Now that I've described the rotation of the galaxies, I figured I'd try to explain how I believe the eye of the galaxy works.
As you probably learned, the stars rotating around other stars and planets create a spiral depiction of dust-lit particles right into a center of what scientists call a 'black hole'. A black hole is believed to be a massive cloud of star particles created by explosion of supermassive stars due to the extreme pull of gravity within the center of a galaxy. This is why scientists believe the black hole within every galaxy is so brightly lit.
I do not agree with this theory at all. You see, every star's exterior surface is the gravitational repellent that keeps other objects from nearing the star and its surface. This is why nothing can near a star close enough to impact it unless the outer gravitational field is weak enough to allow it. Yet, the magnetic pull from WITHIN the star, is what pulls other objects toward it, including other stars, not just planets, meteors, ect. Wherefore, when the star's outer gravitational field begins to lose strength, the core of the star's magnetic pull becomes stronger.
The tail of the galaxy has less 'impacted' clusters of stars than it does nearer to the center, because the outer surface of these supermassive cluster of 'suns' give off a much stronger gravitational field, than the stars nearer to the center of the spiral galaxy. And the outer gravity keeps the magnetic core of the star from attracting other objects toward it. The stars coming closer together in a spiral cluster nearer toward the center of the galaxy, is due to the weakening of their outer gravitational field. The outer surface of each star produces a certain measure of electromagnetic gravity that determines how far it will keep other universal objects to be from nearing it.
But the less energy they radiate, the more vulnerable they become to their fellow stars' core gravitational pull. The stars nearer to the eye of the galaxy possess weaker outer gravitational field, while the stars nearer to the tail of the galaxy possess stronger outer gravitational field and because is so strong, it keeps other supermassive stars from nearing it, which I believe the stars should be seen as more expanded from each other near the tail than they are near the center.
The core of the galaxy is brightly lit, because scientists have theorized that supernova stars literally explode because of the gravitational pull, that not even light could escape it. While I believe this is only half true, I do not believe the stars nearer to the center of the galaxy are supernovas. In fact, I believe, because they have to generate less energy in order for their outer gravitational field to allow them to be near other weaker stars, their core's gratational pull actually collides them into other weakest stars when it reaches the 'eye' and this is what I believe is what creates an explosion.
The stars that lose energy are pulled into the center of the eye because their outer gravitational field lacks the strength to keep their core's magnetic pull from colliding them into other magnetic objects, such as other stars that possess the same problem.
If scientists' theory were to be correct about the supermassive novas exploding at the center of the galaxy, (because supermassive nova stars generate most engery), it would create a domino effect of a super nuclear explosion throughout the spiraling clusters of stars, down to its tail, which doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing that makes sense is that these stars nearer to the center of the spiral, MUST radiate the least measure of energy because of the obvious clue of how weak their gravitational field is around them, that they are shoved into a tighter cluster of stars toward the center than at the tail. And if this is true, then it explains why the explosion is contained within the eye and does not explode the surrounding stars, because of how weak the star has become.
Stars that generate most energy, radiate the greatest and largest gravitational field. That means, they are the furthest distance away from other objects, including planets and other fellow stars. These are considered 'lonely' stars. The most supermassive nova stars should actually be the loneliest star in the universe. Their gravitational field isolates them, keeping objects from nearing them. Yet, if a fast and heavy impact of a right size object great enough is able to breach its boundaries and enter its gravitational field to be close enough to become trapped by the star's inner core's magnetic pull, then, the object would become a part of an effect that we know today as the planetary system.
Not all stars nearest to the tail of the galaxy, give off the greatest energy, just as, not all stars nearest to the center, are weak. In fact, there are a mixture of various stars, both weak and supermassive, from the tail, all the way to the center of every galaxy. Yet, I believe that the rule of thumb should be, the weaker stars dominate the 'eye' while the supermassive stars dominates the tail.
Our sun, is considered a very weak star. Because there are planets that have clearly breached its gravitational field, they are now trapped by the sun's core magnetic pull, and round and round they go. The sun's energy radiates a repellent gravitational field, that keeps the planets from colliding into it. But the weaker the sun's surface becomes when it radiates less energy, the closer we will be pulled into it. This is a perfect example of how weak stars collide into each other in the eye of the galaxy.. but I believe they do not always collide within the 'eye'. I actually believe this can occur in any part of the galaxy where the right requirements are present.
When stars collide into each other anywhere along the edge or within the spiral, the nuclear energy on the surface is so weak, it does not create such an explosion that would effect other surrounding stars. The core of the star, limits its explosion because I strongly believe it is not made up of a nuclear gas like the outer surface of a star, but is actually a solid magnetic element that really has no nuclear effect at all.
When weak stars collide, I actually believe the explosion scatters these elements into dust like particles, in which they reflect the light from the explosion. And that's what I believe is the big giant glowing light representing a 'black hole' in every galaxy. And these solid dust like particles still have a magnetic effect, that it draws other magnetic objects, such as other weak stars, into its dust cloud.
And because I believe the star's magnetic core is solid and is not a nuclear element, it does not effect the nuclear energy on the surface of the surrounding stars, other than to cloud the star because these dustlike particles are still magnetic, and may rather, weaken the star's energy faster. And the more weak the stars become, the more vulnerable to collision they are.
So, I guess, in order for my theory to be correct, I guess I just have to wait until scientists find 'blackholes' in other parts of the galaxies, not just in the center of it.. I strongly believe this is how stars truly die.
If my theories about the solar system is correct, then I guess the saying, "It's not what's on the outside, but what's on the inside that matters the most." Because the attraction that creates rotations, clusters of various types of 'suns' and formation of galaxies is not just based on the measure of energy various stars radiate, but rather, it mainly depends on how strong and solid their magnetic core is on the inside.
So, my theory is that, if our sun was weakening and radiating less energy, then, my bet is, this could be a very big factor as to why our earth's magnetic core is being effected. I also believe that if a star could weaken, it could also be strengthened, but that's another whole explanation, I will dive into later.
If our sun was weakening and the planets are being pulled closer toward the sun, then it will take the earth longer to travel around it, depending how close we are to it. The further away we are from the sun, the faster we encompass it. Wherfore, there is no doubt that there may have been less days within a year, thousands of years ago. Because the fact is, because the sun is a weak star, it has no choice but to weaken in its energy, slowly.
Maybe, because of the earth's slight constant movement toward the sun throughout the Ages, is what brought about natural disasters in the ancient days. Not a very bad thought. Maybe, with every new Age, we gain an extra day of how long it takes the earth to make its complete circumference around the sun? Perhaps over 5000 years ago, it only took the earth 360 days to complete its travel around it.. and now, we are adding more days to it, by adding an extra day, every four years. My bet is, pretty soon, it will take the earth 366 days to make its complete journey around the sun every year.
Isn't this also the way Times are recorded?? Perhaps, the way the ancients kept track of time was much different than now because of the changes in Time today. Did they know the earth was going to draw closer toward the sun, or did the Ages of the equinox, predict and fortell these things? And so, unlike a manmade analog clock that loses a second or a few every year, the earth gains a minute or two, every year..
Maybe this could explain why many ancient texts have written people to be over hundreds of years old?? Because the earth was not as close to the sun at the time because the sun's energy was alot stronger then, which meant that the magnetic pull had no real effect on the planets until it weakened enough for the core to draw the planets closer.. Who knows?
But going back to the topic, the weaking of the sun's energy could also explain the sun's black spots appearing on the surface. Maybe, if we stop sucking up its energy, we can actually save ourselves from being pulled into it?? When we rely on solar power, we actually consume the energy the sun radiates.. if the planets act like a 'vaccuum' to the sun's energy, could it cause it to weaken quicker?? I believe so, but I hope not (because I know how stubborn people are when it comes to technology, they don't care if it causes the end of the world as long as they have it).
In a way, it is eventually, inevitable, how everything that is born, must die, in order to live again. So what's the point for Wisdom if there isn't anything we can do about it? I guess the point is to gain the Wisdom that is able to do something about it. Wisdom is the key to everlasting life, right?
If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! TRUST JESUS NOW
Read more articles by J LD or search for articles on the same topic or others.
