Time and Relitivity

exciting discovery :)
related to this video > http://youtu.be/eMVOeauQIWI

the stars and objects moving faster are actualy experiancing life slower than we are compared to us !
so that would mean thy look younger than thy are....

thus how can you tell how old the universe is from them ?

and stars moving slower would age faster compared to us....

ERGO : some stars look older than us and some look newer however not all are

another interesting fact .... apparently negative mater is anti gravity paraphrase that also means it travels backward in time ; thus meaning all that negative suns and planets should in theory exist the other end of time from us ... in theory the other side of the big bang time wise wow !

(C) RS

Black Hole thoughts and miracles

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/bholeeso243_49hlx.php

so right ? 2 black holes with at least half the mass of the milky way smashed into one another to form the center of the milkyway :) right ?

what speeds would thy have been moving at.. ?

if thy weren't moving fast would 13 billion years be enough to form the milky way ?

so lets presume thy collided directly ... at some speed :p what happens when 2 masses pass close to one another with enough gravity to draw close together ... circling and gravity waves , presumably fast pulsing waves and mabee some tearing of matter from the holes .. through the event horizon. :D

what would you say the chances where of 2 almost infinity small objects directly colliding even with Billions of suns worth of gravity .. ?

add the fact thy most definitely would be moving fast for it to happen in 13 billion years !

gravity waves , god knows what kind of energy emissions (mabee mass creation ) and HELL fire.

additional questions are :

how long would thy circle for ?

what would it look like ?

would the singularities be exposed due to the non existence of gravity between 2 equal gravity forces ...

what number of black holes would it take to make the galaxy center ?

how did the black holes gain their speed ?

how on earth did thy meet in infinity ? (space is rather vast)

if black holes regularly strike one another their must be lots of them ... ;)

if their are so many black holes where are the gravity waves or distortions or missing light ?

why are we here if there are so many :p

are we lucky to be alive or what ! :p

miracles happen every day even in science hehe

a less complex creator being randomly formed is easier to explain than the random creation of all we know

(C) RS

infinite speed - infinite energy

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/powertosee.php

do you see stars in every direction older than ours ? :)
do you see galaxies older than ours in every direction ? :)

some from close to the time of the "big bang" or other theories :p

then i ask a simple question :

if these older galaxies are all around us is there a source to a big bang not involving infinite being in a single instant ? (yes no)

is there eny proof that the speed of light was exceeded ? (yes)

is thier proof the universe may have been larger once ;)

is there proof that the universe still exists there ?

what we perceive is remnants , the remains of the past.

what we see is proof that something happened there that exceeds the speed of light.

for we would not see it at all if it where not so.

so there is proof
real proof of infinite speed
of infinite matter from a single point of magic of wander


life you dream
life you live

(C) RS

Neutron stars and thier lives * theoretical physics

in responce to > http://www.messagetoeagle.com/thermonuclearburst.php

Why neutron stars rotate so fast - my theory

The star begins with an inherent rotation....

The mass thusly falls on the neutron star in one direction and falls into the waves caused by the stars rotation...

As the star rotates what essentially amounts to waves form on the surface due to the fact that the outer layers move against the comparatively faster moving inner surfaces...

Much like how a bike's outer gear moves at a different speed to the outside than the inside due to differentials in circumference....

This is almost like the vortex observed in sinks :) only in 3 dimensions ...

Leading to layers rolling against one another like in the sea. !

The common point being the surface is distorted in a regular if froidal chaos way..

and thusly the mass falling on the star is bound to encounter these regular patterns in an averagely regular way and thus give a spin to the star...

and as defined by the interaction of rotational velocity versus gravity the speed observes would fall within the boundaries of possibility wherein the neutron star can exist at all ...

Thusly defining the shape and size of star most likely to form a neutron star,

Depending on the type of explosion , implosion or reactions that cause the star to become a neutron star the actual optimal size would vary ... and also the energy levels and gravity force required to make the proton and electron combine can be worked out and thusly the actual true repulsive force between electrons and protons and what it is at the moment of joining..

The many other forces that make the reaction can thusly be focused into a singular unified variable but only at point 0 ;)

why is a nuclear explosion not like a lazer

why is a nuclear explosion not like a lazer

why not a uniform colour of light ....

can a single atom simultaneously release more than one colour of light ?

seems logical that the light may divide into different spectral emissions but how ?

i mean the theory behind a lazer is the simultaneous explosion of atoms in a synchronous pulse...
and theoretically a nuke is the same ...

i was reminded of light bulbes....
i was reminded that hydrogen has only 1 electron .... so how on earth could it release all these energy patterns at once ....

a question about the release energy of electrons and the levels round a proton inside a nuclear explosion...

and if the electron would zoom off or not leaving a technically unguarded proton :(

humm a lazer effectively works on the same wavelength because the chemical concerned is sympathetic to a particular wave length of light ?  so thus we can prove that single elements are not sympathetic to one wave length.... nope

but base elements like hydrogen ; probably ... but why ?