David Levy

Thanks Andromeda for example is about 2.2 million light-years distant from Milky Way Assuming that it keeps the speed and Direction, than, 13.75 Billion years ago it was about 15 Million Light years away. Do you estimate that it is feasible based on the idea of the permanent supply source of the Big bang?

So, do you mean that there were several big bangs. Therefore, Andromeda and Milky way are an outcome of two different Big Bangs at different locations and time…

To ACG52 It's clear that we can't even discuss about your understanding. You have absolutely missed the point. You do not even understand the meaning of your own mumbling contents. The solar is based on Orbiting system. You, in your own words have claimed that Andromeda and Milky Way do not orbit each other. So, you do not agree with the concept of astronomers that the Milky Way and Andromeda are bound pair of galaxies which orbit each other. Therefore, the main concept of the Big Bang that all the mass had been generated in one point in space is illogical. So please stop your nonsense immediately!!!

Dear ajb The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:[3] where: F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centers of the masses. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation Triangulum galaxy, M33, is much closer to Andromeda than the Milky Way Galaxy. Andromeda has also much bigger mass than the Milky Way. Therefore, as the mass is bigger and the distance is shorter, the expectation is that based on the higher gravity force, M33 will move directly to Andromeda. But in reality, both galaxies are moving to to our direction. Therefore, there is no Gravity force. M33 and Andromeda is moving in the space almost in direct line to the milky way. Hence, in the past they were much further. The expectation is that 12 Billion year ago Andromeda was about 6 times further from the Milky Way. Therefore, the idea of creating all the universe mass in one spot by the big bang is illogical.

Yes, I fully agree with ACG52 on this issue. The Idea of the astronomers that the Milky Way and Andromeda are orbiting each other is totally unaccepted. Also the Idea that those galaxies are bounded together by the force of gravity is absolutely illogical. Therefore, based on the Big Bang Theory there is no real answer for the expected colliding phenomena between the three main spiral Galaxies. Hence, we must look for a real alternative answer which is the updated Steady state theory.

To ACG52 Please stop your constant negative approach. It seems that you have no ability to look behind your nose. As I have already stated: " If you do not agree, please specify if there is any contradiction with this theory to any evidence which is available on our universe. But please do not compare it to any current theory!!!!" Please let me know if you still don't understand the meaning for this request. Enjoy.

Dear ajb Thanks for your message. Currently, I will answer your first question and add some more info about Galaxies colliding. " Explain Hubble's law (you suggest it does)" Hubble low - Each new spiral galaxy migrates away from the Mother' spiral galaxy. Lets assume that the migration speed is X. Therefore, assuming that there are two daughter galaxies which are moving at the opposite direction, the relative speed between those galaxies is 2X (assuming that the migration speed is the same.). In the next galaxies generation, (assuming that there are two new galaxies which move again in the opposite directions) the relative speed is 4X. After 10 generations the relative speed is 20X, after 1000 generation it is 2000X, after million generations it is 2,000,000X. In order to meet the Hubble low, we need to calculate how many generations there are based on distance from Earth. This will give us the final results to Hubble low. Universe expansion was an important trigger for the Big bang theory. Never the less, we all know that galaxies are moving at different directions. Andromeda for example is about 2.2million light-years distant from Milky Way. However, as each hour passes, the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are getting some 600,000 miles closer to each other. So if the universe is expanding from the Big Bang, how is it possible that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are getting closer together? The best answer astronomers can give is as follows: The Milky Way and Andromeda are a bound pair of galaxies that orbit each other. Shortly after the Big Bang took place, they formed close together and initially drifted apart following the massive explosion, but since they are bound together by the force of gravity, they are now falling back together. Thus, around 2-3 billion years from now, they will collide with each other! Well, It's quite difficult to say that at a distance of 2.2 Million light year there is any influent of gravity force… Please also be aware that one hour ago it was 600,000 miles further. Hence, as we go in the past it is clear that Andromeda was further and further from the Milky way. To make matters more complicated, the Triangulum galaxy, M33, is also moving to our direction. There is a small chance that M33 will hit the Milky Way first. So now there are three spiral galaxies which are facing each other. I'm not sure that the Big Bang Theory is the ultimate answer for that…. The Updated Steady state Theory gives full answer for the expansion universe, Galaxies colliding and the rezone for keeping the density of the universe constant!!! This is the Ultimate Theory!!!

This new theory is based on the Steady state & Darwin theories. It gives a comprehensive answer to the universe as we see it today. Please do not compare it to the current theories (Big bang, Dark matter, quantum…). Actually, for one moment, try to forget all of those theories which you might know or believe in. Please reply if you agree with this theory. If you do not agree, please specify if there is any contradiction with this theory to any evidence which is available on our universe. But please do not compare it to any current theory!!!! So, let's summarize the basic elements of updated steady state Theory: A. Creation of matter and anti matter - the knowledge gained from the accelerator in Europe. Wikipedia: "in November 2010 reported that ATRAP group could develop a new method for producing anti-atoms - hydrogen. Method is based on the slowing down of anti-particles - protons and uniting with slow positrons." Just as scientists were able to produce anti-matter in the accelerator, it is likely that nature has managed a little bit better and could also produce the ultimate accelerator of nature which is the nucleus of Spiral Galaxy. B. Galactic nucleus - the nucleus of the Spiral galaxy is supper massive black hole – Wikipedia: "A supper massive black hole defined mass ranges from 100 thousand to 10 billion solar masses. Scientists tend to assume that such ablack hole exists at the center of most galaxies in the universe, including the Milky Way. " It holds around hundreds of billions of stars. So clearly,the nucleus creates tremendous power and energy. C. Fred Hoyle - Fred Hoyle estimated that galaxies have the ability to produce atoms, but he did not foresee the recent developments and the particle accelerator, and therefore did not elaborate on how and where the mass is formed. D. Create a new mass - a new mass is created around the galactic nucleus. Nucleus serves as the accelerating (or generator) that creates new material. In the near distance to the nucleus, there are probably tremendous forcesand electric fields with huge energy which creates thin layers of atoms (probably - hydrogen atoms). Those atoms are moving at nearly the speed of light. Due to the pressure, speed, temperature and electric/magnetic fields more heavy atoms are formed as a result of nuclear fusion. (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 molecules crystallize into blocks and gradually migrate outwards from the galaxy nucleus. This mass creation generates the Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB). E. Star Birth – Those blocks crystallize and form hot mass balls. Each ball absorbs additional mass and increases its size- similar to a snowball. As long as the ball is in the creation mass zone, it will get more mass and increase its size. After quite long time a hot new star will appear. If it's a high-mass star then it will keep all the light gases (due to gravity) and become a giant gas star. If the mass is significantly larger there is a chance for a nuclear burning activity than it might become a sun star. But when it is relatively small, than the gases might emitted into space and therefore, it becomes a rocky planet like Earth and Mars. Therefore, there is no need for getting help from astroide for delivering water to Earth. F. New star locked by interior side of spiral arm –The newborn star migrates outwards from the galactic nucleus. The Electric fields and forces in the nucleus of the galaxy form the shape of the famous BAR which is visible inmost of the spiral galaxy. The star on the edge of the BAR continues with its outwards migration and starts penetrating to the gravitational forces of the interior side of the spiral arms. Therefore, It reduces its velocity and continue to rotate till it finely locked by the gravitational power of one of the spiral arm. It's similar to roulette ball bouncing between the cells numbers until it lost the speed and finally set in one of the cells. G. Spiral arm - Spiral arm acts as a chain of star which is connected to each other by the gravitational power. This maintains the flat & high velocity. In fact, the galactic nucleus of aspiral galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of up to billions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and creates a circular motion for all the stars which arerelatively close to it. Thus, rotation of a star near the galactic nucleus causes a higher speed to another star which is a little farther from the nucleus. It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis. The balls in this example are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power. Therefore, we get the shape of the spiral galaxy. Note that all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. All in one direction. Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus. H. A brief calculation- Most of the 400 Billion stars are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70 Billion stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 70,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are about 1 billion stars in a 1000 x 1000 light year. Hence, 1,000 stars per 1 x 1 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!! No need for dark matter. I. New Spiral Galaxy - Each spiral galaxy is generated from some sort of a seed (which might be a magnator or quasar). J. Universe expending -Each new spiral galaxy migrates away from the Mother' spiral galaxy.Therefore, at the far end of the universe, the galaxies are moving away at ultra high speed. in the same token, the galaxies are moving in all directions. That gives an answer why the galaxies at the far end of the universe are moving faster away, while the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving to each other.

To: Airbrush "So there could have been liquid water on the surface of Earth until the late heavy bombardment, which turned the surface to molten rock and the water vaporized and got blown away by solar wind and later, over several Billion years, comets and asteroids delivered the current amounts of water?" Why??? There is a solid evidence that the water was on the surface of the Earth almost from the day that the Earth had been created. Why do you insist about a theory that water had been vaporized from the Earth and later on new water had been delivered by comets and asteroids? Don't you think that it is much more logical to estimate that the water was there for at least 4.4 billion years ago and it stay on Earth till now? Therefore, there is no real need to ask comets and asteroids for delivery support… Never the less, even with the "vaporized" theory, the water was just there from day one...

To: Airbrush What is the evidence for water on Earth at least 4.4 Billion years ago? Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks "The zircons from the Western Australian Jack Hills returned an age of 4.404 billion years, interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons also show another interesting feature; their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth."

NASA Finds water on the Moon How the water had been delivered??? http://www.greenmuze.com/nature/water/1819-nasa-finds-moon-water.html "NASA has confirmed that there are'significant' quantities of water on the Moon, based on the results of their LCROSS satellite mission that crashed a rocket booster and then a spacecraft into the Cabeuscrater at the Moon's south pole." Howit had been delivered? Wiki: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lunar_water "Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids [9]or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar windimpacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[10]" However,there is water on Earth, on Mars and now on the Moon. Therefore, what is the chance that the water was there at the day of the star creation??? There are several theories which should explain how the water had been delivered, but somehow it sounds like science fiction... Earth– The Earth had been created 4.5 Billion years ago. There is evidence that there was water on Earth at least 4.4 Billion years ago. Now we know that there is water on the Mars and on the Moon. So,why can't we estimate that the water was integrated in the mass which generate the Earth, Mars & moon??? Therefore, the water was there from day one...

To: Ophiolite "There is simply no way the star can be moved outside its own zone". Have you ever got a message that the moon is moving outwards from the Earth??? If yes, do you think that after billions of years it might move outside its current zone? Anyhow, please stop your nonsense!!!

To: Ophiolite "How can a star move out of its own Tidal Habitable Zone, something you claim may occur". It's a theoretical research which was funded by NASA. In this research they consider the impact of moving star from it's location. Did you ever tried to read this article??? Please stop flooding nonsense!!!

To: Ophiolite "You have quite misunderstood this article. It relates to planets that might be orbiting very close to red dwarfs.Such planets would be influenced by tidal flexure (comparable with Io around Jupiter) which could maintain internal temperatures." Sorry. You have absolutely misunderstood the article. It is stated very clearly: "But as planets get closer to their suns, the gravitational pull gets stronger, tidal forces increase and more energy is released. If Mars were to move closer to the sun, the sun's tidal tugs could possibly restart the tectonics, releasing gases from the core to provide more atmosphere". Therefore, please don't even try to answer without reading carefully the article!!! Hence, for next time I urge you to abandon this self-contradictory, illogical mind-fart at once.

To:Airbrush Thanks for you rmessage!!! I have reconsidered your reply. It was a triggerfor me to verify the source of the magnetic field in a star. Please see the thread which I have opened and let me know your advice. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69720-star-magnetic-field/page__view__getnewpost__fromsearch__1

As a direct outcome from a message which had been forwarded by Airbrush http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 I would like to verify the source of energy which generates the magnetic field in a star. Therefore, let's look on the Earth magnetic field and try to verify the energy source of this field. Earth's magnetic field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field "Earth's magnetic field (also known as the geomagnetic field) isthe magnetic field that extends from the Earth's inner core to where it meets the solar wind,a stream of energetic particles emanating from the Sun Unlike the field of a bar magnet, Earth'sfield changes over time because it is generated by the motion of molten iron alloys in the Earth's outer core (the geodynamo)." The outer core http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Outer_core "The outer core of the Earth is a liquidlayer about 2,266 km (1,408 mi) thick composed of iron and nickel which lies above the Earth's solid inner core and below its mantle. Its outer boundary lies 2,890 km (1,800 mi) beneath the Earth's surface. The temperature of the outer core rangesfrom 4400 °C in the outer regions to 6100 °C near the inner core. Because of its high temperature, modeling work has shown that the outer core is a low viscosityfluid (about ten times the viscosity of liquid metals at the surface) that convects turbulently.[1] Eddycurrents in the nickel iron fluid of the outer core are believed to influence the Earth's magnetic field. Without the outer core, life on Earth would be very different. Convection of liquid metals in the outer core creates the Earth's magnetic field" So, the outer core generates the magnetic field. What is the source of its energy? Why it is rotate? Why it keeps its high temperature for billions of years??? My reply would be as follow: The Earth is located in its Tidal Habitable Zone. http://www.astrobio....-habitable-zone Hence, the Tidal generates the energy which is requested to the outer core keeping its momentum and high temperature. Therefore, by moving out from the Tidal Habitable zone, a star might lose its magnetic field. Do you agree?

Dear Greg "In order to move from the earth's orbit toit's present location (a distance of .5 au), in 4.4 billion years, Mars wouldneed to be moving roughly 669 inches per year" Wow,great reply. Thanks you. If NASA would make the verification and find this result, you have to take a trademark on that. To:Airbrush "It lost its' liquid water when it lost its magnetic field and its' atmosphere got stripped away by the solar wind". Let's think what could be the outcome of the following theoretical step:. Assuming that the Earth is placed at Mars location, what could be the result on liquid water??? I assume that it will freeze completely even that the Earth has asignificant magnetic field. Therefore, Mars has no liquid water as it is not located at its Habitable Zone!!!

To MigL "David Levy still cannot understand that the reason the moon is slowly moving away from the Earht is due to the change in angular momentum from the tidal forces," The issue is very simple. Today we all know the reason that causes the moon to move outwards from the Earth. But, 50 years ago we didn't know that reason. Actually we didn't even think that there is a possibility that the moon is moving away from Earth. Just after getting the formal approval from NASA about this situation, our wisdom science came out with this brilliant idea of reason. Why they didn't think about it before getting the results from NASA??? Today, no one knows for sure if Mars is moving (inwards or outwards). Actually we can't ignore any idea of movement direction as currently there is no solid verification & test. We just know that the Science consider that Mars stay in the same radius for billion of year. Is it reasonable??? I'm quite sure that if NASA will verify tomorrow that Mars moves outwards then the Science will immediately come with a new brilliant theory which explains this movement. Why they can't estimate this situation in advance??? Why they can't see today what is quite clear and logical?? Today I have proved that there is significant evidence that Mars must had been in its Habitable Zone in the past. Therefore, it must have been closer to the Sun. Hence, it moves outwards from the Sun. NASA – We have a problem!!! Please try to help!!!

Dear Moontanman "Actually this is not entirely accurate, there are places on Mars that has air pressure high enough for liquid water toexist for short periods of time, the bottom of deep valleys"... Let's try to see what we can see… Mars – By Wikipedia: "Landforms visible on Mars strongly suggest that liquid water has at least at times existed on the planet's surface". So, if we can notice this landforms from space, than we can get to the following conclutions: 1. The total quantity of water which is requested to set the landforms must be very significant. 2. The liquid water was there for quite long time in order to set the change. 3. Mars must be in its Habitable Zone to make it happen. Therefore, if you think that "liquid water to exist for short periods of time at the bottom of deep valleys" can make these visible Landforms, than you are living in La La land….

To Greg "How many times do I need to say it? Mars - say it with me now - has an atmosphere". Greg Try to say it slowly with yourself: ---- Mars has no atmosphere which can support a liquid water!!! And now, try to do it faster: ---- It might have in the past. but not any more...

To AGC52 You have unbelievable need to show how narrow minded you are. You can't look behind your nose. Just to remind your narrow minded; Last century, the hypothesis was that the moon is also in the same distance from the earth. Thanks to NASA we all know that it moves outwards. In the same token, so far the hypothesis was that Mars is always in the same distance from the Sun. It does not move inwards or outwards – even after billions of years…. Never the less, no one really measured the distance in time and try to get concrete results. In this article there is a base for conclution that Mars is moving outwards. It's time to ask NASA to verify this critical issue. Actually, you can't reject my conclusion as currently there is no solid evidence that Mars is not moving (inwards or outwards). But, you are more than welcome to continue with your rejections. It emphasis your Thoughtlessness.

To ACG52 No. It indicates that Mars used to experience tectonic activity, but now it doesn't. In fact, it more than indicates it, it says so It is stated very clear: "If Mars were to move closer to the sun, the sun's tidal tugs could possibly restart the tectonics, releasing gases from the core to provide more atmosphere". So, if Mars would move closer to the sun, it could have an atmosphere. Therefore, in order to gain an atmosphere, Mars must be closer to the Sun. In the past Mars had an atmosphere. Hence, it the past Mars was closer to the sun. Today, Mars is further from the Sun, without an atmosphere. Therefore, Mars is moving outwards from the Sun. Why is it so difficult for you?

Tidal Habitable Zone http://www.astrobio....-habitable-zone "The research was funded by NASA". "Astronomers searching for Earth like planets often focus on the 'habitable zone' around stars – where the heat from the star is at the perfect level for liquid water to exist. New calculations indicate that planets close to their parent stars could experience tidal forces that limit the habitable zone and change the criteria habitable planets". With regards to Mars. As is out of the Habitable Zone, how come that it had a liquid water??? In this articale it is stated: "The new calculations have implications for planets previously considered too small for habitability. An example is Mars, which used to experience tectonics but that activity ceased as heat from the planet's decaying inner core dissipated". " If Mars were to move closer to the sun, the sun's tidal tugs could possibly restart the tectonics, releasing gases from the core to provide more atmosphere. If Mars harbors liquid water, at that point it could be habitable for life as we know it". So, does it indicate that Mars was closer to the sun in the past??? Therefore, Mars is moving outwards from the Sun!!! If this research was funded by NASA, why they do not verify it???

I have already proved that the stars in a spiral galaxy are moving outwards. That conclusion is based on information which is available at Wikipedia. It's not a dream. It's solid evidence. As an outcome, it is clear that some of the current leading theories aren't correct. Especially – the "big bang" Just 50 years ago, the science believed that the moon was always in the same distance from earth. But, when NASA had measured the distance accurately, we had discovered that the moon is drifting outwards from Earth. Later on thescience came with the idea that it is drifting outwards because of the Tidal…Why they didn't know about this drift direction before getting the results from NASA??? Therefore, there must be a way to verify this valuable info. Why NASA does not check the drifting direction of the stars in a spiral galaxy? Why the do not check the drifting direction of stars in the solar system or even at any Disc shape system? I have based my conclusions on Darwin concept. I'm sure that he would reject the Big bang Theory. Therefore– the big bang is a pure fantasy. Please also see the following article: THE "BIGBANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE http://whatreallyhap...TICLES/bang.php The Big Bang, as currentlydescribed, could not have produced the universe as we see it today…. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be aworkable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation thatsuper massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light couldnot escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entireuniverse existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object ofall, the universe could not be born…. An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the"Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from theprimordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. LikeAristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiationassumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternativeexplanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heraldedas final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in thattheory celebrated.

So, let's summarize the outcome: 1. Steady state – This is the correct theory!!! (with some adaptation) 2. Mass creation – in the center of the spiral galaxy. Starting from hydrogen to all the known atoms and molecules– including water and silicates. No need for supernova for generating all the known atoms and molecules. 3. Star birth – Each star collects its matter which had been generated – as a snow ball. 4. Disc Shape system –In any disc shape system the stars are moving outwards!!! Therefore, also the Earth is moving away from the sun and the sun is moving away from the galaxy center. 5. Dark matter - The spiral arms are responsible for the high speed of the stars in the galaxy. Therefore, there is no need for dark Matter. 6. New spiral galaxy - A new spiral galaxy is generated from some sort of a seed (which might be a megnator or quasar). 7. Universe expending -Each new spiral galaxy is drifting away from the Mother' spiral galaxy. Therefore, at the far end of the universe, the galaxies are moving at ultra high speed, and also the galaxies are moving in all directions. 8. Big Bang – It's a pure fantasy. 9. Universe life – The life of the universe is much... much longer from 13.75 Billion years. It is billion over billion life years.