1

New Theories / What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 11/05/2022 16:41:25 »

In the following article it is stated:
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole
"Astronomers led by researchers at the University of Arizona spotted the brilliant quasar about 13.03 billion light-years from Earth"
"This quasar, called J0313-1806, can be dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang (the universe at this time was a mere 5% of its current age), making it the most distant and earliest quasar ever found. This quasar also hosts a supermassive black hole that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns. "
So, we discuss about a SMBH that has a mass equal to 1.6 billion of our suns.
It had been dated back to just 670 million years after the Big Bang.
So how did this SMBH get so massive so quickly (as stated):
"Quasars like J0313-1806 that already accumulated such immensely massive black holes in such a short time in the early universe have puzzled scientists for years. While black holes can be created when stars explode in supernova and collapse and smaller black holes can merge, eventually building up mass, these ultra-massive early-universe quasars remain mysterious. How did they get so massive so quickly?"
They actually set a calculation:
"In fact, the team thinks that, even if the black hole formed as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang and grew as fast as possible, it would still only be 10,000 times as massive as our sun — and it's 1.6 billion times as massive. "
So what shall we understand from that data:
1. BH can't be created immediately after the big bang. At the best case it could start 100 M Y after the bang.
2. In 570 M years (670-100), at the best case it could get to 10K Sun mass.

Therefore, in order to get that 1.6 B (1,600,000K) Sun mass there is a need for
1,600,000K / 10K * 570 MY = 160,000 * 570MY = 91,200,000MY = 91,200 Billion years.

Hence, based on the data we can calculate that there is a need for 91,200 Billion years to set that kind of SMBH.

That observation PROVES that the idea that so massive SMBH could be created in just 670M after the bang is not realistic.
Therefore, the age of our real universe must be significantly bigger than just 13.8 B years.

However, as expected - those puzzled scientists don't accept any observation that contradicts the BBT.
Therefore, instead of accepting the data and agree that there is a fatal error in the Universe age based on the Big bang theory, now they look for some idea to close the gap.

"This tells you that no matter what you do, the seed of this black hole must have formed by a different mechanism," co-author Xiaohui Fan, a professor and associate head of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Arizona.

My message to this professor is as follow:

No, there is no different mechanism and there is no need to be puzzled.
You just have to open your eyes and accept the truth data AS IS.
Based on that you should understand that the age of the Universe must be significantly higher than 13.8 BY.
This should be the real meaning of truth!

Therefore, do you all agree that this message proves that the real age of the Universe should be very high or even infinity?
Or do you prefer to ignore the message and deal with the messenger?

2

New Theories / Density Wave - Is it real?

« on: 03/12/2021 16:37:09 »

The density wave should explain the spiral galaxy structure.
However, in the following article it is stated clearly that it can last for maximal ten rotation periods:

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4418&context=etd

"Currently, the theoretical situation is such that quite diverse views co-exist and there is no consensus that a single mechanism is responsible for all of the observed spiral patterns in galaxies. While some experts insist that spiral patterns must last only a galactic rotation or two, other theorists argue that swing amplification can give rise to superposed modes of the system which can last for up to ten rotation periods".

So, how could it be that the Milky Way last for so long time?
Our scientists claim that it takes 240MY for the sun to set one rotation. In the last 6 BY it had been set about 25 rotation periods.
Hence, how the Milky Way could last for 25 rotation periods while the upper limit of the density wave is just 10 rotation periods?

3

That CAN'T be true! / Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 07/11/2020 04:39:13 »

Let's start with the following simple question:
What is the size of the Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
How could it be?
I do recall that just few years ago our scientists have claimed that it is finite.
They even told us that the maximal size of our Universe might be 92 BLY (which is called - Observable Universe).
Few weeks ago I had been told that it is finite but unbounded which means a finite Universe without End.
Now it becomes Infinite Universe expanding into itself.

Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."

However, in the following article it is stated that the Big bang started at singularity:

https://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."
Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."

So, please:
What is the real size of our current Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
If it is finite - Can you specify the real size?
If it is infinite – then how an infinite Universe could expand into itself?
How the Big Bang happened everywhere while it took place at singularity point According to the standard theory?
If it is infinite today, then how it could be at singularity 13.8 BY ago?

That issue of size is critical for the CMBR which had been set during the Era Of Recombination
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/firstLight.html
"This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The Universe went from being opaque to transparent at this point. Light had formerly been stopped from traveling freely because it would frequently scatter off the free electrons. Now that the free electrons were bound to protons, light was no longer being impeded. "The era of recombination" is the earliest point in our cosmic history to which we can look back with any form of light. This is what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background today"

If the Big Bang took place everywhere, then during the Era of recombination the Universe was already everywhere.
If it was already everywhere then how the expansion could reduce the CMBR temp while it was already everywhere as it was "infinite universe expanding into itself"

Don't you agree that if the Universe is infinite today - it must be infinite at the Big bang moment?
If it is expanding into itself - how that process could reduce the CMBR temp?

Sorry – If our scientists don't know even the basic understanding about the real size of our Universe, (finite or infinite), then how do they know for sure that the whole BBT is correct?

4

New Theories / Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 18/03/2020 19:21:42 »

Theory D

1. Introduction
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
The ability of the BH/SMBH to generate new particle pair is the foundation for the evolvement of our Universe
Therefore, the Universe is increasing its mass and its size over time.
Theory D is based on the following pillars:
Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Newton and Einstein.
No dark matter or dark energy is needed for this theory. What we see is what we have.
No need for inflation, no need for expansion and no need for the BBT.
If we could go back in time (to the infinity) we would find that only one BH was needed to generate our wonderful infinite Universe.
I will introduce the whole theory step by step.

2. Fred Hoyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."
"Hoyle,  unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"
Fred Hoyle estimated that galaxies should have the ability to produce new matter, but he did not foresee the recent developments and the idea of particle accelerator, and therefore couldn't explain how new mass had been created. At his time our scientists couldn't observe the ejection of mass from the accretion disc around the SMBH.

3. The "Universal Darwinism
Universal Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
"Universal Darwinism - The idea is to formulate a generalized version of the mechanisms… so that they can be applied to explain evolution in a wide variety of other domains"
The first requirement in Darwin approach is that the pattern can "survive" (maintain, be retained) long enough or "reproduce"
The Big bang isn't a reproduce pattern. Therefore it doesn't meet even the basic requirement for the Darwinism approach. Hence, if Darwin was living today, he would probably reject the Big bang theory.

4. Albert Einstein
To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.
He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder""
https://owlcation.com/stem/Einstiens-Cosmolgical-Constant-and-the-Expansion-of-the-Universe
"In fact, he felt it was his “greatest blunder” which had no merit in science. That supposed mistake turns out to be the cosmological constant"
Therefore, Einstein has told us clear and laud that it is forbidden to use that cosmological constant in his formula. By using that constant, we actually contradict his formula. So, we can't call it Einstein formula while we are using there a constant that is considered as his "greatest blunder".
Without that cosmological constant, there is no mathematical confirmation for the BBT.
That shows that the mathematical confirmation for the BBT is based on Einstein greatest blunder.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that constant in Einstein formula, than they shouldn't call it "Einstein formula" anymore!!!

5. The universal common ancestor by Darwin
The "universal common ancestor" theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago".
However, this "single-celled organism" must have the ability to multiply/generate other organism cell.
In the same token, as all life on Earth had been evolved from a single-celled organism, than all the variety of matter, galaxies, BH, SMBH, Stars, Planets...have been evolved from a Single cell of matter.
That "Single cell of matter" is the First matter that had been created in the whole Universe. However, it must also have the ability to multiply/generate other cell of matter
Therefore, everything we see in our Universe is a direct outcome from that first single cell of matter..
We know that a BH/SMBH can generate a new Particle pair.
We also know that the accretion disc around a SMBH is full with hot plasma (10^9 c) that orbiting at 0.3 speed of light.
Our scientists call it: "accretion disc" as they wish to believe that it accretes matter from outside. However, they clearly see that the matter in this disc is actually ejected outwards. Therefore, this disc should be called - Excretion Disc
So, the SMBH in our galaxy is actually generates new matter that is ejected outwards from its accretion disc (or actually from its excretion disc).
Therefore, we can claim that the first BH/SMBH in the Universe could be considered as the first Single cell of matter that had the ability to generate new matter.
The creation of that first BH/SMBH could be explained by some sort of Big Bang (as it is in our BBT Theory) or small bang. However, In the BBT, all the matter in the whole Universe had to be created in that Big Bang. In Theory-D only a single BH is needed for the creation of the whole infinite Universe.

6. Repeatable - Natural activity
Any nature activity must be repeatable. For example: Rain, morning, evening, supernova birth and even death.
Steady state by wiki: "In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands". This is a repeatable activity.
Theory D is based on this idea. Therefore, it meets the criteria of natural activity and Darwinism approach.
However, The Big bang took place only once in the History of the Universe. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria of natural activity.

7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?

8. Mass v.s Energy in the BBT
Einstein has stated that mass can be converted to Energy by:
E = mc^2
In the same token we can claim that Energy can be converted to mass
m = E / c^2
We can convert Atom mass to energy by a bang. We call it Atom bomb or fusion. However, can we convert energy to atom?
Let's verify the mass/energy in one electron:
Its energy is - 0.511 MeV. That electron represents an energy cell with mass of 9.1093×10^−31 kg.
Therefore, in order to create a single particle, somehow we need to find the source of energy for that mass creation and a special process is needed.
How a bang by itself can convert heat or density into real Atom without real source of energy and especially without acceleration and electromagnetism?

9. Divine power?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the process before the big bang? If they don't have any responsibility for that, than who is taking care about the time before that Big bang? Do we need to think about some divine power?
If a divine power is needed, why do we need the BBT? Why can't we just accept the bible as is?
If they can't clearly explain the source for the creation of the whole mass in the Universe due to the Big Bang, than this theory should be set in the garbage of the history.

10. SMBH generates magnetic field
Black Holes & Time Warps states that a spinning black hole with a net electric charge will have a magnetic field.
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. 
The spin of the SMBH generates ultra powerful magnetic field. 
"A team of researchers has measured the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the suppermassive black hole at the center of NGC 1052."
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/
Two particle jets shoot out from the heart of active galaxy NGC 1052 at the speed of light, apparently originating in the vicinity of a massive black hole.
The team concludes that the magnetic fields provide enough magnetic energy to power the twin jets.
Similar particle jet stream stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
"The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the suppermassive black hole.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
In order to blow those kind of particles jet stream to that distance of 27,000 LY  it is clear that an Ultra Magnetic field is needed.
ONLY SMBH Can generate that kind of magnetic field!!!

5

New Theories / New mass creation around the SMBH

« on: 14/03/2020 06:48:14 »

In this thread I would like to explain how the new mass creation around the SMBH works and why there is no contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics:

Let's start with magnetic field that is generated by the spinning SMBH:

1. Magnetic Field
Black Holes & Time Warps states that a spinning black hole with a net electric charge will have a magnetic field.

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. 
The spin of the SMBH generates ultra powerful magnetic field. 
"A team of researchers has measured the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the suppermassive black hole at the center of NGC 1052."
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/
Two particle jets shoot out from the heart of active galaxy NGC 1052 at the speed of light, apparently originating in the vicinity of a massive black hole.
The team concludes that the magnetic fields provide enough magnetic energy to power the twin jets.
Similar particle jet stream stretches 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
"The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the suppermassive black hole.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
In order to blow those kind of particles jet stream to that distance of 27,000 LY  it is clear that an Ultra Magnetic field is needed.
ONLY a spinning SMBH can generate that kind of magnetic field!!!

2. New mass creation process:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created around a BH or SMBH.
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the BH
Let's assume that we are looking down on the most inwards side of the accretion disk (or even below) from above.
Let's also assume that electron and positron had been created at some radius below the inmost accretion ring. At the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
Please remember that at the moment of creation, the new created particles pair must fully meet the orbital speed for the attitude (or radius) from the SMBH.  It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif

On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.   
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.

3. Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle as stated by kryptid:

If 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the hole in order to produce a positron-electron pair, then the black hole can only get 0.511 MeV of that energy back by consuming one of the particles. It would only get back half of the energy that it expended.

Any method you use to try to get a system to create net energy is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. You might as well stop trying.

However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.

However, It also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics as was assumed by Kryptid:

Even if you do have a valid way of getting a black hole to produce matter and eject it the way you want it to, that still ignores the fact that a black hole cannot generate unlimited mass-energy. The mechanisms are irrelevant. The specifics are unimportant. The first law of thermodynamics simply won't let your model work. No amount of figuring will allow you to get more mass-energy out of the black hole than was there to begin with. Doing so would violate the first law by definition.

Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.

Conclusions:
As the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

6

New Theories / Finite or Infinite Universe?

« on: 06/02/2020 18:08:03 »

What is the real size of our Universe?
Is it Finite or Infinite?
Few years ago, our scientists were positively sure that the Universe is finite.
They had the impression that as the Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago, the Universe couldn't be infinite.
I do recall that they have even estimated that the maximal size of the universe is about 92 BLY.
However, now they assume that it could be/is infinite.
Why is it?
What kind of evidence/observation they have discovered to support that new idea?

7

New Theories / How gravity works in spiral galaxy?

« on: 24/11/2018 08:30:27 »

Further our discussion about new matter creation at the excretion disc of the Milky way:
Please see: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75261.40

I wonder why any new particle/Atom/Molecular is drifting outwards from the excretion disc of the milky way.
Let's look at the following formula for gravity force:
F = G * M * m / R^2
M = The mass of the SMBH
m = The mass of the particle/Atom/Molecular.

Based on this formula there is no change in the gravity force over time.
Hence, by definition each new atom has to stay at the same radius forever.

So how can we justify the drifting outwards mechanism of any new particle/Atom/Molecular?

Could it be that something is missing in the following formula:
F = G * M * m / R^2
Could it be that over time there is a change in the gravity force? (Even if it is only a very minor change).
Do you know that the American continent is drifting away from the European continent by only 1.5 cm per year.
In the past they were fully connected.
So, just based on that small change per year, we have got the vast ocean between those two continents after long time.
We know that:
1. The moon is drifting away from the Earth (by about 1.5 cm per year)
2. The Earth is also drifting away from the Sun.
3. All the planets in the solar system are drifting away from the Sun.
4. All/Most of the moons are drifting away from their host planet.

But objects can also drift inwards.
There are plenty of orbital objects (satellites...) around the Earth that drift inwards and eventually fall down.
Hence, could it be that gravity force must be changed over time?
Actually, if we think about it, it is clear that nothing can stay the same forever. Although there is no friction in space, it seems to me that even gravity can't stay the same forever.
There must be some small change in gravity force over time (even very small change over very long time)
So, could it be that we have to use the following formula:
F = G * M * m / R^2 +/- F(t)
F(t) = represents the change in the gravity force over time.
If the object is in orbital cycle which is too close to the host, the value of F(t) must be positive.
However, if the radius is long enough, the value must be negative.

So, with regards to our solar system:
All the planets are located far enough from the Sun.
Therefore, the value of F(t) for each one of them must be negative. Hence, over time (long enough), the gravity force on each planet is decreasing. In order to compensate that decreasing in gravity force, the planet must drift outwards.

In the same token, could it be that each particle in the plasma is located long enough from the SMBH.
Therefore, its F(t) is negative.
If so, the total gravity force on each particle in the plasma is decreasing over time.
That decreasing gravity force drifts away the particle from the center.

Do you agree with that?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is needed to create new atoms in the Universe?

« on: 04/11/2018 07:37:11 »

What is needed to create new Atom?
Could it be: High temp? High pressure? High velocity? High magnetic/electric power?
Where can we find all of those elements is our Universe?
Could it be that the accretion disc of the SMBH (in spiral galaxy) supports all of those requirements?.
Please do not confuse it with accretion disc of any kind of star/s.
With regards to the plasma at the accretion disc.
Do you agree that it is very unique?
The Temperature of that plasma is as high as 10 ^9 c - much higher than the core of the Sun which is only 10 ^6 c.
It orbits at almost the speed of light.
It face a huge pressure due to the SMBH gravity force.
The magnetic /electric power there is very high.
The structure of the plasma is changing as we go outwards.
In the most inwards side we only see particles which could be the building blocks for an Atom, while at the outer side we clearly see Atoms and even molecular.
So, could it be that the huge gravity force of the SMBH is transformed into a power which can create new quarks, new Protons & Neutrons, New Atoms and all the variety of molecular?
We see clearly that some of the mass in the accretion disc are ejected out.
However, there is no evidence for any sort of mass which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc.
Which means - that the accretion disc ejects mass without getting any mass from the outer side.
If that is correct, do you agree that the only explanation for that is - new mass creation in the accretion disc?
What kind of elements do we see in the big gas clouds around that Accretion disc?
Do we see there mainly Hydrogen Atoms and wide variety of Molecular?
Do we see new star forming activity in those gas clouds?
So, can we assume that those gas clouded which had been ejected from the accretion disc, start their activity to form new stars which will be part of our mighty spiral galaxy?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is it feasible to create higgs boson without accelerator?

« on: 09/09/2018 13:18:48 »

Based on the following:

The rightmost particles are unstable, and quickly decay into the stable particles to the left.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_(particle_physics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The other quarks have very high energies, and can only be created for an instant in our most powerful particle accelerators. These emulate the extreme energies that existed for a moment during the Big Bang, when these heavy particles would have been stable (for a moment).

The CERN accelerator has the requested magnetic power to run the beam at ultra high speed in order to create the higgs boson.
So, is it feasible to create higgs boson by pure/infinite energy, without using accelerator and magnetic power?

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Could it be that gravity by itself can explain the stracture of spiral galaxy?

« on: 17/06/2018 20:39:29 »

Could it be that gravity by itself can explain the stracture of spiral galaxy?

Please read and advise.

Could it be that our scientists have missed the main structure of spiral galaxy?
They only see spiral arms.But this is just one element in the galaxy.
Why they can't see that there are bridges and branches between the arms?
So, the spiral galaxy is a complex of structure with few spiral arms but with many bridges and branches.
Could it be that gravity force leads the whole activity in the galaxy?
We all know that Gravity works locally, while locally is relativity!!!
Therefore, as the moon orbits around the Earth/moon center of mass, the Sun orbits around the local arm center of mass.
As the Earth/moon center of mass orbits around the Sun, the Sun' local center of mass orbits around the center of the galaxy.
So, could it be that the Sun doesn't orbit around the galaxy but it orbits around a local center of mass?
Please look at the following:
http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg
Do you agree that it shows that the Sun orbits around a local center of mass in the Spiral arm?
We see clearly that as it orbits this center, it moves in and out to the galactic center and also up and down to the disc.
Could it be that the only explanation for that is a simple orbital cycle?
I really wonder how could it be that our scientists have failed to see this key element?
However, this is just part of the story.
Let's assume that our Sun also drifts outwards from the Center.
Therefore, its real velocity is not identical to the spiral arm velocity.
Actually, if we could force the arm to stay at one location, we should see that as the Sun drifts outwards, it can still have a significant velocity. We should also see that the Sun sets a nice orbital cycle around its local center of mass.
Hence, could it be that although the spiral arm orbits at lower velocity around the center of the galaxy, the Sun can gain higher velocity and still stay in the spiral arm which is based on gravity dense?
We can think about it as some sort of gravity highway:
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/...ity+Wave+Model
However, the cars must stay at the gravity roads. From time to time they can move to other highway by using bridges and branches, but in general they have to stay at the road at any given moment.
Therefore, could it be that the SMBH has no real effect on the velocity of a star which is located far away in one of those roads and there is no real need for dark matter to keep the Sun in its orbital cycle?
Hence, the stars can orbit at fairly constant speed (depending on their location in the gravity road) without any issue for winding problem.
Do you agree with that?

11

New Theories / Sun motion in the galaxy V.S Moon Motion in the solar system

« on: 20/04/2018 18:30:54 »

Please look at the following motion of the Sun in the galaxy:

http://www.biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg

http://www.biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_System_and_Galaxy.html

It has a swing motion of 15Km/s - 20Km/s onward and backward to/from the galactic center.
And it also has a swinng motion of 5Km/s - 7Km/s upward and downward from the galactic disc.
It looks as a motion of a spring or a screw.
Why is it?

For Up Down it is stated that this bobbing motion is due to the galactic disc gravity.
However, I couldn't find any real answer for the onward and backward motion to/from the galactic center.
Some might think that it just represents a normal elliptical orbit (Perihelion/Aphelion). However, in a real Kepler orbit, there is only one Perihelion and one Aphelion per one cycle.
The Sun sets four Perihelion/Aphelion cycles in order to complete just one cycle around the center of the galaxy.
Therefore, it is quite clear the those four Perihelion/Aphelion cycles can't be represented by any sort of elliptical orbit.

So, Let's compare it to the moon orbit
http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_s-shaped_orbit.gif
The moon motion is mainly onward and backward to/from the Sun.
But it is also moving up and down from the Earth/sun disc.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_s-shaped_orbit_around_earth_1.jpg

Therefore, we see that as the moon orbits around the Sun, it also sets the two swing motions:
1. onward and backward
2.  upward and downward.

The main difference is the ratio in the amplitude of those two swings.
The swing motion ratio in the Sun is:
Tan X = 7/20 = 0.35
X = 19 Degrees
Hence, technically if the Lunar Plane (moon/Earth orbit disc) was 19 Degrees from the Earth/Sun disc, we should get the same Swing ratio as the Sun does while it orbits around the center of the galaxy.
Conclusions:
With regards to the moon orbits around the Sun:
The moon orbits around the Earth/moon center of mass. This center of mass orbits around the Sun.
If the Earth was Invisible, and we were standing in a nearby solar system, we could see that the Moon Swing motions around the Sun is similar to the Sun swing motions around the center of the galaxy. (but not at the same amplitude and ratio).

Hence, with regards to the Sun Orbits around the center of the galaxy:
After all of this introduction, why can't we assume that the Sun orbits around some local invisible center of mass, and this local center of mass orbits around the center of the milky way?

This Motion is critical.
Based on this motion we can solve the enigma of Spiral galaxy without any need for dark matter.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why might stars and planets be ejected from the Milky Way galaxy disc?

« on: 19/04/2018 08:33:03 »

Why stars and planets are ejected out from the Milky Way galaxy disc?

Please see the following:

phys.org/news/2012-03-runaway-planets-fraction.html

"Seven years ago, astronomers boggled when they found the first runaway star flying out of our Galaxy at a speed of 1.5 million miles per hour."

"New research shows that the answer is yes. Not only do runaway planets exist, but some of them zoom through space at a few percent of the speed of light - up to 30 million miles per hour."

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the radius of the accretion Disc in the Milky Way Galaxy?

« on: 14/04/2018 09:48:43 »

What is the radius of the accretion Disc in the Milky Way Galaxy?