrations of space and consciousness.

Particles of matter do not actually "move" in space but are re-created at each new location along their trajectory by a pattern of quantum waves that determine the material existence of their associated particles. Think of a cathode ray tube, where pixels are activated by a beam of electrons, creating a moving picture for us to see. In physical reality, we have quantized or "pixeled" space where material particles can appear, creating what we perceive as a universe of moving, material reality offering an exquisite variety of perception and almost infinite complexity.

Fiscaletti and Sorli's paper explains these concepts in much more detail:

Continue reading "Quantized Space: Evolution in a Universe of Frequency" »

Posted by Sepp at 05:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Time does not have physical reality, say researchers Amrit Sorli and Dusan Klinar, all we measure with clocks are changes in matter existing in space. Space itself, they say, is a-temporal. Space-time as advocated by Einstein and Minkowski is merely a mathematical construct, it has no physical existence.

Gravitation is a property of a-temporal, quantized space. There are no 'gravity waves' that travel from one stellar body to another, gravity is a stress-condition inherent in space.

Is gravity a result of 'bent' space? - Image credit: NPR

Sorli and Klinar propose a new formula for determining the strength of gravity inside a stellar object and, as a consequence, inside black holes. They also propose a simple experiment to verify their new way of calculating gravity.

Active Galactic Nuclei, they say, re-cycle matter into space and space into matter.

Universe is an a-temporal system in permanent dynamic equilibrium - there is no beginning and no end of the universe.

Continue reading "A-Temporal Gravitation" »

Posted by Sepp at 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

We are all familiar with the fascinating swirling motion of water as it pours out of a sink. The scientific name for this phenomenon is vorticity and such a whirlpool is known as a vortex.

In the 17th century, Descartes proposed that the Planets move around the Sun because they are swept around by whirlpools of a subtle matter filling all space.

The double helix nebula - Image credit: M. Morris, UCLA via Space.com

Descartes' theory however disagreed with Newton's law of gravity. If Descartes' theory were correct the theory of conservation of energy would break down and we would have extra tangential forces involved in planetary orbital theory that would have the same mathematical form as the forces involved in electromagnetic induction.

In the 18th century, Bernoulli proposed that space is permeated with tiny whirlpools. If Bernoulli is correct, this would explain the discrepancy between Descartes' theory of gravity and Newton's theory of gravity because Bernoulli's sea of tiny vortices would act like a rotationally elastic sponge and soak up all the large scale vorticity envisioned by Descartes' theory. This in turn would lead to Kepler's law of areal velocity which is essentially a statement of the fact that there is no vorticity in the gravitational field. In mathematics, we know that the curl of a gravitational field is zero whereas the curl of a magnetic field is non zero. It seems that all of Descartes' large scale vorticity may have been sponged off into the magnetic field.

In the 19th century, James Clerk-Maxwell adopted a picture of a sea of tiny whirlpools very similar to that of Bernoulli. He hydrodynamically modeled this sea of vortices in 1861 and obtained the laws of electromagnetism. Maxwell described his theory in detail in his paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'.

But Maxwell's theory was incomplete. He knew that electrical particles were needed in order to act as idle wheels between his molecular vortices but he was never able to establish the exact interaction.

It is here proposed that Maxwell's molecular vortices should be more accurately replaced with rotating electron positron dipoles in which the electrons are orbiting the positrons in central force non-Keplerian orbits. The axial plane of these rotating dipoles would align solenoidally in sympathy with magnetic field lines, such that electrons would be angularly phased above positrons in a twisted rope ladder fashion. Magnetic field lines can then essentially be viewed as helical springs with the Coulomb force providing the axial tension.

Magnetic field lines cross directly between the north pole of a magnet and the south pole of another magnet. We can now easily visualize how they can pull the two magnets together with Coulomb tension. Attracting magnets are essentially being pulled together by helical springs.

When we bring two magnetic north poles together, we observe that the magnetic field lines emanating from each pole spread sideways and away from each other. The ensuing repulsion can be explained by centrifugal force acting in the equatorial planes of the rotating electron positron dipoles.

If we treat an electron as an aethereal sink, and a positron as an aethereal source then the rotating electron positron dipole becomes an aethereal vortex of vorticity H.

The Coriolis force F = vXH will then act on a charged particle moving at right angles to magnetic lines of force. This Coriolis force is clearly the convective component of the Lorentz force of electromagnetic induction.

See 'The Aether and the Electric Sea' here below

or download the PDF version from wbabin.net.

Frederick David Tombe, 18th March 2007
Ormoc City, Leyte, Philippine Islands.

Contact the author at: sirius184@hotmail.com

Continue reading "The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field" »

Posted by Sepp at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

For most physicists today, there is no question that the universe originated in a "Big Bang", essentially from nothing, and that what we see today when looking at the stars with our most powerful telescopes is nothing but the remains of that primordial explosion, still expanding and cooling in the process. A universe in inexorable decay, goes the story, that lives from the energy imparted by a primordial explosive event.

Map of temperature irregularities in Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation compiled from COBE satellite data

But more and more observations actually contradict this modern fairy tale, to a point where it becomes exceedingly difficult to continue believing in the Big Bang and for that matter, in much of what physics tells us about what constitutes matter, space and time, and how they interrelate.

Roger Rydin examines the history of the "Big Bang" and some of the more recent observational data that seem to contradict General Relativity's prediction of an essentially uniform distribution of matter in the universe, which is at the basis of Big Bang theory.

Continue reading "The Big Bang in Controversy" »

Posted by Sepp at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Posted by Sepp at 05:36 PM on February 16, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (9)

Posted by Sepp at 03:36 PM on January 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (13)

Posted by Sepp at 08:54 AM on October 10, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (26)

Posted by Sepp at 01:11 PM on July 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Posted by Sepp at 09:55 PM on April 15, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (21)