David Levy

Well, the main issue is a simple logic. It is stated that the cosmic microwave background radiation of the universe is "an emission of uniform, black body thermal energy coming from all parts of the sky". Based on this simple info it is quite easy to assume that the Universe should also be a black body. However, if I understand it correctly, the science doesn't agree with this simple logic. Based on the observational cosmology (Stars, galaxies...) the science can't find an explanation for the main source of this black body thermal radiation. Therefore, it is estimated that the BBT must be the main source for that black body radiation: "The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology." It is also stated that: "The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory." So, my questions are as follow: How do we know for sure that the BBT can generate a black body radiation? How could it be that even after 13.7 Billion years the left over from this radiation is still a black body thermal radiation?

1. It is stated: "Galaxy spectra are typically characterized by a strong continuum component, caused by the combination of a range of blackbody emitters spanning a range in temperature." So, why the spectra is not black body, while it is caused by rang of blackbody emitters? 2. Temp amplitude. CMB temp is 2.72548K. It is stronger (if I recall correctly) by at least 1000 times than the temp. amplitude of those main sources of radiation (stars and gas in galaxies). Therefore, the amplitude of this radiation is just a fraction of the CMB temp. So why this radiation could have any real effect on the CMB? 3. In any case, if the Universe is not a black body, then how could it be that its Cosmic Microwave Background is black body?

Why?

The Cosmic Microwave Background of our Universe is as follow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background "The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K." Therefore, does it mean that the Universe is a black body?

Currently the science estimates that the Sun is orbiting the galactic center in a vertical oscillation (Up, down) http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-co..._radiation.jpg Let's assume that this is correct. Now, please see the following presentation at pg 15 http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110/MilkyWay.pdf There is an image of the galactic rotation random vectors in the nearby Solar Neighborhood. It is stated: "Most stars near the Sun have random velocities of a few tens of km/sec. These stars orbit the galactic center at ~230 km/sec." As it is random, each star can move to any direction. Therefore, we can assume that some of them are moving inwards to the galactic center, while some others are moving away from the galactic center. Therefore, it is clear that some of the stars should have horizontal oscillation. Do you agree with that and what could be the explanation for this vertical oscillation? However, if we add those two oscillation, we should get an helical motion. I have found the following image of this motion at the web. http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg So how can we also explain this motion?

Thanks Mordred That is perfect explanation. However, I assume that the nature doesn't need to set that kind complex arithmetic calculation. It should be automatically for each individual star. It doesn't matter if there are two stars, 100 or one million stars in its neighborhood. So, for each star there might be a different CoM. Please also remember that this CoM moves (with the entire solar Neighborhood) at the average rotation speed of about 250 km per second. So technically, we might assume that each individual star rotate around its virtual CoM while this one moves at a rocket speed around the galactic center. I estimate that if we could hold that CoM at one place, then we could get a perfect rotation as expected by Kepler or Newton. Therefore, I assume that the sinusoidal movement of the Sun (and any other nearby star) is a direct outcome of its individual CoM movement. That might be the solution for the solar enigma. Please see the following presentation at pg 15 http://www.ifa.hawai...10/MilkyWay.pdf) which I have introduced in the first pg of this thread. It gives an explanation why we see in our neighborhood stars which are moving at different velocities and different directions. However, even after billion years we might see similar neighborhood.

Thanks I hope that by now we all agree that gravity keeps the solar system and all stars in the arms near the plane. The main source for this gravity should be - the nearby mass as stated by Sensei in pg. 5: However, as stated by Sensei, there must be some center of mass for that nearby mass, (or in our case - the solar neighborhood) This center of mass should be located somewhere in the spiral arm as the solar neighborhood is also located in the arm. This center of mass generates the requested gravity which keeps the solar system and all stars in the arms near the galactic plane. So, the sun might oscillate around this center of mass - up and down. However, I assume that gravity should work in all directions from this center of mass: Up, down, right and left. We have to draw a circle around this center of mass with a radius which represents the maximum allowed amplitude for the sun oscillation. The Sun can't escape from this gravity force at any direction. Do you agree?

Thanks for the clarification. Your message with regards to the dark matter was very clear from the beginning. However, do you still agree that gravity is needed to change the momentum of the sun and keeps it in the galactic plane?

In the article which Acme had pointed: It is stated: "The sun’s path is inclined about 25 degrees to the plane of the galaxy and is headed toward a region in the constellation of Hercules near its border with Lyra." Therefore, its orbit doesn't lie perfectly within the disc plane. In other words, the Sun and actually all the nearby stars are moving with some degree to the galactic plane. By keeping this momentum and without an external force, the Sun might disconnect from the disc plane. However, it is also stated: "The sun oscillates through the plane of the galaxy with an amplitude of about 230 lightyears, crossing the plane every 33 million years." Therefore, some force is needed to change this momentum and keep the Sun in the galactic plane. Acme claimed that this force must be gravity as dark matter is hypothesized. So do you agree that some force is acting upon them? Do you agree that it is gravity force?

Thanks However, at this phase we do not discuss about the creation. Please try to focus just on the following basic mechanism: 1. I have started this tread by asking about the power which is needed to hold the stars in the galactic plane. The answer was – Gravity. So, do you agree that gravity is the requested power? If no, please explain why it is not gravity. 2. I have asked - what is the source for this gravity? The answer was – nearby stars. (The example of Earth Noon confirms this answer). So, do you agree that the nearby stars generate the max impact on the gravity? If no, please elaborate.

Well, I'm not sure that I fully understand your reply. Do you claim that mass in the hallo, (or any mass outside the disc plane) can set a gravity force which keeps the stars at the disc plane? How could it be? The example of Earth and moon is excellent as it proves that the nearby gravity is much stronger than far end forces. Therefore, the solar neighborhood mass should have the maximum gravity influence on the sun. Why don't you agree with that?

Thanks for the explanation. I have a simple question: What is the real source for that gravity which keeps the stars from moving above or below the disc plane? Based on your message, it might be the "mass due to plasma and the dark matter halo". However, The halo (or the plasma?) aren't located on the galactic plane. Therefore, we actually get a negative gravity force which should pull out the stars from the disc plan. Based on my understanding, this isn't the case. Therefore, the gravity must come from the galactic plane itself. I assume that the nearby stars or what's call "Solar Neighborhood" should be the main source for this gravity force. Please let me know if you agree with that.

Thanks Please see the spiral arm structure figure in the following tutorial by University of California, San Diego. (Just below the Multiwavelength Milky Way figure). http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/mw.html There is high concentration of stars near the sun and especially in the orion-Ceganus arm. I assume that this concentration of star should be the base for the gravity force as stars attract other stars in thier neighborhood. (As stated by Sensei) Hence, the question is as follow: If that gravity force is good enough to holds the star from going too high or too low from the concentration of those stars in the arm, than can we assume that it also should hold it from moving too left or too right (from the concentration)? In other words, assuming that what we see in that figure is correct and the concentration of stars is located in the arm, can we claim that the stars must stay in the arm? (not too high, not too low, not too right and not too left).

If Stars attract other stars in their neighborhood, than by definition it is gravity force. Binary star system is excellent example for gravity force. Therefore, can we assume that all stars in the nearby Solar Neighborhood attract each other by gravity force? Hence, do you agree that the gravity force is the power which is needed to change the momentum of each individual star in the system? Where is the common mass location of all the stars in the nearby Solar Neighborhood?

Thanks So, our solar system and [presumably] other stars oscillate with respect to the galactic plane, moving 'above' and then back 'below'. But why? What kind of power is needed to change the momentum (and the velocity vector) of each individual star? Why it Is working only for above and below the galactic plane? What about right or left momentum? What is the source for this power? Is it gravity force or some dark power?

Please see the following presentation at pg 15 http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110/MilkyWay.pdf There is an image of the galactic rotation random vectors in the nearby Solar Neighborhood. It is stated: "Most stars near the Sun have random velocities of a few tens of km/sec. These stars orbit the galactic center at ~230 km/sec." Let' assume that few tens of km/sec is about 25 to 50. Hence, each star in the Solar Neighborhood, has a random velocity of about 10% to 20% with related to the orbit velocity. In this image, we see that those random velocity vectors are pointing all directions. Up, down, left and right. Therefore, if those stars will maintain their momentum and their velocity vectors, they will be ejected from the spiral arm in about one million year. Each one will be ejected at a random direction from the arm. Hence, there is no smooth flow of stars (in and out) as we would expect based on the density wave theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory " Lin and Shu proposed in 1964 that the arms were not material in nature, but instead made up of areas of greater density, similar to a traffic jam on a highway.[3] The cars move through the traffic jam: the density of cars increases in the middle of it. The traffic jam itself, however, does not move (or not a great deal, in comparison to the cars)" The image of the galactic rotation random vectors might contradicts this description. However, the most interesting velocity vectors are those which are pointing up or down with regards to the disc plan of the galaxy. Any star which has an up (or down) velocity vector will be ejected from the disc plan itself. In any case, most of the stars in the solar Neighborhood have some horizontally component in their velocity vectors. Therefore, by keeping their momentum, those stars should be ejected from the disc plan in less than few million years. In the same token, few million years ago, those stars could have been over or below the disc plan of the spiral galaxy. So, how could it be???

So far the science has just verified the drifting direction of only three objects in the Universe. Those three objects are: Sun, Earth and moon. It was found that all of them are drifting outwards from their hosting center. This is a 100% confirmation out of those verifications. Unfortunately, I have no ability to verify the drifting directions of all the stars in disc system. It is up to NASA to set this kind of verification. With regads to new mass and star formation- The supper massive black hole is a new mass generator. It does not eat any mass. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l8_p7.html "The dust gets thicker and thicker as we look into the center of the Galaxy." This is an indication that the supper massive black hole does not eat any mass. If it was eating a mass then the dust should be thinner as we look into the center of the galaxy. It is also stated:"Using the highest resolution IR cameras available, astronomers have repeatedly observed the stars orbiting around Sgr A*. They have measured the orbit of a star that comes within 17 light-hours of the object in the core of our Galaxy, which is a distance that is only a few times larger than the orbit of Pluto around the Sun." So, the suppermassive black hole does not eat this star which is located so close. In contrary, it ejects new mass as follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* "The Sagittarius A* radio emissions are not centered on the hole but arise from a bright spot in the region around the black hole, close to the event horizon, possibly in the accretion disc or a relativistic jet of material ejected from the disc." This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the event horizion of the Milky Way supper massive black hole. Therefore, it is an evidence for mass creation at the core of any spiral galaxy. Based on Wiki: " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity." Hence, this is an indication of new mass creation in the center of the spiral galaxy. A new mass is created around the event horizion disc of the spiral galaxy Supper massive black hole. The Nucleus serves as the accelerating (or generator) that creates new material. In the near distance to the nucleus, there are probably tremendous forces and electric fields with huge energy. This creates thin layers of Hydrogen atoms. Those atoms are moving at nearly the speed of light. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614140504.htm "The result is a turbulent froth orbiting the black hole at speeds approaching the speed of light. The calculations simultaneously tracked the fluid, electrical and magnetic properties of the gas while also taking into account Einstein's theory of relativity." At this high speed there is a chance for collision between those new born Hydrogen Atoms. Also, due to the high pressure, temperature and electric/magnetic fields a nuclear fusion activity will set heavier atoms. (Eg, nuclear fusion between two atoms of hydrogen will generate helium). In this way all the atoms which are known have been created. Due to the high electric field, there is a wide range of intermolecular links. Therefore, all the following molecules are formed: water, carbon dioxide, silicates, and more. Over time, those atoms and moleculars crystallize into blocks and stars and gradually migrate outwards from the bar shape.

There is big difference between the BBT and this theory. Based on the BBT it is expected that all the mass of the Universe had been created in the first moment. However, in this theory, new mass is created constantly in the center of spiral galaxy. Therefore, Spiral galaxy is the driving force of the universe. It has the capability to create new mass and new born stars in the core of the galaxy. This Idea is based on simple evidence that the Earth is drifting outwards from the Sun, while also the Moon is drifting outwards from the Earth. Actually, it is expected that any star in a disc system should drift outwards. Hence, any real moon and planet in a solar system must drift outwards from his hosting star. Mars, Venus and all the other planets in our solar system must drift outwards. Same concept should be applied to spiral disc galaxy. All stars must drift outwards. Hence, the Sun is drifting outwards from the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The science estimates that there is an explanation for the drifting phenomenon of Earth and moon. We can claim that it is due to tidal or mass loss, but it is expected that all planets and moons are drifting outwards (not including asteroids and broken stars). This is a key element of this theory. Spiral galaxy should be considered as the biggest sprinkler in the Universe. It sprinkles stars to the open space. Therefore, it had been discovered that on any star in a galaxy there is at least one outside.

There is a simple solution for the Universe enigma. This solution is based on Darwinian approach. In the past it was believed that the life on Earth had started by some sort of a blast. Darwin showed us that this assumption is incorrect. Same concept should be applied to the evolvement of the Universe. As the variety of life had been evolved step by step, the Universe also had been evolved step by step without any need to create the whole mass of the universe in the first step. Darwin gave us a simple explanation for the evolvement of life from the first ameba, without giving us a full explanation how this first ameba had been created. This solution is based on the same approach. It is quite easy to explain the evolvement of the universe from the first spiral galaxy. Never the less, I have no explanation how this first spiral galaxy had been created. This solution is 100% correct. It meets all the available observations and evidences. However, it contradicts the current main stream approach and most of the current unproved theories and hypothesis. It was very difficult for Darwin to promote his theory as it contradicted the mainstream of his time. Just after many years his solution had been accepted. Hence, it is quite clear that any pro big bang scientist should instantly reject this solution. One day students will lean this breakthrough theory in the Universities. It might take 50 years, 10 years or even one month. It's up to you. Let me also tell you that I don’t think that I'm cleaver than Einstein or any other scientist. But I came with open minded concept and set unlimited focus on observations and evidences. Therefore, I assume that any one of you could potentially get to the same results if his starting point is similar. However, so far most of my threads had been locked without real evidences or proves. Just the idea that it contradicts the current mainstream was good enough to lock the thread. It seems that some of us take it too emotionally. (Now I fully understand the misery of Darwin when he tried to introduce his theory). Based on this theory the size and the age of the Universe are infinite.

I didn't claim that the X-ray is a CMB. I just claimed that as the galaxies and solar system generate X-ray emission, than part of the emission and radiation of the galaxies and solar systems could be this CMB. So, if you have over 100 Billion galaxies (with several billions solar system in each one), than this could be the main source for the uniform flat 360 degree coverage.

Wrong. The CMB could be a direct product of radiation and emission of energy by galaxies & solar systems in the Universe: For example - X-rays emission by galaxy: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-satellite-x-ray-emission-falling-black.html "Most galaxies are assumed to have at their heart a supermassive black hole that draws in vast amounts of surrounding matter. As this matter is sucked in, it releases energy in the form of intense x-ray emissions that in some cases can be more intense than the emission from all the stars in the galaxy combined." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130614140504.htm "The paper states that as gas spirals toward a black hole through a formation called an accretion disk, it heats up to roughly 10 million degrees Celsius. The temperature in the main body of the disk is roughly 2,000 times hotter than the sun and emits low-energy or "soft" X-rays. However, observations also detect "hard" X-rays which produce up to 100 times higher energy levels". 'As the quality and quantity of the high-energy light observations improved over the years, evidence mounted showing that photons must be created in a hot, tenuous region called the corona. This corona, boiling violently above the comparatively cool disk, is similar to the corona surrounding the sun, which is responsible for much of the ultra-violet and X-ray luminosity seen in the solar spectrum". This radiation by galaxies and solar systems could be the main source of the CMB. Therefore, the CMB can't be used as a direct evidence for the BBT

The evidence is just in front of our eyes. It is stated in the article (Dated - October 23, 2013): "However, the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old, meaning that they must have formed just 200 million years or so after the Big Bang." So, in the best case (assuming that the max age of the stars are 750 million years), the whole galaxy including the stars should have formed in just 200 Million years. Is it possible? Just think about the size of the galaxy, adding to that the whole process of star forming activity. How can we compress it to only 200 My? However, in the worst case, as the stars age are at least 750 My – the real age could be much more than that. In this case, there is no time left to create any sort of galaxy or stars. From October 2013 till today, we have improved our detectors. Hence, it is expected that we should get better verification of the stars age in this galaxy. Why the science doesn't try to verify the real age of those stars? Why it is just claimed: "at least 750 My" without any further investigation? There is also another aspect. We see today a galaxy as it was 13.2 Billion years ago. If we could get the light just 0.6 By behind it, we could potentially see the Big bang itself. Hence, the big bang should be just there behind this galaxy. If the BBT was real, we could see it – with all of its unbelievable light show. However, I can promise you that will never ever see it. It is expected that we should see more and more distant and ancient galaxies with older stars age. That will give us a final confirmation that the Big bang never happened and it is just in our imagination. Dear Mordred & swansont I really appreciate your knowledge and support. I do not want to upset you or get anything to myself. I just see it as a mission to offer the real solution for the Universe enigma. Please be aware that I have no extra time to west for nothing. It is also quite difficult for me to set all of those threads and correspondences as I normally write from right to left. However I have full confidence in that solution. Therefore, if you wish, I'm ready to deposit 10,000$ in a bank account under lawyer supervision. This money is yours - If you can prove that this solution is incorrect based on any real observation (However, it is forbidden to use any unproved theory or hypothesis).

Based on the following article - dated: October 23, 2013 http://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html "However, the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old, meaning that they must have formed just 200 million years or so after the Big Bang. That’s a few hundred million years earlier than astronomers had thought galaxy formation first started" So, if the age of the stars in this galaxy is 750 Million years, than they must have formed in just 200 Million years after the Big Bang. It is also expected that in this limited time frame, the whole galaxy must have been formed. This might be an unrealistic requirement. Never the less, it is stated: "the stars in the galaxy appear to be at least 750 million years old". Therefore, technically there is good chance for a star which is 950 Million years old. In this case, This star must have formed in just one year or less after the Big Bang. This is a pure unrealistic requirement. However, there is also a chance for a star which is 1,000 Million years old. In this case, the science must eliminate the BBT and look for better alternative theory.

Let's use different approach. With regards to the most distant galaxy (which is located more than 13 billion light years away from us): Let's assume that it will be discovered that the age of the stars in this galaxy are similar to the stars in the Milky Way. Hence, there are young stars but some very old stars. So what could be the impact of a 10 billion old star discovery in that far end galaxy?

Thanks Mordred Simple & direct explanations Let's assume that one galaxy is located 13 Billion light years away from us in one side of the visible universe, while in the opposite side there is another galaxy which is also located 13 Billion light years away. Therefore, the total distance between those two galaxies could be up to 26 Billion light years. So, does it mean that the Universe might be older?