Darwin approach for Universe Enigma

[David Levy]

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.

Edited April 23, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

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.

 

We have a theory of the evolution of the universe: it is called the big bang model.

 

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.

 

Just like the big bang model.

 

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.

 

Then your model is not as good as the big bang model, because that does include the evolution of the universe from before the first galaxies, and how galaxies form.

 

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.

 

Perhaps you could show us your model and we can make some constructive comments on it?

 

It was very difficult for Darwin to promote his theory as it contradicted the mainstream of his time.

 

Actually that's not true. Most scientists accepted it very quickly because there was overwhelming evidence form the work that he and Wallace did.

 

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.

 

Until you show us your solution, no one can really comment on it.

 

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.

 

After you have explained your model, you could go on and explain the evidence that supports it.

 

Based on this theory the size and the age of the Universe are infinite.

 

But that seems to contradict the analogy with Darwinian evolution, which does not say that life has always existed (or that there is an infinite amount of life).

 

Anyway, please go ahead and tell us your theory. It should, of course, quantitatively explain ALL the observations about the universe (CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, redshift-distance relationship, formation of large scale structures, etc)

Edited April 23, 2015 by Strange

[David Levy]

 

We have a theory of the evolution of the universe: it is called the big bang model.

Just like the big bang model.

 

 

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.

Edited April 23, 2015 by David Levy

[Strange]

Based on the BBT it is expected that all the mass of the Universe had been created in the first moment.

 

No it isn't. You really ought to learn about the theory you are criticising.

 

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.

 

OK. So it is Hoyle's "Quasi Steady State" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory#Quasi-steady_state

 

This was abandoned because it can't explain the CMB.

[ACG52]

 

 

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.

The same nonsense you've posted time and again. You state your assumptions as though they're fact, when there is no supporting evidence for anything you claim.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

David Levy, you know the rules we have here. This is a science forum with above average requirements for rigor when offering speculative concepts. If you can't follow those rules, you should go to someplace that is more tolerant of unsupported guesswork.

 

It's assumed that people who come here for discussion want more than that. It's what our membership has requested, and what the site owners have tasked the staff to oversee.

 

It's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing, and you continue to make bald assertions rather than asking questions. You're behaving like a complete crackpot and it won't be tolerated any more. Either provide some support for your ideas, reply to the specific questions you're being asked, or this thread will be closed like the others.

 

Please follow our rules or leave, David Levy. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you just don't seem to be listening.

 

Report this post if you want to talk about it, but don't talk about this modnote here.

[David Levy]

You state your assumptions as though they're fact, when there is no supporting evidence for anything you claim.

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.

Edited April 24, 2015 by David Levy

[Endy0816]

An accretion disc and a black hole are not the same thing...

 

Black hole:

 

I know, I know, people like to make pretty images out of the accretion disc which forms around it. It is a sad fact of life that a black hole is not photogenic in the least.

 

An accretion disc is the result of conservation of angular momentum.

 

The black hole though does still function as a drain.

 

Should also note that a black hole obeys the same law of gravity as anything else. Things only get weird past the event horizon. They won't magically suck stuff into themselves. Sol could be swapped out with an equal mass black hole and our planet's orbit would be unaffected.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Closed, pending review.

David Levy, Phi has given you some good advice, which you apparently have ignore. Please be warned that if you continue down this path, we will be forced to suspend or ban you.