|
HARMONIC GALACTIC INCLINATIONS So to explain harmonic galactic inclinations let me first start with the observations and then explain why I feel that successive collision theory is the best way to explain the nature of the cosmic event that led to the creation of our Post. Here are some articles that provide some raw data that offers a glimpse into what we are going to continue to find over the first 20 years of the James Webb recordings. They will help solidify beyond any doubt that an overwhelming majority of frames of reference at scales of galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and filaments share similar axis of rotation and relative inclinations. So let me preface before going any further that this is not proof. If the singularity that is proposed to have been a catalyst to our big bang was spinning fast at the time it expanded then it would make sense for a huge overwhelming percent of structures to all be spinning the same way so the fact that we have lots of harmonic inclinations but not 99 or 98 percent of them shows the uniformity of inclinations is not universal. If the expansion / explosion happened in from a central point out then we might expect to see a larger percentage of galactic inclinations all roughly parallel to the direction they were heading away from central point but we do not see galactic inclination forming anything remotely like a 64 slice pizza. So this ambiguity between 98 or 99 percent shared inclination and 98 or 99 percent pizza slice inclination might then expect 98 or 99 percent completely random relative inclinations. But that is not the case we have a very tiny mystery here that is simple to explain with successive collision theory. Here are three articles I found that discuss part of what I think we will continue to find more and more instances of.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/425326/pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa3
More-Evidence-of-Collective-Behavior-at-Cosmological-Scale Now lets see how this evidence backs successive collision theory. If so far the nested frames of reference each causing an increase in aggregate relative velocity of each successive child frame of reference seems plausible and could explain how two pockets of relative spacetime massenergy could collide where each pocket has the kinetic energy equivalent of moving an entire universe at 60 or 70 percent the speed of light and in some cases in theory 98 or 99 percent the speed of light then lets think about the different types of collisions that may occur and their implications. So here is the most obvious model and one that is the best fit for a singularity based catalyst. A single black hole traveling through space encounters a rogue object from a different frame of reference and the relative kinetic energy and heat released is equivalent to each object making contact at 1.97 times the speed of light. If one object is a massive black hole and the other could be another black hole or neutron star or maybe even a simple moon or asteroid (we may never know !!! ) then some type of near vaporization of matter into energy and heat could take place. But as I stated in the initial paragraphs a singularity type approach does not match the observations we are seeing. However lets suppose two pockets of space time that are members of two separate frames of reference at scale factors 10,000 or 100,000 nested levels higher of frames of reference collide. Right out of the gate lets guestimate that somewhere above 80 percent of the objects in each pocket of space time would not collide. Relative to objects in the other frame of reference we are talking about the relative speeds faster than the speed of light. Any object in frame of reference A might not even be able to see the objects in frame B. They would see the wake of destruction happen as large swaths of objects would appear to obliterate and explode but without any apparent cause. Because the speeds are so massive compared to each other that most objects that don't collide would feel very minimal gravitational effects. When objects pass each other in space they tend to first form orbits and either collide or dissipate. But there are speeds where two objects pass each other and the speed is too great to convert linear momentum into angular momentum and so one might deviate slightly off path but not take orbit. That would happen to most the objects in both pockets of space time but not all objects. Many would still collide. What we need to take into account is not the expectations of what two universes colliding would do but the reverse. What combination of collisions took place between two pockets of spacetime to result in what we see. So lets say out of two pockets of space time both the size of our universe collide at relative speeds of 1.8 or 1.9 the speed of light and almost pulverize all the matter involved in the collisions. There is a going to be a relative trajectory of frame A and one of frame B and so the collisions that occur would have an overwhelming majority of impacts taking place at the same angles and speeds. It is the successive collisions taking place all at similar angles that could produce separate swirling clouds of nearly pure energy that cools to form swirling clouds of quarks and leptons and then nuclei and leptons and then eventually atoms. So successive collision theory would predict some large majority of celestial structures from galaxies to clusters to maybe even filaments might share some similar relative inclinations of galactic planes but more importantly there would be a majority of object sharing the same approximate axis of rotation. This is something we now have evidence of and we are going to see soon the evidence grows to a point where the deductions and interpolations above will seem like common sense. One important thing to think about here is that object A with mass of 1 and object B with mass of 1 can collide at a speed of 1 and bump off each other. There is a release of energy because of the bump and some release of heat. As the speed of each object increases within its own object frame of reference the kinetic energy of that object which we can correlate to the term relativistic mass ( which by the way is a term only and not a physical construct) but there is an increase in probably both potential and kinetic energy as an objects speed increases and here is the really wild mind blowing idea. Inside the same frame of reference there is no indication of this increase energy. Inside the frame of reference of our Post lets say our planet has a certain amount of potential and kinetic energy tied to its speed against the CMB. Well if we looked at our planet from the reference frame of our post's grandparent's grandparent there would be more energy contained in the movement of our planet because of the faster aggregate speed that takes place as we move upwards into each larger pocket of space time. That holds true the further and further we move up. Our single planet and every object inside our Post increases its total relative energy so when two objects each of mass 1 collide at super high speeds when the hot energy that is released cools down I predict the probability that more mass can result from a cooled down cloud of hot energy than the amount of mass you start with. So the total mass of the final system could be 2.5 or 3. The further removed the frames of reference the higher the aggregate relative speed of collisions and the greater amount of resulting energy you get out of every collision to cool back down into matter. This is one way (out of many) that matter converts into energy and energy converts back into matter and so it is a fair assessment to say that matter is just energy moving slow enough and cool enough to see. But if energy is just fast moving mass and we see the mass when energy moves slow enough relative to our frame of reference to perceive it as matter then we can begin to really appreciate the implications of Einstein's special theory of relativity. But I digress and moved off topic a little bit. The point made here is that if there were successive collisions that happened during the cosmic event we associate with the big bang then the angle of impact would carry forward due to the conservation of momentum and an overwhelming majority of the spinning clouds of plasma energy would retain a similar resulting angular momentum due to the angle of impact. We already see this as shown in the links provided and when James Webb has a decade of research analyzed there will not only be an overwhelming consensus of agreement that successive collisions created our known universe but I predict that cosmology won't be happy. Instead we will evolve a theory of our universe's creation that will give names to the objects that collided and provide estimated speeds and angle's of impact and create separate formulas that approximate the initial mass of each object that collided and its resulting structure inside our universe. We may even be able to approximate where collisions took place between two planets, two neutron stars, or two black holes. And we will probably determine that 13.8 billion years was really in fact only 13.77 billion years ago and our estimates for initial size and temperature were wrong. The crazy thing about theoretical cosmology is that we can try to present the best and most plausible theories and even produce formulas and equations to explain what we see today but we can still get lots of things wrong because there are unknown variables we may never be able to determine. So if all we have to go by is our observations then I feel the observations indicate the natural state of nature would have the collision of thousands of separate objects at unimaginable high speeds being able to succinctly and exactly describe the resulting state of the universe that we can observe. #harmonicgalacticinclinations #harmonicgalacticaxisofrotations #BIGBANG #thebigbang #successivecollisiontheory
#thenaturalstateofnature
All the darkness in the entire vast multiverse can not defeat the flame of a single candle.
|