Jump to content

Steady state theory


David Levy
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can summerize all you want David Levi, but you'll never be able to convince anyone with a fifth grade understanding of math and science, because they'll see all the holes in your summary.

Saying something is so does not constitute proof, Mr Levi, and if you think so then I assume your level of education is less than fifth grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's summarize the outcome:

 

1. Steady state – This is the correct theory!!! (with some adaptation)

 

2. Mass creation – in the center of the spiral galaxy. Starting from hydrogen to all the known atoms and molecules– including water and silicates. No need for supernova for generating all the known atoms and molecules.

 

3. Star birth – Each star collects its matter which had been generated – as a snow ball.

 

4. Disc Shape system –In any disc shape system the stars are moving outwards!!! Therefore, also the Earth is moving away from the sun and the sun is moving away from the galaxy center.

 

5. Dark matter - The spiral arms are responsible for the high speed of the stars in the galaxy. Therefore, there is no need for dark Matter.

 

6. New spiral galaxy - A new spiral galaxy is generated from some sort of a seed (which might be a megnator or quasar).

 

7. Universe expending -Each new spiral galaxy is drifting away from the Mother' spiral galaxy. Therefore, at the far end of the universe, the galaxies are moving at ultra high speed, and also the galaxies are moving in all directions.

 

8. Big Bang – It's a pure fantasy.

 

9. Universe life – The life of the universe is much... much longer from 13.75 Billion years. It is billion over billion life years.

 

Funny how these wild speculations stands without getting debunked by more of the experts around here.

 

David Levy, what is your first language? Your comments are written with a foreign sound. Your misimpressions resulted because you misinterpreted Wikipedia describing the metallicity of stars in a galaxy. Stars do not move from the center of a galaxy outward. Galaxies do not fly apart, or after Billions of years their stars would be spread far from their galaxy centers. Your declaration that the Big Bang is "pure fantasy" is your pure delusion. You have nothing to support your wild speculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how these wild speculations stands without getting debunked by more of the experts around here.

 

 

They have been. Often. It's just David pays no attention to anything anyone says.

 

It's typical crank behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7. Universe expending -Each new spiral galaxy is drifting away from the Mother' spiral galaxy. Therefore, at the far end of the universe, the galaxies are moving at ultra high speed, and also the galaxies are moving in all directions.

 

 

Why redshift is not exact evidence of the Universe expansion?

1) redshift = Universe expansion

2) redshift = other interference phenomena (plasma)

3) redshift = very old light phenomena - not proved

4) redshift = others

which one is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already proved that the stars in a spiral galaxy are moving outwards. That conclusion is based on information which is available at Wikipedia. It's not a dream. It's solid evidence. As an outcome, it is clear that some of the current leading theories aren't correct. Especially – the "big bang"

 

Just 50 years ago, the science believed that the moon was always in the same distance from earth. But, when NASA had measured the distance accurately, we had discovered that the moon is drifting outwards from Earth. Later on thescience came with the idea that it is drifting outwards because of the Tidal…Why they didn't know about this drift direction before getting the results from NASA???

 

Therefore, there must be a way to verify this valuable info. Why NASA does not check the drifting direction of the stars in a spiral galaxy? Why the do not check the drifting direction of stars in the solar system or even at any Disc shape system?

 

I have based my conclusions on Darwin concept. I'm sure that he would reject the Big bang Theory.

 

Therefore– the big bang is a pure fantasy. Please also see the following article:

 

 

THE "BIGBANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

http://whatreallyhap...TICLES/bang.php

 

The Big Bang, as currentlydescribed, could not have produced the universe as we see it today….

 

Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be aworkable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation thatsuper massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light couldnot escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entireuniverse existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object ofall, the universe could not be born….

 

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the"Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from theprimordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. LikeAristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiationassumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternativeexplanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heraldedas final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in thattheory celebrated.

 

 

Edited by David Levy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE "BIGBANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

http://whatreallyhap...TICLES/bang.php

 

There are so many things wrong with this article that it's either really old, deliberately misrepresenting the science, or the chap that wrote it doesn't know what he's speaking of.

 

Could be all three, or any combination thereof.

 

In any case, there are several fundamental problems - too many to list really. As a source, it's pure bunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

This thread was moved to speculation because it's not mainstream science. Sense is absolutely needed, as is described by the rules of the speculation forum.

The OP is still required to provide scientific evidence, references, and full answers to counter points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

David Levy: If I understand correctly, your rationale presumes an outward drift of stars from the central galactic bulge, and therefore questions why stars have not deserted the outer limits of the bulge. That suggests that you do not consider the galactic bulge to be subject to expansion equal to such outward drift. If so, why not? (Sorry Opy, I could not resist that.)

 

By "galactic bulge", I suppose Milky Way's accretion "disk" to have a bloated pot gut due to extreme positive charge. It should still feed matter to our SMBH, but fails now to function as an electron gun due to obesity with consequential cessation of X-radiation. All that I should be saying here is that the bulge could be expanding faster than the stars are spreading out (if they were to).

 

Am I correct in thinking that you question the lack of a void between the disk/bulge and its nearest stars? If so, a lot of folks may have missed that point, but they did do well to doubt your thesis.

Edited by dalemiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking to me?

 

 

To anyone that believes that gravity is anything other than the EM force. Mass, i.e. energy, increases with acceleration, yet the amount of matter does not increase, nor its volume, nor its density. So mass has little to do with the amount of matter, but everything to do with its energy content. When acceleration stops the weight, i.e. energy, immediately returns to its orginal amount prior to acceleration. Gravity therefore can NOT be dependent on the amount of matter, but the amount of charge the matter contains. Otherwise acceleration would never change an objects mass or energy, as its matter content never changes under acceleration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

EMField

I realise Dale has replied to you and your most recent post is a response - but even so, you must stop hijacking threads. There are already a few threads of yours in this forum - if members wish to discuss your ideas they can do it in those threads.

In other words, do not post your concepts of em/gravity etc in every thread that mentions gravity or em!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? If someone else discusses gravity then I certainly have a right to discuss it as well in response in an effort to correct all of your misconceptions about it. And I guess gravity would have paramount importance in the steady or expanding therories of the universe, so quite a relavent topic in this thread I would say. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note


ScienceForum.Net Forum Rules

Section 2 Rule 5

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argumen


There are so many abstruse and esoteric hypotheses about every area of physics that if we did not enforce the above rule we would be in danger of never being able to have a discussion for all the ideas (from the mainstream and reasonably arguable to the extreme and nonsensical) being promulgated. This applies to mainstream theories as well (which yours isn't) - for example a comment on the progress towards a theory of quantum gravity would still be hijacking

Thus please do not do it. And please do not argue about it in this thread - if you must question this concept please feel free to put your case in the Suggestions Forum. If you feel I am being unreasonable report this post or PM a moderator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.