Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Weitter Duckss

The Universe is rotating

128 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss

The universe is a horizontally elongateda vertically flattened. It is a feature of the body that are spinning.

Second footage clusters (dark flow) show that galaxies are moving in one direction.

Third is maps blue shift of the spectrum in our local group of galaxies. The fully coincides with the spinning body by a horizontal direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The universe is a horizontally elongateda vertically flattened. It is a feature of the body that are spinning.

Second footage clusters (dark flow) show that galaxies are moving in one direction.

Third is maps blue shift of the spectrum in our local group of galaxies. The fully coincides with the spinning body by a horizontal direction.

I'm worried; to much thinking about things you have no understanding of can cause injury. Be careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

The universe is a horizontally elongateda vertically flattened. It is a feature of the body that are spinning.

Second footage clusters (dark flow) show that galaxies are moving in one direction.

Third is maps blue shift of the spectrum in our local group of galaxies. The fully coincides with the spinning body by a horizontal direction.

By what evidence did you reach this conclusion?

It would be very helpful if you could provide direct links to your sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

We measured the Milky Way, and we say that diameter of 100,000 light years!

We measured the universe and we say that 13.8 billion years old??

We have the shape of the galaxy, but shots of the universe explained that the makeup of the universe 400,000 years after the Big Bang??

Clusters of galaxies are moving in the same direction, and we say to them some unseen force pulling for reasons unknown to an unknown destination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowlark

My head hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Weitter Duckss,

As I explained to you before, having a single thread in which you post multiple topics is going to make it very difficult to discuss your posts.

Once again I suggest that when starting a new subject you start a new topic. Once again I am going to split your topic in order to make it easier for members to follow and reply to you.

Your WHY IS THE UNIVERSE DARK? post is now a separate topic and can be found HERE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Rotation of a body in a "vacuum" leads to a rotation of other bodies, due to the influence of electro-magnetic forces. How to explain that the bodies revolve, and the universe is falling apart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Rotation of a body in a "vacuum" leads to a rotation of other bodies, due to the influence of electro-magnetic forces. How to explain that the bodies revolve, and the universe is falling apart?

Whatever
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

A little more about spinning in space.

The forbidden article:

GRAVITY AND ANTI-GRAVITY

At the beginning of April 2014., this article was removed two times, after having been proclaimed a plagiarism ("All about space and UFOs" Russia), even though it had appeared in 2008., two years before the article that was „plagiarized“, which appeared in 2010.

A quote of a part of the text from the year of 2008: „... Celestial objects rotate around their axes; the rotation creates waves, which travel away from an object and in that way create repulsion forces, which prevent the objects, captured in the orbits around them, from falling onto them. Electromagnetic forces constantly direct smaller objects towards the greater, dominant object, which, due to its rotation, constantly repulses and deflects the incoming object until it gets captured in the orbit of the dominant object. That is why objects oscillate on their trajectories; electromagnetic forces of repulsion and attraction simultaneously affect them… “

A quote from the year of 2004 (Theory of Zadar): “Gaseous systems inside galaxies can be started off by rotation and in the center they create whirls, the objects which are tens of thousands light-years of size. They are the greatest space objects, due to its specific origin and structure.

Supported from within, the rotation of these objects, besides the electromagnetic forces that are proportional to the size of an object, also creates strong repulsion waves, which are proportional to the speed of rotation. “

If academics have been trying to claim the supremacy over this article, then it must be good and valuable text worth reading.

The author of the article: W. Duckss

GRAVITY AND ANTI-GRAVITY

Why the objects don’t simply fall on its central object (a star, a planet, the centre of a galaxy), just as it occurs on the planetary satellites, as well as on Venus and Mercury?

The laws of physics are clear: the bigger the object, the stronger are the EM forces of attraction. Nevertheless, something is wrong when we know that some objects linger in the orbits around the other objects.

It is logical to conclude that the rotation of a central object (an object around which other objects rotate) is here under observation. The rotating objects seize other smaller objects, whereas the objects without a rotation don’t have satellites. Due to the rotation, an object emits synchronous radiation, by which it pushes away the objects in the direction of the rotation. The EM forces that usually have an attraction effect now obtain a repulsion effect, i.e., they push away the objects and prevent them from falling onto a central object.

If a rotation did not existed (which is impossible, due to the atom structure and its bipolarity), there would have existed only straight trajectories from the smaller objects towards the bigger ones, until they explode and vice versa. The whole universe rotates constantly: the stars rotate, as well as the planets that are beyond the reach of the strong EM forces, the galaxies rotate, the universe rotates … The objects’ trajectories are circular, or elliptical, to be more precise. All objects observe that law, even comets and asteroids that visually travel early, firmly observe that law.

Central objects in the centres of the galaxies observe more complex laws that are not based on the physical black holes. Beginning from the stars the size of our Sun, even the low speed rotations cause polar cyclones, which will in time turn into whirlwinds of the galactic size (up to 30 000 light-years). They are able to hold together such a massive objects; the rotation of matter around a whirlwind holds the whole galaxy together.

Astrophysics clearly shows that here we don’t deal with black holes. “Black holes” are by their volume small objects (it has been suggested that the biggest of them are no bigger than a planet). If they were to gather other objects, these should be smaller in volume than the central object. Considering the fact that a black hole is sucking in, the area around it should be clear from its upper and lower side, i.e., there would be no matter at all, and it is not the case.

Whirlwinds have some black hole characteristics, too; they suck in matter at both ends and manage it along the spiral. The appearance of a galaxy proportionally corresponds to the size of a central object. The stars and planets are managed in the equatorial area, just as it is the case with some other objects. Furthermore, attraction and repulsion forces are now balanced (a big object = strong gravity = many objects seized in the orbits around a central object in the equatorial area).

Now we no longer need sheets or other requisites to understand why are the orbits around a central object stable and very long-lasting. When an object increases in size faster than the existing proportion of relations allows, it slowly distances itself and finally becomes independent, if there is luck (our Moon is slowly distancing itself from Earth; Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are distancing from Milky Way,…).

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

A quote from the year of 2004 (Theory of Zadar): “Gaseous systems inside galaxies can be started off by rotation and in the center they create whirls, the objects which are tens of thousands light-years of size. They are the greatest space objects, due to its specific origin and structure.

Supported from within, the rotation of these objects, besides the electromagnetic forces that are proportional to the size of an object, also creates strong repulsion waves, which are proportional to the speed of rotation. “

If academics have been trying to claim the supremacy over this article, then it must be good and valuable text worth reading.

The author of the article: W. Duckss

[Emphasis mine.]

I accept that it is impossible to teach you any actual mathematics or physics. But surely you can at least grasp the concept of logical fallacies?

Anyway, since I am already writing this response I might as well dive in...

Why the objects don’t simply fall on its central object (a star, a planet, the centre of a galaxy), just as it occurs on the planetary satellites, as well as on Venus and Mercury?

That is a great question! It was solved over 300 years ago.

The laws of physics are clear: the bigger the object, the stronger are the EM forces of attraction.

A statement that is categorically, quantitatively, and demonstrably false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

A little more about spinning in space.

The forbidden article:

GRAVITY AND ANTI-GRAVITY

*snip*

I`m in the impression that your last post, and some others from you as well, are just a pile of incoherently and randomly

added paste`n copy articles from various sources those are not in direct correlation to each others.

Edited by toast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

I`m in the impression that your last post, and some others from you as well, are just a pile of incoherently and randomly

added paste`n copy articles from various sources those are not in direct correlation to each others.

Yeah, pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Offtopic, but for those annoyed at this problem of font sizes...

The editor in this forum has some seriously annoying bugs, particularly with imported text from elsewhere, and also with any font size changes, even the ones IT provides! I believe it is related to the way the cursor often jumps around and you can be suddenly editing on the previous line.. (very poor programming, imnsho - a lazy programmer didn't check it properly before releasing it)

There is a way to fix the posts, but it isn't easy unless it is just one or two instances.. You need to toggle the editing mode so you can see all the codes, which you do by clicking the very first button at top left of the editing window, and then look for any size codes like those shown here:

[size=??]Here is the text that is the wrong size..[/size]

Delete all of the square bracketed "size" codes - there will be a matching pair, like 'size=2' and '/size' and you have to kill both, including the brackets, on every section of offending text.. Unfortunately there may be lots of them, along with color and font name codes to make it really messy..

To avoid it, when you copy and paste text from elsewhere, use Ctrl-SHIFT-V to paste rather than Ctrl-V or picking Paste off a menu. That will past the text as 'plain' unadorned text..

Problem is, this silly editor also inserts its own size changes with quotes, so you can get caught even if you do the right thing / copy text from within UM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

[Emphasis mine.]

I accept that it is impossible to teach you any actual mathematics or physics. But surely you can at least grasp the concept of logical fallacies?

Anyway, since I am already writing this response I might as well dive in...

That is a great question! It was solved over 300 years ago.

A statement that is categorically, quantitatively, and demonstrably false.

It is logical to conclude that the rotation of the central object is a solution. It is not a solution that we do not know why Venus and Mercury have no satellites.

300 years ago, is this might be a good solution.

They did not acceptable solutions are found outside physics explanations. There on Earth and inside the solar system that has no. Why would otherwise be behind the "mountain"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

There on Earth and inside the solar system that has no. Why would otherwise be behind the "mountain"?

Because inside galactic rides over the wall in object climbs.

I'm sorry I can't help myself. :whistle:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

It is logical to conclude that the rotation of the central object is a solution. It is not a solution that we do not know why Venus and Mercury have no satellites.

We have a sample set of 8 planets (+ various ``planetoids''), how is this large enough to draw a statistical inference about which celestial bodies should or should not have satellites?

The rotation of Mercury is particular because it is in a spin-orbit resonance, something that is accurately described by conventional astrophysics.

The rotation of Venus is very strange, I agree.

The rotation of Uranus is also strange, but Uranus has plenty of satellites.

Mars has basically the same rotation period as the Earth, but has only two very tiny satellites instead of one relatively large one.

What is the pattern here? I do not think there is one.

One could also explain the lack of satellites of Mercury and Venus because of their proximity to the Sun. The accretion disk that (presumably) formed these planets would have less angular momentum. Secondly, I expect that the closer the planets are to the Sun, the more collisions would occur between those planets and comets (etc.) in the early Solar system, so possibly any satellites that these planets might have had would have been pushed away by collisions. But this is just speculation, we do not have enough information on other star systems to determine if the patterns found in ours are commonplace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

When I was in college I did a course paper on the origin of the objects of the solar system that we knew of then. I got an A. I don't think there was a thing in it I said that is still believed, except maybe that the system condensed from the effects of a supernova that seeded the cloud with heavier elements and set the process in motion and that the rotation of the system comes from conservation of angular momentum as a rotating object compresses.

In particular I made a big deal of "Bode's Law," which kinda went out the window as probably coincidence once we saw how wild the orbits of some planets elsewhere are. Still, I suspect once we get a larger sample it will come back. There has been a selection effect in favor of large objects that swing near their star.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Do not consider this to counter-attack.

Excluding the our division on the planet etc has a sufficient number of events to present a conclusion. Neither one satellite (globular) has no its own spin. The vast majority of all the bodies in our solar system that have spin have satellites. Venus and Mercury can not be exceptions. These events and see real proof, 5 billion years ago (what was) is hypothesis. Personally, I see only the evidence and on the basis of their cities present. If u in the past is not derived from the present, I do not believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

I can only conclude one thing after reading Weitter Duckss' posts: My head hurts :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

The last article on this subtopic.

What are the dimensions of destruction and creation in the Universe?

The explosions of stars, known as novae and supernovae, are the final stage of life for these objects and the matter that creates them. Most of that matter, but not all of it, is being disintegrated, i.e. it returns into energy and dark matter, while the rest remains as nebulae.

In order to realize the magnitude of the matter disintegration, it is necessary to begin with the fact that supernovae originated from the huge stars, some of which are many million times larger in terms of mass than our Sun. On average, 400 different novae per year have been detected in the last few years. Let us suppose that there is only one nova (or supernova) on every billion of stars; it would mean that there are 200 of them in our galaxy. Their quantity is, of course, by far larger than that, because it is estimated that three of them occur per every 1000 years in the galaxy(of course, that their number is far greater because different data show that happens in one galaxy in 100-100.000 years (at 13.7 billion years / 100-100.000 = 137.000 to 137 million explosions of stars in the Milky Way!)).

There are over 100 billion of galaxies in the Universe. Our galaxy is an average one. There are no less than 200 x 100 billion (or 20 trillion (20 x 1012) of novae. Since an average nova (i.e. a star before becoming a nova) is no less than a 1000 times larger than our Sun, we get astonishing 20 quadrillion (20 x 1015) of the disintegrated Sun’s masses – even though that is a minimum of a minimum. (The mass of Sun is 2 x 1030 kg).

Let us point out that every star, before becoming a nova, had some 0.2% of its mass in other objects within its orbit. They also suffered a catastrophe, whether they were inhabited or not.

Despite destruction (the disintegration of matter), the observations show that the Universe is not losing its mass. On the contrary, it increases. It means that the Universe is efficiently replacing all of the lost matter, the minimum of which is 20 quadrillion of the Sun’s masses, and even “some” more.

It is not to be forgotten that a smaller part of matter is also been disintegrated in the collisions of waves and particles. In order for the muons to be registered at all in the laboratories, a countless number of particle disintegrations needs to occur. It is an everlasting occurrence on the objects orbiting around a star from the beginning of time till these days and until a star becomes a nova. A good portion of matter is being disintegrated in the collisions of objects and galaxies.

Therefore, the colossal dimensions are not related only to the creation of matter, but also to the growth of all objects within stellar systems, galaxies and the Universe. Millions of craters are only a reminder of that process being contiguous and ongoing. Due to the energy friction, the neutrinos are created. Then, they start joining into the electrons and are further combined into the protons and into ever larger atoms. The atoms join into the molecules and create gas, then dust, rocks … the objects that become the planets around a star … and ultimately the most of matter is being disintegrated through explosions and returned again into the elementary matter (energy and dark matter).

In order for the explosion to happen, a very specific sequence of events is required. It is obvious that stars grow into the centers of galaxies, 200 billion of which are there in the Universe. That is important to state, in order to rule out the significant importance of the mass or size of an object, as these are evidently not so important. It is not the case of combustion or consumption of fuel here; it is obvious from the whole spectrum of different values in terms of mass and radiance (rotation) that belonged to an object before the explosion. A pattern or regularity is not discerned in these parameters.

One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way. It is necessary to consider some very rare factors, like, for example, the impacts of large objects into planets, but even more rare – those that hit only a small part of the objects (one event in more than ten million of objects - stars).

Within the growth of an object, some smaller object is starting a reaction when colliding with a star. If that should remain a rare event, it needs to be a specific event under the specific conditions. The only possible specificity is for that object (the errant objects, incoming from outside the Solar system) to arrive vertically onto one of the poles and to hit the opening of a cyclone that exists on the poles of stars. That way, it would get an opportunity to break into the interior of an object. Comet ISON is the evidence that objects with vertical trajectories really exist in the Universe.

When discussing the vertical trajectories, it is necessary to point out that only the forces of attraction exist there, because an object creates the forces of repulsion in the horizontal direction only. That way, a disaster is inevitable. Due to the friction, an object explodes. That event becomes an active detonator that starts a cascade sequence of events for the whole star. In these days, this possibility for our Sun to disappear is completely unknown; therefore, these deadly objects are not even been followed and nothing is also been done to get ready to deflect such a threat, which is by far more deadly than would be the impact of the same object into our planet! The size of an object needs to be sufficient to start a large scale event, which would influence the whole galaxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
Nurse_Call_thumb_zps77c50684.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

I have to say that your English is improving to the point that I actually understood most of it. Did you have help ?

Nothing wrong with that, I am not a native English speaker/writer myself.

As for the content...... So many factual errors that I don't know where to start. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

This topic should be discussed: whether the body with a vertical trajectory leads to the destruction of the stars? It is of wide significance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

(...) whether the body with a vertical trajectory leads to the destruction of the stars?

Which body and with a vertical trajectory in relation to what?

It is of wide significance.

I would say it is not.

Recapitulatory:

index_zpsfbf47f4e.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

This topic should be discussed: whether the body with a vertical trajectory leads to the destruction of the stars? It is of wide significance.

Things with vertical trajectories aren't usually particularly wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.