chalidze
2016 Jan. More on order Among Galaxies
Observing the orientation of galaxies is not the only way to illustrate or
to support my wildest large-world hypothesis. If big galaxies like our
Milky Way are deteriorating paleo-nuclei of paleo-atoms, then
satelite galaxies are likely to be paleo-electrons, also deteriorating.
Assuming Rutherford's model for paleo-atoms, the electrons closest to
the nucleus must rotate around the nucleus with a higher velocity. As I am
speaking within the vortex theory, the size of the electron’s ring itself is
reversly proportional to velocity. So, the deteriorating satellite galaxies
closest to the main galaxy must be the smallest, compared with other satellites
of the same system.
Also: relative distances between the main galaxy and the satellites must be somewhat similar to those presented by a Bohr-like theory for the simplest atoms. (The simplest paleo-atoms are probably easier to spot in the crowded skies -- not that I can do it myself). Within the traditional theory of gravitation, I don’t see a reason for non-random relations between those distances.
Needles to say, I have no plausible hypothesis on how deterioration
affected the size of the paleo-entities.
I can go so far as to assume that it is deterioration which stops
electromagnetic interaction between the paleo-nucleus and paleo-electrons
by destroying field vortexes. After that, the paleo-nucleus and
paleo-electron become a galaxy and a satellite galaxy. The distance between
them should be the same as right before deterioration. As a reminder: by
deterioration I mean the development of particles of our world from
the vortivular fibers of particles and fields of a large world. Of course
deteriorarion is not complete: the cores of vortex rings of
paleo-particles are still not destroyed, just surrounded by billions of
stars born as a result of deterioration. (By the peculiar tradition of twentieth-century physics, the cores of vortex rings of paleo-particles are
called “black holes”. For a useful illustration, see http://phys.org/news/2016-01-milky-twin-swept-ultra-fast-x-ray.html.)
The size of the observation area, unimaginable time frame, and complete unimportance to humans raises doubts about the applicability of the usual standards of scientific proof in this case.
http://www.worksofvalerychalidze.com/Valery Chalidze. Benson, Vt.
Observing the orientation of galaxies is not the only way to illustrate or
to support my wildest large-world hypothesis. If big galaxies like our
Milky Way are deteriorating paleo-nuclei of paleo-atoms, then
satelite galaxies are likely to be paleo-electrons, also deteriorating.
Assuming Rutherford's model for paleo-atoms, the electrons closest to
the nucleus must rotate around the nucleus with a higher velocity. As I am
speaking within the vortex theory, the size of the electron’s ring itself is
reversly proportional to velocity. So, the deteriorating satellite galaxies
closest to the main galaxy must be the smallest, compared with other satellites
of the same system.
Also: relative distances between the main galaxy and the satellites must be somewhat similar to those presented by a Bohr-like theory for the simplest atoms. (The simplest paleo-atoms are probably easier to spot in the crowded skies -- not that I can do it myself). Within the traditional theory of gravitation, I don’t see a reason for non-random relations between those distances.
Needles to say, I have no plausible hypothesis on how deterioration
affected the size of the paleo-entities.
I can go so far as to assume that it is deterioration which stops
electromagnetic interaction between the paleo-nucleus and paleo-electrons
by destroying field vortexes. After that, the paleo-nucleus and
paleo-electron become a galaxy and a satellite galaxy. The distance between
them should be the same as right before deterioration. As a reminder: by
deterioration I mean the development of particles of our world from
the vortivular fibers of particles and fields of a large world. Of course
deteriorarion is not complete: the cores of vortex rings of
paleo-particles are still not destroyed, just surrounded by billions of
stars born as a result of deterioration. (By the peculiar tradition of twentieth-century physics, the cores of vortex rings of paleo-particles are
called “black holes”. For a useful illustration, see http://phys.org/news/2016-01-milky-twin-swept-ultra-fast-x-ray.html.)
The size of the observation area, unimaginable time frame, and complete unimportance to humans raises doubts about the applicability of the usual standards of scientific proof in this case.
http://www.worksofvalerychalidze.com/Valery Chalidze. Benson, Vt.
