Why do the planets rotate, and why do most of them rotate in the same direction? Why do they orbit pretty closely to the same plane? Why are galaxies flat rather than three dimensional? We can answer these questions here. And when we do so, it will become clear, that almost as of necessity, the galaxy, and the solar system, are unstable, dangerous, and eventful. It had to be that way.
Earth is clearly a very old planet. Which implies that we are fortunate enough to live in a sheltered neighbourhood. But this knee-jerk idea, that every change that ever happens in this solar system, happened billions of years ago ……. well there is no truth to this.
Earlier I have put forward the principle that; Reality can only exist when a form of matter develops, that can convert “stuff” to matter.
So what we are saying here is that matter creates (or rather converts “stuff” to) more matter. And if it didn’t reality as we know it would be impossible. Think of crystals growing and maybe you’ll have the idea. “Stuff” is defined as proto-matter, not locked into the gravitational network. Let no-one, (FOR FUCKSAKES) confuse “stuff” as I use the term here, with the public servants “Dark Matter”. This “Dark Matter” doesn’t exist, its bullshit, its an embarrassment, a fudge factor. The concept is just a fucking disgrace. On the other hand, co-incidentally, you would have to expect that the amount of “stuff” is vastly greater than the amount of matter. The matter is a small subset of what I am calling “stuff”.
Matter converts “stuff” to more matter, by bringing this stuff into the gravitational network. Each proton in the galaxy (at the very least) is connected to every other, directly or indirectly or the phenomenon we call “gravity” would be impossible. Now while it seems more than clear that the visible universe is much more compact then the public servants think, and in no way is the universe expanding at anything like the rate at which the public servants claim, still there is good reason to believe that the universe is expanding somewhat. But how is such expansion possible?
I would say that the natural expansion (in the first instance) comes because the new matter created, is created with the momentum of the matter doing the conversion. And that this (effectively) EXTRA momentum, will kick in because the new matter will be connected locally, prior to being fully connected with the rest of the galaxy. So the natural way of things is for orbits to have a bias towards getting a tiny bit bigger all the time. Right away we ought to see that this slight expansionary tendency is entirely necessary for reality as we know it to exist. Since with the only force, acting over long distances, being a PULL-FORCE, it becomes very clear that the natural tendency would then be towards what we might call “clumping”. This can be easily demonstrated by the following thought experiment ;
Supposing you have a lot of magnets in a near weightless and near frictionless environment. So there is a compartment in your near-earth-orbit satellite and you pump all the air out of it. You have powerful magnets, but they are covered in rubber to make these pretty bouncy rubber balls. So you don your spacesuit, and you go into this compartment and you start throwing these rubber-covered magnets (very powerful magnets) around. And you just try and add a little momentum to the balls that have lost some momentum. It ought to be pretty clear that the natural tendency is for the magnets to wind up clumping together over time. So for a viable existence to exist, there needs to be a tiny expansionary factor, to moderate the natural tendency of the only force that acts over long distances. The only force that acts over long distances is a PULL FORCE. As Gaede points out, there is only really two forces in the universe and they are PUSH and PULL. And pull implies continual connection.
So for the meantime, I’m saying that the expansionary tendency is mainly to do with new matter creation, wherein the new matter, acquires the velocity of the old matter that has converted that new matter. There will be other slightly expansionary forces. For example, two objects moving too close to eachother in an highly electrically charged environment, will tend to discharge out at eachother, and here is a slightly anti-clumping factor right there.
When objects pass through space-as-we-know-it (as opposed to a purist version of space) they are encountering some resistance. We have the solar wind after all. And “cosmic rays” as it were. Well of course this resistance is tiny. Nonetheless time goes on forever, and so even the tiniest resistance ought to register. So we need to explain why it would be that orbits would tend to expand rather than contract, a tiny bit. And I haven’t seen a plausible explanation for that myself.
IN THE BEGINNING
No NOT in the beginning. Its not important to figure out if or how things got started. With the caveat that “time” is a derived concept, that is indispensable for us to make sense of things, with the caveat that “there is no such thing as time”, properly considered, the reality is that we have to merely assume that time is endless. Or if not endless we have to suggest that the laws of probability, make the idea that we are anywhere close to a beginning or an end point, a trillion-to-one proposition. So implausible as to cast aspersions on the person harbouring such a foolish idea. So rather than looking for a beginning to existence, we need to look at something close to an equilibrium. I don’t have a word for the idea I’m looking for here. We ought not assume a full-blown equilibrium, but rather a concept close to it. A sort of normalcy. A state of established and permanent functioning. The universe may indeed be expanding to some extent. Such evidence as we have suggests moderate expansion……….
((((((((((Its a bit much to suggest that matter cannot be created or destroyed, since the matter is here, and must have gotten here somehow. And to suggest dogmatically that there must always be the same amount of matter present, separates time into an age of miracles, and a prosaic age. To separate time into an age of miracles and a prosaic age is to take a pseudo-religious and mystical approach to what is a scientific matter. So we will not talk about ultimate beginnings. We will make a couple of thought experiments, and then jump ahead to the nature of this organic “equilibrium” state we have to assume that we are in.))))))))
………. so I’m not implying, by the use of the word “equilibrium” as a stand-in, for a better word-or-phrase, that I cannot come up with as yet ……. I’m not implying by the use of “equilibrium” that the universe maintains a steady state, conserving energy and mass. As things stand the universe that the science workers instruments can perceive, appears to expand, but at a moderate rate.
Imagine that matter creates more matter and that we have two moon-sized planets, whose growth has taken billions of years, and have grown totally independently of eachother. Now because they have grown up independently, their velocities are entirely independent of eachother. But they have each mastered the capacity to create new matter, in total independence. In this thought experiment there is no other matter around, except in these two moons. Also there is no local aether conditions to speak of. When the two moons come close to eachother, naturally the protons begin forming connections with the other protons coming into their midst, but aside from that there is no local aether. So that if the moons, were moving, in relation to eachother, 50 times the speed of light, then there were no local aether conditions, which would serve to slow them down to light speed in relation to each-other. So because the two objects had discovered the mechanism which makes reality possible INDEPENDENTLY, we would say that they could moving at 100 times the speed of light in relation to eachother. Or only as fast as a jet fighter in relation to eachother. There is no maximum relative velocity that we can claim that they have to be moving with relation to eachother. But in our story they are coming at eachother faster than the escape velocity of each of them, so they pass eachother, for the first and only time.
The natural thing, for two such objects, is for each to pass each-other, affect each-others trajectory, but for that meeting to be a one-time event. However, what if one of these objects was moon-sized and the other had developed to become a star? You probably need to have a magnetic field to become a star. And to develop a magnetic field, you are going to need planets. Or if you are a planet, you will likely require a moon to develop a magnetic field of any importance. But putting all that aside, let us pretend that one of the objects has developed all the way to star status, and the other is moon-sized. Lets also imagine that the moon-sized object, has attracted an entourage of rocks, that stretch backwards a long way in three-dimensions. Now another factor comes into play. A star builds up a massive electrical capacitance. Around that star, we have therefore a field that is akin to the region around one of those bug-zappers. A bug flies near a bug-zapper, and discharges the electrical capacitance buildup, thereby getting electrocuted. The moon-sized object, with its entourage of rocks comes into the stars bug-zapping region, and it lights up electrically. A star is a thing that develops a proton wind. An electron wind as well, but these two don’t cancel eachother, as is imagined. What happens is that the moon-sized object now starts capturing this onslaught of protons and electrons, and in my view there will be fusion taking place. You see the mainstream reckons that fusion is about high molecular speeds, high temperatures (the two going together) and powerful impacts between independent particles. Whereas in my view fusion takes place easily in a situation of high electrical charge. So as a result of this onslaught of protons and electrons, in a massively charged environment, in my view, this is the reason that water vapor and hydrocarbons start forming in the tail of the moon-sized object. What we have here is a comet. And this comet has lit up.
Now why is this important? Well the moon-sized object now has a comet tail. The region will be highly electrically charged, and this will lead to tail-drag. Tail-drag is where the tail is drawn into the nucleus, due to the high and increasing electrical charge, and this causes a force EXTRA TO GRAVITY ALONE, which will serve to CIRCULARISE the orbit of the moon-sized object around the star. The point is that we have an extra force, other than gravity, conspiring now to keep the objects together, and to have it that one object is orbiting the other. As we have seen, the natural way of things is for the two objects to meet but once, alter eachothers trajectory, and never meet again. But we came to that conclusion when thinking about the effect of gravity alone. But electrical energy plays a role in the circularisation of orbits. This is the James McCanney view of comets. Its an extremely solid model. I don’t know whether he thinks that the comets are forming their water vapor, and hydrocarbons, directly out of the solar wind. I cannot speak for him. But I felt it necessary to point out where this view of comets is coming from.
So now we jump ahead. Having noted that when it comes to explaining orbits, we have another mechanism on the fly, other than just gravity alone.
Lets ask a few questions at this point that we intend to answer.
1. Why has Venus the most circular orbit?
2. Why has Jupiter, the most angular momentum?
Don’t wait for an answer from the mainstream for these oddities. But with regards to the thinking of this article, these questions become readily answerable, as do the initial questions on this thread.
Now we jump ahead to a situation of two large bodies. A situation where we have solar system, featuring a star, akin to our own, and a large planet like Jupiter. Jupiter also has a proton wind. And therefore, could be considered a star, if we were defining stars by whether they have a proton wind or not. So here we have the sun, and we have Jupiter. But heretofore no other planets. How will matters flow from that starting point? Imagine a moon-sized comet and entourage coming into this situation. Now supposing it comes in from outside Jupiter, either below or above the ecliptic, and heading sunward. Well when its above the ecliptic Jupiter will pull it downward. When it is BELOW the ecliptic Jupiter will pull it upward. Here we have another factor normalising orbits. But suppose it comes from the opposite direction, starting closer to the sun then Jupiter, but heading in the direction of Jupiter at a steep angle. Think about these two alternatives. The second is a counter direction then what is normal to the orbits of planets. The thing about this situation, is that we probably won’t see this comet again. Its a one-time event. Its behavior will affect the orbit of Jupiter, and its rotation, to some extent. But it will do so only once. Whereas in the first situation, we will expect this comet to keep returning many times, each time its orbit becoming smaller, and more circularised, until it becomes another planet.
So we have this bias when it comes to comets. Comets coming from the wrong direction still affect the orbit of existing planets AND the speed of their rotation. But only once. Whereas comets which are already in a position to increase the angular momentum of the rotation of existing planets, we will see these comets many times, until they become a moon or a planet, or until they crash into an existing body, and either way, they will have added their momentum to the ROTATION of existing planets. This is why the ROTATION of most of the planets is in the same direction. Its the result of repeated interaction with passing comets. If we have a planet, or a moon, that is rotating counter to the norm, we must assume that it is a new planet, or a new moon, or at least new in terms of its current position in our solar system.
So why has Venus the most circular orbit? Its a new planet, and has not had time for comets to make its orbit less circular. How did Venus’ normalize its orbit in the first place? It came in with a huge entourage, and tail drag helped normalize its orbit. Why does Jupiter have the most angular momentum? Its the planet that interacts with comets far more than any other planet, and its been around a lot longer than the other planets. Its fast rotational speed represents the absorption of the momentum of countless passing comets. Why is Venus’ rotation so slow and counter to the normal rotation of planets? Its a new planet. Its counter-rotation is the result of sheer chance. It will take millions of years, and many encounters with comets to bring the rotation in line with most of the other planets.
Note one thing very important. The further out you get, the less circularised orbits are. Pluto’s orbit is not powerfully circular for example. And Pluto goes way higher and lower than the plane that Jupiter orbits in. The further you go out, the less interaction you have with Jupiter to bring the orbiting planet down to the normal plane of orbit, and the less electrical charge you have to produce tail drag, which helps circularize ones orbit, supposing you show up with an entourage.
Now its time to make ones mind shift. Let us think of the normal orbit as not circular, and on the ecliptic. Because there are thousands of planets and comets that orbit our sun. Thousands. They had a small search for some not long ago, and they found maybe forty new planets. Thats only those planets that can be detected from earth. I don’t think the forty or so are fully proven and fleshed out. But its hard to know whether NASA would tell us one way or the other. If we really had a good look we’d find a great many more of them. If we sent huge telescopes out into space and so forth. Now the general principle arises, that there is a tendency for those planets that are further out , to orbit less on the ecliptic and in less circular fashion. The orbits become more and more RADIAL. And we ought to think of the radial orbit as the more natural orbit. Its the orbit you have when tail drag and Jupiter has not circularised your orbit.
When thinking of radial orbits, it can be useful to think of them as up-and-down orbits. Like when a ball is thrown straight up in the air. As it travels upward, it slows, as it comes down it speeds up. But instead of hitting the ground, we think of a radial orbit as being where the object dips beneath the sun, at a very fast speed, and then gets thrown up high. The orbit of Sedna may give you a bit of an idea of how a radial orbit works:
“Sedna has the longest orbital period of any known large object in the Solar System[f], calculated at around 11,400 years.[g] Its orbit is extremely eccentric, with anaphelion estimated at 937 AU and a perihelion at about 76 AU, the most distant perihelion ever observed for any Solar System object.[22“
So there is Sedna, dipping under the sun, at 76 times the mean distance of earths orbit, and then it gets thrown up to a “height” of 937 times earths mean orbital distance. And its useful to think of it as an up-and-down deal, because it gives you an idea of the relative speeds, in each part of the planets orbit. Sedna is currently pretty close to the closest it ever gets to the sun. And whereas, compared to Earth, Sedna is currently moving very slowly around the sun, if we compare its current orbital speed with the speed it travels at, when its a great deal further from the sun, its currently involved in a mega-sprint. Its fair zooming around.
One of the main points I’m trying to make here is that unless proven otherwise, we have to assume that orbits are a great deal more radial than we have given them credit for being. So now we come to the galaxy at large. But trying to make sense of the galaxy at large starts with extrapolating from what we have already. I would say that moons enlarge to rocky planets, rocky planets to gas giants, and gas giants to stars. I would say that at every stage moons, planets and stars are being culled. Comets form into planets, and the distinction between a comet and an outer planet, is sometimes one of size, but the more relevant distinction is that the comets orbit brings it inside the bug-zap region of the star. So Sedna is no comet. But if an object Sedna’s size accelerates into the inner solar system, it will bring with it an entourage, and it will “discharge the solar capacitor” and it will thus appear to us explicitly as a comet. If it is large enough, each time it does so, it will reappear larger, and as it gets larger the tail drag circularising its orbit will become more powerful. Until such time as it becomes a planet.
In my view stars will become larger and larger until they are destroyed. But their ultimate fate, should they survive long enough, is to become a “dark rift”. Remember that Jupiter, or the second oldest body in any solar system, will tend to grab most of the angular momentum. But the star also will spin quickly. Its not to be thought that the sun will outlive Jupiter, so Jupiter could end up as a star with a lot of spin. In any case stars and planets will tend to accumulate spin. So if you survive long enough to become a dark rift, at the centre of a galaxy, you are going to be spinning very quickly. Bodies that spin quickly become more spheroidal.