Alternative theory of the universe

[Jaak]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=18Olmd184uM

I sort of explained this in one of the posts above.There is a certain amount of spin,pressure and vibration/temperature in this universe that will never decease to exist. It will be transformed into different quantities through its cycles.

What powers the toroidal magnetic field of galaxy ?
Nothing .
It´s ¨power¨ (spin,vibration etc) keeps on being carried from one galaxy to another .
But what largely affects the magnetic field of the galaxy is the central helium torus and the solid part of the galaxy (how much dense stuff there is,how spread apart the galaxy is etc).

The closer the galaxy spirals towards the central torus,the faster it starts to rotate and its magnetic field.

When galaxy spirals too close to the central torus it becomes more visible for us and we call it accretion disk ( where all the elements get breaken down into helium).
When elements get unpacked they will require more space.
That would make the accretion disk grow rapidly and spin more faster (more helium is added to the torus and magnetic field )

Galaxy would not have an magnetic field if there were no galaxy.
The magnetic field of a galaxy is a composite of all the magnetic fields in the galaxy.
The more you unpack smaller magnetic fields(big elements into smaller elements),the more bigger or more dense and compressed becomes the magnetic field of the galaxy.

And eventually when the spin and density are both high enough you will get astrophysical jets through which old galaxy gets destroyed and 2 new ones will get created.All pressure that was unpacked in accretion disk will be packed again in the end points of astrophysical jet .
Endless loop of creation and destruction that cant be stopped...

[Blastolabs]

Good to see that people are still pondering and thinking and wondering.

Seems worth pointing out that astrophysics is not "science based" by any definition of the word.

It is all assumptions based on observations, not science based on replicated experiments.

I would be careful in having faith astrophysics, they literally just make stuff up.
Black holes and the big bang are two of the most clear "fictions" but also the theory of relativity has likely been used as a psyop. Just read about how and why Einstein became famous and ask yourself if that makes any sense at all.

I think the non physical universe that our consciousness resides makes the entire physical universe look tiny and boring. I wonder why astrophysicist all seem to ignore this larger reality?

[Jaak]

Posted by Blastolabs (here)
Good to see that people are still pondering and thinking and wondering.

I think the non physical universe that our consciousness resides makes the entire physical universe look tiny and boring.

Thats hard for us to find out. Science deals with things that can be measured,detected etc. Spiritual realm seems to be immeasurable and undetectable with scientific instruments so thats why they might be ignoring it.
Or you could say that science deals with exploring the outside world but spiritual is the inner world that everybody has to detect it through meditation . So its something everybody can prove to themselves but not to others. Might be exceptions to everything but thats just my simplified view on this matter .

And i agree about Einstein that he was a wife-beating plagiarist who probably never had an original thought of his own but used other peoples ideas.

[ThePythonicCow]

In order that I could more easily read Jaak's opening post of this thread, I just now adjusted the spacing of its paragraphs and punctuation to more "conventional" standards. -- ThePythonicCow, June 16, 2024

Hopefully Jaak is OK with that ... I can easily restore his original formatting if he prefers. Or I could reformat Post #4 in the same manner, if Jaak would like me to.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Back to the idea of an older universe as a substrate for our universe.


There is almost certainly another universe tangential to our own.

In my mind, though, there is only one universe because that is the definition of the word - one story. There is no need for two stories because that can be reduced. So a better way of describing such a situation is to consider another dimension instead that can fit into the one story, the one universe.

My problem is with the description of gravity as a stretchable dimensional fabric. If gravity bends space, what is space bending into or away from? If space bends, then it must be bending within another substrate - another dimension. Otherwise, what is the description of this space? Like a globe represented on a piece of paper, a three-dimensional shape drawn in two dimensions, the curved lines on the globe cannot be drawn in proportion and must have differing values of latitude depending on its distance from the equator. A map represents an approximation of true proportions and will always be distorted when depicting a three-dimensional object.

In the same way, gravity bending space in three-dimensions cannot be represented in three-dimensions - it requires four at least. So by simple inference if gravity is truly bending space, there must be another dimension.

There is your older reality that predates our own - that lost dimension that isn't visible but must be there.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
In the same way, gravity bending space in three-dimensions cannot be represented in three-dimensions - it requires four at least. So by simple inference if gravity is truly bending space, there must be another dimension.

There is your older reality that predates our own - that lost dimension that isn't visible but must be there.

I would caution us not to confuse (1) what we can represent with our multi (three or four or more) dimensional mathematical models, with (2) what is, what has been and will be, even when or if we were not or won't be.

In other words, there are other ways, than adding more dimensions to an existing model, to better model what we observe. I would submit that notions of an aether are not dead ... just on sabbatical for the last century.

[Ernie Nemeth]

But to remove us from the equation removes all our equations as well.

Without us there is no need for explanations.
I guess I should say in more general terms: without consciousness the universe is without purpose.


It is the same as mentally picturing the big bang. What position can an observer take? Whatever that position is, it is the substrate of our universe - by definition.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
But to remove us from the equation removes all our equations as well.

Without us there is no need for explanations.
I guess I should say in more general terms: without consciousness the universe is without purpose.

If we are the only or primary source of consciousness, then, yes, removing us removes purpose from the universe. I doubt that we are that primary, essential, source, but for which the universe would be without purpose.

Nor was I considering the removal of our efforts to understand the universe. Rather I was suggesting that one of our current primary tools for articulating that understanding, multi-dimensional mathematical models, is reaching its limits.

As I noted in the last sentence of my previous post just above, which I added apparently just as you were replying to the earlier parts of that post ... I anticipate a renewed interest in aether-based models -- which provide another way to improve the validity of our models.

[Ernie Nemeth]

What is space?

Space is only an inferred property, as related to objects embedded within it. It is thought of as a separator, a segregator, and uniform. But now we are told that it is actually growing in an accelerating manner. So, this uniform thing is expanding and leaving ever larger gaps between the objects embedded within it. But the objects do not grow, only the space between them.

What is space growing into - a larger unknown space, nothingness, some other untraceable substance?

So, yes, the aether is poorly understood and entirely missing from our modern equations. It could easily be misconstrued as an 'earlier' structure because in causal terms it logically had to precede the physical components of the universe.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
So, yes, the aether is poorly understood and entirely missing from our modern equations.

I quite agree.

[Lunesoleil]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UEB4WqEFTwg

Use the translator

Roger Penrose: "Time has no beginning and the Big Bang is incorrect.
Welcome to Agora.
What is the starting point of the universe? This question has fascinated physicists for a long time. The Big Bang theory, often considered the origin of the universe and accepted by a large number of scientists, is increasingly challenged by bold theories such as that of the Nobel Prize winner of physics Roger Penrose.
For him, time has no beginning and the Big Bang is incorrect.
Want to know more? Stay with us until the end to find out more.
The Big Bang Theory
Roger Penrose: "The Big Bang Theory is FALSE and Time has no Beginning or End.

[Jaak]

Every galaxy evolves into Quasar which would be the end process of galaxy being ripped into hydrogen and helium at its equator and gets ejected out through poles,forming 2 new galaxies. This theory below supports it but it hasnt gone so far to wonder what happens with jets after they get ejected...
But it gives an rather good explanation how and why the astrophysical jets are created. Much logical than wikipedias ¨frame dragging¨ nonsense.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=epGZKPCH280

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Jaak (here)
Every galaxy evolves into Quasar which would be the end process of galaxy being ripped into hydrogen and helium at its equator and gets ejected out through poles,forming 2 new galaxies.

The above is a valuable video, yes. It provides much more persuasive explanation of quasars than conventional astronomy provides.

I did not find any mention of hydrogen or helium in this video.

Rather the two beams ejected out the two poles were:

1. negatively charged electron streams, and
2. positively charged proton ion streams.

This separation of moving negative and positive particles into streams (electrically charged currents) which form immense magnetic fields which in turn shape, form and compress the currents, seems to me to be of fundamental importance in understanding how our universe works.

Posted by Jaak (here)
This theory below supports it but it hasnt gone so far to wonder what happens with jets after they get ejected...

But it gives an rather good explanation how and why the astrophysical jets are created.

Perhaps it is a pair of such beams, one of negative electrons and the other of positive ions, that can then form Birkeland currents - twisting magnetically entangled positive and negative beams - that can then once again form galaxies ?

I am missing a key step in any such speculation however. I know not of any physical process that might be active on the scale of our known universe by which plasma (separate beams and currents of negative and positive ions) forms neutral atoms.

Our universe apparently is mostly composed of plasma, not neutral atoms. Of course it's not all plasma ... I doubt I could be here typing on my keyboard if it were. But neutral atoms, hydrogen, helium, and above, are the exception, and even in our physical bodies, the importance, subtleties, and complexities of electromagnetic fields and currents, are in my view rather under appreciated by our rather too materialistic, atomistic, standard physics, chemistry and biology.

[Ernie Nemeth]

A part of the missing mass problem is the parity question. The 'missing mass' being the biggest problem for cosmology.

Why does the spontaneous appearance of fundamental particles in the vacuum of space favor regular matter by a slight but significant degree over anti-matter?
Answering that question would go a long way to answering many of the standard model's flaws.

We ignore the best questions because they are inconvenient, difficult to experiment with, or simply do not support the standard model.
But those are exactly the reasons we should study them to the exclusion even of other more easily studied phenomena.

They hold the key to our current stand-still in physics.

[Blastolabs]

Posted by Jaak (here)

Thats hard for us to find out. Science deals with things that can be measured,detected etc. Spiritual realm seems to be immeasurable and undetectable with scientific instruments so thats why they might be ignoring it.

While scientists may claim they only deal with things that can be measured, in reality that is false.
The Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, black holes, "natural selection" and Viruses all have never been measured yet people consider them science based instead of fantasy. I'm sure there are many more "scientific truths" as well, especially in biology.
My point was that "modern science" has been off the rails for a while and often has more in common with religion than science.

[Ernie Nemeth]

There are so many assumptions that stand in for the truth it is remarkable to think such audacious claims are accepted as fact.

It is not only in cosmology either, but also in every branch of science, both the hard and especially the soft disciplines.

Medicine is replete with such falsehoods. But the worst is the field of psychology.


The reason for this state of affairs is because science believes it has already conquered the realm of knowledge, and by discovering the 'laws of physics', the four forces, the table of elements, and some specific insights science was able to describe the universe using only two theories that ties them all together in a tidy neat package. Conveniently ignoring the glaring contradictions between those two theories and how they are intrinsically incapable of synthesis is a blatant outrage that gets swept under the rug.


The arrogance of that stance has allowed 'experts' to make claims about causes unrelated to any facts or observational conclusions. If an 'expert' says it's so, it is so. That is why we now have over 5000 distinct mental disease conditions, for example.

It is also how 'climate science' can ignore the obvious in favor of their current bias. (the sun has no impact on climate, being a steady source of energy only affected by radiative effects in the atmosphere, with absolutely no evidence of magnetic or electrical coupling)