Gravity Probe B

*Halton Arp is full of carp*
Galaxies dont spin out mass.

I still consider Arp as being of a highly developed theorist.
Moreover, he is probably seeing answers, like me, to account for the seeming expansion of the universe on a galactic scale (4th van Flandern dimension). Since Arps Galaxies are spinning out mass in an opposite way of the center seeking vortex, he is trying to account for expansion by stating "Galaxies spin out mass".

I dont see his documented evidence of this. Where is the facts?

I do believe that there is NO expanding mechanism on a galactic scale however. Expansion happens at every 0 point of space. It should be the reflected wave that comes from the centers of all so called mass. But this is a spatial phenomena also, just as gravity is.

Meta

<i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />North: Ques: but would not + & - energy attract each other and actually cause an implosion?(what does "hemesheric" mean exactly)tried to look it up but found nothing.(did you mean "hemisphere"?) what caused the split? also why would something that is neutral now become + & -?


Ans: I did mean hemispheric, sorry you went on a wild goose chase. The +/-cancellation would not occur instantaniously because all processes are divisible and time measurable,
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: but this does not mean that combining of these + & - energies did not happen extremly fast,are these energies literally at each end of a sphere and is there as of yet any structured matter, atoms,molecules and/or elements?
____________________________________________________________________

the strong nuclear force did not allow such an implosion or cancellation back to neutrality. The split occured the same reason some forms of neutron beta decay occur, some call it lazy neutrons, I prefer a plurality principal. Hemispheric means the split occured in a 3D spherical bipolar manner.
=====================================================================
North: Outside what sphere?
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: The sphere above once it made a complete rotation by means of the EMF halted the split to generate a bounded sphere.
____________________________________________________________________

Ques: but what would stop the energy from escaping the sphere before the split was halted?
=====================================================================
North: Ques: i'm not quite clear on this section,are you saying that the mass that was at the center of the universe has now moved to the edge(boundry) of the universe?
____________________________________________________________________
Ans: Yes, the center of the sphere accumulated a greater about of mass than any other part of the sphere. Like all fluid systems the more dense area sought a less dense area outside of the sphere and moved to the edge. The generated the vortex geometry my theory predicts.

North: If this is true then why is not the rest of the galaxy(spirals)ripped apart?

Ans: They will be once we approach the speed of light and fall "lower" into the Vortex and the force generated by the angular momentum reaches levels that will produce such an effect.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: there is a contridiction here, first you say that a dense area seeks out a lower dense area,as in your idea that the mass of the universe has moved to the boundry of the universe,and then you say that the mass of a galaxy will fall "into" the vortex.

think about this, which "plane" of the galaxy do we orient ourselves to,for if i invert the plane so that for arguments sake up is now down-down is now up so now the spiral arms rotate in the opposite direction which plane for the vortex do we use?,each plane is a legitimate and valid orientation with which both have vortices,which now cancell each other. this is why i agree with Halton's idea that matter is moving out and away from the center because no matter the orienation there is no contridiction.

<i>Originally posted by Meta</i>
<br />*Halton Arp is full of carp*
Galaxies dont spin out mass.

I still consider Arp as being of a highly developed theorist.
Moreover, he is probably seeing answers, like me, to account for the seeming expansion of the universe on a galactic scale (4th van Flandern dimension). Since Arps Galaxies are spinning out mass in an opposite way of the center seeking vortex, he is trying to account for expansion by stating "Galaxies spin out mass".

I dont see his documented evidence of this. Where is the facts?

I do believe that there is NO expanding mechanism on a galactic scale however. Expansion happens at every 0 point of space. It should be the reflected wave that comes from the centers of all so called mass. But this is a spatial phenomena also, just as gravity is.

Meta
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: are you sure you read Halton's book? expansion explanation has nothing to do with his idea, it is strictly based on galaxies and their behavour,as well as a different reason for the redshifts seen.

i have yet to read any proof that a vortex idea is valid, which vortex shall we use, this one,change orientation, invert 180 degrees,or that one? prove which one is right. as far as i'm concerned you can't.

*Halton Arp is full of carp*
Galaxies dont spin out mass.

I still consider Arp as being of a highly developed theorist.
Moreover, he is probably seeing answers, like me, to account for the seeming expansion of the universe on a galactic scale (4th van Flandern dimension). Since Arps Galaxies are spinning out mass in an opposite way of the center seeking vortex, he is trying to account for expansion by stating "Galaxies spin out mass".

I dont see his documented evidence of this. Where are the facts?

I do believe that there is NO expanding mechanism on a galactic scale however. Expansion happens at every 0 point of space. It should be the reflected wave that comes from the centers of all so called mass. But this is a spatial phenomena also, just as gravity is.

Meta

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Meta</i>
<br />*Halton Arp is full of carp*<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is something fishy about that claim. [] -|Tom|-

North,

but this does not mean that combining of these + & - energies did not happen extremly fast,are these energies literally at each end of a sphere and is there as of yet any structured matter, atoms,molecules and/or elements?
____________________________________________________________________
ans: yes there are molecules and atom, you are such structured matter. It did occur extremely fast, but not faster than the speed of light.


North:
but what would stop the energy from escaping the sphere before the split was halted?


Ans: The spin created by the EMF would curve the expansion until it closed the Split.


North:
there is a contridiction here, first you say that a dense area seeks out a lower dense area,as in your idea that the mass of the universe has moved to the boundry of the universe,and then you say that the mass of a galaxy will fall "into" the vortex.

think about this, which "plane" of the galaxy do we orient ourselves to,for if i invert the plane so that for arguments sake up is now down-down is now up so now the spiral arms rotate in the opposite direction which plane for the vortex do we use?,each plane is a legitimate and valid orientation with which both have vortices,which now cancell each other. this is why i agree with Halton's idea that matter is moving out and away from the center because no matter the orienation there is no contridiction.


Meta Posted - 14 Jun 2004 : 15:03:13

---

I see your point, but there is no contradiction. The center of the sphere IS the souce of the spin and therefore is the source of greatest density in the CLOSED SYSTEM, it can move to the edge of the sphere, the rest of the matter within the sphere is subject to the forces of the center of spin that have now moved to the edge of the Closed System.

It does not matter which plane of the Universal Vortex we use, the galaxies are a different subject. The Universal Vortex is a geometric model with a defined dynamic floating in a sea of endless elysium (only nothing possible). "Down" will always be the vertex and "up" will always be the base dynamically speaking. There may be more of them as Tom has convinced me that no one can claim there is a limit and I can't. But, I also cannot say with any more certainty that there are other systems.

As for the galaxies, this is even far fetch speculation for me, but the Universal attraction by the vertex of the Universal funnel may generate conditions where a funnel shaped galaxy (lesser vortex) is highly unlikely if not impossible. Giving this "flatness" it may be that the attraction of the center of the galaxy is not as strong as the angular momentum generated on this flat horizontal plain we see in most spiral galaxies. It may be an issue of limitation on sub-systems (galaxies) generated by the Universal Vortex. Harp may be right in some cases, but not necessarily all.