Thanks for your views about the Oort cloud. Unlike you I believe that it is a real cloud of objects and furthermore, because FET predicts a universe that is eternal and not just 13.7 billion years old, there has been ample time for the whole of the Milky Way to have once been a vast cloud of the same objects.
Then as star sized whirlpools developed they drew them inwards to form rocky and metallic cores for the stars and for large gaseous planets that failed to become stars. Hence every star in the Milky Way has cleared the region around it of debris for about 1 light year leaving a network of comets between them.
If we assume that there is an Oort cloud around the solar system then at a distance of 1 light from the Sun they would have surface temperatures very close to 2.7K. Although it is impossible at the moment to say how many objects are in the cloud it has been suggested that it could be around a trillion.
A cloud this size would therefore be expected to produce a black body curve with a temperature of 2.7K just as we see.
My calculations to explain the intensity of the CMBR led to a value of half a trillion objects with an average diameter of 2km. I have read a comment in a new scientist article that the intensity of the CMBR does not fit with the amount of radiation that is predicted to have been released according to the big bang model. So far though I have not been able to find a single reference to anyone who has made this comparison. I think the reason may be that because it cannot be explained as being compatible with the bb it is better not to mention it.
If anyone out there can find a reference I would be pleased if you could make me aware of it.
The acquisition of debris by gaseous planets would also account for the large magnetic field of Jupiter rather than assuming it is due to the presence of a metallic hydrogen core.
I cannot agree with you when you talk about reversing the arrow of time because I believe that everything can be explained in terms of positive time only, the same as I do not believe in negative energy or anti matter. Why introduce these and make things more complicated than they are?
Thanks for pointing me to your #78 post. I love your graphics and your poetry and the way you threaded FET into it.
The diagrams you see in my book cost me around £2000 and they are nowhere near as pretty as yours. Perhaps I should commission you for my book 2 diagrams especially the ones of atomic structures because they are a little similar to the one in your post.
Welcome to this thread. I have only had time to take a quick look at your site but will spend more time there when possible.
I had not heard of Descartes vortex theory when I started with FET. It was only when I considered idea of there being ultimate particles of matter could lead nowhere that I assumed energy to be continuous. Then when I pondered how a continuous substance would behave I concluded that any motions within it would automatically start a 2-dimensional whirlpool that increased in speed of rotation. Then when I did come across Descartes’ work it all started to make sense.
This is in fact the thing that unifies the large with the small because whirlpools can be of any size from quantum ones that create particles to some so large they create great walls of galaxies.
They also explain a lot of other things such as atomic bonding, the operation of gyroscopes and magnetism to name a few.
I will come back to you when I have had a chance to study your site
I can't really draw freehand like an artist does from scratch, but am more of a compositor in overlaying parts and rearranging, but that can do the job, too, perhaps even more easily. Perhaps you could post some pencil sketches or reference some diagrams that you know about somewhere that could be reworked.
Too bad color books are so expensive to produce, at least for what I've done myself as on-demand books. Seems worth it if there's much color on every page, but perhaps not if it's only on a few pages since they still charge as if it were through and through the whole book.
Thank you as well. I would definitely have to agree with you that comets come from "a network between stars." That is what I meant when I said that they are "renegade objects existing throughout the universe."
But the strict idea that all of the comets are arranged into a neat oort cloud is just plain ridiculous. Comets are travelling everywhere throughout the universe! If they're not on an eccentric orbit with a star then they are travelling in some random direction at some very high speed. They don't just sit around in the oort cloud. If the oort cloud existed and is as well populated as we are lead to believe then there is no way we would see other stars. The oort cloud would be a wall. Yes it would be like the CMB, but it would block out other stars. At any rate, the oort cloud is an invention of Mr. OORt and it does not exist nor has it ever been observed. Or has it?
Just assuming the oort cloud did exist, how can you use it to calculate the temperature of the CMB if as you said it is not known how many objects would be in the oort cloud? Perhaps you adjusted your numbers until you got the calculation for the CMB temperature. Is that called an ad hoc theory?
The strength of your theory is in your revelation about the ultimate cause of matter and it's structure. We agree, the ultimate structure of the universe can be reduced to a 2d vortex. Did you know this 2d vortex is none other than the symbol of two circles interlocking? From the symbol of two-circles interlocking, with a black hole in the center, we derive the symbol of the vortex which is actually used on the weather channel.
ps. speaking of vortexes, my friend is the one who caused the tornados in Wisconsin. Don't be mad, it was unintentional, if you know what I mean. As for the Earthquake in China, the culprits are fully to blaim
pps. would love to hear your theory about magnetism one of these days. Don't play with magnets unless you are prepared to unlock the secrets of the universe. Just some advice from someone who knows about something.
If, now, you worry that we will not last,
That the likes of us someday will be past,
Then wonder whither whence we mortals went
After the last of us her life has spent…
…The one Eternal Energy has formed
Trillions of baubles like thee, and will form,
Forevermore—the comings and passings
Of which Energy emits to immerse
As much air’s self heeds bubbles blown and burst.
I later realised that there is a difference between an energy and water whirlpools in that when an object is dropped into water it immediately adopts the same speed as the water. With energy whirlpools it takes time to accelerate to the speed of the energy. At the Earth's surface I calculated the flow rate of gravitational energy to be 11.2km/sec. i.e. equal to its escape velocity. If you jumped out of a plane at 1km and immediately took on the speed of the energy then you would hit the ground in less than 0.1sec. I have shown in book 2 how and why the acceleration is only 9.8m/sec. This rate depends upon the actual energy density of the continuum and this varies from a minimum at the outermost edge of a whirlpool to a maximum at its centre.
Hi Jimbo,
Can you show us the calculation for the flow rate of gravitational energy to be 11.2km/sec, and the theory for this calculation.
Thanks.
__________________ ~ vincent . . . . . Universal Vortical Singularity It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction - Albert Einstein
But the strict idea that all of the comets are arranged into a neat oort cloud is just plain ridiculous. Comets are travelling everywhere throughout the universe! If they're not on an eccentric orbit with a star then they are travelling in some random direction at some very high speed. They don't just sit around in the oort cloud. If the oort cloud existed and is as well populated as we are lead to believe then there is no way we would see other stars. The oort cloud would be a wall. Yes it would be like the CMB, but it would block out other stars. At any rate, the oort cloud is an invention of Mr. OORt and it does not exist nor has it ever been observed. Or has it?
Hi xxyy,
IMO, the idea that all of the comets are arranged into a neat oort cloud is very logical.
Assuming planetary nebulae are weaved into their current shape in wobbling vortices, consolidated objects such as comets in the vortically scattered stellar materials could be neatly arranged. Protoplanetary disks of Sun could also have behaved in a manner like these planetary nebulae. NGC 6781 Bubble-shaped Nebula has a similar pattern as the artist impression for Oort cloud.
The above left image is NGC 6781 Bubble-shaped Nebula, the the image on its right is an artist's rendering of the Oort cloud
The Crab Nebula M1 NGC 1952
The Cat's Eye Nebula NGC 6543
Thanks.
__________________ ~ vincent . . . . . Universal Vortical Singularity It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction - Albert Einstein
My calculation for the flow rate of gravitational energy did not come straight away but only became apparent as I developed FET along several different paths that then all came together. It is explained in book 1 “Wot, no bang?” but I have given a summary here.
FET started with my considering what a photon could be like if it was considered to be a particle and it could be captured and held stationary. In my mind I pictured a sphere that in order to pass through a hole smaller than itself, must be easily compressible and yet have the power to return to its original size.
Then I imagined it moving along at light speed so that when it passed a fixed point in space it would be registered as a half wave pulse of energy with the wavelength being equal to its diameter.
I then looked at the electromagnetic spectrum and saw that the maximum energy in a photon was for a gamma ray with an energy of around 10^9eV, a wavelength around 10^-15m and a frequency around 10^23cps.
This was as far as I got with photons but it had started me to think of energy as being a real substance. I then turned my attention to what matter was made from. Current atomic theories started with the atom as being the fundamental particle but then progressed to neutrons, protons and electrons and then to quarks and gluons and then vibrating strings. I considered that this approach could go on ad infinitum until the ultimate particles were infinitesimal. So the notion of energy being a real substance and a continuous substance was born.
I then considered what the properties of such a substance would be. I wondered how it would react if stirred and it seemed logical that instead of spreading outwards due to the centrifugal force it would be drawn inwards under the centripetal force. Furthermore, once a region of energy had started to spin and draw in more energy it would speed up like a skater drawing in their arms.
So the first property of fluid energy I identified was that it would concentrate itself into regions of ever increasing density and spin rate. If this was the end of the story then all of the energy in the universe would have ended up in black holes so I assumed that there must be a limit.
It was then that I recalled that the maximum frequency of a photon was 10^23rps and so I assumed that when the spin rate reached this speed some sort of change must occur. The logical answer was that energy had reached its limit of compressibility, i.e. the fluid form becomes solidified. Calculations showed that spinning at 10^23rps, the surface speed of a sphere or disc would be equal to light speed when the diameter was around 10^-15m.
I then considered how the fluid energy of the continuum could be laid down upon the growing particle to make it grow in size. If solid energy really is incompressible then it could not be laid down as string being wound up into a ball. It could only be deposited as a finite spot.
So the rate at which energy could be accumulated must be dependent upon the size of that spot and my first guess was that it should have the Planck length. This gave me a growth time of 10^11 years, which seemed at the time so ridiculous that I moved on to consider what would stop a particle (which I was convinced was the neutron) from growing in size.
Whereas the stirring of a continuous substance generates a centripetal force, the spinning of matter made from particles generates a centrifugal force. It therefore seemed obvious that once energy had been solidified and become particulate it would develop a centrifugal force inside it. This force increases with size only, as the spin rate becomes constant once solidification has begun.
There must therefore come a point where the centrifugal force equals that of the centripetal force and therefore no more fluid energy can be laid down upon the particle and it stops growing.
This again would have been the end of evolution if the maximum of the centrifugal force was at the outermost edge of the particle. Fortunately it is within the outermost edge and therefore the two forces balance at this point and the solid energy outside of this point can no longer be restrained by the centripetal force and so it breaks away and become fluid energy again.
What was needed now to allow calculation of the flow rate of energy onto a growing nucleon was the density of continuum energy. So, recalling that there was an upper limit to the energy that a photon could carry (where a photon effectively becomes a neutron), I considered that there might also be a lower limit where the density of the photon would become equal to that of the continuum. After all, you could not have a photon with a lower energy density because it would cause it to implode. This gave me a figure of around 2x10^15eV/m^3 for the energy density of the continuum and a flow rate of 3.2x10^-18eV/s onto a mature neutron.
This gave a more accurate value for the creation time of a neutron at 10^19years.
Knowing that the earth has around 3.6x10^51 nucleons, the total flow of energy into the earth must be 1.15x10^34eV/s. The surface area of the earth is 5.1x10^14m^2 and therefore the flow rate comes to 11.3km/s.
I then realised that there was an alternative method to calculate the flow rate of continuum energy onto a mature neutron when I worked out that a photon loses energy at the same rate as a neutron accumulates it. Now because the highest energy gamma ray is on the verge of becoming a neutron, i.e. its energy density has just reached the limit of fluid energy becoming solidified, then I could calculate how long it would take for this photon to be completely drained of energy from the red shift of starlight. Using a Hubble constant of 70.1 (km/s)/Mpc gives this photon a lifetime of 10^19 years, exactly as calculated for the creation time of a neutron.
For completeness, I calculated the flow rate of electron energy around a proton and it gave a figure 10^39 times greater than the flow rate of continuum energy onto a neutron i.e. exactly equal to the relative strengths of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces.
Hence FET shows how neutrons are created and at the same time accounts exactly for the red shift of starlight, the gravitational force of gravity and its strength relative to the electromagnetic force.
Linear Mode
