Galactic core activity not triggered by galaxy mergers

The following was originally posted by gmagee in November 2011:

Astronomers are now surprised that galaxy mergers are not necessary to trigger the active state of galactic cores.   They conclude that another “secular” process must be responsible. They were also surprised that the early galaxies look so similar to nearby galaxies.

Response to the above posting:
The point that gmagee makes above concerns what induces a galaxy’s supermassive core to turn on and enter its active state.  Astronomers had originally thought that galaxy collisions triggered this activity.  If so, the discs of such galaxies should be seen to be severely disturbed.  But observations now show that this is not the case.  Kocevski et al. studied galaxies as far away as 11 billion light years and found that those with active cores looked no different than disc galaxies with nonactive cores.  They conclude that whatever turns on a supermassive galactic core must occur internal to the galaxy.  One suggestion has been that a galactic core might turn itself on by randomly accreting a passing star.  But, this too is problematic.  For a single star is unable to provide enough matter to fuel the energy output of an active galactic nucleus.  Moreover it is difficult to imagine how matter could become accreted by a galactic core since even in its off state a core radiates a substantial cosmic ray radiation blast.

The physics of subquantum kinetics, however, provides an easy solution.  An external stellar accretion event could serve as a trigger, but the energy released by its accretion would not be the main power source for a newly activated core.  Genic energy arising within the core is the main source powering a core outburst.  A quiescent galactic core eventually becomes unstable because its internal matter creation has caused its continuous growth, deepened its gravity well, and pushed its genic energy production past a certain critical threshold.  The energy released by a stellar infall event can then trigger the unstable core to enter a runaway mode of excessive genic energy production, boosting its genic energy output by a factor of a hundred thousand to a million.  This active period lasts until the core has explosively ejected enough mass to once again return to its quiescent, low genic energy production state.

P. LaViolette
2011, updated February 2013

Do neutrinos break the speed of light limit? Is Physics in Crisis?

Posted by P. LaViolette
(updated October 12, 2011)

On September 22nd scientists at CERN announced that they had clocked the speed of neutrinos over a 732 kilometer distance and found that surprisingly they travel at 0.0025% faster than the speed of light.  So whereas light and electromagnetic waves of all frequencies are measured to travel about 300,000 kilometers per second, these neutrinos were found to travel at 300,006 kilometers per second, arriving at their destination about 60 nanoseconds sooner than expected.

See the following news sources:

These results call in question the validity of the special theory of relativity which holds that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Since relativity is a mainstay in the standard physics paradigm, a pillar on which the framework of contemporary physics theory has been constructed, these results threaten its collapse and with it the construct of relativistic cosmology.

However, Carlo Contaldi questions the conclusions of the CERN-OPERA experiment in his preprint:  He suggests that the researchers did not take into account various relativistic factors which could alter the timing of the GPS synchronized atomic clocks at each site and of the atomic clock that was moved from CERN to the Italian destination 732 km away to check their timing.  He notes that effects such as the Sagnac effect due to the Earth’s rotation, unaccounted for variations in gravity potential along the route taken by the calibration clock, relativistic effects to the calibration clock during acceleration and subsequent deceleration in the course of its transport, in total could have accounted for the 60 nanosecond time discrepancy that was observed.  We will have to wait and see what response their paper receives.

Regardless of whether or not neutrinos really do break the speed of light barrier, past experiments have shown that high voltage electric field shocks, variously termed Coulomb waves, Tesla waves, or scalar waves, do break the speed of light barrier.  These experiments support the subquantum kinetics physics methodology (SQK) which teaches that certain types of waves can travel faster than the speed of light.  Namely, it predicts that such longitudinal waves should travel at superluminal speeds since the shock that forms the wave’s leading edge propels the wave’s ether substrate forward in the direction of travel.  So now the wave velocity becomes v’ = c + vether , where vether = the forward velocity of the wave’s local ether matrix.  In particular, Nikola Tesla in the early part of the twentieth century Tesla had measured superluminal speeds of c × π/2 (or 1.57 c for the longitudinal waves he radiated around the world from his magnifying transmitter monopolar antenna towers.

In the past some have theorized that neutrinos may be longitudinal waves similar to Tesla’s waves.  In particular, like Tesla waves, they can pass freely through matter with little attenuation.  Nevertheless, there is one important difference. Unlike Tesla waves, neutrinos are particles with spin and mass, although their mass is extremely small.  But this makes the challenge for Einstein’s theory even more upsetting.  For, according to Einstein’s theory and laboratory observation, as a particle approaches increasingly close to the speed of light, its mass increases exponentially, an effect termed relativistic mass dilation.  Also in accordance with the law E = mc2, a particle’s energy should also increase exponentially.  Consequently, according to this formula not only should each neutrino have attained infinite mass and energy long ago in its acceleration history, but at superluminal velocities it should no longer exist in the physical world.

There are two ways out of this mess.  Either the CERN-OPERA experiment reached the wrong conclusion because factors affecting the timing of its atomic clocks were not taken account of, or if the conclusions are found to be correct, the neutrinos could have attained their superluminal speeds by surfing on an ether wind produced by the CERN accelerator beam.  This is further discussed below, but first let us review the history of superluminal measurements.  As mentioned above, this is not the first time that the c speed barrier has been broken.  There have been many demonstrations of energy waves traveling faster than the speed of light, although superluminal energy wave propagation is not nearly as shocking and destructive to physics as is superluminal particle propagation.  Below is a list of researchers who have shown definite evidence of superluminal wave propagation, but whose work unfortunately has received little or no media coverage.

A Brief History of Superluminal Wave Experiments

1) In 1988 researcher Alexi Guy Obolensky, working together with Prof. Panos Pappas, transmitted electric pulse shock waves at superluminal speed.  They published the results of their experiment in Electricity and Wireless World, December 1988, pp. 1162 – 1165.

page 1162,  page 1163,  page 1164,  page 1165

The above page links are provided on Dr. Pappas’ website.  Some of the images are marked with corrections that Dr. Pappas has made to correct mistakes made in the original published manuscript which was mistakenly not sent to A. G. Obolensky for his final review.

2) Also in 1988, Eric Dollard demonstrated an experiment in which he sent longitudinal waves through a coaxial cable at 1.26 c.  He discusses this in the following video:  See especially the part 14 minutes into the video.

3) In 2005 – 2006 Alexi Guy Obolensky and myself transmitted high voltage Coulomb shock wave pulses across his laboratory at a speed averaging 1.26 c.  At 3.07 meters distance the pulse arrived 1.7 nanoseconds faster than luminal speed.  Our threshold resolution for distinguishing time delays was 125 picoseconds.  The rise time of our shock front was about 0.8 nanoseconds.  The speed declined inversely with increasing distance from the emitting electrode in accordance with the predictions of subquantum kinetics.  At a distance of 83 cm from the electrode the speed was clocked as high as 2.1 c with speeds as high as 8 c being projected at 65 cm distance!  Graphs of the data are published in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, p. 177 -185.  Other than this reporting, Obolensky and myself have not yet taken the time to write up the results for publication in a technical journal due to current demands on our time.  Nevertheless, as described in Verification Number 11, our experiment confirmed a key a priori prediction of subquantum kinetics.

4) Also around this time, Eugene Podkletnov and Modanese performed experiments with the Podkletnov gravity impulse beam generator in which they succeeded in sending gravity shock impulses over a distance of 1211 meters at a speed of 64 c.  They report their findings in a paper entitled “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” which is appearing this year (2011) in an edited book of papers.  E. Podkletnov has disclosed to me in personal communication that they have succeeded in measuring speeds of several thousand c in a higher power impulse beam generator.

5) Dr. Panos Pappas has recently continued experiments on superluminal pulse propagation in his own laboratory in Athens, Greece.  He reports the results of his work on his website.

In addition to the above there are various reports of superluminal signal propagation over very short distances such as the papers by Ishii and Giakos (1991) and Enders and Nimtz (1993).

Surfing the Beam

In subquantum kinetics, a superluminal wave gets its superluminal speed because it rides on an ether wind; recall v’ = c + vether .  So, the same may apply to neutrino particle propagation.  In the process of producing its neutrino beam, the CERN accelerator may also be producing a columnated ether wind traveling in the same direction as the neutrinos and, as a result, the neutrino velocity might become boosted by the added ether velocity, vether.  This calls to mind the columnated ether wind beam produced by Eugene Podkletnov’s beam generator.


A Celestial Explosion Warning Signal?

The question that arises is whether natural neutrino outbursts produced by stellar explosions and galactic core explosions would similarly have superluminal velocities.  Or would their velocities fall off as 1/r due to the natural outward dissipation of the ether wind.  If neutrinos do preserve an undiminished superluminal velocity even in natural explosions, this could be a valuable warning for the arrival of a harmful gamma ray burst or galactic superwave.  For example, if a neutrino burst were to arrive from the Galactic center approximately 23,000 light years away and were to have a velocity 0.0025% higher than c, as in the CERN experiment, then it would be arriving 7 months ahead of the initial gamma ray pulse and could give us some time to prepare.

Does antimatter fall up or down?

Scientists at CERN will be doing an experiment to see whether antimatter is attracted or repelled by the Earth’s gravitational field. They have succeeded in trapping 309 atoms of neutral entihydrogen for over 15 minutes and say this is long enough to test how antimatter responds to the Earth’s gravitational field. See May 2nd story at:

I have received inquiries as to what subquantum kinetics would predict as an outcome of this experiment.   The answer can be found on pages 115 and 116 of Subquantum Kinetics (3rd edition).  That is, subquantum kinetics predicts that gravitational fields produced by normal matter should attract antimatter, just in the same way that they do normal matter. So the neutral hydrogen antimatter trapped in the CERN experiment should be observed to fall rather than to rise.  This is not much different from what most physicists believe would be the outcome expected for standard physics.
However, subquantum kinetics further predicts that antimatter should generate a gravitationally repulsive field that would repell bodies regardless of whether they are composed of matter or of antimatter.   This prediction cannot be tested by CERN since the gravitational repulsive force produced by a few hundred antimatter particles would be far too weak to determine whether they would disperse from one another.   Shortrange attractive molecular forces would likely dominate and keep them clumped together.

But, this gravitational repulsive effect could be another reason why we do not observe antimatter galaxies in the universe. That is, if an antimatter body were to survive long enough to grow in size, say by a slow vapor deposition process on the body’s surface, eventually it would fragment due to the build up of gravitational forces which would eventually dominate molecular cohesion.

Any speculation that the CERN experiment could throw light on the belief that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, is entirely off the mark, for the simple reason that the universe is not expanding to begin with.   Unfortunately, the mainstream media writers and many astronomers have not caught on to the fact that the expanding universe theory was disproven at least 25 years ago; see our cosmology link.

Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory

Spiral galaxy NGC 7319 showing position of high-redshift quasar. Credit: NASA

In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen’s Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away.  As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away.  The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar’s redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause.  This validates Halton Arp’s theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin.

There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular galaxy.  First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it.  Second, a jet is seen to connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319.

One likely cause of the quasar’s nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light.  This mechanism rules out the possibility that the quasar is a black hole since to develop a redshift of 2.09 (2.11 – 0.02), the spectral lines would have had to be generated at a point that would lie within any hypothetical black hole event horizon.  Black hole theory, however, forbids any such radiation from escaping the black hole.  Consequently, we are left to conclude that the quasar is not a black hole but a “mother star” and that the observed redshifted emission consists of emission line photons that have redshifted as they have climbed out of the quasar’s deep gravity well.

How we arrive at the above conclusion may be explained as follows.  The gravity potential of a star varies as M/R, where M is stellar mass and R is stellar radius and redshift z varies in direct proportion to the change in the ambient gravity potential as the photon escapes the quasar’s gravity well.  For the white dwarf Sirius B, z = 3 X 10-4 and its M/R =  4.2 X 1024 g/cm.  This quasar has a redshift relative to that of NGC 7319 of z = 2.09, which is ~7000 larger than that of Sirius B.  Consequently, if the quasar’s redshift is entirely gravitational, its line emission comes from a region whose gravity potential is 7000 times more negative than Sirius B, hence from a region outside the core where M/R = 2.9 X 1028 g/cm.  If the quasar core, then, is assumed to have a mass of one million solar masses, this redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 2 X 1039/2.9 X 1028 = 6.8 X 105 km, or about one solar radius from the gravity well’s center.

If, on the other hand, the quasar is assumed to have a mass of ten million solar masses, the redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.

Now according to black hole theory, the Schwartzchild radius for a one million solar mass black hole would have a radius of 3.1 million km, equal to 4.5 solar radii.  But, due to gravitational lensing, its Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a radius of 16 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius).  So, in this case, the quasar’s redshifted light would be coming from a radius almost 24 times smaller than its apparent Schwarzschild radius, an impossibility in black hole theory.

We get a similar result if the quasar core is assumed to have a larger mass.  For example, if it were to have a mass of ten million solar masses, its redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.  A ten million solar mass black hole, on the other hand, would have a Schwartzchild radius of 31 million km or 45 solar radii, and taking gravitational lensing into account, would appear to have a radius of 234 solar radii.  So, again, the redshift of this quasar indicates that the emission has come from a radius almost 24 times smaller than the event horizon radius.

In the case where the quasar were instead a supermassive stellar core, a mother star radiating prodigious quantities of genic energy, it would have to have a radius equal to or less than the above estimated emission radius.  If we assume for simplicity that the emission line radiation comes from the star’s surface, then in the case of a one million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 106 g/cm3.  In the case of a ten million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 104 g/cm3.  This is less than the density of a white dwarf such as Sirius B, which has a density of 4 X 106 g/cm3.   The mother star would not be electron degenerate since a star having a mass in the range of one to ten million solar masses would only reach electron degeneracy when its radius had decreased to 20 to 40 km, or about 500 to 50,000 times smaller than the estimated radius.  Such large radii are permissible since the mother star does not require electron degeneracy to support its mass; its immense outpouring of genic energy keeps it from contracting.  For a discussion of electron degeneracy in celestial masses see the Astrophysics Spectator.

The broadening of quasar emission lines, usually interpreted as being due to Doppler broadening of gas ejected from a quasar at high velocity, may also in part be due to the emission originating at differing depths in the quasar’s gravity well.  For example, emission generated 10% further out from the center of the quasar’s gravity well would produce a redshift about ten percent lower, resembling an outflow velocity of ~5000 km/s.

Another mechanism that could cause a nonDoppler redshift in quasar spectra is that suggested by Paul Marmet in which photons become redshifted as a result of scattering from clouds of electrons.  He suggested this as a mechanism to explain the solar limb redshift effect as well as the redshift excess observed in quasar emission lines as compared with quasar absorption lines (Marmet, Physics Essays, 1988).

Tesla’s Comments on Stellar Energy in Agreement with SQK

In 1934, on his 78th birthday, Nikola Tesla gave a press interview which the New York Herald Tribune reported on.  Besides disclosing for the first time about the force beam he planned to develop as a weapon for defense, the Tribune reported Tesla’s unconventional conclusion that all stars in the universe are growing both in mass and energy output and that they will ultimately end their life in explosion.  Below is an excerpt from this news story:

Dr. Tesla disclosed that he has lately perfected instruments which flatly disprove the present theory of the high physicists that the sun is destined to burn itself out until it is a cold cinder floating in space.  Dr. Tesla stated that he is able to show that all the suns in the universe are constantly growing in mass and heat, so that the ultimate fate of each is explosion…
He had, he said, detected “certain motions in the medium that fills space, and measured the effects of these motions.”  The results of the experiments had led him “inescapably” to the conclusion that such bodies as the sun are taking on mass much more rapidly than they are dissipating it by the dissipation of energy in heat and light.
He pointed out that his theory means a future for the earth as different from the general belief as the future of the sun.  It is generally held that life on the earth will cease when the sun grows so cold that the earth temperature drops to a point where life can no longer be supported.  Dr. Tesla prophesies that life on the earth will cease because the planet will grow too warm to support life, and he believes that life will then begin on outer planets now too cold.  He said that his discovery not only allowed him to predict a very different future for the heavenly bodies from that now generally expected for them, but also to calculate in a new way their age.

Joseph W. Alsop, New York Herald Tribune, July 11, 1934, pp. 1, 15.  reprint posted at:

I entirely agree with what Tesla said.  Tesla’s conclusions are entirely vindicated by the predictions of subquantum kinetics.  Subquantum kinetics predicts that all stars, including the Sun, are creating matter in their interiors as well as genic energy (energy produced by photon blueshifting).  As a result they are growing.  Unlike conventional theory which predicts that stars will eventually burn out, SQK predicts that stars will continue to grow in mass and energy output, either ending in a supernova explosion or continuing their evolution in the form of a stellar core mass that is subject to occasional explosive outbursts.  Tesla’s conclusions were controversial because they flew in the face of the law of energy conservation which physicists staunchly adhere to even today.

There have been several observational confirmations of the matter/energy creation predictions of SQK.  But it is interesting that Tesla claimed to have made observations prior to 1934 which led him to the same conclusion.  From his quote, one is led to conclude that he was somehow making measurements related to the ether.  What the instruments were and what the data was was never disclosed.  It possibly was confiscated along with much of his apparatus at the time of his death 9 years later.

There are other similarities between Tesla’s physics and subquantum kinetics.

a) Tesla believed in the existence of an ether that filled all space.  But this was an incompressible solid ether such as that proposed in the nineteenth century.  His consisted of “independent carriers immersed in an insulating fluid.”  This analogy comes very close to that of the subquantum kinetics ether which postulates a chemical-like medium consisting of reacting units (or etherons) that may independently diffuse through the medium or react with other etherons in the medium.

b) Tesla envisioned that the ether is acted upon by the “life-giving creative force.”  This comes very close to the animated ether of subquantum kinetics which continually engages in reaction processes proceeding forward as if animated by some Prime Mover.

c) Tesla believed that when the ether was thrown into infinitesimal whirls it formed ponderable matter.  In a similar fashion, the dissipative solitons that emerge from the Model G ether reaction system, which SQK postulates to be the analogs of subatomic particles, are predicted to contain ether vortices in their cores.

d) Tesla believed that when the creative force subsides and this motion ceases, matter disappears leaving only the ether.  This too parallels with SQK which notes that if the etheric reactive flux were to subside or change, matter would dematerialize. 

e) Tesla envisioned wave transmission as being analogous to sound waves traveling through a gaseous medium; i.e., alternate longitudinal compressions and rarifactions of a gas-like ether, and not transverse stresses in an incompressible fluid medium.  This accurately describes the subquantum kinetics wave model which envisions waves as high and low etheron concentrations propagating longitudinally from the wave’s source.

f) Tesla was against the general relativistic idea that matter could curve space.  Similarly, SQK does not ascribe to this either, but postulates that space remains Euclidean throughout.

P. LaViolette

Radial Motion of Stars in the Milky Way Supports SQK Creation Theory

In November 2010, researchers at Strassbourg Astronomical Observatory announced discovering the stars in the Sun’s local neighborhood have an average motion away from the Galactic core with the outward radial velocity increasing for stars increasingly close to the Galactic center; see news story:

Stars that are about 6,000 light years closer to the Galactic center than the Sun were found to be moving away from the Galactic center at a speed of about 10 km/second relative to the solar system.  At this relative speed they would reach our radial distance in about 180 million years.  According to one estimate, the Sun is traveling towards the Galactic center at about 10 km/s.  So stars at this 6000 light year distance would be stationary relative to the Galactic center.  However, the study found that there was a radial velocity gradient of about 3 km/s per kiloparsec with the radial velocity towards us increasing with increasing distance toward the Galactic center.  If this trend were found to continue for distances closer to the Galactic center, stars at a distance of 3000 light years from the GC would be moving radially away from the GC at around 20 km/s, which means they could reach the Sun’s radial distance in about 300 million years.

If future measurements bear out that stars in the inner portion of the Galaxy have a net a net radial motion away from the Galactic center, this would support the subquantum kinetics (SQK) continuous creation theory which predicts that spiral galaxies should be gradually growing in size due to the ejection of matter being continuously created in their cores.

P. LaViolette
Nov. 2011

Evidence Against Black Hole in Galactic Core

Central black sphere indicates the size of the hypothesized gravitationally lensed black hole event horizon compared to Mercury's orbit (inner circle). The white source inside indicates the comparable size of the observed microwave emission region. The blue sphere within that is the best estimate for the size of the Sgr A* mother star.

Conventional astronomy has for decades maintained that the core of our Galaxy harbors a black hole singularity.  The latest estimate places the mass of the core at 4.3 ± 0.3 million solar masses.  Since its first publication in 1985, subquantum kinetics has maintained that black holes can’t form.  It maintains that the massive objects in the cores of galaxies are instead very massive, very old stellar cores which are kept from collapsing by the prodigious amount of “genic” energy produced in their interior through the predicted photon blueshifting effect.
Subquantum kinetics has maintained that Sgr A* is not a black hole, but a “mother star.”  New observational evidence of the Galactic core that has been coming in favors this subquantum kinetics interpretation.  Recently, it has been determined that Sgr A* has a diameter of just 37 micro arc seconds or 39 million km if we assume a Galactic center distance of 23,000 light years.  This is about one third the diameter of Mercury’s orbit or 28 times the diameter of the Sun.  By comparison, a 4.3 million solar mass black hole is calculated to have a Schwarzschild radius of 13.3 million kilometers and due to gravitational lensing the Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a diameter of 69 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius).  This would be about 56 percent the diameter of Mercury’s orbit.  So the Galactic center is actually observed to have a radius almost half as large as is predicted by black hole theory.  That is, radio emission is coming from a region which black hole theory predicts should be completely dark, from which light should not escape!
Black hole theorists have tried to get around this by claiming that this radio emission is not coming directly from Sgr A* but from its immediate vicinity from a region close to the surface of its event horizon.  But if this were the case, this emission region should be observed to orbit Sgr A* or at least rotate around Sgr A* participating in the rotation of the “black hole’s” event horizon envelope.
But no such rotation is seen (see January 2011 article in Science News).  If the black hole theory were correct, some degree of rotary motion would be expected since infalling material is theorized to add angular momentum to  the black hole causing it to rotate.  Instead, astronomers observing the emission from Sgr A* at millimeter wavelengths have determined that it is spinning either very slowly or not at all (  Even if it had not “dined” in a while some amount of rotation would be expected to remain from its previous dining event.  To explain its prodigious cosmic ray emission rather frequent mass accretion would be required.  Finding matter in its immediate vicinity to accrete is another problem since its radiation pressure has swept this inner region clear of gas and dust.
So the bottom line is that the black hole explanation for the Galactic center is in serious trouble.  Anyone with an objective mind quickly realizes why the Sgr A* emission is not moving, i.e., not orbiting any hypothetical central mass; it is because the emission is coming directly from Sgr A* not from any hypothetical accretion disc.  Since direct emission from within the gravitationally lensed Schwarzschild singularity is impossible according to black hole theory, we are lead inevitably to conclude that Sgr A* is not a black hole.  It is a mother star, a very dense, primordial, energy-and-matter-generating stellar core.  The best estimate gives it a diameter about 21.6 times that of the Sun, or about one-fourth the diameter of Mercury’s orbit.  The mother star is shown as the blue sphere in the above image.  For further details about mother stars see Subquantum Kinetics.