Mass Creation, Spiral Galaxies, the Big Bang

[David Levy]

 

The concept of one Big Bang is a pure fantasy!!!

Just one example of Colliding Galaxies which contradicts the concept of the Big Bang that all the mass of the universe had been generated in one point in space.

Andromeda is about 2.2 million light-years distant from Milky Way.

As it is moving directly to the Milky Way, it is clear that in the past the distant was much longer.

Therefore, 13.75 Billion years ago the distant was about 15 Million Light years.

So how come that those two Galaxies were so far aware at the moment of the Big bang?

Is it possible that there were two or more Big Bangs???

This is only one example for two galaxies which are in colliding direction.

There are so many other open issues.

The Big Bang theory doesn't give a real answer…

[Delta1212]

I am currently walking toward a table that is 10 feet away at a speed of 10 feet per minute. Exactly one year ago, I must have been 1,000 miles away from the table.

[pwagen]

This is only one example for two galaxies which are in colliding direction.

Exactly, only two galaxies, which are relatively close to each other. The expansion works on such a huge scale, you'd have to go further away to actually notice it. And notice it you will, as there is no point that is, for example, 5 billion light years away, that is closing in on us.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Is_the_expansion_of_the_universe_felt_on_small_scales.3F

[David Levy]

Exactly, only two galaxies, which are relatively close to each other. The expansion works on such a huge scale, you'd have to go further away to actually notice it. And notice it you will, as there is no point that is, for example, 5 billion light years away, that is closing in on us.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Is_the_expansion_of_the_universe_felt_on_small_scales.3F

Thanks

Wikipedia – "Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric."

 

So there is a Big Bang theory which sounds like a fantasy story...

In order to explain it, our great scientists invent new supportive theories - for example Dark matter, dark energy, inflation…. and metric expansion of space.

If the Big bang sound as a fantasy story, than all the supportive theories sounds like a dream…

Never the less, the science is using those illogical theories to explain a fantasy theory.

Bravo!!!!

[pwagen]

Your objection was that the Andromeda galaxy is approaching us, thus the Big Bang theory is invalid. Has that objection been rectified to your satisfaction?

[David Levy]

Your objection was that the Andromeda galaxy is approaching us, thus the Big Bang theory is invalid. Has that objection been rectified to your satisfaction?

The objection was that Andromeda is an example of colliding galaxies phenomena which shows that the big bang theory is a fantasy story. However, the illogical supportive theories do not give a real answer to this issue.

[pwagen]

The objection was that Andromeda is an example of colliding galaxies phenomena which shows that the big bang theory is a fantasy story. However, the illogical supportive theories do not give a real answer to this issue.

Are there any galaxies approaching us, that are currently more than 1 billion light years away? If the model predicts nearby galaxies won't be expanded away from us, what part of the model is fantasy?

[Arch2008]

The original “bang” is the energy you would get from one kilogram of matter. The “big” part came when the Superforce filled every part of the inflating universe. Then gravity and the other fundamental forces separated. The binding force that was freed up due to the separation is where you get the energy for everything in the observable universe. So the instanton particle or patch of negative pressure has a mass of around 1 kg.

 

Also, this video is 5 years old. Perhaps Alan Guth is less embarrassed today.

 

 

Also, galaxies collide for the same reason that meteors hit the Earth. Local gravity overcomes the inflation. Inflation is incredibly weak, but it's effect is everywhere. Only on immense scales does the DE overcome local gravity.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Arch2008

[IM Egdall]

It is not a matter of "believing" in the big bang theory or any scientific theory, it is how well it predicts what we observe and measure.

 

The big bang theory coupled with inflation theory is our current best model of the origin and evolution of the universe. Why? Because it makes a number of predictions which are verified by independent observations, like the amount and abundance of helium and other light elements in our universe, the homogeneity of the universe, the expansion of the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the fluctuations in the CMB, the large scale structure of the universe, the evolution of galaxies, the age of stars, and a number of other more esoteric measurements. That is why it has such strong support among cosmologists.

 

That is not to say there are no issues. The specifics of inflation theory, such as exactly how it started, how it came to an end, and whether it has or will happen again are still open questions.

 

Per general relativity, the expansion of the universe is inherent in space itself. Space is unstable and cannot remain static. This means the distance between two points in space will stretch over time. But gravity overcomes this expansion force within galaxy clusters, so it is only over the enormous distances between clusters that space is expanding.

 

There are two additional issues. The expansion of space is accelerating and no one knows why. So the source of this speed up is called "dark" energy. Plus there seems to be additional matter out there holding galaxies and clusters of galaxies together -- matter which does not give off light. Hence the term "dark" matter. No one knows what this dark matter is either.

 

To me, the big bang plus inflation model is amazing. It does an incredible job predicting how our universe behaves and behaved in the past. But science is a continuing work in progress, and there is still much out there we don't know.

[David Levy]

Dear IM Egdall

 

I do believe that the big bang is the new religion of the current astronomy science.

We have to believe that it happened. We can't even think that it is a fiction.

There are so many black holes in the Big bang theory.

Think about spiral galaxy -

So far the science has no real answer to this phenomenon. Therefore, they have invented the idea of dark matter.

Even the current concept of measuring the star age is wrong. By Wiki: "The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age". Therefore, the science has a severe confusion where is the place for a star birth. Thing about the HD 140283 which is a metal-poor subgiant star about 190.1 light years away from the Earth.[2] Research has found it to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years old while the age of the whole universe is less. For me it is absolute illogical. The science must look for better way to measure the age of star.

The science could not explain how we have today the shape of the universe – therefore they have invented the inflation theory. And so on.

Hence, the science does whatever it takes to come with supportive theories which by definition are science fiction theories. If you try to think on each individual theory – you will feel that it is a science fiction story.

The science rejects any alternative. They can't reject the theory of the new angel - Stephen William Hawking???

I'm sure that there is an alternative. I have already published it in this forum.

Unfortunately, people attack me personally instead of giving a second think about any alternative idea.

For me, we are living today in the dark age of the science.

The big bang is the new god of the advanced science.

Science which dare to ask question are automatically rejected from the elite science community.

Somehow, I feel like Charles Darwin. If you take his approch for the diversity of life and try to set the same approch for the the diversity of star and galaxy in the universe, you may get to the same outcome as I did.

So, let's summarize the outcome:

1. Mass creation – The center of the spiral galaxy is the place for mass creation. 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.

2. Star birth – Each star collects its matter which had been generated – as a snow ball. Therefore, the core of the spiral galaxy is the only place for star forming. Each star gets all the matter on his birth!!! (There is no possibility for star forming in a nubilla). Therefore, the Earth had been created as a gas star – with about 98% of Hydrogen and helium. What we see today is only the left over. Same story to all solid stars that we see in the univers.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Each spiral arm galaxy is generated from some sort of a seed (which might be a megnator or quasar).

6. 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.

7. Universe life – The life of the universe is much' much longer from 13.75 Billion years. It is billion over billion life years

 

I'm quite sure that the science will reject my concept and attack me personally. You may also join them. But one day the truth will be discovered!!!

Edited May 11, 2013 by David Levy

[pwagen]

I do believe that the big bang is became the new religion of the current astronomy science.

We have to believe that it happened. We can't even think that it is a fiction.

As of yet, thought crime hasn't been implemented.

Even the current concept of measuring the star age is wrong. By Wiki: "The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age". Therefore, the science has a severe confusion where is the place for a star birth. Thing about the

HD 140283 which is a metal-poor subgiant star about 190.1 light years away from the Earth.[2] Research has found it to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years old while the age of the whole universe is less.

The age of the universe is less than 13.66 billion years? If not, the age of that star doesn't conflict with the age of the universe.

For me it is absolute illogical. The science must look for better way to measure the age of star.

Sure. So because we don't have exact measurements of the age of stars, does that mean the BB theory is invalid?

Hence, the science does whatever it takes to come with supportive theories which by definition are science fiction theories. If you try to think on each individual theory – you will feel that it is a science fiction story.

No, science makes models and then tests them against reality. What you feel is totally irrelevant as long as the models make accurate predictions.

The science rejects any alternative. They can't reject the theory of the new angel - Stephen William Hawking???

Which theory specifically?

Unfortunately, people attack me personally instead of giving a second think about any alternative idea.

They're attacking your ideas, not you. If you can't differentiate yourself from your ideas, keep them to yourself.

For me, we are living today in the dark age of the science.

Unless you posted this from a stone tablet, you're wrong.

So, let's summarize the outcome:

1. 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.

Why don't we see matter being created at the center of the galaxies?

2. Star birth – Each star collects its matter which had been generated – as a snow ball. Therefore, the core of the spiral galaxy is the only place for star forming. Each star gets all the matter on his birth!!! (There is no possibility for star forming in a nubilla). Therefore, the Earth had been created as a gas star – with about 98% of Hydrogen and helium. What we see today is only the left over. Same story to all solid stars that we see in the univers.

If stars only form in the center of the galaxy, how do you explain the seemingly abundant star formation in such places as the Orion Nebula?

3. 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.

This is obviously false, as we're moving in an orbit.

4. 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.

How would the spiral arms increase the speed of the stars, exactly?

5. Each spiral arm galaxy is generated from some sort of a seed (which might be a megnator or quasar).

Sounds like pseudoscience bunk. How would a quasar form the mass for a whole spiral arm, and what is a megnator?

6. 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.

Which galaxy is our Mother spiral galaxy?

7. Big Bang – It’s a pure fantasy.

It's a well supported theory. You might want to read up on the difference.

8. Universe life – The life of the universe is much' much longer from 13.75 Billion years. It is billion over billion life years

Life on this planet started a little less than 4 billion years ago. That's our only data point, but I would be interested to know what other kinds of life you know of.

[michel123456]

 

3. 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.

 

 

(...)This is obviously false, as we're moving in an orbit.(...)

You may have noticed that the paths of many orbits alltogether give the shape of a spiral. Like in the solar system.

See here and you can check that out everywhere you want.

[David Levy]

Hello pwagen

 

Disc Shape system – "This is obviously false, as we're moving in an orbit".

 

In a disc shape the stars are moving in an orbit. This is correct. Never the less, after billion years there is a chance for drifting inwards or outwards. As the moon is drifting outwards from the earth, I claim that any star in a disc shape is drifting outwards. Hence, the earth is drifting outwards from the Sun and the sun is drifting outwards from the galaxy center.

 

Star age and Orion Nebula – I claim that there must be a fatal error in the formula of calculates the star age based on metallicity. The NASA team found correctly the matter composition on the HD 140283, never the less, the calculation of converting the composition into age is wrong. Based on this fatal error, the science belive that there is new star forming activity at the Orion Nebula, but in reality there is none!!!

There must be another good alternative for star age measuring!!!

 

Mass creation - "Why don't we see matter being created at the center of the galaxies?"

 

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.

 

Galactic nucleus - the nucleus of the Spiral galaxy is supper massive black hole – Wikipedia: "A supper massive black hole defined mass ranges from100 thousand to 10 billion solar masses. Scientists tend to assume that such a black 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. This huge power and energy has the potential to create a real Hydrogen Atoms.

 

Normally, at a black hole you expect to see a black hole. Never the less, at the center of each spiral galaxy (with a supper massive black hole), we normally see massive light and the famous bar shape. This is the ultimate womb of mother galaxy. This is the only place in the universe for mass creation and new star birth!!!

 

Fred Hoyle had 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.

 

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 forces and 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.

 

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.

 

"How would the spiral arms increase the speed of the stars, exactly?"

 

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 in most 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.

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 a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of millions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and creates a 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. 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. 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.

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 10 million stars is a 1000 x 1000 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!!

Edited May 11, 2013 by David Levy

[ACG52]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the above 'I claim.... I claim... I claim...' nonsense contradicts actual observation, and may be discarded.

 

The above is not a post which should be taken lightly, indeed, it should be rejected with great force.

[pwagen]

Do you have any evidence to back up any of your claims, or any kinds of predictions on what we would be able to see, should your claims be true? How is this hypothesis any more accurate than our current theories of Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, as well as our understanding of how stars form?

[David Levy]

Do you have any evidence to back up any of your claims, or any kinds of predictions on what we would be able to see, should your claims be true? How is this hypothesis any more accurate than our current theories of Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, as well as our understanding of how stars form?

 

 

What kind of evidence or predictions are you looking for? This theory is the ultimate answer for what we see.

No need for a big bang fantasy. No need for dark energy or dark matter. No need for inflation or any other science fiction theory.

It's one simple theory which explains the universe as is. If the science community will put some effort on this simple theory, they will find that it is fully correct.

 

The question is – How long do we still need to live in the dark age of the modern science???

[pwagen]

It's one simple theory which explains the universe as is. If the science community will put some effort on this simple theory, they will find that it is fully correct.

This is what I mean. Say scientists spent time and effort on your idea, what would we expect to find that gives credence to your idea rather than current theories? It's all and well to say it's the ultimate theory of everything. But until your ideas can predict something better than what current theories do, it won't even reach the state where it's an actual theory.

[David Levy]

Say scientists spent time and effort on your idea, what would we expect to find that gives credence to your idea rather than current theories?

 

So what would we expect to find?

 

Outwards drifting in a disc shape system – Nasa had found that the moon is drifting away. Is there any possibility for them to verify that the Earth is drifting away from the Sun, and the Sun is drifting away from the center of the galaxy?

 

Star age – The science must find a new method for measuring Star age. This is critical for verification the real place for new star forming.

[pwagen]

Outwards drifting in a disc shape system – Nasa had found that the moon is drifting away. Is there any possibility for them to verify that the Earth is drifting away from the Sun, and the Sun is drifting away from the center of the galaxy?

The Earth is moving away from the Sun. This is explained partly by the Sun losing mass and tidal effects between Earth and the Sun. And the effect is incredibly tiny. Anyway, we have a very good explanation for why the Earth is moving away, which matches observations. How is your idea better than this explanation?

 

The Sun is moving upwards from the galactic plane. There's no outwardly movement.

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

http://www.answers.com/topic/how-fast-is-the-sun-moving-through-space

[ACG52]

Star age – The science must find a new method for measuring Star age. This is critical for verification the real place for new star forming.

 

So if measurement and observation contradict your nonsensical ideas, it's the measurement that must be wrong?

[David Levy]

The Earth is moving away from the Sun. This is explained partly by the Sun losing mass and tidal effects between Earth and the Sun. And the effect is incredibly tiny. Anyway, we have a very good explanation for why the Earth is moving away, which matches observations. How is your idea better than this explanation?

 

 

That's good enough for me.

 

 

The Sun is moving upwards from the galactic plane. There's no outwardly movement.

 

The Sun must drift outwards from the galactic center.

 

 

The Sun must drift outwards from the galactic center. This is a task for NASA to take and verify.

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2013 by David Levy

[ACG52]

The Sun must drift outwards from the galactic center. Actually all the stars in a spiral galaxy are drifting outwards. This is a task for NASA to take and verify.

 

 

Haven't we seen this unsupported nonsense before?

[pwagen]

The Sun must drift outwards from the galactic center.

The Sun doesn't must anything. Reality isn't dictated by what you, or I, or anyone else thinks. At this point in time, we know physics, and we know math, good enough to know how stars move about. So at this point, if the Sun's outwards movement is a major point in your idea, you should start thinking about whether the idea is sound, not whether a few hundred years' worth of scientific progress has failed to come up with a decent model for how large bodies move.

[IM Egdall]

Dear David Levy: If you want your theories to be given credibility by cosmologists, you must make detailed predictions with specific numbers, which no other theory makes. And then you must wait for observations and measurements by independent scientists which confirm your predictions. Unless and until this happens (if ever), no amount of arguing by you will be effective. Its not personal, this is pretty much what all scientific theories go through.

 

An example: Based on his and George Gamow's big bang theory, in the 1940s, physicists Ralph Alpher predicted a residual Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) exists everywhere in the sky. And Alpher predicted its current temperature should be several degrees above absolute zero. In the 1960's, just such a CMB was found -- with a temperature of less than 3 degrees above absolute zero. (I talked about a number of additional specific predictions of the big bang theory which have since been verified as well.)

[Dekan]

Surely the Steady State theory is consistent with a Cosmic Microwave Background.

 

What the Big Bang theorists do, is add an adjective - "residual".

 

By doing that, they "beg the question", in the proper sense of that expression. But does anyone realise it nowadays?

Edited May 13, 2013 by Dekan