Flat Earth theory returns to Cosmo Lords

Moving passed the Big Bang theory, one finds himself
speculating about the size of the Universe, and where it
came from if the Big Bang is explained either as how it
formed, or as how it didn't and what else happened instead.

What if the visible Universe turns out to be a lot older than
thought. Theory predicts the big bang to have occurred 13.7
billion years ago, but what if the theory is incorrect?
What if the visible Universe is a trillion years old? There
are alternate explanations available to conventional
scientific beliefs to the age of the Universe. It appears
that the early Universe was more dense and more active,
and light due to doppler effects may have redshifted from
this simple fact, that a less dense Universe of today would
receive a red-shifted signal from a more compact one.
Early galaxies released stronger jets than newer active
galaxies, but then again, the light differs from the X-rays
produced by the jets, and what arrives from Quasars from
very distant locations, may be primarily the lights from
the jets. So maybe its not proper to suggest that the jet
activities were so much stronger in the past where matter
was more chaotic and galaxies more active. What if the
Universe did not expand, but that light effects over great
distances have different appearances to simple laws in
science, and allow one to simply suggest that a red-
shifted signal over great distances necessarily means that
a Galaxy is move away from us. It may be that light tires
over long distances for one explanation or another.

My point is that the Universe may be older, and larger
than thought of, that we are in a bubble from where
distances fade away from our sight, and months of
measurements are needed with current technologies
to focus on tiny points in space to detect the slightest
signals further ever further away.

Somehos this bubble that we see seems to suggest
that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but what if
that number may show the same results in a billion
years that the Universe is still 13.7 billion years old?
Then we would arrive to a problem with the Big Bang
theory.

But there are other phenomenas. Currents align billions
of galaxies, suggesting two things: either there are
currents of Galaxies heading somewhere toward a
gravitationally pulled region of larger mass, and then
accelerating, or the classic explanation that these long
currents are formed after the Big Bang.

I presenting a third option to Science and to Religion. A
very different picture of an old Universe, without black holes
as we learned them, but with simple laws such as:
swirling entities (even Galaxies) generate a hole in their
center from swirling, a hole such as a Hurricane eye, and
not a hole as a black hole, but a natural anti-gravitational
turbulance... its recognition in spiral galaxies would alter
all our lessons about the Universe.

The Alternate Theory to the Universe?

The alternate theory begins with the claim that there
are no black holes, immediately challenging the Big
Bang theory. The alternate theory suggests that the
Universe is a lot larger and older than thought.

The alternate theory to the Universe begins with proving
that no permanent black holes exist, that black holes
may be found very rarely and very temporarily.

One of its starting claims is based on the ovservation
that a miniascule event such as that if the collision of
the Andromeda Galaxy with our Milky Way galaxy
lasts for 3 million years, and looking at the magnitude
of the Cosmos, asking if such a small event takes
place for 3 billion years, how could the Universe be
only 13.7 billion years old?

In a sense I am moving past astronomy as science did
move past the flat Earth theory.

The theory begins by disproving the massive black-hole
predicted by scientists in the center of our Galaxy. A
spiral galaxy like the Milky Way is swirling gravitationally,
and the dynamics of gravitational swirling is no exception
to the formation of eyes due to swirling, eyes as seen
with swirling hurricane systems. This shows, that rather
a blackhole, swirling of the galaxy nucleus should generate
gravitationally opposing forces on large scales against
black hole formations. The proof lays in a scientists'
work who separated X-Ray signals from a quasar, and
determined that the X-Ray signals priorly used to explain
black holes in the center of spiral galaxies do not come
from from the galaxy nucleus, as all models in school
explained. He also showed that jets coming from the
nucleus of quasars (I believe quasars are spiral galaxies
facing their eye directly toward Earth) produce different X-rays.
This finding shows that indeed gravitationally produced
swirling eyes should replace the current beliefs regarding
massive black holes in spiraling/swirling galactic nuclei.

This model shows that nature avoids black-hole-formation
with black holes, though energy around the wall of the
swirling galactic nucleus should be near maximum, as
electrons from bombarding active chaotic galaxy conditions
of gasses and solar mass would be rejected from this
central eye to form jets.

The condition in the galactic nucleus (swirling eye) due
to very high temperatures may generate the observation
of an opposite to expected effect: white-hole-like swirling
conditions where one might jump into the assumtion that
there is a white hole in the center of galaxies. I believe
that that is not the case, as the opposite forces between
predicted black hole, and the now introduced necessary
white hole would provide some neutralization effects
between these two phenomenas.

wrote:

Moving passed the Big Bang theory, one finds himself
speculating about the size of the Universe, and where it
came from if the Big Bang is explained either as how it
formed, or as how it didn't and what else happened instead.

What if the visible Universe turns out to be a lot older than
thought. Theory predicts the big bang to have occurred 13.7
billion years ago, but what if the theory is incorrect?
What if the visible Universe is a trillion years old? There
are alternate explanations available to conventional
scientific beliefs to the age of the Universe. It appears
that the early Universe was more dense and more active,
and light due to doppler effects may have redshifted from
this simple fact, that a less dense Universe of today would
receive a red-shifted signal from a more compact one.
Early galaxies released stronger jets than newer active
galaxies, but then again, the light differs from the X-rays
produced by the jets, and what arrives from Quasars from
very distant locations, may be primarily the lights from
the jets. So maybe its not proper to suggest that the jet
activities were so much stronger in the past where matter
was more chaotic and galaxies more active. What if the
Universe did not expand, but that light effects over great
distances have different appearances to simple laws in
science, and allow one to simply suggest that a red-
shifted signal over great distances necessarily means that
a Galaxy is move away from us. It may be that light tires
over long distances for one explanation or another.

My point is that the Universe may be older, and larger
than thought of, that we are in a bubble from where
distances fade away from our sight, and months of
measurements are needed with current technologies
to focus on tiny points in space to detect the slightest
signals further ever further away.

Somehos this bubble that we see seems to suggest
that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but what if
that number may show the same results in a billion
years that the Universe is still 13.7 billion years old?
Then we would arrive to a problem with the Big Bang
theory.

But there are other phenomenas. Currents align billions
of galaxies, suggesting two things: either there are
currents of Galaxies heading somewhere toward a
gravitationally pulled region of larger mass, and then
accelerating, or the classic explanation that these long
currents are formed after the Big Bang.

I presenting a third option to Science and to Religion. A
very different picture of an old Universe, without black holes
as we learned them, but with simple laws such as:
swirling entities (even Galaxies) generate a hole in their
center from swirling, a hole such as a Hurricane eye, and
not a hole as a black hole, but a natural anti-gravitational
turbulance... its recognition in spiral galaxies would alter
all our lessons about the Universe.

The Alternate Theory to the Universe?

The alternate theory begins with the claim that there
are no black holes, immediately challenging the Big
Bang theory. The alternate theory suggests that the
Universe is a lot larger and older than thought.

The alternate theory to the Universe begins with proving
that no permanent black holes exist, that black holes
may be found very rarely and very temporarily.

One of its starting claims is based on the ovservation
that a miniascule event such as that if the collision of
the Andromeda Galaxy with our Milky Way galaxy
lasts for 3 million years, and looking at the magnitude
of the Cosmos, asking if such a small event takes
place for 3 billion years, how could the Universe be
only 13.7 billion years old?

In a sense I am moving past astronomy as science did
move past the flat Earth theory.

The theory begins by disproving the massive black-hole
predicted by scientists in the center of our Galaxy. A
spiral galaxy like the Milky Way is swirling gravitationally,
and the dynamics of gravitational swirling is no exception
to the formation of eyes due to swirling, eyes as seen
with swirling hurricane systems. This shows, that rather
a blackhole, swirling of the galaxy nucleus should generate
gravitationally opposing forces on large scales against
black hole formations. The proof lays in a scientists'
work who separated X-Ray signals from a quasar, and
determined that the X-Ray signals priorly used to explain
black holes in the center of spiral galaxies do not come
from from the galaxy nucleus, as all models in school
explained. He also showed that jets coming from the
nucleus of quasars (I believe quasars are spiral galaxies
facing their eye directly toward Earth) produce different X-rays.
This finding shows that indeed gravitationally produced
swirling eyes should replace the current beliefs regarding
massive black holes in spiraling/swirling galactic nuclei.

This model shows that nature avoids black-hole-formation
with black holes, though energy around the wall of the
swirling galactic nucleus should be near maximum, as
electrons from bombarding active chaotic galaxy conditions
of gasses and solar mass would be rejected from this
central eye to form jets.

The condition in the galactic nucleus (swirling eye) due
to very high temperatures may generate the observation
of an opposite to expected effect: white-hole-like swirling
conditions where one might jump into the assumtion that
there is a white hole in the center of galaxies. I believe
that that is not the case, as the opposite forces between
predicted black hole, and the now introduced necessary
white hole would provide some neutralization effects
between these two phenomenas.

This is some decent screed here, swirly.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

Art Deco wrote:
wrote:

Moving passed the Big Bang theory, one finds himself
speculating about the size of the Universe, and where it
came from if the Big Bang is explained either as how it
formed, or as how it didn't and what else happened instead.

What if the visible Universe turns out to be a lot older than
thought. Theory predicts the big bang to have occurred 13.7
billion years ago, but what if the theory is incorrect?
What if the visible Universe is a trillion years old? There
are alternate explanations available to conventional
scientific beliefs to the age of the Universe. It appears
that the early Universe was more dense and more active,
and light due to doppler effects may have redshifted from
this simple fact, that a less dense Universe of today would
receive a red-shifted signal from a more compact one.
Early galaxies released stronger jets than newer active
galaxies, but then again, the light differs from the X-rays
produced by the jets, and what arrives from Quasars from
very distant locations, may be primarily the lights from
the jets. So maybe its not proper to suggest that the jet
activities were so much stronger in the past where matter
was more chaotic and galaxies more active. What if the
Universe did not expand, but that light effects over great
distances have different appearances to simple laws in
science, and allow one to simply suggest that a red-
shifted signal over great distances necessarily means that
a Galaxy is move away from us. It may be that light tires
over long distances for one explanation or another.

My point is that the Universe may be older, and larger
than thought of, that we are in a bubble from where
distances fade away from our sight, and months of
measurements are needed with current technologies
to focus on tiny points in space to detect the slightest
signals further ever further away.

Somehos this bubble that we see seems to suggest
that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but what if
that number may show the same results in a billion
years that the Universe is still 13.7 billion years old?
Then we would arrive to a problem with the Big Bang
theory.

But there are other phenomenas. Currents align billions
of galaxies, suggesting two things: either there are
currents of Galaxies heading somewhere toward a
gravitationally pulled region of larger mass, and then
accelerating, or the classic explanation that these long
currents are formed after the Big Bang.

I presenting a third option to Science and to Religion. A
very different picture of an old Universe, without black holes
as we learned them, but with simple laws such as:
swirling entities (even Galaxies) generate a hole in their
center from swirling, a hole such as a Hurricane eye, and
not a hole as a black hole, but a natural anti-gravitational
turbulance... its recognition in spiral galaxies would alter
all our lessons about the Universe.

The Alternate Theory to the Universe?

The alternate theory begins with the claim that there
are no black holes, immediately challenging the Big
Bang theory. The alternate theory suggests that the
Universe is a lot larger and older than thought.

The alternate theory to the Universe begins with proving
that no permanent black holes exist, that black holes
may be found very rarely and very temporarily.

One of its starting claims is based on the ovservation
that a miniascule event such as that if the collision of
the Andromeda Galaxy with our Milky Way galaxy
lasts for 3 million years, and looking at the magnitude
of the Cosmos, asking if such a small event takes
place for 3 billion years, how could the Universe be
only 13.7 billion years old?

In a sense I am moving past astronomy as science did
move past the flat Earth theory.

The theory begins by disproving the massive black-hole
predicted by scientists in the center of our Galaxy. A
spiral galaxy like the Milky Way is swirling gravitationally,
and the dynamics of gravitational swirling is no exception
to the formation of eyes due to swirling, eyes as seen
with swirling hurricane systems. This shows, that rather
a blackhole, swirling of the galaxy nucleus should generate
gravitationally opposing forces on large scales against
black hole formations. The proof lays in a scientists'
work who separated X-Ray signals from a quasar, and
determined that the X-Ray signals priorly used to explain
black holes in the center of spiral galaxies do not come
from from the galaxy nucleus, as all models in school
explained. He also showed that jets coming from the
nucleus of quasars (I believe quasars are spiral galaxies
facing their eye directly toward Earth) produce different X-rays.
This finding shows that indeed gravitationally produced
swirling eyes should replace the current beliefs regarding
massive black holes in spiraling/swirling galactic nuclei.

This model shows that nature avoids black-hole-formation
with black holes, though energy around the wall of the
swirling galactic nucleus should be near maximum, as
electrons from bombarding active chaotic galaxy conditions
of gasses and solar mass would be rejected from this
central eye to form jets.

The condition in the galactic nucleus (swirling eye) due
to very high temperatures may generate the observation
of an opposite to expected effect: white-hole-like swirling
conditions where one might jump into the assumtion that
there is a white hole in the center of galaxies. I believe
that that is not the case, as the opposite forces between
predicted black hole, and the now introduced necessary
white hole would provide some neutralization effects
between these two phenomenas.

This is some decent screed here, swirly.

Aye; bit heavy on the colo(u)r theory, though, Bruce.
--
ah