It is on the basis of this Galaxy Rotation Curve, that stupid-town has postulated dark matter. What an embarrassment! So what is the answer to this alleged anomaly? The way we see galaxies moving in the real universe is inherent in everything I’ve already said about physics. Galaxies ought to act in the way they do indeed act, according to what I’ve said already. But its easier to understand why, than it is to explain why. So I’ll do my best to give you a feel for this.
We need to recap the basics of how matter and gravity works. When you have one large object and one small object the two objects want to amalgamate. So if one object is bigger than the moon and the other is smaller than Phobos, typically they want to come together. But if both objects are larger than the moon they want to orbit. And their orbit will be energy-positive. New pristine energy will be created during this orbit.
When contemplating matter in the process of evolving, it ought to occur to you that if the above rules weren’t in place, no meaningful reality could have gotten going. Gravity would make matter clumpy and crash-happy. If Gravity worked in accordance with the modern stupidity gravity would be clumpy and crash-happy. So this idea of larger objects wanting to orbit and smaller objects wanting to amalgamate with larger objects, was necessary for our particular FORM of matter to gain the edge during the evolution of matter.
The above speculation as to ancient matter evolution might not be readily apparent as a necessary consequence of sound reasoning, until you realise that for the universe to exist in the form we find it, somewhere along the line a form of matter had to evolve which was conducive to the creation of more matter. Matter must help in the creation of new matter, or each new act of matter creation, would amount to a separate miracle. Our matter is fairly durable and doesn’t break down quickly. Nonetheless it does break down, and so we have a basis for the evolution of competing forms of matter. So you see there is a number of characteristics for the matter we see everywhere to achieve, before it could have gotten everywhere in the quantities we see it.
Matter helps create new matter and so that moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars, and if they grow big enough they become a big dark object like Sagittarius A*. There is electrically only room for one of these beasts per galaxy. When another object gets to that size, it will be pushed out of the galaxy as a Quasar. The Quasar will take a bunch of stars with it, and form a new galaxy.
Now of course this idea that the universe is only 13.8 billions of years old is complete stupidity and the creation myth need not detain us here. Our sun will be a lot older than that. And Jupiter will be much older than 13.8 billion years as well. The milky way galaxy is hundreds of billions of years old for sure.
So the orbits of the spiral arms have come about under the above rules over many hundreds of billions of years. In the analysis of the mainstream the time factor is left out of the equation.
So we see that even objects as small as the earth and the moon don’t want to collide. The orbit introduces pristine energy. And yet the orbit is very forgiving. They don’t wish to crash. But they aren’t wanting to separate completely from each-other. That being the case how is it that the orbits separate out into spiral arms?
The orbits of planets and moons wants to get bigger for starters but its a slight and slow thing that goes in line with the growing size of the objects. This tendency of orbits of non-stars (but large objects) to grow, is therefore not sufficient cause for spiral arm segregation. Or for new stars to get their own solar system.
But supposing you come back and these objects have progressed onto both being big stars? Thats not a likely story that they would still be together. Because every so often you get an eruption from the centre of the galaxy that blows up moons, planets and stars, and then a whole lot of orbits are rearranged, over hundreds or perhaps a few thousand years.
But supposing they have been together all this time? There is an additional factor making these stars want to be forced apart. You see stars have a proton wind. So two stars have an extra factor repelling them. Actually Saturn and Jupiter both have proton winds as well. But I would not think that this proton wind would amount to much, given the problem to hand.
So anyhow you can kind of imagine that with the above rules in place, the serendipity of exploding objects, and the repulsion of proton winds, that these stars will separate out, firstly into separate solar systems (our sun may have once been a planet orbiting one of those big chunky stars of Orion) but also into spiral arms. Most solar systems are dual star by the way. So the solar system separation is yet to occur in these cases.
Now we come to this alleged anomaly, that has led these cosmologists to make complete fools of themselves.
So this gives you a bit of an idea what is going on here. After a short distance out, the speed of the stars rotation around the milky way stabilises. Why would this be an anomaly? Certainly its not something to be inventing non-existent dark matter about! You see what is going on here? The stars closer to the centre rotate around the galaxy, at about the same speed, as the stars further out from the centre. Why would this be odd? Is the mainstream just playing silly buggers with us? Why pretend this is a strange situation when its exactly how you would expect these stars to behave?
Well about 120 years a bunch of oligarchs and Jews came up with a strategy to take over physics and cosmology. One standard technique for exercising control over others was to force people to believe something that could not be true under any circumstances. But one of these bright sparks had an inspiration …… “Why not this time..” said the little rat fink “…. we instead force people to DISBELIEVE something we know for a fact is true …… its really the same technique after all…..”
So since we knew that there was an aether, being as we could measure the wave-length of light, these horrible little Bolsheviks started applying political pressure, to outlaw the aether.
Now the aether connects every nucleon with every other, but were these permanent connections there would be no movement at all. All matter would be fixed in relation to all other matter. So therefore we know that all aether connections are always in the process of breaking and reforming. Anti-gravity efforts consist of not allowing aether connections time to reform, as well as they might.
So supposing you are a star orbiting the galaxy and a star further out from the centre is ahead of you. But you are gaining on that star since you have less of a distance, given that your circular orbit is inside the orbit of the star in question. Well that start pulls you along a little bit, and when you overtake you pull that star along a bit, and its as easy to see as can be possible that the speeds would become very similar.
So we already know that aether connections are constantly breaking and reforming. But if they were rigid and supposing the galaxy was rotating, the further out the stars were the faster they would be going. But we know that gravity doesn’t work like that, and particularly from the orbits of planets in our own solar system. The closer in the faster you move, when it comes to planets and moons within our solar system.
But in the case of stars in the galaxy, the outer and inner stars end up homogenising their rotation speed to a very great extent. Which confirms pretty much everything I’ve said about the way gravity works and refutes everything these clowns in the mainstream say. But they won’t take “no” for an answer so they are back with this “dark matter” idea. Its morons we are dealing with here. Morons and people of bad character.
Another thing to remember. While Newtons formulae appear to work pretty well in the inner solar system, the inverse square “law”, as explained elsewhere, ought to be considered an “emergent property” and not the actual reality. On a nucleon to nucleon basis its more likely that the drop-off in the gravitational force of attraction is closer to the 3rd power. On that level it might be closer to an inverse cube law. But you have to consider the speed-and-acceleration, at which the object are moving in relation to each-other, as well as the angled force vectors operating on the two objects. It is likely that the inverse square law is merely an emergent property, that only works after a fashion, at middling distances.
A consequence of this misunderstanding will have the cosmologists under-estimating the mass of the outer “gas giant” planets, which aren’t gas giants at all. Just big rocky planets with gigantic oceans and outsized atmospheres.
A consequence is that stars will be more influenced by other stars near to them, than by the central mass of the galaxy, than what the mainstream will have in their calculations.
Bill Gaede talks about the galaxy as moving like a Catherine Wheel. Well I’m not so sure about that. He may be oversimplifying here. But he gave me the idea to just look at the Catherine Wheel in contemplation of the galaxy. Who the hell knows what electrical forces are being unleashed here? Bill is no fan of the electric universe crowd. I think he’s being too hard on them. But I’ve just described all this proton-wind repulsion going on in the galaxy. Electrical effects are tricky things and you’d have to wonder what the net result of all this positive charge repulsion would be, when most of the balancing negative charges are kind of hidden from the picture I’m painting.
So you guys who understand electricity better than I do, maybe just watch this here Catherine Wheel spinning a bit, in contemplation of the Milky Way galaxy turning. It might help you think more clearly and come up with something really cosmic.