David Bennet, et. al.
Dept. of Astronomy
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Re: MACHO lenses and Zeeman affect
The comments in `A Magnifying Glass–‘ (7 Jam. SCIENCE) evokes this note as contingent to a lengthy study into complemental matter– found to be EM standing waves, evoked by likely the Zen idea of a hand clapping, but on neat 600Bly intervals across this universe. (note the Anglo-Australian 2dF Sky Survey effort now)
Since Red shift, as said magnetic magnifier lenses, define a very grand universe of pure magnetic flux, albeit `quantized’ to buy time as mc\2, many enigmas now appear to get unraveled, even the demand for scientific status quoism to buy tenure! A copy of a recent letter herewith. (over)
cc: Big Bang; One Hand; Path/IQ; Phys/Psy
CC: DZ w:
TO: Roland Buser, et.al.
VIA E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Maybe some past quips from a lengthy `matter’ investigation is appropriate herewith:
`The Nova’s spewed relative matters, just as the primal galaxy shows the parallel anti-matter ejecti at right angles to the disk as either jets or halo, even recent bulge material may explain a great number of current enigmas about galaxy evolution.’
`From late EM standing-wave `matter’, a galaxy’s bulge likely shows its early evolution was mainly Novae, creating heavy metal materials for a then common gravity accumulation in a thin disk.’
`The ensuing petite Nova behavior of our sun, as spews anti-matter from its spin axis periodically as now merely defines the net mode of anti-g affect in any entire primal quasar/galaxy.’
`From initial quasar ionized H to ensuing heavy metals, such primal galaxy shows spin-up due to its primal magnetic field thus its net early spin factor, even reversing spin direction by ionic charge from electron to baryon.’
`Amorphous globular galaxies show their jet matter accruing in a less formal way, yet behave somewhat as primal galaxies insofar as coagulate with a common gravity to yet produce Novae for heavy metals– albeit somewhat later than its primal progenitor.’
`Outer galaxy matter with more history should show a reversed net spin when compared with its earlier less metalized constitution when lepton `first harmonic’ standing waves get folded later via Novae into third (whole trefoiled quarks) with absorbed energy (thus `mass’) when in its common primal magnetic field.’
cc: R-Baker letter; Big-Bang; One-Hand
CC: D/Z w:
Re: Gravity vs/ magnetic field
Your fine gravity sensing device (current Scientific American) indeed should monitor both gravity and magnetic fields as one and the same, even complemental depending on field direction. Since the finding of EM standing-wave `matter’, not only did the jets of relative matter from quasar cores therefrom as predicted get verified well before the astronomical data via Einstein Observatory aloft of a nearby galaxy, but all matter spewing Novae– as even our own sun burping on 11 year cycles when agitated by it’s orbiting planets– in particular Jupiter as currently. The notedlateral solar flux field decline with vertical ejecti defines the anomaly best today– however misunderstood by most of astronomy.
To define `matter’ as evoked in quasar/galaxy cores as knotted EM wave fronts becomes understood only via the EMP (God-hand-clap) at the neat 600Bly intervaled cosmic bubbles (now as dark voids; note: Anglo-Australian 2dF sky survey data), yet their collapsing at the periphery with many quasars to create standing wave matter much as John Wheeler’s predicted `foam’. Because of the two basic harmonic(?) states, the first as electron, has a dual `wound’ (or concentric configured) `wrap’ to be attracted or rejected in the said relative magnetic faced field. The second is the `3-phased’ whole quark trefoil (most of large size cooked up in Novae) with a common magnetic field to interact two ways– with the primal field (astronomically) or an adjacent magnetic vortex field in nuclei– the proton or neutron, depending on wrap twist.
One wonders if more mu-metal shielding would also decouple the so sensed magnetic fluctuations your device reads, whatever now called?
J. Erler and
G. Langacker, et. el.
Dept. of Physics
University of Pennsylvania
Re: of finite `mass’
Dear Sirs: (`Old Data– New Signs–‘ Jan. 15, SN)
Because the 2dF sky survey confirmed the EMP genesis of Huchra’s bubbles on neat 600Bly intervals, the collapsing front for quasar cores to evoke standing wave foam (Wheeler) defines what matter is, especially reacting to a common magnetic field in 2D as called complemental `particles’. Their vectored displacement because of compound wound standing wave fronts buys time as behaves much as the current string theory.
Bosons as standing EM waves may define some relative `mass’ between the Z and W `particles’ as fine structure, but a 10 times difference at likely a 45 degree vector shows some other fundamental reaction in their common magnetic field. Thus all forces may be magnetic at root and the difference in how standing waves get `wound’ would dictate their relative behavior– as anti- versus koinomatter `gravity’, noted as disk vs. jets on the more primal galaxy as ours with ion torqued spin-out, not in.
Since the wrap, from fine structure to second tier for the two electrons with a reversed wrap and the 3 phased whole quark again with one leg phase different between a proton or neutron (easily traded to make compatible a common magnetic vortex for stability) all `mass’ is defined by the one force– as in some common large magnetic field continuum– as either a primal galaxy or its jet globular matters at some distance– displaced by a common anti-g.
cc: Psy/Psy; Big-Bang; One-Hand
CC: Greene; Lykken; Marciano; D/Z w:
D. L. Feder, et.al.
Dept. of Physics
University of Oxford
Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PU UK
Re: BEC “generating”; 7 Jan. SCIENCE
Speaking of `engineering’– as “Generating Solitons by Phase”, is the crux of the real art of creation, not refrigerating a BEC in to see its spin! The next phase of deducing the standing EM wave 3-phased whole quark of leptons with differing trefoil twists to create a neutron or proton may be daunting without the use of insight over microscopic inspection. The stacking factor for the common magnetic vortex in the baryon nuclei defines superconductivity, even anti-g, when a magnetic vortex gets re-twisted to so respond in a different way to their background residual magnetic field as the genesis in some galaxy. (note: `One Hand’ herewith)
The more likely deductive breakthrough may come from the Anglo-Australian astronomy 2dF Sky Survey correlative work, to define the a priori net undifferentiated magnetic flux behind `mass’ in slow cold time, much of what is being noted in your BEC data.
cc: One Hand; Big Bang; Phys/Psy
CC: Cubizolles; D/Z w:
S. McGaugh, et.al.
Dept. of Astronomy
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Re: EMP Big Bangs and ion flinging
Dear Sir: (`Heretical–‘ 28 Jan. SCIENCE)
The 2dF survey defines how well the Zen master perceived the genesis of EM standing wave `matter’ thus predicted the anti-matter jets well before the Einstein Observatory went aloft to prove them. Yet tenure prevails as make `heretics’ when they get too disturbing– even today with the empirical obvious.
Any quasar core vortex self-collapsing to evoke ionic standing wave electrons (with complemental g) show clearly the spin-up in the residual magnetic primal EMP bubble field would torque as the said anti-g push same outward– until hadrons with opposite ionic charge would reverse the rotation– noted already on some early epochs of old galaxies. MOND is another fudge factor to escape seeing the obvious, especially with anti-g accelerating universe, as between primal spiral galaxies and their protege jet matter globulars.
Its possible that Turner now senses what is coming, finally.
(No further `.com’ lines here. Sorry! Apparently the Feds want to know how to `unravel’ whole standing wave hadrons for fission- fusion as MUST `win’ to profit on energy when the oil runs out!
cc: Big-Bang; One Hand; Path/IQ; Phys-Psy
CC: Rubin; Spergel; D/Z w:
N. Bartle, Bietenholz, et. al.
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Toronto M3J 1P3, Canada
Re: Novae morphology
Dear Sir: (`The Changing–‘ 7 Jan. SCIENCE)
The big question now is 1993J’s spew axis at right angles to it’s M81 disk axis? Because EM standing wave `matter’ created at the primal quasar vortex core spews in two directions, (complementals own complemental g as well, to define the predicted jets well before the Einstein Observatory went aloft to see them), the ever mounting obvious will evoke some chagrin pretty soon now! Because a once created Nova behaves with generated anti-g to spew its so compounded (3-phase trefoiled whole quarks) matter in two directions, again their common spin axis in their galaxy’s yet potent magnetic field dictates the opposite relative spewing when torque prevents the major matter– thus spews the created. Spin-up of an early galaxy has even been noted as reversing, maybe to define electron to quantized proton charge in said primal magetic field, as evoked by the grand cosmic bubble EMPs. Since any wave front torques itself in a disturbed field (Zeeman refraction) it thus becomes those points around such bubble to in time collapse to make Wheeler’s `foam’, we call matter yet is but standing waves.
Also of interest would be how close is M81’s spin axis to our own primal galaxy since if `sisters’ on the same cosmic bubble, their small spin difference might suggest the diameter of our genetic quasar core’s bubble back some 15? Billion years ago. The Anglo-Australian 2dF survey is stacking the evidence to make the Zen idea of asking what one hand sounds like clapping– in its primal universal magnetic flux– but to create slow time for us)
Sorry if this all befuddles, but someday the tenured may find the back seat with their twisted algorithms based on half truths.
cc: Phys/Psy; Path/IQ; Big Bang; One Hand
CC: Graham; Conway; D/Z w:
R. A. Nelson, et.al.
P.O. Box 19250
Jean, NV 89019
Re: standing wave matter
Sir: (`Transmutations–‘ Feb./March Nexus)
Indeed, your `Science News’ blurb was adroit, especially when unraveling EM standing waves for gamma energy released `back’ from the a-priori! One needs to see (2dF) how `things’ got started via those neat 600Bly intervaled mighty EMP cosmic bubbles for precipitated standing wave `matter’ at coalescing potent wave front (degenerative `string’ knot tying) quasar core vortex for primal galaxies like ours. Not only did Einstein point to the difference between pure E and its said precipitate standing wave mc\2 `matter’, but Zen pointed to the creative modus opernadi of one handed `claps’!
The first Utah CF work defined the `unraveling’ but it took some time to fully figure out the two basic standing wave `matters’ as one escaped the time reversal paradigm (Heisenberg) or the hadron 3-phased whole quark anomaly, where controlled `unraveling’ will soon be a reality– to conclude all petroleum cartels!
Of what is said here can be exposed publicly, now that most of the Fed’s kicking in doors, FBI, even CIA on foreign shores, etc. etc., may be over. Our initiated said 2dF sky survey has gone too far now to be denied anymore– so maybe there can be “safety in numbers” with so many foreign people now running on this whole “matter” of integrating physics with astronomy, etc.
A recent letter to Hal Fox herewith. (over)
P.S: No further `.com’ lines here, but until the Feds bump a current website off the `air’ again, you might peruse:
CC: Phys/Psy; Path/IQ; Hal-Fox/let
cc: D/Z w:
Sten Odenwald, et.al.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Re: burping petite Novae and DC current
Sir: (your fine `Storms–‘ Sky/Telescope)
With the mounting confirming data of both quasar magnetic vortex via the 2dF Sky Survey defining EMPs as cosmic bubbles the genesis of standing wave EM `matter’– as reversed process of once quantified Novae, the anti-matter jets from primal quasar/galaxies, as said Novea explains the real `flak’ earth gets when our sun gets rattled with Jupiter, etc. on its 11 year cycles. Since the sun’s poles normally eject positrons during its quiet periods we little suspect why our ionosphere’s electrons hang around, but with anti-g between anti-matters, we lose our natural defense to take the brunt if a `flare’ when it gets away from the poles.
The solar winds blow two kinds of `matter’, depending on which 90 degree side faces us– thus also explains galaxy formation in a primal magnetic field as the said inverse (lateral ejecti) of the Novae when compared to their innate galaxy’s magnetic field.
To back up all the way to Einstein’s Alephs to perceive the E as the real a priori of subtended standing waves, quantum mechanics becomes understood in light of what down here examines all in a definitive (space) with slow serial (temporal) order.
(note: Phys/Psy; herewith)
cc: Phys/Psy; Path/IQ;
CC: Baker; D/Z w:
J. A. Peacock, et.al.
Royal Observatory of Edinburgh
Noting your work via the 2dF survey and the relative (front to back) speed ratio of the cosmic bubble (Huchra), might there yet be an anomaly due to what now appears anti-g between the complemental quasar/galaxy matters, one being the primal galaxy as its jets anti-matters spew for globular galaxies well away from the said primal (ionic `spin-up’), versus its protege’s `spin-in’ gravity formation?
Since using Einstein’s Alephs to define E as the generator for as of condensing itself into mc\2 for `purchased’ time, the spectrum of matter was seen as standing EM waves in a few configurations, now being well examined via `string theory’ and suggested as foam by J. Wheeler.
It appears there is only one force, magnetic as the Apriori, so all configurations of `wrap’ for the standing waves (electrons or 3-phase whole quarks with one leg variable to become different to compatible coupled hadrons (with common magnetic vortex), your work could define any `dark matter’ as merely the space a cosmic EMP took before crashing (collapsing) to evoke quasars at the periphery of the said bubble.
We suspect the “bursters” (gamma bursts) may be those collapsing vortex on cosmic bubbles to initiate primal quasar cores for ensuing standing-wave matter generation, thus such spurious yet rapid flash when both electrons first get created, as many self annihilate before evasion with anti-g into jet matter.
Since mentioning the Zen `hand clap’ many years ago, before Tyson made his astronomical CCD photo-plates which might fit our need, the 2dF survey has indeed come a long way– while the Feds here have become a genuine nuisance! I hope this letter gets to you.
cc: Big-Bang; One-Hand; Phys/Psy;
CC: Fischer; Ellis; Jain; D/Z w:
Helen Quinn, et.al.
Dept. of Physics
Linear Accelerator Labs
Stanford, CA 94305
Re: fresh theories
Since a note I see of Nov. 15,’91 about quasar cores, now fully understood via the 2dF survey and grand primal EMPs, your fine remarks in last Dec. 10th SCIENCE as `programs’ (via the Sonoma meeting) will be obviated soon– with the Self thinking interface (and chaos) when `purchased’ theory ends for tenured existence! E. Rauscher indicated that `great liability’ of tapping the freed electron (as her EPR experiments showed), I include a more recent letter to your Stanford associate herewith.
cc: Phys/Psy; Path/IQ; S-T
CC: Koza; Baker; D/Z w:
Robert Fesen, et.al.
Dept. of Astronomy
Re: pumping ion!
Dear Sir: (14th Jan. SCIENCE; “Supernova–”
Rather than repeat much of our theoretical studies, most evoking irrational remarks– the herewith may do more justice if understood in light now of your article, especially of the inverse to primal quasars as Novae.
Chandra’s work is now finally paying off in view of the Zen `hand claps’ that Huchra saw with `walls’ and finally cosmic bubbles to generate quasar vortex for creating EM standing wave matter to buy our slow time!
M. A. Ruderman, et. al.
Dept. of Astronomy
New York, NY 10027
Re: abrupt gamma bursters (The Sciences)
While yet conjectural, the 2dF Anglo-Australian sky survey shows the EMP genesis of EM standing wave matter on their cosmic bubble periphery, so the many primal quasars with their first burst of electrons to offer light during its potent magnetic vortex collapse should be noted on these cosmic bubbles– thus possibly define the many odd GRB genesis.
Herewith are a couple past letters addressing this anomaly which appears yet to escape attention.
cc: Kulkarni; D/Z w:
C. H. Sequin and B. Collins. et.al.
Dept. of Computer Mathematics
University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: art reflecting reality
This issue of Scientific American with your article was adroit! Not before could we fully `picture’ the EM standing wave whole 3-phased quark as a neutron looked like, much less its integration with another `leg’ retwisted proton to stabilize their net united magnetic vortex. Superconductivity shows this clearly now.
While the grand cosmic EMPs evoking Huchra’s `bubbles’ to evoke a primal quasar collapsing vortex to `degenerate’ a vast EM front into standing waves for time, the foam (Wheeler) for complemental matters makes clear when Einstein’s Alephs defined E as the only Apriori to act on as within Itself for creating slow mass-time. The complemental matters of different standing wave `twists’ thus relative gravity factor (note spewed jet matters), may yet integrate astronomy and physics if we don’t immolate en masse first to evade the obvious.
While much ugly rebuttal will ensue for as by the tenured, the so clear import via 2dF now suggests not much time remains. Maybe P. Parson’s (Oxford U/UK) should be addressed for his computer model of the Zen hand-clap prediction, but on neat 600Bly intervals (to not disturb other bubbles), this universe appears to be on some unique schedule– destined for a smooth net entropy, of two well separated matters!
If Collins has color photos of his work for sale, please advise!
Neil Trentham, et. al.
Dept. of Astronomy
Re: jet matter globulars
Dear Sir: (March 2K Sky Tele.; `How Did Globulars–‘
With the 2dF sky survey data (see: P. Parsons/Oxford) confirming the EMP genesis of the cosmic bubbles (Huchra) for many peripheral magnetic vortex (collapse) to evoke quasars to so `degenerate’ EM fronts into Wheeler’s foam of EM standing waves called matter, soon there may be a different view between physics and astronomy.
While amorphous spewed anti-matter jets from primal quasar cores with anti-g goading, the enigma defined the different behavior of EM standing waves; as between our negative or positive electrons with a slightly different fine-structure `wrap’, the third phase whole quark trefoils with one lepton leg re-twisted, to show the net volatility of our neutrons, as retwisted protons but to fill in for a stable magnetic vortex coupling. Because a temperature change can twist the trefoil, superconductivity as even anti-gravity (note top quark `mass’!) can be understood.
cc: Big-Bang; One-Hand; Phys/Psy; Path/IQ
CC: Harris; Larson; Graeme; Marel; D/Z w:
F. Yusef-Zadeh, et. al.
Dept. of Astronomy
Evanston, IL 60208
Re: Sgr A* and residual quasar cores
The current series on the Milky Way via SCIENCE is the best net composite of imports defining the quips herewith, so without ado:
(Q754/Ast. plus R. Baker letter copy, over)
`Dwarf galaxies as Sgr A itself, not a composite, but is a dim emitting small quasar core now, mostly subsided from producing standing wave matter or this primal galaxy.’
`The halo around the quasar core is extensive while early when many Novae spewed anti-matter at right angles to the disk proper, now only a small volume as standing wave matter genesis ceases.’
`From full fledged Novae to now burping suns, heavy metals are not made as profusely as maybe 10 billion years ago!’
`It now appears that our galaxy’s core vortex is only 2Ly in size but one could wonder at its prior glory!’
`Since we only see the second ordered results of any EMP vortex from radiating electrons, we now must assume that astronomy will at last realize the `hand claps’ which got things started!’
`All dynamic propagating EM wave fronts are refracted by the stationary magnetic field they pass through, much as what Faraday inversely noted when a definitive EM standing wave electron gets propelled down a conductor but with a moving magnetic field.’
`Light is an open ended wave front even if modulated in amplitude, frequency and phase– not some definitive standing wave as an electron, because refraction works best in a DC field as was noted by Zeeman.’
`If the IRS 16 or CND of Sagittarius is the continuing collapse of a cosmic bubble’s quasar vortex for matter creation then the balance of what we known on this galaxy drives therefrom.’
`This primal galaxy’s official number is 3EGJ1746-2852 better called Sgr A West from which Sgr East gathers its first complemental condensed standing EM wave spewed matter.’
`Rather than escape detection, the quasar core defines the beginning of any Scwartzchild radius for light emission, as soon as electrons get created to do the radiation.’
`It is what is called dark matter as is not seen that offers a the suspicion that the universe is far more `massive’ now.’
`Any promoted EMP front converges upon itself at a point, once it gets a finite disturbance on its way– as the quasar core.’
cc: Big Bang; One Hand; Phys/Psy; copy Baker let.(over)
CC: Melia; Wardle; D/Z w:
B. Burke et. al.
Dept. of Radio Astronomy
Mass. Inst. Tech.
Cambridge, MA 02139
Re: `Secrets by Radio–‘ quasar `black- hole’ matter genetic cores; (SCIENCE 18 Feb.)
Closer scrutiny of the quasar core will define two kinds of `matter’ (EM standing waves) evolving therefrom with anti-g between to define the jets spewing at right angles to the primal disk. Thus any `black hole’ that sucks, truly does `suck’ in the sense that it is false because the said anti-g between two complemental EM standing waves that we call `matter’– from within our finite spaced (point of view) slow temporal quantal state.
The 2dF data defines the true primal `bangs’, likely millions of them on neat 600Bly intervals across this universe, but the means to evoke its peripheral collapsing EMP wave for quasar cores. The result evoking standing wave `matter’ with complemental kind, so anti-g there-between, noted so far via top quark `expedition’, not an assumed greater mass hadron albeit likely an anti-lepton.
Once recognizing the `3-phased’ whole quark (hadrons) with one leg phase reversed to make compatible for the stable nucleon, we will also perceive their genesis as the primal lepton as gamma, derived from finite collapsing EMP fronts on cosmic bubbles.
CC: Big Bang; One Hand; Path/IQ
cc: Junor; Zhang; D/Z w:
A. Frank, et.al.
Dept. of Astrophysics
Rochester, N.Y. 14627
Re: Inverse quasar for Novae
Dear Sir: (April Astronomy; `Busting–‘
The complemental spatial or matter dichotomy, whether during EM standing wave `matter’ creation in a quasar core or a future Nova compiling, best defines what the 2dF survey has shown as the real genesis of definitive space slow time via cosmic EMPs. The complemental spewed anti-matter jets from primal quasar galaxies (not globular as from that jet matter) makes clear the genesis of any quantified `matter’ as said EM standing waves, now best defined in the string theory in physics. Oddly, all forces then becomes a factor of the compound finite wound standing waves we yet call `billiard balls’ yet, sustaining tenure in ignorance in most our scientific thought. Our predictions many years ago of anti-g with anti-matter with the Einstein observatory aloft evidence made too clear the neurosis in most of modern science. Bohr’s refutation of Einstein’s supposition of complemental gravity was the real blunder in all of science and so we pay dearly for it yet!
Since Huchra the obvious was seen, thus likely our impetus to get the British to move on 2dF, thus the adroit `Busting the Bubbles’ article in the current April Astronomy publication.
We suspect that N. Soker is close, so needs attention now as the empirical obvious to what `matter’ truly is, becomes understood.
cc: One-Hand; Big Bang; Phys/Psy; Path/Psy; Livio let copy
CC: Astronomy; D/Z w:
Mario Livio, et. al.
Space Telescope Sc. Inst.
3700 San Martin Dr.,
Baltimore, MD 21218
Re: “–enduring fireball”
Dear Sir: (SCIENCE: Sept. 27th article)
In question would be the `relative’ directions between the fireball and the more definitive burster portion? If indeed smeared aspects can be detected as defining a collision around our own galactic disk for likely jet matters with a common gravity, the `burster’ enigma’s answer might be coming shortly.
No replies from Francesco Paresce, or M. E. Dickinson (9/25/96), as contingent to your work, might reflect naivete of what final data is needed.
Some past letter copies herewith may relieve us of defining more.
CC: D/Z w: