THE
VERY BASICS
Cosmic
Rays have always been . . .
Molecular
Clouds have always been . . .
Cosmic
Rays hits Molecular Clouds and everything in the Universe is going on and on ...
Even the Cosmologists agree in this explanation as seen below here.
Cosmic
Formation – Collapse or Acceleration?
Space
Telescopes Find Trigger Happy Star Formation
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2009-17/release.shtml
For
Release:
August
12, 2009
PASADENA
,
Calif.
-- A new study from two of NASA's Great Observatories provides fresh insight
into how some stars are born, along with a beautiful new image of a stellar
nursery in our Milky Way galaxy.
The
research shows that radiation from massive stars may trigger the formation of
many more stars than previously thought.
While
astronomers have long understood that stars and planets form from the collapse
of a cloud of gas, the question of the main causes of this process has remained
open.
One
option is that the cloud cools, gravity gets the upper hand, and the cloud falls
in on itself. The other possibility is that a
"trigger" from some external source -- like radiation from a massive
star or a shock from a supernova -- initiates the collapse. Some previous
studies have noted a combination of triggering mechanisms in effect.
By
combining observations of the star-forming cloud Cepheus B from the Chandra
X-ray Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope, researchers have taken an
important step in addressing this question. Cepheus B is a cloud of mainly cool
molecular hydrogen located about 2,400 light years from Earth.
There
are hundreds of very young stars inside and around the cloud – ranging from a
few million years old outside the cloud to less than a million in the interior
-- making it an important testing ground for star formation.
"Astronomers
have generally believed that it's somewhat rare for stars and planets to be
triggered into formation by radiation from massive stars,"
said Konstantin Getman of
Penn
State
University
,
University
Park
,
Pa.
,
lead author of the study. "Our new result
shows this belief is likely to be wrong."
This
particular type of triggered star formation had previously been seen in small
populations of a few dozen stars, but the latest
result is the first time it has been clearly observed in a rich population of
several hundred stars.
While
slightly farther away than the famous Orion star-forming region, Cepheus B is at
a better orientation for astronomers to observe the triggering process. The
Chandra observations allowed the astronomers to pick out young stars within and
around Cepheus B. Young stars have turbulent interiors that generate highly
active magnetic fields, which, in turn, produce strong and identifiable X-ray
signatures.
The
Spitzer data revealed whether the young stars have a disk of material (known as
"protoplanetary" disks) around them. Since they only exist in very
young systems where planets are still forming, the presence of protoplanetary
disks -- or lack thereof -- is an indication of the age of a star system.
The new study suggests that star formation in Cepheus B
is
mainly triggered by radiation from one bright, massive star outside the
molecular cloud. According to theoretical models, radiation from this star would
drive a compression wave into the cloud-triggering star formation in the
interior, while evaporating the cloud's outer layers.
The
Chandra-Spitzer analysis revealed slightly older
stars outside the cloud, and the
youngest
stars with the most protoplanetary disks in the cloud interior
-- exactly what is predicted from the triggered star formation scenario.
"We
essentially see a wave of star and planet formation that is rippling through
this cloud," said co-author Eric Feigelson, also of
Penn
State
.
"It's clear that we can learn a lot about stellar nurseries by combining
data from these two Great Observatories."
A
paper describing these results was published in the July 10 issue of the
Astrophysical Journal. The team of astronomers that worked with Getman and
Feigelson also included Kevin Luhman and Gordon Garmire from Penn State; Aurora
Sicilia-Aguilar from Max-Planck-Institut fur Astronomie in Germany; and Junfeng
Wang from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville
,
Ala.
,
manages the Chandra program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in
Washington
.
The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory controls Chandra's science and
flightoperations from
Cambridge
,
Mass. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena
,
Calif.
,
manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science Mission
Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer
Science
Center
at the California Institute of Technology in
Pasadena
.
Caltech manages JPL for NASA. The Spitzer observations were taken during the
observatory's "cold" mission, before its coolant ran out and it began
operating at a warmer temperature.
The
new image and information about Spitzer are online at http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/spitzer
and http://www.nasa.gov/spitzer
The
image and information about Chandra are online at
http://chandra.harvard.edu
and http://chandra.nasa.gov
THE
SPECIFICS
Galaxy
Creation
The
cloud splits up in swirling parts, creating 1 or more pre-galactic swirling
structures. Each cloud accelerates and concentrates around the swirling axis;
the cloud heats up until its melting point; it explodes horizontally out in a 90
degree of the rotation axis; larger melted spheres of gas and matter is spewed
out in swirling arms from the still rotating center of the now maturing galaxy.
- In the Steady State Cyclic Universe, everything in the
Universe undergoes a process of assembling an distribution as described above.
Therefore scientist have to
differentiate and distinguish every observed object in order to decide in which
state an actual object is.
NB:
Our local Milky Way Galaxy is a part of a local Galaxy Cluster, which is a part
of a larger cluster, which is a part of an even larger cluster etc. etc. in the
Universal Ocean.
When
some modern cosmological scientists argues that "the Universe is
expanding", then it all could be an optical illusion based on a fact of us
being just a minor part of a big super cluster swirling galaxy that spews out a
lot of minor galaxies in all directions, creating the illusion of a
"totally expanding Universe" because we cannot observe the outer space
of this super cluster swirling galaxy, in which the Milky Way galaxy is just a
sand corn size.
Defining
a Galaxy
Regarding
the defining of an actual state of galaxies, there are some specifics: A smother
looks of the arms close to the center and with a brighter shine in the center,
tell of a younger galaxy on its way to assemble the gas and dust.
On
the other hand we have a galaxy with a barred structure and lesser brightness in
the center being in a distribution stage spewing everything out from the center,
where new stars still is created. The barred structure tell of the explosion
that took place after the melting point, "suddenly" creating the 2
bars going out from the center. From both ends of the bars, the larger melted
spheres is spewed out in the surrounding of the now maturing galaxy.
What's
up Doc?
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Age
"It
is extremely difficult to define the age at which the Milky Way formed,
but the age of the oldest star in the Galaxy yet discovered, HE 1523-0901,
approximately
7500 light years away (What
distance from the Milky Way center?) is
estimated to be about 13.2 billion years, nearly
as old as the Universe itself".
"This
estimate is based on research by a team of astronomers in 2004 using the
UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph of the Very Large Telescope to measure, for the
first time, the beryllium content of two stars in globular cluster NGC
6397".
What? Using a Globular
cluster to decide the age of a star in our Milky Way?
"From
this research, the elapsed time between the rise of the first generation of
stars in the entire Galaxy and the first generation of stars in the cluster was
deduced to be 200 million to 300 million years".
Again this comparison
between different objects in different places?
By
including the estimated age of the stars in the globular cluster (13.4 ± 0.8
billion years), they estimated the age of the oldest stars in the Milky Way at
13.6 ± 0.8 billion years.
"Based
upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk is estimated to have been
formed between 6.5 and 10.1 billion years ago".
What?
The oldest star 13.2 billion years in the Milky Way galaxy is almost as old as
the supposed age of the Universe, but the thin Milky Way disc is estimated
between 6.5 and 10.1 billion years old?
All stars and everything else
in our Milky Way, is created from within the Milky Way center. Therefore the
outer (thinner) regions in the galaxy arms must be the oldest - and new stars
are still born in the center of our Milky Way Galaxy going on its way out from
the center.
Both the time technique and the
perception of the Milky Way creation is clearly out of cosmological order!
Minor
local Galaxies
Because of the original swirling, the galaxy arms
continues the spiralling and, also because of this original swirling, even the
out-spewed larger lumps/spheres of gas and matter also rotates, creating smaller
swirling areas of "minor local galaxies" in the Mother Galaxy.
Mini
local Galaxies = Solar Systems
Also because of the original
explosion and swirling in the barred galaxy, "mini local galaxies" is
created in the arms and become Solar Systems, all still rotating and orbiting
around there centers. This means that our Solar System is born out of the Milky
Way Galaxy and successively after some time with cosmic collisions have become
relatively stable.
That means of course, that the hypothesis of a "pre
solar accretion disc" that suddenly decides to collapse, is cosmologically
and logically out of galactic and universal order.
Almost
a Sun
As the Solar System is a cosmically local footprint of the
original movement in our Galaxy, the larger Gas Planets in our Solar System is
really also a footprint of this movement, but a minor footprint.
The larger gas planets of
Saturn and Jupiter did not make it to the the Star stage, but anyway and still,
they themselves have orbiting minor planets and Moons. All in all
"leftovers" from the once out-spewed larger spheres footprints of gas
and matter from the Milky Way center.
-
Either Jupiter or Saturn could have been the Solar Twins in our Solar System as
it is very usual for Stars to have 1 or more "fellow companions".
SOLAR
SYSTEM ORDER
Gravity
Relieved
Accordingly to the statement
above in the Galaxy Creation: "In the Steady State Cyclic Universe",
everything in the Universe undergoes an eternal process of assembling an
distribution", the orthodox understanding of "gravity" must be
regarded as being not compliant at all.
- As the basically movements in the Universe is eternal
assembling and distributing, all the "gravity laws" does not comply
because the "cosmic movements" always changes between these non static
2 stages.
Therefore
the Newtonian and Einsteinian "laws of gravity" are not logical and
they are certainly not Cosmological at all.
Relative
Movements
-
As mentioned above, everything once was spewed and pressed out from the Milky
Way center: That is, we have a Pressing Force which still is pushing from
the Milky Way center on everything in our galaxy. On the other hand, we also
have a Pressing Force from the Sun also pressing outwards in the Solar
System.
Sometimes the Earth, and everything else in our Solar
System, have the combined "backwind"-pressure from both the pressure
from the Milky Way center and from the Sun, which combined forces creates the
planetary orbital elliptical planes.
Pushing
and Pushing
In
order to understand the Solar System Movements, one have to consider the 2
Pressuring Forces from the Milky Way Center and from the Sun. But the
orbiting speed of planets and moons must also be considered regarding the
atmospherically resistance that creates creates minor or major relatively
bow-chocks accordingly to size and weight of the planets and moons.
It is the combined forces from the revolving planet and
its orbiting pressure from the bow-shock that foremost shapes the round shape of
planets and moons, again accordingly to size and weight of the planets and
moons.
My comment
contribution.
Without
immediately disputing the Newton and Einstein laws of gravity, I’ll say: Of
course there are some anomalies when eclipse meetings take place. The hypothesis
is always the easiest bit: We are talking of “gravity shading effects” here.
But
the explanations are not that easy:
-
We
live in a galaxy which is “compressed” by extragalactic forces via the
galactic bow chock as the galaxy moves.
-
Within
our galaxy we have a pushing force going outwards in the surroundings and
push the Solar System outwards from the galaxy center.
-
From
our Sun we also have a pushing force via the Solar Wind.
-
The
orbital movement of the Earth also makes a pressing bow chock on the Earth
atmosphere.
These
4 forces keep the relative balance in our Solar system. Relative because the
actual Earth pushing force can be affected by all these forces, depending of the
actual Earth orbit position.
Beside
this, there is of course all kind of “shading effect possibilities” when it
come to the interaction between the Earth and the Moon and the other planets in
our Solar system.
Now,
when the Moon shades for the Solar wind, it also shades the Earth from the
outgoing pressure of the Sun. This should of course give a lesser pressure on
the Earth locations during the Moon shading period.
As
a curiosum, the pushing force from within our Galaxy and the pushing force for
the Sun, also explains the Pioneer Space Craft speed anomaly: When the pushing
force from the Sun on the spacecrafts is decreasing when leaving the Solar
System, the spacecrafts meets the increasing force from our Galaxy which creates
a braking effect “in the direction of the Sun” as it is said.
-
But what does my explanation here then mean for the orthodox gravity
understanding? I’ll just say this: God bye to both Newton and Einstein and
thanks for your contributions on the road to grasping the laws of our Cosmos.
You did of course your best, but it was not sufficient enough to explain the
most simplest and natural things.
Ivar
Nielsen
Natural
Philosopher
www.steady-state-universe.net/#The_Maurice_Allais_Effect
Read
the article the below.
From
DailyGalaxy.com
July
22, 2009
Millions of
people in Asia see the longest total solar eclipse this century today. As swaths
of India and China are plunged into darkness, Chinese researchers will be
conducting conduct a once-in-a-century experiment to test a controversial
theory: the possibility that gravity drops slightly during a total eclipse. As
well as proving that you can give people as many gravitometers as you like, it
doesn't mean they have the first notion of what gravity is. Civilizations
have assigned incredible (and unbelievable) properties to one rock happening to
line up with another for millenia, and it seems that a lab coat doesn't make you
immune to the idiocy.
Geophysicists
from the Chinese Academy of Sciences are preparing an unprecedented array of
highly sensitive instruments at six sites across the country from observatories
on the Tibetan plateau to a cave in a Shanghai suburb to take gravity readings
during the total eclipse due to pass over southern China today. The results, the
team believes which will be analyzed in the coming months, could confirm once
and for all that anomalous fluctuations observed during past eclipses are real.
The first
sign that gravity fluctuates during an eclipse was in 1954 when Maurice Allais
noticed erratic behaviour in a swinging pendulum when an eclipse passed over
Paris.
The idea is
that during a solar eclipse gravity is affected, causing pendulums to swing
differently during the period of darkness. Let us just repeat that (in
case you've been trained in science and shut it out to protect yourself): people
say that when light from the sun is blocked by the moon, an orbiting rock which
is ALWAYS around the Earth, there's suddenly a magical gravity-bending field
which can only be observed by very pendulum experiments. These people are
given money.
What are they
saying: that gravity is powered by sunshine? That the Moon gets nervous
with all the attention and starts some extremely-specific sorcery to distract
us? That maybe, just maybe, humankind has engaged in everything from panic
to human sacrifice every time the sun seems to go out and this is the latest
(and hopefully last) incarnation before science education wipes it out?
The effect
was first "observed" as we mentioned above in the fifties by Monsieur
Maurice Allaise, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Yes, economics.
Somehow similar experiments which didn't see these effects, conducted in the
nineties with better equipment and by full time scientist Dr Kuusela, never seem
to get as much press. And once people start talking about inaccurate
observations, thermal effects, observer bias and pure wishful thinking, well,
proponents of the magic moonbending tend to cover their ears and declare the
results "controversial." As opposed to "utterly disproven,
you idiots."
The biggest
warning sign in reports of the occurrence is a direct correspondence with the
visible eclipse. We're talking "vertical lines on the reported
graph" correspondence - not curves, not increases, vertical jumps in the
data as soon as the eclipse starts. Even if there were an unexplained
gravitational effect, for it to so directly correspond doesn't just beggar
belief: it beggars trigonometry and the laws of physics. Take the size of
the moon, the sun, the distances between them and work out the angles between
"eclipsing" and "not eclipsing" - they make fun of any kind
spatial relationship. If there's a physical law that works like that, it's
been biding it's time rather than generating incredible spikes in every
structure and machine on Earth every time the Moon passed by.
Modern
eclipse-worshippers have traded robes for lab coats, however, and thanks to
Google can throw around terms like "Pioneer Anomaly" - the unexplained
acceleration of the Pioneer probe as it travels through the solar system.
You might have noticed that the Pioneer probe isn't near the moon, and is in
fact an entirely different thing only brought in here to trigger credibility.
The most
recent experiment is scheduled for this Wednesday, using an array of
gravitometers and pendulums spread over China, and will hopefully put paid to
this pseudo-stuff once and for all.
Luke McKinney
Eclipse Worship Experiment http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17481-july-eclipse-is-best-chance-to-look-for-gravity-anomaly.html
July eclipse is
best chance to look for gravity anomaly
From
remote observatories on the Tibetan plateau to a cave in a Shanghai suburb,
Chinese researchers are poised to conduct an audacious once-in-a-century
experiment. The plan is to test a controversial theory: the possibility that
gravity
drops slightly during a total eclipse.
Geophysicists
from the Chinese Academy of Sciences are preparing an unprecedented array of
highly sensitive instruments at six sites across the country to take gravity
readings during the total eclipse due to pass over southern China on 22 July.
The results, which will be analysed in the coming months, could confirm once and
for all that anomalous fluctuations observed during past eclipses are real.
"It
sounds like what is really necessary to break the uncertainty," says
Chris
Duif of Delft University of Technology in The
Netherlands. "I'm not really convinced the anomaly exists, but it would be
revolutionary if it turned out to be true," he says.
Pendulum
anomaly
The
first sign that gravity fluctuates during an eclipse was in 1954. French
economist and physicist Maurice Allais noticed erratic behaviour in a swinging
pendulum when an eclipse passed over Paris.
Pendulums
typically swing back and forth as a result of gravity and the rotation of the
Earth. At the start of the eclipse, however, the pendulum's swing direction
shifted violently (see
diagram), suggesting a sudden change in
gravitational pull.
Fluctuations
have since been measured during around 20 total solar eclipses, but the results
still remain inconclusive.
Relative
doubt
Most
physicists doubt the anomaly's existence, because it would challenge our ideas
about how gravity works.
As
a result, a number of conventional explanations have been suggested. "There
could be different reasons: atmospheric changes in temperature or air pressure,
people suddenly moving or not moving, or other sudden changes," says
C.
S. Unnikrishnan of Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research in Mumbai, India.
However,
in 2004, Duif posted a theory online concluding that none of the suggested
external factors could account for the magnitude and timing of observed
anomalies (see
www.arxiv.org/abs/0408023).
Best
chance
In
the run up to July's eclipse, Chinese researchers have prepared eight
gravimeters and two pendulums spread across six monitoring sites. The team hopes
that the vast distance between the sites (roughly 3000 kilometres (1864 miles)
between the most easterly and westerly stations), as well as the number and
diversity of instruments used, will eliminate the chance of instrument error or
local atmospheric disturbances.
"If
our equipment operates correctly, I believe we have a chance to say the anomaly
is true beyond all doubt," says Tang Keyun, a geophysicist at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences.
The
opportunity won't come again soon. At over five minutes, the event will be the
longest total solar eclipse predicted for this century. What's more, the event
will occur when the
sun
is high in the sky; a time when, according to Tang, any potential gravitational
anomaly should be greatest.
The
strange gravitational effect of eclipses
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424755.200-the-strange-gravitational-effect-of-eclipses.html
27
November 2004 by
Govert
Schilling
Magazine issue 2475
NOTHING
is more captivating than a total eclipse of the sun. Darkness races across the
surface of the Earth. The sky turns steale blue. Temperatures drop. Dogs bark.
And then, of course, there is the alien beauty of the sun's pearly white corona
surrounding the black silhouette of the moon.
But
there may be more to an eclipse than meets the eye. Swinging pendulums go wild
as if some mysterious force were tugging on them. Sensitive gravimeters give
readings that fluctuate violently. Gravity itself seems to quiver a bit. Or so
say a small band of physicists who claim that these mysterious phenomena hint at
a fundamental flaw in Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Needless
to say, such claims have proved controversial. Celestial alignments, pendulum
experiments, Einstein bashing - it all smacks of fringe science that deserves to
be ignored. Surely there must be some conventional explanation.
Yet
when physicist ...
The
complete article is 2167 words long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump
to:
navigation,
search
|
 |
This
article's factual accuracy is
disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the
talk
page. (March 2008) |
Allais's
paraconical pendulum
Photo
taken during the
French
1999 eclipse
The
Allais
effect is a claimed anomalous
precession
of the plane of oscillation of a
pendulum
during a
solar
eclipse. It has been speculated to be
unexplained by standard physical models of
gravitation,
but recent mainstream
physics
publications tend rather to posit conventional explanations for the reported
observations.
The effect was first
reported in 1954 by
Maurice
Allais, a
French
polymath
who went on to win the
Nobel
Prize in Economics. He reported another
observation of the effect during a 1959 solar eclipse.
Prof. Allais’s
explanation for this and other anomalies is that space evinces certain
anisotropic
characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an
aether
which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. He has presented this
hypothesis in his 1997
French
book L’Anisotropie de l’espace.
A recently published
observation of a possibly related anomalous gravitational effect (claimed
variation of terrestrial gravitation as measured by a sensitive
gravimeter)
was by Wang et al. in
2000, for an experiment carried out in 1997 in a remote region of
China
during a total solar eclipse. In response to criticisms, the same authors later
(2002 and 2003) published papers maintaining that their observations could not
be explained by conventional phenomena such as temperature and pressure change
caused by the eclipse, and that, although tilting of the ground due to
temperature changes could, in the extreme, have been responsible, that
hypothesis was unlikely. Further observations which the same team performed in
2001 and 2002 during solar eclipses in
Zambia
and
Australia
appear to have yielded much weaker evidence of similar anomalies.
Another anomalous effect
during a solar eclipse, an increase in the period of a torsion pendulum, was
reported by Saxl and Allen in 1970, but subsequent attempts to replicate this
experiment (under different eclipse geometries and with much smaller pendulum
bobs) failed to observe any effect (Kuusela, 1991; Jun, 1991). Jeverdan in
Romania
claimed to have observed anomalous pendulum behavior during a solar eclipse in
1961 (Jeverdan, 1981) – decrease of the period by about 1 part in 2000 – the
so-called ‘Jeverdan effect’, but his report was not published in a
mainstream
English-language
scientific
journal.
A recent
published article on the topic in a mainstream scientific journal (Flandern,
2003) concludes that there have been ‘no unambiguous detections [of an Allais
effect] within the past 30 years when consciousness of the importance of
[experimental] controls was more widespread.’ This paper also suggests a
mechanism that might cause slight gravitational variations during an eclipse
(high speed high-altitude winds for which there is no observational evidence),
but admits that ‘the gravitation anomaly discussed here is about a factor of
100,000 too small to explain the Allais excess pendulum precession… during
eclipses”.
A self-published review
article by Chris Duif, which surveys the field of gravitational anomalies in
general, concludes that the question remains open, and that such investigations
should be pursued, in view of their relatively inexpensive nature and the
enormous implications if genuine anomalies are actually confirmed – but the
article has not undergone any
peer
review.
Exotic
explanations for Allais and related effects have not gained significant traction
amongst mainstream scientists.
[edit]
References and external links
Maurice Allais,
Ten Notes published in the Proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences (Comptes
Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences), dated 4/11/57, 13/11/57,
18/11/57, 13/5/57, 4/12/57, 25/11/57, 3/11/58, 22/12/58, 9/2/59, and 19/1/59,
available in French at www.allais.info/alltrans/allaisnot.htm, some also in
English translation.
Maurice Allais,
"Should the Laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered?", Aero/Space
Engineering 9, 46–55 (1959).
Maurice Allais,
"The
Allais Effect and my Experiments with the Paraconical Pendulum 1954-1960"
(Report for NASA, 1999)
Maurice Allais,
"L'Anisotropie de l'Espace" ("The Anisotropy of Space"),
Clement-Juglar, 1997, 800 pp. (no English version available)
T. van Flandern
and X. S. Yang, "Allais
gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained," Phys.
Rev. D 67, 022002 (2003).
Qian-shen Wang,
Xin-she Yang, Chuan-zhen Wu, Hong-gang Guo, Hong-chen Liu, and Chang-chai Hua,
"Precise
measurement of gravity variations during a total solar eclipse," Phys.
Rev. D 62, 041101(R) (2000).
X. S. Yang and
Q. S. Wang, "Gravity anomaly during the Mohe total solar eclipse and new
constraint on gravitational shielding parameter," Astrophysics and Space
Science 282 (1), 245–253 (2002).
Pioneer
Anomaly
As a curiosity, these 2 pressing forces easily explains
the Pioneer anomaly: When leaving the concentrated power of the Solar Pressure
in the Solar System and entering the Milky Way outgoing pressure, the
spacecrafts is braked up "in the direction of the Sun" because the
outgoing power from the Sun is out-powered by the outgoing pressure from the
Milky Way center.
Shading
the Pressure
Taking
the 2 pressures from the Sun and the Milky Way in consideration, the movements
of planets and moons of course frequently is affected differently accordingly to
their own actual position. Sometime the full pressure "goes right in"
and sometimes the pressure on a planet and a moon "is shaded" from a
pressure, either a galactic or solar pressure or both. But a planet even
can be Pressure Shaded by other planets and moons.
- All these facts of
pressures and shaded pressures of course leaves "the orthodox laws of
Newtonian and even the Einsteinian gravity" far behind, and hopefully not
to be taken seriously ever again.
Everything is relative accordingly to the actual state
which always changes. Therefore no static laws can
be complied.
Shading
the Earth Oceans
Regarding the tidal variations on the Earth oceans, 2
significant powers and a variable issue come in play: The major pressure from
the Sun; the minor pressure from the Milky Way and of course the interaction of
the Moon which influences does not come via some "dragging on the
Earth", but via the periodic pressure-shading and not pressure-shading of
the Earth, which of course is pressed constantly by the Sun, also creating a
ocean tidal variation as the Earth revolves on its axis.
THE
THINK TANK PART
Solar
Foods for thoughts
Wikipedia:
"The
sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when the rapid collapse of a
hydrogen molecular cloud.
The
surface of the Sun consists of
hydrogen
(about 74% of its mass, or 92% of its volume),
helium
(about 24% of mass, 7% of volume),
Temperature
of core ~15.7×106 K.
Temperature of surface (effective)
5,778 K. Temperature
of corona ~5×106 K.
The
Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in about 5
billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as
the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats
up", end of quotation.
What
is really going on here?
Collapse
of a Hydrogen cloud.
Temperature
of corona ~5×106 K.
The
surface of the Sun consists of hydrogen (about 74% of its mass, or 92% of its
volume), helium (about 24% of mass, 7% of volume).
In
about 5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers
expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts
and heats up.
The
Solar System was not created by "an accretion disc that suddenly decided to
collapse", but accordingly to the Creation Story above, it was created
directly out of the Milky Way center.
Higher
than the surface temperature? Why this?
Hydrogen
on the surface.
Hydrogen
in the Core.
What
is the connection between the inner and outer Hydrogen layers? Maybe the Sun
have a much longer life time than expected?
-
Could it be, that the Sun is supplied by Hydrogen from the surroundings of the
Sun? That the "generator" takes in Hydrogen from the surface and the
outer areas of the Sun to the core and thereby hold the process going, and
thereby will go much longer than the astrophysicists say?
What
does the periodic black spots on the Sun really means? Accordingly to the
scientists, they are cooler than the surrounding surface. Hydrogen is very cold.
Could it be that the black spots really represents hydrogen-intakes to the Sun
core burning process?
If
so, the Sun have access to all the energy in the world to live on from the outer
solar and galactic and universal world. If so, the orthodox scientists have
something to ponder over.
-
It would not surprise me the slightest if our Sun is living on, and sustained
of, the "black" hydrogen filaments that fills the Universe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona
Photosynthesis
and Weather
Wikipedia:
"Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight, supports almost all life on
Earth via
photosynthesis,
and drives the Earth's
climate
and
weather".
Almost
all Life?
What
drives the Earth's climate and weather?
Why
not all life? What drives the rest? What drives the deep sea life?
"Heat" drives all life, and it comes by 2 means: The direct solar heat
energizing the atmosphere and Earth surface and by the geomagnetic periodic
heating of the Earth core and outwards to the Earth surface. Both means changes
accordingly to the Earth orbit around the Sun which is energizing the Earth
geomagnetic polar areas, as seen with the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis
shine. That is: Life is generated by the Sun via the direct sun energy and via
the "indirect" energizing of the Earth magnetic core which is
periodically charged and discharged throughout the Earths seasons. Of course
this charging and discharging is going on with opposite qualities on the Earth
northern and southern hemispheres, which again is a clear sign of "a
magnetic cross point" located on the Earth equator/Earth core magnetic
conditions.
The
Earth climate and weather is a very complex matter. The Sun has of course its
affect on the weather thermodynamics. The Earth magnetic heating much more less.
The Earth rotation plays mostly a role by the daily affect from the Sun heating
and night cooling. Maybe there is another major force in play regarding
the Earth weather system? The orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun averages
about 30 km/s (108,000 km/h) This orbital speed creates, together with
the Solar Wind, a forceful bow-chock on the Earth magnetic field and atmosphere.
These 2 forces is the major causes to the Earth weather system and climate. The
orbital bow-chock itself not just divides the weather systems on the equator,
creating the northern and southern hemispheres weather systems, it also
compresses the Earth itself in the fairly round shape via the Earth revolving
and Sun orbiting. Lastly: The extra Solar and Galactic ray inflow have of course
also a weather and climate effect.
More
pondering for the orthodox scientists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit
Cold
and Fast
- Under edition . . .
CMBR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
In cosmology,
cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic
radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe.
With
a traditional
optical
telescope, the space between stars and galaxies
(the background) is
pitch black. But with a
radio
telescope, there is a faint background glow,
almost exactly the same in all directions, that
is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object.
The CMBR is well explained
by the Big Bang model – when the universe was young, before the formation of
stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and
filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen
plasma.
According to the model,
the radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface
called the surface of last scattering.
As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew
cooler. (Trying to explain the
primeval coolness)
When the universe cooled
enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal
radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.
The photons that were around at that time have been propagating ever since,
though growing fainter and less energetic, since the exact same photons fill a
larger and larger universe. This is the source for the term
relic
radiation, another name for the CMBR.
Precise
measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any
proposed model of the universe must
explain this radiation.
The
CMBR
has a thermal black body
spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K,
thus the spectrum peaks in the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz,
corresponding to a 1.9 mm wavelength.
The
glow is almost but not quite uniform in all directions, and shows a
very
specific pattern equal to that expected if the
inherent randomness of a red-hot gas is blown up to the size of the universe.
In particular,
the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart
the regions are on the sky) contains small anisotropies, or irregularities,
which vary with the size of the region examined.
They have been measured in
detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal
fluctuations had expanded to the size of the observable
space we can detect today.
This is still a very
active field of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example,
the
Planck
spacecraft) and better interpretations of the
initial conditions of expansion.
Although
many different processes might produce the general form of a black body
spectrum, no model other than the Big
Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider
the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR.
Galaxy
Redshift Theory
http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/expan.html
Since
its discovery nearly 65 years ago, the cosmological redshift has endured as one
of the most persuasive 'proofs' that our universe is expanding. The steps
leading to its discovery are well known. Soon after Christian Doppler discovered
that motion produces frequency shifts in 1842, astronomers began an aggressive
spectroscopic program to measure the velocities of stars and planets using their
Doppler shifts. This continued through the first few decades of the 20th century
'culminating' in the work by Vesto Slipher, Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason on
the so-called spiral nebulae -- distinctly non- stellar objects that also seemed
to display star-like Doppler shifts. So long as velocities of only a few hundred
kilometers per second were measured, no one questioned that the frequency shifts
for the spiral nebulae indicated relative motion just as they had for stars and
planets.
But,
during the 1920's and 30's spiral nebulae with Doppler shifts of over 34,000
kilometers per second were discovered. In a letter by Hubble to the Dutch
cosmologist Willem De Sitter in 1931, he stated his concerns about these
velocities by saying "... we use the term 'apparent velocities' in order to
emphasize the empirical feature of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel,
should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the
matter with authority." Dispite this cautionary note, the fact of the
matter was that the redshifts measured for the distant galaxies LOOKED like
Doppler shifts. The terms 'recession velocity' and 'expansion velocity' were
quickly brought into service by astronomers at the telescope, and by
popularizers, to describe the physical basis for the redshift.
As
astronomers explored the universe to greater depths, galaxies and quasars
appeared to be rushing away at faster and faster speeds. It seems to be a
completely natural consequence of the outrushing of matter from the big bang.
Like a sparkling display of fireworks on a warm summer evening, we imagine
ourselves standing on one of those galactic 'cinders', watching the others rush
past us into the dark void of infinite space. Upon closer examination, however,
this intuitively-compelling and seductive mental image is both inadequate and
misleading.
The Mysteries of Relativity
Big
bang cosmology is based on Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is a
theory transcending both Newton's mechanics and Einstein's special theory of
relativity, introducing us to concepts that do not exist within the older
theories. Nor are these concepts easily comprehensible by our common sense which
has been honed by organic evolution to see the world only through a narrow set
of glasses.
For
example, special relativity is based on the difficult-to-fathom postulate that
the speed of light is absolutely constant when measured in reference frames
moving at a constant speed.
From
this emerges the concept of 'spacetime' which then becomes the arena for all
phenomena involving time dilation, length contraction and the Twin Paradox.
Beyond special relativity lies the incomparably more alien landscape of general
relativity. Gravitational fields now become geometric curvatures of spacetime.
This has no analog in special relativity based as it is on a perfectly flat
spacetime that remains aloof from any influence on it by matter or energy.
Just
as the constancy of the speed of light led to the Twin Paradox, the curvature of
spacetime leads to its own menageri of peculiar phenomena. One of these involves
the slowing-down of clocks in the presence of a strong gravitational field.
Related to this is the "gravitational redshift" which occurs when the
frequency of light sent from the surface of a body is shifted to lower
frequencies during the journey to the observer. This redshift is not related to
the famous Doppler shift since the observer is not in motion relative to the
body emitting the light signal!
A
second phenomenon predicted by general relativity that also has no analog in
special relativity is the cosmological redshift. Simply stated, the cosmological
redshift occurs because the curvature of spacetime was smaller in the past when
the universe was younger than it is now. Light waves become stretched en route
between the time they were emitted long ago, and the time they are detected by
us today.
The
Doppler shift and cosmology
It is tempting to refer to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts. This choice
of interpretation has in the years since Hubble's work led to an unfortunate
misunderstanding of big bang cosmology, obscurring one of its most mysterious
beauties. As noted with a hint of frustration by cosmologists such as Steven
Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, "The frequency of light is
also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither
useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light...in
terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.".
By
refering to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our
Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the
cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected
at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of
more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite
absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the
speed of light.
To
avoid such apparently nonsensical speeds, many popularizers use the special
relativistic Doppler formula to show that quasars are really not moving faster
than light. The argument being that for large velocities, special relativity
replaces Newtonian physics as the correct framework for interpreting the world.
By using a special relativistic velocity addition formula the quasar we just
discussed has a velocity of 92 percent the speed of light. Although we now have
a feeling that Reason has returned to our description of the universe, in fact,
we have only replaced one incomplete explanation for another. The calculation of
the quasar's speed now presupposes that special relativity (a theory of flat
spacetime) is applicable even at cosmological scales where general relativity
predicts that spacetime curvature becomes important. This is equivalent to a
surveyor making a map of the state of California, and not allowing for the
curvature of the earth!
The
adoption of the special relativistic Doppler formula by many educators has led
to a peculiar 'hybrid' cosmology which attempts to describe big bang cosmology
using general relativity, but which is still firmly mired in the rubric of
special relativity.
For
instance, under the entry 'redshift' in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy
it is explicitly acknowledged that the redshift is not a Doppler shift, but less
than two paragraphs later, the special relativistic Doppler formula is
introduced to show how quasars are moving slower than the speed of light!
It
is also common for popularizers of cosmology to describe how 'space itself
stretches' yet continue to describe the expansion of the universe as motion
governed by the restrictions of special relativity. What's going on here?
General relativity to the rescue
By
adopting general relativity as the proper guide, such contradictions are
eliminated. General relativity leads us to several powerful conclusions about
our cosmos:
1)
Special relativity is inapplicable for describing the larger universe;
2)
The concepts of distance and motion are not absolutely defined and
3)
Preexisting spacetime is undefined.
Each
of these conclusions is as counter-intuitive as the Twin Paradox or as the
particle/wave dualism of quantum mechanics. As Nobel Physicist John Wheeler once
put it "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not
understand it" The same may be said for general relativity.
The
first conclusion means that we cannot trust even the insights hard won from
special relativity to accurately represent the 'big picture' of the universe.
General relativity must replace special relativity in cosmology because it
denies a special role to observers moving at constant velocity, extending
special relativity into the arena of accelerated observers. It also denies a
special significance to special relativity's flat spacetime by relegating it to
only a microscopic domain within a larger geometric possibility.
Just
as Newtonian physics gave way to special relativity for describing high speed
motion, so too does special relativity give way to general relativity. This
means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot,
be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this
matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories.
Distance and motion
The
second conclusion is particularly upsetting because if we cannot define what we
mean by distance, how then can we discuss in meaningful terms the 'motion' of
distant quasars, or a Hubble Law interpreted as a distance versus velocity
relation? In a small region of spacetime, we can certainly define motion as we
always have because space has a static, flat geometry. When a body moves from
point x to point y in a time interval, T, we say it is moving with a speed of S
= (x - y)/T. There are also specific experimental ways of measuring x, y and T
to form the quotent S by using clocks and rulers. The crucial feature behind
these measurements is that nothing happens to the geometry of space during the
experiment to change the results of the measuring process.
In
the cosmological setting which we believe is accurately described by general
relativity, we have none of these luxuries! Astronomers cannot wait millions of
years to measure quasar proper motions. They cannot, like Highway Patrol
officers, bounce radar beams off distant galaxies to establish their relative
distances or speeds. Unlike all other forms of motion that have been previously
observed, cosmological 'motion' cannot be directly observed. It can only be
INFERRED from observations of the cosmological redshift, which general
relativity then TELLS US means that the universe is expanding.
In
big bang cosmology, galaxies are located at fixed positions in space. They may
perform small dances about these positions in accordance with special relativity
and local gravitational fields, but the real 'motion' is in the literal
expansion of space between them! This is not a form of movement that any human
has ever experienced. It is, therefore, not surprising that our intuition reels
at its implication and seeks other less radical interpretations for it including
special relativity. But even the exotic language and conundrums of special
relativity cannot help us. Instead we are forced to interrogate the mathematics
of general relativity itself for whatever landmarks it can provide. In doing so,
we are left, however, with a riddle as profound as that of the Twin Paradox, and
equally challenging to explain.
Two
galaxies permanently located at positions (x1 , y1 , z1 ) and ( x2 , y2 , z2 )
at one time find themselves one billion light years apart. Then a few billion
years later while located at the same coordinates, they find themselves 3
billion light years apart. The galaxies have not 'moved', nevertheless, their
separations have increased. In fact, when the universe was only one year old,
the separations between these galaxies were increasing at 300 times the speed of
light! Space can expand faster than the speed of light in general relativity
because space does not represent matter or energy. The displacements that arise
from its dilation produce an entirely new kind of motion for which even our
special relativistically-trained intuitions remain profoundly silent. Like that
gentleman from Main once said "You can't get there [to general relativity]
from here [special relativity]". To the extent that general relativity has
been tested and found correct, we have no choice but to accept its consequences
at face value.
Space, time and matter
The
last conclusion drawn from general relativistic cosmology is that, unlike
special relativity, it is not physically meaningful to speak of spacetime
existing independently of matter and energy. In big bang cosmology, both space
and time came into existence along side matter and energy at 'time zero'. If our
universe contains more than a critical density of matter and energy, its
spacetime is forever finite and bounded, in a shape analogous to a sphere.
Beyond this boundary, space and time simply do not exist. In fact, general
relativity allows the Conservation of Energy to be suspended so that matter and
energy may be created quite literally from the nothingness of curved spacetime.
General
relativity provides a means for 'jump-starting' Creation!
Big
bang cosmology is both a profoundly beautiful, and disturbing, model for our
universe, its shape and its destiny. It contains many surprises which have yet
to be completely worked-out. But one feature of the evolving universe seems
absolutely clear.
The
big bang was not some grand fireworks display, but an event of a completely
different order. It resembled more an expanding soap bubble film upon which
galactic dust motes are carried along for the ride. This film represents the
totality of all the space and matter in our universe, and it expands into a
mysterious primordial void which is itself empty of space, dimension, time or
matter.
In
the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last
vestage of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the
cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be
able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was
originally envisioned by its discoverers.
Changing Visibility
Coming
soon . . .
May 19, 2010
Few theories qualify for Nobel
laureate Niels Bohr's famous question than the current Big Bang Theory of the
origin of the Universe: "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The
question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being
correct."
There is a growing body of data
and theory which question whether the Universe may have begun with a Big Bang
13.75 billion years ago. Several leading cosmologists, such as Sean Carroll of
CalTech and Neil Turok of Cambridge University challenge the prevailing model of
a "Big Bang" and believe that in the future we will only look
back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was
refuted by so much evidence.
The origin of the Big Bang, that
is, the state of "existence" which resulted in a Big Bang, is a
mathematically obscure state - a "singularity" of zero volume that
contained infinite density and infinite energy. Why this singularity existed,
how it originated, and why it exploded, has led many scientists to question and
challenge the very foundations of the Big Bang theory.
It has been pointed out that an
accelerated expansion limited to the most distant regions of the known universe,
is incompatible with an explosive origin, but instead is indicative of an
attractive force -a "universe-in-mass" black hole whose super-gravity
is effecting red shifts and illumination- creating the illusion of a universe
which is accelerating as it speeds away, when instead the stars closest to the
hole are speeding faster toward their doom. Other scientists observe that the
interpretation of red shifts as supporting a Big Bang, is also flawed and
lacking validity. Some experts believe that there is little evidence to support
the belief that red shifts are accurate measures of distance or time; that they
are so variable and effected by so many factors that estimates of age, time, and
distance can vary by up to 3 billion years following repeated measurements, over
the just a few years, of the same star.
Although the "Big Bang"
is often presented as if it is proven fact, there is a wealth of data, including
recent revelations of the several space probes and findings in fundamental
physics, which possibly tell a different story.
One of the first problems are
found in the Large - Scale Structures in the Universe. In recent years,
there have been a number of very serious challenges to the current theory of
cosmic evolution and the belief the universe began just 13.7 billion years ago. The
existence of these "Superclusters", "Great Walls" and
"Great Attractors" could have only come to be organized and situated
in their present locations and to have achieved their current size, in a
universe which is at least 80 billion to 250 billion years in age. The largest
superclusters, for example, the "Coma", extend up to 100 Mpc!
In 1986, Brent Tully of the
University of Hawaii reported detecting superclusters of galaxies 300 million
light years (mly) long and 100 mly thick - stretching out about 300 mly across.
At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80
billlion years to create such a huge complex of galaxies.
In 1989, a group lead by John
Huchra and Margaret J. Geller at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
discovered "The Great Wall"- a series of galaxies, lined up and
creating a "wall" of galaxies 500 million light years (mly) long, 200
mly wide, and 15 mly thick. This superstructure would have required at least 100
billion years to form.
A team of the British, American,
and Hungarian astronomers have reported even larger structures. As per their
findings, the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers
of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They
found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart.
The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter
of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void
pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their
speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.
The "Sloan Great Wall"
of galaxies, as detected by the Sloan Digital Survey, has earned the distinction
of being the largest observed structure in the Universe. It is 1.36 billion
light years long and 80% longer than the Great Wall discovered by Geller and
Huchra. It runs roughly from the head of Hydra to the feet of Virgo. It would
have taken at least 250 billion years to form.
Then there is the problem of
gravity. "Hubble length" Universe, which consists of those galaxies
and stars which can be observed by current technology, appears, therefore, to be
organized as titanic walls and clusters of galaxies separated by a collection of
giant bubble-like voids. The Great Walls are far too large and massive to have
been formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies alone.
Based on the cosmological
principle, which is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang model, cosmologists
predicted the distribution of matter to be homogeneous throughout the universe,
implying thereby that the distribution of the galaxies would be essentially
uniform. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in
space. Instead, contrary to the "Big Bang" universe, we exist in a
very "lumpy" cosmos.
Many of the world's leading
physicists believe we are entering a "golden age" of
cosmological discoveries. Astronomers working on the WMAP mission stunned the
scientific community with their announcement that the first generation stars in
the universe were surprisingly born just after 200 million years of the Big Bang
birth of the cosmos. The age of the universe has been steadily pushed backwards
in time, from 2 billion year to 8 billion after it was determined the Earth was
4.6 billion years in age, and now the estimates are 13.75 billion years. The
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), successor to the HST with ten times the
light-gathering power due to be launched in 2014, may well detect ever more
distant galaxies. Likewise, the ultra-high resolution radio telescopes such as
Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile which is to become operational in
2012, will be peering still deeper into the universe, and probably pushing the
hypothetical Big Bang further backward in time as ever more distant galaxies are
detected.
Casey Kazan via
http://www.Cosmology.com
Image credit:
stellefilanti's
Flickr photostream
Sources:
American Astronomical Society
(2010). Jan. 6, 2010, at the 215th meeting of the American Astronomical Society
in Washington, D.C.
Links
Steady
State Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Fred
Hoyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
General
Steady State Universe issues
http://www.google.dk/search?hl=da&q=Steady+State+Theory&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8gning&meta=&aq=f&oq=
My other websites:
www.cosmology-unified.net
Contains more detailed Cosmological questions,
explanations and illustrations.
www.native-science.net
Describes the Mythological understanding of
Cosmos.
http://www.native-science.net/Creation.Myth.Norse.htm
Describes The Norse Creation Myth as real
Cosmology
Contact
nielsen.ivar(at)gmail.com
Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen
Denmark
