Genesis Continuous
Complete

Alternative Cosmology of the Universe

David Calder Hardy

 

  1. An Eternal universe offers a boundless ageless Infinity.
  2. which offers Conservation because there is no where else for anything to be, or be created out of nothing, or be annihilated. 
  3. Creation, because everything is there to create with.
  4. Re-creation because every bit of energy/matter is recycleable.
  5. It is only the theory of Big Bang that utterly destroys that simplicity. 


Chapter 10.
The endless chain

Chapter 11.
Steady State

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.

Chapter 17.
Cosmic Bubbles

 

 

 

 

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.

Introduction

Preface

Chapter 1.
Sets out to prove.

Chapter 2.
Cosmos eternal

Chapter 3. The
Universe Speaks

Chapter 4.
Conservation

Chapter 5.
Mathemagics

Chapter 6.
Cycle of eternity

Chapter 7.
Sort of enlightenment

Chapter 8.
Beginnings

Chapter 9.
Cosmological constant

 

Chapter 18.
Well?

Chapter 19. Hydrogen,
1st. & last Link

Chapter 20.
Other Components

Chapter 21.
Time Anomolies

Chapter 22. Supernovae.
Vast explosions

Chapter 23.
The Iron Core

Chapter 24. The
Genesis Probe

Chapter 25. Problems
with other Theories

Chapter 26. Sedna,
Upsets the applecart

 

 

Chapter 27. Venus, like Baby Earth. 2.5 b. y. ago.

Chapter 28.
Future Discoveries

Chapter 29. Must read
Making rocky planets

Chapter 30.
The Gas Giants

Chapter 31.
Ironic Distribution

Chapter 32. Mars iron
ratio in question.

Chapter 33
Very much a must read

Chapter 34. Conclusions

 

 

 

 

See new announcement that Planets cannot form in rough neighbourhoods. October 2006

Since stars are now said to be 100 times larger than the sun when born, we should expect that no planet formation is possible within a collapsing nebula, so that leaves planet formation until after the star forms and blows away all remaining gas with its solar-wind. Eruption of iron rich molten rock by the stargoes into orbit around it, eventually rolls up into a planetisimal core, then over 2 or 3 billion years has spiralled away from the scene of its birth, where, meantime a replenishment of the iron rich rock accumulates and rolls up to form the core of the next planet. Also this report would suggest that there is no such thing as a protoplanetary disc. So what of the artist's impression accompanying the report at Chapter 29.?

 

 


 
Introduction
© 
Here is an internet version of Genesis Continuous, Complete. (Well - not quite complete). Chapter 33 is reserved for the book version only. If a publisher should happen to find and read this work and thinks that it's good enough to print on paper, and is ready to enter into a contract, the moment a deal is made I'll delete this page off the web. My experience so far with wooing interest within the publishing fraternity is that a synopsis and several chapters is no where near enough to enlighten them sufficiently. - So, but for chapter 33, here's the e-book of Genesis Continuous. Or the "Alternative Cosmology of the Universe".

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

If you want to seek out words on this website, go to Freefind Search this site and click on - index- or on -sitemap for list of pages..

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.


Preface
© 
Since the science or philosophy of cosmology exists mainly on theory as its source of continuing investigation it is sad that there appears to be no academic protocol that requires fact to be the foundation stone of all research result. 
 
There seems no doubt that ‘The Big Bang’ theory of a creation, dominates cosmological research result, virtually to the exclusion of any other reason why the universe exists. Indeed, it is reported that for students to question BB is tantamount to a black mark on their escutcheon.
 
I’m not saying that it is all wrong. All I want to point out is that where foundational proof does not exist then surely theory should not exist as proof. 
 
As one cosmologist said ‘Astrophysicists are always in error but never in doubt’, which does seem a bit harsh. But probably this claim is based upon the point that I have just made. ‘Theory should not exist as proof’. 
 
This work is designed for anyone and everyone to read, understand and enjoy. It does not contain complex mathematics or subject matter designed to confuse or mislead. Science, it may be, but one does not need to understand the dna or even the latin name of a flower to appreciate it. It should not offend the religious or the scientific or anyone with an open mind. In fact, it could well be that where religious and the scientific view points are seen as being poles apart, Genesis Continuous could bring them much closer together. ‘As it was in the beginning it is now and ever shall be’ are words that are truly relevant to the theory of Genesis Continuous, just as they are to the foundation of many of the main religions on earth. 
 
In consideration of that observation, I wonder why human interest in our cosmological history has diminished somewhat from what it used to be in ancient times. Is it because there aren't as many of us employed as shepherds any more? The beautiful unpolluted skies of yester-year must have been magnificent to behold and would have drawn people's eyes skyward in wonderment, whilst exercising their nightly duties. After all one’s eyes can’t be concentrated on the sheep all the time. 

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.

 
The main problem is credibility and understanding. There is a human desire to know about our existence, our organic foundation as it were; how we belong with and to our surroundings, now, in the past and in the future. Once upon a time the whole subject was simple. Generations ago people were able to come to terms with simple, so called, God given information that involved a tribal or racial culture, and that covered everything, astronomy included.
 
Today, Science has usurped the subject as their own domain and their pronouncements about it are not being passed on to everyone in a clear, truthful and meaningful way. Instead, the analysis of their research conflicts with the religious and even with the simple logical thought processors of many of us. 
 
Cosmological science seems to treat everyone with disrespect, and for billions of folk on this planet that is socially and politically confusing and damaging. 
 
This is one of the reasons why I believe, that now, at the beginning of this new millennium, it is time to offer humanity a logical stable cosmology, based upon open encouragement to solve problems and not be biased toward ‘Big Bang’ or any other unlikely theory. The twentieth century involved us in horrors of racial, political, and religious conflicts that should not occur in an enlightened humanity, and this new century so far is no different from the previous. Truthfully solving and presenting the facts about our place in the sky, our present and future prospects globally, as part of the solar system and universe, is what I hope this book will help to inspire. 
 
I may be wrong about some things, and I stand to be corrected if that is so. However, I offer simple yet obvious and rational answers to problems that science does not have answers for, but I found those answers by going right back to square one, and following salient facts of physics that led me on a very different but understandable course from what Academia preach. 
 
I hope that Genesis Continuous, as plain and simple as it is, conveys to the reader that there are other ways of looking at things that just might be worth exploring, and where Academia present something that seems a bit suspect it is not a bad thing to investigate it. I guess one could say that just because others are happy to go along with the norm you’re not a knucklehead for having doubts about it. 
 
There is no doubt that many discoveries have been made where the results have been biased to support Big Bang theory, yet which could equally be applied to other theories as well. The expanding universe is just one of those, as will be revealed in this work. Yes, it is expanding but that has nothing to do with a Big Bang or a Beginning of any sort. 
 
Another is Science’s claim that supernovae trigger the collapse of nearby nebula to create stars is very unlikely, since the number of stars out there compared with the number of supernovae at any one time, is wildly disproportionate. Besides that, there are other strong objections to it that Genesis Continuous reveals. - Time factor, being one of them.
 
At this point I wish to make it clear that I take the stance that it is all very well to criticise, but only to do so if one can come up with something better. It has been my endevour to do just that within these pages, since there is light at the end of the tunnel.
 
The original 1997 internet version of Genesis Continuous is fundamentally accurate in my view, but it was designed to deal with the origin of the solar system. Now, with so much more wonderful evidence available about the greater cosmos, it is possible to complete what I set out to do, that is, present a foundational scenario for an eternal universe which through creation and recreation within it, has always been and always will be.
 
Some folk may think that I have merely copied the 'Steady State' theory. Not so. Steady State does not offer conservation, or a logical explanation as to how the universe replenishes itself in a linked recycling and balanced manner. 
 
Eternity could not work without the cosmos having the ability to recycle itself. The steady state theory did not offer a practical means of fulfilling just that. There has to be a complete cosmological endless chain of events with clearly defined links where nothing is gained or lost, or created out of nothing, or destroyed. All these links do exist and are recorded in the annals of cosmological discovery, so it looks as though I may be, as far as I know, the first to demonstrate how it all comes together as a workable eternity. Regeneration, the Cosmological Constant, Conservation of matter/energy, all adds up to eternity and Big Bang theory fails completely to offer the necessary format to support that. 
 
Because Genesis Continuous is a very different view of the active cosmology of the universe, in many instances it automatically solves problems that haunt the orthodox view. As examples, the presence of an asteroid belt two solar widths away from the sun, - non orbiting wandering planets, - Bodes Law, - the apparent progressive evolutionary development of planets as demonstrated by Mercury, Venus, earth and Mars, - and why the expansion of the universe, in my view, is a normal phenomenon of its eternal cosmology, but that its happening is clearly not the way science sees it. - I can add too, as already mentioned, that a supernovae being required to trigger the collapse of a nebula into a star has to be a clumsy and ill examined concept. The requirement of a shockwave would be better located at the heart of the nebula where an explosive impact upon the most pressurised gas in the whole nebula would force it to implode. The detonator actually exists and will do its job precisely when, and only when the nebula is large enough, causing enough pressure to collapse it. 
 
Without these simple realities, Genesis Continuous would have no structure. And if we can’t get ‘Big Bang’ or any other concept of a ‘Beginning’, out of the textbooks, cosmology cannot advance. 
 
So in this AD, 2005, I know that each year from now on will offer more supporting evidence for Genesis Continuous, as has been the case up until now since 1972, and I hope that I will be able to maintain my website, for a long time yet. -< http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy>. Or if that url should ever change, the keywords, "genesis continuous", or "david calder hardy", should find my site’s continuity. 
 
Footnote to Preface:- 
 
I expect that I will be criticised for repeating some of my conclusions a number of times. The reason is simple. – Collectively, this is a new theory where supporting evidence is approached from a number of angles and the result becomes repeated because each segment is evidence of its support. There would be little point in making a claim supported by just one example of existing scientific discovery in the hope that my case could rest on that alone. I am writing one book and my evidence has to be as complete as I am able to present it. Orthodox science has heaps of reference books in their libraries and each author has presented the same material, in his or her own unique way, which helps for understanding of it. I am one author with one collective theory all in one book. 
 
I am not a scientist but I think that I have an analytical, innovative and questioning brain, and that, in spite of the fact that my theory, Genesis Continuous, is supported mainly by logic with a minimum of mathematical strings attached to it. A little addition and subtraction here and a little multiplication or division somewhere else, is all that was needed to put it clearly into perspective. This makes Genesis Continuous an easy read for everyone. Besides, if someone attempts to burden it with complex equations in the future, it will not be at my bidding. 
 
I hope I will be pardoned for believing that there is just one universe and that it is not one of many, or that it will shrink down to a singularity again when time will cease, and then leap off into another violent expansion of new cosmic creation. I happen to think that all the evidence points to a glorious stability of active continuity of one infinite universe that always was and always will be. 

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.

 
To discover can reveal hope, and with an open mind to uncover can reveal reality. DCH
*


Chapter 1

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 research advancement.


Chapter 2

Cosmos Eternal

The cosmos is a perpetually self constructing entity of infinite capacity and existence. Any theory that proposes a beginning or end or non-eternal factor creates boundaries in which the progression of astrophysical research becomes utterly limited and confused. 

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).

Mercury     0.39 
Venus         0.723 
Earth          1.0 
Mars          1.524 
Asteroid Belt 
Jupiter        5.203 
Saturn        9.539 
Uranus      19.18 
Neptune    30.06 
Pluto         39.53 

And our nearest star neighbour is 4 light years away. 


Chapter 3

The Universe Speaks for Itself

I am galaxies of stars and star systems wherever you look. There are no boundaries to my domain. You may build larger and larger telescopes, and more powerful instruments to examine me with, but I will be there and beyond your observational range. You may argue and debate my containment but it will always lie beyond your scrutiny and even your imagination. This is because I am not contained. If you see a star at the very outer edge of your field of view, its light shines beyond it at least as far again as its source is from you. That’s doubling the distance of that one star’s influence in the universe, within and beyond, and from these facts you cannot escape. 

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!


Chapter 4

Conservation, and the Space in Space.

 
This one word, ‘Conservation’, stands in the way of Big Bang theory fairly and squarely. 
If the cosmos is contained in an expanding bubble, then where are all the subatomic particles going that are emitted by every active radiant star in it? 
 
We have to accept that every star radiates its energy in every direction, exactly the same as does the sun. If, with a good telescope, we look in one direction across the horizon and we see a star, then we turn around 180 degrees and see another, we know that their light particles cross into each other’s field of radiation. And there is a very good reason to believe that each star is absorbing the other’s radiated energy. 
 
The Big Bang Bubble places a restriction on the freedom of stars to radiate beyond the big bang bubble’s boundary, yet every little bit of radiated energy has to be reabsorbed back into the mass of the cosmos, universally speaking, and does not appear to be bounced back by the perceived skin of the bubble into the Big Bang arena. So, where is it going? Or do we ignore the law of conservation? 
 
Clearly, there are uninterrupted passages through the space that exists between potential objects of capture. These will be stars, planets and all solid bodies, as well as groupings of gas and dust. And even one wandering grain of dust in space will collect some particles from every radiant star within its field of view. 
 
I am suggesting that from our sun’s perspective we are in the centre of a global field, (which should have a name), the outer edge of which, collectively presents a solid mass of opacity, comprised of all the galaxies, dust etc. between the sun and it. This places a physical limit on the distance our sun’s radiant energy can escape to but not beyond. Let’s call it ‘Total Radiation Absorption Containment’, which then, is an arena specific to every star in which each will spread its energy to a state of complete reabsorption. This simple suggestion satisfies the law of conservation of matter/energy but allows it to spread through the universe beyond and beyond and even back again. Creation then, can be seen as a boundless perpetual process. 
 
From radiation to absorption is simply controlled by the density of the cosmic content and its separation in space. Each star then, has a similar field, specific to its own position in space. So stars that appear to us as being the most distant we can detect with our instruments, are each in their own TRAZ or ‘Total Radiation Absorption Zone’, of which we are a part. 
 
So, with this theory, particles of energy become reabsorbed into the cosmic system, instead, perhaps, of being radiated into a mythical great beyond, never to return. 
 
For Genesis Continuous to be what the existence of the universe is all about, there has to be a chain of continuous links of conservation, based upon strict laws, but with freedom to interlink everywhere in a boundless universal system of exactly what is observationally evident. 
 
If I stand on the top of Mt Everest and see a star on the horizon, I will have captured a miniscule yet cumulative part of its energy, depending upon how long I stand there, that would otherwise have travelled on its journey of perhaps many more light-years before being absorbed by another guy standing on a high mountain all that vast time and distance beyond.
 
Oh, and another thing. When I die and am buried, some of that captured cosmic substance will probably be a part of my remains and will become an additional part of the substance of our planet, - which it was before I died anyway.
 
(What other subject can take one from the ridiculously vast to the ridiculously small all in one sentence)? Wonderful!!!!!! 
 
Has science found the ‘Total Radiation Absorption’ boundary for our sun yet? A place, that when reached, our sun’s rays will have all been captured and reabsorbed? How many light years away is it from here, and is it perhaps away beyond the perceived skin of the Big Bang capsule? 
 
The Universe probably owes its existence to the success of its existence, and its eternity will be firmly based upon a continuation of that success. (DCH).
*


Chapter 5
 
Mathemagics
 
Mathematics in cosmology is a real bugbear as it seems to pin everything down. Equations establish boundaries, which restrict looking beyond the squares they impose. I remember a radio announcer once saying, after very heavy rain, that a river had risen 24 inches, and after a short pause she added, ‘that’s almost two feet, isn’t it’? So when we change 24 inches into 24 billion something or other, is that almost 24 somethings? – or is it slightly more? And does it matter that the perceived age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old? – or 21.8? – or 31.3629 billion years old? 
On the one hand, it matters not a jot but on the other, it’s a pain in the neck.
 
If conclusions stand as theoretical, that’s not O.K., and its tantamount to heresy to ignore them and move on, so if they are so defined this upsets a whole string of other theories, and the confusion of figures and ideas just bogs down reasonable result. I’m sure that some well meaning researchers have been daunted by having to deal with the supposed age of earth, or trying to figure out how Mars appears to be 2.5 billion years older than earth, and by coincidence, earth appears to be 2.5 billion years older than Venus. (Both assessed from scientific techniques, although both are worded very cleverly to hopefully mislead). Mars was like earth is 2.5 billion years ago. And Venus presents us with a ‘Baby Earth’, or what earth was like 2.5 billion years ago. How about the possibility that those ‘appeared’ age differences are real? 
 
I figured out back in 1973 that the planets were formed about 2 billion years apart, with Mercury being the youngest. That made the solar-system, as then observed, to be at least 20 billion years old, as demonstrated by the progressive orbital spacing known as Bodes Law. So Science has upped my figures from 2 to 2.5, and I’m happy to go along with that. 
 
Therefore, how do the tutors explain this apparent 5 billion year difference between Venus and Mars to their students? And - how old is the sun supposed to be? Answer, about 5.5 billion years on the last reckoning I have found. So well, shrug the shoulders and move on. Next they will find that Mercury is like Venus was 2.5 billion years previous to Venus, and the timescale cat-alogue will really be among the pigeons. 
 
13.7 billion years locked in a jam tin, when the fruit fly had the whole orchard as its realm. (DCH)
*


Chapter 6

Cycle of Eternity

What is a beginning? What constitutes an actual start of an event, an occasion, a birth, a genesis?
 
We witness all these descriptives repeatedly through our lives right here on earth. They are evident in every observation. There is a beginning of every day, or a conception at the moment a sperm fertilises an egg. And there is an end to both as well. There is the beginning of a tree when it's tiny shoot peeps through the earth - or was that when it's seed was fertilised by a speck of passing pollen – and that is before it was a seed. Description by name seems simple enough, but what about the in-betweens? Sure, there’s a fetus, a baby, a child, a youth, a man and woman. There’s a grain of sand, a stone, a boulder, a hill, a mountain, an island, a continent, a planet. We can identify these objects and we can accept the gray areas of transition, like from baby to child or hill to mountain, or speck of water vapor, icicle, or pool of water - well, we can, more or less. 
 
Human interaction requires a reasonably accurate set of nouns or names and adjectives to classify everything and distinguish between similarities, and imagination where our knowledge and experience fills in the gaps. If a policeman interrogates a witness who only ‘saw a man leaving the scene of the crime’, he’s not going to be very satisfied with that, just as saying that, it was a rock that caused the accident. Either their plane hit Gibraltar or the pilot got a piece of sand in his eye. Both are correctly classified as ‘rock’. 
 
Maybe those are not the best examples of gray areas of what I’m trying to say here, but they’ll have to suffice to make my point. 
 
The long and the short of it is that our language and thinking does not always clearly identify the in-betweens and in space that’s a real problem. Say we have a star and after X billion or more years of hosting a family of planets, moons, asteroids, comets and so on, it blows up (supernova) and bits of it including rays of energy, sub-atomic particles, scatter in all directions. It suddenly isn’t a star anymore. Now we have to accept that those bits will be classified as rocks, meteorites, chondrules, and gas, lots and lots of gas. Now, when we find a rock that we identify as being extra-terrestrial, and is likely to be from a supernova, we can’t say where it came from or what the star was like before it blew a billion years ago, no more than we are able to grab some gas in a test-tube and say that it came from the same star.
 
But all that material has a history, unchartable as it is, because whilst each atom was attached to something we have a word for, we know it existed unattached or in fragments of this and that and we know that its history of billions and billions of years carried it just as many billions of miles through the universe as an ingredient in countless combinations that we may not always have a name for. The broad history of everything is contained in the physics of ‘conservation’. And by that rule, the billions of atoms in our bodies could well have arrived here from trillions of miles in every direction beyond our planet. 
 
But conservation theory hasn’t offered us the way to track it all down, so when we try to find a true beginning for the origin of the universe we are up against a real problem, because I believe that we are seeking the un-seekable. Science has preached a doctrine of 'Beginning' in the context of space being once filled with nothing, and not even as the containment as we know it, since miraculously that didn’t exist either, then suddenly a huge explosion/expansion took place which resulted in the creation of galaxies of stars, planets, moons, clouds of gas etc. etc., scattering away into the void. So what void would that be? Surely you can’t fill a boundless, endless, infinite void from one singular explosion. Or if we can, how? To make the whole explanation easier to swallow, Science claims that space, itself, did not exist before the ‘Big Bang’, but merely opened and expanded to occupy the exploded material that was and still is expanding in it. 
 
Where was space before the ‘Big Bang’? Surely this has to be one of the biggest, ‘we don’t knows’ that Cosmology has ever had to own up to. We are given this amazing story of a singularity, something smaller than a proton, housed in something bounded by nothing, and suddenly it blows up and space expands with it. And that’s it folks; there’s nothing before, because time didn’t exist before, either. 
 
So what is Primal Creation? Creation in religious terms, is an event triggered by the hand of God, and in scientific terms, is an event called 'The Big Bang', triggered by goodness knows what, of a thing called a 'singularity', an object smaller than an atom, that once contained everything that is now in existence, right down to the last subatomic particle. What a massive amount of compression that represents. So mind-boggling in fact, and so absurd that it actually becomes believable, if you’ll pardon my irony. 
 
But when you look at these two ideas, the religious and the scientific, they are almost the same. And it’s almost as if Science had to offer the world the same scenario as the religious texts had already accepted thousands of years before. The only difference being as to who, on the one hand, and what, on the other, caused it to create. 
 
As you, the reader, become aware of what Genesis Continuous is all about, the idea of Void, Singularity, Big Bang, etc. can be tossed out the window, simply because they are meaningless. They are just brain-shrinkers. On the one hand, if God existed in a void, then how did he get there and what was he made of and and and and, - the questions simply cannot provide logical answers, and acceptance of Big Bang could be described a bit like just tossing the same cosmological baby out with the bathwater, since we can’t think of anything better. In addition, the Singularity/Big Bang theory cannot provide an answer as to the origin of the Singularity. Because it is claimed to have existed, it must surely be a link in a chain of previous events. Yet another problem with the ‘singularity/big bang’ theory is that there was no space or time either, before it blew; just the singularity nestling there in its cocoon of something with nothing beyond it. Space and time both appeared from the moment it blew, it is said. Space grew from nothing to accommodate the material and energy of the expanding blast, and it is still expanding after that ignition 13.7 billion years ago. True, that’s what they say. And collectively, that has to be the most mind-blowing piece of science ever. 
 
There is another very tricky question here. If time didn’t exist before the singularity blew, how did it reach its ignition point? If it didn’t ignite before its actual ignition time, perhaps it didn’t exist. – But there wasn’t any time before that, was there? So where the blue blazes did it come from, and if it did come from somewhere else, that must have taken time, surely. Oh no, I forgot, there was nowhere else for it to have come from because everything was contained in its protonic capsule.
 
Whilst Science hangs on to this theory, they know that it’s an unsolvable conundrum, and that everyone is going to flounder around in a vain effort to come to grips with its logic. Answer – In my view there is no part of it that is logical, and if you try to work it out you’ll go gaga.
 
Are we all being asked to reconsider the meaning of the word ‘Logic’? 
 
To give the cosmos a beginning is to offer it an end, which creates more problems.


Chapter 7
 
A Sort of Enlightenment
 
Let’s take the prime element, hydrogen. From this smallest and simplest elementary atom the pressures of nature can make all the other elements. But also, the pressures of nature can reverse the process and turn all those higher elements back into hydrogen. This is the cycle that has to exist, otherwise, quite simply, the content of the universe would destroy itself by running out of replenishment material. As I said earlier, complete re-cycling, is what it has to be all about, as hydrogen would be all used up and nebula building would cease – simple as that. An examination of the content of the universe does not reveal such a progressive and self-destructive change
I have not discovered anything in the scientific literature suggesting this possible explanation, but a complete cycle of hydrogen synthesis and rejuvenation has to take place somewhere by some means, regardless of whether there was a beginning or not. It’s like there’s a fire burning that endlessly fuels itself from its own execution. If that was not so, the universe would be on a one-way time journey of eventual destruction. Many cosmologists think that the universe is heading for self-destruction.
 
What appears to be a part of the pattern is the almost absence of gas and matter in space, ie., the almost vacant void between galactic collections of star groups. So it looks as though space can be sucked almost dry, by the gravity of its material content, - but not quite. No matter how big or small a solid is, it can potentially attract an atmosphere, which is proportionally a collection of gas and small solids, into a density greater than the ambient density around it. And that process has always existed. (My description).
 
Now this raises a very interesting issue; that of containment. If the density of solids, collectively with their growing gaseous envelopes, were able to attract continuously, more hydrogen would have to exist in the space nearby. So there appears to be a balance, whereby the total content of all this stuff cannot shrink or expand within fairly set limits. But it can travel huge distances and collectively expand into pastures new, as the saying goes. This continuous replenishing system would appear to be a part of the Cosmic balancing act. (And a vital part of the Cosmological Constant, and Conservation). 
 
An eternal universe has to claim that space has no boundaries, and that fits perfectly with the above hypothesis. Therefore, there exists equilibrium in the universe between available hydrogen on the one hand and resultant mass/gravity on the other. What exists in between is a set variety of componentry that is totally interchangeable and stabilizing by those and other fluctuating forces that act upon it.
 
Any atom is a tough highly complex particle and hydrogen appears to be the simplest yet toughest of the lot. Take one step back from hydrogen and you get loosely separated subatomic particles and energy, radiating away from their trillions of source stars at very high speed. 
 
Hydrogen exists throughout space more numerous than any other atom, ready to be attracted together into huge gravity compressed groups, billions of kilometers across building up pressure at their nebula center capable of collapsing and fusing into all the other elements that will end up as the ingredients of stars, then planets, moons, trees, fish, elephants and absolutely everything, (depending which planet you’re on, of course). The pressure required to perform this alchemy is far beyond our earthly powers to replicate. And that happens because the gas giant has not sufficient orbiting angular momentum to lift that weight off its nucleus by centrifugal force, so it collapses in on its self. This also means that planets, rocks and any solids moving around in that mass of gas, will be unable to reach the necessary angular momentum and survive in that sluggish environment. 
 
So let’s imagine another sort of beginning, with at the top of the atomic scale, (not the bottom, unless you like pyramids that stand upside down), the smallest atom; Hydrogen. 
 
Let us fictionalize a creation that the universe contains nothing but hydrogen, which would have it look like an endless void, so, in a way, satisfying the Biblical account. Now let us assume that since all these hydrogen atoms are almost exact replicas of each other, there will be no uneven pressures, gravity or movement. All will be completely stationary. There is no singularity as described by science; no God as described in the Old Testament, and we are left with space and an ambient capacity of hydrogen. Where it came from, we’ll never know, because there is nowhere else for it to have come from, other than space itself, thus satisfying the conservation ethic. It just is there and it just rests there, here and everywhere. (This is just an idea that really doesn’t work but it helps to illustrate what I’m saying). 
 
Let’s say that 13.7 billion years ago, just one grain of sand arrived from somewhere/nowhere and there started an im-balance of pressure/gravity which eventually lead to a star being born, because the concentrated mass and gravitation of that one little grain of sand attracted hydrogen atoms to it. And it could do nothing else but keep on collecting hydrogen atoms and growing because its resultant concentrated mass of hydrogen also concentrated it’s own collective mass of gravity and thereby broadened the field of collection. The whole process from gas to nebula, to star, to planets, to more nebular masses, to more stars, to galaxies etc. etc. was the triggering factor to start that ball rolling toward a recognisable universe, an expanding universe like we see today. 
 
Why did the grain of sand attract a hydrogen collection? 
 
Because within that grain of sand was the concentrated gravity equal to billions of hydrogen atoms, and the amount of hydrogen ambient in space was about 2 atoms per cubic centimeter. 
 
Well, that sounds great; bang goes the ‘Big Bang’ theory, some might say, but in reality, everything in space must always have been there as we know it, ingredient wise, gas, energy, and matter. Because if it had just been a mass of hydrogen at one time, where did the grain of sand come from? And where did the hydrogen come from before that? Logically there is no acceptable answer. Just as space has no boundaries so what it contains must have always been in it, even the substance of the highly dubious singularity. So that leaves us with the same very big questions, which are just as incongruous and absurd as the idea of a singularity that was supposed to be the source of the ‘Big Bang’. - Mind you, I reckon the grain of sand is more believable than the singularity. What do you think? 
 
But to be realistic, unfortunately, my injection of a grain of sand into the possible ingredient of creation, actually joins our perception of God along with Science’s singularity/Bang as another unlikely source and trigger factor in a beginning concept of the universe. Now, I’m not denying God; I’m simply saying that he would not have been involved in this particular theoretical scenario of creation, or singularity/big bang . 
 
To digress for a moment, and I have a reason:- Away back in the 1950s Walt Disney turned out two fantastic documentaries. One was called ‘Mathemagics’ and the other, ‘The Genie’ or something genie. An 8mm movie buff friend of mine actually copied Mathemagics onto 8mm film frame by frame from the 35mm cinema film – took him ages. I would love to see those two wonderful films again. The genie one was about the power of the atom, which of course, was a big issue back in those days. 
 
‘The Genie’ contained a scene demonstrating ‘chain-reaction’. A full sized billiard table was completely covered in mousetraps, all set and with one table-tennis ball resting on each trap. Someone tossed another ball onto the table, so one trap went off and two balls flew up in the air, then 4 then 8 then 16, 32, 64 etc. etc. until the whole lot seemed to be airborne and jumping around. I have always had great admiration for the person who dreamed that one up and put it onto film.- So simple, so graphic and educational. (I wonder how many times one trap went off accidentally while they were setting it up). Wow, what patience. 
 
So, are we talking about a different sort of singularity here? One ping-pong ball, one grain of sand, one God, or an extra something that we don’t know about? Or what? To turn a phrase, the concept of a Beginning is faced impossibly with a Dead End. We have space and we have a cosmos in it, so why should we think that it had to arrive from some other source? 
 
A beginning is understood by mankind as a creation or birth of something. A planet, a tree, a star, or whatever, has a beginning and its beginning is also a creation. It is written that God created the heavens and the earth. Fine, interpretation may differ quite widely, but regardless of yours and my beliefs, lets go with that. I don’t believe that earth is the center of the universe and neither is the sun or even our galaxy. I believe that the universe is eternal, with no center or place of origin, and that’s what I hope to convincingly demonstrate. If it reveals a particular pattern of progression that science feels may not be a constant, but instead, a path leading away from what now appears normal, then so be it. But I think that the fault does not lie with the heartbeat of the universe but with man’s inability as yet to have all the answers. There is almost a mindset which says, ‘Since we haven’t discovered the answer it’s going to self destruct’. 
 
The following article, which sadly is very ‘Big Bang’ theory oriented, offers a really contrary outlook on the future of the universe, or should I say, destiny, to what so many other scientists are predicting. It also involves another questionable measuring stick, Redshift.

Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

(1)oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/AAS_winter-sn/pr.html
(2)www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/ Archive/expand-forever.html
(5) groups.msn.com/AstronomySpace/ageoftheuniverse.msnw
1998-01-13 
 
Distant Exploding Stars Foretell Fate Of The Universe: It Will Expand Forever
 
BERKELEY, CA -- New studies of exploding stars in the farthest reaches of deep space indicate that the universe will expand forever, according to findings of the Supernova Cosmology Project, an international team of astrophysicists based at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 
 
"Distant supernovae provide natural mile-markers which can be used to measure trends in the cosmic expansion," says Saul Perlmutter, leader of the project, who presented the team's research Jan. 8 at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society. "All the indications from our observations of supernovae spanning a large range of distances are that we live in a universe that will expand forever. Apparently there isn't enough mass in the universe for its gravity to slow the expansion, which started with the Big Bang, to a halt."
 
So there isn’t enough counter force to drag it all back. Momentum of the mass has got the ball rolling, perhaps, and it just keeps accelerating? Another interesting point is that it is the outer part of the exodus that is accelerating the fastest, freeing itself from the inner concentration of gravity. So, yes, it seems that it’s not slowing down, and there must be a reason, which I hope I succeed in answerung. 
 
On re-reading this article I feel that it raises more questions than it answers, and the next chapter will deal with some of them. 
 
This result rests on analysis of 40 of the roughly 65 supernovae so far discovered by the Supernova Cosmology Project. Exploding stars known as supernovae are so intrinsically bright that their light is visible half-way across the observable universe. By the time the light of the most distant supernova explosions so far discovered by the team reached telescopes on earth, some seven billion years had passed since the stars exploded.
 
So these stars are anywhere up to 6.7 billion years old at supernovae, (6.7 plus 7 making 13.7, the age of the universe) and I guess that they would probably be first generation Big Bang born. 
 
The research is supported at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory by the United States Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation's Center for Particle Astrophysics
 
The Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California.
 
This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
 
Sticking to theory, based on theory, based on earlier theory, may be a pleasant exercise, but it could be more helpful if it was presented from other origin theoretical points of view as well, just so it isn’t biased toward the one, ‘Big Bang’. 
With supernova, it is said that the explosion dies out after a very short period of about a month. Could this be because the event, (if this is an apt word to describe it) is actually speeding away from us at very high speed, perhaps near to the speed of light?
 
It is said that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand existing on all the beaches of the world, yet the numbers actually dying by supernova at any one time are far less than a tiny salt spoon full. Why? And how many are being born relative to those popping their clogs? The long and the short of it is that the observed number of supernova events relative to the number of stars in the universe just makes no sense within the scientific cosmological framework of 13.7 billion years and the average age of stars when they blow up. Virtually all first generation stars should have died by now and those events should be visible all over the sky as we look back through the lightyears of time available to us. 
 
I think that numbers can be quite confusing
If they’re the wrong ones that we’re using
And one that wasn’t born in Heaven
Is that little beastie, thirteen point seven


Chapter 8
 
Beginnings
 
Since hydrogen is the basic element of all known and unknown substances and energy in the universe, regeneration also exists as a continuous transforming and recycling or re-creation of those substances in every possible combination. So just as space can really have no boundaries and, therefore, has always existed, the substance of the universe must have also always existed, ie, as an infinite cosmos. There never was a perfect vacuum in space. The idea of a Big Bang creation is utter fantasy, no matter which way one looks at it, and only continuous transformation exists. Genesis, as described in the first pages of the Bible, was not a beginning of the whole. It was a creation in a book of eternal continuity. ‘As it was in the beginning - etc’. The beginning of what? Is it the universe or our galaxy, that is meant here? Or our solar system? Or our planet, that is referred to?
 
I think that a choice is very difficult, because ‘He made the stars also’, and to some people, that means that they were created after the earth. But the way it is written could easily mean that they were created before and after. 
 
Of all the boundaries that ‘The Big Bang’ imposes, one of the worst is how it can explain the global radiation of all stars. How stars that are detectable at the greatest distances are sending their light in every direction, and that means that the distance that we are from them has to be probably more than doubled beyond them. For every one billion light years they are from us, we must add another billion light years beyond and out to the limit of their radiation.
 
If science says that the edge of the universe, or shall we say the outer rim of expanding ‘Big Bang, cosmology, is were the leading galaxies are, we should have to accept that the actual rim is, instead, countless billions of light-years away beyond in the vastness of uncharted cosmic ray drenched fields. So, what should we expect is happening out there? 
 
Or is this cosmological encapsulation still existing to form that changeover from space to no space? Is the singularity still what it was before it went bang and now has given itself more room to exist in without ever needing to break through the invisible skin of its capsule? Within this scenario, what is happening to all the escaping cosmic material? It can’t be annihilated, because loss of matter/energy is not an acceptable sequel, since we would have to equalise that loss with creation of new energy/matter. And that would surely have to be a whole different ballgame. 
 
This one simple observation, in my view, is the hub of the fallacy of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology, which virtually turns its credibility in on itself to utter self destruction. 
 
On the other hand, Creation would appear to be an ongoing activity, and God has always had a platform of mass/energy and laws on which to create. He could not have created out of nothing because, surely, to say that he did would be suggesting that He broke His own Laws. -(People will throw the chicken - or the egg at me, I guess, over that one). 

Apparently there has been a problem with hydrogen availability for many years among the scientific fraternity. It has been claimed that hydrogen is not being replenished at a complete rate of conservation. This would mean of course, that the universe is on a course of self destruction. 
 
 


Chapter 9

Cosmological Constant

(1)groups.yahoo.com/group/Southern_Nights/message/79
(2)seti.sentry.net/archive/ public/mailbox/SETI_PUBLIC.10209 - 417k
(3)www.evildawg.com/ modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=252
(4)www.sains.org/fisika/utama.cgi?bacaforum& berita&1067273492&2
(5)www.sciencelists.com/article.cfm?id=32572 - 22k - Supplemental Result
(6)news-service.stanford.edu/ news/september25/universe-925-a.html
(7)www.scienceagogo.com/news/ 20020818180924data_trunc_sys.shtml
 
Fast-forward to 1998, when two independent teams of astronomers discovered that not only is the universe expanding, it is doing so at an ever-faster pace. Their findings were based on observations of supernovae exploding stars that emit extraordinarily bright light. A supernova is a rare event, but new telescopes equipped with sophisticated electronic sensors allowed the research teams to track dozens of stellar explosions in the sky. What they saw astonished the world of astronomy: The supernovae, it turned out, actually were speeding up at a rate that outpaced the predicted gravitational pull of matter. 


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.

*


Chapter 10
 
The Endless Chain 
 
To visualise the universe as being in a constant state of, change, renewal, recycling, reformation, conversion, transformation, chemistry, alchemy, fusion, is demonstratively what it is all about. On earth only some of these words fit actions that take place naturally here, but in the universe, all those words apply, and surely there are other actions that are not covered in that list that we either do not know about or I have omitted. The presence of anti-matter, black holes, quasars etc., means that other transformations in the same chain exist out there in violent harmony with everything else. However, nothing is unique or in any way out of the ordinary. 
 
On earth, evolution rather dominates our experiences, because we humans see change on a sort of 'advance toward improvement' basis. This is probably a mindset misconception of progression, which may not be an improvement within itself, but only a modifying of structure that is seen by humans as to be an advantage in some way. But perhaps it’s just a way of keeping up with environmental changes. Egotistically, there is a striving in humans to improve this that and the other, and any modification, therefore, is guaged in human values.’ Construction and destruction’, sum up our mindset view. Whereas, a word like, ‘reconstruction’, may be a more realistic term for that which is in a state of recomposing, or fragmenting. 
 
In other words, on earth, there is a beginning and an evolutionary progression, which is expected to lead to an end. One could say that a time-frame exists here represented by a chain in a straight line for practically every event. 
 
On the other hand, the change in the universe is not a progression with a growing evolution, or even development, in the same sense. In the universe, change has free reign without limitation and without, may I say, judgemental qualification. Therefore, evolution, is not a suitable word to express the alchemy of matter and energy which represents that continuous recycling composition of the universe. No overall time-frame exists in this arena so the change has to be represented by a circular chain. A cycle of all without end. Every atom and particle in its motion of local and collective regeneration. 
 
Originally, ‘Genesis Continuous’ was what I called my theory as it related to earth and the solar system. My omission at the time within that original paper, was that I didn't deliver its universal application. Simply, I didn’t have enough evidence 
Let us recap by making a number of assertions that I accept as vital steps toward the Continuity of our universe:- 
Space, (or the containment of the universe) is infinite, in as much as it has no boundaries, borders, or dimensions. It is, in distance, continuous in every direction. 
 
The matter and energy within space occupies individual places there with measurable distance between components, where each has individual capacity, gravity, energy and movement. There is also a very active influence between components over vast distances. These may be small but nevertheless they do exist. Walk outside in the starlight, look up and seek out a star. Its rays strike you in the eyes and even all of your person that is exposed to it. You absorb some of those rays. So does everything else that it shines on, day and night, the earth, the other planets, moons and probably billions of other stars and planets within its field of ‘Total Radiant Absorption Zone’, a volumetric area of space encompassing perhaps more of the universe than we can see even with our very best telescopic instruments. 
 
The forces accumulated within formations of individual or collective masses of matter produce energy. Energy brought them together and other energies disperse them. Those energies can be both contained within the mass under transformation and also be exerted from beyond it. 
 
For instance, one single atom radiates energy beyond its physical boundary. Two atoms together create more energy. A mass of atoms as contained in a nebula or star demonstrates how that energy behaves when a vast number of them are being collectively gravitationally compressed by their own mass. Fusion occurs when that collection of the mass becomes too large to support itself in whatever elemental state it is at the time. 
 
Matter, though, is indestructible, but its componentry can recycle into solids, liquids, gases, electrons, protons, and whatever. A lump of rock can be exploded into that sort of separate componentry and be spread to infinite reaches of the universe, but its total mass/energy is still a part of the whole universe of matter/energy. What is seen as destruction is not loss, but simply redistribution within the infinite capacity of space. 
 
With reference to these ancient words, 'As it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be' is a phrase, that in one sense suggests that everything is static, but in another it suggests that a continuum exists of a balanced and law restricted recycling of all matter. And, how could there have been a beginning? Surely 'eternity' clarifies what is meant here. Also, what we humans see of the changes in the universe in our lifetimes is so, so, so, little, yet if we were to come back in ten billion years, we would see a different sky, everything would have undergone a progression of recycling and regeneration; some more, and some less. Planets would have undergone progressive changes, new ones would have been born, and old ones would have drifted beyond their star's gravitational influence. 
 
So time, is another factor in our observation restriction. Time matters little to the universe itself, since recycling just simply shifts a to b, ad infinitum; hydrogen is fused and fused again and can become gold, or sodium or whatever. And just as simply, it can become hydrogen again, or be a part of any conceivable thing that exists. The universe contains everything, and ‘everything’ refers to an infinite quantity. 
 
So it appears that the Genesis of the Bible was a time slot in a continuous play of nature within the universe that had no beginning and will have no end, so being eternal, that fact didn’t have to be part of the Bible Genesis explanation. The play is controlled by its own componentry of players that always existed, and can never be got rid of, because space is infinite and there is nowhere else for stuff to go but to remain in its realm of boundlessness. 
 
There could not have been a BIG BANG thirteen point seven billion years ago in a space that was otherwise empty. There has always been a recycling and strict laws of activity which existed in an eternal status quo.
*



Chapter 11

Steady State.

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 long. DCH
 * 


Chapter 12

A Supernovae to Trigger Nebula Collapse

Here is one enigma that is worth dealing with on its own because it is just a remote unrelated event designed to trigger another event that really had no need to be involved.
 
I haven’t found out why an otherwise unrestricted build up of a nebula should need a shockwave to trigger its collapse, however, a supernova sounds to me to be very remote, and certainly there are not enough of them to initiate the forming of all the stars in the cosmos. To me, it sounds like ‘the luck of the game’ if you’re a nebula right on the peak and ready for the big crunch, there has to be this old star in the right place at the right time to blow. 
 
There is a much more likely scenario, which, if a shockwave is needed, every nebula has the ability to do it itself. This freedom of complete self-reliance upon its own physical componentry allows stars to be born without any remote shockwave influence, and probably accounts for there being so many trillions of stars in existence and so few supernova. 
 
A nebula, to my way of thinking, can only begin to exist if it has a solid gravitational source body for the gas and dust to cling to. An old drifting planet or moon is the obvious choice. Some of them, including earth, already have an atmosphere to start with, and a nebula is just another name for a giant atmosphere. 
 
Over perhaps billions of years a planet, or whatever the core is, is in for a greater and greater crushing time. Its gas atmosphere grows and grows from every direction around it and the greatest pressure will be focused right onto its trapped core body. Eventually, because gas from outer space is not going to give up being attracted to it, the core eventually has to give up the struggle and collapse. As we are well aware a planet is made up of a lot of explosive compounds, containing, carbon, sodium, suphur, chlorine, oxygen, hydrogen, potassium etc. etc. 
 
So when the crunch comes the whole core explodes, and by doing so creates an enormous combustive force against this huge gas monster around it. Probably much of the planet’s mass is converted into other elements by the restriction imposed on its explosive expansion, but, more importantly, the nearby gas is also violently shock-compressed, so the first collapse of gas takes place in an implosion. There is no way that a supernova could be as effective as that. 
 
Here is a scenario that, as I pointed out at the beginning, answers the so-called shockwave requirement, but this shockwave is from an explosion right in the middle, on the button, from within the most vulnerable site of the whole nebula. From now on there are implosions, one after the other, until the star is born and becomes functional.
 
There is no way that a supernova could perform such an effective trigger without causing devastating disruption to the whole nebula. Also, if the shockwaves hit before the collapse was due, recovery of the disrupted nebula may even be impossible. Also, most importantly, the birth of a new star is not reliant upon the death of an older one in order to be born. 
 
I feel that this explanation answers lots of questions puzzling cosmologists. It answers why there are so many stars alive and well in the universe and helps to clarify why supernova are not as common as they should be in regard to being involved in adding to that star population. 
 
Accidents are not as common as they might be assumed to be and when you find billions of examples of the same objects, namely stars, you have to admit that their being there is most likely due to natural progressions within their conception, growth and birth procedures. Also, this explanation adds strong evidence to my claim that stars survive many billions of years longer than science believes. 
 
So here is just another nail in the coffin of a 13.7 billion year old universe. Scientists are studying supernova and describing that event, but they are not telling us about one or perhaps a swarm or more of nebula being collapsed by it. I guess that the reason for that is that there are none. 
 
Genesis Continuous says that planets break away from their mother’s gravitational umbilical cord, one by one, some 2 to 3 billion years apart, having spiralled from birth close to their mother star and become the core bodies of new nebula. To my reckoning, our sun could have 16 planets and 3 times that number of moons in its lifetime of perhaps 400 billion years. Science cannot account for the 2 new planets recently discovered in orbits beyond Neptune and Pluto and would like us to believe that they have been captured, since the sun’s influence at those distances would have been insufficient to build planets from the available gas and dust in those orbital areas. 
 
Genesis Continuous does not have that problem. It has no problem either with the probability that our sun started its life many, many billions of years ago and was ever so much larger than assumed by science; that it has made a full compliment of elements within its own massive foundry, and because, out of the billions of stars in telescopic view, only a couple of dozen of them are blowing up at any one time. 
 
If the universe was only 13.7 billion years old, the sky at night should be alive with supernova. 
That one point alone puts a 13.7 billion year old universe as being out of the question. And, accompanying that restriction, the idea that stars live from anywhere between a couple of billion up to some 10 or 12 billion years, creates a scenario that isn’t there. 
 
A star will be born when, and only when, the nebula is massive enough to crush the solid, (or probably molten) core, planet or moon it has clung to, so that it explodes. The combustion of that central event compresses the nearby gas beyond the limit of its atomic stability and it implodes. Implosion follows implosion until a fully functional star is born to then produce its planet family from the elements it has created. 
 
The point is that a nebula will not collapse until there is sufficient gas pressure exerted on the core to make it explode and set the ball rolling. Therefore, nearly all stars should be about the same size when they are born, and that size, in the case of our sun, was far greater than science believes. This gave it the ability to produce all the elements necessary, which Science says it was unable to do, to create her planetary family, the heavier metals included, as well as possibly another 4 or 5 planets beyond Neptune/Pluto. That would give the sun an age of about 35 billion years, but even that is not old enough. 
 
Those newly discovered planets beyond Pluto will have started their lives where all the others did, right in close to the sun perhaps 30 billion or more years ago when the sun was possibly a hundred times or more massive than it is now. 
One would assume from that idea, that all stars of the same age will be the same size and have the same number of planets. 

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. 

 
While on this subject, here is some interesting information just arrived. 
 
Dolores Beasley 
Headquarters, Washington March 9, 2005
(Phone: 202/358-1753)
Donna Weaver
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimor
(Phone: 410/338-4493)
RELEASE: 05-071
NASA'S HUBBLE WEIGHS IN ON THE HEAVIEST STARS IN THE GALAXY
(1)www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/ 2005/mar/HQ_05071_HST_galaxy.html
(3)ufoinfo.com/space/heavieststars.shtml 
(4)scoop.agonist.org/story/2005/3/9/164512/6933 
(7)origins.jpl.nasa.gov/index1.html 
 
Astronomers have taken an important step toward establishing an upper limit to the masses of stars. Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, they made the first direct measurement within our Milky Way Galaxy, and concluded stars cannot get any larger than about 150 times the mass of our sun.
 
Wow, I said 100. Absolutely fabulous. It is now up to Science to work out how many billion years it would be back to when our sun was that size. To my way of thinking this means that a nebula has to be a minimum size that will allow its weight to crush and explode its central core and start the implosive steps to become a radiant body. 
 
The astronomers used the Hubble to probe the Arches cluster, the densest in our galaxy. The finding takes astronomers closer to understanding the complex star formation process. It also gives the strongest backing yet to the notion stars have a weight limit. 
"This is an incredible cluster that contains a rich collection of some of the most massive stars in the galaxy, yet it appears to be missing stars more massive than 150 times the mass of our sun," said astronomer Donald Figer of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore. "Theories predict the more massive the cluster, the more massive the stars within it. We looked at one of the most massive clusters in our galaxy and found there is a sharp cutoff to how large a star can form," he added.
A star's weight ranges from less than one-tenth to more than 100 times the mass of our sun. Although astronomers know stars come in a variety of masses, they don't know if the bodies have a weight limit at birth. Knowing how large a star can form may offer important clues to how the universe makes them.
 
A star at supernova is merely a cinder of its former force. 
Having spent billions of years shedding most of its resource.
Its contribution to newly forming matter almost spent
In galactic shaking explosive exit its remaining remnants rent. (DCH)


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.
 
 



Chapter 13

Mass/Energy Transference

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;

www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/ study/sci/cosmo/internal/steady.htm

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.

As it is seen now elsewhere, it appears as it was, but not as it is now, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE NOW. (DCH).
*


Chapter 14
 
Making matters even more complicated???
 
NASA Science News for July 10, 2003 
(2)secs.iub.edu.bd/TechNews/Space/Article0039.htm
(5)science.nasa.gov/headlines/news_archive_2003.htm 
(8)www.turtle-tracks.org/issue92/i92_10.html 
(9)www.rccsd.org/vanwagnen/Astronomy/astronomy.htm 
 
Some 13 billion years ago in a distant cluster of stars, a planet formed. Remarkably it's still there, according to astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope.The confirmation of this ancient world means planets formed very early in the history of our universe--only one or two billion years after the Big Bang itself. Orbiting a pair of burned-out stars in the crowded globular cluster "M4", the planet is too small to see from Earth. Backyard sky watchers can, however, see the star cluster in which it lives.Read today's story for sky maps and more information.
 
Having read chapter 13, doesn’t this report seem a bit weird? It makes out that this 13 billion year old system is still there, but how can it be in an expanding universe? What we see is how it was 13 billion years ago and not how it is now. It may have blown up or simply moved on over the billions of years that its light has been traveling across space to us.
Big Bang sets a scene of a singularity exploding or expanding from a central point obviously, in every direction, and science has not even pinpointed where in space this epicenter is/was. 
 
But where are we in relationship to the perceived epicenter, and to the outer edge of the universe and to this star/planet system? Because light travels at 186,000 miles per second its going to take many billions of years to travel right across space from edge to edge. So where are we? 
 
If we take a clock face with just one hand on it and place the drive shaft at the epicenter, put the hand at twelve pointing at this ancient star system that happens to be almost on that number, and then locate earth. Is it halfway out towards 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.,or where? If it’s down nearer to six, then we are looking away beyond the epicenter, or the Garry Larson side, and adding the extra distance to our calculations. And that means that the perceived age of the universe is affected accordingly. 
If that star is 13 billion years old, and its light has taken, as demonstrated, an undetermined number of billions of years to reach us, don’t we have to add that time to the supposed age of the universe because the outer edge of the universe, along with this distant solar system, have moved on in the intervening years by perhaps another 13 billion years or more? 
 
Observation is restricted by the speed of light, where we are in relationship to the objects we observe and, in fact, all points of relativity. What we see from our location in space, relative first to the supposed epicenter and secondly to our location and the distance from us to the outer edge at all points in its circumference, have to be accounted for. Otherwise, time, distance, and particularly the supposed age of the universe has no meaning. 
 
13.7 billion years back to the Big Bang, offers a variable location in space for the cosmic content and what we see is not what is there. It has all moved on. 
 
Well, the way I read that, this puts the date of the 'Big Bang' up to X billion years plus 13.7 and X has to be as yet unknown. 
 
And if this planet is the youngest in a line of extinct ones, perhaps the star cluster to which it belongs could be another 8 or 10 billion years older? And what if those stars had relied upon the supernova of another 10 billion year old star in order to be born? Come on guys!!!
 
Summing up:- 
Here are several, shall we say, scientifically accepted calculations:- 
The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
The sun is 6.5 billion years old. 
(I just read that the sun is now 5 billion years old). 
That makes the sun almost a third of the believed age of the universe. 
The sun was formed out of a cloud (nebula) of gas that had taken some billions of years to build up from nothing to a stage when its central pressure was enough for fusion to take place. Shall we be very conservative and say, 2 billion years. (elsewhere I have said 5 billion). 
An old star exploded and the shockwaves collapsed the nebula. 
Our sun is thought to be in mid life, meaning that it could also blow up in another 5 billion years. From that claim we can assume that a star has a 9 to 12 billion year life span. 
So was the star that exploded causing the shockwave 5 billion years ago, 10 billion years old? Am I wrong in claiming that the present age of our sun, 5 billion plus the lifespan of a star, 10 billion equals 15 billion years? 
That has over stepped the assumed age of the universe, and besides, the old star had to collect it’s hydrogen nebula before it could become a star, so that could have taken a couple of billion years or more, and where did the rock come from that attracted the nebula building gas. It must have had an origin and been of some considerable age. How about another 10 billion years. 15 plus 10 equals 25 billion years. 
 
Even if some of those figures are a billion or two years out, the whole scenario does not any where near fit into what is considered to be the age of the universe. 
If more of the calculations of academia are as unrealistic as the above, their theories and my theory of Genesis Continuous are without a reliable timeframe. 
 
However, luckily, Genesis Continuous is not restricted by timeframes, so doesn’t that make it far more believable? 
Our sun, instead of being around 5 billion years of age, has to be more like 100 billion or more years. My original work, demonstrated how each planet in our system was at least two billion years older than its immediate inner neighbour. With there now being in 2005, ten planets and at least twelve occupied orbits, at two billion year intervals, that places the age of our solar system at twenty four billion years of age, absolute minimum. 
And the problem where science says that the sun is too young to have forged the higher metals into existence becomes nonsense. I believe that every star started its life ever so much larger than science calculates. Once again, blame the ‘Big Bang’ for that. (From the time a star starts radiating its energy, it also starts shrinking). 
Now here’s the crunch. If the universe is only 13.7 billion years old and a star has a lifespan of say 10 billion years, besides not having enough years left for a previous generation of stars to do the supernovae act needed to collapse it’s nebula, most if not all 1st generation stars should have blown up by now, if they were all born within a billion or so years of the big bang. But is this the case? 
There are more stars in the sky than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth. (I didn’t say that, a scientist did). So there should be billions of 1st generation stars blowing up out there. And at a distance of say, three billion light years back into space, those galaxies should be thick with supernovae. But that’s not the case. In fact such events are as rare as hen’s teeth. Why? Either because stars survive many billions of years longer than claimed or a big bang occurred many, perhaps trillions of years ago, or there was no Big Bang and stars just keep on shining for vastly longer than assumed. 
Supernova should be very easy to see since they are the brightest events in the universe, even out shining whole galaxies. So, where are they? 
I’m sorry for having repeating some of these points from previous chapters. 
 
Dogged by Bad Luck
I had a little puppy and I called him Rover
We looked into the sky one night and saw a supernova
For years and years and years until he’d lost his sight
He’d peer up at the milky-way disappointed every night
There was no supernova in all those years to see
So finally I buried him beneath a star-crossed tree (DCH)
 
And Now This 
Young Universe Was Surprisingly Structured- Full Story - (Mar 2, 2005
 
Combining observations with ESO's Very Large Telescope and ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory, astronomers have discovered the most distant, very massive structure in the Universe known so far.
It is a remote cluster of galaxies that is found to weigh as much as several thousand galaxies like our own Milky Way and is located no less than 9,000 million light-years away. 

(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). 

Serendipitous discovery
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 [1] 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.

Etc., etc. 

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. 
 * 


Chapter 15
 
The Runaway Universe
 
This piece of science demonstrates how far out of line I’m stepping. 
'Runaway universe' may collapse in 10 billion years, new studies predict


Sept. 16, 2002

(2)spaceflightnow.com/news/w020922.html 
(5)seti.sentry.net/archive/bioastro/2002/Sep/0162.html
(7)www.scienceblog.com/community/ older/2002/C/20025291.html
(9)iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/space2.htm 
 
The recent discovery that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate has led many astronomers to forecast a dark and lonely future for our galaxy. According to some predictions, the rapidly accelerating universe will cause all galaxies to run away from each other until they are no longer visible. In this widely accepted scenario, our own Milky Way will become an isolated island adrift in a sea of totally black space 150 billion years from now.
 
This sounds like the Oojar bird that only inhabits the upper regions of the Himalayas, but in reverse. (Just my quirky mind working again, but I must read on. DCH) 
 
But two new studies by Stanford University cosmologists suggest that it may be time to rethink this popular view of a "runaway universe." Instead of expanding exponentially, our cosmos may be in danger of collapsing in a "mere" 10 to 20 billion years, according to the Stanford team.
 
(Aha! That is the Oojar bird story. I thought they’d got it back to front). 
 
"The standard vision at the moment is that the universe is speeding up," said physics Professor Andrei Linde, "so we were surprised to find that a collapse could happen within such a short amount of time."
Linde and his wife, Renata Kallosh also a professor of physics at Stanford have authored two companion studies that raise the possibility of a cosmic "big crunch." Both papers are available on the physics research website, www.arXiv.org. "We tried our best to come up with a good theory that explains the acceleration of the universe, but ours is just a model," Linde noted. "It's just part of the answer."

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

I new it had to fly around to pick up all its seed
It flew away and spiralled out to find enough for dinner
But I could see the poor thing really getting thinner
Maybe it was gravity that made it change it’s mind
It circled quickly inward to see what it could find
And loudly calling ‘oojar’ as it headed for the centre
It didn’t seem to realise it may enter its placenta
It’s hunger pangs for protein instead a proton it became
Just like a singularity - or almost just the same. (DCH)
*


Chapter 16

The Cycle of Links in the Chain that makes Genesis Continuous

I know that eternity is not such an exciting prospect as Singularities - Huge bangs - Switching time on and then off again – Squashing Space and its complete content, that’s you, me, the house and garden, the whole of New York, earth and all the planets, sun, our 8 billion star galaxy, and the countless billions of other galaxies, all into something smaller than one proton or even so small that you could almost lose it inside an atom. 
So, where does one start? What segment of the carousel is an appropriate place to jump on board the good ship ‘Eternity’? 
For the sake of an understandable explanation of how the universe recycles itself, and to reinforce the proposition that it had no beginning and will have no end, lets start with Conservation and infinity. 
 
The Speed of Light, which distorts our view of the stars and galaxies in the sky is just like thumbing through huge pages of history that are light years apart. Even the sun is not where we see it but is actually 8 minutes further on. And our nearest star neighbour in the Milky-way, is 4 light years away. It could have blown up 3 years ago and we wouldn’t know it. 
 
Cosmic energy, radiation from countless billions of stars distributes cosmic rays, and the re-making of hydrogen everywhere. It enters your retina as you gaze at a star, and not just your eye, but all of you that is exposed to it, all your surroundings, country, planet, star system, galaxy, billions of other galaxies, and probably just as many more galaxies in the distance beyond it and around it. A star’s light is not just a thin shaft streaking through space as one sees it. Instead it is a global emission that reaches as far in every direction as it does toward us and even beyond us. Every star’s light particles spread and are absorbed by most of the observable universe and even beyond until it is all absorbed. 
 
Gravity, that collects hydrogen/helium and dust into nebulas. Gravity is a wonderful constant. All matter has it as an inbuilt component. It’s as if every atom has the urge to come in contact with every other atom. And when they get into large groups like the earth they are a force to be reckoned with. Although all the cosmological links in the chain are vital, gravity plays the biggest, but strictly balanced part in its structure, composition, movement, and dynamics. 
Gravity brings a nebula of gas together around an old planet or moon and finally collapses the atoms at the centre that are under such huge pressure that explosion of the planet and then fusion of the hydrogen around it occurs and helium and other atoms are formed. (Genesis Continuous). 
From that link plus combustion, momentum and compression, a star is born that will radiate its energy to be totally absorbed back into the rest of the universe. 
But on the way, Planetisimals are formed from the star’s ejecta, some of which goes into orbit around the star instead of falling back into the fiery furnace like most of it does. 
This is brought about by the eruption and formation of solids, by the star, into an asteroid belt about two or more solar widths from its surface. Interestingly, the composition of these asteroids is, I understand, mostly iron and silica. And our sun has one of these rings in orbit right now. It was discovered to exist in 1983 and I predicted its existence in 1972 because the theory of Genesis Continuous required it to be there. 
The planetisimal is formed from the impacting of molten and semi-molten asteroids within the above mentioned asteroid belt. (The planet Mercury may still be collecting some of this material thrown out by the sun). Surely this is the only way a planet can form, since only molten and semi-molten rocks can glue together. Cold space is where they get smashed and fragmented. (Genesis Continuous) 
 
Shrinkage of the star’s mass over perhaps 100 billion years reduces the intensity of its gravity resulting in all planetisimals, older planets and their moons, comets, asteroids etc., to spiral away from the star in a mathematical progression known as Bode’s Law. (Genesis Continuous) 
 
Spiralling continues, and eventually, after many billions of years as a captive planet each of them in turn drifts away into space where they become the concentrated gravitational nucleus of a new gas nebula. (Genesis Continuous) 
 
A galaxy is a collection of stars in space growing from any one parent star, through the birth and destiny of her planets and their star phases, with generation after generation building into collections of many billions of stars. (Genesis Continuous)
The other material available for this continuum is from the countless star emissions or cosmic rays from light-years across space, coursing their way through the universe at or near the speed of light, ready to be absorbed by whatever they strike. A nebula, billions of kms across, is a great target. Time and distance plus all the other forces of gravity and cosmic radiation, density and speed, dictate the concentration of a stable, yet what appears to be an expanding universe, which of course it is, but it is not expanding without regeneration and replacement. And, a vast amount of that replacement comes from far beyond the Big Bang boundary encapsulation that science has restricted it to. 
 
Thus the carousel keeps in perpetual motion, and all those key links in its cycle have to be there to keep it going. The fact that a planet, a non-radiant body, is required to exist and become the nucleus of a nebula, demonstrates how, without that one step being a reality, eternity and the shape of galaxies as we see them would not be possible. 
 
Indeed, if any one of the links were to be suddenly omitted, the universe would die. But none can cease to exist because they are all dovetailed into each other. Each link exists and continues to the next as a result of its previous link’s activity. 
 
The whole scenario outlined above is happening. Science accepts much of the data, and it’s only the stubbornly held idea that there had to be a beginning, narrowed down to a ‘Big Bang’, that stands in the way of the practicality of Genesis Continuous theory as the simple, logical, workable foundation for the existence of the universe. 
 
So what’s the point of talking about an origin of the universe? Such an event, no matter how one imagines it, is just not feasible. The creation and constant recreation of the cosmos, is a feasible claim, because we see it happening before our very eyes. Perhaps we should accept what we see and try to discover, what as yet, we don’t see. 
 
To all who read this, I will repeat one vital point I made earlier. When you sight a star or galaxy right at the limit of your technical observation, and you think you have found the outer edge of the universe, just realise that that object’s light is radiating away beyond it probably further than we are from it. Also, its light will have been spreading over the universe for countless billions of years. Its rays have poured onto and been absorbed by every other star, planet, moon etc., in the same areas of the heavens that are within ours and its range of observation, - Its TRAZ, or Total Radiation Absorption Zone. 
 
Also, isn’t it fantastic that, although that same star’s light can travel such vast distances over billions of years without being absorbed by all the gases and dust that is supposed to exist in space, it reaches us clear and bright. Yet, one little cloud in our sky can even block our sun from view. It looks as though the sum total of opaqueness of a small cloud in earth’s atmosphere is greater than all the gas and dust between us and that star. Wow, surely not!.- I can’t answer that one, but I hope someone else can.
 
13.7 billion years is hardly enough time to get even part way through one generation of a single star’s life and planet distribution. Perhaps a 100 billion years is nearer the truth. The building of a galaxy, on the other hand will take vastly longer, because here we are talking about many generations of stars and planet families. 
 
Space is so vast it’s infinite and this fact puts it in the realms of an unbelievable time expansive machine. Crushing timeframes down by academia to try to come to terms with its expanse is a type of miniaturising that simply loses all perspective, and frankly creates confusion. When we look back 13.7 billion light years that should be great, but as I have simply demonstrated, the lights are not switched off on the other side. There is as sure as light follows night, another 13.7 billion year cosmology beyond what we see in every direction. 
 
It’s time to accept the physics of conservation and begin thinking about eternity, because even a singularity had to have an origin. That fact is inescapable. And it required time, and it required space, and it required matter and energy, and it required something (?) to suddenly change it from being static to being active. - What?
 
Even though the ‘Cosmic Constant’ had not been fully identified, it seems to me so strange that it wasn’t realised that it had to be so. Conservation, held the key to its being a reality, and just because all the factors had not been put together, should not have stopped science from pursuing those links in the chain. They had to be there. A beginning has to offer an unstable process, bound to ultimate failure. Science has found this to be so at virtually every turn, and they will exhaust the financial treasury trying to prop it up until eventually its credibility becomes so stretched, like the mythical bubble containing their universe, that it blows up in their faces. 

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)

Free spirits

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.



Chapter 17
 
Cosmic bubbles
(1)news-service.stanford.edu/ news/september25/universe-925-a.html 
(2)seti.sentry.net/archive/ public/mailbox/SETI_PUBLIC.1020 
(3)www.evildawg.com/ modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=252 


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."

Stanford University

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

You can’t do that in other schools
They’d surely all grow very tense
If students said, right, we’ll use our common sense (DCH)
*


Chapter 18
 
Well?
 
I have read many of the articles about Big Bang, on the www and in books, and I find them very convincingly unconvincing and unconvincingly convincing. 
 
I get the impression that once Big Bang was mooted as "the" theory to adopt, scientists were hell bent to obtain as much back-up for it as they could muster. Let's say, like a curling contest where they sweep the ice just ahead of the projectile to direct it where they want it to go. 
 
In other words, most of the evidence of Big Bang support has been research targeted for that singular purpose. That is, not so much for evaluating the pros and cons as it would support other theories, or to even open the mind toward another possible scenario that could be worth consideration. 
 
Big Bang, is a brilliant imagination exciter. Steady State is far too low key. And anything else is just not worthy of a mention. The mere fact that Big Bang poses far more questions than answers is a great incentive for more and more research to be feverishly pursued, the results of which will either support it or be dismissed because they don't. 
 
I think that this is sad because there are other explanations for many of the observed phenomenon in the cosmos that don't just support Big Bang, yet are directed toward it's support to the exclusion of other possible scenarios; the expanding universe being one of them. And even Redshift is not exactly in the realm of 100% fact in regard to its accuracy for measuring distances within the Big Bang cosmos. 
 
The suggestion that the space-skin balloon bubble boundary between space and no space, is being enlarged at the same rate that its physical content expands, without taking into account that all those galaxies and stars out there at the leading edge, are radiating their cosmic rays away into the distance appears to not be worth consideration. OR, is the skin of the universe bouncing those rays back into the cosmic bubble, thereby retaining conservation? Conservation is not an easy property to dismiss, yet no account seems to be forthcoming about it. What is happening to all that radiated energy, and where is it going? If it's going beyond the beyond into somewhere that isn't space, how is it getting back into the space-arena to be reused? Or, is the universe as we observe it, simply going to radiate itself into emptiness with every speck of energy/matter zapping away through the bubble never to return? 
 
If that is the case every star will eventually run out of energy, and with it, the material for creating new stars, planets and all. As long as they are being replaced atom by atom the cosmos is healthy and can never die. Conservation can only exist in a boundless infinite universe, ‘with no skins attached’. 


Chapter 19

Hydrogen – The first and last link.

Hydrogen is number one, the first and smallest atom. Hydrogen atoms are the basic building blocks of everything that exists. There are one hundred plus bigger atoms that make up the Periodic Table of elements, but without hydrogen none of them would exist, and that is where the final link in the chain is forged for the concept of eternity.
 
I call it ‘Genesis Continuous’, whereby a completed generation from hydrogen, through some or all of those atomic creations back to hydrogen, is what allows the universe to be eternal. 
 
is the first complete, stand-alone atom, and besides being able to pass on its gravity component, it is gravity that gives it the ability to collect into huge nebula masses and by a triggered collapse, fuse into all the material and energy that makes up the stars and everything else in the active universe. There is more hydrogen in the universe than any other atom and that situation is maintained by what has to be a link of continual creation, which starts off with solar energy, light rays, cosmic rays, solar wind, et-al.
 
See next article to find out what Cosmic rays contain and then my notes after. 
Cosmic Rays
R. A. Mewaldt
California Institute of Technology
(5)www.cosmiccompass.net/cosmic-resources/ high-energy-cosmic-rays.html
(6)www.b2bsites.com/dir.cgi/Science/ Physics/Particle/Astro_Particle/Cosmic_Rays/ 
 
Cosmic rays are high energy charged particles, originating in outer space, that travel at nearly the speed of light and strike the Earth from all directions. Most cosmic rays are the nuclei of atoms, ranging from the lightest to the heaviest elements in the periodic table. Cosmic rays also include high energy electrons, positrons, and other subatomic particles. The term "cosmic rays" usually refers to galactic cosmic rays, which originate in sources outside the solar system, distributed throughout our Milky Way galaxy. However, this term has also come to include other classes of energetic particles in space, including nuclei and electrons accelerated in association with energetic events on the Sun (called solar energetic particles), and particles accelerated in interplanetary space.
 
Discovery and Early Research: Cosmic rays were discovered in 1912 by Victor Hess, when he found that an electroscope discharged more rapidly as he ascended in a balloon. He attributed this to a source of radiation entering the atmosphere from above, and in 1936 was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery. For some time it was believed that the radiation was electromagnetic in nature (hence the name cosmic "rays"), and some textbooks still incorrectly include cosmic rays as part of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, during the 1930's it was found that cosmic rays must be electrically charged because they are affected by the Earth's magnetic field.
 
From the 1930s to the 1950s, before man-made particle accelerators reached very high energies, cosmic rays served as a source of particles for high energy physics investigations, and led to the discovery of subatomic particles that included the positron and muon. Although these applications continue, since the dawn of the space age the main focus of cosmic ray research has been directed towards astrophysical investigations of where cosmic rays originate, how they get accelerated to such high velocities, what role they play in the dynamics of the Galaxy, and what their composition tells us about matter from outside the solar system. To measure cosmic rays directly, before they have been slowed down and broken up by the atmosphere, research is carried out by instruments carried on spacecraft and high altitude balloons, using particle detectors similar to those used in nuclear and high energy physics experiments.
 
Cosmic Ray Energies and Acceleration: The energy of cosmic rays is usually measured in units of MeV, for mega-electron volts, or GeV, for giga-electron volts. (One electron volt is the energy gained when an electron is accelerated through a potential difference of 1 volt). Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light) and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light). The number of cosmic rays with energies beyond 1 GeV decreases by about a factor of 50 for every factor of 10 increase in energy. Over a wide energy range the number of particles per m2 per steradian per second with energy greater than E (measured in GeV) is given approximately by N(>E) = k(E + 1)-a, where k ~ 5000 per m2 per steradian per second and a ~1.6. The highest energy cosmic rays measured to date have had more than 1020 eV, equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball traveling at approximately 100 mph! 
 
It is believed that most galactic cosmic rays derive their energy from supernova explosions, which occur approximately once every 50 years in our Galaxy. To maintain the observed intensity of cosmic rays over millions of years requires that a few percent of the more than 1051 ergs released in a typical supernova explosion be converted to cosmic rays. There is considerable evidence that cosmic rays are accelerated as the shock waves from these explosions travel through the surrounding interstellar gas. The energy contributed to the Galaxy by cosmic rays (about 1 eV per cm3) is about equal to that contained in galactic magnetic fields, and in the thermal energy of the gas that pervades the space between the stars. 
 
Cosmic Ray Composition: Cosmic rays include essentially all of the elements in the periodic table; about 89% of the nuclei are hydrogen (protons), 10% helium, and about 1% heavier elements. The common heavier elements (such as carbon, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron) are present in about the same relative abundances as in the solar system, but there are important differences in elemental and isotopic composition that provide information on the origin and history of galactic cosmic rays. For example there is a significant overabundance of the rare elements Li, Be, and B produced when heavier cosmic rays such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen fragment into lighter nuclei during collisions with the interstellar gas. The isotope 22Ne is also overabundant, showing that the nucleosynthesis of cosmic rays and solar system material have differed. Electrons constitute about 1% of galactic cosmic rays. It is not known why electrons are apparently less efficiently accelerated than nuclei.
 
Cosmic Rays in the Galaxy: Because cosmic rays are electrically charged they are deflected by magnetic fields, and their directions have been randomized, making it impossible to tell where they originated. However, cosmic rays in other regions of the Galaxy can be traced by the electromagnetic radiation they produce. Supernova remnants such as the Crab Nebula are known to be a source of cosmic rays from the radio synchrotron radiation emitted by cosmic ray electrons spiralling in the magnetic fields of the remnant. In addition, observations of high energy (10 MeV - 1000 MeV) gamma rays resulting from cosmic ray collisions with interstellar gas show that most cosmic rays are confined to the disk of the Galaxy, presumably by its magnetic field. Similar collisions of cosmic ray nuclei produce lighter nuclear fragments, including radioactive isotopes such as 10Be, which has a half-life of 1.6 million years. The measured amount of 10Be in cosmic rays implies that, on average, cosmic rays spend about 10 million years in the Galaxy before escaping into inter-galactic space.
 
Very High Energy Cosmic Rays: When high energy cosmic rays undergo collisions with atoms of the upper atmosphere, they produce a cascade of "secondary" particles that shower down through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface. Secondary cosmic rays include pions (which quickly decay to produce muons, neutrinos and gamma rays), as well as electrons and positrons produced by muon decay and gamma ray interactions with atmospheric atoms. The number of particles reaching the Earth's surface is related to the energy of the cosmic ray that struck the upper atmosphere. Cosmic rays with energies beyond 1014 eV are studied with large "air shower" arrays of detectors distributed over many square kilometers that sample the particles produced. The frequency of air showers ranges from about 100 per m2 per year for energies >1015 eV to only about 1 per km2 per century for energies beyond 1020 eV. Cosmic ray interaction products such as neutrinos are also studied by large detectors placed deep in underground mines or under water.
 
Most secondary cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface are muons, with an average intensity of about 100 per m2 per second. Although thousands of cosmic rays pass through our bodies every minute, the resulting radiation levels are relatively low, corresponding, at sea level, to only a few percent of the natural background radiation. However, the greater intensity of cosmic rays in outer space is a potential radiation hazard for astronauts, especially when the Sun is active, and interplanetary space may suddenly be filled with solar energetic particles. Cosmic rays are also a hazard to electronic instrumentation in space; impacts of heavily-ionizing cosmic ray nuclei can cause computer memory bits to "flip" or small microcircuits to fail.
 
Cosmic Rays in the Solar System: Just as cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic fields in interstellar space, they are also affected by the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind (the plasma of ions and electrons blowing from the solar corona at about 400 km/sec), and therefore have difficulty reaching the inner solar system. Spacecraft venturing out towards the boundary of the solar system they have found that the intensity of galactic cosmic rays increases with distance from the Sun. As solar activity varies over the 11 year solar cycle the intensity of cosmic rays at Earth also varies, in anti-correlation with the sunspot number.
 
The Sun is also a sporadic source of cosmic ray nuclei and electrons that are accelerated by shock waves travelling through the corona, and by magnetic energy released in solar flares. During such occurrences the intensity of energetic particles in space can increase by a factor of 102 to 106 for hours to days. Such solar particle events are much more frequent during the active phase of the solar cycle. The maximum energy reached in solar particle events is typically 10 to 100 MeV, occasionally reaching 1 GeV (roughly once a year) to 10 GeV (roughly once a decade). Solar energetic particles can be used to measure the elemental and isotopic composition of the Sun, thereby complementing spectroscopic studies of solar material. 
 
(And there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth, and they are all radiating energy). 
 
A third component of cosmic rays, comprised of only those elements that are difficult to ionize, including He, N, O, Ne, and Ar, was given the name "anomalous cosmic rays" because of its unusual composition. Anomalous cosmic rays originate from electrically-neutral interstellar particles that have entered the solar system unaffected by the magnetic field of the solar wind, been ionized, and then accelerated at the shock wave formed when the solar wind slows as a result of plowing into the interstellar gas, presently thought to occur somewhere between 75 and 100 AU from the Sun (one AU is the distance from the Sun to the Earth). Thus, it is possible that the Voyager 1 spacecraft, which should reach 100 AU by 2007, will have the opportunity to observe an example of cosmic ray acceleration directly. 
References:
Longair, Malcolm S. 1992 Particles, Photons, and Their Detection, Vol. 1 of High Energy Astrophysics, 2nd ed. , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gaisser. Thomas K., 1990, Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, J. A., 1983, "Elemental and Isotopic Composition of the Galactic Cosmic Rays, Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science, Vol. 33, 323-381.
Jokipii, J. R., and F. B. McDonald, 1994 "Quest for the Limits of the Heliosphere", Scientific American 272, 58-63.
 
Quite clearly, here is the component, the basic material, the transfer, the link from a formed, radiant star, that had converted its nebula of low order atoms into high order atoms, and by radiation is paying back its contribution of low order atoms to every target within its Total Radiation Absorption Zone. But, at the same time, it also builds its planet family that will, one by one, over many billions of years, break away and become the nuclei of new stars.
 
Here is a law that’s clearly ordained
Nothing is lost and nothing is gained. 
Everything spreads in every direction
Mostly directly but also reflection
It travels at speeds beyond our belief
Perspectively showing our lifetimes, so brief. (DCH)
*


Chapter 20
Other Components
Cosmos – Encyclopaedia Britannica
(1) www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=27571
Every second of every day, the Earth is bombarded by high-speed particles electromagnetic radiation, and perhaps gravitational waves of cosmic origin. As has already been discussed, a part of this steady rain is, directly or indirectly, of planetary, stellar, or galactic origin, but another part may be remnants from a time in the universe before there were any planets, stars, or galaxies. Cosmic rays and magnetic fields. In the years following the discovery of natural radioactivity by the French physicist Henri Becquerel in 1896, investigators used ionization chambers to detect the presence of the fast charged particles that are produced in the phenomenon. These workers found that low-level ionization events still occurred even when the source of radioactivity was removed. The events persisted with heavy shielding, and in 1912 Victor F. Hess of the United States found that they increased drastically in intensity if the detecting instruments were carried to high altitudes by balloons. There was little difference in intensity between day and night; thus, the Sun could not be the primary source. The penetrating radiation had to have a cosmic component, and the earliest suggestion was that it was composed of high-energy photons, gamma rays hence, the name cosmic rays. In 1927 it was shown that the cosmic-ray intensity was higher at the magnetic poles than at the magnetic equator. For the incoming trajectories to be affected by the geometry of the Earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays had to be charged particles, It is now known that cosmic rays come with both signs of electric charge and with a wide distribution of energies. About 83 percent of the positively charged component of cosmic rays consists of protons, the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, and about 16 percent of alpha particles, the nuclei of helium nuclei. The nuclei of heavier atoms occur roughly in their cosmic abundances except thai the light elements, lithium, beryllium, and boron—which are quite rare elsewhere in the universe—are vastly over rep-resented in the cosmic rays. The negatively charged component consists of mostly electrons at a level of 1 percent of the protons. Positrons also can be found, about 10 percent as frequently as electrons. A very slight contribution from antiprotons is also known. Cosmic-ray positrons and antiprotons are believed to be by-products of collisions between cosmic-ray nuclei and the ambient atomic nuclei that exist in interstellar gas clouds. Cosmic gamma rays, which have been detected emanating from the Milky Way and show a strong correlation with the distribution of interstellar gas, are another manifestation of such collisions. The cosmic-ray protons that freely enter the solar system, in spite of the outward sweep of the solar wind and the magnetic fields it carries, have energies ranging from a few times their rest energies to 1,000,000 times and more. Thus, these particles must move at speeds approaching the speed of light. In this range, the number of particles at energy E varies with E to the negative 2.7 power. A similar decreasing power law seems to hold for cosmic ray electrons with energies from a few thousand to tens of thousands times their rest energies. Within uncertainties, this energy distribution is consistent with the synchrotron radiation interpretation of the nonthermal radio emission from the Galaxy.
 
My point should be reinforced by the above article concerning the componentry of cosmic rays and my belief that this is the major constant source of nebula building material, and also the production of free hydrogen along the way. If the number of stars in the milky-way equates in any way with the availability of material provided by the odd and rather rare supernova occurrences in space, I cannot accept it. When one star dies, how many others can the mass of the exploded one provide for? Looking at the numbers here, the contents of one supernovaed star must provide enough material for some millions of new stars. Surely not. Matter is not created out of nothing. A hundred supernovae for one star at least if not a lot more would seem more to the point. And this is certainly not feasible as a means of star replication within the Big Bang timeframe of 13.7 billion years either.


Chapter 21

Time Anomalies

The theory of a singularity existing and then exploding, ‘Big Bang’, suggests a sequential event, since the singularity could not have been time/static in order to exist on the one hand and then explode, that is if time started at the moment of detonation. If time started before detonation, that is over the lifetime of the singularity, then detonation could occur. If time did not exist before the creation of the singularity, then how did it create and initiate time as a component of its future? 
 
Time, cannot be cancelled out just because science has no explanation for the existence of the singularity. I suggest that if time did not exist prior to the explosion then the singularity could not have exploded. – It was, as it were, ‘between a clock and a hard place’
 
Time, has become a key component in cosmological scaling and prediction and there seems to be a human necessity to expect a time-frame of a beginning and an end to it, in order to corral the universe in a sort of humanistic manageable containment. It’s as if we find it hard to accept that earth is not the center of it, after all. We do get the conscious or unconscious impression when we look across the great dome of stars at night and see them all as tiny pinpoints of light, that they rise and set just as the moon does, and that somehow, they are there just for us. 
 
But the consequences of encapsulating the universe with a beginning and even an end, has caused science to enclose itself in its own cocoon. 
 
As time is an important calculation when examining the components of the universe, Genesis Continuous requires a cosmological set which is not restricted by a beginning 13.7 billion years ago, or for that matter, at any other time during an obvious eternity. 
 
I have no idea how science calculates the ages of the sun, other stars, planets, galaxies etc. One reads articles about these measurements but never an explanation of how the assessments were reached. If the yardstick is the supposed age of the universe, and that everything has to fit into that, then we’ve got immeasurable problems.
 
Honey, I know you’re late for work, but the kids say that they found a singularity and they’ve dropped it in you’re petrol tank. (DCH).
And if kids don’t know what a singularity is, who does? 


Chapter 22
 
From the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.
(2)www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.300/setPaginate/No 
 
Supernovae are vast explosions in which an entire star is destroyed. They are mostly seen in distant galaxies as 'new' stars appearing close to the galaxy of which they are members. They are extremely bright, rivalling, for a few days, the combined light output of all the rest of the stars in the galaxy.
 
As most observed supernovae occur in very distant galaxies they are too faint even for the largest telescopes to be able to study them in great detail. Occasionally they occur in nearby galaxies and then a detailed study in many different wavebands is possible.
The last supernova to be seen in our galaxy, the Milky Way, was seen in 1604 by the famous astronomer Kepler. The brightest since then was supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a small satellite galaxy to the Milky Way. The brightest supernova in the northern sky for 20 years is supernova 1993J in the galaxy M81 which was first seen on 26 March 1993.
 
Supernovae fall into two different types whose evolutionary history is different. Type I supernovae result from mass transfer inside a binary system consisting of a white dwarf star and an evolving giant star. Type II supernovae are, in general, single massive stars which come to the end of their lives in a very spectacular fashion.

Another description from another source

One of the most energetic explosive events known is a supernova. These occur at the end of a star's lifetime, when its nuclear fuel is exhausted and it is no longer supported by the release of nuclear energy. If the star is particularly massive, then its core will collapse and in so doing will release a huge amount of energy. This will cause a blast wave that ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The result of the collapse may be, in some cases, a rapidly rotating neutron star that can be observed many years later as a radio pulsar.
 
While many supernovae have been seen in nearby galaxies, they are relatively rare events in our own galaxy. The last to be seen was Kepler's star in 1604. This remnant has been studied by many X-ray astronomy satellites, including ROSAT. There are, however, many remnants of Supernovae explosions in our galaxy, that are seen as X-ray shell like structures caused by the shock wave propagating out into the interstellar medium. Another famous remnant is the Crab Nebula which exploded in 1054. In this case a pulsar is seen which rotates 30 times a second and emits a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse). Another dramatic supernova remnant is the Cygnus Loop.

The Rarity of Supernova

 
From the Anglo-Australian Observatory:- http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/More/mw_aat.jpg The Milky Way is the galaxy which is the home of our Solar System together with at least 200 billion other stars (more recent estimates have given numbers around 400 billion) and their planets, and thousands of clusters and nebulae, including at least almost all objects of Messier's catalog which are not galaxies on their own (one might consider two globular clusters as possible exceptions, as probably they are just being, or have recently been, incorporated or imported into our Galaxy from dwarf galaxies which are currently close encounters with the Milky Way)

Between 200 and 400 billion stars in the milkyway and the last supernovae among that lot occured back in 1604. Incredible!!! 
 

I know I’ve said all this before.
 
A supernova as a supposed nebula collapsing agent is the death blast of a star that had existed for possibly 10 billion years before our sun was born from its nebula. That puts the exploding star’s birth-date back to about 15 billion years or more ago, and when it blew, how many stars were born from its explosive force?. 

How can Science justify  such assertions? 

The Rarity of Supernova

 
From the Anglo-Australian Observatory:- http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/More/mw_aat.jpg The Milky Way is the galaxy which is the home of our Solar System together with at least 200 billion other stars (more recent estimates have given numbers around 400 billion) and their planets, and thousands of clusters and nebulae, including at least almost all objects of Messier's catalog which are not galaxies on their own (one might consider two globular clusters as possible exceptions, as probably they are just being, or have recently been, incorporated or imported into our Galaxy from dwarf galaxies which are currently close encounters with the Milky Way).
 
It has been said that there are more stars in the universe, than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world, so one should expect that supernova would be far more common events than the three or four observed in the Milky way in the last four hundred years. How about several hundred or perhaps thousand every 24 hours? I think that if the figures were to add up correctly, a supernova or two should be visible at any time if one looked up into the Milky way on a clear night, but that is not the case. 
 
It seems to me that stars live ever so much longer than 13 billion years. Would even one hundred billion years be nearer the mark? The point is that just 3 billion years ago they should have been popping off everywhere, if the story of the Big Bang were true. But we can look back into areas of the cosmos where the light from stars has taken 3 billion years to reach us and this is not happening. 
 
The purpose of this chapter and the next is to show, even if I was attempting to support an origin of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, that existing foundational theories are not a base upon which to formulate an accurate history. Therefore, I cannot use the mathematical information at hand to make my claim for an eternal universe, Genesis Continuous. 
 
In a previous chapter I explored the distinct possibility that there was no beginning and that the universe is simply in a state of eternal regeneration from hydrogen to hydrogen, with everything made from that one atom in between.
And why shouldn’t that be so? 
 
Observation of the galaxies and their billions of stars shows every progressive action taking place like the links in an endless chain. Old stars blowing up can really only provide a small fraction of the necessary material needed to make new stars because they are the core remains of stars that have exhausted almost all their mass that has been consumed by the nebulae of future new stars. Doesn’t this show a progression of recycling? Wasn’t the nebula that made both our star and the supernovae star formed from available hydrogen, attracted to some wandering lump of rock with enough gravity to start the nebula snowball rolling? Isn’t it likely that the density of available hydrogen in space was just the same at both events? - Ironically, of course, it’s not me trying to defend the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and besides, it seems very clear to me that because there are no supernovae occurring out there by the second, that stars have a very much longer life than science claims they have. 
 
Surely the universe had to be up and running with hydrogen always being available as the fuel and building material that gives it continual creation as we see it. 
 
Space has to be boundless. There is no reason why it was completely void of matter, excepting for this incredible, unbelievable singularity hanging around waiting for the moment to burst its seams.How long had it been there? Did it come from somewhere else to be there when it blew? What made it? – And I suppose the answer to that is that it had to make itself. 


Chapter 23
 
The Iron Core
 
It is thought that a large asteroid struck the earth, sank into it’s interior, and gave us our iron core. At least that hypothesis was presented on ‘The Discovery Channel”, in 2003. Apparently this was to explain the presence of our iron rich planet. 
Mars also has an iron core and so do Mercury, Venus and all the others I expect. Is science saying that a large asteroid conveniently crashed into each of the nine planets? - Sadly the foundational present day scientific theories can’t account for the ‘Iron age of Planets’, or what I call their ‘planetisimal stage’ in a more realistic way. 

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 cosmological suicide.
 

And as I keep reminding myself, I get the feeling that time and time again Science invents crutches to support its existing theories and then is amazed at the results of new non-matching findings. 
 
The fact that iron is the core material of earth and other planets is a key part of Genesis Continuous. Not that I have discovered any literature on this subject, but it could well be that the proportion of iron and titanium, cobalt and nickel, to everything else that makes a planet, may show a progressional variation from Mercury, (the richest source of these elements per total mass of all the planets) to Neptune, which may have the smallest amount in proportion to its total mass. Also the actual amount in each planet could well be progressively more than Mercury’s amount, since every planet takes on board additional iron and other material as it goes on its journey. If a planet starts it’s life as a lump of iron rich molten or semi-molten rock in close to the sun, then quite naturally, impaction from other source material through its lifetime would contribute a gradual building up of all the elements we know of right on top of the core. Unlike the core, some of this additional source material could well be from beyond our solar system. 
 
As I now believe that our sun is vastly older than science says it is, it was once very much larger than it is now. Orbiting bodies will spiral away as the solar mass losses its content over its lifetime of many billions of years, - minimum of 40 billion at least, I think, so far. So since Genesis Continuous is not restricted by a beginning, ie. ‘Big Bang’ a mere 13.7 billion years ago, the progressional birth of planets as a spiraling family, with 2 to 2.5 billion years timespan between each of them, sets the scene for a much more realistic solar planetary composition and existence. There is an asteroid belt right now orbiting the sun just two solar widths away from it. Why is it there? How did it get there? Why is it composed of iron rich rock similar to the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and is of a similar composition to the earth’s and other planet’s iron cores? It was discovered in 1983 and I had predicted its existence in 1972. It had to be there to provide the correct ingredients for a new planet’s core, which is what ‘Genesis Continuous’ is all about. 
 
As well as attraction by gravity, iron also has a much higher magnetic component than the other elements. Is this fact coincidental or not? I think that not only gravity, but magnetic attraction also contributes to the clumping together of those asteroids to make a planetisimal. This is why iron seems to be the key element in the birth of planets, moons etc. 
Asteroids are made of other elements mixed with iron, of course, silica, being one of them. Silica happens to be a very large part of earth’s mantle, so perhaps it floated on top of the core material. Certainly the most devastating volcanic eruptions on earth have been very silica rich with the source deep inside the earth. 
 
An example of such eruptions is that of Taupo, in my country, New Zealand. And I quote professional data:-
(2)www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ geol/jgs/1992/00000149/00000002/14920193 
(3)www.volcano.si.edu/world/ region.cfm?rnum=04&rpage=sources 
(4)www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjgg/2000/37.pdf 
 
This reference is as follows:- 
Lake Taupo is New Zealand's largest freshwater lake and is situated in the centre of the North Island. The lake is roughly circular in shape and measures about 30km in diameter with maximum depths of between 150 and 165m. Lake Taupo marks the location of one of the world's most active rhyolitic (silica rich) volcanoes as part of the Taupo volcanic centre, located at the southern end of the Taupo Volcanic Zone (Wilson and Walker 1985). However, as a result of various eruptions much of the volcanic centre has collapsed and now lies beneath the lake.
 Lake Taupo thus represents the focal point of some of New Zealand's largest rhyolitic eruptions, including one 26,500 years ago that involved 800 cubic km of erupted material; approximately 28 separate eruptions have been identified since that time, the most recent being the 35 cubic km of material associated with the 181AD Taupo eruption (Wilson 1993). This was a violent rhyolitic eruption which ejected rock, pumice and ash with the latter covering most of the central parts of the North Island.
 
An area approximately 15 x 10 km (as determined by gravity data) in the northwest part of the lake marks what is considered to be the collapse structure of the 181AD eruption crater, which has since been infilled by 3 km of low density, uncompacted, volcaniclastic material (Bibby et al., 1995; Davy, 1993; Davy and Caldwell, 1998). The 'vent' for the 181AD eruption is located in an area known locally as the 
Occasional observations of gas streaming near the Horomatangi Reefs (e.g., Northey, 1983) is further evidence of an active hydrothermal system in the area.
 
References cited
Bibby, H.M., Caldwell, T.G., Davey, F.J. and Webb, T.H., 1995, Geophysical evidence on the structure of the Taupo Volcanic Zone and its hydrothermal circulation. J.Volcan. Geothermal Res. 68, 29-58.
Caldwell, T.G. and Bibby, H.M., 1992, Geothermal implications of resistivity mapping in Lake Taupo. Proc. 14th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, 1992, University of Auckland, 207-212.
Calhaem, I.M., 1973, Heat flow measurements under some lakes in the North Island of New Zealand. Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Davey, B.W., 1993, Seismic reflection profiling of the Taupo caldera, New Zealand. Exploration Geophysics 24, 443-454.
Davey, B.W. and Caldwell, T.G., 1998, Gravity, magnetic and seismic surveys of the caldera complex, Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand. J.Volcan. Geothermal Res., in press.
Northey, I.M., 1983, Seismic studies of the structure beneath Lake Taupo. Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Wilson, C.J.N., 1993, Stratigraphy, chronology, styles and dynamics of late Quaternary eruptions from Taupo volcano New Zealand. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A343, 205-306.
Wilson, C.J.N. and Walker, G.P.L., 1986, The Taupo eruption, New Zealand I. General aspects. Phil.Trans. Roy. Soc. London A314, 199-228.
Whiteford,P.C., 1994, Heat flow measurements in the sediments of Lake Taupo, New Zealand. Tectonophysics 257, 81-92.
Whiteford, P.C., Caldwell, T.G. and Bibby, H.M., 1994, Examination of heat flow and resistivity values at the boundaries of the geothermal systems beneath Lake Taupo, North Island, New Zealand. Proc. 16th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, 1994, University of Auckland, 157-162.
 
We know that silica is an ingredient of asteroids. Could the iron (much heavier) and silica have separated while molten leaving the silica floating above it? We also know that ilmenite, titaniferous iron sand, and other iron minerals are associated with pumice and rhyolite, silica based rock. 
 
So, the suggestion of a later impact by an asteroid with earth to supply the iron core appears to be an attempt to explain something that to my way of thinking was not unique to a normal planet’s beginnings. 
 
Perhaps it is a basic unconscious desire in man to expect that our planet is unique, and that is why Science expresses surprise when faced with a growing number of similarities with our other planet family that were thought unlikely. 
Science was ‘surprised’ to discover that andesite rock existed on Mars. Was ‘surprised’ that there were planets wandering around in space free of any solar attachment and two others, one called Sedna, orbiting the sun with orbits beyond Neptune/Pluto. ‘Surprised’ that water H2O was far more plentiful beyond earth than expected. And completely silenced on the progressive, virtually predictive orbital positions of our planets, having no logical explanation whatever to offer for the phenomenon called ‘Bode’s Law’. – There are lots more. 
 
There seems to be only one solution to deal with phenomena that are proven to exist but don’t fit the existing concept, and that is to seek out what is wrong with the original concept. If necessary, go right back to the beginning and start all over again until the ‘fly in the ointment’ is discovered. Surely this is how science should perform? 
 
Taking the remarkable progressive orbital structure as demonstrated by Bode’s Law, and knowing that a huge atmosphere of gas and dust was needed to collapse and make a star, how can science accept that the collapse and the rings of planet making material arranged itself into such a predictably progressive formation? How could that material have survived in such an enormously violent and hugely variable pressure environment? And what was the glue that existed for the clumping of the dust etc., that worked equally well in every case from Mercury right out to planets even beyond Neptune/Pluto? 
To shrug the shoulders is not good enough. Genesis Continuous does not have those problems. 


Chapter 24
 
They called it ‘Genesis’
 
It was very unfortunate that the Genesis probe crashed. It was bringing back to earth samples of the sun’s emissions; its cosmic rays, complete with atoms of many elements. 
 
For Genesis Continuous, it was bringing back the ingredients of the final ‘Link in the Chain’ that spells Eternity. Here was the stuff that every star, globally, spreads in all directions through the cosmos, and I suppose that the crash has caused its contamination and probable loss. I am saddened by it but heartened to know that there are scientists out there who realise the significance of solar radiation as a material part of the sun that is being distributed to elsewhere in the universe to become the building blocks of nebula gas clouds that will collapse and become new stars, and it also adds to the mass of every object it strikes. These are the ingredients of a vital link in conservation and an eternal universe. 
 
Genesis capsule crashes in desert 
By Michael Coren


CNN 
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."

Genesis mission

Launched in 2001 from Cape Canaveral, the Genesis spacecraft travelled beyond the protective cloak of Earth's magnetosphere for two years before heading home. Because of Earth's electromagnetic field, much of the sun's deadly radiation and material never reaches the planet's surface.
 
In April, the craft ejected a 500-pound return capsule for return to Earth.
 
It has been approaching the planet at a leisurely 600 mph. By the time it reached Earth's atmosphere, the craft was racing toward the planet at more than 25,000 mph. It was supposed to use a series of parachutes to slow its descent.
 
On Wednesday, it entered the atmosphere around 11:55 am ET above Oregon and later plunged into Utah desert. Both the drouge and main parachute, a wing-like parafoil, did not deploy. 
 
This daring retrieval method would have protected the samples and sensitive instruments during reentry. The possibility of a serious crash was not discussed at press briefings. The chance for success were good according to NASA's retrieval partner in the mission, the aerospace firm Vertigo.
 
"If they can find it, the success rate is very high," said Vertigo official Roy Haggard.
A modified helicopter -- with a winch, hydraulic capture pole and hundreds of feet of line -- would have followed the capsule by radar until it snagged the parafoil. Because the Genesis capsule repressurized in the upper atmosphere, scientists wanted to minimize the sample's exposure to air and possible contamination.
 
Scientists hoped that once the samples had been secured at a NASA facility, scientists could breathe easy. That won't happen now.
 
I have left this report complete as it is not material associated in any way with the controversial points of my book. It’s just that I wish to express my sadness along with all the people involved with the mission’s mishap right at the end of its journey, and that by printing it here that the report will hopefully be made available to just a few more people. 


Chapter 25

Some Problems with other Theories

All existing theories concerning the formation of star systems, from nebula to planet family, are fraught with problems, and those problems exist because the scientific world believes that planets have occupied the same orbital positions since their collective birth. The fixed orbit belief seems to have remained unchallenged for centuries.
Science says that in the first place, there had to be a solid core to attract the vast amount of gases and solids needed to form a nebula, which claim I find perfectly acceptable, but, that when it collapsed into a star, it left behind disc-rings of solid material that formed up into planets. 
 
From that highly questionable latter event, we have the most controversial problem as to how the planets and moons etc., have been formed; how their orbit locations stretch from so very close to the sun, i.e. Mercury, all the way out to Neptune and now even further. And why the planets spaced so predictably into their Bode orbits? How did they form and from what? And how did their ring material form and how did it all remain in the bode predicted orbits during the collapse of the nebula? 
 
None of the above points has been satisfactorily answered, so leaving science’s understanding of planet formation very questionable. 
 
The fact that the inner four terrestrial planets present a sequence of development, from Mercury to Mars, seems to be ignored by science, and that probably because such a sequence does not fit with their theories. However, it is there. It has been discovered that Mars was like earth is 2.5 billion years ago and Venus gives us a picture of Baby earth 2.5 billion years ago. Doesn’t that ring bells? And one only has to look at Mercury to realise that it is a baby Venus, and I predict that science will have to one day admit that Venus was like Mercury is 2.5 billion years before. That adds up to 7.5 billion years of progressional development, and throws the believed age of the solar-system right off course at 4.5 billion years. 
 
The progress in development is there to see, it is acknowledged, so what about the gas giants who sit in their Bode orbits, having left room, as it were, for their inner siblings. Progressively, they make a giant leap from Mars to Jupiter of 5 billion years, so that now adds up to 12.5 billion, and then to Saturn, 15 billion, Uranus, 17.5 billion and Neptune 19 billion. Pluto is a question mark. Is it a planet or is it a moon of Neptune’s, pulled out of orbit? But there are two fairly newly discovered planets beyond the Neptune/Pluto coupling, and that takes us another 5 billion to 24 billion years. 
 
An ancient text claimed that there were 16 planets, and at present if we add the asteroid belt and Pluto, as well as give the possibility that a new planet is forming within the ring zone near the sun, that gives us 13 orbits, with Pluto not quite fitting the pattern, who knows what has gone before. There could well be several planets already drifting away into or away from the distant Milky-way and busy collecting their nebulas of gas. We may never know, unless we can return a billion years from now and take advantage of all the discovery made in between. 
 
If a nebula or a forming star can be located beyond but on the same plane as our planets are, just a few light years away, that could be a member of a new generation born of our star and the beginnings of a new galaxy. 
 
Galaxies of stars expanding away from each other and each star becoming the core of a new galaxy is not such a crazy notion. If we need the universe to have a beginning and a continuation, that’s not a bad evolution. However, it has to be trillions of years older than science believes in order to build on that pattern. But, why not??? 


Chapter 26
 
From the Beginning of a Star’s Creation
 
And the newly discovered planet, Sedna, beyond Neptune/Pluto. 
 
My explanation is as follows:- The nebula is an atmosphere of gas that has been attracted to a solid core of rock, say a wandering; old now non-orbiting planet. The planet had escaped the gravitational hold of its mother star and had drifted from that extremely low-density gas environment into a much higher one, which lay well beyond the reach of its star's solar wind. Its gas atmosphere could then simply have grown larger and larger without restraint over billions of years. The more it collected, the greater its gravity at the center became, and the further its attraction reached. But, anything unrestrained has to eventually be halted, otherwise the universe would not be the way it is. 
 
Surely the collapse occurred when the pressure of gas on to the core, crushed it to explode, which triggered the hydrogen atoms in that central vicinity to implode from the compression shock of the core exploding. The resultant implosion, unlike an explosion which is a sudden transformation of a more solid material into a lighter one, is a volume of gas being atomically changed and sucked into the relatively smaller volume of a denser material. In the case of a collapsing nebula, however, the action is one of fusion, and therefore, millions of times more violent; somewhat like an enormous hydrogen bomb in reverse. 
With that picture in mind let us visualise the probable progression and resultant collapse into a star. 
 
Like a link in a chain, only a small part of the gas cloud would have been involved in that first implosion, the part under the greatest pressure and perhaps only a few million kms. in diameter. A void would momentarily have existed between that first imploded material and the unaffected hydrogen and dust beyond. That then released a great wave of hydrogen and other material, which rapidly filled the evacuated voided area and descended upon the core from every direction like a huge sledgehammer. - The shockwave from within. - This second implosion would be far more crushing than the first and would probably have been sufficient to convert many of the newly created lighter elements present into much heavier ones. But it is not just the gas and dust that collapses and is compressed, it's its heat content as well. (I think that point is often forgotten). How many implosions are involved in creating a star, I have no idea, but when the star reached a certain size, its solar wind became strong enough to prevent further implosive absorption of gas which instead was blown away leaving a vast clean bubble of vacuum, large enough to house its future planetary family to orbit with the absolute minimum of resistance. 
 
As science still says that the planets were formed out of ring discs of material left over after the collapse, the above scenario would render that origination utterly impossible, and here is why. Gas had descended from all directions towards the forming star, and at speeds and pressures beyond which no orbiting solid material could survive. 
 
For example, accepting that a nebula is simply a huge atmosphere, like earth's only trillions of times larger and denser - We know what happens to a meteorite, attracted by earth's miniscule gravity and thin atmosphere. In seconds it is burned up. With solids in a ring, set in their angular momentum of orbital position, to be caught in a gale of gas beyond our imagination in intensity, all of it heading directly, or almost directly, toward the core of the newly forming star, what hope would solids have of resisting being torn away and remaining as solids in orbit? Absolutely none. 
 
Also, any solids attracted to a nebula from elsewhere could not remain whole, no matter how, at what speed, or what direction they approach from, or whether they were formed within the nebula, - they were doomed. Their own concentrated mass would attract them to the core of the nebula as a meteorite is attracted to earth and they would be reduced to tiny chondrules or gas through frictional fragmentation, either before but definitely during the collapse. It has to be remembered that in a nebula, nothing has reached orbital velocity. If it had it wouldn’t be crushing into the center, and that’s what it’s all about. 
 
Surely, a new star emerges having absorbed and then driven away by its solar-wind, virtually everything, gas and solids, billions of miles away from its surroundings in space. (I'm not so sure about the solids, I reckon they probably all get sucked in).
 
My feeling is that all stars are self-contained and that they provide everything that is needed to form their planetisimals, moons and what-have-you. After they are formed, that which they gather from outer space is simply additional. 
 
Genesis Continuous provides the answers to these problems by offering a simple, practical theory of how a star and its family originate. It is backed up by evidence, most of it recently discovered, that although it does not fit in with the more established scientific orthodox hypothesis, it has been an integral part of Genesis Continuous since I first thought of it back in 1971/2. 
 
I get the feeling that time and time again Science invents crutches to support its existing theories. 
Here is a thought on the claim that ‘There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world’. So if you scoop up just one bucket full of sand from any beach, how many star systems could you expect to find in that one bucket that had a planet somewhat similar to earth? Two, four, two hundred perhaps, or maybe a million, or 10 million or more? And that’s hardly scratching the surface of the bucket, let alone the trillions of bucket fulls it would take to clear all the beaches on earth. 
 
But then, I’m claiming that the cosmos and space is infinite, so no calculation is even possible or necessary. 
This next announcement shows just how bad it gets when conclusions are based on bad theory. Near misses, slingshot manipulation and any other bit of magic has to be seriously considered to explain the otherwise unexplainable. Poor Sedna (see report below) and any other solar planet that has just been doing its normal thing out beyond the perceived boundary of the solar-system, has incredibly become an embarrassment. 
 
If science would quit itself of Big Bang and the restrictions imposed by it and give our sun credit for having existed for many billions of years longer than Big Bang demonstrates, with the realisation that the sun was much larger when it was born; and that it processed a full compliment of elements; as well as having given birth to perhaps 20 or more planets at 2 to 2.5 billion year intervals, and that the oldest ones are heading away into space collecting their nebulae of gas to eventually become the next generation of stars; then the word ‘eternity’ might start to mean something. Then we would be observing a magnificent chain of events where the cosmos behaves as it does in a fully accountable manner. 
 
Sedna Might Have Formed Past Pluto
 
(1)www.universetoday.com/am/ publish/sedna_formed_past_pluto.html 
(3)domeofthesky.com:81/2005/01/12
(5)emilix.homeip.net:8080/mt/SpacedOut/archives/2005/01/ 
(7)drawsky.ltes.cy.edu.tw/newspaper/old/A20050100002.html
(8)www.hiddenmysteries.org/headlines/arch/jan2005.html
 
Summary - (Jan 11, 2005) Astronomers recently announced the discovery of Sedna, a nearly Pluto-sized object on a 12,500 year-long orbit around the Sun. New computer simulations from the Southwest Research Institute demonstrate that Sedna could have formed out past the orbit of Pluto, instead of being created closer to the Sun, and then ejected by the gravity of the gas giants. If this happened, it would mean that the zone of planetary formation in our Solar System could extend much further than previously believed, and there could be other objects like Sedna lurking in outer reaches.
 
One needs to read that explanation of how Sedna orbits where it is several times to discover the logic. I’ve given up. And then ejected by the gravity of the gas giants. Warning! Don’t start debating this over the breakfast table, even if the whole family is in a good mood, nobody’s late for school or work, the sun is shining and it could be a glorious day, because you could easily find all the locks changed when you get home from work.


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) 



Chapter 27

Venus Holds Picture of Baby Earth

By SPACE.com Staff 
posted: 07:00 am ET 
02 July 2001 

(1)www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html

(4)https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html
(5)www.spacetoday.net/getarticle.php3?id=50746 - 66k - Supplemental Resul
(7)www.thingsyougottasee.com/Pages/ html%20pages/information-picture-planet-venus.html
Scientists have found a time machine that will take them back 2.5 billion years. They call it the planet Venus. It turns out conditions on Venus today are analogous to Earth's earliest times in the Archaean and early Proterozoic eras. 

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 boost. (DCH)
*


Chapter 28

What discoveries can we expect in the future?

It will be realisation that Bode’s Law also offers us a progressive time scale of planetary birth, development and future growth of the universe.
 
It will be realised that all planets have or most likely have, iron cores. 
 
It will be realised that the primary source of that iron was its star. 
 
It will be realised that Mars may still have evidence of an extinct intelligent human type population billions of years in advance of our own. 
 
It will be realised that the universe maintains its continuous existence through a complete recycling ability of all its componentry. 
 
It will be realised that planets and moons attract gas clouds, and because they eventually leave their solar orbits, will continue to collect atmosphere that will eventually be seen as nebula. As far as we are aware, planets and moons are the only non-radiant bodies of reasonable size capable of serving this purpose. Radiant bodies do not attract an atmosphere.
 
It will be realised, therefore, that old planets are the concentrated gravity mass cores of nebula that will become stars, and that it is their collapse and explosion that triggers the further implosive collapse of the nebula into a star.
 
It will be realised that galaxies are populated by a multitude of stars divided up into generations of an infinite number of families. And every star is destined to have a planet family.
 
It will be realised that the radiation of matter/energy across space from every star collides and is absorbed by whatever it strikes and adds substance to the material required for the rebuilding of new stars, planets and solar family material. The rate of solar radiation is a governing factor in the speed of recycling. 
 
It will be realised that a star is a mother and provider of everything from gas to asteroids and from planets to new stars. And she has the help of countless billions of other stars to make the cosmos what it is. The rate at which stars produce new planets is also one of the governing factors in the speed at which the universe recycles itself. 
 
It will be realised that a galaxy is like a spider’s web type catchment, that attracts radiated cosmic rays and particles to it, which makes a concentration of nebula masses to catch more and more into it. But equally, what it collects now, it radiates later. 
 
It will be realised that nothing is lost and nothing is gained but what may appear to be lost is eventually all re-gained. Continuous reformation is the energy, existence and eternity of the universe. 
 
It will be realised that since all nebula are expanding, it is the star systems out at the fringe of the nebula which will have the greater chance of dispersing their planets into unoccupied space. The planets/moons that head toward the centre will simply add to the density of that area. A look at a galaxy and the vastness of empty space around it demonstrates this point.
 
It will be realised that no star on the edge of space has a wall in front of it, and that its light will shine away beyond that perceived edge just as far as it shines this way toward us. Therefore there is no edge, boundary, bubble bladder, wall, brick or otherwise creating a limit to the capacity of space. 
 
It will be realised that objects observed near the limit of our technical ability, say, 13 billion light years away, where in that locality 13 billion years ago. There can be no doubt that they have moved on another 13 billion years since then. The speed of light is the governing factor in our observational warp. 
 
It will be realised that none of the above could be contained within a timeframe of 13.7 or even 113.7 billion years. Simply, a timeframe in this context does not exist. Only the cyclic activity within can be measured in time. 
 
It will be realised that not all organic origins were of this planet. 
 
It will be realised that man will have to drastically reinvent the medium of exchange banking system so that it equates justifiably with international productivity and consumption and conservation of our planet. 
 
It will be realised that earth’s resources are finite and that nothing should ever again belong to individuals with automatic right of disposal beyond the access of future generations. 
 
It will be realised that I, and others like me who have perhaps died and left a legacy of worthwhile wisdomania are worth reading regardless of our lack of academic qualification. 
 
Continuous reformation is the energy, existence and eternity of the universe. The universe is not in a state of evolution or decline. (DCH)


Chapter 29

Ingredients are there to Make Rocky Planet

 
This image belongs to this report, or at least it did ! (DCH)

I do not guarantee these links. (DCH)

(2)www.armageddononline.org/science.php?start_ from=100&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=& 
(3)news.surfwax.com/astronomy/files/Asteroids.html 
(6)www.hiddenmysteries.org/headlines/arch/nov2004.html


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 [2] 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 [2], 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. 

More information 
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. 

Notes 

[1]: 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).

[2]: 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). 

[3]: 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 Environments'



Chapter 30

The Gas Giants

As I have alluded to earlier our solar system demonstrates some very interesting characteristics, and one is that planets come in all sizes, and the gas giants look as though they may have acquired extraterrestrial material.
 
We have divided them up into two main types, gas giants and terrestrial, and the total mass of gas giants is far greater than that of terrestrials. Now did the gas giants start off like they are or where they once terrestrials? And are the terrestrials on their way to become gas giants? 
 
Genesis Continuous would agree that planets get larger as they age, and there is plenty of evidence to support that, whilst the terrestrials offer us a picture of age progression from Mercury, the younger, to Mars the oldest, (Genesis Continuous). But what would a planet be like that should be in the orbit of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, because this is where a giant step from one sort of planet to a totally different sort takes place? 
 
Is it possible that the bigger they are the more gas they take on board? Is it possible that Jupiter is on the way to becoming a star, and it hasn’t even reached a more gaseous zone yet in which to collect it’s full compliment of gas. So it is unlike Neptune, Uranus and Saturn which should all reach the gases of space billions of years sooner than Jupiter will. 
 
If an outside nebulae of gas impacted our solar-system, the destiny of all planets in it could be threatened, unless the sun's solar-wind was strong enough to drive it away. 
 
Or, I guess that we could be swamped, with no choice whatever in the matter. And because there are billions of stars out there with planet families, it’s obvious that this has happened elsewhere. 
 
And, it is interesting that the terrestrial planets are grouped nearest to the sun and the gas giants grouped beyond. Could it be that since the gas giants are older (Genesis Continuous) than the others that before Mars was born there was a nebula of gas drifted through our solar system and those planets caught some of it? And the asteroid belt, still close to the sun at that time, became scattered by it. 
 
We can see gas clouds, or nebula, as they are called, because they are really gigantic atmospheres, like earth’s only trillions of times larger. 
 
Imagine the four planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus any others that existed at the time, with Jupiter being where Mercury is and Neptune being where Mars is in AUs. A nebula drifts by with its centre a few billion miles out in space and its very thin extremity wipes the sun and her family as it goes on by. The solar family, takes on board some of this gas as they orbit the sun, but the sun itself does not capture very much of it because of her solar-wind. Most of the lighter gases are swept away by that, meaning that only heavier gases, methane, ammonia, etc., are left to be collected by her larger planets and not those smaller ones beyond Neptune. This would suggest that possibly all planets start their existence as terrestrial. 
 
It’s just an idea and probably requires some variation to make it fit the facts concerning the affected planets as regards their gas composition.I am quite happy for others to investigate this possibility, but please don’t forget that I thought of it and, if proven, it becomes another foundation stone for Genesis Continuous. 
 
I can just see the headlines now:- 
 
Some 12.5 billion years ago a nebula of gas slipped by, gently wiping a much younger solar-system etc. Scientists were amazed to find etc. etc. 
 
Cosmology is full of ‘what if’ claims. They call them theories. I shall take credit for my ‘what ifs’ if I may be permitted. 
    (1) What if the gas giants collected their extra material from a passing nebula? 
    (2) What if the planets were all born out of a ring zone of material erupted by the sun at about 2 to 2.5 billion year intervals throughout its existence? 
    (3) What if I take the credit for having claimed that the asteroid belt 2 solar widths away from the sun as my discovery since I said it was there 11 years before it was discovered? (I hereby name it, Hardy-Tiki)
    (4) What if the sun is well over 30 billion years old? 
    (5) What if it’s not a supernova that collapses a nebula into a star but instead it’s the core of the nebula exploding that produces the necessary concussion as the trigger? 
    (6) What if the universe is an eternal self recycling structure and that most of its observable components are vastly older than science believes?
    (7) What if it is discovered that with the addition of solar radiated energy, that it is a planet or a moon, that provides the core for a nebula to form that which will eventually collapse into a star? 
    (8) What if God already had the platform and the material at hand to create what it is said he created? 
    (9) What if every star has, or in time will have, its own Total Radiant Absorption Zone, and that arena will probably be much larger than the observable universe is today for every star in it? 
   (10) What if what we see at the limit of our technical observation isn’t there at all but is what was there many billions of years ago? 
When science can change ‘what if’ into ‘what is’ with no shadow of doubt, and when everyone on board our planet earth can feel O.K. about it, then our universality could be at one with the universe. And maybe this could help to completely civilise our race and make us universally  humane, then perhaps we will receive contact with extraterrestrial beings who will neither be threatening or have fear of being threatened by us.
We miss you Carl Sagan



Chapter 31

Ironic Distribution

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. 

(1)science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast21dec99_1.htm

(3)indigo.ie/~gnugent/dnso/news1299.htm
(4)asia.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=374
(6)www.scienceblog.com/community/ older/1999/C/199902243.html


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 it? 
 * 


Chapter 32

Mars Iron Ratio in Question 

The article below works on the assumption that all the planets in question are of the same age, which according to Genesis Continuous is not so. The bulk composition would certainly vary from planet to planet where Mercury is very rich in iron, not just because it is the youngest, but because it is a planetisimal formed from the iron rich asteroid belt that orbits the sun some two solar widths away from it . Venus, 2.5 billion years older than Mercury will have a smaller iron ratio, but total iron would be much the same as Mercury, and this progression would follow with earth and Mars. 
 
What do the researchers find when it is suggested that each planet from Mercury outward is 2.5 billion years older than its inner neighbour? As I have said, Mercury is the richest in iron simply because iron rich solar erupted material has provided the bulk of its mass. There is a ring-zone two solar widths away from the sun rich in iron which is being constantly replenished, which I believe is the source area for each planet’s planetisimal stage. Being molten or even semi-molten, and formed into a small growing ring, is the ideal venue for planet birth. Venus, earth and Mars, started out from the same venue but have progressively moved on while constantly accreting more of the other elements available to them as they spiralled outward. The beginning of the last paragraph of the following article, ‘However, Carnegie's George Wetherill, etc. has very important claims that fit in with my theory.

Source – Carnegie Institute

Date – 1998-09-18

New Research Places Mars Bulk Composition In Question

(2)carnegieinstitution.org/news_980000.html
(3)seti.sentry.net/archive/public/1998/9-98/00000239.htm
(4)www.marsnews.com/archives/1998/09/17/ new_research_places_mars_bulk_composition_in_question.html
(6)solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/archive. cfm?Mission=Pathfinder&Start=11&Incr=10(7)www.astrobiology.com/1998.news.html
(8)www.sciencedaily.com/search.php?page=150& sort=&keyword=going%20to%20mars%20for%20christmas%20euro


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. 



Chapter 33 

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.

 * 


Chapter 34

Conclusion

I appreciate that for orthodox Science to even accept one of my theories would mean the whole foundation of ‘Big Bang’ may collapse under the strain and take with it all the other propping up theories that have been slotted into it over the years. However, I’m sure that there are a large number of scientists and other folk out there who don’t embrace ‘Big Bang’ with open arms or with a clear conscience.

A short List of Reality, as I see it.

(01) The universe is eternal. There was no ‘Big Bang’.
 
(02) The universe has no boundaries and is not an encapsulation within an expanding capacity. 
 
(03) Strict and unchanging laws of physics have to be universal and timeless. 
 
(04) Every star radiates energy and thereby reduces its gravity, mass and energy. 
 
(05) This is a key factor. All solar radiated energy is reabsorbed back into the cosmos. Logically, Conservation is impossible in an ecapsulated universe.
 
(06) Stars may have a lifetime of up to 100 billion years and probably more. One could hardly say that their deaths are a common event. 
 
(07) All stars create their full compliment of elements without the necessity of a remote supply. Extra terrestrial material is purely additional. 
 
(08) Because our sun is many billions of years older than believed by science, it was once much larger. 
 
(09) The 13.7 billion year supposed age of the universe presents an impossible timeframe for what is observable in the universe. 
 
(10) A supernova is not the triggering mechanism to collapse a nebula into a star. 
 
(11) Our solar system of planets does not conform with science’s ideas of its origin. See Chapter 29
 
(12) Science cannot account for the orbits of Uranus and Neptune being where they are. 
 
(13) And science now has 2 planets orbiting beyond Neptune/Pluto drastically compounding that problem. 
 
(14) The very shape and composition of galaxies shows that they are perhaps trillions of years in the making. 
 
(15) Solar energy cannot be escaping through a perceived bubble boundary of the universe, yet so much of it is heading in that direction. (Conservation) 
 
(16) The key to an expanding universe, the characteristics of galaxies, the formation and birth of stars, the birth and destiny of planets are the locks waiting to be opened, but only in an eternal universe. And in addition the conservation and reuse of all solar energy within the one limitless universe, together creates unstoppable recycling with no loss and no gain of energy/matter - forever. 

(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% ?

 
(19) It is time that science tossed away its textbooks and started all over again from scratch.
 
‘Genesis Continuous’ has proposed a universe that has always existed but continually changes, and will always exist and will continue to change within strict physical laws that must have always existed. The continuous links in the process are clearly evident, yet although Science continues to find more evidence to support that hypothesis, they attempt to apply or reject that same evidence solely in support of ‘Big Bang’. And since the 'Big Bang' is theory, and therefore not proven, this can hardly be legitimate scientific practice. Conservation can only exist in an infinite, boundless arena, and to accept that distinct possibility is to shed so many problems.
 
I’ve probably hammered my points in with excessive repetition to make them clear, and I apologise if this seems a bit overdone. I hope that Genesis Continuous will attract a much larger readership than just an academic one, but will reach people who may have never given the wonders of our heavens a second thought because it was presented to them in a confusing and boring manner by academics who should not have high-jacked such a wonderful subject as their own domain, and turned it into a vastly complicated and unbelievable Hollywood thriller. 

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.

 
One active cosmos.
One set of Laws.
Conservation the key
An Infinite Eternal Universe.

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. 

Genesis Continuous.

No separate bibliography is included since all reference material includes source and authorship. Many thanks to one and all. And all reference material is in smaller type.

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.

David Calder Hardy

Search this site
The End. © 

   My Homepage

mailto:David Hardy

free hit counter
free hit counters

Free Hit Counter installed 14th June 2008