David Levy

By: http://www.bbc.co.uk...d_planets/earth Earth's distance from the Sun is thought to be one of the key reasons why it is home to widespread life. Our planet occupies what scientists sometimes call the Goldilocks zone. Its distance from our star means it is neither too hot, nor too cold to support liquid water - thought to be a key ingredient for life. Astronomers are searching for rocky planets like ours in the Goldilocks zones of other stars. In the past, Mars was lockated in this Goldilocks zone. Not any more as it had beed drifted outwards. As it moved outwards it had also lost the atmosphere and became a frozen star. I personaly think that in any Disc shape system the stars are moving outwards. It is valid for all the stars in the Milky way galaxy, all the stars in any spiral galaxy, all the stars in the solar system and also for the moon - any moon.

Let's assume that there is a dark matter & dark energy…. Just for one moment… It's clear that this energy can't be the same every where, as its contribution might be eliminated. Therefore, let's try to take all the available computing worldwide power in order to calculate the requested location and force direction of that dark energy. But, as all the galaxies are moving at different direction, it's clear that after few moments, our calculation is useless. Therefore, by definition, there is no dark energy or dark mass…

Mars - By Wikipedia: "Landforms visible on Mars strongly suggest that liquid water has at least at times existed on the planet's surface". Inorder to enable liquid water, it must have been in a similar zone location as the Earth today. Therefore, in the past it was closer to the sun. As a direct outcome - The Earth is moving outwards. So, the Earth will end at the same zone & simmilar status as Mars today....

By Wikipedia: "The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years(2.4×1019 km) from Earth". "The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way at about 100 to 140 kilometres per second (62 to 87 mi/s) (400lightyears every million years),[66] making it one of the few blueshifted galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way are thus expected to collidein about 4.5 billion years" Andromeda is expected to collide with the Milky Way galaxy in about 4.5 Billion year. Where was it 4.5 Billion year ago? We might estimate that as it keeps the speed and direction, it was 5 million light years from Earth. So as we go farther in thepast, it should be farther from Earth. Therefore, 13.5 Billion years ago it was about 7.5 million light years away. Why big bang? Wikipedia: "If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past". So, why the science takes it for granted that if the distance between clusters is increasing today, then in the past it must have been closer. But they don't except the idea that if the distance between clusters is decreasing today, then in the past it was much farther… Now they try to convince us that the it didn't work dueto gravity power : imatfaal:" "Andromeda and the Milky Way are actually quite close to each other! And yes, you are correctly they are gravitationally bound and will stay together, and even get closer" So, we all know, that all the mass of the univers was close together after the big bang. Actually it was very very close… so why the gravity power at that time didn't keep all the mass in the same spot??? If the gravity power works, then all the mass should be kept together. If it didn't work, then, in the expected time of the big bang,the distance between the two galaxies was over 7.5 million light years away. Hence, it is clear evidence, that there was no Big Bang!!!

To:CaptainPanic I do appreciate EMField fruitful replies. Please let him keep with his overview and theories which are very interesting and relevant to the thread. Thanks

Why there is no need for dark energy or dark matter??? Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus. The 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 an active galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of millions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and createsa circular motion for all the stars which are relatively 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, but is related to his faculties of gravity. 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. Note that all the stars in the milky way galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. what is the chance that 400 billion stars will move in one direction??? How come??? This is totaly different from the solar system as some of the stars rotate in the opposite to others. Therefore, unlike our solar system where the velocity of each star is affected by only by the distance from the sun, here the velocity is determined by the velocity of the spiral arm. 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 50,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are more than 10 million stars is a 1000 x 1000 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power!!! There must be thousands of stars which are closer to the sun. We just need to find them... It's quite clear that not all the stars are similar to the sun. Some of them might be dark stars. Therefore, it is difficult to find them. But they are there. I have already proved that the stars are moving outwards in the milky way galaxy. Please see: Steady state theory Therefore, It's quite clear that as the star moves away from the spiral arm, its velocity drops dramatically. Conclusion - there might be some dark stars which are needed to keep the chain gravitational power. But, there is no real need for dark material outside the galaxy or dark energy to maintain this velocity!

Milky Way Galaxy is a disc shape system; Let's look at two examples for disc shape system; Moon - The moon orbits the earth in a disc shape system. We all know that it moves outwards. Do we know why? Mars - By Wikipedia: "Landforms visible on Mars strongly suggest that liquid water has at least at times existed on the planet's surface". Inorder to enable liquid water, it must have been in a similar zone location as the Earth today. Therefore, in the past it was closer to the sun. As a direct outcome - in the solar system all the stars are moving outwards!!!

Hi FunkyAce07 There is a supper massive black hole at the center of the Milky way galaxy. This black hole has a mass of several millions sun mass. It is like a supper massive natural accelerator which has incredible power & gravity. Hence, its power is billion over billion time stronger that the best accelerator worldwide – CERN. If a man made accelerator had succeeded to generate Anti matter, then by definition, this natural accelerator has the capability to generate new atoms and matter which is needed to keep the expansion of the galaxies in the universe. Therefore, the center of the galaxy maintain its dense and its gravity force as the stars are moving outwards.

Hi Hooman Yes, it's similar situation. Let's start with life creation; Think about the development of life. What was the concept before Darwin's time? Don't you agree that most ofthe people believed that the life had been created in some sort of big bang which creates all life versatilities??? Darwin had proved that it was wrong concept. The lives of all we see have descended over time. Therefore, we had stopped thinking on life creation and started to think on life evolution. There is still a question how the first cell of life had been created, but we have some speculations. With regards to the universe creation, it is similar story. Darwin rejects the concept of big bang for creation. All what we see in the universe have descended over time. Hence, there is a mechanism which generate new mass as the universe expends. This mechanism is part of the steady state theory. It's unclear how it is started, but it's clear that based on Darwin approach, the big bang is might be a fantasy story. Unfortunately, most of the scientists today do believe that the Big Bang is a real story. They had also developed several companion theories which should support this theory.

Charles Robert Darwin had already replied: "All what we see today have descended over time". http://en.wikipedia..../Charles_Darwin

Hi imatfaal In this topic there is solid evidence that spiral galaxy should create a new matter at the center of the galaxy. This idea fits perfectly with Darwin's approach and meets the basic element in the steady state theory. It's clear that the scientists which support the Big Bang theory will reject it. With regards to the CMB; (I'm not an expert, so please correct me as needed) The CMB is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly. At the time of the discussion between the steady state theory and the big bang this CMB fits better with the big bang theory. Never the less, This thermal radiation might be justified by some other new concepts and theories. Hence, the CMB by itself is not a direct evidence for the Big Bang Theory. As ananalog point of view, it is similar to shadow. For example, lets think on a bird and a man. If we see a shadow of a bird, then by definition it's not a man. But, does it mean that we see a real bird??? With regards to the following highlight at Wikipedia: "..The anisotropies in the WMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture" your reply was: " You missed out the bit of the Wiki-article which dealt with the possibility that the problems were more to do with the methods of foreground removal and inaccuracies" 1. I couldn't find this article. Please advice web site. 2. As you have mentioned – Possibility – So, there is still a possibility that it will not fit to the big bang picture… However; Now we know the contribution of the spiral galaxies to mass creation. From this point, it's up to the scientists to decide what should be the outcome of this topic.

Hi imatfaal CMB– By Wikipedia: "In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly". In one hand it is stated at Wikipedia: " Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe". On the other hand it is stated that it doesn't appear to be consistent with the big bang picture. wikipedia: "With the in creasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB suffers from anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, andnon-Gaussian distributions. The most longstanding of these is the low-lmultipole controversy. Even in the COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupole(l=2 spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared to the predictions of the big bang. Some observers have pointed out that the anisotropies in theWMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture". I assume that the scientists all over the world had invested years over years in CMB research. I do not even try to compete with them in five minutes. Never the less, the basic steady state theory avoids the idea of Creation by assuming that the Universe has been expanding forever. The amount of the needed new matter would only be one atom per cubic meter per 100 years to match the expansion rate given by Hubble's constant. Fred Hoyle didn't give an explanation how and where this new matter would be created. Now that we know that new matter is created in the center of each spiral galaxy in the universe, an update should be added to the basic steady state theory. This creation of the new matter must generate the CMB which we verify. This is a task that the scientists should take and confirm. We also need to get answers to several critical questions which related to the current shape of the universe. But in any case,we have proved the basic element of the steady state theory. The main idia is that "all what we see today have descended over time" as Charles Robert Darwin had stated. Therefore, the following steady state diagram is correct:

There is no contradiction between the steady state theory and CMB(cosmic microwave background)!!!

Thanks EMField Yes,I fully agree with you. The Universe should be much bigger than what we see from here. Actually, if we had been at the edge of what we see today, we would probably not find there any edge. Our history might give us some good indication. Think about Darwin. Wikipedia: "Charles Robert Darwin, FRS(12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of lifehave descended over time from common ancestors" It is similar to the steady state theory. All what we see today have descended over time. I'm quite sure that Darwin would reject the big bang theory… The steady state is the correct theory. Please be aware that the steady state theory does not give a full answer to what we see today. There must be some other companion theories which should complete this theory. The spiral galaxies are the engines of the universe for mass production. But there are still many questions which we need to answer in order to understand the current shape of the universe.

Fred Hoyle is fully correct with his theory of steady state: by Wikipedia - "In steady state views,new matter is continuously created as the universe expands". What could be the outcome of this highlight??? How it's effect the Big Bang Theory? How can we explain the current shape of the universe and when was the starting date? What about the dark matter & dark energy? and many more...

Thanks All Please, try to think freely and open your mind to the concrete evidences as follow: The center of the Milky way galaxy is full of young forming stars. "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm are connects to the bar of the galaxy is rich in star-forming regions". The stars are getting older as move outwards. "Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards". Hence, the direct outcome is that the stars are moving outwards as they became older. The sun is an example of a middle age star. It also moves outwards as all the stars do. After quite long time all the stars will get to the edge of the spiral arms. From this point they will be emited from the galaxy and joine one of the dwarf galaxies which orbit the Milky way. As it is stated, those galaxies contain a very old stars: "two small irregular galaxies orbiting the Milky Way,the Large Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about forty per cent that of the Milky Way, while the Small Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about ten per cent that of the Milky Way". (Lower metalicity – Older age). One more example - Ursa Minor Dwarf dwarf elliptical galaxy: " The galaxy consists mainly of older stars and there appears to be little to no ongoing star formation in the Ursa Minor Dwarf galaxy" The outcome is clear: In order to get the mass which is needed for the new forming stars in the center of the galaxy, there must be a mechanism which generates this new requested matter. Therefore, Fred Hoyle is fully correct with his theory of steady state: by Wikipedia - "In steady state views,new matter is continuously created as the universe expands".

Let's summarize the evidences as it is at Wikipedia: Metallicity – Provide an indication for star age "The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age" "older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun". "Population I or metal-rich stars are those young stars whose metallicity is highest". Stars age across the Milky Way – Get older as move outwards "Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards". Stars age in the center of the Milky Way, near the BAR– Very young stars "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm are connects to the bar of the galaxy isrich in star-forming regions". Stars age in the spiral arms– Middle age stars "The Earth's Sun is an example of a metal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy". "The globular star clusters in the Milky Way are the most prominent representatives of Population II". Stars age in galaxies that orbits the Milky Way – Very Old Stars "two small irregular galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, the Large Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about forty per cent that of the Milky Way, while the Small Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about ten per cent that of the Milky Way". (Very low metalicity = Very Old age) So, what could be the outcome of those evidences???

For more info please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity In astronomy and physical cosmology, the metallicity (also called Z[1]) of an object is the proportion of its matter made up of chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium. Since stars, which comprise most of the visible matter in the universe, are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, astronomers use for convenience the blanket term "metal" to describe all other elements collectively.[2] Thus, a nebula rich in carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon would be "metal-rich" in astrophysical terms even though those elements are non-metals in chemistry. This term should not be confused with the usual definition of "metal"; metallic bonds are impossible within stars, and the very strongest chemical bonds are only possible in the outer layers of cool K and M stars. Normal chemistry therefore has little or no relevance in stellar interiors. The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age. When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements. Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun. Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards.

Thank you all At last, there is a real request to verify the star movement in a spiral galaxy. If it is difficult to verify it in our Milky Way galaxy why can't we verify it in Andromeda galaxy (Or any Spiral galaxy)? There is no direct info at Wikipedia about the star movement. I only found the following data at Wikipedia: "The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age… older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun". "Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards". "Population I or metal-rich stars are those young stars whose metallicity is highest. The Earth's Sun is an example of ametal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy". Does it mean that the stars are getting older as move outwards from the galaxy center? Therefore, the stars are moving outwards? I assume that NASA has all the data which is needed to verify this critical info. Why they do not share it with us???

Thanks MigL I like your approach. That's show that you give some thought about this possibility. Yes, you could be even correct if… if new stars would be created as the moon is moving away from earth. But, there is no new birth star activity or even any new matter… In the Milky Way, there is high activity of new stars birth and the galactic center is full of mass… this is the main different. To somecallmegenius Thanks for your sympathy. The science takes it for granted that the solar system is located in the same distance from the day that that it had been created. Is it possible??? How come that the sun is moving at ultra high speed around the galactic center, and it didn't drift even one centimeter inwards or outwards. This is absolutely illogical!!! Some time ago, the science believed that the moon was always inthe same distance from the earth. Just lately, we had discovered that the moon is moving outwards. Based on that the science understood that in the past, the moon was very close to the earth. Therefore, they came with new theory about the moon creation… The big bang theory is a direct outcome to the evidence that the galaxies are moving outwards!!! So, why the science do not check the drifting movement direction of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy??? What could be the outcome if they will verify that the stars are moving outwards (or even inwards)??? Just think what we could understand if we knew that sometime in the past, the solar system was located at the galactic center… Therefore, assuming that the stars in the Milky Way are moving outwards from the galactic center which is full of mass and there is an activity of new star birth – then –this should be the smoking gun for the steady state theory!!! With regards to A…2. He had already got a Moderator Note as follow: "ACG52 - Please stop attacking the person in your posts and concentrate on criticisingthe argument or on answering questions raised. Implications of personaldishonesty are to be avoided if at all possible." His main task is to attack me personally, without giving any real thought to the theory itself. Therefore, I have already informed him that I will not reply to his attack & nasty messages.

To: MigL " The fact that stars are moving outward ( or not ) does not provide 'a full proof for the steady state theory" Yes it is!!! If the stars are moving outwards, then eventually, they will be emitted from the galaxy. So, if the galaxy will not generate a new matter, then after some time, the galaxy should be empty from matter. Hence, in order to compensate the mass of the stars which had been emitted from the galaxy, there must be a mechanism in the galaxy which generate this missing mass (or matter). Don't you agree for this logical concept?

To:alpha2cen My main goal is to highlight the feasibility of the steady state theory. The science had discovered that the galaxies are moving away. Based on that, the idea of the big bang came out. Why the science doesn't care about the shifting direction of the stars in an active galaxy? As I have already highlighted, if the science will verify that the stars are shifting outwards, then it should be a full proof for the steady state theory? Do you agree? To:ACG52 It's clear that you come with negative approach. You do not refer at all to the main subject!!! Your main goal is to show that my message is irrelevant while you do not even try to understand the main thought. If you do not refer to the main point, then please don't reply anymore!

To:ACG52 If you don't agree withthis info, why do you keep asking again and again??? Never the less, this time I hope that it will be clear even to you. Let's assume that the stars in the Milky Way are moving outwards and no new matter is comingin from outside the galaxy. Just assume… What is the outcome ofthis assumption? 1. The stars are shifting out from the galaxy. 2. No new matter is coming in. 3. After quite long time, we would expect that the galaxy will be empty of matter and stars. 4. But, the galaxy is full ofstars, and there is high activity in the BAR. 5. We know that the science verifies new born stars in the aria which connects the BAR to the spiral arms. 6. Those new born stars are also shifting outwards. 7. So, after a while, as stated, the BAR should be empty of matter and it should disappear. 8. But the BAR is still there.And.. It's full of Matter. 9. Hence, the core mustgenerate this new matter!!! Therefore; In order to get a solid proof for generating new matter in a disc/spiral arm galaxy, we need to verify ifthe stars are shifting outwards. And,I don't want to get any further reply from you! Hi MigL Only in the folllowing type of galaxies we should see an activity for creation of new matter: •Supper massive Black hole in the center •Disc shape galaxy •Spiral arms •One orbit direction for all(main) stars per ring. •Circular orbit around the Galaxy center.

To Ophiolite You have not demonstrated that this is the case. You keep asserting it without a)offering a reason why this must be so, or b) explaining why other causes should be discounted. Please do so now. O.K. I hope to be clear this time. As we all know the Idea of the big bang came after the verification that the distance betweengalaxy clusters is increasing. Hence, it is stated in Wikipedia: "If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past". In the same token, If the distance between the stars and the center of an active galaxy is increasing today, all the stars must have been closer together in the past. As new stars are still coming out from the center, thenthere must be a mechanism which generates mass in the center. (Otherwise, the galaxy could be emptyfrom star as they all moved out. But this is not the case.) No -why are you considering only the stars in the spiral arms of this galaxy. Youappear to think that all stars in our galaxy are located within the spiralarms. That does not incline me to believe that you have any idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you just misunderstood me, so why would the stars in our galaxy, not in the spiral arms not be effected? So let's highlight what is an active galaxy: • Supper massive Black hole in the center • Disc shape galaxy • Spiral arms • One orbit direction for all(main) stars per ring. • Circular orbit around theGalaxy center. • Examples for activegalaxies: – Milky way – Andromeda Active galaxy is the only place which has the requested energy and power to generate new matter. The GalacticCentre acts as the Mother Nature which generate new matter and new stars. Wikipedia - "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Armconnects to the bar of the galaxy is rich in star-forming regions". "Thecurrent hypothesis isthat the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery,fueling star birthat their centers". Never the less, in order justify this statement, we must first verify the shifting direction of the stars.

To Ophiolite Why would creation of new matter in the centre of the galaxy cause stars to moveoutwards? Surely with increased gravitational attraction they should moveinwards? I didn't say that. The message is that if the stars in an active galaxy are shifting outwards, there must be a mechanism for mass creation in the center of the galaxy. Why would creation of new matter in the centre of the galaxy cause stars to move outwards? Are you predicting that only these will be influenced? This is someting which we need to verify. Why are you only considering the stars in the spiral arms? Are you predicting that only these will be influenced? Yes,sure. There is a huge different between a disc shape with spiral arm galaxy to ballshape or elliptical galaxy. In an active galaxy, all the stars are moving inone direction around the core of the galaxy and in almost one platform (Disc shape).also,all the stars at the same distance from the core have the same velocity. Therefore,there is virtually no collision even as the speed of the stars is so high.