University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80302
Re: `spin’ indeed!
Dear Sir: (“–Gathering Darkness”; 24 Jan. SCIENCE)
It appears there is more `spin’ in psychological terms than the
obvious being cranked up on cosmic EMP bubble fronts now. Since
tenure has its place, all else must be tried first!
Noting your name did not come up on our historical files and you
do appear interested in examining something a bit different (our
galaxy’s core with yet genetic electron creation), just maybe a
bit different spin there may evoke some more pregnant questions.
A few letter copies (as all were addressed `et.al.’) herewith may
not infringe on less-said neurotic penchants at this late hour. I
do hope the `artist sketch’ was close– as it would likely be!
cc: Bailyn; Mushotsky; Richstone;
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Re: yet noisy core
Dear Sir: (“Gas Clouds–“; 31 Jan. SCIENCE)
From Franco Nori (Physics), S.S. McGaugh, F. C. Adams and R. Wat
kins, your team should be putting together the obvious by now.
Maybe only the post EMP pass-through that initiated the `crash’
to evoke the quasar’s standing wave `matter’ on such cosmic bub
ble periphery (Huchra) can be seen as less active now as far less
spewed complemental matters.
Without mentioning a clapped hand on neat 600Bly intervals across
this universe to evoke steep EMPs for said matter creation, maybe
another look at those electron/positron or like complemental hy
drogen clouds very near the core, their net separation could de
fine why jets leave the magnetically cranked up the first ionized
disk matter so rapidly– as top quarks with its claimed massive
mass– which is only force. Likely the pending grand boondoggle
at Stanford (Gravity Probe B) will show where some real inertia
lies (called tenure) but the `frame dragging’ (over) is actually
best noted where an iron cored planet resides. Your noisy (rf)
regions may reflect the combining of the hydrogen 3 phased quark
cc: Yang (let.copy; over)
State University of New York
Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794
Re: speaking of `inertia’!
Dear Sir: (`Gravity Probe’; March DISCOVER)
More `frame dragging’ is now done by the tenure seeking than what
maybe Michelson/Morley might have noted by doing their experiment
at right angles. Certainly, Einstein didn’t invent any status quo
however eloquent it momentarily appeared. The fudge-factor of
Lorentz got astronomy well screwed up– as yet most of physics.
The noted differing fall velocity of higher neutron containing
metals above the ground to within the ground, as other anomalous
facts inferring the once called 5th Force, could be best summed
up with the Top quark with its believed tremendous `mass’ (which
is only force) trying to escape this koinomatter galaxy– to join
its jet-matter complemental. Anti-G permitted predicting those
jets long before the Einstein Observatory went aloft to prove
same– but disturbed too many with ensconced authority in tenure
back then. More disturbing now of the neat 600Bly intervals of
the cosmic bubbles where a clapped hand evoked such EMP to tumble
Šat the quasar’s periphery to evoke EM standing-wave `matter’ to
offer our temporal conditions. Inertial gravity is an intrinsic
force in matter, thus the General Theory is incorrect as the
belief that dv/dt (red shift) is due to receding velocities, not
magnetic field density modulations, not seen when that `frame’ is
dragged along with planet earth thus any aether-drift can’t occur
around a potent iron cored object. Not oddly, the ancient compass
offered the evidence to our specific coordinate system– yet be
lieved to be inertial– (no psychological pun). The Apriori as
any `signal’ therein so defines the basic reality needing compre
hension– and fewer grand boondoggles at tax payers expense!
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.
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
Šsibly some observed data might suggest the ejected jet matter
might be noted far out– even with the ellipticals. While some
evidence 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!
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Re: M87 core angular velocity
The extreme rotational speed Holland is seeing is intriguing in
view of another theory of quasar/galaxy formation in primal EMP
cosmic bubbles riding vast magnetic fields to rev up ionized
matter. Of the inner disk portions of such core, maybe the primal
first harmonic standing-wave electrons, to cool into three phased
quarks as protons with reversed polarity to slow their rotational
speed– even reverse same a bit further out. Some early galaxy
configurations suggest such anomaly. Someone will need to soon
differentiate quark based gas from electrons since they are not
the same when a magnetic field propels them for their spin-up.
Maybe someday the contra twist of ejected jet matter will help to
define not only their anti-g effect but ionized polarity relative
to the disk matter as Biretta sees. Anyway, it would appear ludi
crous that the EMP, even as universal background magnetic flux
will be `observed’, as any conjecture as to who clapped their one
hand on nice 600Bly intervals to start all those cosmic bubbles!
CC: Ford; Harms;
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, CB3 OHA, UK
Dear Sir: (31, Jan. SCIENCE)
Some imports beyond dv/dt (red-shift) may define Einstein’s error
of gravity affecting `refraction’ may conclude the magnetic back
ground variations, especially near fresh cosmic EMP field creat
ing quasar/galaxies (as standing wave matter; electrons as first,
Šquarks as 3rd harmonics). If indeed our moon* has a very low mag
netic field, as its mass is closely known, some distant passing
point light source could offer a qualitative idea of the relative
magnetic field to gravity differentiated signal.
Granting that much of the above remains yet conjecture, it was
the anomalous “surprise” in your text over microlensing data that
could my eye. Since cosmic bubbles indicate potent magnetic front
on which such self-peaking to crash to evoke standing wave matter
for our `foot stools’ in temporal existence, pristine (thus an
cient to us) fresh quasars should show maximum dark halos as max
microlensing. Likely leading edges of even `older’ bubbles, where
not all of the initial EMP was dissipated in matter formation may
be good candidates for lensing phenomena. The square ratio from
impact parameters may vary with oriented disk matter perspective
also yet with observation may be mitigated. The only other dis
crimitive means would be strongly polarized light– defining the
field density for relative lensing affect.
* moon’s gamma reflection; Jan. 25th, SCIENCE NEWS
cc: Big Bang; One Hand
CC: Stephen Warren; D/Z;w:
D-84184 Tiefenbach, Germany
Re: deceleration + refraction
Dear Sir: (31 Jan. SCIENCE; “Cosmo-Interp.”)
Both proximity as activity (as noted Seyfert galaxies) in likely
nearby young quasar/galaxy manifestations may be the yet primal
definitive multi-point cosmic bubble front creating standing-wave
matter, the core most visible with hot emission as its complemen
tal anti-matter (as gravity) spewing right angle jets.
When the `frame dragging’ magnetic field– instead of inertial
gravitational aspect is seen, also will the dv/dt (red-shift) be
realized has 2 factors– relative `speed’ but one. I suspect Arp
knows where I stand– as reject the General Relativity idea– so
defines the `standard candle’ problem with distance calibration.
Many surprises are yet coming– as noted with the many now posi
tive EPR experiments defining relative time for we in very slow
A recent letter herewith may explain further.
cc: Yang let.
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Re: “–fueled Milky Way”, indeed!
Dear Sir: (Jan. 25th Sc. News)
Noting a letter addressed to some time as the timely blurb well
names “–Gathering Darkness” (24th Jan. SCIENCE), Ill include a
current letter with enclosures to Begelman/ U. Colorado.
Since Huchra’s `bubbles’ as Einstein’s E side of his Spec. Rel.
equation defines our slow temporal `foot-stools’ as standing wave
`matter’, the physic’s (at least) bubble of paradigm shift should
be upon us! I shall not bother Spergel, Blitz nor Hartmann again,
you being the closer (in 2 ways) to what is now needed– however
it may hamper future tenure gathering.
cc: Begelman + let/encl.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Re: pinch yes, but which?
Sir: (anti-g or EMP fronts)
Since the Einstein Observatory confirmed our predicted disk-jets
as evoked by anti-g from white-hole matter genetic cores, riding
vast EMP bubbles (Huchra), Hasegawa appears close possibly to de
fine further the `enigma’ if what you note adroitly “which way”.
(SCIENCE 20, Nov. p.1308) Since elliptical pinch to evoke greater
star formation (we suspect from said anti-g again, but from peri
pheral cloud anti-matter for said anti-g from once spewed jets),
likely the crux of this remaining anomaly can get unraveled now.
The vast EMP flux turbulence, aside from the said anti-g affect,
could promote the head-long impulses pushing matter also. This
yet would need to be defined by spatial orientation (as you note)
with the primal EMP flux once noting its front via companion
galaxies riding same.
The real underlying question beyond no Big Bang is what indeed
clapped Its hand on nice 600 M light year intervals to evoke all
those bubbles, to create time with precipitated complemental mat
ter to begin with?
P.S. Hopefully Arp’s remark “spectacular embarrassment” addressed
to Sky Telescope gets printed. Maybe it will be that needed har
Šbinger for the larger “Big Bang”– in staid cosmological offices!
Syracuse NY, 13210
Re: black holes and Planck `pieces’
Dear Sir: (24th Jan. SCIENCE; `Visions of Black Holes’)
Maybe its time to examine the first harmonic standing-wave elec
trons (at least) as precipitated on cosmic EMP bubble (Huchra)
fronts, crashing to evoke quasar/galaxies on neat 600Bly inter
vals across the heavens as such spacing implies some Apriori! The
next question is the 3rd harmonic (string) quarks, whose unravel
ing define the route to fusion– or return to the E side of Ein
stein’s Special Relativity equation!
Since Einstein showed how to truly `see’ (subjective visualiza
tion), we suspect Subrahmanyan was hallucinating in a different
realm where another hole voided quality perception of reality.
cc: Choptuik; D/Z;w:
NASA Goddard Space
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Re: moon’s gamma
Dear Sir: (Jan.25, SCIENCE NEWS)
The dv/dt factor of spectrally red shifted light, which you note
better with so little magnetic moon field might be that ultimate
factor to define it was not gravity that bent the passing light
for Einstein’s claim of gravity’s affect. While some magnetic
field might do what gravity didn’t, the enigma also indicates the
need for the standard candle as intervening cosmic apriori magne
tic fields slowing distant light sources more than any receding
emitter. It likely is what Arp (Garching) is struggling over with
the lengthy Hubble constant problem.
With the accurate timing as optical monitoring means today, maybe
the moon as another very low, but to high magnetic body for com
parison, passing image shift of a distant object could define a
long standing argument over what shifts propagating EM waves.
Your opinions would be appreciated.
cc: Arp; D/Z;w:
114 Fifth Ave.,
New York, NY 10011-5690
Re: `Giving Birth to Galaxies’ (Feb. issue)
As M. Bartusiak well says; “–open for discussion.” is merely for
the tenured to plagiarize those who spend years of research to so
find their own government is most guilty of stamping all `secret’
for its net profit– never said to win the planet! The apparent
enigma best defines what evolutes in our left cerebral hemisphere
but wants nothing to do with its benign all-knowing non-temporal
complemental, so must steal whatever, as whenever, with an appro
priate engineered opportunity that might then be managed.
The pending scenario is obviously tragic, but not oddly a twofold
good insofar as a vast thinning of the corrupt to then allow the
few who remain the opportunity to learn about reality without the
subterfuge of intellect buying tenured time with half truths. The
current `scientific’ following the church for both of their net
demise may be fortunate indeed!
Dickinson’s parting remark on “pole-vaulting” never defined the
poles needed to comprehend neat 600Bly intervals of evoked cosmic
bubbles across this universe– likely done by one hand clapping–
to precipitate an a priori magnetic flux into quantized standing
waves to promote temporal conditions– once called `foot-stools’!
Finding to some dismay many past files got dumped onto the inter
net defining a very long study (as brought the self thinking com
puter using the freed electron to escape the time reversal para
digm; note EPR experiments)– even the key yet needed for fully
controlled fusion– the above danger becomes clear, where the net
late awakening of the carefully enslaved may be that expected ad
junct needed to return what humanity may be left back to Nature’s
designed goal– with utilized conscience instead of manipulation!
University of Oregon
Eugene. OR 97403
Re: `– Ghostliest Galaxies’
Dear Sir: (SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN; Feb. 97)
ŠYour fine article was well taken! Possibly you might advise me to
further data/imports to maybe confirm some questions I have yet
concerning a rather broad-scoped theoretical venture.
Many years ago when using Einstein’s Special Relativity equations
to define possible a priori universal conditions several, bizarre
concepts were seen as seeked even when then appearing likely un
verifiable. Besides the CPT theorem defining complemental space-
time mental faculty (proven some dozen years later by Sperry), to
define complemental primal matter creation from the said E side
of that equation with the possibility of anti-matter jets with an
anti-g factor, to likely spew at right angles from what might be
cosmic EMP collapses (quasars) evoking EM standing wave matter,
such were then noted some years later with the aloft Einstein
Observatory. In short, a new paradigm in theory was launched to
evoke much consternation over these past fifty years.
Since your image (p.57) subtly indicates a disk reversal phase,
as better defined than a crowded elliptical or amorphous blob due
to sibling quasar/galaxy riding a common cosmic EMP front, possi
bly you have more evidence than the few I have noted so far pub
lished. Such possibility would come from the condense-out energy
reduction after the passing primal EMP to allow other than first
harmonic electrons so third harmonic quarks, with reversed charge
to so be propelled in reverse angularly in the common dense mag
netic field. Also, the dv/dt red shift near early quasars would
make for huge errors in distance calculation– noted within your
text about “25 times further” than Virgo! Arp is struggling with
this one now–as how to define some standard `candle’!
Data indicating some perfipheral disks accelerated in angular
velocity outward long ago suggested matter was being created at
quasar cores as what I expected, yet had difficulty confirming
any EMP `initiation’ at the centers of the many neat 600Bly in
tervaled cosmic bubbles (Huchra) to conclude some `mind’ could
have had something to do with them– as Zen masters infer with
some one hand clapping! (all over all at once as no time could
exist sans matter with temperature K.– but yet innate `spin’)
To tidy up my rather extensive study, after evoking so much con
sternation with a European technical paper in the late 60’s, I
feel the time has come to address people like you for the final
`nails’ to put in my coffin– since this federal government ap
pears insistent that what think is already `secret’– while they
remain unable to comprehend me! This enigma can be understood by
their terror of revealing correlates of a rectilinear left brain
orientation and the oddity of UFO travel– to put it tersely.
With care, I have put some research data (as conjecture) onto the
`net’ as had some panic-struck replies. Much as my GVSC students
many years ago, the subjective anxiety defining mental complemen
tarity may define Freud’s– as his abrupt silence, as mine after
several overt suicides while doing psychoanalytical work and
research doing some grant work for UCLA’s BIS.
ŠMaybe my next text `Super Grand Unified Theory’ (SGUT) may appear
rational after all– if I don’t evoke too much terror in tenured
authority– especially ensconced with officialized power!
Your comments would be appreciated– assuming you follow the so
apparent “schizoid” text above.
Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: 51 Pegasi (3/1 SCIENCE NEWS)
Dear Sirs: (frame dragging refactive index)
Again, since the Hipparcos satellite well defines the dv/dt (red
shift) of distant slowed light to settle much of the Hubble con
stant and standard candle problem, may well aid in defining your
enigmatic modulated `wobble’ of Pegasi’s spectral light emission.
Since it appears the modulative factor is a dense magnetic field,
(that Einstein as Michelson/Morley failed to note with earth’s
grand iron core) all refractive index can be now seen, by Pasteur
or whom-ever, as where time gets `bent’ inversely in proportion
to some fundamental `rarefied’ a priori state– before someOne so
`clapped’ into existence (with one hand!) the many neat 600Bly
cosmic bubble EMP intervals across this universe! (Huchra)
The data might also imply the density factor of the said periodic
wobble `planetoid’ drive affecting 51 Pegasi.
CC: D/Z; Mayor/Didier; Gray; Walker
Dept. of Astronomy
University of Cape Town, SA
Re: at last!
Your work is well taken here since aids most in defining what we
had expected with `refractive’ background magnetic fields for the
dv/dt (red shift) anomaly thus greater distance that Hubble (Arp)
suspects! Since innate separation speeds between distant galactic
bodies may remain more `stationary’, noting the neat 600Bly(?)
cosmic EMP initiations for the bubbles (Huchra) for the ensuing
standing-wave `matter’ creation in quasar/galaxies. Many enigmas
may be coming clear, especially in Physics now.
ŠHipparcos was the needed data adjunct. Hurrah!
Thanks, and Sincerely,
cc: van Leeuwen