Hi Ecto,

Comments interspersed...

Have you worked out a more mathematical treatment of your theory? It's
easy to construct paradoxces with any language but much more difficult
with math. If so it would be relatively easy to come up with a predictive test....

I am working on several papers, however like all things good, I want to take my time and prepare for the onslaught which would follow publication. Yes, mathematics is included in the papers.


Some questions



"Each molecule containing atoms of more than one element are polar molecules. In other words they have a positive and negative pole and a permanent electric dipole moment."

What about Carbon Dioxide? o=c=o It's symmetric and shouldnt have any electric dipole moment.



Yes, I omitted symmetric molecules for convenience sake as extraneous to the point I was trying to make, however you are right they have a neutral state. However, the molecules in the gaseous clouds will likely comprise both - and all one needs is to have any one type of polar molecule present to set off the polarizing chain reaction.


"This means, also, that these molecules motions are now able to be influenced by strong polar energy movements and themselves have a much stronger molecular attraction and cohesiveness."



Please explicitly define "polar energy movement".



Polar energy movement can be described as a single or group of polarized wave form(s) which are traveling in a scalar vector from one point to another and carry a charge or potential. They can be measured by polarization potentials and Debye potentials.


"The molecules which are formed first in space and then receive a polar charge will be "pushed" in opposition to a similar charge and "pulled" to the opposing charge."



Where and how are they formed in space?



This is the big question isn't it? ;-)

I would love to give the cop-out big bang answer and say primordial matter created them one-one-trillionth of a second after the first expansion - but I will not.

I believe that the atom's nucleus is really a tightly knit field of wave forms which is demodulating vortically from higher spectra. Some folks might liken these to the hidden string theory dimensions - but I see these waves as existing very clearly in spectra where electromagnetic radiation exceeds the speed of light and is demodulating into our spectra - where it forms the simple hydrogen atom.

Naturally this is controversial, not more so than a primordial fireball origin to atoms, but is presently equally unproven.

However, I believe the isotopes with their varying weights give a clue that all that energy is being fed to the atom in varying amounts where it achieves a ground state - or really a balanced position within our spectra.


"So imagine a "cosmic wind" if you will which comprises the space in an area where a galaxy is forming. This cosmic wind is made up of countless waveforms or radiation."



What causes the "cosmic wind" and what technically is it?



Another good question. The cosmic wind is probably the sum of energy transitions on a cosmic scale. Light, and other emf radiation of all sorts of wave lengths and frequencies are the likely primary constituents. When a star forms or dies somewhere or galaxies collide or a black hole is formed...the constant emission of emf energy is a likely result.

When you add up all the galaxies and all the interactions that are going on and have gone on, what we perceive as empty space is really filled everywhere with a tumultuous sea of energy.


"So the cosmic wind passes through these clouds and more and more radiation is scattered and polarized."



I agree with you in the case of the Earth's atmosphere, any one with
polarized glasses can verify this by facing away from the sun and tilting
you head side to side. But even this doesn't remove all the light, there are still photons coming from that direction dur to multiple scatterings
of the primarily blue photons. Scattering isn't a convergent phenomena
even for a quasi-single source, the sun.

"So the interaction between the cosmic wind and the polar molecules will start to speed up the motion of these molecules and they will bind tighter and tighter together, drawing nearby molecules."

A polar molecule like water for instance is electrically neutral. A photon of the proper frequency will shake it up a bit but it's not going to gain any net acceleration. A microwave does this to water molecules and produces heat, not a beam of charged particles.

These are all just words, not really useful at proving or disproving
anything.

"Well...some scientists 'think' while other folks are busy with 'critiques' "

Oh, come on now. Are you saying that people who critique your theory arent using their brain? Maybe you're not properly making your case.



I wasn't referring to critique of my work or theories - I was comparing the way one spend's one scientific effort.

I had read the links about the coriolis effect posted above - and the man on the bus call the man with the draining bowl a faker and charlatan even though he could not prove it and even his 'scientific' friend who watched could not see how he was forcing the water to drain in reverse.

Folks like that aren't being scientific - and should save the name calling for after they prove something false. That's scientific laziness just to say it is not so because we believe otherwise. Science is all about evidence and demonstration. The 'bowl guy' demonstrated the coriolis effect and they called him a fraud without proving he was and then slander him on the internet without evidence of his alleged 'fakery'. He very well may have been a fraud - but before they shout it from the rooftops they should prove it first. How much effort would it have been to get a bowl and try it themselves and provide contrary evidence? Obviously too much trouble.


I'll keep an open mind but you need more than words.

Well, I am not seeking converts and science is not a religion. Evidence will either support my position or erode it.

I appreciate your open mind. All too often it is easy to fall into the 'we know everything' or 'we know almost everything' mode. Every time I am tempted to fall into that trap, I just open some of my old bound issues of 'Popular Science Monthly' from the 1870's - read for awhile - and get a good laugh at what was presented so earnestly and splendidly with precise terminology and evidence - yet was so grandly and magnificently wrong.

I may be magnificently wrong as well - time will tell ;-)

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1