Posted by: graemebird | September 4, 2015

Do Galaxies Grow?

Is the diameter of our galaxy increasing over time? Are any other galaxies expanding?
The orbits of two or more large bodies always get further apart. The orbits gain energy. They accelerate and the bodies gain mass. Some contemplation will tell you why this has to be the case for a meaningful reality to exist.

Matter has a great deal of complexity. The construction of anything complex requires tasks in parallel and in series. It takes time. Therefore it must be ongoing. Old matter must assist in the construction of new matter or else new matter creation would be a separate miracle every moment. New matter creation therefore takes place inside of large objects. Therefore we see why the orbits of two large bodies must always grow larger and accelerate. Or matter would amalgamate, rather than orbit, meaning that no serious reality could ever have gotten started.

So yes galaxies grow larger.  But if this process continued forever the universe would be crowded with mass. There is periodic culling. Every so often we expect Sagittarius A* to send out a shockwave culling moons, planets and stars.

Moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars and on to larger stars. But at any stage a shockwave from the centre can cause any of these to explode.


Why Newton’s laws of motion explain correctly the earth’s orbit but not mercury’s?


Where Mercury is concerned, Newtons formulation succeeded on one level and failed on another.  Newtons formulation implied that there was a more oblate inner sun. A flatter inner sun means a faster spinning oceanic sun. Faster spinning and more dense. But Newtons formulation failed in terms of its projection of the relative mass of the sun. The formulae suggested that the sun was not particularly dense overall and so must have been made mostly of hydrogen.

The hydrogen sun thesis was a grave error. Since it lead to the fantasy of hydrogen self-compression. The problem is that we were probably still six decades or more away from being able to collect the necessary data to do a second draft on Newton’s good works at the turn of the century.

Its not so much that the situation was ripe for opportunistic abuse. Because what team Einstein got going went way beyond mere opportunism. It would be good if Einstein could simply be forgotten so we could get on with it. But we are not talking about yesterdays scandal.

So anyway Newtons setup did not do too badly. 50/50 with regards to Mercury. There is an inner water ocean. But the sun is not made of hydrogen.

Posted by: graemebird | September 2, 2015

What Is The Cosmic Radiation Mystery All About?


In what way can the cosmic background radiation be construed as evidence for the big bang?


The CMBR cannot possibly be construed as some remnant of the Big Bang. This mantra is drummed into people with such ferocity because the CMBR is definitely proof of something. If NASA is reading things right and not accidentally reading something else, then the CMBR is proof of the aether.

Now this is not to say we need further proof of the aether. The existence of the aether is proven by the wave nature of light.  But that the CMBR proves the aether and makes no possible logical inference for the Big Bang tells us why the oligarchy seeks to pummel everyone with the anti-logic mantra, to whit; CMBR implies Big Bang.

You see the pummelling has to go so far as to override the very logical faculties of the meme-disease spreader. There can be no letup. The denial of aether is the kingpin of science fraud. The mother of all science lies. The Big Bang is the most ambitious fairy tale ever told. So the oligarchy wants the Big Bang. The oligarchy does NOT want the aether.

So this meme-disease must be hammered in with extreme prejudice because its dual purpose. One mantra doing double duty nailing in two of the most important science lies the bigshots have.

The CMBR shines on all of us. It will hold you and your Andromeda girlfriend together when you are far apart. But I ask you:  If the cosmic radiation is not the RESONANT FREQUENCY of the aether itself, then where the hell is this light shining from?


What is the cosmic background radiation


The CMBR is the luminiferous aether resonating.

True story. Accept no science lies.

Posted by: graemebird | September 1, 2015

What Is The Dark Matter Mystery All About?


I’ve often wondered if an extension on our laws of gravity wouldn’t be sufficient to explain the discrepancies in mass that we see in galaxies etc. but many Quorians have posted saying that we’ve done experiments that show that DM is more likely- what are those experiments? How do they work?


Your instincts are correct. Dark matter is just a fudge factor. The anti-scientists will not allow for real science to go ahead. Real science would entail going back to the drawing board and systematically re-investigating Gravity for the first time in three centuries. The leadership is treating gravity as a personal secret. They have these physicists jumping through hoops to avoid anyone doing actual science. Its not just dark matter that proves they have gravity wrong. Before that we had the insane doctrine that the largest objects are made out of lifting gases that defied everything we know about the behaviour of these gases and self-compressed, leaving the rocks to amalgamate separately. Only extreme control and abuse could lead to these outcomes.

They have not done the experiments you have suggested. The physics-boy 101 types are belligerent against the suggestion that physicists ought to indulge in due diligence as opposed to propaganda.

It is not so much modified Newtonian gravity that is needed here. “Modified” does not capture it. What is required is a systematic overhaul. But the specific problem of the outer stars rotating at similar velocity can be handled as follows;

Imagine  our new formulation has matter less “clumpy” than the heritage formulae suggest. Less clumpy, more tightly held, and far more “forgiving.”  (Even before the work is done these tendencies should be apparent).

So big objects really “wish” to orbit and not to collide. But still the Galaxy is not tied together like a cartwheel. Its just that the mechanism is more geared to strong orbits. Since these orbits are developing over billions of years it seems only natural that the velocities will wind up synchronised with that of stars in the adjacent spiral arms.

Posted by: graemebird | August 29, 2015

Key Motives Behind Physics Fraud


Why is gravity such a mystery in modern day physics? Why can’t we just nail this bitch down? I mean what are the fundamental blockades in unlocking a ‘theory of gravity.’


It seems that its in the natural order of things that mastery of electricity leads to mastery of gravity. So there must be some connection between the timing of the misinformation explosion headed up by the conman Einstein and developments in electricity.

What I am saying is its deliberate. And the explosion of lies and garish idiocy is such a huge effort that it can be inferred that gravity is very straightforward and easy to manipulate. Townsend Brown discovered how to manipulate gravity by accident as a child. That is how easy gravity is to toy with. His families workshop had spinning lathes and things.

Consider the scope of the coverup. This constant brainwashing of the public to do with just how smart the charlatan Einstein was. All these lies about black holes. The compulsory dogma of the self-compression of hydrogen to make stars. The portrayal of a cripple as some sort of physics genius. The cult of Feynman. The brain drain of string theory.

Reverse engineering junk physics we see what they are really hiding. Their main target is our understanding of gravity, the second is our understanding of fusion and the third is the denial of the reality that the solar wind represents infinite electrical energy there for the taking. But its the understanding of gravity that is the central organising target for all these science-lies.

Consider the scope and gaudiness of the misdirection and compare it to what they refuse to do?

They will fund people to look for make-believe gravity waves. But they won’t send a balloon up with a robotic weighing machine to collect data. They won’t compare this to weighing exercises in a jet.  They won’t get a 5 tonne tungsten sphere and use a prospectors gravity meter to get together a database of the gravitational effects of the ball in order to refine our understanding of gravity.  They won’t fund an electrical anti-gravity workshop, and hire the well-known and impoverished Canadian anti-gravity expert to teach researchers the basics. They won’t pay for computer modellers to come up with visual interpretations of the role of the aether in electricity and gravity ……….. That is to say they will not do real science.

In fact they go so far as to pervert our understanding of what constitutes real science by virtue of the vigorous use of personality cults. They portray greatness in science as being acts of alchemical conjuring. Where the “great scientist” makes inferences he cannot possibly make, given his access to data, and then they mystically turn out to be right. Whereas real science is about getting the damn work done.

More Later

Posted by: graemebird | August 28, 2015

Newtonian Physics And The Cult Of Self-Compressing Hydrogen.

So you are sitting in your room and all the air molecules collect in the corner and you suffocate.  How often does such an improbable event take place? Well there is something more improbable than that.  And yet the mainstream dogmatists demand we believe that this more improbable thing happened every-time a star is born.  Rather than realise that its way past time for an update of Jewtonian gravity, they are expecting all the hydrogen from all around to just sort of gather together in one place,  and then START COMPRESSING ITSELF into a star.   But where do we see any gravitational body being able to keep hydrogen together? Indeed when do we ever see a naked hydrogen molecule in space? We don’t.  We see protons.  Space splits up the hydrogen. It may be that hydrogen, for the most part, needs other substances, just to stay together as a proper atom or molecule.  That is how elusive hydrogen is.  Hydrogen seems to need strong gravity, or other substances, just to hold together at all.

Even a big comet cannot really hold hydrogen.  It can hold water vapour sure.  But not hydrogen on its own.  So how does hydrogen ever gather together? It can only gather together in rock fields wherein the collected gravitational pull is far higher than any comets that we have seen come through our way in modern times.  So we expect hydrogen to gather if we have something like the asteroid belt times one million.  Imagine a truly gigantic asteroid belt.  Maybe then hydrogen could gather around.

Or otherwise hydrogen will accumulate in a large planet that already has a fat CO2 atmosphere.  But it will only stick around in water.   That is my story anyway.  But what does mainstream astronomy force-feed the profession?  Well I ask around with stuff like this.  So I asked a few people and here are the more intelligent responses.  You see they have to believe in self-compressing hydrogen because its what Jewtonian gravity tells them.  Because Jewtonian gravity makes it clear that the sun is mostly made of hydrogen.  Well how did the hydrogen get there? Goodness me, it must have self-compressed into a star.  Well thats their story and they must stick to it because of Jewtonian physics.

So here are some of my questions and here are some of the better answers:

Question 1.

When astronomers claim to see “dust” hundreds of light-years away; do they seriously believe its dust they are looking at?

How about fields of massive asteroids aggregating and scooping up gases? Why dust? There appears to be an attempt to get young astronomers to believe in hydrogen self-compression. They point you towards all this “dust” and tell you that you are looking at a “star nursery.” This appears to me to be a cult of hydrogen self-compression.


If by dust you’re imagining that stuff that collects under your bed or in the corner of your living room, that’s not what they mean. They really mean anything that is not gas.

Astronomers, like all people in technical fields, appropriate common words for new and sometimes very specific purposes that may be but tenuously connected to their common meaning. E.g., astronomers use the term “metal” for any element with more than two protons (heavier than helium).

Question 2.

Is the accretion theory for solar system formation just mean-spirited propaganda?

What evidence can be marshalled for such a farcical scenario?


This is where astronomy comes handy as an observational science. See we have not seen our own history. But by looking into deep space and hence into the past of universe we can see various stages of star system formations across various galaxies in the universe.

From here we have inferred how our own solar system may have formed. Similarly the celestial mechanics when spiraled backwards we can see that mathematical and computer models also point in the same direction.  So just because we have not seen something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There are indirect ways of deducing facts.

Science Auditor

You mean somewhere in a galaxy far far away you think you see hydrogen self-compressing. And somehow you just know there are no aggregations of massive rocks involved


Yup. That’s where tools of physics like spectral analysis is used. Spectroscopy, gravitational red shift, gravitational lensing, celestial mechanics etc are the main tools we use to analyse the data we get.
At least we know that no God is there who out of no where creates things out of whims.

Science Auditor

They must brainwash you guys. When they tell you it’s dust you are looking at you must believe then in error. Hydrogen can congregate around clouds of asteroids. Its not about to self-compress. They showed you “dust” and told you it was a “star nursery” and you believed them right?


So what is your take on it. What’s the grand propaganda you are talking about?

Science Auditor

Gravity. They will not update gravity. So stars have to self compress. Because to fit the required mass they need to be hydrogen balls. Then they need to have the ludicrous creation myth. Then they need the gigantic rock fields to be “dust.” Ever since Einstein showed up with his synagogue buddies team banker have been crafting a perfect circle of Bolshevik pseudoscience.


My best wishes with you. Come up with an earth shattering idea. And the Nobel is just waiting for you.

All the best.

Science Auditor

Hilarious. Which tribe do you think gives out the prizes? You let me know when you can see dust smaller than Phobos at 100 light-years. It ain’t the same as 100 paces.

Posted by: graemebird | August 26, 2015

The Scandal Of Newtonian Gravity In The Era Of Jew Science

How heavy would a man who weighs 100 kilo on earth, weigh in a balloon 50 kilometres high?

According to Newtonian Gravity you suss it out in this way:

The Earth’s radius is about 6400km and gravity is proportional to the square of the distance from the earths surface.  So a man who weighed 100 kg on the surface would weigh about
100kg×((6400/6450) squared))  ≈ 98.5kg           in a balloon 50km above the surface.


Well guess what? No-one has checked this.  And it ought to be clear to you that Newton did not have this data. But we have been able to check this sort of thing for maybe the last 50 years.  This is the question I bandied about:

“What empirical evidence proves the inverse-square law for gravity?

What I am after is for someone to prove this alleged law empirically. If the empirical evidence is not there then the law will be wrong. Since science is not about dumb luck or informed guesses only.”
They didn’t have anything.  They have not sent any robot weighing gear up in a balloon.  They aren’t testing gravity meters that people use for prospecting in a controlled environment.  You could hover over a huge sphere of tungsten and see what it did for your gravity meter.  Then put the same tungsten ball under 20 metres of water.  Keep working on your tests and working on your theory. They aren’t doing it.  They won’t do it.  Or if they have done it they won’t tell us.
I would myself like to come up with a better model but there is no data.  They don’t seem to know how to do anything.  They do not even know when a theory has been disproved.
Its obvious to me that if you tried to work with very many planets and moons, and you tried to use such crude formulae,  the planets would not fucking want to orbit.  And even if you could get them orbiting somebody’s would sneeze and everything would fall to pieces.  Worlds would collide because the Newtonian system of gravity is inherently unstable.
Here is another question.  This one is not my own but if I knew we had not been lied to by our oligarchy and denied a true understanding of Gravity then I may well want to ask the same sort of question:
“Why are physical laws like Gravitational Force free of additive constants?
Why is it that the formula for physical laws are so simple and pure mathematically?
The formula for gravitational force is F=G*m1*m2/r squared and not F=G*m1*m2/r squared     +C.Why is it that mathematics even works for describing physical phenomenon? Why is it that physical laws can be stated using elementary functions?”

I told him is the reason is that they are lying.  But my answer got down-voted.
Have the effects of horizontal velocity and acceleration on gravity been tested?
I asked the above question and of course its gotten no answer.  Because everyone knows there are no such public tests.
Well how does gravity really work? What understanding of gravity explains the habit of planets to orbit rather than crash?

I shall try and avoid the usual ontological Anselm-esque jive by starting with a concrete incident in statistics class. Ivor got us trying to produce random dots on a piece of graph paper. We were asked to make these dots as randomly as we could contrive.  He then handed out booklets filled with random numbers. We then did the exercise over using the random numbers for guidance.  In every case, authentic randomness had the dots more bunched than any feeble attempt at randomness any of us had tried and failed at.

So FLUX is natural. Reality must somehow flow out of the flux.

Endless time and space can be taken for granted. But what is it that is fluxing such that reality can emerge out of it?

What we need is two subsets of space such that when they meet they don’t pass through each other. One subset of nothing that will not pass through the other subset of nothing.

To even get this far is pretty miraculous and I doubt we can go further back than this.

So we have bubbles of nothing that don’t pass through each other. From here it may have developed in one of two ways.

1. A three-dimensional aetheric cobweb may have formed first in which case the matter which came later is less substantial and in comparison like a ghost which moves through the aether. Or …..

2. It could be the matter which is of greater substance and the aether more ethereal. When a neutrino passes through the earth is it the earth or the neutrino which is less substantial. If an arrow passes through a marshmellow we usually would think of the arrow as the more solid object.

Whatever the truth from there combinations can come out of the flux over trillions of years. And some may be akin to matter as we know it. But it’s all for nought until the emergence of reproductive anti-entropy.  Insofar as straight matter is concerned a form of matter must emerge that aids in the conversion of new matter. The proof is in the reality we see. Since all evidence shows earth to be growing and no evidence shows otherwise.

It may have been a trillion to the power of a trillion years before a system of reproductive anti-entropy emerged. But matter must help create more matter or new matter creation would be a new miracle each day.

It follows from this also the peculiar nature of orbits.  Although this is largely covered up:  Small objects want to come together.  But large bodies want to orbit.  Matter that did not comply to this may have briefly come about.  But it could not sustain a working reality and so it would have lost out to the matter we have now.

Posted by: graemebird | August 16, 2015

Why does the sun rotate faster near its equator?

The rotational pattern demonstrates that the sun never lost its oceans. Inside the gas layer an oceanic body spins faster and is more oblate.

The evolution of the sun from gas giant would lead to highly isotopic water near the limits of pressure and heat near the surface.  The potential for energetic phase change should be apparent from the implied instability of the scenario.

So far this is the only model which looks like it may explain instabiliy,  the rotational anomaly and the orbit of Mercury.

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.