Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Re: Has Science Erred !

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Reyes on January 27, 2001 02:31:45 UTC

Hi phobos

Just read all that material you kindly took the time to make me aware of .

It seems to be the best explanation I have ever come across , However having seen so many it also fails to answer my question , I could accept it only if science postulated that there was an outside to the big bang .

I do not agree with science but having an open mind I believe that science is correct in its research according to how it has itself created it , here is where I believe gravity has been misleading science .

I have my own theories which I hope to gradually explain but I also would like others to understand and consider that I too also seek an understanding , I have to ask myself if I am correct and can only do that by being brave enough to ask the world through sites such as this one , me being aware of this then I guess I seek to be proven wrong .

The big bang hypothesis goes against intuition , what would be the cause to have accumulated the mass size of the primeval atom , how did it get there , how could gravity give it cause to create a big bang 15 billion years ago , why not 16 or 100 billion years ago , I know that these dates are not dismissed because one could say that the light has not yet reached us from that far back and so our vision is limited to our present horizon .

Anyway the fact remains that this big bang is what has been accepted but we cannot dismiss certain intuitive contradictions that goes against it ever occurring . Science states that there was no before the big bang , I understand but science does not want to accept a before
because it would then be admitting the act of creation , the big bang then seems to take an atheist view of existence which really does not help the world at all , well that is my opinion .

You were concieved in a womb and you grew for nine months due to having been fed through the umbilicle cord until eventually you were born .

You can consider that the womb is the endless void ,and the primevil atom is the cosmic egg that God created , the sperm then is the light energy of God and what I ask you to accept in my theory as the photon , now in order for you to grow you need energy which was passed on to you through the cord this then being the light wave that carries little packets of energy , the six days is to me the time that God took to concieve his creation and create light which on the seventh he rested and the nine months is the time that the cosmic egg had taken to be born which is the first expansion of the universe .

In order to understand my point then I have to express further by saying what had God created that had caused him to take six days , it could not be a primeval speck else we believers would lack faith in his abilities , so what I believe is that he created a huge sphere containing the entire mass of the universe that resided in an endless void , he then shed his energy upon it until it ignited , this then became the star of creation , this star then after the first billion years ejected material through a coronal mass ejection that eventually formed one or more spheres and circled the star of creation which then heated these newly formed spheres and in turn they too ignited and continued to replicate onwards , therefor creating the structure of the universe and a consecutive expansion cycle where each expansion cycle became smaller and smaller .

To expand on this then one could see that consecutive matter ejections is the cause to create hubble to think that the universe is expanding due to the red shifts of todays galaxies , the further he looked back then the bigger the stars were back then which would have ejected matter further .

Today the universe has finished expanding and only the remnants of the last cycle of super huge stars remain , these then reside in the center of our galaxies , the further one looks back then the wider the gap between the globular clusters of galaxies , and further still then nothing much than quasars which apparantly are either the remnants of the first cycle of stars or there after , or are the first huge stars .

The reason why today we have galaxies is because the consecutive cycle of stars upon reaching this final stage then were smaller so their ejected material could not concieve of ever reaching the tremendous distances like the first say ten huge star cycles or more .

These then orbit the central bulge of our galaxies to make up its structure that one can quite clearly see that such matter ejections has the ability to create the spiral arms of a barred galaxy or spiral galaxy or elliptical galaxy .

Today stars are much smaller within our galaxies and one notices that matter ejections can only occur in the form of super nova , my reason is that I believe that all stars have cold cores and burn from the outside inwards , thus this spherical heat creates a pressure which then creates a continous increase in the core density thereby making the effective use of its fuel which eventually the heat would become intensified due to the star core increasing in density by shrinking .
The outer heat not letting room for the escape of spent fuel would eventually breakthrough to create the sunspots as with our sun cycle , the reason is that once a star reaches the age and size of our sun then a cycle is created , the build up of pressure means that the core has been subjected to great pressure and has become dense , this then makes the star burn very efficiently and therefor is creating fusion , with this furocios burning building up an inner pressure then eventually it would breakthrough because of the old layer of fuel has almost diminished therefor the pressure is stronger and then sunspots are created , once the pressure has escaped then a new fuel layer is reached and the sun would then burn brighter as we notice today .

When the core of a star shrinks even further then one can plainly see (as just explained how a star burns) that this would continue until the core has such a compressed density that the star burns bright and white until the pressure can no longer be superceded by the heat hence the reason for super novas , this star burning process leading up to supernovae can only be detected today according to star size , but can be seen way back in the universe in galaxies .

Reflecting back to the super huge remnants in our galaxies then todays stars leave a pulsar or remnant , these then I believe to weight substantially but not as much as a teaspoon weighing in excess of 100 million tons , I do think that when these stars explode then the remnants are the cause of the many comets , you can imagine the packet of energy being compact and then being reheated by a star , well the same thin happens to the remnants in the center of our galaxies , the surrounding stars heat it up , the remnat gives out huge jets of xray and glows pushing the stars out until the fuel is spent and the pressure has been released which apparantly always seems to be from the north or south poles of the central bulges because the stars normally habit in a greater concentration around the equatorial regions .

I will finish shortly but I have to mention that our sun having sun spots which I believe are the relief valves and are the equivalant to the earths volcanos, then at one time when the sun was bigger and younger then it would have been redder due to stars at the beginning stage not being as hot hence the outer shell of a star would have chance to cool due to the coldness of space and the cold core pressure which then would form a molten crust therefor containing a pressure build up which eventually explains the reason for a coronal mass ejection and is the process by which the universe advanced to create its structure today , however this being so then a star like our sun ejecting matter would then be the reason for the origins of planets in our solar system , remember the sun was much bigger , as it rotated then the matter ejected would resemble similar to you turning as you squirted a toy water gun , plus if you line up the planets then such an ejection would be feasible to accept due to the line up structure , this to me also explains the origin of our moon .

If you want an explanation of gravity then I believe it to be the blocking of light by a mass , but I can express further , for now though I am a little tired so sleep on what I have said and I will finish the blackhole contradiction another time as I was hoping I could have done so today .


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins