1) The universe offers a vast field of exploration and discovery; the largest of all. Academic cosmology has virtually had the subject to themselves and those of us without qualifications in the field are excluded from an understanding of singularities, big bangs, negative matter, positive matter, dark matter, and all sorts of stuff that gets into the theories they come up with.
2) The theory of Big Bang, and the universe having been created 13.7 billion years ago, is the very heart of modern cosmology. The problem is, that new discoveries are forcing that theory into a corner.
3) My concern started with the origin of the solar system, which science claims, that when the sun was formed, the planets were made from rings of dust, as part of a planetal disk, left over and orbiting in the locations that we see those planets in now. Science has a number of problems with this theory that they cannot explain. see Rough for confirmation of my reasons for thinking that such a theory is flawed.
4) My first Genesis Continuous dealt with a totally different scenario. I have the planets being born one after the other about 2 to 2.5 billion years apart, from a belt of material being constantly replenished by the sun, mostly iron, and orbiting just over 2 solar widths away from that solar source. I had predicted that this little asteroid belt existed in 1972 and it was not discovered until 1983.
5) Therefore, I say that all planets start their journey off into space with an iron core, (the existence of which, science cannot explain in their fixed orbit theory) and that the sun is vastly older than science believes, (vastly older), and because it radiates huge amounts of energy constantly, it is loosing gravity. It’s hold on its planet family is being very gradually released and that is why their orbits fit so closely into what is known as Bode’s Law. There are orbiting planets beyond Pluto that science has recently discovered which completely confound their theories. (update 2005). One of these was called Sedna.
6) Asteroids, both in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and the one discovered in 1983 close to the sun, are basically iron. The sun keeps adding molten ejecta to the latter one until one blob attracts another and then another and so on until the combined magnetic attraction causes other particles from ever greater distances to be added to its mass. Eventually it sweeps up virtually the whole ring of iron peices and here we have the core of a planet.
7) What comes next is silica, calcium and all sorts of other drifting solids, impact with the iron core and over billions of years, build up a planet. All this time, and from now on, this object will grow and go through all sorts of transformation and eventually drift away from its mother star.
8) One has to ask the question, why planets have a nucleus of iron that then suddenly cuts off and all other material builds up on top of it. If iron attracts iron, then as it gets more and more massive, why would it start picking up other material instead? And in the drifting environment of the nebula, from gases to a multitude of solids, why did the solids not all get dragged into the growing star and leave the gases to float over the top like an atmosphere would? Even a sand storm finishes back on the ground.
9) Having happily dealt with that in those earlier years, I turned to big bang theory and the claim that the universe was expanding away into non-space inside the ‘cosmic bubble’ which expanded with it.
10) Complicated? Very. I don’t know exactly what the bubble thingy is supposed to do other than create a boundary between the universe and the non-universe beyond.
11) It’s great looking up at the stars at night and seeing their little pinpoints of light shining from billions and billions of miles away, but that’s not all there is to it. Stars are global just like our star, the sun, and their light shines away globally in every direction.
12) The question is, what happens to those rays of light when they hit the bubble? Is that something that doesn't get talked about.
13) Conservation of energy and matter is a prime law of physics. Something is not created out of nothing and something is not obliterated or lost through the skin of a bubble into nowhere. How can it be?
14) There are more faults in big bang just as glaring as that. That’s what this book is partly about.
15) Science has seen stars 13 billion light years away at the so called edge of the universe. True, that’s what they say, and, what’s worse, they say that they are ‘still there’.
16) We can only see a star 13 billion light years away when its light has taken 13 billion years to reach us. So where is that star now? In an expanding universe it must havemoved on another 13 billion light years, because we see it as it was 13 billion light years ago and clearly not as it is now. Does or doesn't that make sense?
17) I would not write a book damning a philosophy without having something realistic, rational and workable to offer instead. Because of my earlier theory of the origin of the solar system, I had discovered how the universe expands, but all this could not occur within a timeframe of 13.7 billion years. Eternity, was the only answer, and infinity was the boundlessness in which it had to exist.
18) The fact that nobody else had considered star/planet systems as key players in the overall expansion issue that had made big bang so attractive, cosmology has dropped itself into a black hole of its own making, because expansion originally was considered to be radial. That is expanding radially from the singularity explosion. That had to be changed over the years.
19) If you start with a star, then its planets/moons, and they spin away from their mother host and become the core bodies for nebulae that form into new stars, etc. etc. etc. and the hydrogen/subatomic particles to help build those nebulae is radiated out in every direction by every star to be collected by everything it strikes, you see how galaxies are formed and why it doesn’t matter where you are in an infinite universe everything will appear to be retreating from you.
20) And no way can that scenario be fitted into a 13.7 billion year timeframe. And it was a scientist, Carl Sagan, who said that there were more stars in the heavens than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. I’ll go along with that!
21) The above synopsis may suggest that the universe is very complex. Truly it is not. All I had to find were the key factors that gave it conservation on the one hand and eternity and boundlessness on the other. Those ingredients are quite clearly there to be seen. .
22) Out of all the criticism I make of the orthodox theories emerges a totally different working universe that observes conservation and the laws of physics. And the question that over-rides all others is:- Why did there have to be a beginning? The one word - Conservation, should be the short yet simple answer to that question.
23) It seems to me that if Science could just stand up and say, 'Look', we've made a mistake. The universe has to be billions of years older than 13.7, and until all the conflicting data is sorted, lets just say we don't know how old it is and leave it as being eternal until we get solid evidence to support a starting date if there has to be one'. I reckon to do that would give researchers the room and unfettered timeframe to really advance our knowledge of the beautiful universe.
David Calder Hardy
Author of Genesis Continuous.
Genesis Continuous - Complete
David Calder Hardy's Cosmology
Genesis Continuous Synopsis