Posts Tagged ‘Astronomy’

Mais um duro golpe na visao do mundo dos acadêmicos que favorece a minha visão do mundo: galaxias sem dark matter!

Friday, October 18th, 2019


Informação obtida no link:

Hubble reveals that galaxies without dark matter really exist

The new research may have dramatic implications for galaxy formation.

Se o fato for realmente comprovado, será mais uma evidência para Matrix/DNA Theory e mais um fato que não se encaixa na corrente teoria oficial acadêmica.

” What does a galaxy without dark matter mean?

Um texto do artigo:

If these latest results hold up to the scrutiny that’s likely to come, then discovering the first (and possibly second) galaxy without dark matter would fundamentally change our understanding of how we think galaxies form and evolve.

“[DF4 and DF2] point to an alternative channel for building galaxies — and they even raise the question whether we understand what a galaxy is,” van Dokkum says. Right now, he says, we think that galaxies begin with dark matter, which is how they’re able to gravitationally attract the massive amounts of gas and dust needed to kick-start star formation…”

Nos meus modelos teóricos, as primeiras estrelas só poderiam ter sido formadas por gazes penetrados por ondas de luz vindas do Big Bang. Pois o meu modelo teórico do que é uma onda de luz era a única coisa existente no Universo que tinha as propriedades para formar as primeiras estrelas. A dark matter apenas contribuiu antes para a formação das partículas materiais que vieram a se constituírem em átomos produzidos pelas ondas de luz que vieram a constituir os gazes que depois vieram a constituir estrelas.


Tem um debate correndo no REDDIT:

Meu post postado no REDDIT

MatrixDNA – 10/19/19

My non-scientific cosmological models has predicted it 30 years ago. If “galaxies without dark matter exists”, it means that the current elected theory about the formation of the matter that composes galaxies is wrong or not complete, and the current theory about dark matter also is wrong or not complete. Yours question made me to waste a whole day into research and after seeing about luminiferous aether, the Michelson-Morley experiment, the final Einstein conclusion of his “new aether”, etc. I arrived to the conclusion that without knowing the opinion of Einstein 30 years ago I arrived the same conclusion that “there is a spatial substance” which does not affect matter in any way. Physics of XIX century had the idea of a wind coming from the aether which would be the carrier of light and affecting the bodies speed was different from my results because they did not know what my calculations were suggesting: all movements in this Universe has an initial motor, which is the waves of light coming from the Big Bang and which has encrypted in it the process of life cycle. This process makes your own body to self-propagate into time and space growing in size and becoming old and changing yours shapes. There is a spatial universal substance, you can call it aether, dark matter, new aether, quantum foam, what you want. But it is like the terrestrial soil in relation to a human factory. The factory takes soil for self-building, is supported over the soil, but the soil does not affect the factory in anything. But, the standard theory of Physics gave the name to the soil got by the factory as “Higgs bosons” and the soil under their shoes as “Higgs field”… instead the not defined spatial substance.

Outro post publicado em 10/20/19

He questions our theories of galaxies formation, our theories about dark matter, but forgets to ask the meaning question: our theory that Math and Physics could explain galaxies and dark matter. It is funny how works a temporary dominant mindset. Look how they reacts when someone says that “theory” is produced philosophically, not by Science: they becomes furious. Yours galaxies built by humans business like Physics and Math are not real, everybody that does not are indoctrinated, still keeps an open mind, can see it. The real galaxies produces “life” so for explaining these galaxies, for to formulate a theoretical model of galactic formation, origins, and development you need to include the final result, which is biological systems, an issue for Biology, organic chemistry, so on. I made my own investigation, but starting from what I can see and touch here and now inside this galaxy, the final result of galactic evolution, which is life, and I got a theoretical model about these things – galactic systems, atoms systems, universal spatial substance, etc., totally different than the current dominant models. Which are and where were the real forces and elements in these theories of galaxies that, by its evolution, produced genetic code, metabolism, sexual reproduction, etc? You don’t know? So, biological systems were made with forces and elements coming from outside this galaxy?! By magical gods or magical accident events? Oh… com’on… stop and think a little bit outside the temporary mainstream… they always proved to be wrong, like the geocentric model, spontaneous generation, etc.. This galaxy produced life, so, it must have less evolved properties of life in it and Math, Physics, can not find them. My models found… but they are also theories…

ASTRONOMY: They are seeing an explosion where I am seeing the blossom up of a flower

Friday, August 13th, 2010

See the article:

Fermi Detects ‘Shocking’ Surprise from Supernova’s Little Cousin



It is not a explosion: the white dwarf is a pulsar, an old and giant planet,  the nuclear reactions from its core has reached the last geological layer, and then, there is a collapse, when the remnant matter of the surface is a new strong nutriment of food to the germ of a star being developed through the nucleus. It is like the birth of a flower.

Why human beings trends to project themselves to unknown phenomena in the sky? We are product from a biosphere in state of chaos, but, in the sky, the astronomic organization of matter is in the state of order. There are no violence, no explosions. See in the article how many details on this event are against the current Nebular Theory, as recognized by the authors.

Comments about the article:

1)      Article: “The discovery overturns the notion that novae explosions lack the power to emit such high-energy radiation.”

The Matrix: The explosion of novae is an error of nebular Theory models. The models of Matrix/DNA Theory were not affected by this discovery.

2)      Article: “The outburst occurs when a white dwarf in a binary system erupts in an enormous thermonuclear explosion.”

The Matrix: The outburst occurs when a pulsar, which always is in a binary system, is transformed into a new star.

3)      Art: “The system is a so-called symbiotic binary containing a compact white dwarf and a red giant star about 500 times the size of the sun.”

Ther Matrix: “Yes, the transformation of a pulsar indicates that the system is old, then, must there is a red giant star.”

4)      Art: “”The red giant is so swollen that its outermost atmosphere is just leaking away into space. The white dwarf intercepts and captures some of this gas, which accumulates on its surface. As the gas piles on for decades to centuries, it eventually becomes hot and dense enough to fuse into helium. This energy-producing process triggers a runaway reaction that explodes the accumulated gas. The white dwarf itself, however, remains intact..”

The Matrix: “That’s a new fact that I never thought about. Indeed, before the pulsar’s transformation, it must be reached by the first degraded matter from the giant star. But, the next step is to broken the binary system because the supernova falls away out of the star’s gravitation force. Then, the degraded matter will build a vortex, called black hole. The nebular Theory is saying that the gas creates suddenly the hell at the white dwarf atmosphere. Ok: maybe the whole process really happens, then, the event was not the transformation of the pulsar. Maybe this kind of event is normal, happening before the transformation. But, let’s see now if the white dwarf will go back to the same. I don’t think so”

5)      Art: “It takes thousands of years for supernova remnants to evolve, but with this nova we’ve watched the same kinds of changes over just a few days,” he said. “We’ve gone from a photo album to a time-lapse movie.”

The Matrix: “Then you must to re-think your theoretical models.”

New Victory for Matrix Theory and new data against the Standard Model

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
See the article: 

A “Hot Saturn” That’s Not So Odd

By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
1 April 2009 see the coment below posted under that article:ALERT ! This is not Scientific Journalism!The author, Mr. Phil Berardelli is doing a bad service to Science Institution.The error is here: “… Each system basically starts out from a diffuse cloud of gas and dust, called a protoplanetary disk, within which gravity begins to clump material together. When the parent star ignites,..”.  And here: “ giant, gaseous planet to migrate toward the star, as have gas giants in other solar systems”.  Never, but, never, nobody and nowhere have seen, or documented, the event of formation of a solar system. Never, anybody has watched a giant gaseous planet travelling toward a star.  We have no scientific theories, the standard model of solar system formation is only a hypothesis, since that the last ones planets saw showed too many contradictions. So, the student and layman when reading something like that (… each system basically starts out from…) will believe that it is thru, scientifically approved and confirmed. It is not, it is merely an individual supposition from people of a given epoch. Mr. Berardelli never saw any solar system formation, like nobody saw God creating life, so, the two affirmations is about religion, no Science.The right thing to write should be: “Accordingly whit the theoretical models, they suppose that each system…”, or something like that in a better English. And this: “ … as we suppose that there are such kind of migration…” If you are a scientific thinker, passionate, and advocate of scientific method, you must be alert and correct such mistakes. See what is happening with Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory, being attacked from every side and being banished from some schools: they did the mistake of selling a theory as it being the ultimate truth.There are other models, even hypothesis, about cosmology and astronomic bodies’ formation where the last discoveries fill better. For instance, the models of The Universal Matrix Theory: it previews the existence of astronomic bodies like HD 149026b. Who has the authority to choose “the standard model”? The models of Matrix Theory do not deal with solar system formation, like cell molecular biology does not deal with atom formation. The models deal with cosmic bodies’ formation, like Biology deals with cellular organelles formation. Those models have no problem with the quantities of iron and nickel, neither has with bodies with giant rocky core and thick envelope of gas. The models suggest it must happen when a old planet is becoming a new pulsar. The models suggestions is that the hot gas envelope is due increasing volcanoes activity (  then, we will looking for volcano activity in HD 149026b).  The models suggest that only younger planets, without volcano activity migrate toward stars          The standard model must be investigated serious because it has a lot of problems. Here is a sample: “The most plausible explanation was that it resulted from a primordial collision between two or more gas giant planets.”. Never nobody saw collisions between astronomic bodies. What we have seeing about the sky it is suggesting that, there, reigns the natural state of order, not chaos, like in the biosphere. But the standard model, because it is basically based in the believe of events like “origins of something (as life, astronomical bodies and systems) by absolute chance”, or accident, leads normally the believer to suppose cosmic accidents like collisions. So we have “cannibals black holes”, supernova explosions, etc. Never any event like that has saw, but the student is forced and reinforced to believe in it, and when the student becomes astronomer, he/she will be ferocious advocate of a myth! The fact is that the standard model of solar formation has no link with the scientifically proved event which happened inside a solar system: the development of biological systems (mistakenly called “life”). Where is the forces, the elements, the ingredients used for the formation of a system that is the ancestral of the biological systems? Nobody even asked this question, the human rationality is not working, because astronomy became a matter of faith.

The method and instruments used here (they examined HD 149026b’s parent star and found that it contains twice the concentration of heavy elements, such as iron and nickel…) is totally proved? When we got real material from a distant body which previous analyze by the same method confirmed the prevision? Standard models with a Cosmo vision that offers no rational think for life origins and a health hope in human existence must not be sell to our children before a rigorous scientific examination. The problem of too many controversies around Evolution Theory is due the scholar texts making the same error here: they begins talking that it is a theory, but, at a given moment ahead, in the same text, it is no more a theory, they are catching doing strong affirmations as it were scientific approved… We must avoid the same happening with Cosmology and Astronomy… . But… I could be wrong… or not?