chalidze
More Notes On Origin Of Galaxies. Feb 2016
One may fully understand my posting on the Origin of Galaxies only if one reads my book (Mass And Electric Charge In The Vortex Theory Of Matter, [Now in public domain.
http://www.worksofvalerychalidze.com/My e-mail VRAZHEK43 at Gmail.com.]) , but a reading of my previous postings might give a general impression:
On the Stability Of A Vortex World;
Order Among Galaxies; and
More On Order Among Galaxies.
My model of the origin of galaxies is formulated within my Vortex Theory Of Matter, and makes no sense at all within the confines of traditional twentieth-century physics.
1. Main Supposition. Before our world as we now see it came into existence, atoms that were structurally (topologically) like ours were floating through space – except they were gigantic. This was the Large World: a vorticular world like ours, also with quite large particles of vorton gas performing a stabilizing function to prevent atom particles from destruction, just as I explained in my Vortex Theory about the existing world.
The problem was, and is, that particles of this stabilizing vorton gas (vortons) themselves are not stable, and can lose their functionality by dividing limitlessly into smaller rings. In fact, introducing this stabilizing vorton gas is what permitted me to take the next step, comparing my model with William Thomson's vortex-atoms model, which did not have a stabilizing factor. It's a pity that, having no knowledge of elementary particles, he applied this model directly to atoms which are (as now is clear) actually a combination of rings of elementary particles.
Of course, although “vortex rings” has been a traditional figure of speech since William Thomson, actually they are electro-magnetic rings -- combinations of rings of Maxwell’s displacement current. Rephrasing a coined phrase is annoying even for the author, so I see no reason to replace the expression “vortex ring,” although it is clear that I am talking about electro-magnetic rings; the rings of Maxwell’s displacement current and vortex lines are lines of that current. To avoid mixing it with the more ancient hydro-dynamic models, I also use
the expression “hydrodynamic approximation”.
2. After an unimaginably-long existence, this stabilizing factor of the Large World disappeared for unknown reasons. Once this happened, the field vortices that had held paleo-atoms together deteriorated, as well as the vortex rings of paleo-electrons and the paleo-atoms' nuclei. Because vorticular movement does not disappear, when I say “deterioration” in this context I mean “recycling”: changing the shape and size of vorticular movement.
The result of this deterioration was the birth of new, much smaller particles of vorton gas which now stabilize our world; and, eventually, the birth of new vortex rings of electrons and other particles of our world. All this is from the recycled vortices of the deteriorating Large World. And large it was: so large that each paleo-atom of that world gave birth to what we observe now as a galaxy — hundreds of billions of stars and also all the
particles around us and in us.
3. Knowing the distances between satellite galaxies and big galaxies, and counting the satellite galaxies (paleo-electrons) around a big galaxy (paleo-nucleus), when possible, might help to identify the paleo-atoms. One could expect full Mendeleev table. A set of relative distances could be used as ‘’fingerprints” for further identification.
Identifying atoms in clusters of galaxies is most promising for possible identification of paleo-molecules. This especially interesting along lines of a supercluster, as anything linear in the configuration of paleo-atoms would invite fantasies about paleo-biochemistry -- some paleo-protein chain or paleo-RNA, for example. Chances that such interesting things are located close enough for us to see are very small, of course.
One should disregard possible free paleo-electrons in the Large World; measuring distances from them will not help to identify atoms. One should similarly disregard other, non-electron, free paleo-particles. They also must be more or less galaxies++iikl.;/ by now.
4. The gaseous existence of paleo-atoms which now are galaxies, is more likely than their existence in the form of solid bodies. Indeed, deterioration of the paleo-atoms of a solid body would create a huge mess in our skies, with little chance to recognize separate galaxies.
5. Obviously, deteriorating atoms of the Large World produced, and most likely are still producing, plenty of tiny vortons — rings of vortex gas which are responsible not only for the stability of our particles, but also for shadow gravitation in our world. With the source of vortons inside a group of galaxies, vortons are also the source of “negative shadow gravitation” — what is called inflation of the universe. There is no need for a hypothesis of dark matter or dark energy.
6. Observing what is left from the Large World, we see an abundance of new particles of stars and gases, and also occasionally what is left of a huge vortex ring in the center of a galaxy, which is a partially-deteriorated part of a paleo-nucleus. Of course, our vorton gas affects what is left from paleo-nuclei: the gravity experienced by a galaxy’s core vortex ring is certainly provided by our vorton gas, as is the “negative gravity” responsible for the “expansion of the universe”. In any case it is interesting that now some details of atomic structure are easier to observe in a telescope, than in the most powerful microscope.
7. As there is no inertia of translational movement in aether (only the inertia of vorticular movement), one might assume that deteriorating paleo-atoms remain more or less in the same place as when the deterioration started. As to possible paleo-molecules, we can guess their existence based on the position of paleo-atoms next to each other, rather than on the presence of a field vortex connecting paleo-atoms into paleo-molecules, as the field vortex apparently deteriorated before the main vortex rings of the nuclei. [There is a simple reason for that: vortex fibers of field vortices are not pre-twisted, as in the vortices of particles.]
[NOT TWISTED VORTICULAR FIBERS FROM LW produced photons, pretweisted -- particles.]
8. The main reason to worry about the stability of a vortex world in general is the clear fact that the particles of vorton gas are not stable themselves, although they provide stability for those particles they attack. They do not stabilize each other, however; this is the Achilles heel of any vortex world of this kind. The particles of vorton gas certainly are divisible, like any ring of displacement current. Actually, vortex theory is built on the assumption that the stable rings of a displacement current (what we called elementary particles) are stabilized by the attacks of numerous tiny rings of displacement current (particles of vorton gas), which are themselves unstable.
Mentioning a “reason to worry about the stability of a vortex world” is actually funny: worry or not, it is something an observer cannot affect.
9. As to the occasional orientation of galaxies that I discussed before it can, of course, be the result of the effect of, let's say, a magnetic field on paleo-atoms. The easier explanation, though, is that remnants of vortex rings of paleo-nuclei — cores of galaxies -- show orientation due to movement in the same direction as at the time the deterioration started and movement stopped. (I refer to observation, see
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-spooky-alignment-quasars-billions-light-years.html and also the article: "Alignment of quasar polarizations with large-scale structures", Astronomy & Astrophysics, 19 November 2014.)
10. It could be tempting -- although not promising -- to assess the size of a paleo-nucleus by calculating the mass of the observed galaxy, but I am not the one who can say how to do it.
11. In an undisturbed state, particles and nuclei are circular rings. If disturbed by a collision, they start to oscillate. The vortex rings of particles and nuclei are oscillating around a circular form, especially after collisions with other rings. So, one would expect that if at the moment (or eon) when deterioration began, the paleo-ring was elliptical, that particularity occasionally would be noticeable in the observed shape of a galaxy.
12. As I mentioned, inside of some Large paleo-particles (now galaxies), the vortex rings did not deteriorate completely. Do they perform the primary function of any vortex ring, which is to move forward? In any case, the remnants of those rings are deteriorating, and an eschatologically-concerned person would be expected to hope that we are still have enough space to accommodate the recycled vorticular material of what is left of the Large world (in the form of stars, planets and gases).
13. As to left-handed and right-handed galaxies providing the direction of the “jet stream” is known, (see WynonaZeleznik’s remark), I hope one day someone will look into a computer model of the deterioration of twisted vortex rings and observe the appearance and direction of the arms.
14.
Treacherous Mathematics
I still remember the valuable advice of my cousin and good friend, Vladimir Sobolev, who -- unlike any one else around me -- helped me to make a conditional peace with the fact that I was born into this weird world. This is the advice he gave me in 1966, when I was fiddling around with the generalization of Dirack’s equation using fractional derivatives and fractional dimensions in field theory. My cousin said: “never let mathematical concepts influence your physical theories.” His advice was quite surprising, because as a physicist of the twentieth century, he had to accept many things that originated in mathematics.
He was right; and in the 1970s, already in America, I returned to the hope of my youth to develop late nineteenth-century views on the vortex nature of matter. Thank you, Cousin, and thank you, Faraday and Maxwell and William Thompson. Although classical fundamental physics are built on firm ground, one should still be careful not to be sucked into the illusionary world of a more clever reality then reality.
One constant danger of the treacherous influence of mathematics is the uncritical acceptance of the existence of empty space. This comfortable mathematical concept can only be used by realists in physics if empty space is a place for something; and one must ask: for what? Aether to the rescue, because empty space (being simply a mathematical abstraction, unlike aether) has no physical properties. The only thing worse is to ascribe to “empty space” physical effects, like producing force.
In the past the assumption was: if there is light, there is aether. In the vortex theory of matter the assumption is: if there is matter — there is aether. But that is for the universe.
What is outside of the universe, further from us than the most far galaxy? Does the abcense of aether mean empty space?
The observable universe must be a huge area filled with aether, but that area ends somewhere beyond the most far galaxy. There, perhaps there is real empty space, with no medium to conduct light or to have matter with its vortices.
In Maxwell’s time the question did not pop out; presumably aether was everywhere, and light was coming from everywhere. Now, with very sensitive telescopes, we can declare that the most far galaxy has been discovered; and what is beyond? With fantasies about the Big Bang and the age of the universe (measured no doubt in crooked time), the answer is easy: we (the Universe) simply have not yet reached what is beyond. Without this fantasy, one would guess: maybe there is empty space — space without aether that is; space where light simply cannot propagate due to the absence of media to propagate. The same could be said about particles of matter, as they are vortices in aether. In this case, the size of our aether cloud is the size of our universe.
All this can be just a question of the sensitivity of our telescopes, of course. Yet one might suspect a special property of the border: aether — the border with empty space. What if it acts as a mirror? Then the study of the farthest galaxies might be promising: maybe part of it is a reflected image?
The farthest galaxy, recently discovered (GN-z11, see http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/04/469200725/hubble-sees-a-galaxy-13-4-billion-years-in-the-past-breaking-distance-record), looks like an angry bear, not like a usual galaxy. Maybe we live in a fun house with crooked mirrors? It would be interesting to analyze images of galaxies close to the border of our universe.
In the history of physics, aether fell victim to the absence of a proper definition. It is an electro-magnetic medium, of course, but where? In empty space? And what is the border between aether and empty space?
Is it possible not to have aether somewhere? It is actually a legitimate physical question. Knowing what things are and what they do is also knowing how it is without them. If no aether, then no magnetic or electric field, no light propagation, and -- in the vortex theory -- even no matter propagation. The border between aether and no aether would be impenetrable, of course: an entity with oscillating E and H cannot penetrate into a place when E and H are impossible.
We are accustomed to think that the Universe is a bubble in space filled with matter and light. Actually, as we see now, it is a bubble in space filled with aether, which allows light and matter to exist. Outside of this bubble — in the outer universe — is either space without aether, or what-not. The border between two areas must be impenetrable and/or reflective.
Fantasy? That is what we humans suggest in the absence of facts. Of course, for people who believe in the peculiar Big Bang, our bubble is the only Universe. (“Believe” is the key word here).
There is another way to look at what the aether bubble concept is good for: in this area we can notice galaxies and stars; outside of this area, we cannot. If it is not just a question of the sensitivity of telescopes, then maybe there is nothing outside of the presumed bubble of aether: no aether, no stars and no source of detectable light. This aether bubble provided good housing accommodation for the atomic gas of the Large World. Vorticular atoms cannot penetrate the border of the bubble to spread everywhere into the outer universe.
Once stability factors were lost and atoms became galaxies, the enclosed bubble has been protecting our world from losing the stabilizing vorton gas. Can we detect the border of that bubble? To begin with, we never observed any light from outside of the presumed bubble. Blaming the insufficient sensitivity of telescopes is comfortable for now. But there is hope that we might notice the reflective property of the border itself. Actually, our bubble is filled with isotropic radiation, which may as well be many times a reflection from the bubble’s borders and back.
Valery Chalidze, Benson, Vt. March 21, 2016
Frozen Aether Or Empty Space?
I have no intention to produce the impression that I know what I am talking about. What is aether actually? Is it possible to have a bubble of aether? Yet, I must hypothesize if there are loose ends.
Why is there a supposedly isolated area filled with matter and light — our universe? Is the outer universe empty not only of matter and light, but also containing “empty space” but not aether?
To avoid the “empty space” trap, it might be time to remind the reader about the peculiar property of aether: rotorability, which I introduced when I discussed the proportionality of
a photon’s energy to its frequency. The introduction of rotatability actually eliminated the imaginary contradiction between classical physics and its later development. I am not impartial here: my philosophical rejection of, and – at the same time -- great respect for the experimental achievements of twentieth-century physics pushes me to pay special attention to the possibility of reconciling the old and new physics.
What if within our aether bubble there is proper rotorability of aether for all vorticular activity, but outside of our bubble aether is “frozen,” so to speak, due to the absence of sufficient rotation (no particles, photons or vortons)?
Could the border between aether in our bubble and the “frozen” aether outside be reflective?
In any case, when I say “aether bubble,” it should be understood as an “unfrozen aether bubble” or “active aether bubble”.
To me the most interesting is this: what is the relaxation time? That is, how soon does aether
freeze without vortices?
More observations on orientation: "Alignments of Radio Galaxies in Deep Radio Imaging of ELAIS N1," A. R. Taylor & P. Jagannathan, 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Oxford University Press. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-astronomers-south-africa-mysterious-alignment.html#jCp
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-astronomers-south-africa-mysterious-alignment.html.
I perceive this observations as an invitation to interpret galaxies next to each other as remnants of a few atoms of paleo-molecules. (See previous posting (7).)
Valery Chalidze, Benson, Vt. Apr 16, 2016.
====.
One may fully understand my posting on the Origin of Galaxies only if one reads my book (Mass And Electric Charge In The Vortex Theory Of Matter, [Now in public domain.
http://www.worksofvalerychalidze.com/My e-mail VRAZHEK43 at Gmail.com.]) , but a reading of my previous postings might give a general impression:
On the Stability Of A Vortex World;
Order Among Galaxies; and
More On Order Among Galaxies.
My model of the origin of galaxies is formulated within my Vortex Theory Of Matter, and makes no sense at all within the confines of traditional twentieth-century physics.
1. Main Supposition. Before our world as we now see it came into existence, atoms that were structurally (topologically) like ours were floating through space – except they were gigantic. This was the Large World: a vorticular world like ours, also with quite large particles of vorton gas performing a stabilizing function to prevent atom particles from destruction, just as I explained in my Vortex Theory about the existing world.
The problem was, and is, that particles of this stabilizing vorton gas (vortons) themselves are not stable, and can lose their functionality by dividing limitlessly into smaller rings. In fact, introducing this stabilizing vorton gas is what permitted me to take the next step, comparing my model with William Thomson's vortex-atoms model, which did not have a stabilizing factor. It's a pity that, having no knowledge of elementary particles, he applied this model directly to atoms which are (as now is clear) actually a combination of rings of elementary particles.
Of course, although “vortex rings” has been a traditional figure of speech since William Thomson, actually they are electro-magnetic rings -- combinations of rings of Maxwell’s displacement current. Rephrasing a coined phrase is annoying even for the author, so I see no reason to replace the expression “vortex ring,” although it is clear that I am talking about electro-magnetic rings; the rings of Maxwell’s displacement current and vortex lines are lines of that current. To avoid mixing it with the more ancient hydro-dynamic models, I also use
the expression “hydrodynamic approximation”.
2. After an unimaginably-long existence, this stabilizing factor of the Large World disappeared for unknown reasons. Once this happened, the field vortices that had held paleo-atoms together deteriorated, as well as the vortex rings of paleo-electrons and the paleo-atoms' nuclei. Because vorticular movement does not disappear, when I say “deterioration” in this context I mean “recycling”: changing the shape and size of vorticular movement.
The result of this deterioration was the birth of new, much smaller particles of vorton gas which now stabilize our world; and, eventually, the birth of new vortex rings of electrons and other particles of our world. All this is from the recycled vortices of the deteriorating Large World. And large it was: so large that each paleo-atom of that world gave birth to what we observe now as a galaxy — hundreds of billions of stars and also all the
particles around us and in us.
3. Knowing the distances between satellite galaxies and big galaxies, and counting the satellite galaxies (paleo-electrons) around a big galaxy (paleo-nucleus), when possible, might help to identify the paleo-atoms. One could expect full Mendeleev table. A set of relative distances could be used as ‘’fingerprints” for further identification.
Identifying atoms in clusters of galaxies is most promising for possible identification of paleo-molecules. This especially interesting along lines of a supercluster, as anything linear in the configuration of paleo-atoms would invite fantasies about paleo-biochemistry -- some paleo-protein chain or paleo-RNA, for example. Chances that such interesting things are located close enough for us to see are very small, of course.
One should disregard possible free paleo-electrons in the Large World; measuring distances from them will not help to identify atoms. One should similarly disregard other, non-electron, free paleo-particles. They also must be more or less galaxies++iikl.;/ by now.
4. The gaseous existence of paleo-atoms which now are galaxies, is more likely than their existence in the form of solid bodies. Indeed, deterioration of the paleo-atoms of a solid body would create a huge mess in our skies, with little chance to recognize separate galaxies.
5. Obviously, deteriorating atoms of the Large World produced, and most likely are still producing, plenty of tiny vortons — rings of vortex gas which are responsible not only for the stability of our particles, but also for shadow gravitation in our world. With the source of vortons inside a group of galaxies, vortons are also the source of “negative shadow gravitation” — what is called inflation of the universe. There is no need for a hypothesis of dark matter or dark energy.
6. Observing what is left from the Large World, we see an abundance of new particles of stars and gases, and also occasionally what is left of a huge vortex ring in the center of a galaxy, which is a partially-deteriorated part of a paleo-nucleus. Of course, our vorton gas affects what is left from paleo-nuclei: the gravity experienced by a galaxy’s core vortex ring is certainly provided by our vorton gas, as is the “negative gravity” responsible for the “expansion of the universe”. In any case it is interesting that now some details of atomic structure are easier to observe in a telescope, than in the most powerful microscope.
7. As there is no inertia of translational movement in aether (only the inertia of vorticular movement), one might assume that deteriorating paleo-atoms remain more or less in the same place as when the deterioration started. As to possible paleo-molecules, we can guess their existence based on the position of paleo-atoms next to each other, rather than on the presence of a field vortex connecting paleo-atoms into paleo-molecules, as the field vortex apparently deteriorated before the main vortex rings of the nuclei. [There is a simple reason for that: vortex fibers of field vortices are not pre-twisted, as in the vortices of particles.]
[NOT TWISTED VORTICULAR FIBERS FROM LW produced photons, pretweisted -- particles.]
8. The main reason to worry about the stability of a vortex world in general is the clear fact that the particles of vorton gas are not stable themselves, although they provide stability for those particles they attack. They do not stabilize each other, however; this is the Achilles heel of any vortex world of this kind. The particles of vorton gas certainly are divisible, like any ring of displacement current. Actually, vortex theory is built on the assumption that the stable rings of a displacement current (what we called elementary particles) are stabilized by the attacks of numerous tiny rings of displacement current (particles of vorton gas), which are themselves unstable.
Mentioning a “reason to worry about the stability of a vortex world” is actually funny: worry or not, it is something an observer cannot affect.
9. As to the occasional orientation of galaxies that I discussed before it can, of course, be the result of the effect of, let's say, a magnetic field on paleo-atoms. The easier explanation, though, is that remnants of vortex rings of paleo-nuclei — cores of galaxies -- show orientation due to movement in the same direction as at the time the deterioration started and movement stopped. (I refer to observation, see
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-spooky-alignment-quasars-billions-light-years.html and also the article: "Alignment of quasar polarizations with large-scale structures", Astronomy & Astrophysics, 19 November 2014.)
10. It could be tempting -- although not promising -- to assess the size of a paleo-nucleus by calculating the mass of the observed galaxy, but I am not the one who can say how to do it.
11. In an undisturbed state, particles and nuclei are circular rings. If disturbed by a collision, they start to oscillate. The vortex rings of particles and nuclei are oscillating around a circular form, especially after collisions with other rings. So, one would expect that if at the moment (or eon) when deterioration began, the paleo-ring was elliptical, that particularity occasionally would be noticeable in the observed shape of a galaxy.
12. As I mentioned, inside of some Large paleo-particles (now galaxies), the vortex rings did not deteriorate completely. Do they perform the primary function of any vortex ring, which is to move forward? In any case, the remnants of those rings are deteriorating, and an eschatologically-concerned person would be expected to hope that we are still have enough space to accommodate the recycled vorticular material of what is left of the Large world (in the form of stars, planets and gases).
13. As to left-handed and right-handed galaxies providing the direction of the “jet stream” is known, (see WynonaZeleznik’s remark), I hope one day someone will look into a computer model of the deterioration of twisted vortex rings and observe the appearance and direction of the arms.
14.
Treacherous Mathematics
I still remember the valuable advice of my cousin and good friend, Vladimir Sobolev, who -- unlike any one else around me -- helped me to make a conditional peace with the fact that I was born into this weird world. This is the advice he gave me in 1966, when I was fiddling around with the generalization of Dirack’s equation using fractional derivatives and fractional dimensions in field theory. My cousin said: “never let mathematical concepts influence your physical theories.” His advice was quite surprising, because as a physicist of the twentieth century, he had to accept many things that originated in mathematics.
He was right; and in the 1970s, already in America, I returned to the hope of my youth to develop late nineteenth-century views on the vortex nature of matter. Thank you, Cousin, and thank you, Faraday and Maxwell and William Thompson. Although classical fundamental physics are built on firm ground, one should still be careful not to be sucked into the illusionary world of a more clever reality then reality.
One constant danger of the treacherous influence of mathematics is the uncritical acceptance of the existence of empty space. This comfortable mathematical concept can only be used by realists in physics if empty space is a place for something; and one must ask: for what? Aether to the rescue, because empty space (being simply a mathematical abstraction, unlike aether) has no physical properties. The only thing worse is to ascribe to “empty space” physical effects, like producing force.
In the past the assumption was: if there is light, there is aether. In the vortex theory of matter the assumption is: if there is matter — there is aether. But that is for the universe.
What is outside of the universe, further from us than the most far galaxy? Does the abcense of aether mean empty space?
The observable universe must be a huge area filled with aether, but that area ends somewhere beyond the most far galaxy. There, perhaps there is real empty space, with no medium to conduct light or to have matter with its vortices.
In Maxwell’s time the question did not pop out; presumably aether was everywhere, and light was coming from everywhere. Now, with very sensitive telescopes, we can declare that the most far galaxy has been discovered; and what is beyond? With fantasies about the Big Bang and the age of the universe (measured no doubt in crooked time), the answer is easy: we (the Universe) simply have not yet reached what is beyond. Without this fantasy, one would guess: maybe there is empty space — space without aether that is; space where light simply cannot propagate due to the absence of media to propagate. The same could be said about particles of matter, as they are vortices in aether. In this case, the size of our aether cloud is the size of our universe.
All this can be just a question of the sensitivity of our telescopes, of course. Yet one might suspect a special property of the border: aether — the border with empty space. What if it acts as a mirror? Then the study of the farthest galaxies might be promising: maybe part of it is a reflected image?
The farthest galaxy, recently discovered (GN-z11, see http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/04/469200725/hubble-sees-a-galaxy-13-4-billion-years-in-the-past-breaking-distance-record), looks like an angry bear, not like a usual galaxy. Maybe we live in a fun house with crooked mirrors? It would be interesting to analyze images of galaxies close to the border of our universe.
In the history of physics, aether fell victim to the absence of a proper definition. It is an electro-magnetic medium, of course, but where? In empty space? And what is the border between aether and empty space?
Is it possible not to have aether somewhere? It is actually a legitimate physical question. Knowing what things are and what they do is also knowing how it is without them. If no aether, then no magnetic or electric field, no light propagation, and -- in the vortex theory -- even no matter propagation. The border between aether and no aether would be impenetrable, of course: an entity with oscillating E and H cannot penetrate into a place when E and H are impossible.
We are accustomed to think that the Universe is a bubble in space filled with matter and light. Actually, as we see now, it is a bubble in space filled with aether, which allows light and matter to exist. Outside of this bubble — in the outer universe — is either space without aether, or what-not. The border between two areas must be impenetrable and/or reflective.
Fantasy? That is what we humans suggest in the absence of facts. Of course, for people who believe in the peculiar Big Bang, our bubble is the only Universe. (“Believe” is the key word here).
There is another way to look at what the aether bubble concept is good for: in this area we can notice galaxies and stars; outside of this area, we cannot. If it is not just a question of the sensitivity of telescopes, then maybe there is nothing outside of the presumed bubble of aether: no aether, no stars and no source of detectable light. This aether bubble provided good housing accommodation for the atomic gas of the Large World. Vorticular atoms cannot penetrate the border of the bubble to spread everywhere into the outer universe.
Once stability factors were lost and atoms became galaxies, the enclosed bubble has been protecting our world from losing the stabilizing vorton gas. Can we detect the border of that bubble? To begin with, we never observed any light from outside of the presumed bubble. Blaming the insufficient sensitivity of telescopes is comfortable for now. But there is hope that we might notice the reflective property of the border itself. Actually, our bubble is filled with isotropic radiation, which may as well be many times a reflection from the bubble’s borders and back.
Valery Chalidze, Benson, Vt. March 21, 2016
Frozen Aether Or Empty Space?
I have no intention to produce the impression that I know what I am talking about. What is aether actually? Is it possible to have a bubble of aether? Yet, I must hypothesize if there are loose ends.
Why is there a supposedly isolated area filled with matter and light — our universe? Is the outer universe empty not only of matter and light, but also containing “empty space” but not aether?
To avoid the “empty space” trap, it might be time to remind the reader about the peculiar property of aether: rotorability, which I introduced when I discussed the proportionality of
a photon’s energy to its frequency. The introduction of rotatability actually eliminated the imaginary contradiction between classical physics and its later development. I am not impartial here: my philosophical rejection of, and – at the same time -- great respect for the experimental achievements of twentieth-century physics pushes me to pay special attention to the possibility of reconciling the old and new physics.
What if within our aether bubble there is proper rotorability of aether for all vorticular activity, but outside of our bubble aether is “frozen,” so to speak, due to the absence of sufficient rotation (no particles, photons or vortons)?
Could the border between aether in our bubble and the “frozen” aether outside be reflective?
In any case, when I say “aether bubble,” it should be understood as an “unfrozen aether bubble” or “active aether bubble”.
To me the most interesting is this: what is the relaxation time? That is, how soon does aether
freeze without vortices?
More observations on orientation: "Alignments of Radio Galaxies in Deep Radio Imaging of ELAIS N1," A. R. Taylor & P. Jagannathan, 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Oxford University Press. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-astronomers-south-africa-mysterious-alignment.html#jCp
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-astronomers-south-africa-mysterious-alignment.html.
I perceive this observations as an invitation to interpret galaxies next to each other as remnants of a few atoms of paleo-molecules. (See previous posting (7).)
Valery Chalidze, Benson, Vt. Apr 16, 2016.
====.