Earth's Axis has changed

December 7, 2012

12-2012 Origins of the Universe

Filed under: weather — mmc7 @ 7:02 am

I’ve seen some truly questionable theories being postulated by supposedly respectable astrophysicists which any small child would recognize to be false. One such current theory of our moon being formed from an impact of an asteroid with the earth. It boggles the mind to understand why these clearly bad science theories have not been countermanded by the rest of the scientific community. Fear of reprisal no doubt. 

The following theories are my personal opinions based on common sense so I doubt you will find these elsewhere. If you do find similar theories, they were not the basis from which mine originate. I have not seen any theories which are similar. The only exception is the nature of gravitational fields of which Eric Sereda has the best theories I have ever seen. He has a DVD named “Evidence” which he explains his theory in detail.

Origin of the Universe

Created by  Galactic Vortex. Not by a Big Bang Theory:

Contrary to the popular Big Bang theory that the universe was formed by a huge explosion… the similarity of spinning motions among the planets and galaxies clearly indicate this theory to be false.  A “Big Bang” type explosion would have hurled the planetary bodies outward but would not have produced the synchronistic spinning motions throughout the universe.  From the trajectory of the galaxies it is clear everything was hurled outward from a single point of origin as most other theories assume.  Thus, common sense dictates the origin was a spinning field of energy which hurled everything outward from a central point. A spinning vortex of electromagnetic & gravitational fields.

The formation of such an energy vortex would begin with the electromagnetic fields of coalescing atoms which amplified with strength in numbers, began to spin as the polarities interacted with each other; forming a spinning vortex, producing powerful gravitational fields. Think of magnets. Positive on one end & negative polarity on the other; laid end to end in a circle. If these were the size of atoms in the weightless vacuum of space, the magnetic forces between these atomic fields would cause a spinning motion like a tornado. This spinning motion produces gravity.  Gravity fields are spiral. Hence the reason water drains in a spiral and tornadoes, hurricanes & our galaxy have spiral or vortex shapes & behaviors. The electromagnetic field interacting with the gravitational fields produced by the spinning vortex of energy  would draw in all atomic matter within its range like the vacuum of a tornado causing the vortex to grow stronger; then heating & pressurizing the atomic matter into molten globs of new elements & stellar gases. These molten masses of superheated materials and stellar gasses were then ejected from the opposite end; hurling outward like a spinning playground carousel. These planetary bodies in the space vacuum, ever continue to perpetually travel outward on their original trajectories.

The spherical shape of the planets and moons indicates they were obviously in a molten liquid state when formed and clearly from a spinning centrifugal central point of origin. But not necessarily all at once. The vortex would continue to produce the masses of molten planetary materials & stellar gasses as long as there is material to feed it. 

However, there may also have been additional vortices formed at the center of some or all galaxies at one point. The vortices only require the necessary types of atoms to coalesce their fields with a supply of new matter in order to form new vortices. It is clear that our Milky Way currently has such a vortex at the center which created the stars & planets within its gravitational field. Our galaxy still contains plenty of material to feed the  vortex which continues to generate new celestial bodies & stellar gases. However, as the expelled materials move farther outward from the vortex, it will eventually run out of matter to feed the vortex. This will cause the vortex, to weaken & die. Once that occurs, the binding gravitational field maintaining the shape of our spiral galaxy will be lost & it will begin to lose its distinctive appearance & become a formless, expanding cloud of stars & planets similar to other galaxies we see in our universe. Perhaps at one time, each of the galaxies had a center vortex which have since died. New vortices may yet form to create new galaxies.

But at the very beginning, the trajectory of our galaxies and spinning planetary bodies shows us it all began with the very first vortex & atomic matter which some refer to as stardust. Through the forces of the vortex atomic energy fields combined with the pressure & heat generated, these “loose” atoms, as it were, combined to become molten masses of new elements & stellar gasses to form the galaxies of stars & planets we know today. Quite probably with additional vortices in each galaxy which were generated by the same type of electromagnetic fields as the very first vortex. 

These molten masses, spherical in shape due to the vacuum of space became planets & moons spinning from the ejection force of being hurled from the vortex. Those masses with combinations of stellar gases formed stellar nurseries producing stars with powerful gravitational fields, capturing the nearest spinning, planetary spheres into orbits as they passed within their range.  

To understand a gravity vortex, think of the way water spins down a drain or the spinning of tornadoes, hurricanes and our own milky way galaxy. All of these are the result of gravity fields which spin like a drain. Gravity consists of spiral fields rather than straight lines. Black Holes are also similar gravity vortices usually formed by the core of a dead star. However, they can also be formed from the interacting electromagnetic fields of coalescing atoms like the galactic vortex. Basically the vortex is a tornado of gravitational energy pulling everything inward at one end & ejecting it out the opposite end. Even the molecules of air travel in a spinning vortex like water down a drain, when that air is compressed and increases in speed. Normally, you cant see a vortex of air until it becomes saturated with dust or clouds. This is what makes a new tornado extra dangerous. You may see the downspout from a cloud while the bottom half is invisible until it begins to suck up dust from the soil & would be unaware of its presence until nearly on top of you.  Many people have been caught unaware by the invisible tail of a newly formed tornado which swept their vehicles from the road. Just a couple years ago, I saw the formation of a dust devil. A perfectly clear, cloudless blue sky & a calm, warm day. I saw the tall glass in a field begin to flatten & be tossed about in spinning motions by an invisible force which was only evident by the tracks it left on the grass.  The soil was damp so there was no dust to reveal the shape of the wind vortex. Only after it had torn across the field for an extended period, did the particles of shorn grass pulled into the vortex begin to reveal the shape of this dustless dust devil. It was easily 3 stories tall but quite narrow on the base. Perhaps 3 feet in diameter on the ground & 15 feet at the top. A rare thing to see form from the beginning. Water spouts are also quite similar. It was curious how this wind devil formed on such a calm, clear day. I suspect the first universal vortex formed from loose atoms just like this. It would be quite invisible until it had ingested or produced visible matter. 

The difference between a galactic vortex & a black hole only vary by the source of the gravity field. The vortex creates its gravity by the spinning motion generated by coalescing atoms. The black hole forms at the core of a dead star’s intense gravitational field. The vortex expels the matter it intakes out the opposite end where the matter which has  been drawn into a black hole impacts the core of the dead star at the opposite end. Unlike what you may see in Sci-fi films, none of these are doorways to other dimensions or holes in the universe. However, if you were to travel through a vortex, it would increase your speed faster than light and you would travel across great distance in rapid time.  Think of a bead thrown through the air across the room versus the speed of a bead sucked through a vacuum cleaner hose as an analogy between normal space travel speed versus travel speed enhanced by a vortex.  This type of vortex used for faster than light travel thru space would be a worm hole.     

Moon Formation & the Milky Way Vortex:

If the moon had been a result of two solid bodies smashing, it would look like an irregular broken rock, not a sphere. Furthermore, any collision large enough to form a moon would have also created tons of debris creating regions of debris like the asteroid belt or rings of orbiting debris like Saturn. We do not have any debris fields around the Earth or moon other than the junk we have placed up there during our space launchings. We trash everything we touch.

In the weightless vacuum of space, liquid assumes a spherical shape. Therefore, our moon clearly formed while the earth was still molten liquid. Possibly born separating from the ring of fire region while the earth was still molten. The dark face areas of the moon is likely the scar from that separation just as the two molten spheres were beginning to cool on the surface. Rapid spinning and gas pressures within the earth probably initiated throwing off the portion of molten liquid which became the moon.

Alternatively, the moon could have been formed in a vortex with earth the other planetary bodies, becoming trapped within the gravitational field of the earth as it passed near its gravitational field. The total lack of debris completely dispels any collision theory. Most or all of the planetary bodies in our Milky Way galaxy were likely born in the vortex which lies at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. However, our galactic trajectory & rate of travel indicates part of our galactic matter originated from the first vortex at the center of our universe, then the Milky Way subsequently developed a vortex of its own by the same coalescing of atoms forming their collective electromagnetic fields into a spinning vortex which continues to create new galactic planetary matter & gases for stellar nurseries at the center of our Milky way.

If explosive pressures were to develop within the earths’ core, we could have an explosive burst of a second smaller moon from the “Ring of Fire” around the perimeter of the Pacific ocean. See the 60’s film “Crack in the World” which has a similar theme. However, since our planet’s crust has cooled, this new moon would look irregular like Phobos or Deimos moons of Mars which either formed as it was cooling or were asteroids which became entrapped in Mars gravity. A  moon from a cooled source would not be spherical since it is not molten liquid. Any moon created by or subjected to impact or collision would certainly be irregular in appearance and create a huge debris field which might possibly evolve into a ring as well. Similar to Saturn.

Stellar Rings:

Most rings are the remnants of destroyed moons or asteroids. However, the asteroid belt which orbits our sun contains the remains of destroyed planets. It would be quite likely to find other stars in our galaxy or other galaxies which have rings around the stars of some solar systems. Stellar rings created from the debris of destroyed planets which once orbited that star. We often think about the beauty of planets like Saturn which have rings but I’ve never heard any mention of rings around a star like our sun. Yet, it is quite probable such stellar rings exist from the destruction of large planets which once orbited the stars in those systems. Yet, I’ve never seen or heard this idea from any source. Not even in science fiction. Unfortunately, our ability to view other solar systems is quite limited so it will be a very long time before we can see a solar ring.

Black Holes:

A black hole caused by the core of a dead star is a bit different from a galactic vortex as described above. This is the gravitational field of a dying stellar core pulling in everything within its range of attraction like a powerful magnet. The only thing you will find at the center of such a black hole is an impact when you smash into the dead solar core. It is dark because it is no longer  burning or producing light. Just a dark mass of core generating enormous gravity and pulling in anything within its range. So it is dark like an eclipse where only the outer areas of spiraling debris outside of the core dimensions are backlit from another lightsource behind the dead dark core. These are not doorways. Neither are vortices doorways. If you were to be pulled thru the center of the vortex at the galaxy’s center, you would simply be ejected on the other side. Like traveling through the center of a hurricane. These are gravity forces, not doorways. Real life is not as exciting as a scifi movie.

Worm holes & speed of light:

A wormhole is the effect caused by a craft traveling faster than the speed of light. Similar to a sonic boom from breaking the sound barrier, breaking the speed of light would create an initial flash of light to observers and a dark tunnel to the craft traveling faster than light. It is temporary & the wormhole will disappear after the craft  has dropped below light speed. However, hypergates could be constructed to use spiraling gravitational fields between two points to allow a craft to travel at hyper speeds without requiring powerful engines. It is similar to the way an object in water which is spinning down a drain will travel faster at the center of the spinning water than the outer edges. Eric Sereda has an excellent DVD on gravitational fields & light speed travel called “Evidence”. Although the video presentation is dry science theorizing, it is clearly the best, logical explanation of gravitational fields ever made.   Sereda is one of the few who is not on the gov’t payroll & doesn’t spout propaganda dogma like the rest of the scientific community.

Seti & space signals:

Seti is the biggest waste of money ever made. If you are traveling faster than light, why would you use radio signals to communicate? You would use lasers & faster than light projections. These would appear as temporary micro wormholes which would disappear when the signal was done. The laser signal would form so quickly it would be hard to detect. It would be aimed at the target source & thus, would not be interceptable unless you were directly between the 2 points.

Even we humans use fiber optic laser light for our own communication signals at hyper speeds. Why would any alien society communicate with slow radio signals? Not to mention the fact that the higher the frequency, the shorter the range and the more power it requires to cover the same distance. For example, our old analog wireless mobile cell phone towers could be spaced 10 miles apart when using the old 800 Mhz frequency range. But the new digital cell systems which use 1-12 ghz frequencies (like your microwave oven), the towers must be placed 1.5 to 3 miles apart because the signal cannot travel as far at those high frequencies. Even worse, the more phones connected to a cell tower will shrink the coverage distance as the power is drained. Thus, a less effective frequency which requires 3 times as many cell towers plus multiple level signal Stacking to handle demand called 3G, 4G, etc. This just means they stacked multiple Antennas, transmission equip & frequencies to handle the growing demands of customers for connection speed and capacity. Thus, you need a phone designed to interface with the new stacked frequencies. That’s what your 3G, 4G phones actually give you in addition to expanded link capacity & new features. Why do they use this less effective higher frequency for the digital cell markets? Because the lower frequencies were full & out of space. Then the gov’t released these new ghz frequencies for bid in 1995 and the cell industry snapped up these shorter ranges because of the frequency capacities available.

What sensible alien society is going to be using a short range, ghz microwave frequency to contact their planet? The concept is downright absurd. If you travel faster than light, you are not going to be using slow radio frequencies to contact your planet. You would use lasers modified to transmit faster than light thru micro wormholes. It is clear that our scientific community is lacking basic common sense?

So why are we throwing money down the drain for Seti to monitor ghz radio Frequencies? Even if they changed to light monitoring, we couldn’t pick up an alien light signal transmission unless we were directly in the path. I see no common sense at play here and no one seems to notice.


  1. I agree with almost everything you said.
    But why is it that all planets (save for one) are flattened at the poles?
    And do you think that Gravity is the same everywhere on the planet or that there is a difference between the north and South Pole and the equator?

    Thank you for sharing your ideas.


    Comment by jhauwei — February 16, 2016 @ 8:28 am | Reply

    • Liquid assumes a spherical shape in the vacuum of space. Thus, the planets were still in a molten state when they were formed. The faster they were spinning from the vortex as they were hurled into space, the more the planets would bulge at the equator and flatten at the poles. It is just a byproduct of the rate of spinning as they were cooling from liquid into a solid crust. We are still spinning with a molten center, so this would continue to exert such inertia. It is a lot like a pottery wheel with wet clay. The faster you spin the wheel, the wider it becomes.

      As for the gravity, it seems to be based on the size of the planet. The moon is 1/6th the size of earth and has 1/6th earth’s gravity. Mars is 1/2 the size of earth and has half gravity. So based on those examples, it appears the gravity is based on size.

      There is a difference in air density and pressures depending on where you are on earth at differing elevations. However, I’m not aware of any gravitational differences… but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any. I simply have not looked into that aspect. But it would definitely feel different if you were in an underwater chamber with increased air pressure. Of course if we were bodily immersed in water, then there would be a buoyancy factor based on body fat quantity. There are other factors such as various gasses altering air densities, etc. I think for the most part, gravity would be consistent on the planet… but that doesn’t mean I’m correct on this assumption. I’ve traveled a fair amount in the past and you can use an objects weight as an indicator. I’ve never noticed any variances.

      But you could test this by measuring the weight of an object at various locations. Better to use something small and inanimate… but you would have to use digital scales. Because if you used gram weights to compare the weights, the gram weights would vary as well. So if you had a 20 gram object… and the gravity reduced the weight by 2 grams to 18 grams…. it would still show as 20 grams on a scale because the gram weights themselves would also be reduced in weight by the same percentage.

      You would have to find some type of digital scale which would not be affected by the gravity variance for a true weight.


      Comment by mmc7 — February 16, 2016 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  2. I believe the current model of the universe as being dominated by gravity to be a false one. Electricity is the governing force, and we can see this in the massive strings of spiral galaxies, which exactly resemble Birkeland Currents formed in a laboratory. Look up the Electric Universe videos on YouTube. Their webpage is here: This theory makes a lot more sense than the silly postulations of mainstream scientists who propose black holes, dark matter, and all manner of other things that they cannot demonstrate in a lab. As one example, their “dirty snowball” hypothesis for cometary formation is among the most absurd, especially in light of the many photographs clearly showing that comets are asteroids, yet still they cling to the notion that comets are made of ice.


    Comment by Silver Buttons — September 9, 2015 @ 9:18 pm | Reply

    • I agree. Electromagnetic & gravitational fields.

      These other attempts to infuse ludicrous theories are simply preposterous efforts by wannabe’s to gain undeserved notoriety. The craziest notion is their current assertion that the moon was formed by a massive impact of the Earth or a conglomeration of meteors & rocks. The mere fact that the moon is spherical in shape is evidence that the moon was in a molten or liquid state when it was formed. Fluids assume spherical shapes when in zero gravity. It was either formed separately from a larger molten mass like the planets or it was born by separating from our own planet while it was in a molten state and spinning fast enough or had high enough internal pressures to eject the molten mass of our moon; probably from the pacific ocean side of our planet while in a molten state. Similar to the movie “Crack in the world” except the formation of our moon occurred while the Earth was fully molten.

      If the moon had formed by impact, the shape would have been irregular & the earth would be surrounded by a ring of debris. An impact, even if our planet was molten would have ejected massive amounts of splattered molten material into space creating a huge debris field around our planet as it would also do if the planet was cooled & solidified. The only difference in debris fields forming a ring around our planet would be the shape of the debris. Spherical if molten. Irregular or broken debris if cooled. There is a serious lack of basic common sense in these inept theories which makes me wonder about the serious decline in the IQ & educational competency levels of our current scientific community.

      In the past 20 years I’ve seen a serious decline in the quality & competency of engineers & scientists in nearly every field. Partially from a serious decline in education as well as corporate efforts to eliminate high salaried experienced engineers & scientists for low wage, inexperienced neophytes fresh out of college with substandard education, poor work ethics & entitlement attitudes where they think they should be paid for merely showing up. They play on the computer or phone all day without lifting a finger to do research or fix anything.

      Nasa did this when they laid off all their shuttle scientists & engineers with 20 years of experience in California & gave the task to a team of newbie’s in Houston with less than 6 months experience who promptly refused help & turned deaf ears to the concerns of the former shuttle team & Norad’s offer to help among many other offers & resources they refused to consider & lost the shuttle & crew which could have been saved. Nasa has also been replacing their experts with military & former military personnel & using compartmentalization as our military does which crushes any exchange of ideas & innovation. I hear the launching tower is so rusted & the grounding in such a state of deterioration that it is only a brief matter of time before a spark creates an explosion or the tower has a catastrophic structural failure. So how can we expect quality scientists in an environment like this. Only a rare few individuals will go the extra mile to research on their own. When they do, they are attacked by their peers for making them look bad or chastised by their employers for thinking outside the box or not conforming to official stances no matter how wrong those stances are.

      However, Mars moons Phobos & Deimos are not spherical & could have been a wandering chucks of asteroids which became trapped in Mars orbit. Some of these theories are so ridiculous I can’t believe they are making such claims with a straight face.

      We had revisionist History. Now we have revisionist science.


      Comment by mmc7 — September 10, 2015 @ 2:31 pm | Reply

  3. I too was a subscriber to SETI until I realized it was actually taking over my computer, after reading this article I am certainly glad I got out of it and changed my computer as well. Thank you for the deep insights on this site, will continue reading.


    Comment by ralph bradshaw — February 28, 2015 @ 11:31 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: