The endless chain
Chapter 12. Supernovae
and nebula collapse
Chapter 13. Mass/energy transference.
Chapter 14. Making
matters more Complicated
Chapter 15. Runaway Universe.
Chapter 16. Cycle of links
in the Chain.
My homepage contains links to a great deal of reference material I have copied off the www. I've done this as a safety measure as stuff on the www can get deleted.
Genesis Continuous could be bigger, but why? Thousands of people have read it or the smaller Infinite Universe and I am well pleased with the response.
And for all those folk out there who are, or who are not publishers, if you
read GCC and think it has merit please
Mailto:-David Calder Hardy and tell me what you think of it
Cosmology is described in my dictionary as – 1. A branch of philosophy dealing with the origin, processes, and structure of the universe. – 2.a. The astrophysical study of the structure and constituent dynamics of the universe. – b. A specific theory or model of such structure and dynamics. See big bang theory, steady-state theory.
It is very interesting to see cosmology described as a philosophy and not as a science. The obvious thing to do now is find the description of Philosophy. – 1.a. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means. – b. The investigation of causes and laws underlying reality. – c. A particular system of philosophical or demonstrational inquiry. – 2. Enquiry into the nature of things based upon logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. – 3. The critique and analysis of fundamental beliefs as they come to be conceptualised and formulated.
Isn’t that wonderful?
That’s not the complete description, but nowhere in it does it say that one has to be trained, have qualifications, or be employed as a philosopher in order to practice whatever branch of philosophy one wishes. The main criteria appears to be, - Love and pursuit of wisdom. I hope that my fellow man will accept that we all have the freedom and right to voice our opinions when we have formulated them with wisdom, rationality and love. But we must be prepared to accept criticism of them in the same light.
I had a very poor education and seemed to lag behind most of my fellow students, mainly through a number of illness and absences from school. Besides that, I felt that what I was being taught was of little or no value to me, since it was considered by my parents that my destiny was to become a dairy farmer. At secondary school, though, I topped the class in both agriculture and practical science, and the only other subject that I seemed to do well in was elementary geometry. Everything else, including maths and grammar, put me down near the bottom of the class.
However, being an only child with a very strict upbringing, my early teenage years were, to my way of thinking, overly restrictive, being obliged to accept long hours of physical work with little reward. I was still at college when my father had an accident and I was forced to leave school and do the farm-work. Things came to a head in my mind after repeated criticism from my father and I realised that when he finally became able to take on the job again, I was going to leave home. The only qualifications I had from my father were verbal – I could handle a tractor very well – I was a good fencer – and I made a good job with a scythe. (I suppose people have become presidents and prime-ministers on less than that).
I joined the Air Training Corps and soon passed my examination to enter the Royal New Zealand Air Force. My parents didn’t seem to have too much problem with that so after the medical and other preliminaries, I was off to Wigram Airforce Base near Christchurch, NZ. Sadly, after only a few days, and thoroughly enjoying it, I, including half of the intake were dismissed and sent home. In this year, 1946, hundreds of men where coming home from overseas after the war and many of them wanted to stay in the force, so they had priority.
I didn’t realise until much later in life that I had an innovative and inventive brain, but without the credentials to impress engineering companies that I could be a useful employee, I didn’t bother to pursue that employment. On one occasion, though, a company director, known to my father, said to me that they needed a fluid pump that would give a variable flow. I drew up a conversion kit for one of their positive displacement pumps, with control valve, made the conversion and it worked like a dream. I received great praise but nothing in my purse. It’s even in the patent journal. Dad did give me praise for that, but through my mother.
Space had always interested me, and when I was married with a young family and my own little photographic business, doing quite well, my friends and I used to talk on a number of subjects over a few drinks on a Friday night. Astronomy was one of them. I used to argue a lot when discoveries were discussed that I just didn’t feel happy with. I always looked beyond the square. We never fell out with each other and when we reached a stalemate, a good piece of music always settled us down.
I had puzzled about the origin of the solar-system for many years, not being able to accept the current theory that the planets formed out of rings of dust left over after the nebula collapsed and the star (sun) was formed. However, as you will read in the book, I saw that there was another scenario that got rid of so many problems extant with the orthodox theory. I was so thrilled about having thought of it that I felt inspired to get it into print. I wrote my first ‘Genesis Continuous’ in 1973 and a much more detailed one in 1995, with the ISBN 0-473-03816-1
Big Bang did not impress me either. It seemed to complicate and ignore the laws of physics. I felt that conservation had to be respected as a vital universal law and a contained expanding universe had completely missed that necessary element. How did all the rays of light, and subatomic particles shining forth from trillions of stars in every direction manage to bounce back into the universal containment of a bubble? However, that’s only one thing wrong with Big Bang.
I don’t condemn without offering rational, logical, sensible workable
alternatives. ‘Genesis Continuous’ is my model of an eternal universe, no
strings or bangs attached. (1) An eternal universe offers us infinity. (2)
which in turn offers Conservation because there is no where else for anything
to be created out of nothing or annihilated. (3) Creation, because everything
is there to create with and (4) Recreation because every bit of energy/matter
is recycleable. (5) It is only the theory of Big Bang that destroys that simplicity.
I remember reading some years ago that there was nowhere in England that one could find a natural darkness at night. City lights intrude everywhere. Perhaps one day finding light unpolluted places on earth will tempt entrepreneurs to make tourist killings for people who have never seen a star in their lives. The time could come, and I don't think that I'm being unrealistic. I’ve lived for well over seventy years and witnessed changes that my grandchildren wouldn’t believe. Like, ‘One used to be able to catch six decent sized fish off that rock and none were under five pounds.(Well, that’s a laugh, you can’t even catch a cold off that rock any more). ‘We used to swim in that lake and you could see the mullet and little flatfish and tiddlers swimming around on the bottom’. (It’s a swamp, Grandpa, and you can’t swim in swamps). ‘From where we’re standing now you could see millions of stars of the Milky Way stretch right across the sky’. (Oh, Grandpa, there’s no stars up there). Now that may not be an exaggeration.
All reference material is in smaller type. - I do not guarantee that the www links of reference I have entered will work all the time. I have found the best way to find a site is to go to your favourite search engine and type in a string of several words that appear in the text, or perhaps just the title, if it seems unique enough. Always enclose the text in inverted commas.
The only negative critisism I have received so far is that the work is really a set of essays and not chapters. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
What does Genesis Continuous set out to prove?
The Universe, Time and Space are Eternal.
Both ‘Big Bang’ and ‘Steady State’ methods of origin and continuity could not have worked.
A time frame restricted to 13.7 billion years is not realistic for the universe’s period of existence or for its cyclic behaviour.
13.7 billion years does not provide sufficient time to build a galactic family of stars. Surely such collections of stars had to begin 50 or 1000 or more billions of years ago in order to have grown to the vast number of stars that they now contain.
From our Viewpoint on earth, the galaxies we see are retreating from us. From any other viewpoint in Space, the galaxies would be seen to be retreating in the same way, and this has nothing to do with Big Bang, which by virtue of its description, suggests that a central point held a singularity from which the Big Bang explosion occured.
The physics of cosmology neither adds nor subtracts matter/energy, but recycles both as one entity.
Therefore, matter/energy is in a constant state of recycling. When we switch on a lightbulb the filament glows and emits light rays and other sub-atomic particles, out through the glass container, which can travel great distances at or near 186,000 miles per second. The solid objects in the room absorb and also reflect this energy so the filament material in the bulb will eventually be depleted of its cohesive qualities and will breakdown.
Conservation of matter/energy is a well established fact, yet the singularity/big bang theory completely ignores the fact that stars are global, radiant bodies, whose rays flood beyond a perceived confined universe. Therefore it doesn’t take into account that a contained universe has erected a barrier through which light rays and energy cannot penetrate. How can any rational being accept that?
To see light from a star or galaxy that has come across that vast distance from the supposed edge of space is to recognise that the same star or galaxy is radiating light just as far away ahead of it, unless it hits this scientifically perceived wall and is bounced back. The energy contained within that global radiation has to be all contained within the universe otherwise conservation would not be maintained. Isn't that obvious?
On the grand scale, trillions of stars are radiating this similar energy material in all directions, and it is absorbed by everything it strikes, even the pupils of our eyes as we look at them, and some of it ends its journey there. In fact, it strikes all of us that is exposed to it and is absorbed into our bodies and garments. Its radiation and reabsorption are universally in strict balance, within the law of conservation.
Hydrogen is the Number one atom and the ingredient of all other atoms.
Hydrogen is also the first cohesive atomic unit of a group of sub-atomic particles.
A nebula of gas will collapse to form a star without the help of a supernova or any external shockwave or impactive interference.
What seems much more likely is that a nebula collapses through its own triggering action. A central explosion causes a huge impact on the already enormous pressure at its centre, which immediately triggers the first stage of the implosive collapse.
It seems very evident to me that planets form one after the other and spiral outward in a progressional pattern from their mother star over a period of time even far longer than 13.7 billion years. Every star is shrinking and losing gravity. Here is the key to eternity, cosmic expansion, nebula building, galaxy formation, and hence the observable shape of the universe.
All stars radiate their energy as cosmic rays and other emissions, and by doing so, gradually lose their gravitational strength.
Planets are born around 2 to 2.5 billion years apart. (In the case of the solar system and using present science provided estimates) It's sad that science doesn't see it that way, because they are without that vital key to explain in simple terms what they see.
At the moment Mercury would be the youngest planet in our system, and one or two planets recently found beyond Pluto, the oldest that we know about.
Planets start as iron-cored planetisimals in an orbit about 2 or so solar widths from the sun. It is the sun (star) that supplies the iron rich rock in the beginning, (asteroids), in just the right quantity, to then migrate away and gather other material to build her planets as we know them.
Mercury, Venus, earth and Mars present us with four evolutionary changes indicative of their progressive ages from planetisimal onward. Can Science say to me that that is not true?
The oldest planets, in turn, break from the mother star’s gravitational umbilical cord and drift away and become the cores of new nebulas that will, in many billions of years, become new stars.
Galaxies grow from this progression, and it is their star’s planets that prepare the way for more and more systems to be created. Here is the beginning of the creative journey from planetismal to galaxy. The planets are the gatherers of atmosphere and dust in the universe, which grow to be nebulae and thence new stars.
If every star has somewhat more than 16 planets, then one star could be responsible for spreading a large number of non-radiant bodies away from it into the universe. That the oldest planets of our system are as yet hard to see, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. I guess that it is unlikely though that the moons would separate from their planet, but instead would add to the total gravity mass within a nebula.
The normal life cycle of a star has to be many billions of years longer than thought by science, otherwise supernovae would be seen like fireworks night every night. This is not so.
Using science’s present estimates, I would say that our sun has lived for at least 100 billion years, minimum, and was 150 times larger or more at its birth.
But if science has the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years and a star’s average life as 10 billion years, almost all of the original first generation, ‘Big Bang’, stars would have died by now and space should be well on the way to being stocked up with 2nd generation stars. So when we peer back 3 or 4 billion light years into space there ought to be a vast number of 1st generation stars in a state of supernovae. – However, that does not appear to be so.
An asteroid belt of material exists two solar widths away from the sun, of material similar to the core material of earth and other planets and the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. It is only logical that all have the same source, the sun, through constant replenishment of that belt between it and, at this time, Mercury.
During the formation of a star from a nebula collapse, any solids involved would be fragmented very early in the process of implosive collapse, so the chances of asteroids surviving now in any orbit, from before the nebula collapse, is unrealistic. It is for this reason that I say that most asteroids are solar ejecta erupted by a star as an ongoing phenomenon that started after the nebula fused into a star.
If protoplanets existed within the nebula field, when it started collapsing they surely would be dragged in toward the centre along with the dust and gas associated with them. But since the collapse is mostly caused by implosion of the gases, it's obvious that the ambient temperature would rise within the cloud dramatically throughout the collapsing process. It is my contention that, since by observation, virtually a complete collapse occurs to build a star, there was no part of the nebula existing in orbital velocity, because the collapse continuously takes the gravity component out of the nebula field into the concentration of the growing star. This means that planets can only be born when a star becomes fully functional.
So if a star were not able to perform this vital function, planets and moons would not form around it. And without planets after many billions of years spiralling away beyond the mother star, there would be no large concentrated gravity, non-radiant core objects to attract gas and other matter to build up nebula that would eventually collapse and become more stars.
The previous few paragraphs present a vital link in the
system of continuous creation. One star has a family of planets that have
the potential to become the core bodies of new stars. The shape of a galaxy
presents us with that picture. However, the time-scale involved in this
simple progression has to be vastly greater than could be fitted into a
13.7 billion year old encapsulated universe. It is up to Science to admit
that they have created an irrational, cocooned time machine, that has shackled
It should be clear that the ‘Big Bang’, in all its variations, has no place in actual observational analysis. (Quite simple to prove). The claim that even space and time did not exist before the supposed ‘Bang’, strikes one as utter nonsense. And that the entire cosmos was contained within a capsule smaller than a proton, has to be similarly classified. Surely the existence of Santa Claus is a more believable assumption than that.
The main problem with all ‘beginnings’ theories is that a date had to be established for it, and the present 13.7 billion years ago one just does not fit. Perhaps if it could be justifiably changed to 113 billion years ago, more realistic scope for intervening events/timing could be fitted in. But even 113 billion years isn’t really long enough to cope with what exists.
The fact that a star system observed now, (report elsewhere in this book), ‘as it was 13 billion years ago’, shows that the balance of time back to 'The Bang' was only about 0.7 billion years, and that scenario just does not make any sense at all.
Take the forming of our sun for instance. Science claims that it required a supernova to collapse the nebula that formed our sun some 6.5 billion years ago, so in addition we would expect that the supernovae was the death of an old star possibly 10 billion years old before it blew. 10 plus 6.5 equals 16.5 billion and that's 3 billion years before the supposed creation. The question is, did this newly discovered star at the edge of space require a supernova of another star to collapse it into a star? If so, let's add another 10 billion years to the 13 billion just for good measure. Now, even if you halve the figures I have used and you could fit 4 generations of star births into the 13.7 billion year timeframe, firstly you run out of older stars to do the supernovae act each time, and you drastically limit the size and scale of the galactic universe as it appears.
But then, perhaps I ere a bit on this point, because science also says that immediately after the Big Bang all the galaxies and everything else miraculously constructed within a couple of billion years! And they say this, in spite of the fact that galaxies demonstrate a growth pattern of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of generations of stars that has to add up to trillions of years of construction. To suggest that the mechanics of the universe were in ‘fast-forward’, (my word for it) at the beginning, assumes that centrifugal force, gravity, and probably most of the other set laws of physics didn’t apply then either. It seems amazing to me that these suggestions are made and are expected to be believed.
There are many other instances of incongruous assessments of age and distance; the speed and composition of light and its destiny; and how it is conserved within an encapsulated universe. How and why the universe is expanding at a greater rate farthest from the epicentre etc. These and many other parts of the academic picture should be confusing the student cosmologists beyond belief, if they are actually thinking about what they are learning. And while on this point, a singularity is clearly describing something that is one unit. One unit, one big bang, one beginning. Yet science cannot locate where its centre is or was within the cosmos. Credibility, is in an imagination stretch of astronomical proportions, because Science does not have rational foundational material to offer.
So harking back to this 13 billion years old star system seen near the edge of space, it cannot possibly exist where it appears to be, if it’s that age. I have not been able to find out exactly where we (the observers) are located in distance from it, although I gather from some reports that we are nearer the epicentre of the universe than the outside edge. This would place us at least 7 or more billion light years away from the system in question and so what we see is a system at least 7 billion years younger than what Science claims. This also rubbishes the claim in this report that ‘miraculously it is still there’. Alternatively, since it is seen today near the edge of space at 13 billion years of age, we would have to assume that the universe is at least 7 billion years older than claimed because of the number of light years between us and it. Isn't that obvious?
What is needed here is to establish where the three key points are in the universe. One side of the triangle will be from the epicentre of the universe (when it is found) to the target in question. The second side will be from us (when we are located) to the target and the third from us to the epicentre. But if our location in the universe is not yet determined, how reliable are the time/distance figures we are given? No, the whole concept is all adrift with no anchor points to go by. Scientists accuse me of not applying maths to my arguments. No wonder. I consider that the available maths are a trap for young and old players in the field of cosmology, and I'm not going to fall into it.
However, let us assume that we are located right in the middle of the universe.
What would be the overall image of space from there?
Perhaps we would be unable to see any stars or galaxies, because we would be stationary in comparison to everything else tearing away from us at or greater than the speed of light. Or maybe we would see some of the inner galaxies, but since acceleration of the outer ones may exceed the speed of light, they would be invisible. Or, if we could see it all, right to the outer edge, would we have to agree that the universe was twice the age we calculated, because we would know that the leading ones light had to travel all the way back to us from their observed location? The speed of light is a constant that surely has to be observed in all such calculations. So anything assumed to be 13 billion light years away would have to be 26 billion years old if viewed from the above location, because it will have moved on at least double its distance from us over the intervening 13 billion years..
Here is an illustration of what I'm saying on a very minute scale. The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach earth, so the sun is 8 minutes further on its course across the sky than it appears to be. We could say that earth is 8 light minutes from the sun.
Jupiter is over 5 times further away from the sun than we are, so that makes Jupiter 45 light minutes away from the sun at the speed of light. However, when we look at Jupiter shining brightly in the sky, we are looking at its solar reflected light, which has to travel all the way back to us. So the sun's light we see reflected from Jupiter left the sun at about 1 and a half hours earlier. And that is if Jupiter and earth and the sun, in that order, were lined up at the time. Most of the time Jupiter is a greater distance away from us. Incidentally, Jupiter can never exactly be where we observe it because of the speed of light. And this is the important point on a minute scale compared with the billions of light years involved in reckoning distances and location in the universe.
So when we talk about distances of billions of light years, the factor becomes colossal, and we must accept that what we see is not where it is but where it was, and this astronomically misleading point rears its very upsetting head over and over again in cosmological reporting. So who's fault is it. The scientist's or the reporter's, when the written word says, 'amazingly it is still there' when it is said to be 13 billion light years away? If Science's picture of the universe is what they say it is, then no way can it be there.
I wonder if it would be simpler, bearing in mind that Science seems for some reason to be concentrating on the outer far distant edge of a disc shaped universe, if they just turned the telescopes 90 degrees in the direction of the short cut, or flat edge of the disc, that must be a mere fraction of the distance away. Perhaps the bladder would be easier to see. Such a move might also help to locate our place in the disc. Just a thought, - just a thought.
Our Solar system's average planet distances from the sun measured in Astronomical Units, (AUs).
And our nearest star neighbour is 4 light years away.
You observe stars and galaxies up to 13 billion or so light years away from you but you omit to realise that you are seeing them as they were 13 billion years ago. With an expanding cosmos, those objects will have moved on to at least twice the distance of your observational calculation which must now be about 26 billion light years. By the same token, even the sun is not where it is observed to be but appears to you where it was 8 minutes previously.
Therefore, my theatre of activity, has no walls, roof or floor, and is where light and all cosmic rays freely travel in every direction from an infinite number of stars. Expansion prevails as the continual linkage of cycle after cycle after cycle of renewal. Conservation endures because there is nowhere else to accommodate what exists.
You have the power to excite matter and distribute its energy every time you switch on a light bulb, shine a torch or strike a match..
There was no time when there was ‘no time’. There was no beginning of time because there was no primary creation, since creation is simply eternal reassembly – creation is recycling of everything that always was and always will be. Creation is a purely active, continuous relationship of all substance and energy, visible and invisible. Energy is a product of matter just as matter is a substance of energy through every possible combination. And time is a measurement of progression and, in the cosmos, not evolution, be it constructive or deconstructive. Recycling is the continuum, and time will always remain stable.
Stars will produce families of planets and a chance for organic creation to evolve and survive and adapt. Here then, is an incredible and wonderful cosmological gift, spanning a mere minute in a planet’s lifetime, as it journeys toward a destiny of stardom; a time when, free of it’s mother star, it's tiny atmosphere will grow into a large nebula of gas around it that will collapse onto it and become a new star. So simple, yet so logical.
The cosmic cycle provides a genesis of continuousness that exists in a linkage of harmonious transformation and metamorphosis in strict orderliness. The energies that perform these links can never fail or falter. The components of the cosmos can never expand beyond or shrink within, because that order of their existence is maintained within those strict laws of cosmological physics. Observation of the cosmos from any one point in the universe will show the same process of components in retreat, as from anywhere else. This does not mean that the whole universe is expanding in orderly radiating lines as from a central point, as would be so if it were a ‘Big Bang’ that created it. Galaxies are actually colliding with other galaxies. How could that happen in the light of a central point of creation?
There is no way that I could have had a beginning because the links to make me would have had to pre-exist. A vine growing in a forest requires at least one tree in that forest to climb up to reach the light and survive. But it also required the form and ability to climb. A singularity would have needed the structure and linkage of recycling to build into a complete cosmological cycle of continuousness, but, by its own description, that framework did not exist.
The cosmos is made of units or links within a framework that permits all the steps necessary for continuousness. To believe that there was a primal creation in which these links could take place from nothing, is somewhat like expecting a lump of clay to suddenly make itself into a human being. Galaxies require those potential links in the chain to create what they are. ‘Big Bang’ does not offer these links. (That’s why the universe has to be eternal). To make a star there has to be available hydrogen - to make a planet there has to be a star - to make a new star there has to be a planet, or core of some sort, and radiatied particles from other stars, for hydrogen to be attracted to form the nebula to make the star et., etc., etc. adinfinitum.
Instant creation into fully formed galaxies as claimed by science is not how galaxies build themselves. Their very shape and active characteristics does not reveal instantaneous construction. The creation of countless generations of star systems over a period of perhaps trillions of years is required to build a mass as vast as the Milky way. Science appears to have developed a panic depressive attitude to discoveries that force the universe to have created itself at a hugely faster rate to fit the 13.7 billion year time-frame. The laws of physics are tossed to one side in order to comply.
The oldest stars in the Milky Way have died in the vastness of time existence and what we see now is a living generation of stars in the same way as we see a living generation of people on earth. Each one hundred years or thereabouts, presents a totally new collection of people. But in the case of galaxies a complete cycle of renewal will take billions and billions of years, or probably trillions.
Eternity, may be a word that has its origins in ancient religion, and to many, may not be positively backed by scientific thought. However, it offers the only substantial answer to my existence. A transformation of my structure, seen perhaps as a creation or recreation of planets, stars and galaxies, is an acceptable view of new internal beginnings. But a beginning of the whole from nothing - no substance - no time – no form – no built in structural pattern or foundation, DNA, if you like – can have no place in rational thought.
Instead, concluding that the perceived expansion of the universe is seen as evidence for the ‘Big Bang’, let’s look at expansion in the light of Genesis Continuous.
Science has found wandering planets, free, and some almost free, of a star’s umbilical cord. Science is unable to give a reason why or how they come to exist. The reason for that is because their existence does not fit their academic theories.
But their existence fits in with Genesis Continuous and is an example of the cosmological continuousness that spells 'Eternity'. Far more planets will be found in the future when technology is able to advance its search for non-radiant objects even light-years away from earth.
The above format for continuous creation shows why some stars toward the centre of the milky-way appear to be younger whilst others appear to be older and why some away in the outer regions appear to be younger and others older. It is only by accepting eternity as the way it exists that the universe can be seen in this unrestricted light of reason.
It pleases and excites man to contemplate accident, uniqueness, near misses, and even the fantastic. To contemplate the simple and the obvious, is too uninteresting. Hollywood was not built on stuff like that and it’s popular. Cosmology would attract nobody if it was all in a textbook, proven and dull. Big Bangs and even small bangs are what make news. Turn to any TV channel and that is the diet.
So what better than to have the universe start off with a bang? - a bang that could have no rival. And if the universe is to die, because that's covered as well, how will it go out? In a bigger implosive bang perhaps? Or will it just absorb itself back into a singularity in an unspectacular collapse, where it’s feeble audibility will be frozen before time has a chance to broadcast it reverberantly within its protonic music hall? Somehow I don’t think science will let it.
The whole of this chapter, as in the rest of the book, contains simple observational logic. ‘Big Bang’ is the containmen Science has created to kill that logic.
The Biggest Bang
Somewhere away in shrunken space
Light years away from earth
Within a microscopic place
A singularity gave birth
It was a huge explosion
The grandest sole event
And so has Science chosen
This blast as Heaven sent
Well Science may have but I haven't. (DCH)
There are many cosmologists who believe that the universe will continue to expand for some billions of years and then slow down to a halt, and go into a reverse action. That is the universe will start its journey back to a singularity again.
This is a sort of add-on theory which I imagine is to keep the thing going without loosing it. Actually, it puts the universe into a sort of yo-yo process, where it will bang and crunch for ever more thereby keeping the law of conservation active in a sort of eternity.
The singularity was, before the bang, the complete content of the universe and its explosion simply gave it added space in which to spread out. If it were to keep expanding for ever, the milkyway would at some time in the future be all that would be visible from earth as the rest would have gone beyond the observable horizon.
A bang and expansion is a common event and easy to understand, but a reverse of the action is much more problematic. The crunch is to come about because central gravity will overcome the scattered galaxies beyond and drag them back. That part sounds fine until they start crowding into the funnel of singularity destiny.
The total mass of this crunch is destined to become as small as a proton, and that's unbelievable enough, but let's say that 90% of the universe is made of extremely hot radiant bodies, 'stars', which until recently had been thought to be mostly hydrogen. Now it has been discovered that our sun, 'a typical star', has an iron layer not a great distance under its surface, which has been hidden by the hydrogen and argon that floats on top of it. OK, it's not likely that the iron is floating on gas, so it must be floating on layer after layer of heavier and heavier metals right down to the centre. (Science will have great trouble accepting this discovery which will knock Big Bang into a cocked hat).
So we are not looking at a mass of radiant gas bubbles heading for the puff of protonish destiny. This is the heavy massive stuff. we are dealing with, so what looked impossible before, now looks, (whatever the word is that means billions of times more impossible than impossible).
And had Science given a thought to what was to happen to all this heat from all these radiant hunks of liquid metal? This now becomes an explosion in reverse or what could only be described as an implosion. An implosion means that the mass will contract in size, thereby dramatically increasing its heat. Most of us know what happens when you take a bicycle pump, hold your finger tightly across the end and start pumping. The barrel of the pump very quickly gets hotter, and this is caused because the air inside is being compressed and the ambient heat it had when sucked into the pump is compressed and concentrated into a smaller space. A heat pump utilises this principal. Even if the metal theory is wrong the situation is just as ludicrous.
Now put this factor into the most gigantic astronomical terms and ask yourself how the ambient heat of the stars plus additional compression of them can possibly be coped with so that the whole lot becomes a cool little proton thingy in its ever protective bladder.
Yeah, if you thought Big Bang was crazy, just try that for size!
What force could be strong enough to overcome gravity and cause the universe to accelerate? Perhaps Einstein was right all along maybe there is some kind of vacuum energy in space. Einstein called it the cosmological constant, and 80 years later, astronomers would give this invisible force a new name dark energy.
"The supernova experiments four years ago confirmed a simple picture of the universe where approximately 30 percent of it is made of matter and 70 percent is made of dark energy whatever it is," Linde observed.
Overnight, a concept that Einstein had rejected was now considered the dominant force in the universe. "The cosmological constant remains one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics," Linde pointed out.
Don’t these last two paragraphs present contradiction? Firstly it’s a ‘simple picture’ then ‘dark energy whatever it is’ then ‘remains one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics’. If the latter two statements are to be accepted, then how is it a simple picture?
If I were to call anything the ‘Cosmological Constant’ I would have to say firstly that there probably isn’t such a thing within the framework of the above example, but secondly, as a recycling of matter and energy back to energy and then matter again, here is a workable framework of a cosmological constant. It has to exist in the way I have described, link by link, because there is only one way, and that has to comply with conservation and observation. Broadly, those links include:-
Star – cosmic rays with radiation of subatomic particles – solar wind – absorption of particles into everything they strike – formations of huge gravity collected masses of the hydrogen, dust and other gases from the remains of supernovae and any other drifting material – collapse into a new star - conversion of those particles into hydrogen/helium and thence all the other elements higher and higher up the atomic family tree. Also, the timing controlled by the rate of planet birth and eventual release into space, beyond the mother star’s gravitational influence, as each planet and moon drifts through space collecting the above material. Then next being crushed by the huge gas collection around it, the old planet exploding, which percussion causes the inner part of the gas cloud to implode, thence the emerging new star is getting ready to become, foundry, alchemist, radiator, dispenser, birth giver and cleaner of nearby space for its family to orbit in without anything to impede it. All its life a star keeps shedding its mass and energy, which causes it to lose gravity and one after the other, build its brood, to eventually spiral away into the space beyond the kuiper belt, where each will be involved in hosting a new generation of stars some 2 to 3 billion years apart. (Based upon the age reckoning of my interpretation of Bode’s Law and the probability that 2.5 billion years is about the age difference between each succeeding planet birth and the previous one).
The very design and formation of galaxies presents us with a coherent regenerative recycling of activity, and the expansion taking place is not a characteristic motivated by an explosive beginning from some mythical central location in space, but from the speed and rate of gravitational release from an infinite number of stars of their planetary families.
Let’s just accept that this process offers a continuum within a conservation framework. Nothing can be created or lost because space containment is boundless and there is nowhere else other than everywhere. The links in the chain of a recycling cosmos are there, so why does man insist that the universe must have had a beginning with the inevitability of an end? It is quite obviously a radiantly successful perpetual organism. Maybe what I am proposing is not so exciting, but who wants Hollywood all the time.
If God exists, then He has always existed and always will, because He has always had existence, and He has always had the material at hand from which to create, because God is the Law. And equally, the law exists and you can call it God or whatever, just as you like.
Genesis Continuous points to the filling of progressively vacated and voided areas of space to account for the reality of expansion, and that to re-read the first few verses of the Bible Genesis with this scenario in mind, is to find that this proposal is reasonably well described.
The term ‘Cosmological Constant’ fits it perfectly. And the guy in ancient times who wrote the following says it all superbly. Who ever he was, thanks.
As it was in the beginning it is now and ever shall be – worlds without end.
It will be thought that ‘Genesis Continuous’, as it relates to the eternal universe, will be just another version of the ‘Steady State’ theory. However, there are vitally large differences existing here that Genesis Continuous will demonstrate.
The Steady State’s reliance on the creation of matter and the abundance of hydrogen and helium, (necessary for new nebulas and stars to be born), being formed from supernovae, is not a part of Genesis Continuous. For one thing, I don’t think enough stars are in a state of supernovae at any one time to satisfy the demand of star building. As the Milky-way galaxy has only produced two or three supernovae in the last several hundred years, speaks for itself. There are billions of stars there alone and one would expect that as many stars would be blowing up as are being formed, in order to maintain the status quo. But that does not appear to be so.
‘Steady State’ seems to infer that everything remains as it is, it was, and will be. In one sense that is correct. But, the claim that matter for renewal or replenishment could be created out of apparently nothing surely cannot be. How many supernovae are needed to supply enough material for one star? Since supernovae explosions happen at the end of a star’s life when virtually all it’s fuel is radiated away, could that require several hundred of them?
If we accept that the cosmic continuum is really a repetitive set of well formed links, it doesn’t matter how fast it all works or how slowly, it just has inevitability, that it isn’t going to suddenly lose a link in the cycle somewhere. With countless billions of stars out there, the numbers alone point to the success story that it is. Each galaxy, and there’s billions of them, hold billions of stars, so the galactic group formation process would appear to be in very sound shape and certainly not about to fall or drift apart.
Generations of these linked processors were and are happening in their billions all the time and there is no completely overall collective cosmic destructive direction attached to it, as some dramatist researchers would like us to believe. ‘Gloom and doom’, Bangs, singularities, beginnings and ends are Hollywood material and that’s were they should stay.
If the universe could be seen to be defective in design, then let’s be given the facts about that and not the theoretical meaningless jargon we read coming from people who would be better employed by Hollywood. One guy says it’s expanding and will virtually disappear from view, due to the huge distances that will develop between galaxies. Another says that the reverse will happen and it will all zap back into the extremely doubtful singularity, something smaller than a proton.
The only thing wrong with the Steady State theory, that if it had been accepted, was that it didn’t thoroughly link the cosmic cycle. If it had, we could all have accepted that the jolly old universe is really rock solid and will definitely stay that way.
Steady State had not proposed, what I consider to be the missing links, that had they been realised back in 1948, would have probably knocked ‘The Big Bang’ off its perch.
These links are well covered in Genesis Continuous.
Politically speaking we could do with some steady states
on this planet. It’s just that Big Bangs have haunted us too
It would be really great if that were so, but nebula grow to be huge masses of gas and dust billions of miles across, and if two or more become attracted to one another, which appears to happen fairly often, then the final result can be twin star systems or perhaps single but larger star systems. The possibilities are quite varied, but a one nebula, one star system should be much the same as any other similar system of the same age.
Here is another very important factor about a collapsing nebula. It isn't only the gas and dust that adds to the mass and characteristics of a growing star since all that yet uncollapsed material contains its ambient heat. An implosion means that the mass will contract in size, thereby dramatically increasing that heat. Most of us know what happens when you take a bicycle pump, hold your finger tightly across the end and start pumping. The barrel of the pump very quickly gets hotter, and this is caused because the air inside is being compressed and the ambient heat it had when sucked into the pump is compressed and concentrated into a smaller space. A heat pump utilises this same principal. Imagine what a boost in temperature this gives to a forming star.- I wonder if others have suggested this phenomenon.
Also it seems to me that because as the nebula grows it's catchment grows with it, which means that it's last years as a nebula it is growing very quickly. And the ratio of gas to solids with in it will determine the rate of growth also. The radiated atomic particles from trillions of stars strike it constantly, but gas within the cloud may not capture those particles as well as the solids do. A more gaseous nebular may well have taken ever so much longer to get to the collapsing point.
The new discovery that iron exists just beneath the surface
of the sun suggests that a star is composed of layer under
layer of heavier and heavier elements. This makes a lot of
sense, since a nebula is a vast mass of gas and solids that
must have been thought to collapse into a star filled with
just gas and a small iron core. - Shows what we can be led
to believe. This discovery adds greater credence to Genesis
Continuous. It confirms that iron and probably all the higher
elements exist in our sun as I have suggested. It confirms
a far stronger equatorial component which is capable of holding
planets, even at huge distances, on that equatorial plane.
This control then extends to planets that have escaped the
sun's gravity and yet will remain more or less close to that
plane as they move away. When they become the cores of star
nebulars, then stars etc., it is easier to accept the shape
of a galaxy in that context.
If the universe can be described as having a mass/energy containment in all of space, then creation from nothing goes against the tenets of physics. I believe that expansion of the universe is a cosmic ray, subatomic particle dispersal phenomenon, and the required amount of hydrogen and other primordial atoms are topped up from that source.
A nebula grows proportionately to its increasing mass/gravity, available hydrogen, and other gas and solids available to it. Additionally, as the nebula grows it is bombarded by cosmic rays/subatomic particles, emitted by myriads of stars, and these radiant visiting ingredients are absorbed into the nebula’s larger and ever larger catchment mass.
I have not read anything in the Steady State literature suggesting this proposition. Steady state, instead, relies upon the required material for top up and nebula building coming from supernovae. But, how many dead stars are required to make one new star? The answer to that would certainly offer a star depopulation scenario.
The universe appears to be expanding, and from around the speed of light the component rays, are continually absorbed. The rays from trillions of stars are in constant mass collision, and, incidentally, how they reach us from such huge distances still in pretty good shape is a miracle to me. Red shift probably results from just one of those losses or filterings suffered on their billions of years journeys.
Imagine space being completely empty except for our sun and earth. We shine a torch up into the empty black sky and then switch it off again. What happens to the beam of light? I think that it will travel invisibly through space forever, along with the sun’s radiation. There is nothing out there to absorb those rays and there is nothing to reflect them back to us. They will remain invisible.
Now put some atomic/molecular particles out there to make up a decent sized cloud a light year away, and we would be able to detect its presence by the reflection of our sun’s rays striking it, which would take another year to reach us. Absorption will occur and the cloud will very slowly get bigger.
As for the torch light, yes, it will also contribute. If the torch was pointed at it).
The last paragraph of the article below is one I love.
Steady State – Fred Hoyle et al;
An alternative theory to the Big Bang was proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle. It was called the Steady-state theory. They found the idea of a sudden beginning to the universe philosophically unsatisfactory. Bondi and Gold suggested that in order to understand the universe we needed to make observations of its distant parts, which would of necessity be observations from the past. In order to interpret those observations we must use the laws of physics, and those have been formulated at the present time. If the state of the universe was different in the past how could we be sure that the laws of physics were not different in the past as well? If they were different no valid conclusions could be drawn. For Bondi and Gold not only would the laws of physics have to be the same in all parts of the universe, but at all times as well. The Universe would also be the same, always static, always contracting or always expanding. The first two could be ruled out by the simple observation that the sky is dark at night. Surely the only reason huge areas of the universe are dark is because there is very little matter in those places for light waves to strike and illuminate.
Hoyle approached the problem mathematically and tried to solve the problem of the creation of the matter seen all around us, which in the Big Bang theory is all created at the start. He proposed that the decrease in the density of the universe caused by its expansion is exactly balanced by the continuous creation of matter condensing into galaxies that take the place of the galaxies that have receded from the Milky Way, thereby maintaining forever the present appearance of the universe. In order to produce the matter, a reservoir of energy would be required. In order to prevent this reservoir being diluted, by the creation of matter and by the expansion of the universe, he made this reservoir negative. The expansion and creation now work against each other and a steady state of energy is maintained. The steady state theorists explained the hydrogen - helium abundance by the presence of supernovae. Originally the big bang theory suggested that all the heavy elements were produced at the start of the universe, but now it is accepted that only the helium and a little lithium was produced then and both theories now accept the role of supernovae in the creation of heavy elements.
How can one star blowing up provide the material for billions of new stars? If the milky-way was a steady-state entity of X billion active stars, there must have been more than X billion supernovae to provide the material for them. A star is a star and it’s blowing up at the end of its life (supernovae), is when it has radiated and exhausted most of its resources. We could count on the fingers of one hand the number of supernovae in the milky-way during the last hundred years. And if the universe is only a mere 13.7 billion years old there should be billions of supernovae occurring all the time in the milky-way alone. This is not the case.
One important and little known attribute of the steady state theory is its importance to an aspect of electromagnetic and quantum theory. Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism have two solutions, one positive, one negative. Consider the equation x2 = 4. It has two solutions; x = 2 and x = -2. In Maxwell's equations the negative solution was usually discarded, as it would correspond to something travelling backwards in time. However, in 1941 John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, proposed that by taking seriously the idea that two waves, one travelling forward in time and one travelling backwards, were produced in electromagnetic interactions certain problems in quantum theory disappeared. Between the cause and effect in an experiment the two waves add together, but before the cause, and after the effect, the two waves cancel, so what we see is the sequence; cause, interaction, effect. The crucial aspect for cosmology in the Wheeler - Feynman theory is that the two waves only cancel outside the event if they are both of equal size, in other words the wave from the future has to be the same size as the wave from the past, and this implies that the universe is the same in the future as it was in the past and hence in a steady state.
Steady state is not without problems though, there are several areas in which it is in difficulty. One is the distribution of radio sources. For any sources if the distribution is uniform the fainter ones will be the most distant. If we draw a sphere around us corresponding to a certain brightness then the number of such sources will be proportional to the surface area of that sphere, and thus proportional to radius squared. The number of sources brighter than that certain brightness should be proportional to the volume of that sphere, and hence radius cubed, as they will all lie within the sphere. A graph of the log of the number of sources at a particular brightness, to the log of the number of sources brighter than that brightness, should have a gradient of 1.5 (=3/2) For radio sources the ratio is 1.8 showing that there are more bright radio sources at greater distance, and hence earlier times than would be expected for a steady state universe. The conclusion is that the universe is evolving or at least changing.
Could this be because cosmic rays are coming from beyond the perceived boundary of the universe? After all, these cosmic rays from such distant galaxies have taken billions of years to get here, but their light must also penetrate beyond their location just as far again from us, in fact doubling the distance and more between us and the areas of space they occupy. Likewise, galaxies in that beyond will be radiating forward into their great beyond and also in our direction, so to speak. Just because we can’t detect them does not mean that they do not exist. We have to realise that the tiny pinpoint of light that reaches us is part of a global emission from that galaxy or star. If science wants to establish a boundary, then it has to be at least double the distance from us to the source, otherwise some unknown wall is stopping it. I don’t think so. In the case of radio waves, who knows? What we see or detect at the observable boundary limit through space must be where it was over 7 billion years ago, if not more. Or isn’t this factor taken into consideration?
The discovery of quasars in 1966, also provided evidence contradicting the steady-state theory. Quasars are very small but brilliantly luminous extragalactic systems, found only at great distances. Their light has taken several billion years to reach the earth. Quasars are therefore objects from the remote past, which indicates that a few billion years ago the constitution of the universe was very different than it is today.
The steady-state theory is now no longer accepted by most cosmologists, particularly after the discovery of microwave background radiation in 1965, for which steady state has no explanation.
The Hubble Deep Field photograph taken in 1996 by the Hubble Space Telescope shows the most distant view known. It was expected to show the birth of galaxies, * but instead shows galaxies looking remarkably like present day ones, perhaps there is life in the steady state yet.
*(And why wouldn’t they look the same)?
Thankyou, Hubble Space Telescope. DCH
Throughout this book I set out to point to what I see are the faults that upset modern scientific theories on the subject of cosmology and astrophysics. If I am proven wrong, and science now in 2005 has all the correct answers and I have some or none, then I apologise for voicing my doubts. On the other hand, as the word ‘theory’ suggests that this or that has not yet been proven, I feel pretty confident that my theories of ‘Genesis Continuous’ will contribute something positive to the world in this most baffling and intriguing of all sciences. As the above article on Steady State says, that the Hubble telescope found galaxies looking remarkably like present day ones, at such vast distances I contend that this information is one of the most important discoveries made. The ‘Big Bang’ theory does not support such a picture.
Look at the universe from this perspective. The further the objects are away from us the more years their light has had to travel to reach us. In an expanding universe that problem is compounded because the light rays appear to be stretched with the emphasis on redshift. When we see something almost 7 billion light years away, that has to be how it was 7 billion years ago, and because of the expansion factor, in real time, it should have travelled outward from its observed location another 7 billion light years. So radio waves would appear to be an integral part of the expansion/light/subatomic particles emissions and would not provide a different measuring process that could put calculations based upon the speed of light, in the shade, so to speak.
‘Genesis Continuous’, as it has appeared on the www since 1996 offers a mere segment of the workings of the universe. It deals primarily with the origin of the solar-system, and incidentally, in my view, the only place that the word ‘origin’ can be applied is to the formation of recognisable components, objects, gases and forces that are a part of the complete cycle of eternal universe activity.
As it is here so it is elsewhere – only different.
(How can it be located 9,000 million light years away. Won’t it have moved on 9,000 million light years from where it is observed today)?
The VLT images reveal that it contains reddish and elliptical, i.e. old, galaxies. Interestingly, the cluster itself appears to be in a very advanced state of development. It must therefore have formed when the Universe was less than one third of its present age.
The discovery of such a complex and mature structure so early in the history of the Universe is highly surprising. Indeed, until recently it would even have been deemed impossible.
(So it’s there, - or was. – How about questioning the supposed age of the universe to make things in it fit together better).
Clusters of galaxies are gigantic structures containing hundreds to thousands of galaxies. They are the fundamental building blocks of the Universe and their study thus provides unique information about the underlying architecture of the Universe as a whole.
About one-fifth of the optically invisible mass of a cluster is in the form of a diffuse, very hot gas with a temperature of several tens of millions of degrees. This gas emits powerful X-ray radiation and clusters of galaxies are therefore best discovered by means of X-ray satellites (cf. ESO PR 18/03 and 15/04).
It is for this reason that a team of astronomers  has initiated a search for distant, X-ray luminous clusters "lying dormant" in archive data from ESA's XMM-Newton satellite observatory.
Studying XMM-Newton observations targeted at the nearby active galaxy NGC 7314, the astronomers found evidence of a galaxy cluster in the background, far out in space. This source, now named XMMU J2235.3-2557, appeared extended and very faint: no more than 280 X-ray photons were detected over the entire 12 hour-long observations.
It looks as though the deeper into space we observe, the faster we have to accept that the ‘creation’ occurred. Imagine everything in orbit zapping around so fast that its centrifugal force factor doesn’t count any more.
No doubt atomic particles also have to be accelerated to maintain this perceived orderliness, along with gravity. We won’t have to travel much further into distant space to see new stars born and die on the same day – What next?
Instead of saying 13.7 billion years since the Bang, if Science had said 40 billion, this assumed acceleration would not have been so pronounced. How long they can keep protecting their ‘creation’ scenario against the evolution of discovery is anyone’s guess.
This is yet another instance of so many incongruities that should be ringing the bells of change. Observation does not fit in with theory so for Heaven’s sake kick the theory and start again.
There is no validity in physical laws
that can be adjusted or adapted or bent or reinvented just
because observation would appear to defy them.- ‘Appear’
being the operative word - or if there is then the whole
world should know about it.
Sept. 16, 2002
If the Linde-Kallosh model is correct, then the universe, which appears to be accelerating now, will begin to slow down and contract. "The universe may be doomed to collapse and disappear," Linde said. "Everything we see now, and at a much larger distance that we cannot see, will collapse into a point smaller than a proton. Locally, it will be the same as if you were inside a black hole. You will just discontinue your existence."
(That is definitely the Oojar bird story. It flew around and around in ever diminishing circles until finally it disappeared up its etc. etc. etc).
OK. Joking aside:- Space is not expanding without replacement, and it cannot shrink without cosmic rays all turning around and heading back to everywhere within and gravity suddenly doubling in strength. Why?
All this ‘Big Bang’ support stuff has surely to be just a temptation to science fictionists for the making of an absorbing documentary story. There is another far more understandable explanation for expansion within the universe, which does not require a collapse. I have already covered this issue.
But what is most disturbing, is that one scientific claim says it will keep on expanding for 150 billion years and the other says it will shrink and re-enter its singularity state in 10 to 20 billion years. Big money awaits at Hollywood for the right writers, and this debate could swell the coffers of Hollywood and many universities for years and years.
The question is, which is right and how does each school of expertise justify its proposition? Or is it just a game?
I had a little oojah bird and kept it on a lead
The following discovery I think adds a lot of weight to my theories.
Orphans in the sky.
13 drifting planets discovered in Orion
By Maia Weinstock, space.com . 03.24.00
The Orion nebula is a region of intense star formation in our galaxy — relatively close at 1,500 light-years. IMAGE: NASA
You might call them the 13 hippies of the observed universe.
In a recent study of a nearby star-hatchery, two British astronomers have discovered 13 rare "free-floating" objects, which they describe as huge gas planets wandering without an orbit through space. (Fantastic. How about reclassifing them as young nebula destined to become stars - DCH)
Patrick Roche of the University of Oxford and Philip Lucas of the University of Hertfordshire confirmed their planet sighting in the autumn of 1999, in what has been touted as the most sensitive survey of the Orion nebula -- a large cloud of gas and dust where stars are continuously forming. Their results will soon be released in an upcoming Royal Astronomical Society publication.
"The objects are likely to be large gas planets similar in size to Jupiter and consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium," said Roche in an e-mail to SPACE.com. (Why would they be composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, when both these gases would require a gravity concentrated core of iron or such like to attract them? In the ambience of just gases in space it's going to stay evenly spread until something more concentrated comes to attract it. Surely this is how nebular are born? DCH)
When Roche and Lucas made their discovery, they were looking for faint stars and brown dwarfs -- gaseous objects that cannot accumulate enough material to activate the type of nuclear reaction that a star needs to keep glowing. But they soon noticed a number of objects that were even dimmer than brown dwarfs.
"From the measured brightness and the known distance to the Orion nebula, we knew they did not have enough material for any nuclear processing in their interiors," explained Roche. (Well, just give them time to become fully grown nebula. DCH)
After scrutinizing various theoretical models of planetary objects the same size they were seeing, Roche and Lucas say they’re fairly certain that the objects truly are planets.
"The combination of luminosity and age (known to be between 0.3 and 2 million years old) gives us a fairly good measure of the mass," added Lucas. "Hence, we’re pretty sure they’re planets." (I think that this claim is rather meaningless since only recently has it been discovered that just below the gaseous surface of our sun there is a molten iron layer. c 2003 DCH)
What’s most interesting about the 13 new planets is that they apparently do not orbit a star in the same way that the planets in the solar system orbit the sun. Instead, they appear to wander aimlessly through space. (They are released from their mother planets. DCH)
"We would see a [central] star if they orbited one," explained Lucas. (An essential part of Genesis Continuous is the realisation that planets will drift away from their mother star and eventually collect their own nebula and become stars. Nothing remains static in the universe. An object collecting gas in space, free from the influence of solar-wind, will continue to do so until it reaches that all important heat and pressure at its centre, implosions will occur, a star is born and solar-wind drives away any more gas from it. DCH).
Only two other similar objects had been found before Lucas and Roche’s 13-planet discovery. Two years ago, Japanese astronomers detected two non-orbiting planet-like objects in the Chamaeleon nebula.
Dr. Roche said that the 13 objects "probably formed in a different way from the planets in our solar system" in that they were not made "out of the residue of material left over from the birth of the sun." .Instead, they formed "like stars via the collapse of a cloud of cold gas," explained Lucas. (Here we have one of the great discoveries in the last goodness knows how many years and it's made to look like a freakish embarrasment. I'm going to start crying any minute now!. A cloud of 'cold gas', is not going to stay cold as it collapses. What heat it has will increase through the contraction of the collapse. Remember the bike pump analogie. DCH)
"But they possess most of the physical properties and structure of gas giant planets," added Lucas.
And once upon a time each circled a star
Because Mr Lucas that's just what they are
Planets. With infant atmospheres that one day will grow into nebular (DCH)
Scientists hope the discovery of such wandering objects will give them clues to the relationship between small stars and large gas planets. With continually increasing telescope capabilities, the prospects of finding similar gas planets — and hopefully even terrestrial planets — is on the rise.
"This is a very active research field," said Roche. "Undoubtedly more objects will follow."
(Once again it appears that the observation does not fit the orthodox theories yet Genesis Continuous is presented with a vital and already predicted link in its cycle of eternity).
It is already known that the area is a place 'where stars are continuously forming', so why don't the scientists put the clearly seen links together and see the chain of events unfolding? My little verse says it all.
Linde is quick to acknowledge that the collapsing universe scenario is not the final word on the fate of the cosmos.
"Astronomy is a science once known for its continuous errors," he quipped. "There was even a joke: 'Astrophysicists are always in error but never in doubt.' We are just in the very beginning of our investigation of this issue, and it would be incorrect to interpret our results as a reliable doomsday prediction. In any case, our model teaches us an interesting lesson: Even the most abstract theories of elementary particles may end up having great importance in helping us understand the fate of the universe and the fate of humanity."
Direct observation of space with state-of-the-art telescopes, satellites and other instruments will answer many unresolved questions, he added. "We're entering the era of precision cosmology, where we really can get a lot of data, and these data become more precise. Perhaps 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, I don't know, but this is the timescale in which we will get a map of the universe with all its observable parts. So things that were a matter of speculation will gradually become better and better established."
Linde helped pioneer inflationary cosmology the theory that the universe began not with a fiery big bang but with an extraordinarily rapid expansion (inflation) of space in a vacuum-like state. According to inflationary theory, what we call the universe is just a minute fraction of a much larger cosmos.
"The universe actually looks, not like a bubble, but like a bubble producing new bubbles," Linde explained. "We live in a tiny part of one bubble, and we look around and say, 'This is our universe.'"
If our bubble collapses into a point, a new bubble is likely to inflate somewhere else possibly giving rise to an entirely new form of life, Linde said.
"Our part of the universe may die, but the universe as a whole, in a sense, is immortal it just changes its properties," he concluded. "People want to understand their place in the universe, how it was created and how it all will end - if at all. That is something that I would be happy to know the answer to and would pay my taxpayer money for. After all, it was never easy to look into the future, but it is possible to do so, and we should not miss our chance."
The last paragraphs of Mr Linde’s report are almost echoing my claim of an eternal universe, but for one simple piece of logic. The bubble is imaginary and virtually puts a ring around the observable universe, but from our perspective; our locality within it. The universe is not saddled with anything physical out at the boundary, which means that if we were out in Orion, the boundary would not be the same as it is here.
I’ve dealt with the bubble, or encapsulated universe elsewhere. Perhaps when scientists can recognise that the universe is extremely active with well adjusted laws and with all activities contained and firmly linked, they will see its infinity and its eternity as a fact. After all, it is reasonable to assume that if space is boundless and is occupied by matter and energy why expect it to have a beginning from nothing? Conservation of that content has to be recognised as always being there. What else? And in addition to inventing theories to make it begin and to have it evolve to a state of self destruction, is pointless, since pure physics with all universal laws existing within its activities, cannot be modifiable; and if it was, why? And how? Science seems hell bent on trying to convince us that modification or bending of the rules is what has to be. Why? Is it ego that makes them determined to fault its very structure?
Cosmology and Astrophysics both bend the rules
The Rarity of Supernova
Between 200 and 400 billion stars in the milkyway
and the last supernovae among that lot occured
back in 1604. Incredible!!!
How can Science justify such assertions?
The Rarity of Supernova
Amendment - 1st Sept. 2005...(I have just read of the recent discovery that hydrogen and argon gases float on the surface of a molten sun. The surface material beneath the gases is iron. Either the sun is all iron right to the centre or it is composed of progressively heavier elements below the iron right to the centre). I reckon the latter. And if it is the latter we need look no further for those metals I have said got into the planets from the sun.
What a totally different object this presents
to us from the long held belief that the sun
was all gas. And is science going to suggest
that our star is unique and that all other stars
are gas? Surely not. That could be committing
Wednesday, September 8, 2004 Posted: 10:21 PM EDT (0221 GMT)
(CNN) -- The Genesis return capsule crashed in the desert on Wednesday after its parachutes failed to deploy. The craft missed a mid-air retrieval meant to save the spacecraft from hitting the Earth.
"The capsule has suffered extensive damage. It has broken apart on the desert floor," said an official on NASA TV. "Hopefully, there will be enough evidence to see what went wrong. Whether there will be enough science left inside remains to be seen."
Teams are attempting to recover the craft. NASA has warned them that a "live mortar" or explosive charge designed to deploy the chutes may still be armed.
NASA officials at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California said that long-range cameras did not detect the parachutes that should have slowed the craft.
"There was no drogue chute or parafoil," said a JPL spokesman. "Under those condition, the Genesis capsule hit the ground at about 100 mph."
NASA officials located the spacecraft around noon on Wednesday after it dug into the desert soil. NASA footage shows the craft tumbling rapidly through the air before hitting the ground with enormous force.
The return of the Genesis capsule was supposed to be visible for many in the U.S. as the capsule made a fiery ride across the skies of Oregon, northeastern Nevada, southwestern Idaho and western Utah.
By 11:55 am EDT, it reached the roof of the atmosphere, about 410,000 feet, glowing like a streaking meteor. Somewhere during that descent, something went wrong.
NASA officials were optimistic about the mission in the days leading up to the return of the Genesis capsule.
"We are bringing a piece of the sun down to Earth," said Charles Elachi, the director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "That's going to give us some fundamental understanding of our origins."
Scientists say the data will not only reveal the composition of the sun, but illuminate how our planet could have formed from clouds of stellar dust.
"Four and a half billion years ago, all of the matter of the solar system, including us, was part of a giant molecular cloud," said Don Burnett, principal investigator for the Genesis mission. "Genesis is providing the chemical composition of that solar nebula. ...The material is still stored for us in the surface of the sun."
Two helicopters were poised above a Utah Air Force base to snag the Genesis spacecraft's return capsule. The sturdy container contained atomic isotopes collected as particles streaming off the sun, known as the solar wind.
The unorthodox midair retrieval would have snagged the first extraterrestrial samples since the Apollo missions in the 1970s.
Genesis collected the particles over the last two years on special tiles made from silicon, diamond, gold, sapphire and other materials. The solar particles, embedded in the collector tiles, were ejected at about 280 miles per second (450 km/s) from the sun's scorching corona or outer atmosphere.
Genesis was designed to fill in an astronomical blank spot about the sun's makeup.
"What we've been missing is a starting point," says Burnett. "These samples allow precise measurements of the abundance of elements and isotopes in the sun."
Our star accounts for 99 percent of the mass in the solar system. It is composed mostly of isotopes of hydrogen and helium and includes 60 other elements including neon, argon carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and iron.
In all, Genesis has collected the equivalent of a few grains of the material. Scientists say that is enough to keep researchers busy for decades.
"In some cases, we will be studying these one atom at a time," said Burnett who estimates there will be a "billion billion" atoms available for study.
"We'll have a reservoir of solar matter," he said. "We can meet the requirements for (studying ) the solar composition through the 21st century."
Full Story - Recently, astronomers reported the surprising discovery of a very large diameter Kuiper Belt planetoid -- (90377) Sedna -- on a distant, 12,500-year-long, eccentric orbit centered approximately 500 astronomical units from the Sun. Sedna's estimated diameter is about 1,600 km, two-thirds that of Pluto. Initial studies of Sedna's origin have speculated that it might have been ejected from the giant planets region of our solar system far inside the orbit of Pluto, or perhaps was captured from a passing star's Kuiper Belt.
In a report published in the January 2005 issue of The Astronomical Journal, planetary scientist Dr. Alan Stern of the Space Science and Engineering Division at Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®) shows Sedna could have formed far beyond the distance of Pluto.
"If this is actually what happened," Stern points out, "it would indicate that our solar system's planet factory operated across a much larger region than previously thought." It would also indicate that the mysterious Kuiper Belt "edge" near 50 AU (one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun) is not an outer edge, but simply the inner edge of an annular trough, or gap, that is carved out of a much broader structure that has been called the "Kuiper disk."
Original Source: SWRI News Release
Sedna appears to be 500 times further away from the sun than we are. Wow, and before it was discovered such an object out there would have been impossible by orthodox theory, so now that it is, suddenly it has to be possible. How can the tune be changed from No to Yes, just at the drop of a hat?
One of these days Science will find something out there that is not unexpected. (DCH)
Venus Holds Picture of Baby Earth
By SPACE.com Staff
posted: 07:00 am ET
02 July 2001
These eras are marked by the appearance of the first stable continents and the birth of bacteria. Because of this, Richard Ghail a research associate at the Imperial College in London, says that watching Venus is a way to better understand why and where certain materials formed on Earth, and how life began.
Genesis Continuous ?
Much like Earth 2.5 billion years ago, today's Venus is in a quiet state most of the time, building-up heat underneath its tenuous surface. The heat eventually is unleashed during short periods of intense volcanic activity which entirely remake the planet's surface.
Ghail presented his research at the Earth Systems Processes Conference last week in Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by the Geological Society of America and the Geological Society of London.
(And with Earth
being like Mars was 2.5 billion years
ago, this gives Genesis Continuous a great
I do not guarantee these links. (DCH)
Summary - (Nov 25, 2004) Protoplanetary discs surrounding new stars seem to have the building blocks for rocky planets right from the start, according to new research from an international team of researchers. The astronomers used the European Southern Observatory's VLT Interferometer to examine the discs around three young stars, which were similar to what our own Sun looked like more than 4.5 billion years ago. They found that the inner part of these discs is very rich in sand, ready to be clumped by gravity into larger and larger rocks until full planets form.
(My comments below in larger type)
Full Story - One of the currently hottest astrophysical topics - the hunt for Earth-like planets around other stars - has just received an important impetus from new spectral observations with the MIDI instrument at the ESO VLT Interferometer (VLTI).
An international team of astronomers  has obtained unique infrared spectra of the dust in the innermost regions of the proto-planetary discs around three young stars - now in a state possibly very similar to that of our solar system in the making, some 4,500 million years ago.
Reporting in this week's issue of the science journal Nature, and thanks to the unequalled, sharp and penetrating view of interferometry, they show that in all three, the right ingredients are present in the right place to start formation of rocky planets at these stars.
"Sand" in the inner regions
of stellar discs
The Sun was born about 4,500 million years ago from a cold and massive cloud of interstellar gas and dust that collapsed under its own gravitational pull. A dusty disc was present around the young star, in which the Earth and other planets, as well as comets and asteroids were later formed.
This epoch is long gone, but we may still witness that same process by observing the infrared emission from very young stars and the dusty protoplanetary discs around them. So far, however, the available instrumentation did not allow a study of the distribution of the different components of the dust in such discs; even the closest known are too far away for the best single telescopes to resolve them. But now, as Francesco Paresce, Project Scientist for the VLT Interferometer and a member of the team from ESO explains, "With the VLTI we can combine the light from two well-separated large telescopes to obtain unprecedented angular resolution. This has allowed us, for the first time, to peer directly into the innermost region of the discs around some nearby young stars, right in the place where we expect planets like our Earth are forming or will soon form".
Specifically, new interferometric observations of three young stars by an international team , using the combined power of two 8.2-m VLT telescopes a hundred metres apart, has achieved sufficient image sharpness (about 0.02 arcsec) to measure the infrared emission from the inner region of the discs around three stars (corresponding approximately to the size of the Earth's orbit around the Sun) and the emission from the outer part of those discs. The corresponding infrared spectra have provided crucial information about the chemical composition of the dust in the discs and also about the average grain size.
These trailblazing observations show that the inner part of the discs is very rich in crystalline silicate grains ("sand") with an average diameter of about 0.001 mm. They are formed by coagulation of much smaller, amorphous dust grains that were omnipresent in the interstellar cloud that gave birth to the stars and their discs.
Model calculations show that crystalline grains should be abundantly present in the inner part of the disc at the time of formation of the Earth. In fact, the meteorites in our own solar system are mainly composed of this kind of silicate.
Dutch astronomer Rens Waters, a member of the team from the Astronomical Institute of University of Amsterdam, is enthusiastic: "With all the ingredients in place and the formation of larger grains from dust already started, the formation of bigger and bigger chunks of stone and, finally, Earth-like planets from these discs is almost unavoidable!"
Transforming the grains
It has been known for some time that most of the dust in discs around newborn stars is made up of silicates. In the natal cloud this dust is amorphous, i.e. the atoms and molecules that make up a dust grain are put together in a chaotic way, and the grains are fluffy and very small, typically about 0.0001 mm in size. However, near the young star where the temperature and density are highest, the dust particles in the circumstellar disc tend to stick together so that the grains become larger. Moreover, the dust is heated by stellar radiation and this causes the molecules in the grains to re-arrange themselves in geometric (crystalline) patterns.
Accordingly, the dust in the disc regions that are closest to the star is soon transformed from "pristine" (small and amorphous) to "processed" (larger and crystalline) grains.
Spectral observations of silicate grains in the mid-infrared wavelength region (around 10 µm) will tell whether they are "pristine" or "processed". Earlier observations of discs around young stars have shown a mixture of pristine and processed material to be present, but it was so far impossible to tell where the different grains resided in the disc.
Thanks to a hundred-fold increase in angular resolution with the VLTI and the highly sensitive MIDI instrument, detailed infrared spectra of the various regions of the protoplanetary discs around three newborn stars, only a few million years old, now show that the dust close to the star is much more processed than the dust in the outer disc regions. In two stars (HD 144432 and HD 163296) the dust in the inner disc is fairly processed whereas the dust in the outer disc is nearly pristine. In the third star (HD 142527) the dust is processed in the entire disc. In the central region of this disc, it is extremely processed, consistent with completely crystalline dust.
An important conclusion from the VLTI observations is therefore that the building blocks for Earth-like planets are present in circumstellar discs from the very start. This is of great importance as it indicates that planets of the terrestrial (rocky) type like the Earth are most probably quite common in planetary systems, also outside the solar system.
The pristine comets
The present observations also have implications for the study of comets. Some - perhaps all - comets in the solar system do contain both pristine (amorphous) and processed (crystalline) dust. Comets were definitely formed at large distances from the Sun, in the outer regions of the solar system where it has always been very cold. It is therefore not clear how processed dust grains may end up in comets.
In one theory, processed dust is transported outwards from the young Sun by turbulence in the rather dense circumsolar disc. Other theories claim that the processed dust in comets was produced locally in the cold regions over a much longer time, perhaps by shock waves or lightning bolts in the disc, or by frequent collisions between bigger fragments.
The present team of astronomers now conclude that the first theory is the most likely explanation for the presence of processed dust in comets. This also implies that the long-period comets that sometimes visit us from the outer reaches of our solar system are truly pristine bodies, dating back to an era when the Earth and the other planets had not yet been formed.
Studies of such comets, especially when performed in-situ, will therefore provide direct access to the original material from which the solar system was formed.
The results reported in this ESO PR are presented in more detail in a research paper "The building blocks of planets within the "terrestrial" region of protoplanetary disks", by Roy van Boekel and co-authors (Nature, November 25, 2004). The observations were made in the course of ESO's early science demonstration programme.
: This ESO press release is issued in collaboration with the Astronomical Institute of the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (NOVA PR) and the Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie (Heidelberg, Germany (MPG PR).
: The team consists of Roy van Boekel, Michiel Min, Rens Waters, Carsten Dominik and Alex de Koter (Astronomical Institute, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Christoph Leinert, Olivier Chesneau, Uwe Graser, Thomas Henning, Rainer Köhler and Frank Przygodda (Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg, Germany), Andrea Richichi, Sebastien Morel, Francesco Paresce, Markus Schöller and Markus Wittkowski (ESO), Walter Jaffe and Jeroen de Jong (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands), Anne Dutrey and Fabien Malbet (Observatoire de Bordeaux, France), Bruno Lopez (Observatoire de la Cote d'Azur, Nice, France), Guy Perrin (LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, France) and Thomas Preibisch (Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, Germany).
: The MIDI instrument is the result of a collaboration between German, Dutch and French institutes. See ESO PR 17/03 and ESO PR 25/02 for more information. Original Source: ESO News Release.
Through my eyes this is what I see in the image atop this chapter.
I think that the artist's impression above portrays the content of the report very well, so lets take a close look at what appears to be happening within it.
There are four planetoids belting around in fixed orbit within a disk of dust and gas. (Ok, that's obvious). But is it possible?
Before I say no, lets come back to earth and look at the Concord, a plane built to travel at twice the speed of sound. At that speed, 1,520 miles an hour or 2,400 kms, an hour, the plane heated up even in the very rarefied upper atmosphere of our tiny planet. If the plane flew in a slightly denser atmosphere closer to the ground it would have burst into flames through friction.
This same problem is faced with space shuttles and with anything that has to fall into our atmosphere from outside of it. And how dense is our atmosphere? Without going into figures just let's say that it is an infintisimal pressure compared with the pressures within that nebula in the picture.
Our earth belts around the sun at 108,000kms an hour, or 30 kms per second, and let's say that's 42 times faster than Concord. Any one of those planets in the picture has to be travelling more or less at 100,000 kms. an hour, just to stay in orbit. That point is vital and inescapable.
So some will be thinking that the nebula is also belting around the growing star as well taking the planets with it. Firstly, the picture does not show that to be so, and secondly, orbiting material will not fall into the central forming star, so if it is travelling around the star, it's doing so very much slower than orbital velocity. And the reason for that is that the nebula material has to collapse into the growing star in order to form a star, which is the end result after all. This means that the dust and gas right in close to the star is under incredible pressure; pressure higher than we can produce on earth, even by compression from an explosion.
Instead this material doesn't explode but does the very opposite. It crushes under its own weight and implodes, and by doing so it's mass becomes violently reduced and it's ambient heat is intensely compressed within it. This atomically converted material, slams into the growing star and some of the nebula dust/gas beyond instantly blasts in to occupy the space vacated by its absense. Lets just accept the fact that anything like a planet within the nebula will not survive that holocaust or stay fixed in its orbit.
The collapsing of a nebula is dependant upon huge pressures exerted onto the centre core of the growing star, which by implosion after implosion will absorb it. What is left at the end of the performance is a star made of all the elements we know of. Any gas not absorbed will be blown away by solar wind.
Nothing is left in orbit and we have the whole huge gravitational mass of gas and dust, plus anything that looked like a planet, cleared from the trillions of square kilometers it once occupied, and now is concentrated in a new radiant star some one hundred times the size of our sun.
When you read the article above, none of the aformentioned problems with planet formation within a collapsing nebula are addressed. Why?
Genesis Continuous, as it occured to me back in 1971 was even then a denial of what the scientific people were saying, and what they are still saying today. The picture above is just as I saw it in my mind from the description presented by science back in those days of building planets. The only difference was that rings of dust were left over after the nebula had collapsed, which later somehow or other rolled up into planets, all nicely spaced out in their Bode orbital positions. Also, nothing is said as to why the core of a planet is iron, and why the planetisimal suddenly took on board the silica, calcium, and all the other elements.I said, NO then and I say NO, now.
But why is this glitch in Cosmology such a problem? Answer - It shuts a door on what is almost certainly happening throughout the universe.
Quite simply, within a time framework of 13.7 billion years there is not enough time for all the right things to happen. In this scientific scenario, planets have no destiny. Science doesn't talk about old planets and what happens to them. Probably nobody cares. Planets are said to be in fixed orbits right from the beginning of their existence, and somehow that's it. Perhaps they just fade away.
But when we speak of gas nebulae, is it taken for granted that there is or was nothing for the gas to cling to? I don't think so. A gas giant like our outer planets, is a baby nebula that can't grow whilst it's mother sun's solar wind keeps blowing all free gas away out to the kuiper belt or where ever. But a spiralling planet, being released because over many billions of years, its star is losing gravity, will eventually drift away from orbit. It will collect a bigger and bigger atmosphere as it travels away and the name gas giant will change to nebula. No doubt a burned out star will be able to become a nebula core, but if it had already released say eight planets ot more into the cosmos, then its presence is really outnumbered.
Science has recently discovered 13 free roaming gas giants in a part of the Milky way and they've got some funny ideas of how they came to exist. And that's because they stick to their antiquated text books that support fixed orbit planetary systems.
Our sun has nine or ten or perhaps more planets that will all be released, I think, about 2.5 billion years apart. These are non-radiant bodies absolutely ideal to collect gas and become nebula. Being non-radiant, this is something that only they can do. So instead of a supernova being needed to trigger the collapse of a nebula, there is an old molten planet right in the middle of it just waiting for the right pressure to explode. The explosion compresses the gas immediately above and around it and that triggers implosion number one.
Look at a planetary system and how it is layed out,- see the oldest planets drift away and eventually become stars, - add more generations to that scenario, - perhaps thousands of them, and you have a picture of how galaxies are layed out. And that is all because planets play their unique part in the continuous shaping of the universe
Incidentally, there's something else those 23 scientists have not explained and that is how iron is the core metal of planets. According to them the nebula was composed of hydrogen and silica. There has to be iron in a star to create an equitorial plane of planets, and the planets must have iron in them to respond to that polarity control.
At this very moment there is an asteroid belt of iron rich rocks 2 solar widths away from the sun. I predicted its existence back in 1972, and it was actually discovered in 1983.
Iron rich, probably semi molten rocks is just what is needed to form the core of a planet. I believe that this little ring of iron is continually added to by eruption from the sun. About every 2 to 2.5 billion years, it rolls up, by attraction, and becomes a planetisimal somewhat like Mercury would have been a billion years ago. And yes, moons could form up at the same time and being smaller, would go into orbit around the larger body.
I wonder if this work by 23 experts is designed to just confuse and not to inform, like a Discovery channel concoction of purely imaginary graphic sequences shrouded in unrelated weird music and threats of disaster that leaves the viewer wondering what and what not to believe, and the milkman, because he watched it and couldn't sleep, was late for his delivery in the morning.
It is these important points that Genesis Continuous is based upon.
A 2006 discovery by the NASA telescope,
Spitzer, confirms what I have said. see
'Planets cannot form in Rough
This report offers me one of the greatest supports for Genesis Continuous, and where much of my theoretical belief is confirmed by academia concerning planet creation. I present it as a complete article.
A team of astronomers led by Dr. John Hughes of Rutgers University in Piscataway, NJ has used observations from NASA's orbital Chandra X-ray Observatory to make an important new discovery that sheds light on how silicon, iron, and other elements were produced in supernova explosions. An X-ray image of Cassiopeia A (Cas A), the remnant of an exploded star, reveals gaseous clumps of silicon, sulfur, and iron expelled from deep in the interior of the star.
The findings appear online in the Astrophysical Journal Letters athttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/contents/ApJL/v528n2.html and are slated for print publication on Jan. 10, 2000. Authors of the paper, "Nucleosynthesis and Mixing in Cassiopeia A", are Hughes, Rutgers graduate student Cara Rakowski, Dr. David Burrows of the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA and Dr. Patrick Slane of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA.
According to Hughes, one of the most profound accomplishments of twentieth century astronomy is the realization that nearly all of the elements other than hydrogen and helium were created in the interiors of stars. "During their lives, stars are factories that take the simplest element, hydrogen, and convert it into heavier ones," he said. "After consuming all the hydrogen in their cores, stars begin to evolve rapidly, until they finally run out of fuel and begin to collapse. In stars ten times or so more massive than our Sun, the central parts of the collapsing star may form a neutron star or a black hole, while the rest of the star is blown apart in a tremendous supernova explosion." Supernovae are rare, occurring only once every 50 years or so in a galaxy like our own.
"In addition to understanding how iron and the other elements are produced in stars, we also want to learn how it gets out of stars and into the interstellar medium. This is why the study of supernovae and supernova remnants is so important," said Hughes. "Once released from stars, newly-created elements can then participate in the formation of new stars and planets in a great cycle that has gone on numerous times already. It is remarkable to realize that our planet Earth and indeed even humanity itself is part of this vast cosmic cycle."
The Chandra observation was taken with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) on August 19, 1999. ACIS was built by Pennsylvania State University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Great. All the higher elements can be created out of a basic hydrogen/helium mix, through enormous pressures and heat inside stars, without the addition of supernova contribution. The last paragraph in the Chandra research report asks the question as to how these elements get out to the planets. I've had the answer to that since 1972.
There is an iron rich asteroid belt circling the sun, just two solar widths away from it. How did it get there? Explaining how it got there should be less of a problem than trying to explain how similar material got out to the planetal orbits of the solar system before the planets were made.
In view of the fact that the sun is constantly erupting molten material into its atmosphere, must give a clue as to how this stuff at least gets to the little asteroid belt two solar widths away. But what has science puzzled is to how it gets away out to Neptune and all points in between and now beyond. Also, it would be nice to know why iron is the core material and silica and other stuff is on top. Genesis Continuous does not have this problem.
If science would reconsider the age of the sun as being vastly older than now thought, and with that, a more realistic extended gravity loss over its lifetime, the Bode progression of our planetary system would fit a spiralling pattern of construction where all those bodies started out from that tiny ring which gave them the iron rich cores they needed, plus most of the other core elements they’ve ended up with. Iron, alone, gives the planets polarity – something quite important for its future development and growth.
The Chandra findings put the case perfectly. There are not enough supernovae to provide for all the star formations that exist, or are anticipated must exist out there. Stars are vastly numerous, and true, our sun’s system of orbiting bits and pieces accounts for about 1% of its total mass, which is really neither here nor there, but, the higher elements had to come from somewhere. Either our sun was fully equipped to do the job or it wasn’t. And if science is right, our sun had to be perhaps 100 times larger that it is now when born to have forged the higher elements, and this means that a 13.7 billion year old universe is laughable in order to have our sun be the necessary age.
It has taken a long time to advance our technology sufficiently to confirm that our star system is not a unique one in the heavens. There are other planets orbiting other stars. However, it seems to be taking a longer time to accept that supernovae are not a vital part of star building and planet composition. There just aren’t enough of them to be a vital link in the cycle. They contribute, yes.
As I have pointed out elsewhere in this book, a nebula can collapse into a star through its own natural internal physic. That is, a shock from the planetary core of a nebula exploding under the huge pressure built upon it, would be a far more effective, precisely timed, correctly located blast, capable of compressing the nearby gas to collapse it by implossion and fusion. The chain reaction from then on leads to a star being born, but the crushing and exploding of the core planet or moon or whatever, could only occur when the weight of gas above it was sufficient to cause the collapse. That is the minimum weight/pressure necessary to create a star with a full compliment of elements. And that has to be a solar mass some 100 times larger or more, than our sun is at present.
Also, that original blast, and the first gas fusion implosion, may have been responsible for most of the alchemy to change a lot of the material involved into the heavier elements. So surely the core material of a star has to finally contain all the higher elements.
Science has to quit itself of Big Bang and a beginning 13.7 billion years ago in order to solve these problems.
It has been recently
announced that there are stars in the
milky way that are 150 times the mass
of the sun. Lots of them apparently –
Well, that’s something to go by isn’t
New analysis of data from the Mars Pathfinder Mission has revived a nagging question that was first posed nearly 50 years ago: why do the inner planets exhibit different mean densities when presumably they formed from the same material? The new analysis, performed at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, suggests that one current theory explaining density variations is wrong, and that future modelers of inner solar system accretion must account for a set of inner planets with differing compositions. (See my comment below. DCH)
Connie Bertka and Yingwei Fei of Carnegie's Geophysical Laboratory and Center for High Pressure Research report in this week's Science magazine that the bulk elemental composition of Mars does not match the composition of a type of primitive meteorite called a C1 carbonaceous chondrite. The abundance ratios of non-volatile elements in C1 chondrites, especially the iron/silica (Fe/Si) ratio, has long been believed to be a standard for the terrestrial planets. C1 chondrites evidence refractory element abundance ratios similar not only to those of the sun's atmosphere, but to lunar and terrestrial samples as well. Because of this, scientists for over forty years have assumed that C1 chondrites represent the original parent material from which the inner solar system accreted, and that the terrestrial planets (with the exception of Mercury) evidence the same basic non-volatile element composition. The differences in mean densities were thought to arise from differences in the amount of reduction that the originally oxidized C1 material experienced. (Some elements in their reduced form favour the formation of denser mineral phases than in their oxidized form. For example, metallic iron, Fe, is much denser than an Fe+2- or Fe+3-bearing silicate mineral phase.)
Previous studies had suggested that the C1 model might not work for Mars, but those studies were based on questionable assumptions. Bertka and Fei entered the fray last year, after the Mars Pathfinder mission brought home a definitive value for Mars's moment of inertia, designated C. C describes the mass distribution within a planet's interior; essentially it tells how the elements may be partitioned into a silicate mantle and a denser metallic core. C is one of the factors necessary to determine a planet's bulk composition. Before the Mars data were derived from Pathfinder results, C was known only for the Earth and Moon. That value for Earth, combined with knowledge of the Earth's mean density and an understanding of high-pressure mineral phase transitions in its interior, can indeed lead to a calculated non-volatile element bulk composition equivalent to that of a C1 chondrite. (continued, see urls above)
I can only assume that science will not have viewed the characteristics of our planet family on the possibility that their Bode progressive orbital positions may also relate to their progressive ages. That is to say, each planet is 2 to 2.5 billion years older than its inner neighbour.
The total bulk of each planet would vary,
not from the expanse of its assumed accreting
zone or present orbit, but by the state
of the sun’s variable performance at the
time of its ring-zone replenishment.There
could well be variations in the total
mass of the ring-zone and also ratio of
ingredients when a planetisimal was forming,
and there could well have been variations
in the composition of other accretionary
material beyond the planetisimal zone
that would cause planetal differences.
At last, the dreaded chapter 33, that was only going to appear in my book. I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for a paper copy because it's reaching people quite well on the web. What a lot of people won't like about this chapter is that I've come down to earth saying, hey, get real, stop hiding behind theories that are more incredible than anything ever seen on a Disney show. Big Bang has had it's run and it's time to look at the more likely proposal that the universe is eternal and that Creation is what happens within its recycling activity.
There are two basic misunderstood words in the Cosmological Physic. - Creation and God. The problem is that they both equate with 'A BEGINNING', which I feel is not the same thing.
From ancient times until now, man has experienced a continual course of creation all around him that could all be measured in time and change. So why wouldn't there be a beginning of the universe to start that time-clock ticking? And because that incredible proposition was so beyond his understanding, he invented God as the maker.
Are these the words of a true atheist? Well, yes and no.
One has to admit that God is a mystery anyway, so therefore He/She is not one thing to all people who believe in Him/Her. Is He/She the same entity to all races but dressed differently by each? It appears not.
Creation shows us that there are laws of nature, but man has personalised God as a creator who established laws, not so much concerned with a continuous environmental creation, but focussed upon the morality of man. As far as the environment was concerned, man could leave that up to God to manage and if there were disastrous droughts and floods etc., this was God's punishment for man's breaking of His laws. The Hebrews were forever breaking these laws and suffered the consequences accordingly. The problem was that they received a rather mixed message about killing people. The Ten Commandments said, "Thou shall not kill", but to protect their 'God given' territory from the people who occupied it when they came to claim it, they had to kill. The Old Testament is what that history is all about - but the book continues to this day.
So the concept of a Beginning of the whole by a being who could manipulate the environment at will, produced fear and confusion in the everyday decisions and activities of those who were indoctrinated in those beliefs.
Nowadays we are well into the technical and mathematical transition from God's ordinances to a more unfettered way of living, but that transition has had to tread carefully in some basic instances. The power and wealth of the church reached into the very heart of our learning institutions and was reluctant to let go of such basic claims as God beginning it all. The scientific establishment was discovering things that didn't quite tie in with those ancient teachings so for many years were at a loss to blend science with religion amicably.
So for Science to move forward, but at the same time not tread too heavily on the toes of the clergy, a new beginning idea emerged, from the concept of a singularity; an object smaller than a proton. An extreme of the most massive dimensions.
The singularity concept did two things, it solved the problem of conservation, which the Old Testament hadn't, yet it provided that necessary beginning. But, how to move forward from that was very obviously not on the original agenda. Science had dropped themselves right in an explosive mix that not even established physics and chemistry could blend with.
In order to fortify and prop up this incredibly unbelievable singularity concept that went bang, they deleted time from the equation before it went bang. One simply has to ask, why?
They didn't know why the singularity existed, until someone suggested that it was the compaction of a previous universe that went from expansion at a gravity controlled expansive distance then came hurtling back to the singularity state, so the absence of time started to look a bit sick with that theory because we now had a previous universe, to a beginning of this one. Only the conservation law really benefited from that one.
Then someone encapsulated the singularity with a bladder, so that space as we know it, was also encapsulated. When the Bang and resultant expansion happened, the bladder went with it, so what is beyond the bladder is a sort of non existent indescribable nothingness. And then the time from now back to the beginning was assessed as being thirteen point seven billion years. - Talk about tying the whole thing down with props to hold it up!
I have given reference earlier in this
work to another incongruous example of
the 13.7 BY so called boundary and the
distance from us to the farthest and supposedly
youngest galactic systems in the universe
by a scientist who says that they have
observed planets in a star system at 13
billion light years away, "remarkably
like our own" and adds that "they
are still there". Such a statement
would claim that they shot out to that
distance in 700 million years and suddenly
stopped. What, planets and all?
If people think that God is magic, just try that for size.
To say that those galaxies are 13 billion years old is fine, but to say they are still there after 13 billion years is crazy in an expanding universe. And then there's the bladder, zero point seven billion light years ahead of those galaxies. Understanding that light from galaxies shines globally, what happens to it when it strikes the bladder? Now if you try to answer that question please don't forget the law of conservation, that no doubt has to insist that all matter has to be kept within the bladder containment. Even by employing the most complex mathematics I can't see how anyone can, using known laws of physics and good old common sense, come up with a convincing result. Where do all those subatomic particles go to and how do they get back into the recycling activity of the cosmos?
All I want to see is truth in the world, universal truth. Knowledge should not be measured in dollars and cents and the acquiring of that knowledge should be a global desire and a human right to access it. The release of that knowledge to the world should be 100% uncensored, but be classified on a scale of one to ten, and anything below ten be classified as theory.
After all, we are one world, and only truth and respect for one another, with responsible care for all other life forms, and globally, the environment, can take us into a desirable future. If this means World Government, then I guess that's what would have to be. The United Nations has not worked, because it hasn't the power to say no and act accordingly. Leaders and their warlike activities have to be brought to trial as aggressors against the planet. A military force is a totally non productive carbon emissive body of men and women that should not exist in a civilised world. And we should realise that it is only a very small group of people who dictate if and when that force will be deployed or not. Destruction is not a civilised act.
If I have one prayer to all mankind it is this:-[Respect all as you would expect all to respect you]. You have one life and so does everyone and everything else. Your life can be miserable or it can be pleasant. Be prepared to lose what you take, and with it lose what you already had but failed to realise was precious; so share what you have earned and find joy that you didn't know existed. May your planet's wellbeing be uppermost in your thoughts and actions every day of your existence.
(17) It has just been announced, September 2005, that a galaxy eight times larger than the Milkyway has been discovered 13 billion light years away at the edge of the universe. Scientists are very baffled by this since galaxies out there are supposed to be small and therefore, young. This upsets the believed age of the universe to a significant degree and it appears that science will have a job on its hands trying to maintain the supposed age of 13.7 billion years since the BB. Ho hum, when is the bubble going to burst?
(18) The other recent discovery that
our glorious sun is not made of over
90% hydrogen, but instead it has a thin
layer of hydrogen and argon resting
on what appears to be a ball of molten
iron, must surely be causing Science
to tear out the relevant pages from
their textbooks. After all, the nebula
from which the sun was formed was mostly
hydrogen and dust, and its collapse,
by implosion, converted the hydrogen
into elements high up the atomic scale.
Why would there be so much hydrogen left over and so little of the converted elements making up the other under 10% ?
And finally, if in the years to come, some qualified cosmologist reads Genesis Continuous, and agrees that it offers a far more likely scenario of cosmological existance; that it solves the expansion issue that is at the heart of Big Bang, but obviously has nothing to do with it;- that planets can only be formed and orbit in an atmosphere prepared for them by a radiant star;- and that the key to star birth and formation starts from a small asteroid belt in close to the star, that contains most of the semi-molten iron and other necessary metals to form a planetisimal, of which the planet Mercury is a perfect example.
So, as for this little asteroid belt, discovered in 1983? I knew it had to be there in 1972. And I feel that if Genesis Continuous receives at least some recognition in the future, I would like that little belt of hot rocks in close to the sun to be called, Hardy-Tiki.
This is in tribute to a man I worked with many years ago, Charlie Pickering, who sadly is long gone, but who told me the story of Tiki, some years before Thor Heyadal's book, Kontiki, was published.The similarity between the two versions left no doubt in my mind that Heyadal had done his research very well indeed. So Charlie's whanau, family, and probably thousands of polynesians who know of their roots in the Eastern Pacific, will know exactly what the name Tiki implies.
If the Biblical account of Creation has influenced Science to stick ridgedly to the necessity of a Beginning, I would like to draw their attention to one very salient point. When God made the heavens and the earth, that is called Creation. It does not say what material he used to do this and neither does it say that he created it from nothing. The answer comes a little later when he 'created man in his own image' - out of a ball of clay.
Surely that tells us that Creation refers to the continual atomic and chemical processors that make and also dismantle stars and planets back into other components. If God made what it is said he made, he had all the materials at hand - even the clay.
In particular, thanks to my wife, Molly, who has had to put up with hours and hours of my solitary work time for so many years.
I note that some links to reference material don't work now June 2008.