Astronomy letters 9/4/96
University of California,
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Re: Cohen’s data “Goodness Gracious–”
Sir: (18 Oct. SCIENCE)
At least the intervals define what was being suspected when the
Huchra data hit the fan some time ago. The genesis of matter as
EM standing waves needed some EMP front, noted now as cosmic
bubbles, to get at least some slow-mass-time started! If indeed
this scenario is correct, the 600Bly interval implies wit to
evoke same, even if such creation took no time (no matter thus no
time yet)– probably implied by the one hand clapping in Zen, if
indeed man’s early right brain* half was defining things then!
We suspect the grandest problem has been solved, but the bringing
up the empirical data via `skewers’ or `hammers’ to nail down the
theory– however many twisted dogmas reject scientific inquiry as
Carlberg infers, trauma is seen on the human horizon. What will
continue to evoke `skeptism’ is the underlying implications of
the E side of Einstein’s equation, evoking its complemental (now
seen as standing wave `matter’) on tumbling EMP fronts on neat
intervals across this universe’s expanse– even if that non-
temporal’s action could be equated as one big Bang– even if not
seen until that tumbling began later at quasar intervals! Oddly,
if c is somewhat constant (ignoring dv/dt red shift), some close
approximation might define when the grand hand clapping for `foot
stools’ was done on our temporal scales!
CC: R. Carlberg; D/Z
Baltimore, MD 21218
Re: distance via red-shift?
What are you guys going to do or say when you find the dv/dt fac
tor dictates the red shift and that the density of that traversed
magnetic field dictates that shift extent? Since the magnetic a
Špriori as initially `condensed-out’ EM standing waves on cosmic
bubble wave EMP fronts (on neat 600Bly intervals across this uni
verse(!); Huchra), just maybe some astronomical anomalies will
make clear your need for tenure with spookier ideas will end.
The natural high red-shift of the very quasar might show its very
sense magnetic field with the said EMP, thus appear very distant,
until such EMP front moves on to THEN make its relative red-shift
(now due to background steady-state magnetic fields) appear worth
considering for astronomical distance measurement, to say little
of Hubble’s constant.
We all need a job but as in government, those who make their own
work on trumped ideas and promises are near their end now– with
the self thinking (5th Generation) computer (interface) about to
define everything (over)– especially all skeletons to conclude
this epoch of social promise-making– called civilized! Sorry.
CC: D/Z; Steidel; Faber
St. Foy, Quebec
Sirs: (`Tiny galaxy–‘, SC.NEWS 11/26th)
With the mounting evidence that quasar/galaxy formation occurs on
the periphery of cosmic EMP bubbles, there might be some evidence
of this referred young galaxy some place in-between two major
near galaxies of older age, such EMP propagating front finding
enough residual energy to evoke a fresh quasar, thus your data.
I hope to peruse more of your findings as cosmic scale placement,
at least in terms of Huchra’s bubbles. I suspect your work may be
of vast value if indeed its precise place as riding some said EMP
front (thus believed yet black hole as is transparent) where
standing wave `matter’ gets generated.
Toledo, OH 43606
Re: egg or chick?
Dear Sir: (Nov. SCIENCE `Cosmic Chemistry–‘
With the neat EMP evoked cosmic bubbles (Huchra) on their 600Bly
Šintervals, the `Big Bang’ must have been stupendous indeed– even
if not seen nor heard before mass was degenerated from EM stand
ing waves from the background Apriori.
Your data, as others, again shows some other route to `condensed’
matter above He, Li etc., yet suspected generated in Nova. The
obvious energy required to precipitate not only the primary elec
trons (complemental; thus anti-g for predicted jets long before
the Einstein observatory `saw’ the evidence), but the said first
harmonic standing wave H as next third (whole quark) will clarify
much– even in staid `billiard-ball’ physics.
As said; “–complete that picture is very appealing.” in the
article will not be quite that way as opens a vast can of worms
where instated tenured nitwits unwilling to budge an inch will
soon be perceived, just as the human split brain neurological
data defines the penchant of our left brain– until too late!
CC: Bloemen; Duncan; Lambert; Lemke; D/Z
Max Planck Inst.
Garching, W. Germany
Re: red to blue shift extent proof
While seeking some definitive means to judge if indeed background
magnetic flux field refracted star light (dv/dt anomaly) instead
of gravity fields (Einstein’s General theory), it dawned on me
that maybe the extent of red to blue shift might show greater net
spread from repeated Zeeman affect than known single field source
as the primal quasar, from cosmic bubble collapse– as evoke the
standing wave matter– yet called billiard balls in Physics. As
cascaded prisms, possibly the blue shift might show a greater net
spread than the red from the same source, such differential using
a common spectrographic means might define same. The only other
way I suspect is to monitor various same distance bodies with and
without a polarized light source to define magnetic field inten
sity as the refractive index on same, compared to their more ob
vious mass differences.
Hubble’s constant as other factors need clarification obviously,
so fresh quasars with dense primal magnetic field need to be dif
ferentiated from the older ones (galaxies) where the cosmic EMP
field has moved on– as somewhat frittered away in producing the
standing wave matter therewith.
I’d appreciate comments before I press a few others to consider
my yet `bizarre’ reasoning. Many thanks.
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH, UK
Hello again– (Re: your succinct recent reply)
A can of stewed tomatoes, a can of beer and sometime a highball
or rum and coke with a visitor— o.k?
Bizarre? Sure, but maybe after working with aerospace doing some
classified stuff, we get loony early. (I’m pressing 70) Noting
genius somehow associated with the left hand (daVinci, Michelan
gelo, Einstein, etc. etc.) noted the same spatial apti-tude in the
schizoid so in a lecture suggested maybe the right brain could
`jumped time’, as Einstein’s Spec. Rel. equations define– the
space-time thing in some way integrated there be-tween in slower
mass-time. Weird! A few years later Sperry* split the 1st human
brain and “yipe”, there is was– yet denied with vehemence yet
explains far more that what Jung, Freud, Koestler, et.al. ever
admitted– much less could, lacking the evidence.
To be really weird, as said, I suspect the greatest `game’ now on
planet earth is not hiding the scientific for the tenured, but
the UFO game where the most hideous unseen political manipulation
is underway and worse, our political appear to know nothing about
it! The crux of this remark goes way back to the split-brain data
as shows the right hand (left brain) knows only rectilinear dis
placement (travel) to define the ample UFO data! (MUFON**) I now
suspect Dawkins (DNA) is warm for the physiological `mechanics’,
but not yet the psychological!
Current curiosity in `where’ history resides as likely mtDNA,
in part what your Trevor Robbins (Cambridge***) is perusing, even
Queens College Polkinghorne are asking prime questions. I suspect
much is coming unraveled now (beyond EM standing waves for
controlled fusion) but in the psychological way,, maybe some kind
of apocalypse– as some of my GVSC religious kids murmured often!
I’ll throw a file `Astronomy’ at you herewith, albeit redundant,
may have yet a few crude remarks worth arguing over!
* `The Human Split-Brain’, Scientific American, Aug.’67
or `The Others Side of the Brain’, J.E. Bogan, Bul. L.A. Neurol.
** MUFON 1983 UFO Symposium Proceedings
Chicago, IL 60637
Re: SOHO data
Sirs: (9/31 SC.NEWS; “How to Light–”
Accelerated solar corona may indeed be propelled by sub-surface
`matter’ but suspected here is anti-matter as the top quark noted
with its extreme “mass”, albeit no sign on its net G factor. The
General Relativity theory, as Einstein’s self claimed blunder, as
defining complemental forces, such idea pointed to the jet matter
spewed from quasar poles before the Einstein Observatory went
aloft to prove same. The likely `X’ corona configuration may
indicate two of such lobes have– as poles, subtle jet matter ex
pulsions. This `X’ has been noted often at even supernova config
urations suggesting complemental matter anti-g prevails.
It would appear that Hollweg’s opinion comes close where a `furi
ous turbulence’ prevails, albeit the AC component might only be
Cerenkov with trapped electrons propelled by anti-g and spiraling
rapidly out on magnetic lines of force. Because the higher quark
number in oxygen (than hydrogen) such anti-g affect would define
the relative acceleration thereof as noted in the article.
Now comprehending `matter’ as quantized EM standing waves created
on cosmic EMP (bubble) fronts, an entirely new ‘physics’ is about
to redefine not only Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (positive
EPR experiments) but how 600Bly intervaled `clapped hand’ across
this universe implied some Apriori cause for the temporal affect!
cc: J.L. Kohl; Axford; D/Z
Yorktown Hts., NY 10598
Re: spectral spread?
Sirs: (DIBs; SCIENCE, 1 Nov., `Astronomy’
Might the gaps define Zeeman/Raman affect where specific spectral
lines get differentiated in the yet dense EMP cosmic fronts as
evoke the bubbles precipitating mass-time standing wave matter?
The dv/dt red shift does imply this as Arp cautiously notes, but
such passing primal driver of steepened cosmic bubble (Huchra)
front now well defines the multiple Big Bangs on neat 600Bly in
tervals across this universe. Of course this begs the question of
what or Who clapped its one hand* to evoked those potent EMPs all
at once, since no time could then exist without quark matter?
Because of the on-going arguments here about ways and means to so
define the red-shift extent as modulated by the said dense primal
EMP magnetic fields (as evoked the quasar/galaxies), your work
suggests underlying questions to make us suspect possibly the key
Šneeded to define relative distance (Hubble constant) due to slow
ed (dv/dt) light travel over distance– if indeed `calibratable’.
If some `print’ of your “poster”, albeit in some smaller size is
available, or you could define where we might obtain same, please
advise. SSPC herewith.
cc: Kroto; Snow; D/Z
Cambridge, MA 02139
Re: Folger’s “In the black”(?)
Dear Sir: (Jan. DISCOVER; p.29+)
There may be far more in the “black” soon, but better defined as
“despair”, especially for Big Bangers if Arp is correct! The M51
configuration better defines the primary disk-jets as complemen
tal matters being spewed from a white hole as ride some EMP bub
ble (Huchra) not discerned yet. To insist on `implosions’, as no
quantized matter (in wavelet form) can exist above 10x33rd K. is
awaiting Arp, to get the last laugh after all– noting the white,
not black holes out there. Even a super nova may never exist any
smaller than three solar masses as again would blow itself to
pieces on re-coagulating. The `pinch’ affect on wavelets– yet
called `billiard ball’ matter, can go only so far to unravel it
self (loop or string theory) near 10X33 Kelvin.
These are indeed exciting times– and for two underlying reasons!
Goddard Space Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Re: dark matter
The six times net matter indicated in the recent SC.NEWS did not
reflect `where’ as contingent with the relative pole-disk orien
tation of NGC 1399. Was there any net dichotomous lobe data at
right angles of the disk configuration? Since our predicted jet-
disk anomaly confirmation (Einstein Obs.) years ago, (to satisfy
mutual complemental matter anti-g at genetic `white’ cores), pos
sibly some observed data might suggest the ejected jet matter
might be noted far out– even with the ellipticals. While some
Ševidence of gamma bursts near outer disk fringes may define re-
coagulation (collision) of the said jet matters (via mutual at
tractive g), we seek further data associated with dark matter.
Any directives to your published data will be appreciated, and/or
comments to the above said matter– in two ways!
Cambridge, MA 02138
Maybe anti-g will not be seen well in this koinomatter galaxy,
possibly not even the top quark where its phased relationship may
offer the maximum “weight” to evade this continuum at all `cost’.
Its three phased wave-mechanics, underlying quantal `billiard-
ball’ reality, hopefully may soon be deciphered with the string-
loop theories– to conclude how close deBroglie came as well. The
equivalent mass to relative g may never be resolved here, however
large the E factor to prod mass to reveal itself in slow time.
Not oddly in view of `peer pressure’, Einstein was likely correct
in using the complemental g-constant– as got twisted as and for
Big Bang, such cosmological constant one-sidedness preventing the
comprehension of ejected primal matters from quasar (white hole)
cores. Not only the anti-g factor allowed us to predict the jet-
disk anomaly before the Einstein observatory went aloft, but the
dv/dt red shift anomaly due to `tired light’ on traversing dense
magnetic fields as the bubble EMP fronts, to aid quasar to galaxy
genesis to begin with. When the disk radial speed was inverse to
in-falling expectations and obvious highly accelerated jet matter
to be hopefully noted as dark-matter clouds at galaxy poles– yet
evoke gamma bursts as re-coagulating collisions around the disk
It will be interesting to note the magnetic field around those
common bubble evolving quasar-galaxies, especially newly formed
bubbles, as well as the amount of red shift therewith seen, to
define how young the Apriori (yet finite) bubble is. Its unique
spatial orientation with others might define further what funda
mental mind lies behind our visible universe– to say little of
what occupies our right cerebral cortex– now so well noted!
We note with happiness– albeit the chagrin of many others, that
our terse explanation (sent to the Smithsonian many years) ago
may be that final `straw’ to end Big Bang as other pet theories
credence for the incessantly tenured.
CC: Adelberger/U/Wash.; Hughes/Los Alamos Labs
New York, NY 10017
Re: misplaced anti-g
Dear Sirs: (1E1740.7-2942 `annihilator’)
Maybe it is time to reconsider the dynamics of a white hole whose
genetic spewing complemental matters (with anti-g there between)
might define, with some stray anomalous perturbation, how those
primal electron-positron combinations occur. By watching the
different `places’ of these `great annihilators’ from time to
time may define no such `massive’ black-hole as responsible for
the high 511 keV bursts, not directly associate with the galactic
center. The likely couple light-days may reflect one quantity of
plasma interacting with its complemental, some `wobble’ in Sgr
A’s white hole’s spewed matter could evoke the interaction in
some possible periodic way, albeit likely not in some same spa
tial place as before– last noted as 1E1740.7-2942.
Since using the anti-g analogy to define the disk-jets quasar
phenomena many years ago, not only its confirmation via the Ein
stein observatory but ensuing expected anomalies as the EMP bub
ble front to enhance quasar core initiation. (Petite Bangs!) The
magnetic field orientations of bubble (wall) fronts will tell
Maybe Krumhensl’s quoting Paine (p.38; same March PHYSICS TODAY),
says what many should be but can’t with eyes on the tenured prize
and so to sustain the status quo in ever new mathematical jargon.
To definitize wave machines by numerical infinitude (called quan
tum or whatever), it best defines late science’s self made cul de
sac by its digital intellectual time oriented left cerebral domi
nance, with IQ instead of CQ.
There may be a good reason to suspect positronium where spin-
triplets (as 3 phased loops, strings, solitons, or what have you)
may reflect that universal wave stability based upon the third
harmonic– quarks no anomaly.
University of California
Santa Cruz, 95064
Re: `exactly–‘? (star-burst elliptics)
Dear Sirs: (NEWSWEEK: June 3; p.46)
ŠBut maybe anti-g and so crowding from returning spewed jet matter
pinches the two sides of the elliptical galaxy to force greater
coagulation in that disk matter for star formation? Using the CPT
theorem many years ago to define possible anti-g, to make clear
the predicted jet-disk anomalies thereafter noted (as with the
Einstein Observatory) that Big Bang was likely to get rescinded.
One wonders if you you started with a slightly different paradigm
as anti-g between ejected complemental matters from white genetic
(instead of black) holes for quasar cores, a much different simu
lated picture would not emerge? It no doubt would fit our predic
tions again, and a reality that somehow gets blinded by tenure.
CC: Stephen Maran, Dept. of Astronomy
Toronto, Ont. Canada
Re: `focussed’ rf as light?
Dear Sir: (SCIENCE NEWS, 6/22/91, p.396)
We have been seeking data which might conclude `bubble’ EMP with
magnetic flux alignment for quasar jet orientation, might you be
seeing this anomaly now? Any large `elliptical’ as appearing near
the observational center we suspect could define the others near
by but on that bubble radius with differing net appearance.
The expected very high density magnetic fields near quasars (be
yond the said EMP bubble front) with a secondary shock wave, we
suspect evoke the quasar for complemental matter genesis, the
predicted jets versus disks (before the Einstein Observatory
proved same) are created but separated sustained by anti-g there-
between. The higher angular speeds of disks with radii appear to
conclude our theory of white holes (not black) eject the two
complemental matters from quasar cores, no Big Bang therefore.
The ejection rates of their jet matter will likely be seen as
shadow matter in huge pole plumes, likely re-coagulating with
mutual g around the periphery of the disk, likely the gamma bur
sters there already seen.
We suspect quasar jets aim alike with some more primal magnetic
flux field and would like to see any evidence thereof. Should
your work or others in the field of cluster alignment observation
be able to define same as on bubble fronts as we expect (per
cluster) we would appreciate some word or directives theretoo.
London, SE2 9LS, England
Re: singularity/e and white holes
Dear Sir: (28 Sept.’91; NEW SCIENTIST)
The `trap’ (in more than one way) of the black hole has befuddled
the more likely fact of a white one since darkness holds time
while light none. Also, g force (in complementarity) showed long
before the Einstein Observatory went aloft to prove, the disk-jet
matters escaping each other (in haste!) to define huge clouds of
anti-matter surrounding the galaxy’s poles, likely re-coagulating
making gamma bursters etc. etc. The neat spacing of the genetic
`bubbles’ at even intervals suggests someone (no-thing) knew
already what It is doing in space since those EMP fronts imply
some `hand’ had clapped therein to get it started. Dense magnetic
fields not only evoke complemental matter but make for `tired
light’ (remember?), so Arp is not far from wrong in his complaint
about Hubble distance. Further, those three-phase nature of pre-
matter wavelets called quarks define no mass, as a neutron aboard
a proton*. The Apriori magnetic field is where Physics should get
started– just as Theology, however vehemently denied.
The greater `beast’ in computer simulation is the programmer with
the wrong idea of reality to begin with. Maybe I should loan my
`machine’ (Plato’s Potentia; note freed e in EPR experiments) so
they could get something straight and restart their simulations
for some more tenured status quos. Just yet it still is rocking
our Patent Office, as officials holding same in limbo, 10 years!
With the coming deciphering of the H nucleon to define how to
`merge’** two and more together via laser propulsion with orien
tation, fusion will be a cinch, with finitely controlled finesse.
Princton, NJ 06544
Re: burster shadow matter
Flamsteed’s blurb in the Jan. DISCOVER on the GRO data is good
indeed as again defines, as predicted, the `local’ (galaxy wise)
re-coagulation of its jet matters around the periphery of its
disk. While an `obnoxious import’ to Big Bang hangers-on, further
defines the EMP bubbles (also predicted, as the disk-jet `anomal
ies’ before Einstein Observatory went aloft) many years ago. The
whole enigma rests on no CP violation– so anti-g between those
complemental matters as spewed from white core `holes’– in turn
evoked in nicely separated EMPs across the universe.
Different gamma intensities show the re-coagulated `anti-matter’
(to galaxy disk) from galaxy poles again re-coagulating with
Šgusto around the outer disk edges– evoking gamma radiation on
annihilation. Not only distance, which are proportionately far
from the disk’s diameter (due to ample anti-g), beyond some mini
mal distance no doubt some torroidal shape area would dictate the
maximum bursters that at least GRO would perceive.
Whether called shroud, Oort cloud, or said shadow matter, half of
all `mass’ of all quasar/galaxy derivation remains somewhat obs
cure, beyond noted distantly derived dv/dt light modification as
traveling there-through. (due to magnetic flux fields, not g!) To
“hold the Milky Way together” beyond its own mutual g attraction,
the said anti-g affect may aid in decelerating the disk matter
flight to offer the anomaly of out-disk higher angular velocities
than central, but again defining such spewed matter stems from
the core– no Big Bang, unless one could hear the one hand clap
ping at those bubble cores!
The gamma radiation noted both at our galaxy core periodically as
Geminga could well be those haphazard complemental matters that
get trapped to self annihilate near their genetic core. Spurient
`tweaking’ of core fields might upset smooth complemental matter
genesis and ejections.
P.S. I think a contingent note went to J. E. Gunn last May
Cambridge, MA 02138
Re: Focal Point (+) on THE focal point!
Your plasma issue (Feb.’92) finally hits the nail on the head! It
defines without saying overtly so the genesis of quasar white
hole cores for ensuing complemental matter creation, riding on a
potent EMP `bubble’ front. Plasma is a second generation phenome
na as a `degeneration’ of pinched a very dense magnetic field,
each both mutually at right angles as well as to the magnetic
field lines (EMP) to likely define the spatial orientation of
those ensuing galaxies riding the one dense bubble front. Most
astounding are the nice 600MLY separations between those many
EMP fronts begging the $64 question of whose the one hand clapped
to evoke those EMPs? This likely sounds esoteric to tenured ears
but maybe in another 30 years–, who knows. At least the Birke
land dual currents show why the galaxy disk versus jets (relative
to the prevailing magnetic lines of force) expand relatively dif
ferently, when anti-g then ensures their separation thereafter.
We need now to confirm our galaxy’s dual jet-matter `bubbles’ by
EUVE to conclude from where peripheral gamma `bursters’ come.
Of interest is the genesis of great momentary red-shift (Arp) as
a fresh quasar’s light emission gets `tired’ in that dense EMP,
albeit over time becomes a true factor to be used for distance
measurement when a galaxy cools as the its EMP moves on. Lerner’s
Šadroit remarks about Schramm defines all scientific inquiry where
tenure, at all cost, must dictate some status quo, as in politics
now– creating the greatest net danger to mankind, ever.
From three-phased complemental quarks, anti-g and no “mass” (just
force) so deBroglie’s wavelet universe will be understood someday
as the neurotics in power die off. Even the freed electron (that
escapes the time reversal paradigm) will be perceived as Plato’s
Potentia (note EPR data!) to define and allow other users of the
self thinking “interface” (5th Generation) and so at last man’s
conscious attention where it belongs.
CC: Lerner; Peratt
A. L. Peratt, et.al.
Dept. of Astro-Physics
Los Alamos Labs.
Los Alamos, NM 87544
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Re: Schombert’s data
Dear Sir: (SC.NEWS, p.36; Jan. 18,’92)
Dim low net mass-density galaxies are indeed intriguing! Yet the
mounting question now is how truly far, much less age, they might
be in view of the dv/dt red shift anomaly. If truly “old” and yet
not densified by mutual g, it implies little other anti-g, as is
now suspected around the ellitpical’s two sides. From recoagulat
ing jet matters– as spewed from the same quasar genetic (white-
`hole’) core, this implies some splitting of disk matters– maybe
from its own complemental (anti-g) matters somehow not yet seen–
as current jet `shadow matter’ at quasar/galaxy poles. Some data
now at our galaxy’s pole ends begin to infer their presence.
Since dv/dt portion of red shift is ambiguous to the unwary ex
ternal observer to judge its emitter’s net speed, the first cri
teria is to know that factor of shift ratio from the more dense
magnetic(g) fields as surround fresh quasars riding EMP “bubble”
(Huchra) fronts. Only the quiescent galaxy, after its creative
EMP bubble front has moved on, can be used to judge its net speed
and direction, relative to any`thing'(one) else– much less its
own EMP center.
This evokes another question about rapid disk-planetary matter
formation? Does the elliptical show more star creation in its
pinched areas to imply a closer anti-g force from re-coagulating
jets matters? Also, there should be more gamma bursters in that
region to show such higher velocity jet matters meeting itself.
ŠWhile some now are looking for the expected jets with net contra-
twist to their galaxy disk matters, maybe more data will be soon
forthcoming to resolve our theoretical work– so disdained these
past twenty years. One does not predict jet vs. disks (due to
anti-g between complemental matters) before any Einstein Observa
tory goes aloft– we find to our chagrin!
Sorry to bother–
CC: Schombert; Knezek/Schneider; Djorgovski
Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: jet matter `bubbles’?
From predicting the genesis of complemental matters from `white
hole’ cores as jets versus disk with anti-g there-between as the
likely separating mechanism many years ago, the Einstein Observa
tory confirmation made clear another prediction of EMP bubble
fronts causing same, now noted on nicely even 600M LY intervals!
From predicting gamma bursters at the periphery of a galaxy disk,
now noted, but from recoagulating jet matter collisions evading
said disk matter, one might suspect vast clouds of this ejected
primal matter to exist beyond the galaxy poles, to be possibly
noted with UV blockage as with EUVE. If so, the pending conclu
sion of the universal genesis of quantized matter for relatively
`slowed’ temporal existence, to define the “cause from effect”
designs which may have begun at the centers of cosmic bubbles in
non-temporal states as Apriori E for ensuing mc squared in and
for our wavelet reality. (deBroglie)
Our 5th Generation self thinking computer R&D efforts, as predic
ted the spatial versus temporal complemental lateral cerebral
faculty in man (confirmed by Sperry) only needed the positive EPR
experiments to conclude such device was indeed feasible– which a
proto-type then offered a 10\17th odds readout on its maiden run.
Now to conclude Nature’s real underlying motive in our side of
the complemental universe.
I would appreciate information or be privy to the coming imports
of EUVE data as contingent with galaxy pole obscurations. Thank
Livermore, CA 94551
Re: negative g?
ŠDear Sir: (elusive neutrino; SC.NEWS; May 2,’92)
The electron’s anti-neutrino with a negative mass is heartening!
At least assuming the neutrino exists.
From predicting the anti-g anomaly of jets versus disks before
the Einstein Observatory went aloft to confirm same, the CPT
theorem at least implied, as Einstein said about his blunder, the
cosmological constant needed also a negative g factor– which it
indeed does appear to define the right angle spewing from quasar/
galaxy white holes! From riding an EMP fronts (Huchra’s bubbles)
to evoke matter in complemental form, the torqued ionized disk to
show higher angular velocity further from the core says it all!
The now seen via interference of vast shadow matter clouds likely
are the decelerated jets matters, even re-coagulating around the
periphery if the outer disk limits evoked gamma burster in mutual
annihilations. The huge electron-anti-electron annihilations now
noted near our galaxy core may also help to say it all as well.
Whether `new physics’ or merely the full application of the old
with some new insights– starting with de Broglie, the now appar
ent standing waves to replace quantal billiard balls may be time
ly, especially to answer fission-fusion anomalies.
Your data is exciting– we will watch with interest.
Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: gamma bursters
Halo derived matter is galactic pole anti-matter, ejected in jets
to escape its disk complemental matter with anti-g, says it all.
Since my letter of Feb. 28,’91 on dark matter, it yet appears
there are some bones of contention between the mounting empirical
obvious and uncritical belief factors. “High-Velocity Pulsars–”
(14 Aug. SCIENCE) somehow evades the re-coagulating jet matters
with common (mutual) gravity factors colliding out beyond our
disk, but evading the said anti-g factor, to indicate super high
velocity collisions for gamma bursters. They should most define
primal matter as electrons and fundamentals (as small third har
monic standing wave quarks). Oh well, tenure now dictates all be
lieved `research’ so the few, too damned few, need not wonder!
CC: Eichler; D/Z
Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: standing waves (only)
Since de Broglie came the closest, why not look for the top quark
for your unseen dark matter, to also define from where the most
extreme case of anti-g (force) between a third harmonic standing
wave and our koinomatter exists? Too bad John Bell had to leave!
Since predicting the cosmic jet-disk anomaly from conjecturing
the initial correctness of Einstein’s underlying cosmic constant
(rapidly refuted by neurotic peers) for equal anti-g `pressure’
(instead by peer!), not only does the CPT theorem get fulfilled,
but cosmic condensing matter from quasar white-hole cores (as
many petite Bangs) riding primal EMPs now called bubbles. Arp
(note his 220!) is finally seeing the mounting obvious and the
chagrin to follow may well make a Bigger `Bang’ in cosmological
offices for the loss of demanded tenure in conspicuous places!
The ejecta from galaxy cores with torqued ions (H) spin up rapid
ly, especially in the very dense (yet) magnetic fields at right
angles (via said EMP front) as the anti-g pushes same outward in
the disks. Thus the high rpm at their periphery is self explana
tory. What is more said is the other equal amount of anti-matter
fleeing the core via its ends to make huge shadow matter clouds,
the `gamma bursters’ beyond the disk’s periphery explained by re-
coagulating finite pole cloud matter annihilations.
Non-flipping neutrons may indicate their one leg (as the third
phased top quark) offers too much inertial torque down here in
our relative matter’s continuum. Now called axial symmetry, the
Kalusa-Klein matrix appears to answer relative matter’s disposi
tion in space– where complementarity dictates all `phases’ of
“billiard-ball” quantized waves called matter. It has become a
joy (albeit vicarious) to watch the incredulous denials since
proposing my theoretical work to the Smithsonian Inst. when the
said Einstein Observatory proved the first portion of it– to say
nothing of my 5th Generation self thinking computer via EPR, as
offered 10\17th odds on its maiden run with alpha numeric read-
out! To be too cross academic has its drawbacks.
cc:Path/IQ; 3-dev-env; Phys-Psy; copy/Freedman’s let.(over)
CC: Britten; D/Z
New Haven, CT
Š Re: machos looking for wimps?
We hope you are looking for the top quark where that 3rd phase
standing wave with its greatest anti-g. (so why not seen here)
According to the Klein-Kalusa matrix is likely in those primal
quasar complemental shadow matter clouds from their jets.
By examining the E=mc squared, where one or the other had to be
the Apriori, only E could have had the net energy to do anything,
so the cosmic EMP bubbles became such genetic sources for many
`condensing’ complemental matters as quasar `white-hole’ cores
riding their EMP front. Deceleration over time brought quantized
standing waves (not `billiard balls’), the first harmonic elec
trons (sans time*) but further `condensed’ quarks as said three
phased. Since it is forces that dictate action, gravity as Ein
stein saw (in his great “blunder”), had to be also complemental–
and why the General Relativity is flawed– as Big Bang and many
other contingent anomalies.
If it is the magnetic field that bends light, as slows to evoke
dv/dt red-shift, behind star light penetration would be more
deflected near the jets of a fresh quasar than any stilled coagu
lated cloud matters (with mutual gravity) hovering at galaxy pole
ends due to anti-g with their complemental disk matter. The `gam
ma bursters’ likely show (well beyond the disk) these anti-matter
annihilations reflect they do get back together with a bit of
mutual `attractive’ gravity gusto!
Noting that John Bell didn’t get the chance to finish my experi
ment request (at least his excitement was obvious) to measure the
net repulsion between koino and anti-matter, the galaxy disk/jets
anomaly will need to do for now. Ask Arp.
At least our scenario continues to hold up– after predicting the
jets before the Einstein Observatory went aloft, and Huchra’s
bubbles on nice even 600Mly separations– it all says much for
cosmology, if rutty pedants would take a look– beyond erred
whimsical theory computer programs– and of course, tenure.
* note freed electron for the EPR experiments!
CC: Griest; Alcock
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Re: gamma bursters
Sirs: (8 Jan. ’93 SCIENCE)
While the grandest `Super Collider’ is where jet matters collide
beyond the periphery of the galaxy disk (with a common gravity),
Šsuch won’t be understood by astronomy or physics until anti-g is
recognized. Where Big Bang is essential for tenure, taboos have a
way of going on for ever. Einstein’s “blunder” with his General
Relativity was because he was coerced by peers– as he suspected,
realizing all `forces’ had a complemental aspect.
When proven correct with the Einstein Observatory showing the
predicted jets versus disk as complemental matters with anti-g
between, such white hole quasar cores explained themselves as the
expected bubbles (Huchra) defining the many Petite Bangs nicely
separated on 600Mly intervals. Voids (bubble centers) only define
what as where some primal EMP got started, for decelerated stand
ing wave-lets yet called `billiard balls’. Most unique now, cold
fusion is undertsood and quite simple to evoke for the end of an
other tenured class– in the petroleum business.
Arp’s recent letter defines the pending huge embarrassment coming
in astronomy, where dv/dt (slowed) light in dense magnetic fields
defines the quasar– as most other red-shift enigma in astronomy.
CC: Cronin; Goodman; D/Z
Re: genetic white hole cores
Sir: (SCIENCE: 19, March ’93)
The rather conclusive sub-nature of matter as EM standing waves
makes Black Holes rather impossible, yet the more obvious genesis
of quasars riding dense magnetic EMP fronts with complemental
matter generation far more appealing now. To crush standing waves
merely places them in the untenable situation of unraveling, the
underlying enigma of nuclear fission or fusion.
With Einstein’s General Relativity theory defunct without its
complemental aspect for anti-g to define the quasar/galaxy disk
to jets anomaly and the relative weird mass of 3-phased quarks, a
great paradigm shift can be now seen for astronomy– now that
physics is well into theirs. The dv/dt red-shift problem likely
rests with decelerated light in dense magnetic fields, not gravi
ty, which so defines the vast red shift of quasars– not to say
that a long voyage of light through a universe of Apriori primary
magnetic flux doesn’t also reduce the apparent spectral frequenc
ies. The likely often reason why the complemental jets are so
little seen is the relavistic speeds coming towards us exceeds
our spectral perception. By going away from us the lowered net
dv/dt red shift allows such light to be more easily seen.
The spasm of star bursts in torqued ionized primal matter near a
quasar core should be expected where degenerated electrons (first
EM harmonic standing wave) gets precipitated into heavier matter.
ŠWith Huchra’s cosmic bubbles nicely placed on 600 million light
year intervals, there would appear some underlying cause– as
“one hand clapping” to evoke those vast EMPs to begin with! (and
then all together since temporal sequence at c does not exist!)
CC: B. Boyle; Blanford; Melnick; D/Z
San Diego, CA 92093
Re: MACHO dark matter
Dear Sir: (Sept. 25th SCIENCE NEWS)
Peripheral matter to our galaxy disk might be noted not in-line
with the disk to define recoagulating complemental jet anti-
matters for the MACHO lensing function noted. While either gravi
tational affect to evoke lensing might be noted, one could ask
now how `finite’ the star equivalent for same might be? Its rela
tive distance from our galactic pole `ends’, where jet matters
might make a final deceleration to define the time for mutual
attraction, even to the galaxy’s opposite pole of like matter,
showing gamma bursters along the way.
The condensation period for spewed matter with high initial velo
city may require great epochs of time, where the galactic disk is
pinched together by right angle magnetic fields (cosmic bubble
front) for early star formation. The said delayed grouping of
spewed jet anti-matter as shadow matter will likely always remain
elusive as will remain away from the disk.
It would be interesting to note if MACHO periods become shorter
near our galaxy disk plane, where their maximum velocities occur.
While doubting if gravity affects the lensing, (depite what Ein
stein believed) more likely is it the magnetic field– noting the
dv/dt red shift of very high magnetic fields around initial gal
axy/quasars in their generating primal EMPs. This theory will get
its boost soon with the realization that `billiard ball’ matter
is only magnetic standing waves– as were condensed near quasar
cores. (to very likely define the simple means to fusion!)
CC: D/Z; Zylberajch; Alcock
Seattle, WA 96195
Re: reversed phase quasars?
Sir: (Eicher’s May ASTRONOMY article)
The lack of ionized ejecti as from potent EMP magnetic fields as
quasars ride, yet the anti-g phenomena is noted again, confirming
what Einstein claimed as his great blunder to not keep the two
signs of that force. This anomaly allowed us to predict the disk
versus jets long before the Einstein Observatory went aloft to
prove them. Your work confirms Peresce.(over)
While expected complemental matters (i.e. top quark especially)
would not remain long near its counterpart, its shadow matter
ejecti at poles regrouping later as vast subtle clouds, even re-
integrating around the galaxy disk periphery in gamma bursts, do
place a new perspective with your suppositions now.
Binary FLIERs may be self generating with complemental ejecti de
rived from a cooking operation where neutrons fill in all hydro
gen available to some critical point then fuse at once to blow
off the older formed cooked down (or up, mass-wise) matters as
nitrogen etc. Much as the three standing wave primal matters as
the compounded poly-phased configurations appearing to be what
Mendalyeev was examining as atomic (for chemical) combinations.
cc: Paresce/let (over); Frank
Baltimore, MD 21218
Re: second order ejecti?
From the brief article (Feb.26, SC.NEWS), the young NOVA has the
ear-markings of the more primal quasar, while maybe `petite’ by
comparison, the complemental anti-matter ejecti appears to avoid
the disk portion of Cygni 1992. Has there been yet any calibrated
ejection velocities noted therewith as the said jets might be
relavistic? We are now reasonably sure your said “obstacles” may
be anti-gravity– just as Einstein admitted with his “blunder” in
the General Relativity theory where complemental signs need to be
applied to ALL forces! Since fission and fusion evoke anti-matter
during koinomatter unraveling such may be the answer.
Chicago, IL 60637
Re: bursters close indeed
ŠDear Sir: (4/94 PHYS.TODAY;”Evidence–” p.17)
With the anti-g phenomena which predicted the right angled spewed
complemental matters from white-hole quasars (jets versus torqu
ed ionized disk matter) from its primal magnetic EMP field (cos
mic bubbles), the Einstein Observatory and Hunchra’s data as with
now the burster enigma appears to make clear the re-coagulating
jet(s) matters around the periphery of this galaxy disk by smash
ing into each other– the bright ones being head-on while the
less intense smearing with the longer time to do so. Likely if we
had an elliptical galaxy we would note more bursters around our
narrow sides than are noted evenly distributed now.
After trying several years ago to get Paczynski, Gunn, Hazard and
some others attention onto the empirical “obvious” to reconsider
Einstein’s great blunder (of complemental g; General Relativity),
the impasse looks now more for unsaid reasons, thus the letter
copy herewith. We suspect you and possibly Trimble may be looking
in the correct direction.
cc: Stein letter + 3/dev
CC: D/Z; V. Trimble
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Re:BR 1202-07; jet matter clouds?
I wonder if your `see through’ primal matter clouds, as the 3C273
anomaly (if not the same), are accumulated jet matter as spewed
from intervening quasar-galaxy sources? If the equal `distant’
pairs of clouds have yet a `coming and going’ signature, the pos
sibility may be. In any case, if so, would be what we suspect are
`white holes’ on EMP walls to likely resolve the Big Bang theory.
Thank you for any feedback.
CC:R.Harms; McMahon; Gunn; Davidsen
Huntsville, AL 35812
Re: jet matter collisions
Sir: (26 Aug. SCIENCE; Perspective)
Since mentioning some time ago the likely need for re-coagulating
Š(with mutual g) the anti-matter jet materials surrounding the
galaxy’s disk, to finally put a nail in the current General Rela
tivity theory flaw (Einstein’s blunder; again using insight), the
complemental forces (as CPT) is vindicated with gravity.
No doubt our sister Magellanic galaxy (riding same cosmic bubble;
Huchra) has also a vast `anti-matter’ (all is relative) host yet
too distant for us to peruse. If it could be observed no doubt it
would be noted with an elongated envelope at the said galaxy’s
disk’s pole ends and then nearly parallel to ours. if indeed a
sister galaxy. This all defines a universe filled with petite
Bangs on nice 600 Mly intervals to at least imply someOne clapped
a hand (Zen) for primal EMPs to get “things” (mc ) going.
The red shift due to higher magnetic field densities, likely at
galactic pole ends where the said jet matters first coagulate at
the maximum distance from quasar genetic matter sources (white
holes) might help define their mutual acceleration from opposite
common jet matter coagulating places, colliding near the disk
periphery with the least net red shift for two reasons– the said
lessor magnetic field density and the net closer distance– yet
likely at far greater distances than 300 kps.
I will try to find some early `burster’ letters to include here
with so need not be redundant with my limited time to iterate.
cc: burster/lets: Stubbs; Gribbin; Cowie; Ast.Pub; Djorgovski;
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Re: “Macho Searches–” July Phys.Today)
Indeed– just like high energy physics! The smearing of two col
liding bodies, whether some standing-wave “billiard ball” or a
couple MACHOs (as past jet polar WIMPS) smashing into each other
head-long with common gravity around the periphery of our galaxy
bulge certainly sounds rational now.
The “meager population” only defines how often the head-on colli
sion does occur, albeit not to neglect the concluding oscillating
sequence of mutually attracted `anti-matter’ (in our case) will
finally coagulate– to return likely to the said pole regions via
our disk’s more influential anti-g near its bulge. Of course the
smashing would dictate some epsilon decay curve, not symmetric as
claimed needed– as was even suggested by the odd 572 day event
curve shown in the article. The recent clearer data of the Crab
also suggests strongly anti-g via the deflected halo (p.91; in
8/6/94 SC.NEWS; note over). We do not buy the gravitation lensing
Šsince suspect it is the magnetic field as denoting the quasar’s
high dv/dt (red shift) while yet riding its EMP cosmic bubble
The greater time for jet matter coagulation (to create deuterium)
at galaxy poles may be that net impetus for WIMPS faster mutual
coagulation around the disk matter periphery yet the end of their
accruing further much of their own kind of matter from their
galaxy poles thereafter. The Magellanic cloud may be the same
koinomatter as our galaxy’s disk (even predicted as riding same
primal EMP front) it would naturally skew (with anti-g) to bias
either galaxy’s anti-matter jet clouds away from each other– as
you note with your “confused” remark.
It will soon be found that Turner’s remark “Grand Misdirection”
is more due to our left reductive (only) cerebral hemisphere more
interested in half-truths for profit and the status quo with ten
ure than anything else now, than what Nature might pull on claim
ed scientific man. Ask a left hander like Einstein!
cc: Hester let.(over)
CC: D/Z; Turner
Honolulu, HI 96822
Re: not shocking
Dear Sirs: (Nov. 16th SC.NEWS)
The anomalies you note fit again likely anti-g between two com
plemental spewed core matters– disk vs. jets. The net pinching
of spiral arms versus greater cooling might be noted via IR, yet
their relative closeness may define the lack of dv/dt red shift
associated with only `young’ galaxies, where freshly spewed mat
ters are most accelerated (from their white holes; no Big Bang)
to define why Arp is seeing what he does.
When Einstein’s General Theory gets thrown out for magnetic field
strength deceleration of EM radiation, tired light will again be
considered– to define our earth’s common magnetic field as what
`pulled’ the propagating field for light travel in the Michelson-
Morley experiment. The many `petite bangs’ on bubble EMPs (nicely
spaced across the universe) might imply some`Thing’ clapped its
one hand to make for the ease of evoking quasars, etc./et.al.
We suspect that 6 billion LY consistency defines the limit in
time for most galaxies to quiet down in this region so define
their real distance via red-shift. Your remark “–a bit muddled”
is logical with the wrong theory to start with, as the `standard’
velocity model is a variable, making `expansion’ ambiguous. We
think it is the mutual anti-g between a balanced koino- anti-
Šmatter universe that is responsible for the net even expansion,
noting the nicely spaced primal engines creating that matter.
Waukesha, WI 53187
Re: Quasars light up much more!
Dear Sirs: (Sept. issue, p.42)
The fine article on likely `shadow matter’. It may be defining
jet matters as spewed from quasar white-holes, but due to anti-g
between complemental primal matters created therein, forming the
disk to jets. Predicted many years ago to satisfy the CPT theorem
to balanced forces, the Big Bang syndrome took on less validity
for petite ones– especially now with the nicely separated `bub
bles’ (EMPs) upon which galactic (quasar) matter genesis may be
easily generated from a denser magnetic field to generate mass
The dv/dt red shift, as even tired light over distance, (likely
due to magnetic fields; Zeeman affect) may yet define distance in
crude parameters, yet as the current article’s implication, will
require much fudge-factoring once observational intervening space
(as the universal magnetic Apriori) is fully perceived and under
While we were elated with the Einstein Observatory’s disk-jet
confirmation, we find even more happiness with in this HST data.
Thanks– however few other Big Bang enthusiasts will agree. Arp
may yet pull the genie out of the bag, however tenurism defines
the status-quo demand– where survival is deemed more important.