David Calder Hardy's Cosmology Homepage
Genesis Continuous and Lots More


My Live Journal Blog site - http://davidchardy.livejournal.com/

photo by my g dau. Jamie Evans


Sitemap - Freefind Search this site site search technology courtesy Free Find


Sth Island, NZ. Bush Robin, DCH photo


A Star and it's Family

In January 1973 I wrote my first notes on cosmology that I called Genesis Continuous. That name still stands, in spite of the fact that my concentration then was only on the origin of a planetary system. Big Bang came later.

My concern back in those days was that the nebula theory, as it pertained to the formation of planets, forming within a cloud of gas and dust, and occupying orbits more or less progressively predictable from Mercury right out to Neptune, seemed impossible in all counts.

A nebula could surely be described as a huge atmosphere, around some solid or liquid mass at it's centre. That core, shall we call it, has been in an environment where gas, dust, rocks etc., have been available to be gravitationally captured by it.

Earth is a planet with an atmosphere some fifteen kilometers deep, but a nebula is many millions of kilometers deep, so since the gravitational pressure of our infinitesimal atmosphere/nebula is thirty two pounds per square inch at sea-level, obviously the pressure at the surface of the core in a nebula will be enormous, and at the time that the nebula collapses under the strain, the situation has become explosive. Forget supernova causing shockwaves to trigger nebula callapse; it's going to happen anyway.

It seems to me, that an explosion which will create huge expansion pressure, will cause the central gas and dust to implode. That implosive action reduces the capacity of the space occupied by the gas that has now turned those gases into new elements higher up the atomic scale.

The result of that first implosion will cause an instant occupation of that vacated space by the nearby un-imploded nebula gas in close proximity poised above, that will act like a hammer blow from all quarters, and will create the next implosion, probably with far greater force than the first one.

Before the first part of the collapse, the nebula is like a ball, and the collapse will be more or less equally crushing from all directions, and obviously in that state, nothing could be in orbit or have reached orbital velocity simply because material would be cris-crossing other material trying to orbit from other directions. - Bedlam, would not allow free orbital velocity to occur.

Considering the pressure and density of the gas, which after all, is the medium holding everything together, any sudden movement, caused by explosion or implosion will create huge ripples throughout its mass. Any solids falling through it, I image would be so violently buffeted, as to burn up, just as meteorites do when they enter earth's puny atmosphere. Simply, anything experienced in our atmospheric environment will be minute in comparison to the forces of a collapsing nebula. - And that must be the understatement of the century.

[a] Implosion, is causing the gas and dust to be shrunk into many elements higher up the atomic scale, so the growing gravity of the star is being increased by its absorption.

[b] The ambient heat of the nebula gas is also compressed during implosion, and in a minute way we experience this effect when we pump up our bicycle tires - compressing the air in the pump barrel concentates and increases it's heat intensity.

[c] We know that solids fall toward the earth through our atmosphere. Surely the same will happen in a nebula and solids larger than a speck of dust will have no hope of surviving as such. But the new star is growing at the expense of the shrinking nebula and things are changing.

The nebula is now being affected by the new star's strengthening polarity which virtually divides the ball like mass into two halves. Rapid movement by both halves coming together on the equatorial plane must surely be intensly violent, to say the least. Planetals and lumps of rock, I feel, would not survive, even if they did get that far.

Thus far then, there is little hope of solids existing within the gases that will nearly all end up in the growing star anyway. The rest will probably be blown away by solar wind. It's not likely that much if any of the gas will reach orbital velocity, because an up and running star will either absorb or blow away all gas at the end of the collapse.

Solar wind is the key to what happens, because its power will keep gas perhaps billions of kilometers away from an area which will become the domain of it's planets, moons, and everything else that can reach orbital velocity around it. The fact is, for planets to freely orbit, as they obviously do, they must have an unrestricted journey. Almost pure space, in fact.

How are planets born?
In that same year, 1973 I figured out that there should be another asteroid belt in close to the sun inside the orbit of Mercury. In 1983 it was discovered and reported to be two solar widths away from the sun.

Why would earth and probably the other planets have an iron core? Because that asteroid belt is mostly iron dust, and will be continuously supplied from the sun. In about two point five billion years enough of this semi-molten material exists for it to roll up into the core of a planet, just like a snowball. Since it exists right now, Mercury could have a little sister any time soon.

Using existing data to determine the two point five billion year birth periods of planets I had solved the riddle of Bode's Law, which showed that there is a mathematically predictive progressive spacing between them. As the mass of the star lessens, so equally does it's gravitational hold on its orbiting family.

It seems to me that the effect of solar wind is balanced by gravity, which comes together with the Ort Cloud region, for gas, so in the case of iron dust particles, that region is two solar widths above the sun. Which means that solar wind holds it away whilst gravity tries to draw it back.

So why would planets form this way and spiral away?

A star is said to be anywhere between one hundred and a hundred and fifty times the size of the sun when born, so the loss of mass through radiation is enormous over the period of its existence. Loss of mass equates with loss of gravity, so existing planets will be slowly released by that loss into the far beyond. As solar wind keeps potential swamping by gases from beyond with her solar wind, planets and moons can grow from impact by rocks, dust and any solids, from beyond. Hence the growing mantle mass as planets age.

It has been claimed that Mercury has a very small mantle relative to the size of it's core, Venus somewhat larger, earth larger still, and I'm not sure about Mars, but it should be larger still in proportion to the size of it's core.

It was announced, just prior to the year 2000, that Mars was like earth is now, three billion years ago. And shortly after that, another announcement that Venus presents us with a Baby Earth as earth was like two point five billion years ago. They did not say that Mars was older or that Venus was younger by those amounts, but it indicated to me that I was very close in my reckoning of age progression between Venus, earth and Mars.

It is my contention that the oldest planets will drift away from their shrinking mother and spiraling journey. However, this claim completely ridicules Big Bang which is only thirteen point seven billion years old. Neptune, I believe, is over twenty five billion years old.

Another great find for my theory came soon after the above two, and that was that some free roving planets had been spotted in the Milky-way, and that Science had no explanation for their existence.

Now I had the links confirmed. A star is born, shines, makes planets, sends its radiated energy in all directions into space and shrinks to become a mass ever so much smaller than when it was born. It's oldest planets have been created, and spiraled away to a point where they tangentially drifted away from their mother's fold. What next?

Free of the mother's orbital tether and free of her solar wind, the drifting planet meets up with gas that she attracts by her mass gravity. There is no solar wind to blow it away, so she accumulates more and more; and this adds to her gravity, which, in turn causes her to reach further and further into space for her collection. At some point she will melt. So from small beginnings, her original atmosphere has become a nebula, and as long as there's material to collect, she will collect it until that moment when her liquid mass explodes, and a new star is imminent. No supernova necessary.

That planet core could have drifted away tangentially from anywhere in her orbit. Maybe in towards the centre of her galaxy, or perhaps away in the opposite direction, out into space.

Drifting in towards the galaxy there would be more material to build the nebula and the job would be done sooner than if she had headed off into space where there would be less material to collect. However, the latter direction could be the core of a new galaxy, and that galaxy would be seen to expand away from it's source.

The only thing standing in the way of this theory is the restriction of a cosmic beginning, particularly as recent as thirteen billion years. An ageless massive universe recycling its matter/energy in a progressive system of mass/energy accumulation, radiation dispersal, and collection, offers evolution on a grand scale, and the organic compatibility stage of planets within that evolution would be a normal occurrence.
Rough Neighbourhood no Good for Planets It takes a nice safe environment for planets to form, according to new data

Gathered by the Spitzer Space Telescope
Go to Space.com and enter - venus_earth_010702
Scientists have found a time machine that will take them back 2.5 billion years.
The time machine is actually Venus. It turns out conditions on Venus today are ...
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/venus_earth_010702.html - 50k - Cached

Best News for Years - At long last, confirmation that earth is spiralling away

More on this subject lower in this page.

As far as I am aware, I am the first person to offer a practical, step by step foundational recycling creation of the universe. Yes, it has to be eternal. Yes, although some parts of it may be in turmoil, it is universally stable. Yes, it has no boundary, so measurements of distance and time can only be measured between objects in it's midst; and that, providing we know precisely how far they are from us.

The Infinite Universe

 Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago suggests that:-

  • If the lifespan of a star is plus or minus 10 billion light years, then the Universe will be hosting its 2nd generation of stars.
  • Therefore all galaxies at 13 billion light years distance from us are composed of young 1st generation stars with no sign of supernova or any evidence at all of stars in a state of demise. Is this so?
  • Galaxies at 4 billion light years from us should be displaying maximum star demise per number of stars because they are 10 billion years old. Is this so?
  • The Milkyway should be in a state of fewer demise per number of stars, because we are observing it as being the oldest galaxy in the universe.
  • If these differences do not exist and observable galactic behavior is similar right across the universe, Big Bang, 13.7 billion years old, or indeed any sort of a beginning does not fit with present reckoning.


    A boundary between space and no space supposedly exists at 13.7 billion light years and is therefore 0.7 billion light years beyond the most distant galaxies:-

  • On the expectation that 'no space' contains nothing, and that stars shine globally, could light waves from stars shining near the edge of the universe be bounced back into the universe?
  • As there will be a vast number of stars at or near the 13 billion light year area of space, we must assume that since we can see them, that they are at least 13 billion years old, because their light will have taken that long to reach us. Stars shine globally, so it seems logical to expect that their light is shining out yonder at least the same distance, ie, 13 billion light years.
  • This simple realisation makes the idea of some sort of boundary seem rather nonsensical. Perhaps Science can explain.


    Stars at 13 billion light years distant, are travelling away from us faster than those closer to us.

    So the light we are seeing is from galaxies that have travelled away from us since their light was emitted. In those 13 billion years they could be at least double the distance away by now, and that is, 26 billion light years. Or - 13 billion years plus 13 billion years to their now locality, plus their light emission of another 13 billion beyond where they are,.= 39 billion? Because these assertions appear to be fundamental to Big Bang theory, how can they reasonably be justified?


    If common sense calculations like I've presented above won't discredit Big Bang, what will.? My work in these pages offers a lot more evidence against the theory that we are all supposed to believe. The main thing is to not be blinded by science, but to look at simple Big Bang foundational nonsense like that on these pages, then email me and tell me what you think.

  • The universe is said to be a three dimentional containment of galaxies within a bladder or bubble, about 28 billion lightyears across.
  • It is said to have had a beginning in which it all started from a mass smaller than an atom.- Singularity
  • It is said to have no centre, and be in a constant state of expansion.
  • What is it expanding into is not known? Science does not offer a rational and believable answer as to the difference between space and no space.
  • Also claimed, is that it came into being 13.7 billion years ago, so prior to that there was nothing except its concentrated mass occuping a space smaller that one single atom. All this is swallowed by lots and lots of high achieving people, lecturers, professors and researchers all around the world. Fortunately, there are lots and lots of other people who don't believe it, and my sitemap below is my humble effort to show that there is a more realistic and rational existence of the universe without the imponderables. Just added - An interesting thought to Rough Neighbourhood no Good for Planets.
  • How I see the universe from the history of cosmological research up until now. April 2007
    1. Infinite Universe Readme first.The short version of Genesis Continuous.
    As I see the universe. It's eternal creational and foundational journey.
    2. Genesis Continuous Main astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, universe, solar system, nebula, sun, moon, mercury, venus, earth, mars, the lot

    A Better more workable Big Bang.
    A bit of serious humour.
    A Solid Wall of Light One of the problems facing science is that if there was no containment and if there are galaxies at infinite distances beyond the 13.7 billion light-year boundary,
    Ancient Planet Some 13 billion years ago in a distant cluster of stars, a planet formed. Remarkably it's still there,

    Bang Did there have to be a creation of the universe?
    Any so called original creation is simply full of impossibilities
    Bangbusters Correspondence

    Best News for Years - At long last, confirmation that earth is spiralling away.

    Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death by Paul Marmet 1932 - 2005. Truly one of the great men of science.
    Big Bang Foundation These points are:- 1. Singularity, its presence and origin. 2. .................
    Centre of Universe Where is the centre of the universe?
    Reality is that it has no centre. This may be the one thing Big Bangers agree with me on.
    Chandra Chandra Maps Vital Elements From Supernova.

    Climate InfoBeat - U.S. won't implement climate treaty Wednesday March 28th 2001 An open
    Cosmology Statement An open letter to the scientific community. Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004 cosmologystatement.org

    Cosmos This work sets out to create a foundation for the existence of the universe:-

    Cosmos 6 What Was There Before the Big Bang? Mohammad Gill, January 29, 2004

    Creative Burst The formation of the Solar System was hurried along by a nearby gamma-ray burst, two astrophysicists in Ireland suspect
    EMF Potential EMF Service, NZ. Electromagnetic Fields, Electricity and Health

    Eternity ..........where the universe freely allows an interchangeability of matter and energy.

    Expansion Beyond the Speed of Light - If the universe extends forever and if it’s full of stars, why is the night sky dark? Sept.29th 2006.
    Reason is simple.
    First Galaxies Hubble Sees the First Bright Galaxies, appearing around 13 billion years ago. September 13th, 2006. But surely they are 13 billion years older by now?
    Future Future and the threat to our planet.
    Wake up.
    Gas Giants  Gas giants turn up early in the universe. January 8th, 2007

    Gastank Universe Has Used Up a Fifth of Its Gas Tank August 18th, 2006
    Look to Paul Marmet to see that this is not true.
    Genesis Continuous Synopsis Academic Science has virtually had this subject to itself.
    Genesis Continuous Main astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, solar system, nebula, sun, moon, mercury, venus, earth, mars, the lot

    Genesis Continuous ConclusionsHere is an examination of Genesis Continuous from January 1972, when I first started to write it down

    Greenhouse Effect Global warming can be fought. It had better be or our descendants will have a rough time - and our generation caused it.

    Hardy 35 generation index  35 generations of the descendants of David C Hardy and Ann Compton - and:-
    PAF Descendant chart of Hugh Hardy & Ann Bird
    PAF Descendant chart of Alexander Calder & Margaret Clacher
    Heavy Stars in Galaxy HubbleSite - NewsCenter.

    Hot Mars  If life teemed upon the Red Planet once upon a millennium, it wouldn't have lacked for H20<br>

    The Responsibility of Being HumanWe've been given the warning. If we are going to save the planet from continued
    pollution, we have to face it together, globally May 2007
    Hubble Trouble
    8th June 2007. The problems with redshift. - The Limit of Visibility.- Conservation within a Containment or 'where the sun can't shine' - Big Bang.
    Hydrogen Cycle Discovery of H2, in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift by - Professor Paul Marmet (Vitally important)

    I Could be right Mysterious Deep-Space Object Raises Questions On Origin Of Solar System.

    In The Middle of the Universe From a singularity it spread - or did it?

    Lateral Thoughts  My Lateral thoughts.  If it is on the sabbath that God rested, why do we bother him with our problems on his day off?

    Lawless - Recently Discovered distant Solar System Planets The International Astronomical Union (IAU) has announced that the dwarf planet known as Xena.......

    Light Out Containment of the Universe.

    Limericks An ardent young greeny named Maude,

    Margot, Prof. at Cornell  Shows that more of Mercury's core is molten that had been previously thought for its age. However, this could confirm that Mercury is younger.
    Metal in Planets Metal in Planets Depends on Their Stars. Thu, 01 Jun 2006 -

    Milkyway Bulge The Milky Way’s Bulge Formed Early. September 12th, 2006.

    Nebula I suggest that a core is needed to initiate the formation of a nebula When I look at organic existence, I see something far more complex than what Science describes.

    .New Systems Ingredients are There to Make Rocky Planet. Summary - (Nov 25, 2004)

    New Zealand Power For All Think about the future. Geographically, New Zealand is blessed, and there is no doubt about that.

    Oliver Manuel
    Organics When I look at organic existence, I see something far more complex than what Science describes.

    Origins Genesis Continuous reference material.

    Phantom Well – no, I don’t believe in ghosts, and neither does my mate. By Jack Vincent. The what?

    Planets After Star is Born
    Poetry New Zealand
    Prostate The prostate, don’t you know what that is?

    Rain on Mars Rained On Mars PARIS (AFP)  Mars was not only awash with water, it also once had rainfall,.............

    Red Shift Andreas Glinz. - Redshift is measured, as you imply, by measuring the displacement of lines in spectra from their rest wavelength.

    Reports ASTRONOMERS working in Canada, France and the United States said today they had found a small deep-space object, nicknamed Buffy.

    Riddle Look into the stary sky and see a vastness beyond everyone's comprehension. 12th Aug 2005

    Rough Neighbourhood no Good for Planets It takes a nice safe environment for planets to form, according to new data gathered by the Spitzer Space Telescope.

    Science Fiction Effort by DCH
    Similar .............System that...almost exactly match those of the Inner Solar System, made up of Mercury, Venus and Earth.

    Star Flares A new study has caught a newborn star similar to the sun in a fiery outburst. X-ray observations.

    Sumup I have just seen the Discovery Channel documentary on the planet 'Orpheus' and its supposed physical impact with earth.

    Universe Centre  Original by Philip Gibbs 1997.  There is no centre of the universe!  .............., the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 billion years ago

    Uranus and Neptune Scientists Study Uranus, Neptune By PAMELA SAMPSON=Associated Press Writer=Scientists say they may have solved a far-out mystery

    Why Did there Have to be a Beginning? I'm asking this question because it should be the most important one in all of cosmology.mailto:David Hardy



    The Infinite Universe

    David Calder Hardy

    This section is a preview of what the complete work, Genesis Continuous, is all about.

    * Conservation
    * The Foundational Pathway
    * A Star is Born
    * A Planet is Born
    * The Shrinking Star
    * What happens Next?
    * Expansion, but Not as the Result of a Big Bang!
    * Too Few Supernova
    * Summing Up
    * Will these "established" areas of theory be re-addressed?


    (1 To consider what this title means we need to try and put together a foundation for what is meant by an infinite universe. Does the Establishment present us with a complete foundation? No, not in that sense. I, like many others, feel that there are huge gaps in the Big Bang theory, and that cannot make it foundational. Some even describe Big Bang and all its components as 'magic'.

    (2 A firm cosmology must be continuous. That is, it must be completely recyclable. The evidence for this claim definitely exists, and that presents the strongest evidence for Eternity and Conservation as opposed to any sort of a beginning. Also, presuming that this is the case, space must be infinite and or boundless. Creation, as we see it, is the result of a constant and successful recycling process throughout. Creation is the life and activity of an eternal universe.

    (3 Firstly, observably, there is space; and space is almost a vacuum, but it is teeming with galaxies of stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, hydrogen, subatomic particles, dust and gas, and that is what Genesis Continuous is all about. As Carl Sagan  put it- 'There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth'.  :-

    (4 So why are they there – why do they shine – why do they blow up (supernova), why does this vast array survive and why does it appear to be changing ever so slowly.

    (5 To say that space is bounded by something is to introduce a completely un-known and un-observed barrier. Is it a bladder, as claimed? And for that matter, why should it be part of Big Bang theory?

    (6 The first question that springs to mind with that suggestion is, ‘What’s behind the barrier’? - Because such objects right now only exist in the minds of men, I think that we have to dismiss them, because this object, anyway, creates its own barrier. It cannot be a part of a realistic foundation for our universe, because undoubtedly, radiant energy would have to be halted or reflected back by a wall, bladder, shield, or whatever. Sadly, the concept of a beginning and its componentry places huge restriction on what is already evident. It is fair to say that a beginning, of any description, creates a host of brick walls. That they were not thoroughly explored before being thrust into Acedamia almost 80 years ago is very sad indeed.

    (7 All stars shine globally, and there are observed galaxies 13 billion light years away at the so called edge of the universe, (according to science), so it is logical to accept that their light energy is shining away from them a distance at least equal to our distance from them, otherwise they would not be visible to us. So with a barrier, either their light is being bounced back or else absorbed by it, or, there is no wall, and it is free to travel beyond to a distance of twenty six billion light years away from us and still be within the universe. [This simple bit of logic should be enough to blow Big Bang right out the window because no rational answer exists]. But, that is not all.

    (8 Big Bang, starting with a singularity, is said to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago, and there are galaxies 13 billion light years away out at the supposed edge of the universe. Presuming that their light has taken 13 billion years to reach us, how did they get there in a mere seven hundred million years? Also this point seems strangely confusing because it appears that we are right in the middle of the universe, since the distances relate from us to the edge of the universe and not from some remote and elusive centre point. In other words all most distantly observed galaxies in all directions from us maybe 13 billion years old. but unless we are right in the middle of the universe they cannot all be out at the boundary. There must be some on one side of us 13 billion years old that have not reached the boundary yet and directly 180 degrees opposite there must equally be some that are 13 billion years old but are very much closer to us yet are at the boundary.

    (9 Surely if it was a ‘singularity’ approximately the size of a proton, that the whole universe has expanded from, that centre point should be locatable. It seems to me, as I have just explained, that until it is definitely located Big Bang cannot be an acceptable theory. Besides that, our location between it and the outer edge of the universe has to be known, otherwise the whole idea of Big Bang has no credibility, because measurements from us to the assumed outer edge would bear no relationship to the expansion from its central location to the outer edge. So what does science do when faced with this dilema?

    (10 It is believed by some scientists that there is no centre and that the ignition point has expanded with and continues to fill the cosmic containment. This is a bit like saying that when water flows up and out of a spring and into a lake of its own making that the source has spread out over the total area of the lake. Universe Centre  Where is it?
    [Physics FAQ] - [Copyright]
    Original by Philip Gibbs 1997.
    Where is the centre of the universe?

    (11 Since Big Bang flounders on these simple observations, it must be more acceptable that the age of the universe should be boundless since no evidence exists for its non- existence.

    (12 I, from the above, believe that the universe is eternal, with no boundaries and that conservation, within a recyclable foundation assures it of that eternity. Expansion does exist but it results from an entirely different phenomenon, explained below.

    The Foundational Pathway
    (13 Having made those assumptions let’s start our journey, that I call the ‘Cycle of Creation’ or ‘Genesis Continuous’.

    (14 Here we have what we can more safely assume to be, infinite space and time, matter and energy with continuous recreation, so we apply those words to the whole activity of the cosmos; and that activity includes –

    (15 The making of stars, planets, moons etc. The making of galaxies and the distribution of matter through the radiant energy of all active stars. The dismantling process of those objects is equally part of that creation. Destruction, is not a word one can use in the context of conservation.

    (16 Being, as I believe, the universe to be a recycling system, we have to start our examination of it somewhere within that cycle or pathway continuum.. For instance when we look at a bicycle wheel we note that it has a valve sticking out through its rim, and we could start there by turning the wheel so that the valve is at top dead centre. When we have twenty bicycles in a race we have forty wheels going around and all the valves are anywhere within the circle. At any one time, trillions of stars are cycling through their periods of existence in that way.

    (17 This is how it should be, because stars are shedding their mass/energy at a terrific rate right throughout their life times, which provides a constant stream of subatomic particles coursing in all directions through the universe, to be recycled wherever they strike.

    (18 New stars have been observed in the Milky Way galaxy that are one hundred and fifty times larger than our sun, and it seems very likely, and some scientists agree, that this could ne a minimum size for a new star. So, how old could our sun be? This is one of the burning questions my theory attempts to provide a method of answering. I expect it to be at least eight times older than what we are told, and if it can be shown to be ever so much older than that I will not be surprised. How about 50 or even 100 billion years.

    (19 I believe that the key players in the universe are its stars. Through their radiant lives they give everything. They have, in their birth, created all the elements ready to supply to their families of planets, moons and smaller bodies with everything required. Also, as I’ve mentioned, they radiate their sub-atomic particles away into the universe to be collected by everything they strike and that is continuously and collectively all a part of the recycling process. Science had claimed that our sun was never large enough to have created all the heavier metals, but surely this idea has to be revised in accordance with these new observations where new born stars are ever so much larger than was assumed.

    (20 To digress a moment, one has to remember that this work is a theory and it depends on known observation mixed with a fair amount of common sense. As we progress around the cycle I think that the common sense factor becomes increasingly apparent. We now start the cycle with a new born star and we’ll finish it with one full turn of its wheel.

    (21 At this point, it has recently been announced that hydrogen is diminishing. Besides this claim supporting Big Bang and its evolutionary destiny, it also demonstrates that Big Bang philosophical theory is used to support the supposed loss of hydrogen. So hand in hand they go!!!  Reference:- http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
    Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

    (22 Let's look at it this way:-
    Even in an evolving universe, as proposed by big bang, the making of stars has been continuous up to this time. Whilst hydrogen is available, then this should continue because it shows that the full cycle is intact.

    (23 Hydrogen is the number one, simplest atom.
    All other atoms can be formed from violent implosive processing involving hydrogen during the forming of a star from a hydrogen rich nebula.

    (24 A nebula has to reach a certain gravity mass before it can collapse, and then fusion, to occur. (see those points above).
    A nebula relies on a supply of hydrogen from space in order to reach that critical size.

    (25 Hydrogen is being created in space from the radiant emissions of trillions of stars shining in all directions through it. Although deep space is almost a complete vacuum, hydrogen is to be found there.
    What a star is created from is what it puts back to be recycled throughout its life-time.

    (26 Therefore, it is the stars that replenish hydrogen, so one could expect that providing there are a healthy lot of stars out there that there will be sufficient replenishment of hydrogen to keep the ball rolling.

    (27 If star forming slowed down through lack of hydrogen, there are trillions of them out there yet to complete their emissions with subsequent hydrogen replenishment before they snuff out. That's understandable, surely. So

    (28 Capture rate of hydrogen in a nebula, and on into a star will be balanced against the emission rate through radiation by that star back into space over its life time. Can Science offer a water-tight reason why that could not be so?

    A Star is Born
    (29 Part of the radiant energy of a star is her solar wind. Her size and her mass have given her a huge gravitational power and her iron content has given her a hugely strong magnetic attraction field. Some scientists now suggest that the iron content of the sun is vastly larger than previously thought.

    (30 These three components will shape her influence over a very large area of space around her, perhaps a billion or more miles in radius.

    (31 Her solar wind will push away gas and fine particles that were left over after her nebula collapsed. Her gravity will try to pull that stuff back. Her magnetic field will place everything in orbit around her on or near her equatorial plane.

    (32 That is broadly what is observable. Planets, moons and other bits and pieces are given orbital passage within those three criteria, in the solar controlled area kept clear of all gaseous substances that could impede the orbital velocity of a star’s family.

    A Planet is Born
    (33 A star can be seen as a huge furnace that not only keeps everything molten within it but alchemically it changes elements from one to another. As a result of that, like a massive cauldron, it erupts gasses and molten material thousands of miles above its surface that finally reaches its zenith and falls back again. But sometimes, not all of it falls back. It appears to me that over two to three billion years, a ring of iron rich particles collects from two to three solar widths from the star. Our sun has such a ring around it right now, that was discovered in 1983 and I had predicted its existence in 1972.

    (34 There surely is only one thing that can happen to such an ever growing molten or semi-molten ring of material and that is it will eventually, like globules of mercury, roll up into a ball. A larger globule in the ring would start the ball rolling, and perhaps another some short time after would do the same thing and our planetisimal could capture it and have a moon. To my knowledge, this picture has not been observed, but I think that the observable result, as I describe it now, gives it great credence.

    (35 Here, then, is the core of a planet. As the star sheds its radiant energy, so it loses gravity. And that causes this new planetisimal to spiral away from its mother. When we look at the planet, Mercury, we see what is little more than a planetisimal. It is mostly molten iron with very little mantle material. Since a planet’s core is iron, and if it had been formed in any other way, what would prevent it from being all iron if that is what it prefers to attract as the years go by? For instance, the established theory suggests that the planets formed within a collapsing nebula, more or less in their Bode spaced orbital positions as they are today. Assuming that they all have iron cores, what limited the amount of that metallic collection, overall, in that vast arena? An arena that changes from a great density of gas/dust where Mercury is, away out to an ever so much thinner nebula atmosphere where our most distant planets exist? Also, one would expect the inner planets to be far bigger than the outer ones at that rate.

    (36 However, the ring material in my theory provides a limited source of iron, a sort of cut off point where another source of different material has to provide the mantle in order to continue its growth. Earth still captures hundreds of tonnes of extra-terrestrial rocks and dust per day and that adds to its mantle.

    (37 Venus, two to three billion years older than Mercury, has spiralled out further from the sun and has built up a mantle, probably half way between Mercury's stage of growth and earth’s. And it is very likely that Mars has progressively done the same beyond earth.

    (38 So now we can estimate a time frame to account for the progressive ages of our planets that is in accordance with Bodes Law.

    (39 On the assumption that there is a two to three billion year gap between each planet, (say 2.5 billion average) Mercury could already be 2 billion years old. Venus 4.5 billion,- earth 7 billion,- and Mars 9.5 billion,- Asteroid belt, the material that should have rolled up into a planet, 12 billion,- Jupiter 14.5 billion,- Saturn 17 billion,- Uranus 19.5 billion,- Neptune 22 billion years old.

    (40 Pluto and now another planet, previously called Zena, beyond Pluto, adds another 5 billion making a total to date of twenty seven billion years since this newly discovered planet, was born, and very oddly, this happens to be twice the age that Science claims is the age of the universe.

    (41 The progressive age difference between planets is reflected in Bode’s Law, which until my theory, had no logical significance in the scientific world.

    (42 Also, if the figure of 2.5 billion years for planet birth is found to be smaller or larger, that will make no difference to the validity of the theory. However, Science has already set a figure for the Mars age appearance, as being 3 billion years older than earth, and Venus, 2.5 billion years younger than earth. Who am I to argue?

    (43 This raises a point about this whole theory and that is, I do use scientifically quoted information where applicable. And it is points like I have made above that Science has no meaningful answer for. Full references exist in Genesis Continuous.

    The Shrinking Star.
    (44 We have Zena still in orbit and it could well be 27 billion years old; so maybe there are others yet older still at 29.5 billion years of age and more.  I think there are or have been 15 planets all up. The older ones may have flown the coop, their gravitational umbilical cords having snapped and those planets have tangentially headed off into the distance. What other course could one expect, with a star mother losing her gravitational strength and the planet’s centrifugal force eventually winning the battle? Science gives us information about the death of stars but not about what happens to the greater number of planets that accompany those stars.
    What Happens Next?
    (45 Considering that a planet is a collector of gas, like all of her younger sisters are, its more than likely that she has collected a great deal more gas atmosphere as she went through the Ort Cloud.

    (46 As I mentioned above, a star has three main forces, solar wind, gravity and magnetism. Solar wind pushes gas away and gravity tries to drag it back. A magnetic field more or less holds it in a solar equatorial ring. So there is a ring of gas that exists held between these two opposing forces. That is the Ort Cloud, and all planets will eventually go through it and no doubt, collect quite a lot of it into their atmosphere.

    (47 I get the feeling that there is nothing wasted and a purpose exists for everything. {Many scientists like my theory up to this point but are doubtful about the next bit. All I can say to that is, 'If you can think of something better, and more likely, please let me know').

    (47 So away goes our planet, which I’m going to be cheeky and call Davidia, with her moons if she has any, virtually unimpeded into the distance, carrying with her, her Mother’s parting gift of an additional amount of atmosphere billions of years before.

    (48 The more she takes on board the more gravitational attraction she accumulates, and as time goes by, her atmosphere will be seen as a nebula. As an ever expanding mass of hydrogen, dust and some iron particles, Davidia will, in time, align this material partially to her equatorial, and in particular, the iron content of it. However, I would expect also that the dust and solids would fall through the gas cloud toward the centre, just as dust settles back on earth when the wind drops.

    (49 Over many billions of years, the nebula will have grown enormous, being billions of miles across and will be pressing down upon what is now a molten Davidia, until she is eventually crushed by it and explodes. However, there’s nowhere for this central explosion to expand into and the gas and dust immediately above her compresses and implodes and fusion occurs. This is where lighter gas, solids, atoms and molecules are crushed and become new elements higher up the periodic table. Also, the new elements take up far less room than does the gas they were created from, so now there is a void above the centre, and the nebula slams in to fill that space. – Each time there is an implosion there is a massive additional heat created and centered right on the core of what is going to be a new star.

    (50 This is in direct conflict with the establishment’s theory that it is a supernova somewhere near or just beyond the outer reaches of the nebula that triggers the nebula collapse. Such a theory seems to me to be very hit and miss and more likely to destroy the nebula. My theory will account, too, for the now believed minimum size of a new born star. A nebula has to reach that critical gravitational mass to crush the planet host and start the process of collapse.

    (51 As the new star grows, so does the gravity of the nebula mass become transferred from that huge beyond and concentrated into the centre of the action. Therefore, stuff that is trying to go into orbit during the collapse just keeps being dragged in further and further by an increasing central gravity until there is very little of it left, and that is mostly gas anyway. So the new star is born and her solar wind blows all that remaining gas away to her own Ort cloud.

    (52 The collapse has not only shifted a vast capacity of nebula gas and dust to an extremely concentrated and smaller location, but has taken with it its total gravity and total heat.

    (53 Let us assume that Davidia was one of fifteen planets, not twelve, in our system. Every two to three billion years the farthest one drifts away and eventually becomes a star.

    (54 This means that one star has produced 15 stars, over a period of lets say 50 or more billion years, so potentially 15 stars each produces 15 planets and that's how we get a galaxy. One only has to look at a galaxy to see that pattern. And a part of this creation is the fragmentation of the older generation of stars in the system, and indeed the universe, as they supernova or whatever. Will there be collisions where wandering planets are halted in their destiny? I would expect so. Perhaps when we can detect all the planets in a distant solar system we will be given more clues.

    Expansion, but not as the result of a Big Bang!
    (55 The above explains what is the keystone to Big Bang philosophy, - expansion -, for what it is far more likely to be, -Separation-. Davidia leaves her mother star, and becomes a star, still moving away at thousands of kms per hour she will have a family that will drift away from her, generation after generation. So the distances grow, and the separation, observably, from anywhere in the universe, appears to speed up with the increase in distance.

    (56 Now the wheel has come full circle and expansion can be seen in this very different light, not as the result of some singular explosion with a pinpoint location somewhere in the universe, but as a local and normal function of galaxy building which simply continuously makes room for the new solar systems to grow and spread out.

    (57 If a planet is released when it is say thirty five billion years old, there is now a span of time needed to build the rest of its nebula and time needed to complete its collapse into a star. This is beyond my ability to assess and I’m not even going to hazard a guess, excepting to say that it must be many billions of years and that new star will be many light years away from it’s mother star.

    (58 Here is a new and very different foundation from the established academic evolutionary incomplete one. This foundation offers an explanation of eternity and conservation, without the wild complexity of a singularity Big Bang. Time factors, content, radiant energy analysis, and all sorts of observation can be built on this foundation, where the extent of our tiny part of the universe can only be observed within the limit of our technology.

    (59 If a galaxy is observed 10 billion light years away, then we have to accept that it existed there 10 billion years ago. If we see another 13.7 billion light years away, that is when it existed at that place. So additional to that fact, both of those galaxies have moved on and their radiant energy must also be observable at as many light years beyond them as we are away from them. Only a wall of some sort could prevent that happening. - And that suggests that the wall has a reflective system to bounce back the energy/matter that would otherwise not be conserved. Although Science is now saying that expansion does not appear to offer a centre from which it occurs, it still maintains that it is expanding outward in all directions as if it does. The most distant galaxies are retreating from us faster than the nearer ones they say, so obviously the logistics of Big Bang are very uncertain where a centre is unlocatable.

    (60 We must surely accept that stars radiate their energy globally, and that means that the capacity of the universe has to reach beyond their field of radiation. Likewise, we have to accept that a star 13 billion light years away from us is shedding light away beyond it another 13 billion light years at least. Conservation will have to convert that energy into matter that will become a part of what ever it strikes out in the distant assumed containment in exactly the same way as it does in our observable part of the universe. Why wouldn't it?

    (61 So may I close by saying that everything in the universe is continuous, - even a straight line.

    (62 Throughout this work I may give differing figures or assessments about various things, but all age and time assessments are for demonstration purposes and are based more or less on data from the scientific establishment, and if the age of a star when it comes to the end of its life is 50 billion or 100 billion years old, that doesn't alter the validity of the overall theory I present of a workable foundation for the existence of the universe.

    Too few Supernova
    (63 Here is yet another conundrum that seems not to make sense. If there are upward of 200 billion stars in the Milkyway, why aren’t many of them reaching supernova? According to recent assessments, there hasn’t been one for hundreds of years. There was one observed in 1984 but that was in a nearby galaxy; Kepler reported one in the 1600s and there was one in 1066.

    (64 Many years ago, I read that there were eight billion stars in our galaxy. I remember it going though my head that a star’s life was about eight billion years. Coincidence or not, one should expect one supernova more or less each year, even at that rate.

    (65 The fact is that the Milky Way has new stars and old ones as well, so now, with twenty-five times more stars, we could expect supernova’s at the rate of twenty or more a year. Is there a lull or, more likely, are stars just surviving far longer than Science says?

    (66 If, as Big Bang philosophy claims, the universe was all up and running within the first billion years of its existence, we could expect all first generation stars to burn out eight to nine billion years later. This means that virtually all stars in the galaxy now are second generation and that they have another three to four billion years yet to reach supernova. That idea could account for the lack of supernova activity.

    (67 So if this is the case, we should only have to turn the Hubble telescope onto some galaxies 5 billion light years away and see if they are really turning on the fireworks, as one would expect.

    (68 If there is little or no difference between their supernova activity and that of our Milky Way, I feel that Science has to look again at the longevity of stars as being more like one hundred billion years.

    Summing Up
    (69 A nebula is formed, like a huge atmosphere around the mass of an old planet that has cast itself away from it’s parent star into distant space.

    (70 The rate that it collects its nebula material will depend upon supply. Our solar system is out on a limb of our galaxy and a planet may head off in any direction. If it travels toward the centre of the galaxy it is likely to encounter a larger amount of gas and dust than if it headed away from the galaxy. Logically, it will become a star much faster if it remains within the family field. Though to travel away, supposedly at the same speed, it could take billions of years more to reach that all important collapsing pressure.

    (71 That means that the one leaving could become the mother of a new galaxy many many light years away. On the other hand, nebula gravity is more likely to prevail and most planets will produce stars within the galaxy. I feel that what has been thought to be Big Bang Expansion is adequately explained in this theory.

    (72 The surface area of a new star is vastly larger than that of our sun so one would expect the discarding of its radiant mass and gravity to be much greater at the beginning of its existence. So this would appear to be a proportional action tied to age and rate of activity, and being directly proportional to the square of several actions at the same time.

    (73 The recycling of matter/energy – the nebula collection around an old planet – the drift away from the mother system to pastures new – the collapse into a star – its radiant characteristics that prepare a cleared encapsulation for the birth and passage of its planets, moons, etc., as a foundation, is surely easy to visualise.
     http://www.cosmologystatement.org/   and if this site suddenly disappears I have a copy on my website.