What I like most about you is your quirky perspectives reflected in your at times off-putting sense of humor, perfection’s appreciated there and you are very endearing. You remind me of the OP subject matter in terms of both extremes, a big bang and a black hole, the creation high ground and the destructive bottomless pit.
Sorry about being testy. You’ve had a draining affect on me today probably without realization. I don’t enjoy feeling your need, let alone feeding it.
Are you sure about that? Because when pple do that to me it turns me on.
It’s the nature animal response for females to get turned on by it, when a lion starts focusing their energy on them. So I must ask are you in tune with nature? Do you truly…Know Thyself?
I was molested for three years…I didn’t know myself until afterwards…I was very aroused by it, yet I swore to myself and society that I wasn’t…therefore I take people’s opinions concerning this with a grain of salt.
Well, don’t get too fond of me, because I don’t want to incur Joker’s wrath. I also don’t like it when bitches hose their man (unless hosing them with their own pee…), so I want to do him a solid.
I’m not so sure about their presumption that the earlier orbits of the Solar System were closer to center. Is the Milky Way expanding or contracting? I would think contracting, but might be either. And the Solar System would not be traveling through other portions of the galaxy. The whole galaxy is spinning together, as a whole. So their speculations seem a bit odd.
As light travels through the varied density of affectance space (of “dark matter”), its course bends and that would alter the apparent distance to far away galaxies. And in different directions, different distances would be perceived as the same. One would have to predict the affectance density in every region and then calculate the distances to perceived stars and galaxies, then see if the universe still seemed flat.
But if any calculations are being done based on the notion of a Big Bang beginning or an expanding universe, I would have to toss those out. Things might be moving is such directions, but they need to properly locate them before they assume them to be moving in any direction. The red-shift theory of stellar motion is insufficient because affectance space also affects the light spectra.
Looking across the Milky Wat from one edge to another (the Milky Way most probably being relatively flat) is looking through a much higher density affectance space and thus distorts distance perception much more than looking in other directions. But every galaxy and nebula would distort the light and vast regions between galaxies could have very high density without the presence of galaxies or anything visible (“dark matter”). Without prejudice, any appearance of flatness of the entire universe would imply the presence of higher density affectance space, not the other way around.
So their speculations are probably backwards and due to axiomatical prejudices.
The Sun (Solar System) is orbiting the center of the galaxy. It is said that it takes the Sun about 250 million years and that it touches the electromagnetic field of the galaxy four times during this 250 million years.
That somewhat sounds like, “New York orbits the center of the Earth and passes through the electromagnetic field of the Earth four times during 24 hours.” The magnetic field isn’t rotating also???
The galaxy rotates as the Solar System orbits. They maintain a high degree (although not perfect) “geocentricity” along with all of the other stars in the galaxy.
Normally “geo-” refers to the Earth, but in this case, it merely means that the galaxy has a center which is rotating. And as that center (most probably a black hole) rotates, the rest of the galaxy orbits around the same center at a speed that keeps the stars at close to a consistent distance from each other. The galaxy rotates almost as if it was one large object.
And that means that the solar system is not crossing the path of other large objects or regions of the galaxy. Very, very slowly, through many rotations, the Solar System’s immediate surroundings would gradually change as the entire galaxy gradually changes. If the galaxy is in a compressing stage, the spirals would become tighter. If the galaxy is in an expanding mode, the spirals would be wider and more separate. But in either case, there would be extremely little altering of the Solar System’s immediate ambience.
Our galaxy does not rotate to the same degree in any part of it, and it is oddly that its edges rotates slower than other parts. Therefore the mainstream physicists invented the “dark energy”.
As I said, it very gradually changes. The outer regions orbit a little slower because it is traveling in a field of affectance that is swirling around and inward toward the black hole center (or possibly spiraling gradually outward from center).
The “dark energy” is the affectance throughout, and no doubt, more dense toward the center of the galaxy.
The point is that the major objects and regions do not collide.
And considering how speed and distance are being calculated. They might not be moving at different speeds at all, but merely slighly different trajectories.
Not standard model of physics.
==…
In the study of particle physics, the most powerful tool is
the accelerator. Two most important things need for accelerator:
high energy and deep vacuum.
The higher the energy and the deeper the vacuum levels that
can be reached – and the tinier the structures that can be explored.
The picture of modern particle physics is saddled with Standard Model.
The Standard Model embraces a total of 18 particles.
Thanks to accelerators more than 20 Nobel Prizes have been awarded
to scientists who contributed to the Standard Model.
====…
a)
If the accelerator is model of Nature then Nature itself must have
infinite high energy and the deepest vacuum level. Then there isn’t
place for the hot (!) singular point as beginning of existence.
b)
Temperature requires separation and movement of particles.
A singularity is defined as to have no separation, no movement.
Without movement there isn’t temperature.
c)
The high density of singular point is equal to the singular point of deep
vacuum, therefor it is possible that nature started from singular point of
vacuum, it means from singular quantum particle in the vacuum point.
d)
The deepest vacuum level in Nature is the cosmic vacuum: T=0K.
This deepest vacuum (T=0K) is itself some kind of infinite energy.
This infinite energy gives birth to “virtual particles”: E=Mc^2.
These virtual particles” was called “dark matter and dark energy”.
“Dark masses and energy” of these “virtual particles” are more
than 90% in the nature and they created a few % of visual matter
in Nature.
============…
