- Thank you received: 0
Orion Nebula 3D Flyby
20 years 10 months ago #8378
by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
This is a graphic that shows how great computers can be and what they can do for sure. They are advancing fast how would this play on Star Wars 3 or 4 or ...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #8100
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
Tom
in this video it shows two stars that have a vortex occuring at opposite ends or south and north poles, how does your theory or PG account for that? time for each star in the video is,00:28sec.( tough to see but look hard,south-east,just below 180 degrees,sort of a white cloud surrounding it, next is 1:02min. into video)very obvious!!
in this video it shows two stars that have a vortex occuring at opposite ends or south and north poles, how does your theory or PG account for that? time for each star in the video is,00:28sec.( tough to see but look hard,south-east,just below 180 degrees,sort of a white cloud surrounding it, next is 1:02min. into video)very obvious!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 9 months ago #8195
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />how does your theory or PG account for that?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not aware of anything about vortices that is theory dependent. I'm happy with anybody's explanation. -|Tom|-
<br />how does your theory or PG account for that?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not aware of anything about vortices that is theory dependent. I'm happy with anybody's explanation. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 9 months ago #8106
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
Tom(or anybody for that matter)
in my theory,which is based on a hydrodynamic(or energy flux), which has, as its most fundamental cause, the spinning of masses.Quasars,Galaxies,Suns,Planets,Moons,right down to atomic scales,all do this,Spin!!
Now my theory is based on OBSERVATION and using HYDRODYNAMICS(which by the way is viewed three dimensionaly,to be clear,picture a spining sphere underwater and then observe the behavior of the liquid surrounding the sphere as it spins,you can of course speed it up or slow it down)to explain behaviors of Quasars,Galaxies etc. for instance i have used this technique to disprove blackholes and also to explain rings around Jupiter,Saturn etc. and our place in the gravity plane of the Sun. so the double vortex is no surprise to me. it is natural consequence of a spining mass,with certain angular acceleration,with enough energy flux to be seen!!
EVERY mass SPINS,its just a matter of observing the consequences!!
in my theory,which is based on a hydrodynamic(or energy flux), which has, as its most fundamental cause, the spinning of masses.Quasars,Galaxies,Suns,Planets,Moons,right down to atomic scales,all do this,Spin!!
Now my theory is based on OBSERVATION and using HYDRODYNAMICS(which by the way is viewed three dimensionaly,to be clear,picture a spining sphere underwater and then observe the behavior of the liquid surrounding the sphere as it spins,you can of course speed it up or slow it down)to explain behaviors of Quasars,Galaxies etc. for instance i have used this technique to disprove blackholes and also to explain rings around Jupiter,Saturn etc. and our place in the gravity plane of the Sun. so the double vortex is no surprise to me. it is natural consequence of a spining mass,with certain angular acceleration,with enough energy flux to be seen!!
EVERY mass SPINS,its just a matter of observing the consequences!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.229 seconds