Genral rule is anything not in quotes is in my own words.

With that said, nothing is copied or reworded, these are my concepts and ideas. I type with nothing but this notepad in front of me. Thanks and credit to those who influenced me in mind.

This is a New Topic
htp://www.google.com this might be a link to the topic
- This is a condition to the topic or theory
- This might also be a question related to
- This might be also be considered brainstorming

http://www.google.com
- This might also be a reference of topic

This journal has no formal structure or organization. It's not a book, it does not have chapters. It is catagorized only by the date I wrote it. Topics I have discussed will appear numerous times over later dates. It might actually be beneficial to skip some of the earlier entries if you have a background in physics and astronomy as I certainly did not at the time of writing so take it for what it's worth. I can read it now and say to myself no no no, that's not right at all but I understand where I was coming from. Also I should say, my grammer was and is not spectacular although I am getting better as a writer, I did not proof read this journal. I actually prefer sometimes to write "Its" instead of "It's" or "Ive" instead of "I've" you'll have to excuss that.

Without a doubt this is me learning, going from primitive ideas to more advanced ideas presumably later on.
This is my goal to discover, learn and maybe answer a few questions. My background is of no formal education beyond that of high school science, I will freely admit that. Knowledge is free, and with the introduction of the internet anyone can learn what you would in school right there in your own home, and then some. I guess to a certain degree what sparked this is the documentaries by William Shatner and others seen on TV's the Science Channel. They had pretty big unanswered questions about the Universe we live in and how it works, and I could only help but to be intrigued. Oh and by the way, there are a few crackpot theories along the way, it would only be too typical, but natural. I do however think, rethink and then think somemore about the validity of anything I write. I will be the first one to try and disprove my own theories. I will not state, craft or quote "ficticious facts" to support my theories on purpose, in that sense whatever I wrote I believed to be true and original at the time or I was just throwing out ideas, it's hard to tell even for me in retrospect. Also I do not bend over backwards to prove anything. Proving anything is not what I'm after, understanding and knowledge for personal sake and maybe educate you the reader is what it's all about. These are after all mostly theoretical concepts we are dealing with.

We all have it though, the desire to know the bigger picture and ask questions like, "What does it all mean?" Is all this, the Universe around us going to be understood and explained within my lifetime? Am I even capable of understanding it? Can I without someone telling me how it is, figure it out on my own? You just have to try to see what you come up with, and maybe just maybe you actually figure something out that noone else has.

Ultimately I attempt to answer some pretty big questions and what seems like at the end an alternate viable theory of gravity is right there in laymens terms. I spent seemingly very little time on this and most was spontanious, I did take it home with me in thought naturally. I've read countless extremely technical documents, articles and papers from top to bottom. Even if I dont understand all the math, I still read through it extracting as much as possible and get the full concept of it. But where I cannot judge the logic or validity of any said papers is in the math presented. I am not a math wiz by any means, I know a little programing here and there and your basic math logic and structure but that's where it ends. You will see just how math involved this subject is and be as confused as I am by it, but fortunatly almost every forumula in a paper is explained by words by the author. And it's not really so much important the math, it's the visual concepts that the math represents that you need to be able to see. And for the most part this journal is void of any math.

Last but not least, it is very important to understand the way in which people tend and will describe any given idea differently than the other even though they are thinking about the same exact thing. In other words if two people were given a picture of a tornado and asked to describe what it looks like, or what they think it is made of, or how it works, you can bet thier stories will be completly different. Now where it gets interesting is when you start to deal with theortical particle physics. Because what you are being asked to describe now is something you've never seen before, only how you think it might work or look like based on what you've read. And in that sense also you are influenced by what other before you thought. In the end, your only guide to an agreeable truth is your commen sense and logic. When describing to others what you think you know, you can only hope that you are conveying your thoughts and opinon in detail as best as possible even though eventually you will miss something important to the topic and the reader may be left confused. I'll be figuring/learning things out all the time but I don't neccessarily write them down, and maybe sometimes in error I will assume that the reader also knows what I know, and that knowledge is important for a future topic. The only thing that really matters I guess is that you believe you know what you are talking about and you fullfill your own personal curiosity. To satisfy my own curiosity is what started this and what keeps me going, I, maybe like you, am a _want to know how things work_ type of person.

You'll begin to skim this journal and find out that I talk alot about gravity and maybe say to yourself, gravity who cares, I don't know how it works but I'm sure somebody does. Well actually no, nobody knows how it works, I was as surprised as you are. Scientist's and physicist's and can readily explain just about everything we see around us on Earth, yet can't explain why they "stick to" the Earth! Of course there are alot of bigger mysteries to be found when we venture outside our planet into the solar system and beyond. So go ahead, this is not all about me and my ideas, there is alot of history and learning material within.

physics

\Phys"ics\, n. [See Physic.] The science of nature, or of natural objects; that branch of science which treats of the laws and properties of matter, and the forces acting upon it; especially, that department of natural science which treats of the causes (as gravitation, heat, light, magnetism, electricity, etc.) that modify the general properties of bodies; natural philosophy.

- TDuncan, 26

4/01/03

Disproving the Redshift Theory - Big Bang
- Isn't is just as likely that the Universe is contracting instead of expanding, Isn't is just as likely that the universe is cyclic? Spherical?
-The observed Redshift of percieved galaxies suggest they are moving away from us, Isn't is just as likely that we are moving away from them?
- Cyclic Universe senerio to discount the redshift theory as a basis for motion of Universal bodies and it's galaxies, gravity not withstood.
- The Universe percieved as a galaxy model (Hurricane) where the center is the mother of all Supermassive blackholes ( Eye of the Storm) - The galaxies closer to the center move faster toward the center thus away from us thus the apparent red shift - The galaxies behind us would also be in a red shift, not because they are moving away from us but we away from them - to the center of the Universe faster than the outer galaxies are moving to the center.
- Red shift may or may not be a significant phenonemon
- Does the motion of the origin of perception affect the percieved Red shift of galaxies - in other words if the earth/hubble was stationary, would the red shift measurement of galaxy x be identical to its measurment as we see it now? One would conclude proabably not, this is however taken into consideration - the method must be extremly complex one would think, a math formula to substract in essence our motion to a stationary object of perception - this has a high liklyhood of being flawed and subsequently all resulting data concluded from images as per motion of galaxies percieved by us - many many factors, unknown and known can be at play here including cosmic gravitational lenses.

{4/02/03
READ More on Percieved Red shift Theory_ext.txt
}

Cosmic Gravitational Lens
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2003/01/
- Do unknown/undetected cosmic gravitational lens affect cosmic measurements? Are scientists aware of this phenomenon on a wide scale? Have we been getting false data passed off as percieved factual truths? One can only guess, and assume that it has happend, the question is what data and on what scale of data has it corrupted?
- Very interesting

Date 2001 New Findings ect

http://rgouin.home.mindspring.com/findings.html#finkbeiner
http://rgouin.home.mindspring.com/key.html
http://rgouin.home.mindspring.com/findings.html#Sincell

Big Bang theory concludes planar or spherical type Universe, or other?
- spherical model suggested here
_google http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/Original/p00095d.html
- Other observations suggest a flatness to our Universe

Cyclic Universe
- As related to a galaxy model?
Bessel Van't Woudt
http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/comments/bessel.htm
- As per understanding of all galaxy models, exsists a Supermassive Blackhole at the center, a cyclic Universe as per the galaxy model would suggest - the Mother of all Supermassive blackhole, a Super Supermassive Blackhole at center Universe? yikes
- implausible or uncomforatable at best, would prefer a Spherical Universe Model perhaps as per planetary and thier weather patterns

Spherical Universe
- Studies Indicate a curvature of the Universe may exsist, theoretical evidence. Question is to what extent.

Eliptical Universe
- Similar to Spherical - a squashed sphere

Cyclic Hurricance Galaxies
- Once set in motion, held in motion by gravity, gravity/Supermassive Blackholes not sole reason for cyclic galaxies
- Galatic Weather Patters - Dark Matter, Nebulas in motion
- Does a singularity really exsist inside of a blackhole?
- "Eye of the Storm" and Blackhole not to be confused
- Comforatable with the theory of a singularity inside a blackhole - as per understanding of a result of a Supernova event. With that said not convinced of an actual singularity, but supermass yes.
- Blackhole formation as a result of extrodinary mass (collected), tearing matter, bending space and time

Disproving or Proving Exsistence of White Holes
- One would consider to theorize a white hole to be on the opposite end of a Blackhole. Whatever gets pulled into the blackhole, gets reguritated via a white hole on the "Other side". One problem exsists, In order for matter to be released out of a white hole, an actual tear in space where the singularity deep within a blackhole is therorized to lie, thus realeasing the force on the fabric of space, whereas the fabric of space would reflux(bounce) back to its origin (flat). Any phenonmenon or possible models of this behavior may certainly exsist, whether or not they are immediatly observable is a question. Imagine if you would several solar systems being sucked down by the Supermassive Blackhole only to get half way when the fabric of space at the Blackhole singularity "gives way" thus creating a wave like phenonmenon throughout the galaxy. A percieved White Hole in this sense also.

Relate this article with the theory that a galaxy is a storm system
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_bulge_000605.html
"the mass of a black hole is directly correlated with the size of the bulge that swells at the center of many galaxies"
The size of the eye of a hurricane as we known them, increases as per relation to the size of swirling clouds surrounding it. - to be researched and clarified -TDuncan

- HURRICANE GALAXY
Hurricane Galaxy
-"did see the rise in cloud velocity away from the galactic center as Newtonian mechanics predicts, the farthest clouds were not found slowing down as predicted"
- In other words if gravity with regards to and aside from Supermasive Blackholes is sole dictator to motion of galaxies, Clusters moving toward center mass should be moving much faster than outter Clusters. Suggests an outside force on galaxies as well as its internal forces.

Matter

Antimatter
_google http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/antimat.html

Building blocks of Matter
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/bldgblocks.html

Elementary Particles or Hadrons
Quarks Leptons Antiquarks

Motion of and organization of Elementary Particles = matter
Static Particles = Static Universe
Motion is a state of Time or rather motion is time
Matter is refered to as Space
Thus the association of Time and Space is required

- unknown code of organization of Elementary Particles
- Once an hydroden atom, why stay an hydrogen atom? Surrounding matters dictate and work together to form new matters, or in turn repulse the organization of new matters. The known state of matter, where matter is happy to be what it is dictated of the surrounding forces. Organization of Elementary Particles- Chemistry, Organic Genetics, Magnetic shields, High-Energy Physics.

SuperStrings and Superstring Theory

Entropy

Date of Universe
-Disproving the Big bang theory and Redshift assosiated with it to age the Universe
-Age of Universe Unknown, highly unlikely to ever be known, as per a contracting, cyclic, spherical Universe Model

Blackhole and Galaxy creation as per the Hurricane Model
- Need to know and understand all aspects of the creation of global weather phenonmenon, hurricanes, tornados, whirlpools even - complicated - consuming, comprehensive information exsists
- Idea as per relation to global weather
- Blackholes as per understanding of them of an enourmous mass do not exsist prior to the "Universal Storm", but at which time and over time are formed as a result of collected mass due to the "Weather System". An "Eye of the Storm" does exsist however which is fuel for the creation of these blackholes and swirling galaxies. Imagine if you would a tornado picks up whatevers in its way, funnels it to the epicenter upwards. Reverse that and you have a model of a whirlpool whereas objects are funelled from out to in - Relate to Galaxy - This resulting collected mass in the center gets too great and collapses the fabric of space thus creating a blackhole, Supermassive in state over time and mass collected. The Storm does not "die" either, what you have now is gravity taking over and assuming the role of the Storm. The weather system that created this galaxy may have passed or died out, but the resulting creation appears to seem that it is active still. It ("The winds" or "Storm") may be there, it may not be there. Its an clever illusion and a guess as to whether the storm system that created/activated this galaxy is still present or not.

Further thought begs the question of whether all clusters rate of movement at the outter rims of all galaxies without regard to a hurricane model but with regards to only a gravity and blackhole model...If there is a inconsistent rate of speed accross galaxies observed, still with regards to size... If there IS an inconsistence math formula that would attempt to measure this again, in relation with the size, then we may have found our active and nonactive Storms. In other words, if we observe one galaxy whos outter clusters move at a rate of speed that would seem to corrolate to the understanding of only gravity and the blackhole at its center, the storm that created that system is gone - If we are to observe another galaxy where its outter clusters do not meet this corrolation, ( the outter clusters are moving faster than they should) then we can assume that the storm is active.
_To be researched

_Need to relate how the size of the Supermassive blackhole is related to the size of the surrounding galaxy, or not?
This could be an active storm, whereas the eye would be larger if the storm is larger, again do not confuse Eye of the Storm with Blackhole

{April 15 2003

Prove the exsistence of that Supermassive Blackhole more importantly. Have we seen an image of anything being sucked into the center of a Galaxy? I believe we have BUT, we assume there is one in every galaxy now, with a gravity only galaxy model that is. An alternative model like the Hurricane Galaxy wouldnt necessarily assume one.

Disproving the Hurricane Galaxy Theory
- top priority, so far nothing. Will need to learn the requirements for such a theory, not necessarily based solely on Earth type storm behavior and creation, but without a doubt a field of interest is meteoroligy. A comprehensive field of study of which an enourmous amount of information is to be learned and may very well disprove the theory in whole or part.}

Disproving the E=Mc2 principal
http://wbabin.hypermart.net/paper/birks2.htm
- Interpretation of percieved reality, Interpretation that will vary across imaginations
- the need for a Mathematical Reformation, a Universal Math as a factual language by means to interpret and explain percieved reality - Some known and used maths are like Speaking language, English, Chinese, Arabic - cannot combine elegantly, different rules apply to according to general relativity and quantum mechanics - when combining equations of 2 different rulesets the resulting equation is ugly such as is the case for the (name here)
- The reality that different, as in fundemental interpretation and methods, equations are used in conjunction to form larger more meaningful equations, as thus flawed by example and interpretation.
http://wbabin.hypermart.net/paper/birks2.htm
- Liklyhood of finding a simple one inch line of code to explain the great theory of x, near impossible by means of modern mathmatics - exceptions to imagination.
- Or are the arbitrary unities or the relation of unites being used to disprove the equation flawed themselves
- in any case, this disproving of the equation(which is a concept) is a play on words, or rather a play on concepts/Interpretation,
- The equation is a concept with regards to a specific unity, yes, but not a means to form and calcuate subsequent equations from, unless the resulting equation is a concept itself! and by rules, needs to use the same unity
- The equation is the idea that neither mass nor energy can be lost or created
Because c, the speed of light in a vacuum, is 300,000,000 metres per second, you get 90,000,000,000,000,000 units of energy in exchange for one unit of mass of matter.

After the exchange, the mass is associated with the released energy, and not with the original matter, but it still exists somewhere, just like money exchanged between currencies

- You cannot break the rules of the equation concept and disprove its merit by substituting the unity with another unity

-More
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/0104/p01514d.html

Rubberband Mathmatics
- Mark a rubberband 3 times to create 1 inch next to 1 inch, the percieved combined length is 2 inches, Stretch that rubberband, what is the measurment of the marks? What is the mathmatical equation to understand that 2 inches now is more than what is was before, yet still 2 inches long. Use 2 inches in an equation where the person your teaching it to, is not aware that 2 inches is being stretched, yet the equation results satisfies both your perceptions.
- apply example to the study of light, time, space

Study of Universe
- We have been studing only the lumenent Universe - fact and false
- ulraviolet, x-ray, gamma, blue and red spectrum extremes not visible by human eye compose a great deal of matter of Universe
- Human eye need not/did not develop ability to see such _Explain..
- Radio waves, cosmic explosions are detectable
- Big bang resonance(some 13 billion years ago) thought to have been detected - not buying that one, more likely the result of any number of phenonmenon - supernova resonance - collision of a solar bodies - Blackhole resonance - you name it

Dark Matter What is it
- _Strings
- MACHOs, WIMPs, and neutrinos are candidates _google http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/strange_dark.html
- Is it in motion? - Likely and as per Hurricane model
Contradiction thought
- Is it not in motion? as in needing an galatic system nearby to put it in motion - If not, why not in motion? Whats excluding it from motion, excluding itself from all Universal bodies, was it ever in motion as per big bang theory would likely conclude, Yes.
- Dark Matter is in motion as is all Universal Matter - TDuncan
- The unknown force, the storm itself, the Universal Weather System and Galaxy creation Catalyist
- gravitational force?
- Significant Gravitationl Force of Dark Matter - Unlikely but popular new theory. Here we have WIMPS so small they pass through almost all known matter undetected. The only known detection of WIMPS is in the substance Mica, which cellular structure is fairly uniform accross atoms, a WIMP passing through Mica may bump an atom offsetting it thus possibly revealing its actual exsistence. The gravitational pull of trillions to the trillionth power, still would not equal squat. Multiply that by the length of a few light years, possibly enough in an area of space to create a dent in space. Imagine a puddle of water collected on a tarp. Still though its dent (gravity) on space would be a non factor to a nearby galaxies agenda. A galaxy passing through any part of the Dark Matter "puddle" would collect and trap this Dark Matter to take with it on its cosmic voyage, adding to the galaxies mass, yet how insignificant it can be or is it all too significant of mass?
- Dark Matter does have mass and thus gravity, but how massive, little would be suggested, even over several million light years of it

- How does light react to dark matter - Can light be reflected, refracted, absorbed
- Weather systems/Jetstreams, blackholes exsists, not affecting any lumenice matter
- Absence of Dark Matter - What do you have?
- Is there any place in the Universe that does not have Dark Matter? What does it have in replacement, other than galaxies ect

HOT AND COLD DARK MATTER SUGGESTED
"The most recent observations and computer simulations seem to point toward a universe with a mixture of both hot and cold dark matter."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/strange_hotcold.html
(ignoring most of the article as opinion)

- The single most important fact for a weather/storm like system Universe to exsist

Author Tyler S Duncan