Friday, March 20, 2009

An Infinite Universe - Uncomplicated

The Infinite Universe

David Calder Hardy

This section is a preview of what the complete work Genesis Continuous, is all about.

* Conservation
* The Foundational Pathway
* A Star is Born
* A Planet is Born
* The Shrinking Star
* What happens Next?
* Expansion, but Not as the Result of a Big Bang!
* Too Few Supernova
* Summing Up
* Will these "established" areas of theory be re-addressed?

(1 To consider what this title means we need to try and put together a foundation for what is meant by an infinite universe. Does the Establishment present us with a complete foundation? No, not in that sense. I, like many others, feel that Big Bang, or any beginning, as starting off from a mass smaller than an atom is crazy. Why did it have to have a beginning anyway?

(2 A firm cosmology must be continuous. That is, it must be completely recyclable. The evidence for this claim definitely exists, and that presents the strongest evidence for Eternity and Conservation. Also, presuming that this is the case, space must be infinite and or boundless. Creation, as we see it, is the result of a constant and successful recycling process throughout.

(3 Firstly, observably, there is space; and space is almost a vacuum, but it is teeming with galaxies of stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, hydrogen, subatomic particles, dust and gas, and that is what this paper is all about. As one scientist put it - There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth'. :- Carl Sagan There are many more references.

(4 So why are they there – why do they shine – why do they blow up (supernova), why this vast array survives and why it appears to be recreating ever so slowly.

(5 To say that space is bounded by something is to introduce a completely un-known and un-observed barrier. Is it a bladder, as claimed? And for that matter, why should it be part of Big Bang theory, anyway? [Other than to keep everthing contained].

(6 The first question that springs to mind with that suggestion is, ‘What’s beyond the barrier’? - Because such objects right now only exist in the minds of men, I think that we have to dismiss them, because this object, anyway, creates its own barrier. Such an object cannot be a part of a realistic foundation for our universe, because undoubtedly, radiant energy would have to be halted or reflected back by this wall, bladder, shield, or whatever. Sadly, the concept of a beginning and its componentry, places huge restriction on what is already evident.

(7 All stars shine globally, and there are observed galaxies 13 billion light years away at the so called edge of the universe, (according to science), so it is logical to accept that their light energy is shining away from them a distance at least equal to our distance from them. So with a barrier, either their light is being bounced back or else absorbed by it, or, there is no wall, and it is free to travel beyond a distance of twenty six billion light years away from us and still be within the universe. [This simple bit of logic should be enough to blow Big Bang right out the window because no rational answer exists]. But, that is not all. Since the expansion theory states that everything is moving away from us, and the further away it is, the faster it's going, the stars we see 13 billion light-years away cannot be still there. They haven't been there since 13 billion years ago ! And that is still not all.

(8 Big Bang, starting with a singularity, is said to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago, and there are galaxies 13 billion light years away out at the supposed edge of the universe. Presuming that their light has taken 13 billion years to reach us, how did they get there in a mere seven hundred million years? Also, this point seems strangely confusing because it appears that we are right in the middle of the universe, since the distances relate from us to the edge of the universe and not from a more remote and elusive centre point.

(9 Surely if it was a ‘singularity’ approximately the size of a proton, that the whole universe has expanded from, that centre point should be locatable. It seems to me that until it is definitely located Big Bang cannot be an acceptable theory. Besides that, our location between it and the outer edge of the universe has to be known, otherwise the whole idea of Big Bang has no credibility, because measurements from us to the assumed outer edge would bear no relationship to the expansion from its central location to the outer edge. So what does science do when faced with this dilema?

(10 It is believed by some scientists that there is no centre and that the ignition point has expanded with and continues to fill the cosmic containment. This is a bit like saying that when water flows up and out of a spring and into a lake of its own making that the source has spread out over the total area of the lake. Universe Centre Where is it? Sorry guys, if you are going to give the mass containment of the universe as being three dimentional, then a centre must exist.
[Physics FAQ] - [Copyright]
Original by Philip Gibbs 1997.
Where is the centre of the universe?

(11 Since Big Bang flounders on these simple observations, it must be more acceptable that the age of the universe should be boundless since no evidence exists for its non- existence.

(12 I, from the above, believe that the universe is eternal, with no boundaries and that conservation, within a recyclable foundation assures it of that eternity. Expansion does exist but it results from an entirely different phenomenon, explained below.

The Foundational Pathway
(13 Having made those assumptions let’s start our journey, that I call the ‘Cycle of Creation’ or ‘Genesis Continuous’.

(14 Here we have what we can more safely assume to be, infinite space and time, matter and energy with continuous recreation, so we apply those words to the whole activity of the cosmos; and that activity includes –

(15 The making of stars, planets, moons etc. The making of galaxies and the distribution of matter through the radiant energy of all active stars. The dismantling process of those objects is equally part of that creation. Destruction, is not a word one can use in the context of conservation. Evolution is not a word one can use about a recycling process since everything that was, is, and will be what has been, and will be in continuum.

(16 Being, as I believe, the universe to be a recycling system, we have to start our examination of it somewhere within that cycle or pathway continuum..

(17 This is how it should be, because stars are shedding their mass/energy at a terrific rate right throughout their life times, which provides a constant stream of subatomic particles coursing in all directions through the universe, to be recycled wherever they strike. Overall, the radiation of subatomic particles equals the collection of them.

(18 New stars have been observed in the Milky Way galaxy that are one hundred and fifty times larger than our sun, and it seems very likely, and some scientists agree, that this could ne a minimum size for a new star. So, how old must our sun be? This is one of the burning questions my theory attempts to provide a method of answering, or should I say offering a huge adjustment. I expect it to be at least eight times older than what we are told, and if it can be shown to be ever so much older than that I will not be surprised. How about 50 or even 100 billion years.

(19 I believe that the key players in the universe are its stars. Through their radiant lives they give everything. They have, in their birth, created all the elements ready to supply to their families of planets, moons and smaller bodies with everything required. Also, as I’ve mentioned, they radiate their sub-atomic particles away into the universe to be collected by everything they strike and that is continuously and collectively all a part of the recycling process. Science had claimed that our sun was never large enough to have created all the heavier metals, but surely this idea has to be revised in accordance with these new observations where new born stars are ever so much larger than was assumed. Established science could only have had the sun a mere six billion years old to fit in with a universe that they say is thirteen point seven billion years old.

(20 To digress a moment, one has to remember that this work is a theory and it depends on known observation mixed with a fair amount of common sense. As we progress around the cycle I think that the common sense factor becomes increasingly apparent. We now start the cycle with a new born star and we’ll finish it with one full turn of its wheel.

(21 At this point, it has recently been announced that hydrogen is diminishing. Besides this claim supporting Big Bang and its evolutionary destiny, it also demonstrates that Big Bang philosophical theory is used to support the supposed loss of hydrogen. So hand in hand they go!!! Reference:-
Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift, which makes a nonsense of the above claim.

(22 Let's look at it this way:-
Even in an evolving universe, as proposed by big bang, the making of stars has been continuous up to this time. Whilst hydrogen is available, then this should continue because it shows that the full cycle is intact.

(23 Hydrogen is the number one, simplest atom.
All other atoms can be formed from violent implosive processing involving hydrogen during the forming of a star from a hydrogen rich nebula. A nebula has to reach a certain gravity mass before it can collapse, and then fusion, to occur. (see those points above). A nebula relies on a constant supply of hydrogen from space in order to reach that critical size.

(24 Hydrogen is being created in space from the radiant emissions of trillions of stars shining in all directions through it. Although deep space is almost a complete vacuum, hydrogen is to be found there.
What a star is created from is what it puts back to be recycled throughout its life-time.

(25 Therefore, it is the stars that replenish hydrogen, so one could expect that providing there are a healthy lot of stars out there that there will be sufficient replenishment of hydrogen to keep the ball rolling.

(42 Even if star forming slowed down through lack of hydrogen, there are trillions of them out there yet to complete their emissions with subsequent hydrogen replenishment before they snuff out. So I can't see that happening.

(26 Capture rate of hydrogen in a nebula, and on into a star will be balanced against the emission rate through radiation by that star back into space over its life time. Can Science offer a water-tight reason why that could not be so?

A Star is Born
(27 Part of the radiant energy of a star is her solar wind. Her size and her mass have given her a huge gravitational power and her iron content has given her a hugely strong magnetic attraction field. Some scientists now suggests that the iron content of the sun is vastly larger than previously thought.

(28 These three components will shape her influence over a very large area of space around her, perhaps a billion or more miles in radius.

(29 Her solar wind will push away gas and fine particles that were left over after her nebula collapsed. Her gravity will try to pull that stuff back. Her magnetic field will place everything in orbit around her on or near her equatorial plane.

(30 That is broadly what is observable. Planets, moons and other bits and pieces are given orbital passage within those three criteria, in the solar controlled area kept clear of all gaseous substances that could impede the orbital velocity of a star’s family.

A Planet is Born
(31 A star can be seen as a huge furnace that not only keeps everything molten within it but alchemically changes elements from one to another. As a result of that, like a massive cauldron, it erupts gasses and molten material thousands of miles above its surface that finally reaches its zenith and falls back again. But sometimes, not all of it falls back. It appears to me that over two to three billion years, a ring of iron rich particles collects about two to three solar widths from the star. Our sun has such a ring around it right now, that was discovered in 1983 and I had predicted its existence in 1972.

(32 There surely is only one thing that can happen to such an ever growing molten or semi-molten ring of material and that is it will eventually, like globules of mercury, roll up into a ball. A larger globule in the ring would start the ball rolling, and perhaps another some short time after would do the same thing and our planetisimal could capture it and have a moon. To my knowledge, this picture has not been observed, but I think that the obvious result, as I describe it now, gives it great credence.

(33 Here, then, is the core of a planet. As the star sheds its radiant energy, so it loses gravity. And that causes this new planetisimal to spiral away from its mother. When we look at the planet, Mercury, we see what is little more than a planetisimal. It is mostly molten iron with very little mantle material. Since a planet’s core is iron, and if it had been formed in any other way, what would prevent it from being all iron if that is what it prefers to attract as the years go by? For instance, the established theory suggests that the planets formed within a collapsing nebula, more or less in their Bode spaced orbital positions as they are today. Assuming that they all have iron cores, what limited the amount of that metallic collection, overall, in that vast arena? An arena that changes from a great density of gas/dust where Mercury is, away out to an ever so much thinner nebula atmosphere where our most distant planets exist? Also, one would expect the inner planets to be far bigger than the outer ones at that rate.

(34 However, the ring material in my theory provides a limited source of iron, a sort of cut off point where another source of different material has to provide the mantle in order to continue its growth. Earth still captures hundreds of tonnes of extra-terrestrial rocks and dust per day and that adds to its mantle.

(35 Venus, two to three billion years older than Mercury, has spiralled out further from the sun and has built up a mantle, probably half way between Mercury's stage of growth and earth’s. And it is very likely that Mars has progressively done the same beyond earth.

(36 So now we can estimate a time frame to account for the progressive ages of our planets that is in accordance with Bodes Law.

(37 On the assumption that there is a two to three billion year gap between each planet, (say 2.5 billion average) Mercury could already be 2 billion years old. Venus 4.5 billion,- earth 7 billion,- and Mars 9.5 billion,- Asteroid belt, the material that should have rolled up into a planet, 12 billion,- Jupiter 14.5 billion,- Saturn 17 billion,- Uranus 19.5 billion,- Neptune 22 billion years old.

(38 Pluto and now another planet, previously called Zena, beyond Pluto, adds another 5 billion making a total to date of twenty seven billion years since this newly discovered planet, was born, and very oddly, this happens to be twice the age that Science claims is the age of the universe.

(39 The progressive age difference between planets is reflected in Bode’s Law, which until my theory, had no logical significance in the scientific world.

(40 Also, if the figure of 2.5 billion years for planet birth is found to be smaller or larger, that will make no difference to the validity of the theory. However, Science has already set a figure for the Mars age appearance, as being 3 billion years older than earth, and Venus, 3 billion years younger than earth. Who am I to argue?

(41 This raises a point about this whole theory and that is, I do use scientifically quoted information where applicable. And it is points like I have made above that Science has no meaningful answer for. Full references exist in Genesis Continuous.

The Shrinking Star.
(42 We have Zena still in orbit and it could well be 27 billion years old; so maybe there are others yet older still at 29.5 billion years of age and more. I think there are or have been 15 planets all up. The older ones may have flown the coop, their gravitational umbilical cords having snapped and those planets have tangentially headed off into the distance. What other course could one expect, with a star mother losing her gravitational strength and the planet’s centrifugal force eventually winning the battle? Science gives us information about the death of stars but not about what happens to the greater number of planets that accompany those stars.

What Happens Next?
(43 Considering that planets are collectors of gas, its very likely that they collect a great deal more gas atmosphere as they go through the Ort Cloud.

(44 As I mentioned above, a star has three main forces, solar wind, gravity and magnetism. Solar wind pushes gas away and gravity tries to drag it back. A magnetic field more or less holds it in a solar equatorial ring. So there is a ring of gas that exists held between these two opposing forces. That is the Ort Cloud, and all planets will eventually go through it and no doubt, collect quite a lot of it into their atmosphere.

(45 I get the feeling that there is nothing wasted and a purpose exists for everything.

(46 So, as an example, away goes a planet, which I’m going to be cheeky and call Davidia, with her moons if she has any, virtually unimpeded into the distance, carrying with her, her Mother’s parting gift of an additional amount of atmosphere billions of years before.

(47 The more she takes on board the more gravitational attraction she accumulates, and as time goes by, her atmosphere will be seen as a nebula. As an ever expanding mass of hydrogen, dust and tiny iron particles, Davidia will attempt to align this material partially to her equatorial, and in particular, the iron content of it. However, I would expect also that the dust and solids would fall through the gas cloud toward the centre, until they go into orbit.

(48 Over many billions of years, the nebula will have grown enormous, being billions of miles across and will be pressing down upon what is now a molten Davidia, until she is eventually crushed by it and explodes. However, there’s nowhere for this central explosion to expand into and the gas and dust immediately above her compresses and implodes and fusion occurs. This is where lighter gas, solids, atoms and molecules are crushed and become new elements higher up the periodic table. However, the new elements take up far less room than does the gas they were created from, so now there is a void above the centre, and the nebula slams in to fill that space. – Such an impact is enormous, and each time there is an implosion there is a massive additional heat created and centered right on the core of what is going to be a new star. Any mass that was in orbit and within the influence of this enormous blast will be fragmented and sucked into it's increasing gravitational center.

(49 This is in direct conflict with the establishment’s theory that it is a supernova somewhere near or just beyond the outer reaches of the nebula that triggers the nebula collapse. Such a theory seems to me to be very hit and miss and more likely to destroy the nebula. My theory will account, too, for the now believed minimum size of a new born star. A nebula has to reach that critical gravitational mass to crush the planet host and start the process of collapse.

(50 As the new star grows, so does the gravity of the nebula mass become transferred from that huge beyond to be concentrated into the centre of the action. Therefore, stuff that is trying to go into orbit during the collapse just keeps being dragged in further and further by an increasing central gravity until there is very little of it left, and that is mostly gas anyway. So the new star is born and her solar wind blows all that remaining gas away to her own Ort cloud.

(51 The collapse has not only shifted a vast capacity of nebula gas and dust to an extremely concentrated and smaller location, but has taken with it its total gravity and total heat.

(52 Let us assume that Davidia was one of fifteen planets, not twelve, in our system. Every two to three billion years the farthest one drifts away and eventually becomes a star.

(53 This means that one star has produced 15 stars, over a period of lets say 50 or more billion years, so potentially 15 stars each produces 15 planets and that's how we get a galaxy. One only has to look at a galaxy to see that pattern. And a part of this creation is the fragmentation of the older generation of stars in the system, and indeed the universe, as they supernova or whatever. Will there be collisions where wandering planets are halted in their destiny? I would expect so. Perhaps when we can detect all the planets in a distant solar system we will be given more clues. All on all, growth collection and radiation must balance.

Expansion, but not as the result of a Big Bang!
(54 The above explains what is the keystone to Big Bang philosophy, - expansion -, for what it is far more likely to be, -Separation-. Davidia leaves her mother star, and becomes a star, still moving away at thousands of kms per hour she will have a family that will drift away from her, generation after generation. So the distances grow, and the separation, observably, from anywhere in the universe, appears to speed up with the increase in distance. Isn't this virtually what Science is telling us is happening?

(55 So now the wheel has come full circle and expansion can be seen in this very different light, not as the result of some singular explosion with a pinpoint location somewhere in the universe, but as a normal function of galaxy building which simply continuously makes room for the new solar systems to grow and spread out.

(56 If a planet is released when it is say thirty five billion years old, there is now a span of time needed to build the rest of its nebula and time needed to complete its collapse into a star. This is beyond my ability to assess and I’m not even going to hazard a guess, excepting to say that it must be many billions of years and that new star will increasingly be many light years away from it’s mother star.

(57 Here is a new and very different foundation from the established academic evolutionary incomplete one. This foundation offers an explanation of eternity and conservation, without the wild complexity of a singularity Big Bang. Time factors, content, radiant energy analysis, and all sorts of observation can be built on this foundation, where the extent of our tiny part of the universe can only be observed within the limit of our technology.

(58 If a galaxy is observed 10 billion light years away, then we have to accept that it existed there 10 billion years ago. If we see another 13 billion light years away, that is when it existed at that place. So additional to that fact, both of those galaxies have moved on and their radiant energy must also be observable at as many light years beyond them as we are away from them. Only a wall of some sort could prevent that happening. - And that suggests that the wall has a reflective system to bounce back the energy/matter that would otherwise not be conserved. Although Science is now saying that expansion does not appear to offer a centre from which it occurs, it still maintains that it is expanding outward in all directions as if it does. The most distant galaxies are retreating from us faster than the nearer ones they say, so obviously the logistics of Big Bang are very uncertain where a centre is unlocatable.

(59 We must surely accept that stars radiate their energy globally, and that means that the capacity of the universe has to reach beyond their field of radiation. Likewise, we have to accept that a star 13 billion light years away from us is shedding light away beyond it another 13 billion light years. Conservation will have to convert that energy into matter that will become a part of what ever it strikes out in the distant assumed containment in exactly the same way as it does in our observable part of the universe. Why wouldn't it?

(60 So may I close by saying that everything in the universe is continuous, - even a straight line.

(61 Throughout this work I may give differing figures or assessments about various things, but all age and time assessments are for demonstration purposes and are based more or less on data from the scientific establishment, and if the age of a star when it comes to the end of its life is 50 billion or 100 billion years old, that doesn't alter the validity of the overall theory I present of a workable foundation for the existence of the universe.


No comments:

Post a Comment