Rays have always been . . .
Clouds have always been . . .
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.
Formation – Collapse or Acceleration?
Telescopes Find Trigger Happy Star Formation
-- 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.
research shows that radiation from massive stars may trigger the formation of
many more stars than previously thought.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
lead author of the study. "Our new result
shows this belief is likely to be wrong."
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.
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
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
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.
Chandra-Spitzer analysis revealed slightly older
stars outside the cloud, and the
stars with the most protoplanetary disks in the cloud interior
-- exactly what is predicted from the triggered star formation scenario.
essentially see a wave of star and planet formation that is rippling through
this cloud," said co-author Eric Feigelson, also of
"It's clear that we can learn a lot about stellar nurseries by combining
data from these two Great Observatories."
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.
Marshall Space Flight Center in
manages the Chandra program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in
The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory controls Chandra's science and
Mass. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science Mission
Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer
at the California Institute of Technology in
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.
new image and information about Spitzer are online at http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/spitzer
image and information about Chandra are online at
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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".
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
What? Using a Globular
cluster to decide the age of a star in our Milky Way?
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?
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.
upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk is estimated to have been
formed between 6.5 and 10.1 billion years ago".
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
Both the time technique and the
perception of the Milky Way creation is clearly out of cosmological order!
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.
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
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.
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".
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
the Newtonian and Einsteinian "laws of gravity" are not logical and
they are certainly not Cosmological at all.
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
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.
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
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.
the explanations are not that easy:
live in a galaxy which is “compressed” by extragalactic forces via the
galactic bow chock as the galaxy moves.
our galaxy we have a pushing force going outwards in the surroundings and
push the Solar System outwards from the galaxy center.
our Sun we also have a pushing force via the Solar Wind.
orbital movement of the Earth also makes a pressing bow chock on the Earth
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.
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.
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.
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.
the article the below.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
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
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
drops slightly during a total eclipse.
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.
sounds like what is really necessary to break the uncertainty," says
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.
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.
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
have since been measured during around 20 total solar eclipses, but the results
still remain inconclusive.
physicists doubt the anomaly's existence, because it would challenge our ideas
about how gravity works.
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
S. Unnikrishnan of Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research in Mumbai, India.
in 2004, Duif posted a theory online concluding that none of the suggested
external factors could account for the magnitude and timing of observed
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.
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.
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
is high in the sky; a time when, according to Tang, any potential gravitational
anomaly should be greatest.
strange gravitational effect of eclipses
November 2004 by
Magazine issue 2475
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.
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.
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.
when physicist ...
complete article is 2167 words long.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
article's factual accuracy is
Please see the relevant discussion on the
page. (March 2008)
taken during the
effect is a claimed anomalous
of the plane of oscillation of a
eclipse. It has been speculated to be
unexplained by standard physical models of
but recent mainstream
publications tend rather to posit conventional explanations for the reported
The effect was first
reported in 1954 by
who went on to win the
Prize in Economics. He reported another
observation of the effect during a 1959 solar eclipse.
explanation for this and other anomalies is that space evinces certain
characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an
which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. He has presented this
hypothesis in his 1997
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
was by Wang et al. in
2000, for an experiment carried out in 1997 in a remote region of
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
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
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
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
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
explanations for Allais and related effects have not gained significant traction
amongst mainstream scientists.
References and external links
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
"Should the Laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered?", Aero/Space
Engineering 9, 46–55 (1959).
Allais Effect and my Experiments with the Paraconical Pendulum 1954-1960"
(Report for NASA, 1999)
"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).
Xin-she Yang, Chuan-zhen Wu, Hong-gang Guo, Hong-chen Liu, and Chang-chai Hua,
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).
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.
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
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.
THINK TANK PART
Foods for thoughts
sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when the rapid collapse of a
hydrogen molecular cloud.
surface of the Sun consists of
(about 74% of its mass, or 92% of its volume),
(about 24% of mass, 7% of volume),
of core ~15.7×106 K.
Temperature of surface (effective)
5,778 K. Temperature
of corona ~5×106 K.
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.
is really going on here?
of a Hydrogen cloud.
of corona ~5×106 K.
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).
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.
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.
than the surface temperature? Why this?
on the surface.
in the Core.
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?
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?
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!
"Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight, supports almost all life on
and drives the Earth's
drives the Earth's climate and weather?
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
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.
pondering for the orthodox scientists!
- Under edition . . .
cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic
radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe.
telescope, the space between stars and galaxies
(the background) is
pitch black. But with a
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
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
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
radiation, another name for the CMBR.
measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any
proposed model of the universe must
explain this radiation.
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.
glow is almost but not quite uniform in all directions, and shows a
specific pattern equal to that expected if the
inherent randomness of a red-hot gas is blown up to the size of the universe.
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,
spacecraft) and better interpretations of the
initial conditions of expansion.
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.
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
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.
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
The Mysteries of Relativity
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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.".
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.
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!
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
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!
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
adopting general relativity as the proper guide, such contradictions are
eliminated. General relativity leads us to several powerful conclusions about
Special relativity is inapplicable for describing the larger universe;
The concepts of distance and motion are not absolutely defined and
Preexisting spacetime is undefined.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
relativity provides a means for 'jump-starting' Creation!
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
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
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.
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
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
Casey Kazan via
American Astronomical Society
(2010). Jan. 6, 2010, at the 215th meeting of the American Astronomical Society
in Washington, D.C.
Abstract of New Solar and Galaxy Formation Knowledge.
Basic Galactic Characteristics.
Barred and Spiral Galaxy Analysis.
Gravitationally aligned orbits.
New Theory of Evolution.
New Knowledge of the Solar System Origin.
New Knowledge Indications.
Abstract of New Solar and Galaxy Formation Knowledge.
Standing cosmology theories and hypothesis are largely
based on the modern "single points of views" and on some older theories
that doesn´t fit the later modern discoveries.
The 3 basic electromagnetic forces do not come to their
right in the cosmological research and they are by large suppressed by
the old Newtonian theories and the newer Einsteinan theories and
- It is very odd that traditional modern physicists and
cosmologists don’t take offspring in the well known facts from the 3
basic electric forces instead of working with the supposed 4.th force of
gravity, which is far from understood.
The existent theories seem to lack both dynamic and
cyclic descriptions instead of the static point of view.
The conventional explanation for the formation of our
solar system and galaxies, etc. are that gravity collapse gas and matter
together, and where gases become stars that later explode and create
planets in a solar system, but there may be another explanation? More
facts and a thorough analysis of these theories suggest that it may
behave even much different. The purpose of this article is to see if
there may be existing facts which should be reviewed by the discovery of
significant new indications of the formation is our solar system is
formed by a process inside the center of our galaxy, as well as a new
hypothesis for galaxy formation and the formative movements in the 2
basic types, Spiral Galaxies and Barred Galaxies.
Main Hypothesis 1: The hypothesis is to show that
galaxies are not just galaxies but different in the way that movement in
Spiral Galaxies go inward toward its center, opposite Bar Galaxy
movements that go outward from the center as in our Milky Way, where the
main hypothesis also is that our solar system formed from the Milky
Way's center and has slowly moved out into the galaxy's arm where it is
now located and accordingly to the hypothesis predictions will slide
further into the galaxy's halo. (Prediction 01)
It is obviously very important to relate very open
about the potential indications which may come into consideration and
not reject them in advance because "we know something else about various
cosmological conditions and "the laws say this and that." One should for
a moment forget what is "safe and sure" and "so it has long been
adopted" and start fresh from the possible indications that may appear.
The article is compiled with some information from
reputable facts which are commented on and possible #Indications
confirming the hypothesis numbered in bold font and treated in the
Discussion. #Predictions are marked with, bold font, and
I am aware of the lack of hypothesis calculations,
which is left for readers to do for themselves.
02. Basic Galactic Characteristics
The appearance of Spiral Galaxies is generally a soft,
"woolly" appearance of the arms with a very bright center. The age
distribution of stars of this type is that the oldest are closest to the
center and the youngest out of the halo. There is a large formation of
stars in the center and less in the halo.
Barred Galaxies (as our Milky Way) appearance is first
and foremost bars emanating from the galaxy center and an appearance of
more sharp arms. The age of stars in this type shows that the youngest
stars are found inside around the Milky Way bulge and the oldest out in
the Milky Way's halo. Barred Galaxies are not as bright as Spiral
Galaxies and there is still a star formation in the center, but not as
extensively as in Spiral Galaxies.
The age distribution of stars in both types indicates
that there is a creative movement inward or outward which is specific to
each type. (However, in both types is a "local" site formation due to
reactions to the basic formative movement, creating smaller formations
during the movement).
Based on the theory of the outgoing movement of these
barred galaxy types, we see the that both bars goes out from the center
and out at both ends, where we can observe a very 90 degree abrupt
bending where the galaxies arms starts. This appearance suggests that
there has been a sudden explosive movement outward, and because of the
current rotation in the galaxy, make a 90 degree bend where the larger
spheres of gasses and matter (which become Stars and planets, etc.)
flows into the galaxy's surroundings after the basic formation in the
center of the galaxy has taken place.
It is important to point out that both types of
galaxies form stars and even mini-galaxies in the inwards and outwards
formative process in the halo´s.
Because of the outward movement in Bar Galaxies,
resulting in successive loss of the velocity ability to form stars,
there will be a lower formation in the halo of a Barred Galaxy compared
to a Spiral Galaxy (Prediction 02)
03. Barred and Spiral Galaxy Analysis
A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped
structure composed of stars. Bars are found in approximately two-thirds
of all spiral galaxies.
AD 1: Indication 01. The bars consist of stars.
The hypothesis says that there is a movement out from the center and out
through the bars where protostars and protoplanets, etc. flows into the
bars and further out into the galaxy's surroundings.
Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and
interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as
AD 2: Indication 02. Bars have "an effect" on
the spiral arms in the galaxy, ie they have a formative connection with
Barred spiral galaxies apparently predominate, with
surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a
The current hypothesis is that the bar structure acts
as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers.
AD 3: Indication 03.
The barred structure acts as a
birthplace for stars.
The bar is thought to act as a mechanism that channels
gas inwards from the spiral arms through orbital resonance, in effect
funneling the flow to create new stars.
AD 4: The gases are not channeled toward the center via
the bars, but out from the center.
The creation of the bar is generally thought to be the
result of a density wave radiating from the center of the galaxy whose
effects reshape the orbits of the inner stars. This effect builds over
time to stars orbiting further out, which creates a self-perpetuating
AD 5: Indication 04. It cannot be said much
clearer to fit the hypothesis of the outgoing movement in Barred
galaxies as our Milky Way. The movement goes from within and out. The
stars and planets and everything with them, are born directly out form
the barred Milky Way centre.
And when the movement goes outwards, everything in our
galaxy continue to move further out in the surroundings of the galaxy
and create a pattern of motion which is related to the swirling center
velocity. (Prediction 03)
Bars are thought to be a temporary phenomenon in the
life of spiral galaxies, the bar structure decaying over time,
transforming the galaxy from a barred spiral to a "regular" spiral
AD 6: Indication 05. This is correct.
When the formation of a bar galaxy subside, (bar
galaxies is said to be mature galaxies) there will be formed fewer and
fewer stars out from center and the bars will vanish.
Past a certain size the accumulated mass of the bar
compromises the stability of the overall bar structure.
Barred spiral galaxies with high mass accumulated in
their center tend to have short, stubby bars.
AD 7: Indication 06. This confirms Indication
05 very well.
Since so many spiral galaxies have a bar structure, it
is likely that it is a recurring phenomenon in spiral galaxy
The oscillating evolutionary cycle from spiral galaxy
to barred spiral galaxy is thought to take on the average about two
AD 8: Indication 07. This confirms my hypothesis
that a Spiral Galaxy changes to a Barred Galaxy via an inward going
movement in the Spiral Galaxy to an outwards going movement in the Bar
Galaxy. (Prediction 04)
Recent studies have confirmed the idea that bars are a
sign of galaxies reaching full maturity as the "formative years" end.
AD 9: Confirms Indication 07.
A spiral galaxy is a certain kind of galaxy originally
described by Edwin Hubble in his 1936 work The Realm of the Nebulae and,
as such, forms part of the Hubble sequence.
Spiral galaxies consist of a flat, rotating disk
containing stars, gas and dust, and a central concentration of stars
known as the bulge.
These are surrounded by a much fainter halo of stars,
many of which reside in globular clusters.
AD 1: Indication 08. The star formations take
place when the inwards turning motion connects gas and dust in an
accelerated and denser spiral-movement that generate more and more
energy to the star formation. That is why the density increases closer
to the spiral galactic centre.
Spiral galaxies are named for the spiral structures
that extend from the center into the disk.
The spiral arms are sites of ongoing star formation and
are brighter than the surrounding disk because of the young, hot OB
stars that inhabit them.
AD 2: This confirms a dynamic movement in all galaxies.
And therefore younger and older stars can be found locally in the
picture of the overall tendency of older younger stars in the halo of
the spiral galaxy and older closer to the galactic centre. (Visa versa
with the Bar Galaxies)
Roughly two-thirds of all spirals are observed to have
an additional component in the form of a bar-like structure, extending
from the central bulge, at the ends of which the spiral arms begin.
AD 3: Having a dynamic cyclic movement, all kind of
increasing and decreasing formation can be found.
Our own Milky Way has recently (in the 1990s) been
confirmed to be a barred spiral, although the bar itself is difficult to
observe from our position within the Galactic disk. The most convincing
evidence for its existence comes from a recent survey, performed by the
Spitzer Space Telescope, of stars in the Galactic center.
Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make
up approximately 60% of galaxies in the local Universe. They are mostly
found in low-density regions and are rare in the centers of galaxy
AD 4: Indication 09. This indicates that it is a
universal formation movement, going inwards into the increasing
formation process in the centers.
More young stars in spiral arms
The arms appear brighter because there are more young
stars (hence more massive, bright stars). These massive, bright stars
also die out quickly, which would leave just the darker background
stellar distribution behind the waves, hence making the waves visible.
AD 5: Indication 10. Confirmation of the AD 2
above. Proto Stars and Planets formed in the outskirts of the spiral
galaxy can be transformed several times along the path towards the
While stars, therefore, do not remain forever in the
position that we now see them in, they also do not follow the arms. The
arms simply appear to pass through the stars as the stars travel in
AD 6: Indication 11.
This is an excellent confirmation of the dynamic movement where the
already formatted and heavier stars are moving different compared to the
less denser gas and dust in their surroundings.
04. Gravitationally aligned orbits.
In a recent paper published in Proc. Roy. Soc. Charles Francis and Erik
Anderson showed from observations of motions of over 20 000 local stars
(within 300 parsecs), that, contrary to density wave theory, stars do
move along spiral arms, and described how mutual gravity between stars
causes orbits to align on logarithmic spirals. When the theory is
applied to gas, collisions between gas clouds generate the molecular
clouds in which new stars form, and evolution towards grand-design
bisymmetric spirals is explained.
AD 1: Indication 12. The gravitational movements
doesn´t take place via the consensus gravity collapse theories, but via
a cosmic charge making spiraling movements in a cosmic molecular cloud,
creating magnetic fields and circuits that concentrates gas and matter,
heating; sorting and melting gas and dust together, making larger
spheres of gas and matter that becomes stars and planets etc. when slung
out from the centre of a galaxy. (Prediction 05)
05. New Theory of Evolution
In April 2011 a presentation to the Royal Astronomical
Society's April 2011 National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales by
postgraduate student Robert Grand, suggested that spiral arms do not
rotate rigidly at a constant angular velocity about the galactic centre.
AD 1: Indication 13. This also confirms
This contradicts a 50 year old theory called Spiral
Density Wave Theory (SDWT), which states that the spiral arm pattern we
see is actually a wave pattern that rotates independently of star and
inter-stellar matter that follow the standard rotation curve of the
Stars that move faster than the arms can overtake them
and move through them. Consequently, stars outside this radius move
slower than the arm and fall behind.
AD 2: Indication 14. Confirmation of the dynamic
star velocity and the formation process in Spiral- and Barred galaxies
which differs because of the inwards movement in the Spiral galaxies and
the outwards movement in the Barred Galaxies. (Prediction 06)
Rather than a long-lived rigidly rotating wave pattern
found in SDWT, Grand's simulations suggested that the arms rotate with a
pattern speed that decreases with radius, and that they are transient
features, with some arms breaking up and new ones being formed over
periods of 80 to 100 million years.
AD 3: Indication 15. Normally I don´t care much
about computer simulations programmed with the wrong mathematics based
on wrong ideas of cosmos, but here they get something very right out
from the right direct observations.
AD 4: Confirms the overall hypothesis of star- and
Instead of stars rotating independently of the arm
pattern, they co-rotate at every radius, as the arm pattern speed traces
very well the rotation curve of matter.
The destruction of the arms is due to a declining
pattern speed, which means that the arms begin to wind up and so break
to avoid the well-known Wind-Up problem.
AD 5: Indication 16. The continued destruction
of the arms confirms both an inwards motion in the Spiral galaxies and
the outwards motion in the Barred galaxies. (Prediction 07)
This pattern of arm formation and destruction has not
been observed in real galaxies, mainly because this pattern would take
tens of millions of years to observe from start to finish.
AD 5: Accordingly to my hypothesis this is very obvious
regarding the inwards Spiral galactic motion and the outwards Barred
Galactic motion. It is just a question of classifying the galaxies and
their spirally outwards or inwards motion.
As observers, we can only observe what is a relative
"snapshot" of a galaxy's evolution, and since there are always new arms
forming as older ones die, there is always a spiral pattern present.
AD 6: Read AD 5.
Therefore, a simple glance at a galaxy will not yield
evidence either way. A real observational contribution will come from
the Gaia satellite, due to be launched in the coming years.
AD 7: Again: Just classify the actual galaxy as an
inwards turning Spiral galaxy or an outwards turning barred galaxy. This
is all that is needed.
06. New Knowledge of the Solar System Origin
The gigantic cloud of dust and gas that formed our
solar system, was originally quite regular in its distribution of
molecules and isotopes. The discovery means that the models of our solar
system's origin must now be changed.
AD 1: Indication 17. The even distribution of
molecules and isotopes confirms my hypothesis that the solar system's
formation inside the galaxy's center has contributed to this uniformity,
and that the solar system only slightly may be affected by any
subsequent injections of isotopes.
It must be said though, that of course there are
different gases and substances on the different planets because of the
simple nuclear sorting and melting during the formation process from
within the galaxy center, and out in the bars and arms.
When a star dies, it sends large quantities of gas and
material out and which gathers in large clouds. When the cloud reaches a
certain size, or has a certain mass, it collapses on its own
gravitational field. It begins to rotate faster and faster, causing the
cloud to flatten out and shaped like a disc.
AD 2: Indication 18. Contradiction of my
hypothesis about the solar system formation, where I rebuttals here
For 4.567 billion years ago, this meant the start of
the formation of our solar system. Out of a huge cloud of gas and dust,
our young sun formed and subsequently created the Earth and other
AD 3: Indication 19. Contradiction. Read my arguments in
Indication 12. My hypothesis about the formation of the solar system
predicts that this was formed from the center of our galaxy and all
parts of the solar system therefore must have roughly the same age.
New research from Denmark shows now that the cloud
containing materials have not looked as previously believed.
"The last 30-40 years have thought that the cloud
containing molecules were unevenly distributed. But our research shows
the opposite. At first the cloud was quite homogeneous, "says Associate
Professor Martin Bizzarro from the Geological Museum.
AD 4: Indication 20. AD: Indication 20
Confirming the hypothesis that the solar system was formed in a fairly
comprehensive process in the galactic center; out into the bars and out
into the galaxy's arms.
Material from the very young solar system
Most material from the cloud eventually from the sun.
The remaining dust clumped together when it bumped against each other
and formed gradually differentiated asteroids and planets we know today.
AD 1: Indication 21. Contradiction. See
explanation in Indication 17
The original differentiated asteroids that were formed,
has hardly changed since then. Meteorites from them are quite primitive
and contain dust and particles that come from the very beginning of our
solar system. These meteorites called condrits, and its titanium
isotopes in them, like Martin Bizzarro and his group have studied.
AD 2: Indication 22. The
original differentiated asteroids that were formed, has hardly changed
since then confirm the main hypothesis of a nearly complete formation as
The two isotopes, titanium and titanium-46-50 found in
different amounts in different meteorites on Earth and on Mars. Isotopic
were originally formed in different stars and comes not from the same
place. They were spewed from these stars and ended up in the cloud that
our solar system was formed from.
AD 3: Indication 23. for confirmation of my
hypothesis with 2 options: 1: the isotope was early present as explained
in the Indication 20 and others, and were distributed according to the
basic composition at the formation process as described in Indication
17, and 2: That the isotopes has been due to subsequent injection
through cosmic explosions.
AD 4: Option 1 seem to be the more likely since these
isotopes probably would be more homogeneously present in the solar
system formation in the galactic centre.
More stars contributed to our solar system. This means
that our solar system formed from material from various dead stars. So
far, it is therefore assumed that the gas and dust cloud in the
beginning was not mixed well together.
AD 5: Indication 24. Contradiction. Wrong
conclusion: The uniformity can be explained by Indication 17
07. New Knowledge Indications
1. 19 Indications confirms the new knowledge
2. 5 seemingly contradictions which is contra
argued in the AD and Indications
3. Some few AD explains either differences or
1. The Galaxy formation is a cyclic movement going from
a Spiral Galaxy formation into a Barred Galaxy.
2. Our Solar System was not created in a local presolar
3. The Solar system was created as a process in an
outwards going movement from the centre of our galaxy, further out in
the galaxy bars and out in the Milky Way arms.
4. The Sun; planets and their moons are all roughly at
the same age.
5. Only minor changes have happened in the solar system
after leaving the Milky Way centre.
6. Only minor additions of isotopes from outer space
have been added to our Solar System because of the presolar formation in
the galaxy centre process.
1. The amount of Indications and the logical
arguments clearly tell that the present theories of the formation of our
Solar System cannot be correct.
2. The same goes for the theories of galactic
3. In some way the theories are right. The formation of
both the Solar System and partly of the galactic formation regarding
Spiral Galaxies is not far away.
4. It all starts with a contraction of a molecular
cloud. Not by "gravity and collapse" but with a dynamic process where a
cosmic charge sets the molecular cloud in a swirling motion in magnetic
fields and circuits, which concentrates; heats up and sorts out gas and
matter until it is sorted and melted together in a nuclear formation
process in the centre of the Spiral Galaxy.
5. After sorting and melting in the Spiral Galaxy
centre, the sorted larger spheres of gas and matter become stars and
planets etc. when reaching the critical mass in the centre. Reaching
this mass, the coming stars and planets are slung out from the galaxy
centre. This process creates the Bars in the original younger Spiral
Galaxy that thereby has matured to a Barred Galaxy, giving birth to
everything in our Milky Way galaxy.
6. That is: Our Solar system was created directly out
from the Milky Way centre in a process that originally started off with
an inwards moving Spiral Galaxy turning till an outwards moving Barred
7. This also explains the statements of "younger and
8. The rigid "gravity theories" obscures for having the
logical formation process explanation. It is very strange that
cosmologists are foremost working with an old setup of gravity who
nobody really can explain, whereas the other 3 basic known forces are
not in play in the modern cosmological formation theories.
1. The amount of Indications and confirmative
remarks (AD) clearly make their points against the modern theories of
solar and galactic formation.
2. The rigid "gravity theories" obscures for having the logical
formation process explanation.
3. It is very strange that modern cosmologists are foremost working with
an old setup of "static gravity models" who nobody really can explain,
whereas the other 3 dynamically known basic forces are not in play in
the modern cosmological formation theories.
4. Using the 3 basic known dynamic forces, the scientists can leave the
gravity ghost at the metaphysics, together with all kind of strange
theories of dark this and that metaphysics - and the following
constructed-to-the-occasion-meta-mathematics, can be left out too.
5. And the same also goes for the very strange Big Bang illogical
theory, which cannot be a theory at all since it cannot be falsified and
# 01 -- What's the point
# 02 -- A line is not a distance
# 03 -- Debunking Al's space-time
# 04 -- Debunking Al's length contraction
# 05 -- Do leprechauns exist
# 06 -- Did you ever take Math
# 07 -- What is Light
# 08 -- The H-Atom
# 09 -- The secret Law of Attraction
# 10 -- The Emperor's Clothes the sequel
# 11 -- At the speed of gravity
Idiots # 12 -- Action at a Distance
Idiots # 14 - Are we the last generation of humans on Earth?
Idiots # 15 – Are we the last generation of humans on Earth?
19 -- Why Black Holes dont exist
Idiots # 20 - The Big Bang never happened!
Nuke the LHC!
The infamous Double Slit Experiment debunked for it's Idiocy and Lies :
Steady State Universe issues
My other websites:
Describes the Mythological understanding of
Describes The Norse Creation Myth as real