David Calder Hardy's Cosmology
Bangbuster's Correspondence
Dear Dr. Hardy,
1) I recently signed the New Scientist statement against the Big Bang.
In this light, I was hoping that you might consider all of the lines
of evidence which point to the Sun being condensed matter.
2) This is an argument against the Big Bang, since if the
Sun cannot compress matter, this would
significantly change our outlook of many phenomena in astrophysics. (http://thermalphysics.org/Sun.evidence.1.pdf).
Unfortunately, I must confess that the work has been rejected even by arxiv.
3) I thank you in advance for considering this work.
Dear Dr. No 2
4) Sadly, Sir, I have no credentials whatsoever, but just a keen enthusiasm for the cosmological debate.
5) Since the mathematics and the chemical physics of cosmological activity have not been a part of my understanding in these matters, I have come to conclusions based more on lateral thinking and gut feeling. I look at the distances newly discovered planets, like Sedna, and another planet recently discovered orbiting well beyond Sedna, and I say, the sun cannot be 90% compressed gas if it is going to offer sufficient gravity and magnetism to swing them around it. And I take your point about magnetism and consider that the little bit of molten iron presumed to exist in the centre of the sun would have very little influence on planetal polarity control exponentially, if that is the correct term in this case. .
6) When I learned of the beliefs of Dr Manuel about the sun being made of iron with the surface being continually replenished with hydrogen and argon from deeper within, this confirmed my belief for a necessary content in order to satisfy the layout of our existing planets. However, his thoughts beyond that about iron from a supernovae being the source of that iron, left me in doubt, since I had already constructed in my mind a condensing nebula of mainly hydrogen in the nebula where implosion reconstructs hydrogen atoms by fusion into all the other elements, including iron, of course, to build a liquid star with most if not all known elements in layers all the way down to the core. Any gas is going to bubble out to the surface replenishing the photosphere. I stress that all stars, of which there are trillions, are all complete atomic laboratories and foundaries. Once up and running, nothing needs to be imported from beyond, although of course some is.
7) Protoplanetry models I have studied do not account for the iron core that probably exists in every planet. Silica is not going to turn into iron in orbits several AUs from the growing star. Also, a protoplanetry disc is going to have to quit itself of its dust and gas content in order to end up the way they are. So what happens to the planetoids? How do they remain right where they are while everything else either gets blown away by solar wind or gets dragged in by the ever increasing central gravity of its own making.
8) Sir, you believe what I believe and although we've come to that same conclusion in different ways, we both know that BB is doomed if such a hypothesis is strong enough to knock it out of the sky. If I can help, that would be wonderful. But what do you think of my alternative, that the planets are a family, born 2 or 2.5 billion years apart from a fully formed and much larger sun in a clear uncluttered environment, getting their iron core from in close to the star, and then spiralling away as the star loses gravity? That the age of a star is not restricted by BB as occuring 13.7 billion years ago, and that our sun may be 30 to 100 billion years old. 30 billion years would give our sun time to have started off with Neptune/Pluto, or say, Sedna. But I believe that several others have gone before and that the first is probably away out there building its nebula. Romantic? Maybe, but very practical. I know that there are theories about how a nebula collection gets started, but they look a bit doddgy to me. Instead, an old planet is already a gas collector and what's going to stop it continuing collecting, particularly if it's heading away from its galaxy? There are too many stars out there for miracles to make them and enough planets sporned by our star to start a new galactic family.
Many thanks for writing to me and I would really like to do all I can to help.
David Calder Hardy Search this site