BIG BANG - EXPANSION / INFLATION - DARK ENERGY
There is none of that.
There was no Big Bang. What Hubble saw was a fluke of light which is explained further in the Chapter on Light.. He thought it was true red shift indicating that distant galaxies were heading away from Earth. And that it was happening in all directions at once. As if the earth smelled bad or something. Cause we should not be here in the middle at all if there was a Big Bang.
The discovery was announced but shortly thereafter Hubble realized it was not what was happening. I guess he realized that the idea of the cosmos expanding outward from earth was foolish. Like we were in the exact center of the universe. And that it was a false indication given by the light itself. In any case he tried in vain to stop the idea of cosmic expansion. But the newspapers had already gotten onto the really catchy Big Bang term and the public really liked it. So it stayed. The public loves sci-fi you know. :) And now it’s taught in colleges as mainstream by people who call themselves scientists.
The Big Bang always was a dumb idea. Where it happened couldn’t be found, what was there before, what made it happen, how could everything come from nothing. It seems some of those mainstreamers were meeting at 4:20 pm years and years ago. But there is hope... :)
THE BIG BOUNCE
They are introducing the Big Bounce.
There’s no Big Bang to this one. But it’s another catchy phrase that the public will be sure to love. It’s where the cosmos has been expanding and contracting forever. It’s still not right. but at least they finally got the forever part right.
They have even ‘discovered’ a sound of some sort from out there somewhere.. A tone or noise that signals the cosmos when to change directions. lol I believe the news of this came shortly after one of those 4:20 pm meetings cosmologists hold on occasi// fairly often... :)
But in any case, once the public is over the shock and dismay of no more Big Bang, I’m sure they’ll be getting rid of the huffin’ and puffin’ too. Sacred cows are hard to kill. It has to be done in stages.
What Hubble really discovered is that light was dying as it got to the end of it’s 45 bly journey to earth. It was giving the ‘appearance’ of red shift because of that. That shouldn't be any big surprise to anyone since we do know we live in the middle of a visible ‘bubble’, That the light from the edge of our visible universe can only travel 45 billion light year miles and then it just goes out. And I’m sure not like a switch was flipped.
They finally did give up on trying to explain that one, so to cover the inexplicable idea of the Big Bang not having a real location, they changed the idea of expansion to inflation. Showing us that on the surface of a balloon none the less, that the planets, suns, etc. were expanding equally from each other. That there was no actual center. That it was happenings all over the place at once.
But then I thought, what if we let the air out. ?
The next step of the Expansion / Inflation saga is that they found this so called red shift to be increasing faster and faster from the most distant galaxies.
To solve that problem and save the Big Bang and Cosmic Expansion idea they came up with Dark Energy. A totally unknown and inexplicable force to be driving these massive galaxies faster and faster away from us. And intact too. An amazing feat that it isn’t pushing small things faster, or contorting the galaxies. It just picks up the galaxies and carries them away as a package. So so the story goes that some day the cosmos will be nothing but black to us. :/
So there just has to be something out there doing that., right..? Not..!
To me that is another unthinking mainstream conclusion with no logic nor consideration of other possible answers. For instance, how far into that ten billion trillion times larger unseen portion of the universe would you have to go for everything to already be moving faster than light.? Which is not possible in the first place. And for it to still be creating more space to fit INFINITY into.? :)
Where do these come from..?? Maybe a cosmos sized rabbit hole.?
But we need to get back to reality...
I certainly expect the faster and faster bit can be explained by the normal and less sensational fact of a not expanding at all cosmos.
As already mentioned and is totally obvious, precursor electrons do lose the ability to produce light after traveling that 45 billion light years from the edge of our visible universe.
And it’s likely they simply slow somewhat over that distance.., and likely it’s exponential or at least more quickly towards the end of their ability to create light.
They say that Dark Energy suddenly started to expand the universe faster and faster at a point about six or seven billion years ago.
What a coincidence. If that is the point where these incoming precursor electrons do start to degrade more quickly.., I would hazard a guess that they have been losing energy and speed and their blueshifted high end frequencies all along in a linear fashion, raising the visible spectrum ever so slightly. But at the point where the faster and faster starts.., would be where they start cutting into the actual visible waves, instead of just blue shifting the entire spectrum upward. This would give the longer visible waves more prominence. Empasizing what's left of the visible range alone.
It seems this Dark Energy ‘force’ is another nothing. Another illusion to support the Einstein religion.
BLACK HOLES VS WHITE HOLES
There are many billions of galaxies in the cosmos. Each galaxy comprised of billions of stars, planets, moons, etc. circling a center called a black hole.
With most if not all of these objects appearing to be spiraling in toward the center of their particular galaxy in a whirlpool type movement. It has been believed that at the center of galaxies there are objects with super strong gravity called black holes that suck in all the surrounding stars and such into itself. That the suns and such on the outside edge would be slowly drawn closer and closer, moving faster and faster into that 'black hole' center. But this is all basic hogwash.
We will list the reasons against them and then the reasons that they are in fact White Holes.
Where did all this super gravity comel from. How is it possible to have that much gravity just because a star burned out and collapsed.? If anything it would have burned and blown off much of its mass and gravity. It may become smaller and denser but that doesn’t increase it’s attracton strength.
And isn't it said that black holes tear atoms apart? Since atoms produce gravity but they're torn apart, where would the hole's gravity come from? Even with a massive compression to the size of a golf ball, and if the atoms were still somehow working, how is it possible for that golf ball to have any more gravity than it did when it was still the original giant star or whatever to begin with. Gravity is always measured from the center out and there is still a center.
Then there is the question on how and why those incoming suns from all previous points around the collapsed star would know they had to plot a wide sweeping curve to come in at the very end of the outer most spiral of the galaxy to ‘get in line’ to to speak. To wait their turn at being destroyed.
If it were gravity pulling them would they not come directly in from wherever they were in the first place..? Or if not drawn straight in, to at least to form their own decreasing orbital plane around the hole irregardless of it’s aspect to the hole..? . What would cause an incoming sun to divert its course in oder to align itself with the flat plane of the black hole's universe..? To queue up in other words..? And of course how did the suns come out there in the first place?. :)
And more so, it is known that the further out one looks.., ie, the further back in ‘time’.., galaxies generally appear to be smaller. One reason may be that we are seeing the younger versions of them before the light of their of their current size has had a chance to reach us. Would the reverse hold true if they were black holes..? Wouldn’t it indicate they were nearly done with their job of destroying all those previously much larger galaxies.
Nahh. I don’t think so. :/
And the clincher with the whirlpool idea is that recently the furthest out spiral arms of galaxies were found to be rotating at the same speed as those closer to the center. That credit goes to Astrologer Vera Rubin's 1974 discovery. In other words there is no indication that the outer suns etc. are actually being drawn faster and faster to the center. In fact, it indicates quite the reverse.
More that galaxies are moving as a whole, like a solid disk.
Like a lawn sprinkler. With a center nozzle spewing water droplets outward as it spins around. All the droplets of water being thrown straight out from the center and in the process forming the appearance of spiral arms... With every rotation forming another spiral that joins those already moving outward.
This idea is supported by our own sun. It emits 'solar wind'. Solar wind consists of electrons, protons and other parts and particles that atoms are built from. So it is not a big jump to believe that much more massive sources of solar winds have been spreading the building blocks of atoms in much the same way as your lawn sprinkler spreads the water. These components then come together in ways to make atoms, which build nebula suns, planets, etc., which in turn form a galaxy around that source.
And lastly..? Our own Milky Way, about the biggest galaxy in the visible universe, is said to have a dead black hole at it’s center. Why would it die if it had so much to eat..? More than likely it is a dead ‘White Hole’ that just ran out of material to make the Milky Way any bigger...
So are there really any black holes..? Might they be better called White Holes? Creating galaxies that are expanding and growing larger..? I think so.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation hiss or white noise that is thought, or wished by some, to be left over residue or echo from the Big Bang is not likely. Because there was no Big Bang.
The hiss is much, much more likely to be coming from all the electron’s outgoing pilot wavelengths emitted on their trips in than never quite made it to a surface to become anything useful, like the visible light and radio waves we all know and love. And it would include the electrons that have come from beyond the visible universe with their spectrum now cut down to below the visible.
Basically that it comes from the totality of all useless frequencies that come to us from all sources, including what electrons have radiated out in all directions around them as they travel. We know they do that.
THE STRONG FORCE
Protons do not need it.
The strong force does not exist either. It is not needed to hold atom’s nuclei together. Nature does not produce duplicates. Leaves, snowflakes, etc. are all different. So would be the protons in their charges of positivism.. One having more than another will be positive to it and one having less will be negative to one with more. They will create a pecking order and form a chain of least positive to most positive, similar to a bar magnet, and curl up into a ball with the most positive in the middle.
Same with the electrons. They are not all the exact cookie cutter negative value. They are each their own minutely different strength from the others and therefore find their own separate orbital distance from the nucleus. They are not a cloud, blur, or buzz. There is no probability factor to think about. They are particles with mass after all. And the cosmos knows what it's doing. We're just starting to learn...
FASTER THAN LIGHT
It is physically impossible.
I’ve done a little checking and is seems electrons have been measured 2200 meters per second. But one the other hand I’ve read where they run to close to the speed of light within their orbits…
So it seems Atoms are not constructed to withstand more than a small percentage of ‘c’, the speed of light. I would say no more than ten to twenty percent of it, if that.
Their electrons are already said to be traveling at near the speed of light in their orbits.. So how close is ‘near’..? As the nucleus would be increasing it's speed through the cosmos, the electrons in their orbits, and traveling more or less in the opposite direction to the nucleus, their combined speeds of both directions would cause the electrons to reach escape velocity.
Even with all it’s neutrons on full time proton duty to increase that attraction… they would go streaming out the rear end of the atom, and soon the protons of the nucleus would be feeling very lonely. The atom would be returning to star dust.
So when it is said that mass cannot exceed the speed of light, it is not just because we haven't developed the means as yet... It means mass just can not, does not, and will not travel faster than light.
Would you care to be the first to try..?
I’ll just say good-by now. :)
Not necessarily CO-2 buildup.
There is much to say it is the salinity of the oceans.
We'll start at the beginning, before the last great Ice Age that was said to have ended 13,000 years ago.
In the era there were continents and oceans and the weather as Mother Nature intended. No man made interference iow. There were cycles and seasons as the sun went round the sun, more or less as it does still. Water was evaporated from the seas of the world, minus the salt, and returned as rain. On the continents it formed rivers and ran back into the sea. Everything was a constant reoccurring cycle.
Then for some unknown reason the Ice Age started. We do have to start this somewhere you know. And it starting is another subject anyway. Or maybe just a point of continuing cycles. ?
So as the cold increased and the rain turned to snow that did not melt., it packed down into ice and glaciers that eventually ended up being miles thick. The buildup continued moving south here in the U.S. digging out the Great Lakes and others. It pushed gigantic house sized boulders down to the latitude of the Carolinas. And the more the ice mass grew the more fresh water was kept on the continents to not make it back to the seas.
So sea levels lowered to what appears to be even below the edges of the continental shelves. There are river beds that extend to these edges that we can see underwater today
And the seas became much saltier... Their density increased, the ocean currents were redirected, and eventually it built up heat.
As the seas became warmer they start melting the built up ice. All along the coastlines that were in the grip of the Ice Age around the globe. As warming progressed the fresh water melting from the huge ice buildups started running to the much lowered sea level. It carved those underwater river channels that we can see today that run out beyond our current coastlines to the edge of the continental shelves. As the ice melted the sea levels rose and the salinity dropped. The heating of the seas slowed and eventually the climate in general got us ***almost*** back to normal 13,000 years ago.
But that's not where it ends...
Now we have the Great Lakes that had been dug out by the ice and they're holding back 21 percent of the world's fresh water, along with many other lakes scraped out up through Canada. That's where the almost comes in. It never did get back to pre ice-age ‘nice’ normal. There was still a lot of fresh water being held back in these new dug out areas. So it never got totally back up to those pre iceage temperatures. And over the past 13,000 years we've just gotten used to a slightly colder climate.
And now.., for the past 100 years or more, the world has been been building dams to hold back so much more fresh water. The Army Corp of Engineers have built hundreds of dams in the country. They own and control over 600 at the present time. Long canyons full of what was the rain that was meant to be returned to the sea. China has recently built the Three Gorges dam. I believe it's the largest dam in the world now... Not to mention what they've done in other parts of the world. Aswan and all the other large and major dams that have been built.
There are 57,000 large dams, higher thatn a four story building and there are more than 300 major dams that are over 50 stories high.
There were more than 3700 dams planned or under construction as of 2014. That could be blocking 20 percent of free flowing river water by 20 percent by now.. They consume a land area of 400,000 sq kilometers, the size of California and the volume of water held back is 10,000 cubic kilometers. Five times the volume of all river water.
So with all of them holding back tremendous amounts of fresh water from the sea again.., this happening over the last 100 years., the seas are becoming saltier and denser again. Ocean currents are changing and the seas are warming up accordingly
I just watched a 40 video from Reuters of the calving of a Greenland Glacier where a piece the size of lower Manhattan broke off. So Mother Nature may be trying to fix the problem by diluting the oceans with fresh water from the Antarctica and Greenland Ice Caps. And I’ve read too that in the last 40 years there has been a significant increase of ocean salinity within the topics while the poles are less salty. It looks like melting those north and south ice fields is sort of working. We may be warming up from what we’ve gotten used to over the last few thousand years but now in exchange for all the dam building, Mother Nature is trying to keep us from cooking.
If that's it, it is not likely to continue past the ‘nice’ normal point of pre Ice Age... And I guess we ‘sort of’ need the dams.., so we’ll have to adapt as we go. I hope. :)
((((( To hopefully be worked on in the near future. )))))
There is no Photo-Electric Effect.
Why it does not tarnish.
Ferris vs Non Ferris
Clockwise / Counter Clockwise