Fripro's Gyroscopic Universe Vision

[Martin]

Fripro presented a startling vision of the universe. Unfortunately it was in a thread about something else---a simple straightforward question about how they measure curvature. So this is a more appropriate place.

 

The Universe is immense beyond all imagination of individual humans on Earth. One can see in the deep space photograph by NASA an obvious tilting of the galaxies at many different angles. This seems to infer that some background galaxies are on the surface of a transparent expanded globe.

 

This globe probably is rotating; however, because of its size, perception of the rotational movement on Earth, in our Milky Way galaxy, is impossible to measure.*

 

Of course the Hubble camera was looking in one direction, so where are we with respect to the globe? My guess is in the outer shell of the globe through which we are now looking, the shell being very thick but transparent to various frequencies of radiation infra red (UV, visual light, X rays, gamma rays, micro waves, radio waves, etc). *

 

Observation of the red shift exhibited less red shift than expected, indicating that the expansion of the Universe across the globe's surface is speeding up. It could also imply that the Universe is rotating.

 

A rotating Universe would be gyroscopic, the source of gravity ,g, on Earth.

...

 

Fripro received a lot of thoughtful comment on his ideas, but I can't move all the posts down here. Edtharan said something about a huge turtle. So we missed those comments but further discussion can continue here.

 

Fripro has a website link with several other cosmology ideas

http://www.fripro.com/Thomas%20Edward%20fairbairn.html

 

I also wish to point out that if the Earth was transparent and if one could see through the earth at the various hurricanes, tornado etc. on the so call tranparent globe. We could also see through the earth to huricanes on the other side--the same for a rotating Universe

 

These huricanes are similar to galaxies. The huricanes and tornados on a transparent earth would be at all angles, similar to the stero photo I have referenced. They are in the earth's thin atmosphere which is particle like also.

 

It would take an entire book to even approach the proof you are looking for.

 

The Universe is particle in nature and all mass and radiation(WAVES) are constructed in many form from these particles (dark matter) and the Vortex attraction between all matter is the Dark energy, we all are paying more attention to.

Log on to:

 

http://www.fripro.com/stero%20Universe.htm

The above is a stereo picture of some galaxies---rotation planes tilted various ways. Lots of interesting stuff here (tho not necessarily mainstream.)

[Edtharan]

Edtharan said something about a huge turtle.

Yes. What I was showing was that anyone can come up with a theory, but without any evidence for it, no matter how "logical" (or illogical) it sounds, there is no reason to accept it as being true. Scinetific theories should be a descrition (as close as we can get) to reality, so if there is no phyiscal evidence that a theory is true, then how can one claim that it is a description of reality?

 

So with my turtle "theory" , I said that the turtle was so big that we could never detect it. I essentially said that there would be no evidence for the theory as an example of why you need that evidence.

[Martin]

I thought your turtle theory was splendid, Edtharan.

Whether or not i understood exactly what you meant by it, it sounded just right in the context.

 

We should have a link to that post. It was number 9 in the thread. Here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=385996#post385996

[fripro]

Martin

There was an ancient drawing and belief that a turtle supported the earth just as Edtharan said.

 

It demostrates how only about 2 to 5 thousand years has past,where we have progress from the turtle to a Universe that is particle in nature and all mass and radiation(WAVES) are constructed in many form from these particles (dark matter) and the Vortex attraction between all matter is the Dark energy, scientist are paying more attention to.

 

http://www.fripro.com/stero%20Universe.htm

[fripro]

Fripro presented a startling vision of the universe. Unfortunately it was in a thread about something else---a simple straightforward question about how they measure curvature. So this is a more appropriate place.

 

 

 

Fripro received a lot of thoughtful comment on his ideas, but I can't move all the posts down here. Edtharan said something about a huge turtle. So we missed those comments but further discussion can continue here.

 

Fripro has a website link with several other cosmology ideas

http://www.fripro.com/Thomas%20Edward%20fairbairn.html

 

 

The above is a stereo picture of some galaxies---rotation planes tilted various ways. Lots of interesting stuff here (tho not necessarily mainstream.)

 

 

Martin here is and improvemnt on the stereo photo above FRIPRO

http://www.fripro.com/STEREO%20UNIVERSE%20UIDE.htm

[Psycho]

Yes. What I was showing was that anyone can come up with a theory, but without any evidence for it, no matter how "logical" (or illogical) it sounds, there is no reason to accept it as being true. Scinetific theories should be a descrition (as close as we can get) to reality, so if there is no phyiscal evidence that a theory is true, then how can one claim that it is a description of reality?

 

So with my turtle "theory" , I said that the turtle was so big that we could never detect it. I essentially said that there would be no evidence for the theory as an example of why you need that evidence.

 

Indeed true, but if you are trying to find evidence that generally fits one theory you are not going to abandon it, or if there is an idea such as this that has no main stream counter theory then one could argue that no one has even looked at the vast amount of evidence that may or may not exist to support it, you can only back a theory with evidence if someone has thought of the theory in the first place.

 

I agree with you on the fact that we should just believe it with no evidence but if no one has looked to see if the current evidence fits and there is no counter theory I fail to see a reason why people shouldn't believe it, or take notice of the theories progress until the evidence is in.

[fripro]

Fripro presented a startling vision of the universe. Unfortunately it was in a thread about something else---a simple straightforward question about how they measure curvature. So this is a more appropriate place.

 

 

 

Fripro received a lot of thoughtful comment on his ideas, but I can't move all the posts down here. Edtharan said something about a huge turtle. So we missed those comments but further discussion can continue here.

 

Fripro has a website link with several other cosmology ideas

http://www.fripro.com/Thomas%20Edward%20fairbairn.html

 

 

The above is a stereo picture of some galaxies---rotation planes tilted various ways. Lots of interesting stuff here (tho not necessarily mainstream.)

 

NASA has announced that when the hubble telescope is aimed at the distant Universe towards 13.5 billion years,that there is no visible light, this means that red and blue dominate the received distant light. I again ask could this be a possible indicator that the Universe is rotating as red means doppler shifted away and blue means doppler shifted towards the telescope view? FRIPRO