UEF Theory says "when a body is rotating its `gravitational' field is extended - in the plane of rotation."
We're still awaiting confirmation from NASA of our predictions applied to their satellite navigation problems - see "verified" page.
Also seen, from radiation - when particles are moving fast enough, electromagnetic radiation (e.m.r.) is generated at right-angles to the plane of motion
Conventional science can't explain the facts:-
[ BBC R4 21 Mar '01 - "Making Something out of Nothing" - QUOTE "Vacuum energy is exotic and we do not understand it" ]
but at least their observations can confirm this happens.
2001 UPDATE - after four / five years of denial - OLDNEWS
2003 / 2007 UPDATE - preparing for climb-down
2015 UPDATE - Our summary of evidence
Here's how loose matter accumulates and forms a rotating sphere (or 'lens')
as we see, dense rotating body will generate :-
1) an extension of the "gravitational field", from the equator;[
UEF 'shielding effect' of a unit volume of mass is proportional to density and rate of spin. Therefore greatest UEF interaction, and 'gravitational effect' happens on/around plane of the equator where there is largest volume of mass (w/ angular momentum) - see diagram ]
As you see transmission or reception of information through the sphere, say for 1 sec., involves passage through 10 atoms - (in the plane of the equator, decreasingly less towards the 'poles')
But if the sphere rotates at 1 rev / sec the information has to pass through 320 atoms. At 10 revs / sec. the maximum impedance is 3200 atoms in the plane of the equator
`Perceptions' note: Ratios are real, numbers might not be. Some readers will remember the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi. So the calculation = diameter × pi × rotation rate.
2) a radial "beam" of e.m.r, focussed along axis of rotation.
From UEF Theory, although radiation increases towards the axis, the actual axial line - width of a proton or so - has zero angular momentum, so a narrow beam of UEF energy can break through. The energy, maybe X-rays say, is projected - jetted - outwards from the poles. See footnotes3.html#rotation
We now see a rotating sphere of matter, with an extended gravitational field around the equatorial plane and beams of electromagnetic radiation, and then plasma (primal matter), emitted from poles, along the axis line
These are proportional to mass & speed of rotation
INSTANTANEOUS VIEW - NOT TO SCALE
The magnetic field is also rotating. The result is an effective decrease in the gravitational field to negative levels along the axial line
A rotating THRUST emerges as anti-gravitational beam from poles link01
Any other effects?
We're not equipped to imagine the huge power emerging in each of those jets. Even so, bi-polar jets of any power will create effective thrust in one direction.
Why? If they are bi-polar - one from each pole, and probably equal in strength ?
Because it is certain that space-time around the object is unsymmetrical. That is, in one direction or another you will find a slightly greater concentration of matter.
[ a few protons per cubic kilometer maybe ]
and slightly stronger fields - electromagnetic and UEF gradients.
That slight lack of symmetry in surrounding space-time is enough for jets to find unequal resistance and so there's a resultant force, in one direction or another.
The fact that tiny inequalities in surroundings can create such a massive resultant force might serve to give us some idea of the huge absolute power in each jet;
Ie. a tiny mismatch of resistance to each jet can result in an object many times more massive than the entire Solar System being accelerated to relativistic (near f.t.l) velocities!
28 Nov. 2007 - Just announced; slightly misleadingly.
"Chandra Discovers Cosmic Cannonball
This graphic shows a wide-field view of the Puppis A supernova remnant along with a close-up image of the neutron star, known as RX J0822-4300, that is moving at a blistering pace. ... The neutron star was ejected by the explosion. The inset box shows two observations of this neutron star obtained with the Chandra X-ray Observatory over the span of five years, between December 1999 and April 2005. ... The results from this study suggest the supernova explosion was lop-sided, kicking the neutron star in one direction and much of the debris from the explosion in the other."
"The breakneck speed of the Puppis A neutron star is not easily explained, however, by even the most sophisticated supernova explosion models.
"The puzzle about this cosmic cannonball is how nature can make such a powerful cannon," says Winkler. "The velocity might be explained by an unusually energetic explosion," but researchers remain unsure.
It's a high-speed mystery - courtesy of Chandra."
Yet, from the analysis above, we can see exactly how the core star would be pushed away, at up to near-relativistic speeds, simply because its jets meet with unequal resistance.
Any Other Forecasts?
We should be finding traces of large & old galaxies which have lost their cores - those have `jetted' and found unequal resistance to those jets and so departed the scene at high speed.
Each event will be more or less unique in the damage done, therefore it's impossible to describe a typical galactic disc remnant after its core has departed.
Other Visible Results?
So-called HH objects - check out photo/cycle1/hh2/index.html
HH objects are merely the visible end-points of opposed jets - their origin is a rotating 'star' or larger mass, normally obscured by dust and material pulled in by the enhanced 'gravity' of its equatorial link02 plane.
Other visible signs?
There are many views and photographs available of rotating masses generating jets.
Unfortunately 'science' has mis-read most of these. Not having knowledge of jet phenomena and their true cause, most scientists have been anxious to classify views of 'jetting' objects as something else entirely.
See photos below
Looking at galactic jets,
here's a classic example of `experts' misreading data because of preconceived ideas
Similar faulty preconceptions are causing stupid errors in calculations of diameter of "quasars" / "pulsars" & suchlike.
Reason: In addition to periodicity, many have fast variations in brightness - so the `experts' presume brightness variations are across the entire surface of the body - meaning that the `quasar' / `pulsar' would have to be small - for a "one-hour flicker" to travel across they think the source-body has to be less than one "light-hour" wide, likewise for a one-second flicker.
What the `experts' don't realize - both periodicity and "flickers" are in the JETS - from the central (polar) axis. So all current assumptions of `diameters' and even `masses' are plain wrong!
What they should be extracting from the data are the angular momenta (mass and rotation speed) and accretion rates of the `jetting' solar or galactic centers.
31 Mar '03 - update? - `Bursts Coming From Beachball-sized Structures?'
Wrong! That's the width of the JET, not of its parent BODY!
1) A swing-by from an existing jet
Depending on speed (angular) with which the jet is moving past us, Earth could be subjected to short or long period of irradiation - severity ranging from heat - light - ultra-violet thru X-rays and harder (plus plasma in extreme case).
Most relatively near-by jets are visible only because they are firing across our line-of-sight and are therfore no danger. Jets firing towards us are visible but are often mistaken for other, circular or elliptical objects (see above & below).
2) Direct hit by a "new" jet - that is, one which only reaches the location of the Solar System at a time when the jet happens to be directly aligned with Earth
There would seem to be no way of detecting such an event in advance, at least not until we know how to identify potential `firers' of such jets.
At our present stage of development we have no defense against such threats - especially in the case of jets fired by galactic cores. These have such large size, velocity and energy that the entire Solar System seems completely insignificant by comparison.
29 Sept 1999 see 9909/28chandra/
What do you think? Wasn't that just waffle back in 1999?
And now, in October 2002, aren't they being forced to show latest results showing UEF-generated relativistic jets from "poles" - just as we predicted in earlier paragraphs above?
Check "Crab Pulsar - Sept 19, 2002" press_091902.html
[Note: such a thrust along the axial line of a rotating mass fully explains, for the first time, the real cause of `precession'
After all, if precession were simply due to gravity, as science presently claims, the precessional movement would not be opposite to the direction of rotation. Because the thrust is rotary the reaction to that thrust (precession) is also rotary and acts in the opposite direction. At present mainstream science covers-up lack of causal explanation by lots of waffle.]
Low-level or `incipient' Jets from a planet's poles
We think there's confirmation of lunar `jets', at a very low level here.
These findings the `experts' cited as a reason for expecting WATER ICE on the Moon - hence the hopeful but unscientific title of the NASA graph below.
see newhome/headlines/ast04jun99_1.htm which has this quote:
<<"Neutrons are subatomic particles that are continually ejected from the lunar soil by cosmic rays. In this graphic, the coincident dips in medium-energy neutrons at both lunar poles (see arrows) is a definitive signature for water" >>
Not necessarily! It's only a sign of reduced cosmic ray incidence. The title and the piece are maybe understandably hopeful, but unscientific.
Later Note: 14 Oct. '99 - Change of emphasis - at newhome/headlines/ast13oct99_1.htm
where NASA has seemingly taken note of our comment and now says - <<"the coincident dips in medium-energy neutrons at both lunar poles (see arrows) are a possible signature of water" >>
Low-Level or Incipient "Jets" (continued)
We believe the findings statistically confirm our forecasts of the axial anti-gravitational polar THRUSTS (above) generated by rotating bodies.
First two paragraphs above were outlined before the unsuccessful attempt to find water on the Moon by crashing a probe at the lunar south pole.
July 2000 - It may be that this later announcement also supports our scenario for low level or 'incipient' planetary jets - see planetary for surprising news about our own Earth.
July 2001 - Finally agreeing with `Perceptions' conclusions above but only because they're forced to :- oldnews2
To sum up -
When a mass of sufficient density rotates at a sufficient rate, axial jets result.
The signs of a jet range from mere dips in incoming particles at axial poles, to otherwise unexplained emissions of electromagnetic radiation of increasing energy or 'hardness'.
This includes 'cosmic ray' particles which we believe - see radiation#cosmic - are products of `jet' events.
Smallest jets are generated by the pre-discharge vortex in thunder clouds.
UPDATE - 2006:- Years late, they're just now figuring this out.
Next largest known (to us) are stellar jets, probably from rotating neutron stars.
"Soft" or lower frequency bursts indicate jets from bodies at lower levels of mass-spin. From say, neutron stars which may only intermittently reach sufficient mass/ spin threshold - so producing "soft" jets as the star over-shoots then falls below that threshold.
Largest (that we know about) are galactic jets, generated by overgrown / collapsing galactic cores.
These may belong to -
a) elliptical galaxies' cores collapsing to make that first transition to a simple (first generation) barred-spiral with two opposed arms;
b) second generation spiral galaxies, after the `bar' fades away, whose cores re-accrete / overspin and so generate two more spiral arms at right-angles to original plane of rotation.
Most dramatic, we believe, is the "Gamma-ray Burst" that comes from a galactic core jet. For some the "burst" effect may be a result of the beam flashing across our line of sight but a small proportion of the "harder Gamma-ray bursts" are the actual flashpoint of galactic jet creation.
UPDATE 2001: after years of silence or denial - OLDNEWS from NASA.
LATER UPDATE Sep. 2006: Hey - they're maybe catching up. Here's report - "While the disc of our Galaxy is made up of stars of all ages, the bulge contains old stars dating from the time the galaxy formed."
So - core first, then jets, then spiral arms. Right? Check all above.
[Later note 06 July 2000 - The mainstream physicists are still clinging desperately to the 'black hole' hype (long disproved - to our satisfaction) and here's another attempt :- see latest NASA/STSCI photo release 06JULY2000 - and the photo labelled "The M87 Jet. Photo: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)"
where its blurb gives us "a cosmic searchlight is one of nature's most amazing phenomena, a black-hole powered jet of electrons and protons traveling at nearly the speed of light"
Well you, and we, know better - don't we?
M87 is an elliptical galaxy just now. And this page says it is `jetting' - from the present N & S poles of a spinning central core.
We therefore suggest that all spiral galaxies are formed in this way :- the rotating core emits twin jets of plasma, initially forming a `bar', from which come the first - new star-forming - arms of the future spiral.
So half-formed or even reforming spiral galaxies can be seen with "bars" across their centers.
Those bars are the ejecta which have not yet begun to fall back. When that happens the galaxy is forced, by conservation of angular momentum, to rotate in that new plane.
This means that the core of a newly-formed galaxy can be rotating at right angles to the plane of rotation of the galactic arms. I.e. that the axis of the galactic core lies flat, in the plane of the new "lens" of the galaxy.
From the evidence it seems that some spiral galaxies go through this process several times - creating "barred g's" "swastika g's" & "Catherine wheels".
LATEST ENTRY see breaking/9910/06hubble/
and how the process is still misconstrued.
See also headlines/y2000/ast29feb_1m.htm
"Astronomers believe that most galaxies harbor massive black holes at their centers. Many of these black holes are thought to produce powerful and brilliant point-like sources of light that astronomers call quasars and active galactic nuclei. Why the center of our galaxy is so dim is a long-standing puzzle"
Yes - a (imaginary) black hole would have been more visible - (see NO BLACK HOLES)
But our own galactic core has incipient or actual jets. And these jets must be aligned UP and DOWN w.r.t. the galactic disc, the plane of the Milky Way.
Therefore the jets which mark the center of our galaxy will be almost invisible to us - but here are clues for the 'experts' - the jets will be:-
a) quite faint;
b) aligned N-S;
c) separated by a horizontal band of anomalous darkness and redshift, caused by increased UEF 'gravity' of the core's equator] end of note
This process explains some of the facts we know about Gamma-ray Bursts:-
They seem excessively powerful partly because sometime we are seeing a glimpse of a passing beam. But the main reason may be that many, even a majority, may mark the actual flashpoint - or breakdown of the central axis of an increasingly dense mass which is also accelerating in rotational speed.
They are seen evenly spaced in time and position, occurring at the `edge' of the visible universe because they date from when the majority of elliptical galaxies and clusters were making their transitions to spirals - simple or complex.
UPDATE on gamma-ray bursts : OLDNEWS from NASA
LATER ENTRY [1 Oct 1999] see NASA/MSFC NEWS RELEASE Posted: September 20, 1999 - "Chandra provides new vision . . ."
The release says of one image - (right here) - "The image of the third remnant, E0102-72, reveals puzzling spoke-like structures in its interior"
Well, if you took the neutron star shown in diagram2 and rotated its beam to point almost directly at us, but slightly off to our left - what would you see?
[Don't forget the neutron star is maybe light years behind the beam coming at us].
Yes, you would see the picture above, spokes and all, as you look down the beam.
The release says of another image - "Inside the inner nebula is a bright central source that is thought to be a rapidly rotating, highly magnetized neutron star" - [ from n.a.s.a news release at newhome/headlines/ast21sep99_2.htm]
Image: NASA/SAO/CXC, Chandra's image of supernova remnant G21.5-0.9
Well, if you again took the neutron star shown in diagram2 and rotated its beam to point at us, but a little way off to our left this time - what would you see?
[Don't forget we are now looking at the beam from outside - except for the nearest end which we see as a circle.]
Yes, you will see the picture above. But the circle is merely our end of the beam - the real origin is probably that distant point situated out to the right of the photo, at the distant end of the perspective lines of the approaching beam.
That origin might be a neutron star - or maybe a distant galactic core going through a 'jet' stage of matter distribution.
Whichever, the 'experts' were wrong - again - because they lack knowledge of the basic attribute of an accumulating / rotating mass.
Let us take this slowly for the sake of conservative physicists who can't get their heads around it
The ONLY way a putative black hole could be created would be if there was absolute physical symmetry both within the mass of the "black hole" and around it all the way to infinity - to the edge of the universe.
That (imaginary) absolute symmetry would have to include 'gravitational' symmetry - out to infinity.
We do not know of any physicist who suggests that 'absolute symmetry' could be provided anywhere in our universe.
DON'T WORRY IF IT'S NOT CLEAR WHY SYMMETRY IS NEEDED
( it's maybe put more clearly in NO BLACK HOLES, but apparently more aggressively ! )
In our real - non-symmetrical - universe, when mass accumulates this is what happens :-
a cloud - of dust or even stars - forms, and contracts
(as is happening in our Galaxy and its neighbours even now)
Cause:- UEF pressure
- the contracting cloud rotates on an axis, which points from least UEF pressure to most UEF pressure,
cause:- decreasing UEF interaction (gives 'moment') and therefore proportionately increasing rotation
- the cloud accumulates and accelerates its rotation - to a limit of mass v. rotation,
when a limit of mass v. rotation is reached the mass will 'jet' as minimum interaction along axis breaks down, overwhelmed by high equatorial interaction.
OLD (conventional) WAFFLE
- the contracting cloud rotates on an axis, which points from most gravitational pull to least gravitational pull
cause:- "conservation of angular momentum" - no conventional explanation
- the cloud accumulates and accelerates its rotation - no conventional explanation
the rotating mass will 'jet' due to : - NO CONVENTIONAL EXPLANATION.
Examples of JETS: -
i) of high rotation / low mass : atmospheric jets at upper discharge point of lightning strike:- the electron/ion vortex above strike produces a jet; mostly of radiation - see above]
ii) of high mass / low rotation : galactic jets either physically active see here, or incipient, see here
(No, NASA either doesn't know - or isn't admitting - that this is what they are)
iii) of intermediate mass / rotation :- see neutron stars - quasars - magnetars
LATER ENTRY [09 Oct 1999] newhome/headlines/ast08oct99_1.htm "Eta Carinae is one of the most interesting and perplexing objects in the entire Milky Way. It was discovered, as a variable star, in 1677 by Sir Edmund Halley, then made its mark on modern astronomy during the "Great Eruption" of 1837-56. The star brightened to magnitude -1, second only to Sirius in brightness. It is also known as NGC 3372 and as the Homunculus Nebulae which sits inside the larger Keyhole Nebula"
What does EtaCar look like, if not a slantways view of an EUFing star? see diagram 2.
LATER ENTRY [19 Oct 1999] see breaking/9910/19hubble/
A view of an (intermediate?) event. In the infrared picture this star OH231.8+4.2 is seen blowing out gas and dust in two opposite directions.
"These NICMOS data pose a serious challenge to astrophysical theorists: [who] are using these data to obtain a better understanding of the detailed structure in the outflowing material, look for evidence for the origin of the thin streamers and jets, and learn more about the star itself. This information will give astronomers a more complete understanding of the final stages in the lives of stars like our Sun"
You saw it on these pages first - complete with reasoning and theoretical background - some years in advance of the above data
Possibly the unrecognized (just now) but `defining' moment -
When a neutron star jets
From one of NASA's recommended news sites: - NewsAlert <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:17:17 +0100 "XMM-NEWTON CATCHES DIMMING BLACK HOLE SYSTEM"
And the experts have it exactly wrong! Again.
We get NASA's 'newsalerts', and so followed the link to full report at spaceflightnow.com
Where we read that X-ray telescope XXM-Newton was observing binary system LMC X-3, supposedly the home of a `black hole', using the "definitive black-hole X-ray emission" as a calibration source - until ...
"The calibration campaign was proceeding quite smoothly when on19 April the properties of the source suddenly changed and its intensity practically dropped off the scale - a hundred times weaker! Such a pronounced change had never been seen before in the 30 or so years that LMC X-3 has been observed"
We predict if they keep looking they will eventually see the truth : the signs of a 'jetting' neutron star.
That is, two opposed lobes moving out from the neutron star's poles. Most easily visible are the radio frequency side views.
Unless you're in line with the star's axis - in the way of the `Gamma-ray Burst'.
Here is a fine picture set of a typical galactic jet situation. A galaxy's core has become too big, either by slow accretion or by grabbing the matter from another galaxy - the core begins to rotate faster and faster, and we have a jet.
BUT the science establishment is in a hole - it has approved "black hole" theory, but now finds they aren't viable.
So what do they do?
They now try to say those imaginary "black holes" eject matter.
Does it? - 'Matter' - we mean
try NO BLACK HOLES, but be careful - it's been called `aggressive' - ha!
If there is a trace of a time when only simple matter (say) existed it would be the signals left behind by the earliest jets.
Those jets would have been generated by star-forming matter as it collected and collapsed under gravity, spinning as it did. so. It may be those jets could have been `made' by fairly uniform `jetting thresholds' of size and spin.
This means that their jets - and the first `gamma-ray bursts' (GRBs) - could have been at a uniform gamma-ray frequency (`power'), and therefore, over time would have left a record of that early radiation, at an even temperature, coming from all around the universe.
Do we see such a record? Yes - the Cosmic Microwave Backgound (CMB), a cooled-down reminder of all those maybe identical GRBs happening around the universe.
But doesn't mainstream science say that the universe is relatively young (10 - 20 bn yrs) - with only two or three (main) generations of stars? And that the CMB is a remnant of the relatively recent `Big Bang' (which is itself only implied by mainstream theories of high `redshift' recession)? And that the universe is relatively small - only 20 - 40 bn light years across? And that it is doomed to expand (at an accelerated rate) until it `freezes'? [so-called heat death of the universe *1]
1 - even now neutron stars and galactic cores at their own `jetting thresholds' are returning matter to the universe in the form of very high temperature / high density plasma jets. *2 Notice - from that reference - that these are beyond mainstream science's ability to calculate. This implies that the jets' plasma will break down atomic identities - allowing simple recombination in the form of hydrogen (and maybe a smidgin of helium);
2 - if mainstream scientists had thought about it:- there will always be only two or three (main) generations of stars visible to our primitive telescopes, at any stage in the life of the universe - even if that has lasted for hundreds of billions of years (or forever);
3 - there is evidence *3 that the expansion / recession of galaxies is very much less than `redshift' theories had been thought to indicate. It is possible that any expansion is only nominal - that driven by regenerated hydrogen / helium from jets;
4 - we can see very large structures *4 which demand a much greater age than the `standard model' allows. The universe is probably therefore much older than now thought. And, as we can see further with each more sensitive telescopic survey, the universe is probably much larger than now thought.
LATE NEWS - It seems the mainstream scientists are catching up with you and us -
where they are now agreeing with this page.
What next ! - their reappraisal of imaginary "BLACK HOLES"?
Later News seems they're still catching up with you and us -
OLDNEWS June 2006
SUMMARY OF MORE OLDNEWS Sept. 2006
Latest - Jan. 2003
see preparation for climb-down
29 January 2003 - Looks like N.A.S.A. & the A.A.A.S. are getting on-board UEF Theory without quite admitting it - now hinting that `black holes' aren't "black" and aren't "holes".
Latest - June. 2007
see putting-off climb-down
27 June 2007 - They're now taking a different route: redefining all the terms they've used in hype over last twenty years or so. Maybe they hope people will forget what they said `black holes' really were?
Maybe check nblckhls page?
But some old fogies seem still in denial, of the fact that :-
UEF Theory says "Galaxies are created by redistributing matter"
UEF Theory also says "There are no `black holes'!"