Steady State Universe. The Cyclical Cosmology

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.

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 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.

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.

"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".

"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".

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!

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.

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.

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 2 stages.

Therefore 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 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.

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.

From DailyGalaxy.com

A Magical Total Eclipse? Chinese Team to Test If Eclipse Can Bend Gravity

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.

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.

A Magical Total Eclipse? Chinese Team to Test If Eclipse Can Bend Gravity

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.

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

18:00 19 July 2009 by Phil McKenna

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.

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.

The Maurice Allais Effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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, "L'Anisotropie de l'Espace" ("The Anisotropy of Space"), Clement-Juglar, 1997, 800 pp. (no English version available)

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

By adopting general relativity as the proper guide, such contradictions are eliminated. General relativity leads us to several powerful conclusions about our cosmos:

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.

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.

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.

Big Bang Bluff

Does the Large Scale Structure of the Universe Nix Big Bang Theory?

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.

American Astronomical Society (2010). Jan. 6, 2010, at the 215th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.

New Solar and Galaxy Formation Knowledge

1. Abstract of New Solar and Galaxy Formation Knowledge.

2. Basic Galactic Characteristics.

3. Barred and Spiral Galaxy Analysis.

4. Gravitationally aligned orbits.

5. New Theory of Evolution.

6. New Knowledge of the Solar System Origin.

7. New Knowledge Indications.

8. Predictions.

9. Discussion.

10. Conclusion

11. Links

1. 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 hypothesis.

- 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 numbered.

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

Barred Galaxies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barred_spiral_galaxy

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 well.

AD 2: Indication 02. Bars have "an effect" on the spiral arms in the galaxy, ie they have a formative connection with the arms.

Barred spiral galaxies apparently predominate, with surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a bar.

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 bar structure.

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 pattern.

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 development.

The oscillating evolutionary cycle from spiral galaxy to barred spiral galaxy is thought to take on the average about two billion years.

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.

Spiral Galaxies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy

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 clusters.

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 spiral centre.

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 their orbits.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy#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 Indication 04.

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 galaxy.

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 galaxy formation.

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

http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturvidenskab/dansk-opdagelse-giver-vigtig-ny-viden-om-solsystemets-oprindelse#comment-1922

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 Indication 12.

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 planets.

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. (Prediction 08)

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 described above.

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 claims.

2. 5 seemingly contradictions which is contra argued in the AD and Indications

3. Some few AD explains either differences or confirmations.

08. Predictions

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 cloud.

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.

09. Discussion.

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 formation.

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 Galaxy.

7. This also explains the statements of "younger and older galaxies".

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.

10. Conclusion

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 causally explained.