The universe does not change, it is enduring and wisdom consists of rejecting the sensory deceptions.
The heliocentric model of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) remained on shaky grounds until the first stellar parallax was observed in 1838.
Our current sensory deceptions may destroy us if we fail to unlock them soon enough.
In part 1 a theory is proposed that combines philosophy, psychology and evolution biology with physics and astronomy. This theory gives an alternative for expansion redshift. Also it is pointed out that Darwin's evolution theory may need adjustment.
In part 2 an alternative theory is proposed for Einstein's special theory of relativity. This theory can explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, stellar aberration, Doppler redshift and other light-measurements that appear to confirm the theory of relativity (as well as yet unexplained basic quantum mechanical experiments, see part 8). Two experiments are described to validate the theory in the future.
In part 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 an alternative theory for big bang cosmology is proposed. This theory can explain the origin and nature of dark matter, the cosmic background radiation, the luminous walls and bridges and nonluminous voids throughout the universe, the systematic peculiar flow velocities of the galaxies in the luminous walls and bridges, origin and dynamics of: elliptical galaxies, spiral galaxies, irregulars I, cD galaxies, barred spirals, ring galaxies, Seyfert galaxies, BL Lacertae Objects, radio galaxies, extended radio galaxies and quasars. The theory also explains the cause of supernovae, the abundance of helium in the universe, pulsars, X-ray bursters and gamma ray bursters, the features of population I stars versus population II stars, the dark sky riddle, the sidereal rotation periods and obliquities of the planets of our Solar System and magnetic fields of galaxies.
In part 8 the double-slit experiments with single-electrons and various other quantum mechanics linked experiments are explained with the theory of part 2, two of them being why atom clocks run slower and radioactive particles decay later when moving at higher speeds. Also it is pointed out that Bohr's theory of quantum mechanics may need adjustment. Furthermore an alternative theory concerning gravity is proposed in part 8. This theory explains how gravity may act as an attracting as well as a repulsing force on cosmic and subatomic scales. Also it is pointed out that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation may need adjustment.
In part 9 some ideas concerning intelligent life are given.
1-1 Thoughts, Consciousness, Life and Feelings
1-2 Finity and Cosmological Redshift
2-1 Gravity Fields
2-2 Gravity is the Ether Confirmations
3-1 Dark Matter
3-2 Galaxy-Galaxies and Universal Engines
3-3 High and Low Radiation and Energy Transducers
3-4 Cosmic Background Radiation
3-5 Infrared Radiation and Hawking Radiation
3-6 Heavy Elements, Dark Sky Riddle, Helium Abundance, Gravitational Microlensing and Galaxy Formation
4-1 Hydrogen Clouds Turning into Ellipticals
4-2 Ellipticals Turning into Spirals
4-3 Irregulars I, cD Galaxies and Tully-Fisher Relationship
4-4 Clusters, Voids and Radio Sources
5-1 Pulsars, Supernovae and Ring Galaxies
5-2 Magnetic Fields and Barred Spirals
5-3 X-ray and Gamma Ray Bursters
6-1 Synchrotron Radiation and Seyfert Galaxies
6-2 Radio Galaxies, Quasars and BL Lacertae Objects
7-1 Dark Matter, Stars and Planets
7-2 Binary Planets in Our Solar System
7-3 Clashing Planets Causing Mercury, Pluto and Asteroid Belt
7-4 Dark Matter Originating Stars and Planets
8-1 Gravity as a Medium Causing Helical Particle Waves
8-2 Interference Experiments and Time Dilation
8-3 Gravity Causing Attraction by Repulsion and Challenging the Law of Universal Gravitation and the Principle of Equivalence
8-4 Principle of Energy Conservation, Second Law of Thermodynamics and Mach's Principle
9-1 Happiness and Magic Numbers
9-2 To Be or Not to Be
Everything happens out of reason and necessity.
Part 1 presents a connection between physical/astronomical-how and philosophical/psychological/biological-why. Our very old senses about thoughts, consciousness and biological life may have lead us away from understanding ourselves and our Universe. Cracking those three old how-senses may lead to understanding the why about feelings, finity and redshift of far away galaxies.
Most of Part 1 has been published previously in October 1994 in the philosophy magazine Filosofie (= in Dutch language) under a pseudonym I used back then: Durk Wille.
Words by themselves give rise to feelings, but combined into sentences by logic they represent what we call a thought. In essence a thought is nothing but a series of feelings. Thoughts are feelings with logic. Rationality is logic in feelings that we use in order to make our (pleasant) feelings in their integrated form as large as possible. For a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe we can forget about thoughts and concentrate on feelings, like physicists can forget about molecules and concentrate on atoms (or even subatomic particles) when they are searching for a deeper understanding of matter.
Suppose you feel an itch on your back and you are about to reach out and scratch, but at that very moment there is an earthquake and you run out of your house and forget about the itch. A feeling that is in us very consciously can be pushed aside by another feeling and thus become subconscious. Consciousness and subconsciousness can be put on a scale with two ends; end A is where a feeling has 0% consciousness and 100% subconsciousness, end B is where a feeling has 100% consciousness and 0% subconsciousness. In A a certain feeling is pushed aside completely by all other feelings, in B a certain feeling completely pushes aside all other feelings. A nor B really exist, like a sheet of paper can't be 100% white nor 100% black. And so: every feeling always has a conscious part and a subconsciousness part. For a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe we can forget about consciousness and subconsciousness and, again, concentrate on feelings.
I define "to live" or "life" as the capability to feel, not the capability to replicate. Something that lives is an entity that has as such a beginning and an end and is able to experience its being from its begin till its end, or: to feel its existence from its begin till its end. In essence there may be no sharp dividing line between a human and an atom, both may be able to experience feelings, there may be only two sharp dividing lines: between non-existence and beginning and between existence and ending. If so then everything that exists lives or everything that exists has feelings. And if you combine the extremely weak feeling of an atom with the aforementioned lack of a sharp line between consciousness and subconsciousness then an atom will have some kind of extremely weak consciousness as well. As examples of living entities I name: humans, animals, plants, cells of (multicellular) organisms, bacteria, viruses, proteins, amino acids, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, neutrinos and photons.
Very small particles have been observed to come out of nothing, exist for a while, and vanish again1. The meaning of the particle's existence may have been: the particle's experience of its existence, or: its life, or: its feelings.
[December 2004: Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not a particle can come to existence out of completely nothing. On this website I often reason that for example photons may exist of multiple smaller particles, which too may exist of multiple smaller particles, which too may exist of multiple smaller particles, etc. There may always be a smaller class of particles to be found. This way one may never know if there are exceptions to the conservation of energy law. End December 2004]
The basic postulate from which all my ideas unroll is: Everything that exists wants the biggest amount of pleasant feelings.
What are feelings? The deepest way of understanding that is: just feel it. But there is more to say about what feelings are based on: the fight against finity plus the desire to feel good, which are practically the same on the most basic level which are the smallest entities like subatomic particles. Fight against finity and feeling good are strongly connected for all sorts of life, including our lifes. Our feelings and also feelings in general are related, directly or indirectly, to the will to keep on existing. Bluntly you may say: everything that enhances (ones own) existence gives pleasant feelings and everything that reduces (ones own) existence gives unpleasant feelings.
There also is more to say about how primitive entities could develop themselves into humans (by wanting the biggest amount of pleasant feelings). Because of the interaction between cells of our body, we feel, as an entity of interacting cells, stronger feelings than our cells feel (as individuals). Inside our cells there is interaction between the different cell compounds and you may expect that the feelings of a cell as an entity are stronger than the feelings of one of its cell compounds. In a protein there is interaction between the protein's atoms and you may expect that the feelings of the protein as an entity are stronger than the feelings of one of its atoms. In the atom there is interaction between its subatomic particles and you may expect that the feelings of the atom as an entity are stronger than the feelings of one of its subatomic particles. During evolution mass particles started from a subatomic level forming respectively atoms, proteins and cellular life. I think this happened because entities wanted as much pleasant feelings/interactions as possible. Smaller particles (entities) started to co-operate in order to become more complex entities and so experience more (stronger) pleasant feelings. [This may mean that a carbon atom in one of our brain cells feels more than a carbon atom in a carbon dioxide molecule.]
Without a natural tendency of atoms to form amino acids biological life can not come to existence. There is necessity for a chemical evolution before a biological evolution can start. Before a chemical evolution can start you need a chemical/physical/astrophysical evolution in order to make heavier elements out of hydrogen. And before that you need a physical/astrophysical evolution that produces hydrogen. A hydrogen-production-mechanism may be initiated by the same principle: smaller particles co-operating in order to form larger particles and hence experience stronger feelings.
Thus next to survival of the fittest there may be necessity for desire for happiness. There may have been desire for happiness during the development of biological as well as non-biological entities in our universe, existence may need a reason. Desire for happiness can be the reason why atoms formed amino acids and other macro-molecules, for atoms did not need any survival of the fittest [though desire for happiness and survival of the fittest may be two sides of the same coin: some day experiments may point out that (some) atoms decay faster when they are not bound to another atom; desire for happiness and survival of the fittest may melt together in making good connections; desire for happiness and survival of the fittest are strongly correlated because they are both connected to the fight against finity]. Desire for happiness may also explain the appearance of particles out of nothing (because their existence gave them "joy").
Desire may "exist" by itself, without (physically) existing; as a concept, as an idea, like logic exists without (physically) existing. The reason why something physical exists, may not be physical itself. Time and space make it possible for us to exist, but time and space may not be physically real themselves. This raises the question whether feelings are physical real or not; perhaps this question will never be answered and may be connected with the smallest possible particles that we may never be able to measure, see also chapter 8-4. And: physical particles that appear to come out of nothing, may originate from smaller yet unknown particles, see chapter 8-4.
We die. That is why we can feel that we live, that is why we can experience our existence. This may be the same for bacteria and also for atoms. Thus it may be that an atom can only exist because its existence is finite.
If feelings are the essence of being and if they are wrapped together with the beginning and ending of being, then feelings cause the end of an entity, for then feelings are only possible when they (can) end and thus the entity must end as well. To put it different: existence costs energy. Or: mass/energy burns to nothing. Or: mass/energy vanishes. This may be an exception to the conservation-of-energy principle (see also chapter 8-4). Perhaps everything that is, consists of mass, also photons and neutrinos, perhaps we have to call every form of physic existence: mass (with a certain velocity and hence energy). Perhaps everything that (physically) is, is mass (see also 8-4).
Philosophically it may seem weird that I say: feelings are possible because of finity and finity is there because of feelings, feelings are caused by finity and finity is caused by feelings. But it is the same as: we have feelings because we are going to die and there is such thing as death in order to be able to feel. Thus our feelings are caused by our death and in a certain way our death is caused by our feelings. Death and feelings can only "exist" together. Feelings can only be if they are going not to be. You want to feel fine and you can not feel fine if you are not around or if you are going to be around forever (on Earth), but you can feel fine if you are around and know/feel you are going to vanish (or: die, as a human).
[We are finite and if time and space are infinite we never will understand the infinity of time and space, because something that is finite can not understand something that is infinite. We do have, as humans, a beginning and an end, and thus we can not understand something that does not begin nor end. Real understanding is: seeing the logic in feelings, but endlessness can not be felt. Feelings can only exist thanks to a beginning and an ending, something that does not end can not be understood, not by us and not by endlessness itself, because something that is endless does not live, does not really feel. Endlessness of time and space can not be understood (by definition). And: something that is infinite is not physical real, because existence is only possible if there is an end to existence. Time and space are not physically real and therefore they can be infinite. It may always remain the question if this is true as well for the universe. There may be (philosophical and physical) necessity for a beginning (of the universe), but perhaps mass has always been (t)here, endless, both in space and in time. There may be limits to what can be understood. Everything that is, is unique. Not only by its mass, also by the velocity of its mass compared to other mass, and also by its place it takes in the Universe and the time it occupies this place. Uniqueness may be defined by: mass, movement, place and time; and its definition by those four "things", two physically real, two non-existing, may be endless elusive as far as the exact pinning down to a certain value is concerned; which makes me conclude: nothing that exists can understand itself totally.]
Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) predict that protons probably decay with a half-life of about 1032 years4. Philosophically this implies that the elements that make up matter as we know it are only a passing phase4. This is in accordance with my theory that everything that exists can only exist because it is moving to non-existence. [No experiments have yet detected proton decay4.] Also: GUTs predict that neutrinos are not massless4, which is in accordance with my idea that everything that is, is mass (see also chapter 8-4). Photons and neutrinos (and gravity particles, if gravity particles exist) may have mass, but so little that until now we could not measure it. [Of course, GUTs will change if gravity-is-the-ether (see chapter 2-1) is right and the theory of relativity is wrong.]
There are 3 sorts of redshift in Today science. Two of them, the Doppler redshift and the gravitational redshift, are not controversial, but can not explain the major amount of redshift of far away galaxies. The third redshift, the cosmological redshift (or expansion redshift according to big bang cosmologists) that (together with the general theory of relativity) originated big bang cosmology, is controversial for a number of cosmologists, but is able to explain the major amount of redshift of galaxies: all wavelengths of light are stretched by the expansion of space.
I would like to suggest another (hypothetical) redshift that may cause the major amount of redshift of far away galaxies. The redshift is to be seen of the type of the tired light hypothesis advanced in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky1: light loses energy progressively while travelling across large distances of extragalactic space. According to Zwicky's tired light hypothesis the vibrations of light are steadily slowed down over long periods of time travelling through the universe, and so the redshift is the result of fatigue.
The idea of the tired light phenomenon has died away because so far there has not been a good explanation why light might suffer from fatigue while travelling in the universe.
We take a look again at the statement: mass/energy vanishes because its being, its existence (its feelings), costs energy. Let us at the same time look at a light wave or light particle, a photon, that speeds through extragalactic space. If the light particles' existence (its feelings) costs energy, then how can we picture that it is losing energy? The answer may be very simple: by redshifting. This (hypothetical) redshift I call: existence redshift. So far this redshift is only philosophical. It has to have a physical reason too. If a light wave leaves the Sun gravitational redshift will increase its wavelength and if the light wave falls on Earth gravitational redshift will decrease its wavelength. In the case of gravitational blueshift gravity gives light waves more energy and in the case of gravitational redshift light waves give energy to gravity. There is no point between the Sun and the Earth where the light won't be effected by gravity. There always will be gravity forces working on the light. There is gravitational red- and blueshift and so gravity forces do work on light and hence light works on gravity forces and therefore light may lose energy to gravity somehow while travelling large distances of extragalactic space. Thus existence redshift can be explained in a physical way. Existence redshift is a different redshift than gravitational redshift, it is caused because light needs a medium to propagate itself (see also chapter 2-1) and by doing so it loses energy. [But: it remains to be seen whether high energy radiation can give energy to low energy radiation with gravity as a intermediate, thus originating cosmic background radiation, see also chapter 3-3.] Sound loses energy because it moves air particles; light may lose energy because it works on gravity (or: because it moves gravity particles in order to propagate itself, see also chapter 8-1).
Give me matter and motion and I will construct the universe. Space does not exist where there is no matter, space by itself is nothing.
Part 2 presents the following hypothesis: Light is related to the gravity field it is in and therefore light appears to be constant to an observer.
For a real good understanding of Part 2 it may be very important to have read the first 2 chapters of professor J.A. Coleman's book Relativity for the Layman2 (first published in 1954, commented on and commended by Albert Einstein). Important pages of Coleman's book (Penguin Books version of 1990) are: 17-20 (Bradley's stellar aberration), 30-31 (out-of-focus effect) and 39. Page 39 shows how things went wrong in the end of the 19th century: the "earth dragging the ether" was rejected because of Bradley's wrong explanation of stellar aberration in 1727.
In 1800 it was known that sound waves are propagated by setting the air into vibration and it was believed that light had to have a carrier different than air. Scientists created a special word for the hypothetical carrier of light waves: ether. The ether was the material that existed everywhere that light waves traveled, it filled the vast emptiness of the universe and was present in all substances in greater or lesser degree (see also chapter 8-2: gravity particles as possible building blocks of matter and gravity particles that may flow in and out of matter). The idea of the existence of the ether seemed so logical that it quickly gained widespread acceptance as one of the materials in the universe and effort was directed to the detection of the ether. (The search for the ether was done by trying to measure so-called ether effects: physical effects that would prove the existence and nature of the ether.) But the search for the ether ended in a big frustration called the Great Dilemma: the ether was firmly believed to exist, but all efforts to detect it failed and the reasons advanced for the failure were contradictory and insecure2. One of those reasons was the Earth dragging the ether (with the velocity the Earth orbits the Sun) like the Earth drags air too. This reason was rejected because of the way stellar aberration was (and still is) explained. [The hereafter explained gravity is the ether hypothesis needs a different look at stellar aberration, which is presented in chapter 2-2.]
It was at the stage of scientific Great-Dilemma-frustration that Albert Einstein offered a way out by presenting his special theory of relativity in 1905, which had two fundamental postulates2:
So far no one has thought of gravity being the ether. The Earth orbits the Sun with 108,000 km/hour. Where scientists thought it was perfectly normal for molecules in our atmosphere to "ride" along with the Earth at such a high speed because of gravity no one thought of photons riding along as well because of gravity.
If we take gravity as the ether then:
If we want to understand gravity as the ether we have to forget about the theory of relativity and the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and look at light the way it was done in 1890.
With gravity field I mean the area in which a certain mass (like the Sun or the Earth or the Moon) dominates gravity. A gravity field has no boundary, but its dominance has. For example: our Solar System is dominated by the Sun, therefore the area of the gravity field of the Sun is larger than the Solar System and finds its boundaries in "battles" with gravity forces from other stars. But within the Solar System certain areas are dominated by smaller masses like the Earth and the Moon. The gravity field of the Earth is larger than the area bounded by the orbit of the Moon, but in the gravity field of the Earth the Moon has its own gravity field.
With gravity is the ether I mean: light is related to the gravity field it is in (see Fig. 2-1-I). When light waves (from a star) enter the Earth's gravity field (the light waves come from the gravity field of the Sun) the velocities of the light waves adjust themselves to the (speed of the) gravity field of the Earth. Light wave A decelerates with 30 km/s (= the velocity of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun) in QA relative to an observer on Earth and it decelerates with 30 km/s as well relative to an observer on the Sun. Light wave B accelerates with 30 km/s in QB relative to an observer on the Earth (or rather an observer in the gravity field of the Earth) and it accelerates with 30 km/s as well relative to an observer on the Sun (or rather an observer in the gravity field of the Sun). Light wave C changes its direction in QC and by doing so light wave C's speed changes relative to observers on the Earth and the Sun.
Figure 2-1-I. Light waves entering the gravity field of the Earth (= the area within the dotted circle; in reality the gravity field of the Earth is oval).
Perhaps the best way to understand the adjustment of light waves is (see Fig. 2-1-II): imagine a circular horizontal plate moving slowly across the floor. You walk over the plate (after coming from the floor) and you keep walking the same tempo (first 5 km/hour relative to the floor, then 5 km/hour relative to the plate); persons A, B and C will change speed relative to observers on the plate and on the floor the moment they step on the plate. As soon as the light waves A, B and C (see Fig. 2-1-I) are in the gravity field of the Earth their velocity is 300,000 km/s relative to the gravity field of the Earth. Before the light waves entered the gravity field of the Earth in QA, QB and QC, their velocities were 300,000 km/s relative to the gravity field of the Sun. [20 months after I had thought up gravity as the ether I discovered that someone else had an idea in 1990 that was the same in a certain respect: J.L. Gaasenbeek3 thought up electromagnetic frames of references (EFORS) to which photons adjust themselves, i.e. the many electromagnetic waves (photons) coming from the Earth outnumber the relative few photons of a star and hence cause photons of a star that fall on the Earth to adjust their speed to the speed of the (photons/electromagnetic radiation of the) Earth. Gaasenbeek does not see necessity for a medium (like gravity) for photons to travel in.]
Figure 2-1-II. Illustration of gravity is the ether by people walking over a moving plate.
For a good understanding of gravity is the ether it may be important to know a little more about the Great Dilemma, i.e. how scientists originated the Great Dilemma in the 18th and 19th century because of too much awe for one of the founders of modern astronomy: Bradley. In 1727 James Bradley, an Englishman, noticed that certain stars appeared to be in a different direction in the sky when looked at 6 months later2 (see Fig. 2-1-III).
Figure 2-1-III. Explanation of stellar aberration by Bradley (this picture has been taken from Coleman's book2)
Bradley called the phenomenon aberration and explained it as follows: while a light wave travels from B to C with 300,000 km/s the telescope moves from A to C with 30 km/s. In Fig. 2-1-IV this is pictured in a slightly different way.
Figure 2-1-IV. Explanation of stellar aberration as in current astronomy and physics: the light wave travels from B to C while the telescope moves from A to C.
Scientists in the 18th and 19th century thought that the same explanation should go for a star with light shining not exactly perpendicular to the direction of the Earth's velocity, like it is shown in Fig. 2-1-V: when the light travelled from B to C with 300,000 km/s the telescope would move from A to C with 30 km/s.
Figure 2-1-V. Stellar aberration as it was seen in the 18th and 19th century (Today it is still the same with the exception that something is added: length contraction for the horizontal component).
And, finally, there could be the situation where AC and BC are on the same line (like in Fig. 2-1-VI): again scientists reasoned that while the light wave traveled from B to C the telescope would move from A to C.
Figure 2-1-VI. Stellar aberration as it was expected in the 18th and 19th century with the Earth moving towards a light wave (Today science says: stellar aberration has no horizontal component because of length contraction).
In the case that the Earth would have moved in the same direction as the light wave then it would have been like in Fig. 2-1-VII: while the light wave traveled from B to C the telescope would move from A to C.
Figure 2-1-VII. Stellar aberration as it was expected in the 18th and 19th century with the Earth moving in the same direction as a light wave (Today science says: stellar aberration has no horizontal component because of length contraction).
This is how scientists thought in the 18th and 19th century because they not only took Bradley's historic measurement of stellar aberration for the truth (= the fact that certain stars appear to be in a different direction in the sky when looked at 6 months later) but also Bradley's (historic) explanation of stellar aberration (= while the light travels from B to C the telescope moves from A to C as in the aforementioned figures). Thus scientists reasoned that things were as it is shown in Fig. 2-1-VI and 2-1-VII and many efforts were made to measure this. But they didn't speak about stellar aberration in the case of figures 2-1-VI and 2-1-VII, instead of stellar aberration it was called: the out-of-focus effect.
I will now discuss the out-of-focus effect, duplicating the reasoning in the 18th and 19th century, which is the same as what I explained with Fig. 2-1-VI and Fig. 2-1-VII. (This 18th/19th-century-reasoning has been taken from professor Coleman's book2:) Assume we have a telescope set up on the Earth. We focus it on a star which is in the direction the Earth is travelling in its orbit. Two of the light beams from the star have just entered the telescope in Fig. 2-1-VIIIa.
Figure 2-1-VIII. The expected out-of-focus effect (this picture has been taken from Coleman's book2).
These beams have been bent by the telescope lens so that they will come to focus at point P, which is a point in the space within the telescope. Now since the telescope and observer are moving to the right with a velocity of 30 km/s, the observer's eyes will arrive at point P at the same time the light beams do in Fig. 2-1-VIIIb, and the observer will see the star in focus. But now suppose the astronomer looks at the same star 6 months later and does not change the focus. The situation will be entirely different, since the Earth will be on the other side of its orbit. Whereas before it was travelling towards the star with 30 km/s, it will now be travelling away from it, with the same velocity. What was expected to happen in the 18th and 19th century is shown in Fig. 2-1-VIIIc. Since the telescope and observer are now running away from the incoming light wave, the observer's eye will no longer be at point P when the light beams arrive there, and as a consequence the observer will now see the star out of focus. Scientists in the 18th and 19th century expected a telescope that was originally in focus on a distant star would be out of focus six months later. So this effect was looked for but was never observed. (end of the paragraph that was taken from professor Coleman's book2)
Scientists did not measure the expected out-of-focus effect. Expectance based on Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration. But instead of questioning Bradley's explanation and thus solving the problem they entered the era of the Great Dilemma, they couldn't grasp that the great man who discovered the aberration phenomenon could have made a mistake explaining the phenomenon, questioning Bradley would have been heretical. Thus frustration started until Albert Einstein presented a model that had incorporated Bradley's mistake too, but the model was worthwhile because the 2 basic postulates of the Theory of Special Relativity could be used as a startpoint for a number of equations and thus calculations could be made with it and by now the model is the most "proven" one we have, like the Sun-around-Earth model was before Copernicus came by. The formula's derived from Einstein's postulates are based on velocity differences of moving objects. With gravity is the ether one also gets formula's based on velocity differences. Therefore the gravity is the ether hypothesis brings the same type of formula's and thus observations can be explained with gravity is the ether too, see chapter 2-2.
Einstein used the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction2 (he turned the Fitzgerald contraction into length contraction, which is a little different) to explain the contradiction between Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration and the not measured out-of-focus effect. Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration and not measuring the out-of-focus effect can not coexist, seeing that is (solving) the heart of the problem.
Seeing the mistake in Einstein's model is not a matter of having the rational capability to see it, it is a matter of emotional capability, or: courage. Many people's careers depend on clinging to a false model. Showing serious doubt throws them into the camp of the unbelievers. They won't get killed as in Copernicus' time, but showing doubt may make them loose their positions; in that respect it is exactly the same as 4-5 centuries ago. The brilliant spark of Einstein's theory of relativity is that no one understands it and that no one wants to admit that (no one really understands how the velocity of light can always be constant to an observer and no one really understands how the k-factor is fabricated). Thus questioning Einstein's theory of relativity has become heretical, for there are no stronger believers then those who feel uncertain. This is how and why modern inquisition has become extremely strong embedded in Today science. In order to make astronomers and physicists willing to understand my ideas I need psychology to push their brains over the hopefully not insurmountable fears of their hearts. Honesty and courage are synonyms. Who dares? If you want to play it cool: dare to doubt any rule.
The famous Michelson-Morley experiment2 carried out in 1881 is a confirmation of the gravity is the ether hypothesis. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the velocity of light on Earth is always constant, which is easy to understand with photons dragged along with the Earth as well as air molecules because of the Earth's gravity.
Also the stellar aberration can be looked upon as a confirmation. Stellar aberration was discovered by Bradley in 1727. The explanation of the phenomenon was done by Bradley too and this explanation has never changed2 (see Fig. 2-2-I): while a light wave travels from B to C with 300,000 km/s the telescope moves from A to C with 30 km/s.
Figure 2-2-I. Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration.
But you can also say: take B to be the moment that the light wave moves out of the gravity field of the Sun and into the gravity field of the Earth. Then the direction of the light wave (the line from the star to B) may change in B because the light wave "crashes" with 300,000 km/s into the Earth's gravity field that is moving with 30 km/s (on the dotted line AC) to the right (in Fig. 2-2-I). And so, because of this what I call crash in effect, perhaps the light does go from B to A and not from B to C as scientists think since 1727.
Another explanation of stellar aberration than the crash in effect may be double drag. The boundary between the gravity field of the Earth and the Sun may have an area where a photon is influenced by the gravity field of the Sun as well as the gravity field of the Earth (see Fig. 2-2-II). In the double drag area the gravity field of the Sun tries to keep the light wave in the same "track", so there may be a gravity force of the Sun (F Grav. Sun) pulling on the light in the opposite direction than the direction of the Earth's gravity field. [The crash in effect and the double drag effect may be the same, see chapter 8-1.]
Figure 2-2-II. A light wave travels from the gravity field of the Sun to the gravity field of the Earth via a double drag area where the light wave is under influence of the gravity field of the Sun as well as the gravity field of the Earth and hence aberration may be caused.
Figure 2-2-III. Light wave A is dragged along with the gravity field of the Earth when light wave A goes from QA1 (where it enters the gravity field of the Earth) to QA2 (where it re-enters the gravity field of the Sun). Of course the angle of bending is drawn out of proportion, being: [30 km/s / 300,000 km/s] x 900. The stellar aberration effect has been left out in this figure; there is aberration effect in QA1 as well as in QA2 (reverse in QA2), so the overall bending in QA1 as well as in QA2 may be very little for an observer in the gravity field of the Sun.
There are also effects because of the Earth dragging the light wave with it (see Fig. 2-2-III). Thus the gravity field of the Moon may act like a lens (see Fig. 2-2-IV). It remains to be seen how much the aberration effect compensates the Moon-dragging-the-light effect: Fig.2-2-IVb shows what happens if the aberration effect compensates the Moon-dragging the-light effect to the maximum degree (of course, though unlikely to me, there is also the possibility that the aberration effect overcompensates the Moon-dragging-the-light effect, i.e. the aberration effect is bigger than the Moon-dragging-the-light effect). It is measured that as the limb of the Moon cuts in front of a star (Fig. 2-2-Va), a diffraction pattern (Fig. 2-2-Vb) appears before the light is completely cut out4. This way angular diameters of large nearby stars can be measured, because waves from different parts of a star (with certain angular diameter) produce a characteristic interference pattern4. This may be a gravity is the ether effect due to light waves coming from different parts of the star that interfere because the gravity field of the Moon acts as a lens. Because the path-length of the starlight going through the gravity field of the Moon (AB in Fig. 2-2-Va) becomes longer when the Moon cuts in front of the star there may be peaks and valleys in the flux due to waves of different parts of the star being in-phase and out-of-phase (this happens as soon as the stellar aberration effect does not compensate the Moon-dragging-the-light effect to the maximum degree). From flux-measurements as in Fig. 2-2-Vb one may to be able to say something too (next to the angular diameter of the star) about the magnitude of the gravity field of the Moon: by measuring the beginning of the flux waves (point R in Fig. 2-2-Vb) and by studying the figures of flux waves of stars with different angular diameters in order to understand which part in the figures are due to characteristics of the gravity field of the Moon. [Of course, it remains to be seen whether the interference pattern isn't due to bending of the light by the Moon's gravity instead of by the Moon-dragging-the-light. The interference pattern may be caused by a combination of bending and dragging as well.]
Figure 2-2-IV. When a star is occultated by the Moon the gravity field of the Moon may act as a lens. The stellar aberration effect has been left out in Fig. 2-2-IVa. The Moon-dragging-the-light plus the stellar aberration are shown in Fig. 2-2-IVb (in the case the stellar aberration effect compensates exactly the Moon-dragging-the-light effect).
Figure 2-2-V. Occultation of a star by the Moon. As the limb of the Moon cuts in front of the star, a diffraction pattern appears before the light is completely cut out (the dotted circle is the boundary of the Moon's gravity field).
If the light in Fig. 2-2-I would go from B to C while the telescope moves from A to C then the same effect ought to be measured if we look at a star as in Fig. 2-2-VI. If we take the same telescope with the same focus 6 months later (with the Earth moving away from the star with 30 km/s) and look at the same star again the star should be out of focus if Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration were correct. This so-called out of focus effect has been looked for but has never been found2; with gravity is the ether we can understand why.
Figure 2-2-VI. Measuring the out of focus effect.
Another confirmation of the gravity is the ether hypothesis is the Doppler effect. Light wave A in Fig. 2-1-I blueshifts in point QA because it diminishes its velocity with 30 km/s. The light wave has to do something with the energy of 30 km/s in order to maintain the same total amount of energy and it does so by blueshifting [if you imagine yourself as person A in Fig. 2-1-II: you would feel how your step "shortens" by the plate that is moving towards you and that you have to make some kind of effort (= energy response) with your body to keep walking the same tempo]. In a similar way light wave B redshifts in QB [and one can imagine ones step "stretches" in Fig. 2-1-II as person B]. [Also person C would find some kind of influence in Fig 2-1-II when stepping on the plate, which may explain stellar aberration as well, see chapter 8-1.]
Slightly different from the Doppler effect is the difference in time between two following pulses from a pulsar in point QA (Fig. 2-1-I) and 6 months later from the same pulsar in QB: measured pulses in QA are a little shorter than in QB corresponding with the gravity is the ether hypothesis. The above-mentioned out of focus effect (Fig. 2-2-VI) is measured this way, because by measuring differences in time we put the telescope at the boundary (QA and QB) of the gravity field of the Earth (in some respect).
Modern measurements of the velocity of light can be seen as a confirmation of the gravity is the ether hypothesis as well. Today instruments that measure the velocity of light are small enough to put on a car. Whether you drive fast with the car or stand still: the velocity of light from an artificial source 1 km away from the car appears to be always the same (relative to the car). But: the moment a light wave enters the little box on the car that measures the velocity of light the light wave adjusts itself to the gravity field of the box and so you always measure the same velocity, i.e. the velocity of the light in the box relative to the gravity field of the box; hence it doesn't matter whether the box is moving or not, you always measure the same light velocity.
See chapter 8-2 for more experimental (quantum mechanics linked) confirmations of the gravity is the ether hypothesis in the past (one of them being the time differences measured with atom clocks moving at different speeds, one of them being the time differences in radioactive decay of radioactive particles moving at different speeds and one of them being the bending of starlight by the Sun).
Figure 2-2-VII. A light wave going through a pipe may adjust itself to the gravity field of the pipe for the time the light wave is in the pipe.
Let light go from left to right through a very small tunnel in an almost massive lead pipe as in Fig.2-2-VII (or some other heavy material; the experiment has to be done in vacuum). When the pipe is moved to the left one may measure time differences (compared to the situation in Fig.2-2-VII with no pipe at all) if light waves adjust themselves in the pipe to the gravity field of the pipe.
If in Fig. 2-2-VII:
LAB = distance between A and B = 30 m
Lpipe = the length of the pipe = 3 m
vpipe = velocity of the pipe moving to the left = 300 m/s
c = velocity of light relative to the gravity field it is in = 300,000 km/s = 300,000,000 m/s
Then the time the light needs in order to travel from A to B without the pipe (moving to the left) is:
tB - tA = LAB/c = 1 x 10-7 s
And the time the light needs in order to travel from A to B with the pipe moving to the left is:
tB - tA = (LAB - Lpipe)/c + Lpipe/(c - vpipe) + [(Lpipe/c) x vpipe]/c
= (1 x 10-7 + 2 x 10-14) s
Thus perhaps time differences in the order of 10-14 s can be measured in an experiment with the above mentioned lengths and velocities.
The distance the light wave travelled to go from A to B in the case the pipe did not move to the left was:
LAB = 30 m
The distance the light wave travelled to go from A to B in the case the pipe moved to the left was:
LAB + [(Lpipe/c) x vpipe] = (30 + 3 x 10-6) m
If no direct time measurements are possible then perhaps interference experiments with two beams of light, one beam being influenced as above with a pipe, may bring evidence about whether or whether not light adjusts itself to the gravity field it is in. If one puts a wavelength measuring instrument in the (right end of the) pipe one may also measure blueshift when the pipe moves to the left.
An experiment may be done in order to prove that when the light source is on Earth there is no such thing as aberration: a beam of light from an artificial light source that passes through very small holes in a number of plates standing behind each other (Fig.2-2-VIIIa and 2-2-VIIIb) may or may not be blocked 12 hours later (Fig.2-2-VIIIc) because of deviation by the velocity of the Earth.
Figure 2-2-VIII. Verification of Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration.
Of course everybody knows that there won't be found any deviations this way or else we would have measured these deviations long ago. According to the theory of relativity there are no deviations because the light source is travelling at 30 km/s too. But if no deviations are found because light is caught in the gravity field of the Earth then light rays from stars are dragged along with the Earth as well. Saying that the light source is travelling at 30 km/s too in Fig. 2-2-VIII is the only escape route for people who cling to the theory of relativity. But if so then the light coming from the light source in Fig. 2-2-VIIIb and 2-2-VIIIc is moving faster from one point in space to another point in space than the velocity of light c. It would mean that the velocity of light from stars depends on the (direction of the) velocity of the stars. It would mean that there is overtaking of light by light in empty space. Checkmate, the theory of relativity has a mayor problem here.
It may be very difficult to prove whether light goes from B to A in Fig. 2-2-I or from B to C meanwhile the telescope moving from A to C. Perhaps the following may confirm the gravity-is-the-ether hypothesis (see Fig.2-2-IX). For reasons of simplicity stars are presumed to be perfect spheres (with only 1 possible diameter: d) in the reasoning hereafter and: the stars shine exactly perpendicular relative to the direction of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
Figure 2-2-IX. If Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration is correct then the diameter of a star appears to enlarge a little in the direction the Earth moves in its orbit.
If the light goes from B to C in Fig.2-2-I meanwhile the telescope moving from A to C then the original diameter (d in Fig.2-2-IX) of a star is seen a little larger (by the observer behind the telescope, see Fig.2-2-IXb) in the direction the Earth moves in its orbit: d becomes D. With simple geometry it can be shown that:
D/d = (c2 + VEarth2)½/c
With c = 300,000 km/s and VEarth = 30 km/s one gets:
D = 1.000000005 x d
If on the other hand the light goes from B to A in Fig.2-2-I then we may be dealing with the crash in/double drag effect (see Fig.2-2-Xa).
Figure 2-2-X. If there is a crash in/double drag effect then the diameter of a star appears to shrink a little in the direction the Earth moves in its orbit.
Now the original star diameter (d) gets seen a little smaller (D in Fig.2-2-Xb) in the direction the Earth moves in its orbit. With simple geometry it can be shown that:
D/d = c/(c2 + VEarth2)½
D = 0.999999995 x d
Perhaps this effect can be measured (with or without interferometers that can measure the diameters of stars).
See chapter 8-2 for more experiments (quantum mechanics linked) that may confirm the gravity is the ether hypothesis in the future.
But multitudinous atoms, swept along in multitudinous courses through infinite time by mutual clashes and their own weight have come together in every possible way and realized everything that could be formed by their combinations.
Part 3 presents a static steady state universe as an alternative for big bang cosmology. With a static steady-state universe it is easy to explain the nature and origin of dark matter as well as the cosmic background radiation, helium abundance, dark sky at night riddle, galaxy formation and the amount of heavy elements in the universe.
With the existence redshift of chapter 1-2 as an explanation of the large redshift of far away galaxies and with gravity is the ether of chapter 2-1 instead of the special theory of relativity there is space again for a static steady-state universe. It is important to bear in mind that the expanding of the universe was deduced from Einstein's general theory of relativity. There has been a fuss about big bang cosmology versus steady state cosmology, but all cosmologists agreed with an expanding universe because everybody agreed with the general theory of relativity. With gravity is the ether instead of the special theory of relativity the general theory of relativity is down too, at least space-time and space-time curvature. And therefore, with gravity is the ether instead of the theory of relativity and with existence redshift instead of expansion redshift: if we want to we can look at the universe as being static.
In 1934 the cosmologists Edward Milne and William McCrea showed that the equations controlling the dynamics of the universe (i.e. equations that mathematically "proved" that the universe expanded), which previously had been derived from the theory of general relativity by mathematical labor and skill, could be derived directly from simple Newtonian theory1. Thus one may say that in order to be able to look at the universe as being static Newtonian theory ought to go down as well or at least Newtonian theory has to be adjusted. Newtonian theory may have to be adjusted when gravity is a repulsive force as well as an attracting force, which, in some sense, would bring back Einstein's cosmological constant, see chapters 8-3 and 8-4.
Static steady-state universes neither expand nor contract and what happens now always has happened and will happen, their contents, on the average, never appear to change. One of the last static steady-state universes was elaborated in the 1920s by the astronomer William MacMillan1. He proposed the theory that stars are formed in the usual way out of interstellar gas; they evolve over a long period of time and slowly radiate away their entire mass. Out in the depths of space, by an unknown mechanism, starlight is reconstituted into atoms and matter1. This static steady-state universe enjoyed fame until the 1930s when, confronted with an expanding universe, it quietly faded away. G.Reber concocted a static steady-state universe in 19775; he sees electrons in intergalactic space as transducers of energy from light waves to hectometer waves. The electrons are absorbed by ionized hydrogen gas clouds within the galaxies and the hydrogen clouds are building blocks for making stars; thus the energy from old hot stars is recycled into unborn stars, and thus expansion redshift is explained5. I rather see gravity particles and/or dark matter masses (see chapters 3-3 and 3-4) as transducers of energy.
The universe consists of luminous blocks, plates and bridges separated by nonluminous voids. Imagine the universe does not expand nor contract. V.C. Rubin and other scientists have shown that the galaxies have systematic peculiar flow velocities that make the nonluminous voids bigger1. Without an expanding universe the clusters of galaxies move towards each other by gravity. Imagine clusters of galaxies moving towards each other with a velocity of 500 km/s and imagine that the distance between the clusters is 200 million light years. This means that the clusters will "meet" each other (and start circling around each other) after 120 billion years. By then the clusters may have become dark and all we may see is a nonluminous void. So: where we see luminous matter now we may see nonluminous voids in the very far future. And: where we see nonluminous voids now hydrogen clouds may be formed by a mechanism (yet) unknown to us and therefore: in the future we may see luminous blocks, plates and bridges where we see nonluminous voids now [this hydrogen production mechanism may be something as the G.Reber-mechanism5: if high frequency radiation loses energy (to electrons, gravity particles, dark matter or something else) in the nonluminous voids then this energy may be used somehow for hydrogen production].
Luminous galaxies flow to other luminous galaxies meanwhile losing much mass by radiation and in the end they start rotating around each other and thus getting closer and closer to each other and thus concentrating dark matter at certain places in the universe together with creating space elsewhere in the universe with less concentrated dark matter, that is my static steady-state universe.
The next generations of luminous galaxies in the universe probably show the same luminous walls and bridges with spherical nonluminous voids because (super)clusters attract each other and therefore the edges of (super)clusters become connected in a way, thus forming the same structure again: luminous walls and bridges with spherical nonluminous voids.
If we look at the universe with the idea that the (static steady-state) universe is eternal in both space and time then we start to look completely different to the luminous walls and bridges throughout the universe and their accompanying nonluminous voids. We see the luminous matter moving towards each other on all kind of levels: in superclusters, in clusters and in galaxies. We know that all luminous matter only shines for a certain time and then becomes dark. So when galaxies move towards each other they finally end up circling around each other and become what I call galaxy-galaxies: an enormous strong engine that roars around, in darkness when the stars of the galaxies have stopped shining, and what is finally left is an enormous heap of dark matter that has an enormous amount of kinetic and potential (gravitational) energy.
Because there are concentrations of luminous matter in all kind of different ways in the universe there should be concentrations of dark matter in all kind of ways throughout the universe as well. Next to superclusters of galaxies turning into dark matter there will be clusters of galaxies turning into dark matter, but also galaxies and (single) stars. And all those superclusters, clusters, galaxies and stars are connected by gravity to each other in all kind of possible ways: they may go to a certain point where very much dark matter comes together, but during this process they may leave this (itself) concentrating dark matter heap (the galaxy-galaxy) as well, like a star that escapes from a galaxy when its speed is to big at a certain point. Thus dark galaxies (or dark stars or clusters of stars) may shoot (apart) into space because their velocities have become high and much mass has been radiated away and thus gravity may not be strong enough (anymore) to make (certain) dark matter swirl around other dark matter.
Nonluminous matter can be the missing (dark) matter in the universe. The by the virial theorem calculated mass of galaxies exceeds the visual mass found by counting individual stars and the calculated mass of clusters exceeds the visual mass found by counting individual galaxies. The larger the astronomical system, the greater the difference between the calculated and visual mass1. This can be explained by: the greater the astronomical system the more nonluminous voids (with dark matter) in the system. There even may be (much) more dark matter than we have been able to calculate so far. [much of the missing matter seems to be non-baryonic which may be easy to explain, see chapter 8-3].
Galaxy-galaxies are extremely strong rotating engines or, what I call, universal engines. The time it takes for a large number of galaxies to rotate around each other, thus finally ending up into a strong concentrated bulge of fast rotating dark matter, will be enormous, perhaps like 1040 years or even much longer (of course, the time depends on the amount of and distance between the dark matter, our Local Group for instance will be much sooner concentrated than our Local Supercluster). More and more dark matter will rotate around a central core (the center of this core may or may not be empty like the eye of a tornado), and at the same time clumps of dark matter will only be bend by the central core and escape the galaxy-galaxy and drift of into space. These escaping clumps of (dark) matter may be (dark) galaxies or clusters of (dark) galaxies. Thus there may be very much dark matter everywhere throughout the universe of all kind of ages and all kind of magnitude: loose, bound, concentrated, young or extremely old having lost very much mass [because of escaping baryonic matter or because of escaping radiation or neutrinos or other forms of (yet) unknown matter]. There may be many giant universal engines causing giant (elliptical) galaxies or perhaps functioning as a Great Attractor. [It remains to be seen what the Great Attractor in our Local Supercluster is; or: is not, in case the galaxies of the Local Supercluster are attracted to each other without a certain huge mass laying in the center of the Local Supercluster.] But there may be much more dwarf universal engines that originate dwarf elliptical galaxies or that end up as an invisible Attractor to groups of stars or that end up as pulsars. The individual stellar proper motions of stars in a cluster of stars often appear to converge to a single point in the universe4. Perhaps a strong concentration of dark matter can be found in such points. If there are strong concentrations of dark matter in our Milky Way, then that means that stars in our Milky Way may be attracted to this dark matter, which also may cause local voids throughout our Milky Way, like our Local Bell and other places with less stars in our Milky Way [the general current theory is that those voids have come to existence by explosions, which, of course, may be true (too)].
One may wonder what the difference is between a galaxy-galaxy and a universal engine. Perhaps the best way to answer that is: the same as the difference between a young tree and an old tree. A galaxy-galaxy is young compared to the universal engine it later becomes.
(See the chapters hereafter for explanation about shrinking irregular clusters, elliptical galaxies turning into spirals, spirals turning into pulsars etc:) An irregular cluster like our Local Group may be called a young galaxy-galaxy where later when our Local Group has become dark (and shrunk) it may be called an old galaxy-galaxy. If later the more shrunk galaxy-galaxy would attract hydrogen in order to form a (new) elliptical galaxy, then the old galaxy-galaxy may be called a young universal engine (attracting hydrogen). When even more later the elliptical galaxy has turned into a spiral galaxy like our Galaxy then the heart of the galaxy (the galactic nucleus) may be called an old universal engine. When a spiral galaxy turns into a pulsar then the pulsar may be called an extremely old universal engine.
Dark matter may come to existence by: stars that stop shining or gas that contracts into a brown dwarf or an object of Jupiter-magnitude. During thousands of billion years dark matter may have been clashing, causing asteroids and dust and causing smaller dark matter masses like our Moon or our planets. For example: if our universe is more than 1040 years (or rather: eternal) old then where is all the old dark matter of the countless white dwarfs that turned into black dwarfs and also the perhaps even much more numerous brown dwarfs? Not to mention all the perhaps even very much more numerous dwarfs that are as big as the planets of our Solar System? How much dark matter is floating in our universe if our universe is endless old? Perhaps that much dark matter that an equilibrium has established itself concerning dark matter versus luminous matter. And perhaps there is also an equilibrium concerning baryonic matter versus radiation, neutrinos, gravity particles or other unknown appearances of matter.
If there is a lot of dark matter in the universe then dark matter may be the intermediate that brings the temperature of our universe to an equilibrium. Dark matter in space will cool down strongly (Pluto is already only 40 K) and will act as a black body radiator: radiation, with lower, higher and the same temperature of the dark matter that falls on the dark matter is absorbed by the dark matter and it gets radiated away again from the dark matter at the wavelength that corresponds with the (equilibrium) temperature of the dark matter. Thus dark matter may be helping to set the (local or nonlocal) equilibrium temperature and cause the cosmic background radiation (CBR). Dark matter may be heated up by infrared light, visible light and other radiation exceeding 2.73 K and it may be cooled down by (longer) waves of the cosmic background radiation and long radio waves and other waves with temperatures less than 2.73 K. The cosmic background radiation spectrum in the wavelength interval 2.5 mm - 0.5 mm is a perfect black body with a radiation temperature of 2.73 K. The extremely smooth curve may be caused by very much dark matter cooled down to the equilibrium temperature of 2.73 K.
If we look at our Solar System and especially at the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and the van Oort cloud: small pieces of debris may have a big total surface and may play a big part in setting the equilibrium temperature in the universe. But then: dust is even much more smaller and may play a bigger part than the debris, or: hydrogen atoms (or free electrons5) are even much more smaller particles may play the most important part in transducing energy from high frequency radiation to low frequency radiation. And one may anticipate the existence of gravity particles: perhaps gravity particles may be the intermediate through which, in the end, the equilibrium temperature of the universe settles down itself. If the redshift of far away galaxies is caused by gravity particles as mentioned in chapter 1-2 then light is cooled down by gravity particles and in a certain way the velocity of the light has become slower: the light wave goes in a slower tempo up and down (or: around, if a light wave is a helical wave, see chapter 8-1) because its frequency has diminished. At the same time gravity particles have been heated and speeded up by the light wave. Or: if high energy photons can give energy to gravity particles then gravity particles can give energy to photons with less energy (like low energy photons of the CBR or much longer radio waves). Perhaps on a long range radiation waves thus can give energy to each other (with gravity particles as the intermediate), perhaps luminous light gives energy to the cosmic background radiation this way. Also one may wonder why we don't see (because of existence redshift) an abundance of CBR below 2 Kelvin; this may be due to heating up photons of lower energy by gravity particles (or dark matter or electrons5 etc). Thus the redshift (by gravity) may be a little different for different light frequencies and turn into blueshift when the frequency drops below a certain value [if not then dark matter may be the most likely candidate as the intermediate through which the equilibrium temperature of the universe settles down itself as well as the intermediate that brings CBR]. Gravity particles (or dark matter or another medium) heating the cosmic background radiation may explain why the curve of the cosmic background radiation (intensity versus wavelength) drops so fast between wavelengths of 0.2 and 2.0 cm: because CBR wavelengths below a certain value are heated. [Multitude and wavelengths of CBR-photons may also be influenced by radiation turning back into hydrogen somehow, see chapters 8-3 and 8-4.]
Gravity particles (or dark matter or another medium) may also interfere with neutrinos, thus bringing the neutrino cosmic background radiation at a temperature of 70 percent of the photon background temperature, or approximately 2 Kelvin1.
We don't know whether or not gravity particles exist, but if they do: there may be even smaller particles than gravity particles that take things to a somehow even profounder level; and so on, you never know if a more profounder level does or does not exist. At the same time: the whole to us right now visible universe may be part of a super-supercluster. We may live in a super-supercluster we call our universe, which may be part of even something bigger that we may come to know about when techniques enable us to see further out in space; and this super-supercluster may be part of a super-super-supercluster, etc. Scales may be infinite, both on (infinite) large scales and on (infinite) small scales (see also chapters 1-2 and 8-4).
Perhaps dark matter is the best candidate as transducer of energy between radiation of different wave lengths, thus producing cosmic background radiation (CBR). The CBR may come from dark matter in the depths of our universe as well as from the dark matter in our Galaxy.
Our CBR may be caused by:
CBR may come from dark matter in: interstellar space, our halo or intergalactic space. The question may be: How much from where?
The differences in the CBR temperature are 10-4 K. These temperature differences may be caused by: A. peculiar flow velocities of dark matter; B. peculiar temperatures of dark matter (there may be small temperature differences in the universe throughout the universe); C. both peculiar flow velocities and peculiar temperatures of dark matter.
The temperature differences of the CBR may correspond with peculiar velocities of dark matter or peculiar temperatures of dark matter in the neighborhood of our Sun or/and in the halo of our Galaxy or/and in other parts (much further away) in the universe.
There are about 50 stars within 5 pc from our Sun. If those 50 stars, on average, have the same mass as our Sun and if within 5 pc there is 50% dark matter (versus 50% luminous matter in the form of stars) and the average mass of the dark matter is the mass of our Earth, then we would have a number of dark "earths" of: 50 x MSun / MEarth = 1.7 x 107. This would be a high number within 5 pc and it would be only within 5 pc, further away in the disk of our Galaxy very much more dark matter would be around. Perhaps thus dark matter can give a smooth CBR curve.
It is estimated that 90% of the dark matter of our Galaxy is in the halo1. Still: the concentration of dark matter in the disk of our Galaxy may be much higher, because the volume of the disk is small relative to the volume of the halo. So the dark matter that dominated the CBR-COBE-picture may be found close to our Sun (COBE = Cosmic Background Explorer, a satellite launched in 1989 to measure the spectrum and intensity distribution of the CBR).
Concentrations of dark matter in interstellar "bells" may explain the COBE-map too.
The dark matter in our halo may be 2 x 1011 solar masses4. If this dark matter would be around in only Earth-mass-magnitudes then there would be 2 x 1011 x MSun / MEarth = 3.3 x 1016 dark "earths" in the halo behaving as a black body radiator and turning all kind of radiation in CBR radiation. This is an incredible large number that may be capable of causing smooth background radiation of 2.73 K. Of course CBR may come from dark matter of all kind of distances, including intergalactic dark matter. Thus the question may be: which dark matter dominates the COBE picture?
[The quantities of dark matter that are supposed to be in our Galaxy or in superclusters of galaxies is calculated by the virial theorem, which states that galaxies and superclusters do not expand nor contract, which is, I think, not the case. So perhaps corrections must be made, which eventually may lead to different outcomes of dark matter quantities.]
The apparent size of stars is deceptive because of diffraction1. Diffraction may be caused by (very many relative small amounts of) dark matter. If so, then also CBR emitted by dark matter will be diffracted by (other) dark matter, thus causing a smoother CBR picture.
One may say that if there is that much dark matter we should have seen it, it would, for instance, enter our Solar System this very moment. If dark matter comes into our Solar System it may fall on the Sun or rather just leave the Solar System. Mass coming into the Solar System and then steady orbiting the Sun may be a small chance, because speed and direction must be of a specific combination in order to come into an orbit that is stable and enduring (see also chapter 7-1). Also: dark matter just passing through our Solar System as big as our Earth is not easy to see when it is passing at quite a distance, for example beyond the asteroid belt. The volume of a sphere with a radius as big as the distance between the Sun and the asteroid belt is 0.015% of the volume of a sphere with a radius as big as the semimajor axis of Pluto. And: if dark matter as big as our Earth or Moon (or smaller pieces) would fall on the Sun, would we see it? Perhaps dark matter causes solar flares or coronal mass ejections, both are phenomenons that are not understood yet.
As mentioned in chapter 3-2 there may be some kind of density equilibrium in our universe: the ratio between nucleons and photons; and thus, perhaps, the degree of nucleons turning into radiation versus the degree of radiation turning into nucleons (with or without the help of other particles like gravity particles and/or neutrinos, see chapters 8-3 and 8-4). If nucleons (or baryonic matter) can turn into radiation, like in our Sun, then perhaps there must be a mechanism that turns radiation into nucleons (or baryonic matter).
[A density equilibrium may explain why the amount of mass in the universe is at "critical density", which is related to the big bang theory: the amount of mass in the universe is that much that a big bang universe would balance between "open" and "closed"1; a static steady-state universe that is so extremely old that it has found a density equilibrium may account for this amount of mass per volume in the universe.]
There may be other equilibria like: luminous walls and bridges turning into voids (with dark matter) and voids turning into luminous walls and bridges; luminous matter turning into dark matter and dark matter (being part of new born stars) turning into luminous matter; ellipticals turning into spirals and (the universal engines of) spirals turning into ellipticals [or rather: bringing ellipticals to existence by concentrating hydrogen, see chapter 4-1].
The center of our Galaxy may be an old galaxy-galaxy which may be a universal engine by itself, but at the meantime it may consist of different (smaller) universal engines, like Sagittarius A* which may be an old spiral galaxy (see also chapters 6-1 and 9-1). The center of our Galaxy is small (< 1 pc diameter) and massive (about 106 MSun)4. In the infrared, at wavelengths near 2 x 10-4 cm, the galactic nucleus is 1.5 pc in diameter with several nearby sources in a sphere of radius 10 pc4. An infrared radiation of 2 x 10-4 cm corresponds with a black body temperature of 500 K. This heat may come from frictional heat by strong concentrated fast moving dark matter. Thermal blackbody radiation thus may cause the infrared radiation coming from the center of our Galaxy.
Infrared radiation may also originate from contraction of mass by gravity (which I call Hawking radiation). If gravity is a repulsive force (see chapter 8-3) then very many small concentrated pieces of dark matter may circle around a central point meanwhile not sticking together easily because of their dynamics (their fast circular velocities) plus their gravitational repulsion towards each other, and so: they may (individually) contract very strongly by gravity, and so they may send out Hawking radiation. Stephen Hawking calculated for the temperature of radiation coming from a black hole1:
temperature = 1 x 10-7 x MSun / MDark Matter K
This formula of Hawking can be deduced by the theory of general relativity as well as by Newtonian theory1. Hawking radiation may be a second way dark matter may cause radiation (next to thermal blackbody radiation).
Many dark matter masses with MDark Matter of 1020-1021 kg that contract strongly may send out a huge amount of Hawking radiation with wavelengths as from a blackbody having a temperature of 500 K, which will be mainly infrared radiation and some radio radiation.
If 106 MSun (106 x 2 x 1030 kg) within 0.5 pc from the Galactic core would be present in dark matter masses of Earth magnitude (= 6 x 1024 kg), we find space for every MEarth dark matter piece in the order of one "earth" in a sphere with a radius of 15 AU. So even in our massive Galactic core the amount of empty space is overwhelming (and so: there may be no necessity for a black hole in the center of our Galaxy). Though: recent observations with X-ray and radio waves have pointed out that radio source Sagittarius A* (which is situated in the core of the nucleus bulge of our Galaxy) has 2.6 x 106 sun masses in a sphere with a diameter of 1 AU. Then we get 8.7 x 1011 dark matter objects of Earth-magnitude (6 x 1024 kg) in a sphere with a diameter of 1 AU. This means that for every "earth" there is a sphere with a radius of 15,600 km. With the Earth having a radius of 6,387 km, this would mean that 93.1% of the space within Sagittarius A* is empty space, which literally may mean: enough space for fast rotating dark matter, but also: enough concentration of dark matter to get strong frictional heat and/or strong contraction by gravity (and thus strong Hawking radiation). Of course, in order to have an engine or engines that can give the enormous power to structure our (spiral-shaped) Galaxy (see chapters 4-1 and 4-2), one way or the other there must be something of an amazing magnitude, like mass of magnitude 2.6 million MSun in a sphere with a diameter of 1 AU (rotating very fast). Within such a region with all kind of masses with big speeds it is not surprising that all kind of radiation comes from the nucleus of our Galaxy, like thermal and nonthermal radio continuum emission, infrared radiation, X-rays, and even gamma rays4 (for synchrotron radiation: see AGNs in chapter 6-1).
Right now it is believed that heavier elements than iron are formed during supernovae. Perhaps that during very strong contraction of (strong concentrated) dark matter heavy elements may be formed as well: the dark matter has to get rid of energy and perhaps does so by making heavier elements than iron.
Also: if contracted dark matter heats up to over more than 1 x 1010 K heavier elements than iron (and lead) may be formed as well. Strong kinetic energy (or high speeds of dark matter) in universal engines may cause strong frictional heat, and hence temperatures may raise high by kinetic energy, next to energy raised by (contracting) gravitational forces. If on the other hand dark matter floats through intergalactic space for an extremely long time the opposite happens: heavy elements decay and release energy (this may be the reason why our Earth is hot inside: our Earth may have been smaller and colder, see also part 7).
The flickering of some of the flickering stars may be due to old shrunk dark matter circling in front of the star. This would explain why the flickering sometimes corresponds with the orbit of the Earth6.
There are some double stars with one star lacking. The other luminous component circles around something, but we can't see what it is, it is dark. Like Cyg.X-1, a X-ray source; the mass of the dark companion is more than 5 solar masses, so it can't be a neutron star1. Dark matter may be the companion.
The dark sky at night riddle often has been considered as a serious problem in cosmology1 and it may become a problem once again with a static endless universe. The dark sky riddle may be explained by dark matter radiating its mass and energy away in the form of (nonluminous) cosmic background radiation. Astronomers, under whom Fournier d'Albe in 1907, early in the twentieth century already suspected that starlight is absorbed by dark matter drifting in space between the stars1. And: cosmic background radiation may be transformed back into hydrogen somehow (this solution, of radiation turning back into hydrogen, thus solving the dark sky riddle, already has been proposed by MacMillan in 19221). And: existence redshift (by gravity particles) gradually changing visible light into CBR may tribute to the solution of the dark sky riddle too (Bondi already proposed in 1955 that the dark sky riddle might be solved by redshift1).
A universe very much older than 15 billion years explains the abundance of helium in the universe. About 25 percent of all matter (in the form of free protons and electrons) has been transformed into helium nuclei. If the stars in a big bang universe have worked (for 15 billion years) industriously at converting hydrogen into helium they only succeeded in transforming about 2 percent of all hydrogen1. Yet more than 10 times as much hydrogen is burned into helium. A universe much older than 150 billion years would explain the abundance of helium.
Dark matter may cause gravitational microlensing. Microlensing light curves have shown changes in light magnitude of stars which imply that a non-negligible fraction of mass may reside in the form of free-floating planetary-mass objects in interstellar space. This has been measured with the Hubble Space Telescope by Sahu and co-workers7. The measured changes in light magnitude show, beside the large changes in light magnitude (which may be explained, as proposed by Sahu and co-workers, by relative large dark matter in the magnitude of our Solar planets), very many small deviations that are a little larger than the photometric error. These small deviations may be due to many small dark matter masses (for example with mass-magnitude of our Moon or smaller) that pass in front of the observed object, thus causing small microlensing effects.
The nonluminous voids that we see in all kinds of magnitude everywhere throughout the universe may be places where hydrogen atoms come to existence: very slowly and very dilute. Hydrogen atoms may come to existence everywhere, but when they do in galaxies where a lot of other concentrated matter is, then the hydrogen won't play a major role. Perhaps the hydrogen forming, that may take place in large nonluminous voids over many years, may be the key to the forming of new galaxies. Perhaps enormous many hydrogen atoms slowly concentrate to certain regions because they are attracted by dark matter, thus concentrating and thus clotting together to become (population II) stars (in elliptical galaxies, see chapter 4-1).
All the movement of luminous matter like galaxies and stars and also the movement of dark matter and our planets may be originated by mass (hydrogen) coming to existence somewhere. Mass attracts other mass, and thus kinetic energy is raised by gravitational (potential) energy, first by hydrogen clotting to stars of an elliptical galaxy, then stars of an elliptical emerging into a spiral galaxy, and: galaxies attracting other galaxies. Thus universal engines of all kind of magnitude may be created: (dark) galaxy-galaxies, dark cores of galaxies, pulsars, quasars, which all may be related towards each other in the sense that they all originated by mass attracting other mass. In other words: mass may come to existence by (for example) radiation transforming itself in nucleons and this mass (the nucleons) starts moving and clots together in stars and thus finally the nucleons are burnt to radiation again. Meanwhile (the remains of) the stars are moving to other stars, or rather: (dark) galaxies move to other (dark) galaxies. Thus all dynamics in the universe may originate from: mass coming to existence somewhere and then moving to other mass. [This may not solve the puzzle why photons have speed, which has to be explained on a (deeper) sub-atomic level, perhaps something with gravity particles, see chapter 8-1; it may not solve the dynamics in an atom either, which may be something with gravity particles as well, see chapter 8-3.]
I think it is more likely to change when, and because, far-reaching changes in the mental temper of our descendants demand that it should. The new Model will not be set up without evidence, but the evidence will turn up when the inner need for it becomes sufficiently great.
Part 4 describes how elliptical galaxies may originate from hydrogen clouds and emerge into spiral galaxies which in their turn emerge into irregulars I that eventually darken. Further it is described how regular clusters may originate from nonluminous voids and emerge into irregular clusters which on their turn finally darken into nonluminous voids.
Nonluminous voids in all kind of magnitudes may cause elliptical galaxies to come to existence. There are strong radio sources in the cores of giant ellipticals. This may explain why a giant elliptical has come to existence: a dark enormous galaxy-galaxy (acting as a radio source, see chapter 6-1) in an enormous nonluminous void attracts, over an enormous long time, enormous much hydrogen (that has been formed in the nonluminous void) which drifts to the core (of the future elliptical), the dark galaxy-galaxy. Also dust and (other, loose) dark matter is attracted by the strong concentrated enormous amount of dark matter core, but dust and dark matter may not drift as fast as hydrogen (with gravity as an inertial force, see 8-4 at Mach's principle), so at first relative more hydrogen is concentrated and thus stars with relative little dust and dark matter are formed: population II stars [though the higher heavier element content of population I stars may be (more) due to supernovae by population II stars, see also the end of this chapter]. Closer to the core more hydrogen is concentrated and so the center of the giant elliptical becomes very bright (also because the stars in an elliptical move to the center). There are a lot of heavy elements in the core in the form of rotating dark matter of the old galaxy-galaxy but not outside the core which explains why the stars of the elliptical are metal poor (population II stars). But because everywhere throughout the universe dark matter is floating in all kind of concentrations and all kind of directions there will be dark matter and dust (where dark matter is, is clashing of dark matter and thus dust) and so population II stars are not completely without heavy elements, they just have heavy elements (dark matter) in a concentration much lower than population I stars. When there is occasionally a little more dark matter somewhere in an elliptical galaxy population I stars can come to existence as well, it's only a matter of concentration of heavy elements at a certain place. So there is not a sharp line between population I and II stars, which is already pinpointed out by others4.
This way not only giant ellipticals can be formed, ellipticals of all kind of different magnitudes as well, depending on the strength of the universal engine that brought the hydrogen together and depending on the amount of hydrogen available. The strength of the universal engine and the available hydrogen are correlated to a certain degree: more dark matter in the engine means that from further away hydrogen will be attracted and also: more dark matter means a larger surrounding (nonluminous) void; but it also depends on other competing universal (dark matter) engines that may be nearby. Dark matter floats in all kind of directions and in all kind of concentrations through the universe and so do universal engines with all kind of mass- and momentum-magnitudes, though very heavy concentrations of dark matter will, of course, be more immobile (though maybe not on very large scales, which may mean that super superclusters may exist). So all kind of ellipticals (and globular clusters) may come to existence.
Globular clusters in our Galaxy, extremely compact and spherically symmetric balls of old (12 to 15 billion years) stars (up to 500,000 stars in some), are found at great distances from the central plane of our Galaxy4. These clusters may be old elliptical dwarf galaxies that have shrunken very much without a strong universal engine in the middle that makes the galaxy turn into a dwarf spiral galaxy (though the reason why we don't see dwarf spiral galaxies also may be: dwarf ellipticals have darkened before they can turn into spirals, see chapter 4-2). Those dwarf ellipticals may have been sucked up by our Galaxy. Some 200 globular clusters (with 105 to 106 stars) within 25 kpc of the core of our Galaxy are known to be associated with our Galaxy. They (almost) all move little by little to the core of our Galaxy like perhaps (almost) all members of our Local Group within 250 kpc may be sucked up eventually by our Galaxy (dark or still luminous), thus finally turning our Galaxy in a (relative small) galaxy-galaxy, which may become part of a larger galaxy-galaxy with the Andromeda Galaxy (being a galaxy-galaxy itself with sucked up smaller galaxies) as a binary; and the galaxy-galaxy that finally thus may make up our total Local Group will then, of course, be part of a bigger galaxy-galaxy, etc.
The above mentioned way of the birth of elliptical galaxies may explain why very strong radio sources have been observed in the centers of giant ellipticals. The centers of giant ellipticals have stronger universal engines than the universal engines of smaller ellipticals, and hence are more capable of producing radio waves (see also chapters 4-4 and 6-2).
Stars in ellipticals form itself less vigorously than stars in spirals (see chapter 4-2), and so stars in ellipticals can form itself slower, contracting slower and thus relative more hydrogen flows to a star (it's a "clean sweep"); this may be the reason why there is not much gas found in ellipticals. Another (probably better) reason may be: there is as much gas in ellipticals as in spirals but because the gas in spirals is much more concentrated in a disk halo we see it (better). Hydrogen popping out in empty places in space will be optically very thin and may be only seen when it is concentrated enough (for our Today instruments to measure) due to attraction by concentrated dark matter.
Hydrogen may flow faster through space than dust which may flow faster through space than dark matter. [As aforementioned this may be due to gravity acting as an inertial force. High-velocity hydrogen clouds, nearly all exhibiting velocities of approach (to our Galaxy), have been subjects of intense debate4. The gas moves faster (= attracted faster) than stars and thus: gravity may be an inertial force, see also chapter 8-4 at Mach's principle.] Where the formation of ellipticals is concerned: dust and dark matter may come from further away (than hydrogen) and therefore ellipticals may contain less dust and dark matter than spirals as well. And: spirals are older and more concentrated and much mass has been radiated away because of hydrogen burning and so the concentration of heavy elements is raised too, but also by supernovae of collapsing stars and perhaps also by explosions of dark matter (supernovae, X-ray bursts or gamma ray bursts, see chapters 5-1 and 5-3).
One may wonder why there are no "baby" galaxies. A "baby" galaxy may start as an elliptical. The universal engine within the young elliptical first gets high hydrogen concentrations nearby, a baby galaxy may be a (dwarf) elliptical (that is growing) [but also a cD galaxy, see chapter 4-3, or an extended radio galaxy, see chapter 6-2].
There has been search for interstellar dust and it was found. There has been a search for intergalactic dust as well and it was not found4. I think that there very well may be intergalactic dust but not as strongly concentrated as in our spiral Galaxy, it is optically thin, it gets concentrated when it is sucked up by galaxies and that may be the reason why we can see it in our Galaxy.
A model for recent X-ray emission observations in clusters shows evidence of intergalactic (ionized hydrogen) gas in clusters, with the gas having a total mass that is 10 to 20 times greater than the mass of the stars in all the cluster galaxies4. [The intergalactic hydrogen gas in clusters makes up 20% of the missing mass in clusters derived by the virial theorem4.] There is no evidence so far for much gas between the clusters, which may be logic: if gas is attracted and thus flowing to galaxies it will be more concentrated in clusters and hence the gas between clusters may be optically too thin for (Today) observation techniques. There is also a lot of iron observed in the intergalactic gas in clusters. Theoretical models of the emission of ionized iron lines require iron abundances (relative to hydrogen) about half that of the Sun4. This may be conform my theory about attracting dust and dark matter by galaxies. Today models point out that gas plus trace elements must be processed by stars in the galaxies and then removed from the galaxies4, but this does not make sense to me, it seems impossible to me that gas plus trace elements would be able to escape from galaxies in such large quantities, and: can stars lose quantities as big as that?
The most common galaxies in the universe are dwarf ellipticals (dE galaxies). Giant ellipticals originate from very heavy universal engines, but there must be much more smaller universal engines sweeping gas from a smaller volume of space, so that may be the reason why dE galaxies are most numerous in the universe. But also: there will be lots of dE galaxies due to lots of small voids.
There are no dwarf spirals (which is considered to be an important clue to galaxy formation4), which may be for two reasons: dwarf ellipticals may be swallowed by bigger galaxies by the time they would transform to dwarf spirals (see chapter 4-2: ellipticals emerging into spirals), and also: dwarf elliptical galaxies may originate from a small nucleus of dark matter. The larger the concentration of dark matter the larger its momentum (on average), because: with more rotating dark matter more kinetic energy plus gravitational forces cause momentum of the rotating galaxy-galaxy. Dark matter that concentrated the gas that originated (the stars of) a dwarf elliptical may have not enough power to turn the dwarf elliptical into a spiral elliptical. But also: if the amount of gas is too small then the dwarf elliptical will be darkened before it had the chance to become a dwarf spiral. And: dwarf ellipticals and globular clusters may end as supernovae or cepheids.
Looking at galaxy formation as in chapter 4-1 brings us back to (at least parts) of the Hubble fork. Consider an elliptical that has a size corresponding with the size of our Galaxy (which means: a bigger elliptical). The elliptical slowly adjusts itself to the enormous rotating power that is in its core: dark matter (an old galaxy-galaxy) circling around. The enormous gravity by the galaxy-galaxy sucks in (new) hydrogen gas, (new) dust and (new) dark matter from the halo and further away and, of course, sucks in the population II stars of the elliptical. By doing so the elliptical galaxy slowly transforms itself into a spiral galaxy: population II stars go to the center, thus creating the (spherical) nucleus bulge of the galaxy. At the same time the outer parts of the galaxy flatten because those parts adjust themselves to the extremely strong rotating universal engine in the core of the galaxy. The gravitational power by the core attracts stars, dark matter, gas and dust that come towards the core in spiral structures (right now there are problems with understanding the spiral structure, the energy/mechanism that "drives" a spiral galaxy is not understood so far4). This way it is explained why our halo turns around much slower than the spiral arms of our Galaxy: being further away from the core the halo needs more time to adjust itself.
During the transformation of an elliptical into a spiral a lot of hydrogen, dust and dark matter swirls towards the core of the galaxy and gets compressed into the direction of the core and so new stars with higher concentrations of heavy elements are born: population I stars that outline the spiral structures of spiral galaxies; they are compressed faster and hence burn faster and brighter and hence ellipticals tend to be much redder than spirals (and spirals tend to be redder than irregulars I, see chapter 4-3). The bulge of our Galaxy is dominated by (sucked up) old (population II) stars, but it contains some young stars where the bulge intersects the plane of our Galaxy4. Those young stars may have come to existence because at that point gas and dust comes in from the plane and gets strongly concentrated.
An elliptical galaxy changes slowly into a spiral galaxy, the galaxy shrinks and more and more stars will turn into dark matter. Thus spiral galaxies do not exhibit the great range of masses and sizes of the elliptical galaxies (because when an elliptical galaxy has finally become a spiral galaxy much mass has been radiated away and much mass has become nonluminous and the galaxy has shrunk).
Gas and dust adjust themselves dynamically stronger to the general flow in the spiral arms of our Galaxy (stronger than the massive older population II stars do) and therefore we may expect younger (population I) stars to have a smaller tendency to move out of the galactic plane than older (population II) stars. This is observed4. This also may explain why young stars are in nearly circular galactic orbits about the core of the Milky Way and very old stars and globular clusters are in highly eccentric orbits. On average younger stars are closer to the galactic plane and show less perpendicular velocity to the galactic plane where older stars are further away from the galactic plane and show more perpendicular velocity to the galactic plane; the distribution of younger stars is patchy and their concentration to the galactic center is little where the distribution of older stars is smooth and their concentration to the galactic center is strong; this all corresponds with the above mentioned ways of star- and galaxy-birth. With hydrogen swirling in from outside the disk it is not surprising that further away from the nuclear bulge the hydrogen is less and less in the from of H2 (because of higher concentrations closer to the nuclear bulge) and more and more in the form of H I, and: the thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy (due to hydrogen being sucked in from a very large volume outside the galactic disk). Population II stars in the halo have very low metal abundance: little dust and dark matter is concentrated there; and population II stars in the nucleus are relatively metal rich: because of the high concentration of dust and dark matter in the nucleus. Globular clusters that rotate highly eccentric about the nucleus of our Galaxy may originate from hydrogen clouds that were at quite some distance from the (old) elliptical galaxy (which our spiral Galaxy originated from). [The reason of those concentrations of hydrogen may be: (concentrated) dark matter; thus globular clusters ought to contain a certain amount of (old) dark matter as well.] The globular clusters that form a sphere around the Galaxy's center are metal poor. In contrast, the metal rich globular clusters make up a disk-like distribution with a scale height of 1 kpc4; the metal rich clusters may have originated later when hydrogen and dust where sucked in, which explains the smaller distance to the galactic disk and the higher abundance of metals.
Population II stars constitute most of the total stellar mass of our Galaxy, which is logic considering that our galaxy once was an elliptical with very many population II stars. If our Galaxy becomes more and more a Sc spiral then the ration population II versus population I will change to relative more population I stars.
Universal engines of all kind of mass magnitude and rotation speed may explain why we see spiral galaxies with different rotation speeds.
Looking at the universe as being static and very old explains why we don't see population III stars with zero metal abundance: the universe is "polluted" with dust and dark matter everywhere (the lack of population III stars is a major problem in current astrophysics4).
Universal engines of all kind of mass magnitude and rotation speed may explain why we see spiral galaxies with different rotation speeds.
During the formation of a spiral galaxy out of an elliptical galaxy an expended disk with gas and stars is formed and in the direction of the galactic plane the spatial density of the stars increases and their metal abundance rises (because closer to the galactic plane higher concentrations of dust and dark matter join the stars during and after their formation). Because hydrogen is lighter than dust hydrogen may flow faster than dust towards the universal engine and therefore we may find more dust in spirals than in ellipticals, and more dust in Sb spirals than in Sa spirals, and more dust in Sc spirals than in Sb spirals, and more dust in Irr I galaxies than in Sc spirals (but also because of supernovae by old stars and more clashing of more concentrated dark matter). The same goes for dark matter: dark matter may approach the galaxy even slower than dust and hence it may be that a lot of dark matter is (supposed to be) in the halo of our Galaxy.
Nuclei in Sc-spirals are smaller than in Sa and Sb spirals, perhaps because they have shrunk during their Sa and Sb phases.
Elliptical galaxies are young and therefore spherical. They are more shaped by the gravitational attraction by dark matter in the center of the galaxy. Only later the rotation of the center gets more grip on the elliptical galaxy, which then turns into a spiral. Spirals are older systems, though it depends on the magnitude of the galaxies: smaller ellipticals generally may turn into spirals sooner, a giant elliptical may be older than a relative small spiral.
One may question why we see giant ellipticals in the centers of superclusters, why have they not yet turned into spirals? Perhaps because they are giants, which need more time to change into spirals. Those giant ellipticals are positioned in the centers of superclusters and so: the universal engine rotating in the center of the elliptical galaxy is attracting and starting rotating enormous amounts of mass, not only the enormous amounts of mass in the form of matter in the elliptical galaxy itself, but also enormous amounts of mass in the form of other galaxies moving towards the giant elliptical. So: it may take very long time for a giant elliptical to speed up its rotation rate. [Probably ellipticals already do rotate (slowly).]
Observations have shown that the greater the angular momentum of a spiral galaxy the more flattened the galaxy4, which is easy to understand with a central universal engine causing the momentum and directing the shape of a galaxy. And: the stronger the universal engine the more gas is sucked up from far away, so on average bigger galaxies will have stronger universal engines (also depending on the amount of hydrogen available and competition by other universal engines), which have stronger momentum and flatten the galaxy more. The flatness of a galaxy too may depend on the hydrogen concentrations around the universal engine, or: the shape (flat or sphere-like) of the hydrogen region that flows to the engine. Also the amount of (lose floating) dark matter may play a part, by slowing down the hydrogen flow.
Perhaps young ellipticals are more sphere-like when the galaxy-galaxy in the core is more sphere-like and perhaps young ellipticals are more flattened when the galaxy-galaxy in the core is more flattened. Therefore the form of an elliptical at the time of its (lumination) birth may be spherical as well as (more) flattened. Thus the shape of an elliptical may depend on: the momentum of its universal engine, the shape of its universal engine and the shape of the hydrogen cloud where the elliptical originates from (and competition by other galaxies).
Irr I galaxies may be older and therefore may be irregular: parts of a spiral galaxy may have become dark and a spiral galaxy may be teared up by tidal forces by other galaxies or by dark matter (in the halo, see also barred spirals in chapter 5-2). There are not many Irr I galaxies, 3% of the observed galaxies are irregulars (big irregulars, for there are many small irregulars), which makes sense because they may be galaxies on the brink to become dark, so they don't exist that long as luminous (spiral) galaxies and therefore there are not to many luminous irregulars but perhaps there are very many dark irregulars (which rather may be seen as dark spirals). With ellipticals being progenitors of spirals and spirals being progenitors of irregulars I it may make sense that (big) ellipticals are a scale bigger than spirals and that spirals are a scale bigger than irregulars I:
|Mass (MSun)||105 to 1013||109 to 4 x 1011||108 to 3 x 1010|
|Abs. magnitude||-9 to -23||-15 to -21||-13 to -18|
|Lumin. (LSun)||3 x 105 to 1011||108 to 2 x 1010||107 to 109|
|Diameter (kpc)||1 to 200||5 to 50||1 to 10|
|Population content||II and old I||I in arms, II and I overall||I, some II|
A lot of dwarf ellipticals may have become small irregulars, accounting for much of the (small) irregulars we see nearby. Dwarf ellipticals may darken before they can become spirals and are more influenced by tidal forces of other galaxies.
Irregulars I descending from spirals ought to have much dark matter.
Perhaps the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) may be old spiral galaxies that have become Irr I galaxies. They are still reasonable heavy (LMC has 100 times less mass than our Galaxy) and they are moving with (different, so they may be a binary system) speeds towards our Galaxy, whereas the dwarf galaxies close to our Galaxy don't show movement relative to our Galaxy (which may mean that LMC and SMC are old compared to the dwarf ellipticals, otherwise the dwarf ellipticals would move towards our Galaxy as well). Other galaxies in our Local Group move away from our Galaxy (though our Galaxy may form a triple-system with M31 and M33). LMC and SMC may be very old galaxies that have radiated away much mass during many years. If so, then the two galaxies should still be rotating (partly dark) spirals that are teared up by tidal forces working upon each other.
If irregulars I are spirals at the brink of becoming dark then it may make sense that that there are relative few irregulars I. The relative short existence of irregulars goes for ellipticals versus spirals as well. Probably the elliptical phase of a galaxy is shorter than the spiral (Sa + Sb + Sc) phase and hence there may be more spirals than ellipticals (with high mass magnitudes, for dE galaxies are very numerous).
cD galaxies appear superficially to be ellipticals, but they have greatly extended envelopes and, frequently, multiple nuclei. The multiple nuclei are now considered to be left overs from cannibalism4, but more likely it may be that those multiple nuclei are the left overs of multiple galaxy-galaxies that rotate very fast around each other: Doppler-shift data indicate that the nuclei within a cD move at relative speeds of about 1000 km/s. The extensive halos of cD galaxies may be due to the afore described continuous attraction of hydrogen (and dust and dark matter). The diameters of cD galaxies range up to 2000 kpc where the diameters of ellipticals range up to 200 kpc. cD galaxies may therefore be progenitors of (giant) ellipticals, or: "baby" galaxies. The nucleus of a cD galaxy often consists of multiple nuclei that rotate very fast: the galaxy-galaxy has not shrunken (strongly) yet (see also chapter 4-4 at the explanation of radio sources in giant ellipticals) and thus the nuclei may (still) have very fast relative speeds. The multiple nuclei in our Galaxy probably have lost very much momentum by bringing al the matter of our Galaxy into rotation, thus creating the spiral structure.
Observations have shown little gas and dust in our halo4. This may not be true. Gas and dust may be present in the halo in such low concentrations that we can't see it (yet), but the total amount may be huge. In Sc spirals and irregulars the extent of the hydrogen in many cases is almost double of the optical size of the galaxy4. This may be observed because the concentrations of hydrogen could be observed, thanks to the high concentration of hydrogen. My guess is that the extend of (low concentrated) hydrogen for many ellipticals and Sa and Sb spirals will turn out to be larger when observation techniques improve, perhaps even much larger than the extend of hydrogen for Sc spirals and irregulars (of comparable mass-magnitudes).
The density distribution in the halo falls of as 1/r2 (r = distance to Galactic nucleus), which means that if you picture adding shells of matter to the halo, each shell has the same mass. So as far as the rotation curve (of our Galaxy, see Fig. 4-3-I) is flat, large amounts of mass are added to the Galaxy's total4. This is exactly what happens if the above mentioned way of galaxy formation is true: during extremely long times dark matter (and dust) has been attracted and is still attracted from far away by the universal engine in the nucleus of our Galaxy and is approaching the nucleus. But also: the halo may contain an enormous amount of (low concentrated) hydrogen which is flowing to the disk arms. [The moment where the line in Fig. 4-3-I starts to be horizontal (at 13 kpc) may say something about the age of our Galaxy (or the age of galaxies in general).]
Figure 4-3-I. Rotation curve of the Galaxy.
In rotation curves for spiral galaxies we see (Fig. 4-3-II): Sa spirals have one peak of highest velocity close to the nucleus and Sb/Sc spirals have more peaks that tend to be further from the nucleus and have lower velocities. This may be because the universal engine in the core attracts mass. The peaks may become lower because the engine loses more and more energy to the mass it attracts, and so the velocity-peak closest to the engine, closest to the nuclear bulge, becomes lower when the spiral goes from Sa to Sb to Sc. The velocity-curves of Sb and Sc galaxies show more peaks (with valleys) and Sa galaxies show one peak.
Figure 4-3-II. Rotation curves for spiral galaxies.
In the case of the one peak in the Sa spiral in Fig. 4-3-II: mass gets attracted and starts rotating at a certain distance (Sa-peak) and at a further distance the rotation of the mass has not caught up with this peak and thus further away from the nucleus the rotation is slower. The universal engine of the Sa galaxy loses energy to the mass outside the nuclear bulge (the momentum of the engine becomes smaller) and so: at the distance from the nucleus where first the high Sa-peak was we get a lower Sb/Sc-peak-velocity. Between the peaks of the Sb-Sc-galaxies in Fig. 4-3-II there are valley's because the engine did rotate slower for a while. For a while because at a certain moment the momentum of the engine became bigger again because of the first peak-heap of mass (the Sa-peak) falling into (or: near to) the universal engine, thus enlarging the momentum of the universal engine. This way we may see those (peak-valley) waves in Fig. 4-3-II for the Sb and Sc spirals. An older spiral galaxy has more peaks and the peaks are more stretched and their average rotation velocity is less than spiral galaxies that are younger (of course it also depends on the strength of the universal engine in the nucleus and the magnitude of total mass in the galaxy, though the two are correlated to a certain degree, for a stronger universal engine attracts more hydrogen, dust and dark matter).
The more luminous a spiral galaxy the stronger its rotation is (which goes for all spiral types); this is the well known Tully-Fisher relationship4. The stronger the universal engine the more hydrogen is attracted. Stronger attraction by the universal engine causes more and brighter stars that are more close to each other and hence the luminosity is higher. A stronger universal engine gets a stronger grip on the velocity of the stars and hence the rotation is stronger too. Thus luminosity and rotation are correlated. Current astrophysics explains the Tully-Fisher relationship by: both luminosity and rotation of the spiral galaxy are determined by the mass of the spiral galaxy4, which does not make sense if one can not explain a spirals rotation mechanic nor the spirals amount of mass.
Elliptical galaxies are most often found in the densest cluster cores of superclusters where older Sc galaxies are found much more random in a supercluster. Within the (luminous) core of superclusters lots of galaxies move to each other creating empty space where ellipticals can originate, where in the less dense regions relative more Sc galaxies are found: those regions may contain a lot of dark galaxies that prohibit the formation of hydrogen (that can produce ellipticals) and hence ellipticals may not originate that easily in such places. Another explanation is: hydrogen most strongly gets sucked to the densest places in a supercluster and hence ellipticals may originate more in the dense regions, which may be the same as: young stars in our Galaxy originate in the spiral arms because hydrogen (flowing inwards from the halo) is concentrated in the spirals.
So far radio sources are always found in galaxies, never in nonluminous voids4. One may expect radio sources as well in voids with a static steady-state model of the universe. And perhaps they are (and will be found in future measurements). But perhaps there is a reason why they are not to be found in voids. When a galaxy becomes finally dark it has radiated away enormous amounts of mass, also the nucleus of the galaxy. There may be hardly anymore gas, dust and dark matter coming into the galaxy, and so: with less matter in the galaxy and less "pressure" by incoming new mass the galaxy is kind of "relaxed", cools down very strongly and only emits black body radiation of very low temperature, perhaps cosmic background radiation. [And: perhaps with no hydrogen gas (anymore) and less matter and less "pressure" there will not be synchrotron radiation, see chapter 6-1 at synchrotron radiation.]
All kind of galaxies are rotating around a central core in a galaxy-galaxy (in a nonluminous void) and they may keep circling for extremely long time, because they may form an extremely stable dynamic (rotating) system, because there are hardly forces from outside. [And thus there may be no strong force that produces strong magnetic fields and hence no synchrotron radiation either, see also chapters 6-1 and 6-2; and there may be no strong gravitational contraction of individual mass objects (yet) and hence no Hawking radiation as described in chapter 3-5.]
But when, after extremely many years, enough hydrogen has come to existence in the nonluminous void, and this hydrogen is attracted to the galaxy-galaxy (or universal engine) and the hydrogen starts concentrating and thus stars are born and a new (big) elliptical galaxy comes to existence, then finally the dark galaxy-galaxy may contract to a central core because of new infalling (luminous) matter (or perhaps rather: attracting mass from outside may reduce the orbiting speeds in the galaxy-galaxy which then contracts faster). The old dark matter in the core gets contracted and heated and other violent processes start happening, and then the core of the new formed elliptical galaxy may start to emit certain radiation [also synchrotron radiation when hydrogen is available again and a strong magnetic field has established itself, see chapter 6-1]. So there may be a good reason why the nonluminous voids in the universe keep "quiet". But perhaps one day we find new techniques that enable us to hear "extremely powerful roaring sounds" produced by immense powerful universal engines in the nonluminous voids.
In a big nonluminous void it is quite likely that its center has one or more huge universal engines, or: dark galaxy-galaxies, and so it is not surprising that we find in the center of the regular super Coma cluster two large, bright elliptical galaxies that lie near the center, about which the other galaxies seem to concentrate. Other rich regular clusters, such as A2199, are dominated by cD galaxies, which are supergiant, elliptically shaped galaxies and which may be, as mentioned in chapter 4-3, progenitors of giant ellipticals.
Throughout the universe there are regular clusters and irregular clusters. Regular clusters are giant systems with spherical symmetry and a high degree of central condensation. They frequently contain many thousands of member galaxies. Almost all members of regular clusters are either elliptical or SO galaxies. So: the region of a regular cluster may very well be a former old giant void, which is filled with young (elliptical and SO) galaxies. Irregular clusters contain a mixture of all types of galaxies and are more disk structured. They may very well be regions in which there has been luminosity for a very long time, so galaxies have reached spiral and irregular forms and have been attracted to each other which created smaller voids where new ellipticals could form itself, and so: all types of galaxies coexist in an irregular cluster like in our Local Group (which is, of course, only a small irregular cluster). Here we may see the logic of the existence of many dwarf ellipticals: galaxies that move towards each other create small voids that can be filled by small ellipticals; and: dwarf ellipticals will move to bigger nearby galaxies and finally be swallowed by those bigger galaxies (like the globular clusters in our Galaxy; and like our nearby dwarf ellipticals Sculptor, Leo I and II, Ursa Minor and Draco). Irregular clusters are smaller than regular clusters, which then, of course, may be due to shrinking.
Our Local Supercluster has a disk structure, so the galaxies of the Local Supercluster form a disk too which makes the formation of a galaxy-galaxy more likely. And: 98% of the visible galaxies of the Local Supercluster are contained in just 11 clouds that fill a mere 5% of the overall volume4. Yet, the clouds do delineate a disk structure, with a width about ten times its thickness4. So disk like structures of superclusters resemble three other ways of mass moving to other mass: the disk structure of irregular clusters (which are old clusters), the disk structures of spirals (which are old galaxies) and the disk structures of our Solar System (which may be an old and thus flattened solar system), all structures are (probably) flattened by rotation.
Regular clusters are young and thus spherical and irregular clusters are old and thus rotation or galaxy-galaxy formation has gotten its grip on the cluster and flattened the cluster. Elliptical galaxies, being the young ones, are spherical, whereas the spirals, being the old ones, are flattened because the galaxy-galaxy or universal engine in the center of the spiral has gotten grip on the galaxy. When techniques enable us to see more solar systems it may turn out that young solar systems have planets floating more spherical-like around their sun where older solar systems (like our Solar System) have more flattened (disk) structures because the rotation of the system has gotten more grip on the orbits of the planets. The same thing may fit in with superclusters, which are not spherical and dominated by flattened (disk) structures. Superclusters may be the (very) old ones and disk-like because rotation or galaxy-galaxy formation (or actually even cluster-cluster formation) has gotten its grip on them. But if so then where are the young ones? The spherical ones? The progenitors of the superclusters? The answer may be: the voids, giant nonluminous spherical voids, giant delivery rooms of new life.
Could some galaxies appear to be galaxies, but in fact be luminous galaxy-galaxies? Thus sometimes we may think a star is shining in a galaxy, but in reality we see a very old galaxy [as a point in the galaxy-galaxy, which point in reality consists of many smaller points that we can't see (yet): stars] very far away? Perhaps such apparent galaxies look like irregular galaxies that are very far away. Could there even be luminous cluster-clusters that appear to be (irregular) galaxies and which are extremely far away? [How does a cluster-cluster end? Could it become a quasar? See chapter 6-2.]
The same thrill, the same awe and mystery, come again and again when we look at any problem deeply enough.
Part 5 describes how dark matter may become very fiercely and cause universal explosions like supernovae, X-ray and gamma ray bursts. Part 5 also describes how dark matter may originate pulsars, barred spirals and magnetic fields in galaxies.
When dark matter is concentrated during fast rotation it may become a pulsar. A pulsar has a rotation axis inclined with respect to the magnetic axis of the magnetic field and hence it is a pulsar. This may be due to the remnants of the parent (collapsed) star that had this inclination too in the case that pulsars are, as pulsars are explained by science Today4, the remnants of supernovae by collapsing stars. But the inclination may also be due to layers of very concentrated very old dark matter. Dark matter concentrations may end up circling with different "layers" of rotation. Perhaps thus a pulsar can be the final result, and so: perhaps pulsars have more than two layers with different rotation, perhaps only the two most outward layers cause the observed radiation of pulsars. And: different kind of peaks in a pulsar-period may come from different (more than two) layers. If our universe is endless old then there may be extremely much small but concentrated rotating dark matter. Small rotating old universal engines may end as pulsars [and may play important roles in the triggering of star formation, brown dwarf formation and planet formation, which may lead to clues about magnetic fields of suns and planets]. Thus pulsars may be larger than they are supposed to be now. They may consist of very many relative small pieces of dark matter that rotate around each other very fiercely in different layers (though perhaps dark matter pieces may "melt together" to massive layers of dark matter as well).
When different layers of old dark matter have originated in such a way that a pulsar's rotation axis has only a small inclination with respect to the magnetic axis then the possible rotation velocity of the pulsar becomes very high and the magnetic field becomes very weak and their spindown rates extremely small and hence perhaps millisecond pulsars may come to existence. Millisecond pulsars have only very weak magnetic fields, but still we can see them4. If it is true that millisecond pulsars can originate because of the small inclination between its (old dark matter) layers then its beam of radiation may be small but concentrated. This may mean that there may be very much (millisecond) pulsars, very much more than we have been able to observe so far. [Perhaps this can be verified experimentally by spacecrafts that measure: A. when pulsars we can observe on Earth can't be observed anymore. B. pulsars we can't observe on Earth can be observed.]
Imagine a spiral galaxy that is extremely old and has been dark for an extremely long time and has shrunk very much. The galactic nucleus of the nuclear bulge of the galaxy is a very concentrated old universal engine rotating with a certain rotation axis. The rest of the nuclear bulge of the galaxy is a strong concentrated second layer with a (slightly) different rotation axis, and there is a third layer of concentrated dark matter, the old disk (of the spiral), that rotates with its own peculiar (slightly different) rotation axis as well [and there may be a fourth layer: the halo, which may be part of the third layer as well; I will ignore the possibility of a fourth layer from here, but a fourth layer may cause the hereafter mentioned explosion as well]. At a certain moment the third (rotating disk) layer falls on the second (nuclear bulge) layer and because the mass of the two layers is very strongly concentrated a chain reaction starts and thus a supernova may be born: the outer (third) disk layer explodes and drifts of into space (forming a supernova nebula) and what remains is: the layer of the old nuclear bulge rotating about the old universal engine: a pulsar. This may be an alternative model for pulsars coming to existence: an outer layer (or layers) of concentrated dark matter that explodes (see hereafter for a second alternative model).
Type I supernovae occur in ellipticals as well as in spirals and are associated with stars roughly the mass of the Sun and are therefore a puzzle [for it is hard to see how a solar-mass star can detonate as violently as a supernovae4]. Type I supernovae have no hydrogen or helium lines in their optical spectra and hence may originate from dark matter coming to an explosion; type I supernovae are expected to come from progenitors that are very uniform throughout the universe4, which concentrated (old) dark matter is.
[What happens when a pulsar is slowed down that much that the outer layer falls more inward? Can there be an explosion like for example an X-ray burst? See also at X-ray bursters in chapter 5-2.]
So far two (only two! and hence two coincidences?) pulsars are known to be the remnants of a supernova, and they both have a large spindown rate4. Could it be that pulsars have more than one way of originating? For example: if a BL Lacertae object can become a pulsar (see chapter 6-2) without an explosion, then those pulsars may have much smaller spindown rates, and so: perhaps millisecond pulsars do not originate from supernovae. So we may have pulsars originating from: A. collapsing stars (type II supernovae) B. collapsing dark matter (like BL Lac objects, type I supernovae) C. dark matter (like BL Lac objects) slowly emerging into a pulsar without a supernovae. [Supernovae may be caused too by the collapse of a globular cluster or a dwarf elliptical.]
If BL Lac objects (originating from spiral galaxies, see chapter 6-2) can shrink to pulsars they may be able to escape from the cluster they are in because their mass is very concentrated (see also chapter 8-3 at Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation) and thus pulsars may be very old systems that float through space for (generally) extremely long times. (For more about different layers: see chapter 5-2 at magnetic fields of galaxies.)
Exploding dark matter causing a Type I supernova may happen in our Galaxy if one imagines a sole object like Sagittarius A* (which may be old dark matter of a shrunken spiral galaxy) with a radius of 1 AU (thus being small enough), exploding somewhere in interstellar space in our Galaxy (this probably would cause a much bigger astrophysical event than a supernovae, but one can imagine much smaller old dark matter objects exploding).
Pulsars can have surfaces that rotate with one-tenth the speed of light. It may be difficult to get rotation speeds that high only by the collapse of a star. The angular momentum of, for instance, a spiral galaxy perhaps may give sufficient energy for such a high rotation speed (such a spiral dark galaxy may be extremely old and therefore only little mass may be left).
Type II supernovae arise from evolved stars much more massive than our Sun (10-100 MSun) and occur only in spirals4: perhaps the contraction (by gravity, see chapter 8-3) in spirals is becoming to big for certain massive stars and thus the star collapses, this would explain why Type II supernovae don't occur in ellipticals (in which there is less contraction by gravity, see chapter 4-2, but also: ellipticals are young galaxies which may lead to certain clues about Type II supernovae as well). Perhaps darkened or almost darkened dwarf ellipticals or globular clusters (with still a lot of hydrogen) may end as Type II supernovae (this would be in accordance with ellipticals being young: dwarf ellipticals and globular clusters need enough time to shrink and thus certain explosions may only occur in spiral galaxies).
An outer layer of a universal engine falling to fast inwards and thus causing a chain reaction may also be a way of ring galaxy formation: part of the galaxy's stars flew outward with an exploding outer layer (or layers) and part of the galaxy's stars fell inwards to the remaining layer (or layers). Perhaps a ring galaxy is due to too little matter surrounding the universal engine [or, rather: a too big universal engine for too little hydrogen or because of a halo containing too little dark matter, see also the model of quasars in chapter 6-2]. With too little (galaxy) mass surrounding the universal engine the outer rotating layer of the engine may fall too fast inward and an explosion may follow. Because the mass in the universal engine is large relative to the surrounding matter of the galaxy the outward flowing outer layer(s) of the universal engine is capable of taking much mass (stars) of the galaxy outward.
The galactic nucleus of the nuclear bulge (the "first layer" in chapter 5-1) of a spiral galaxy may have (often) a different rotation axis than the surrounding rotating matter of the rest of the nuclear bulge (the "second layer" in chapter 5-1). The rotation axis of the disk of the spiral galaxy (the "third layer" in chapter 5-1) may be different as well.
Clusters of galaxies are disk-like when they are old (see chapter 4-4). Meanwhile in voids on both sides of the disk hydrogen atoms may come to existence (on a large scale) that start moving towards the galaxy-galaxy [which may become the galactic nucleus of the nuclear bulge of a future spiral galaxy like the galactic nucleus of the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy]. Hydrogen concentrates and eventually stars are formed and an elliptical galaxy comes to existence. The center of the elliptical is very bright and may become "the rest of the nuclear bulge" of the future spiral galaxy. If so, then the rotation axis of the rest of the nuclear bulge will be inclined with respect to the rotation axis of the galactic nucleus (because hydrogen came from both sides more or less perpendicular to the disk of the old cluster, the galaxy-galaxy). Thus the nucleus and the rest of the nuclear bulge eventually may form two layers, but also: the rotation rate of the nucleus may be very much higher, counting for a difference between the two layers as well. Much later the elliptical becomes a spiral galaxy and the rotation axis of the disk of the spiral may be inclined with respect to the rotation axis of the nuclear bulge and there may be difference in rotation velocity as well. Thus the galactic nucleus of our Galaxy may be (or rather: become) a different "mass-layer" than the rest of the nuclear bulge; the disk, the spiral arms of our Galaxy, may be (or rather: become) a different third "mass-layer". The first layers, the galactic nucleus and the rest of the nuclear bulge, may cause the magnetic field of our Galaxy. But perhaps the strongest and most concentrated universal engine in our Galaxy, Sagittarius A* (which is a universal engine itself as well as it forms a universal engine together with Sagittarius B and other mass regions in the galactic nucleus), with its different rotating layers, may be the reason why there is a magnetic field in our Galaxy (or even a much older galaxy-galaxy deep in Sagittarius A*). Thus different rotating layers of (dark) matter may cause the magnetic fields present in any detected galaxy.
Another possible reaction between different rotating layers may cause barred spiral galaxies. In a luminous spiral (S-type) galaxy the second layer, the "rest of" the nuclear bulge, may approach the first layer (for example because there is not much mass in the halo) and hence the layer with the strongest momentum (the first layer) may "take over", thus making the second layer rotate different. Thus from a certain moment the spiral arms of the S-type galaxy may be driven by a momentum with a different rotation axis and so a barred SB-type spiral galaxy may originate from a S-type spiral galaxy. The explanation given by Ostriker and Peebles4 may be the right explanation (as well): if there is not enough dark matter in the halo the spiral arms become "weak". The two explanations may actually join: when there is not enough dark matter in the halo then there may be not enough matter (in the halo) that attracts the second (or outer) layer in the nuclear bulge and hence the layer slowly falls inward until its momentum is taken over by a more inward laying layer and thus the spiral arms start rotating different because the outer layer of the nuclear bulge has changed its momentum. Therefore the spiral arms may kind of lose contact with the (different rotating) dark matter in the halo and hence "weaken". This may be the reason why late type SB galaxies look "ripped apart": the different rotating dark matter of the halo has torn up the spiral arms of the galaxy. [Barred spiral galaxies thus may have an "extra layer" in the form of a different rotating halo, which may lead to clues about Seyfert galaxies or about "universal explosions" (caused by different layers falling upon each other) like supernovae, X-ray and gamma bursts.]
When dark matter is concentrated during fast rotation it may become a pulsar, but without very fast rotation (or without very much surrounding matter to which the universal engine can submit energy, see also chapter 6-2) the concentration of matter may go beyond a certain critical point (with gravity as a repulsive force, so no singularity or black hole originates, see chapter 8-3) and an explosion follows, causing a supernova, an X-ray burst or a gamma ray burst. Very strong concentrated dark matter may have become very hot and then explode in very many hot small pieces that cool of very quickly, thus making the duration of the X-ray or gamma ray burst very short: small dark matter pieces of 1010 K may act as black bodies sending out gamma rays for a very short time, small dark matter pieces of 5 x 107 K may act as black bodies sending out X-rays for a very short time. A (stronger) explosion of hotter material results in smaller pieces, which may cause that we measure cool off periods of gamma ray bursts to be shorter than X-ray bursts. Also: reaching temperatures of 5 x 107 K may take not as much matter than reaching temperatures of 1010 K, and thus the explosions of X-rays may be less strong, which may explain why some X-ray bursts occur in regular intervals: the mass may fall back by gravity; while gamma ray burst-sources are rarely seen observed to burst more than once: the explosion is so strong that the exploded mass does not fall back, plus: bigger (X-ray) pieces fall back sooner than smaller (gamma ray) pieces. If X-ray bursts do not need as much mass as gamma ray bursts then this may be the reason that X-ray bursts are galactic: X-ray bursts tend to cluster toward the galactic center and hence towards regions with stronger (repulsive) gravitational contraction (which may be the same principle as with the aforementioned type II supernovae that are only seen in spiral galaxies, see chapter 5-1). [Perhaps pulsars can be progenitors of X-ray bursters, see chapter 5-1.]
Gamma ray bursts may need so much mass that they occur rarely but when they occur they illuminate the cosmos so strongly for a few seconds that they can be observed at very far distances; this may be the reason why gamma ray bursts occur randomly around the sky.
In May 1997, the Italian-Dutch X-ray satellite BeppoSAX pinpointed a gamma ray burst, which astronomers at Palomar were able to confirm4. A few days later, one Keck telescope was used to obtain a spectrum of the fast-fading optical counterpart. The spectrum showed narrow dark lines typical of the lines from intergalactic clouds that appear in the spectra of quasars4 (this may be an indication that quasars may end as gamma ray bursters, see chapter 6-2). From the redshift of these lines, the distance to the source has been estimated at a few Gpc: certainly extragalactic4. This estimated distance corresponds with my suggestion that gamma ray bursts may be high-mass-events (originated by huge galaxy-galaxies) and therefore rarely but random events at (almost always) big distances.
Ideas are often nothing more than empty names, the true realities are the objects themselves.
Part 6 describes how dark matter may explain synchrotron radiation and other features of AGNs.
All nuclei of galaxies (perhaps not dwarf ellipticals and irregulars descending from dwarf ellipticals, see chapter 4-1) may have similar kinds of universal engines as well as Seyfert galaxies, BL Lacertae Objects, radio galaxies and quasars, and perhaps also: pulsars, and perhaps even stars and planets [if part of the rotation of stars and planets is due to old rotating dark matter that originated the stars and planets, see chapters 7-1 and 7-4]. All rotation cores may have originated from galaxies moving to other galaxies, finally ending up as galaxy-galaxies. All rotation may originate from mass moving towards other mass because mass coming to existence (somewhere else), which causes the (gravitational) potential energy that makes a mass-system move towards another mass-system, finally causing the mass-systems to move around each other, eventually leading to one system with a certain spin. [The same kind of mechanism may go somehow as well on an atomic level: all movement eventually may be explained by the movement of mass to other mass, and this movement of mass may be caused originally by mass coming to existence somewhere in the past; (or) perhaps there is a continuous appearing and disappearing of matter on a very profound subatomic level, see also chapters 8-2 and 8-3.] Thus it may be that all galaxies and quasars (and even, in a way, pulsars and perhaps stars and planets) are one big family of systems that got their kinetic energy from dark matter.
The major mystery in understanding active galaxies is to find a convincing mechanism for the acceleration of electrons (causing synchrotron radiation with the aid of a magnetic field) by collapsed objects in the galaxy nucleus4. When an old universal engine in a galaxy is very dense and rotates extremely fast then bigger pieces of matter (like a stone, a molecule or even a proton) can not approach easily because of the immense centrifugal forces produced by (a certain part of) the inner core. Perhaps then it is only possible for small masses like electrons to make "a jump" inwards and perhaps by doing so they accelerate towards (and along with) a very fast rotating more inward laying different layer of the universal engine. When the universal engine has different layers as described in chapters 5-1 and 5-2, it produces a strong magnetic field, and hence the accelerating electrons can produce synchrotron radiation. Radio galaxies and quasars have similar synchrotron properties4, which then, of course, may be due to the same mechanism here described.
When the galactic nucleus of a galaxy contains very much rotating dark matter that contracts then the nucleus (perhaps the more outer parts of the nucleus, the inner parts may be hotter) may be heated by friction to 100 K and produce an enormous infrared flux by thermal blackbody radiation. The contraction of the dark matter may cause a stronger magnetic field as well (together with stronger rotation and stronger centrifugal forces) and with it a stronger nonthermal synchrotron emission and thus a stronger radio emission flux. This may be the cause of the radio/infrared luminosity correlation4 of galaxies.
The galactic nucleus of our Milky Way has some of the characteristics of Seyfert galaxies4. This may make spiral galaxies candidates for progenitors of Seyfert galaxies. All those objects (also BL Lacertae objects and quasars) may share the same universal engine: a fast rotating core of dark matter which established itself in a stable and enduring form.
Type 1 Seyferts have emission lines with extreme widths4, which may be due to hydrogen "jumping" to a more inward laying mass layer. The forbidden lines by oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur are only moderately broadened, which may be due, as suggested by others4, to: forbidden lines-production by gas laying further away from the central core of the galaxy (and thus producing less broadened lines). Perhaps oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur, being heavier than hydrogen, have to be submitted to relative weaker centrifugal forces in order to be able to "jump" inwards (like hydrogen in Type 1 Seyferts) and so perhaps this way the forbidden lines of Type 1 and 2 Seyferts are only moderately broadened. Type 2 Seyferts have more broadened emission lines than normal galaxies, but not that strong as Type 1 Seyferts4, which may be due to a less fiercely rotating core in Type 2 Seyferts relative to Type 1 Seyferts. Seyferts are not strong radio sources4, which may be due to less gravitational powerful + less fiercely strong rotation of the core: electrons stay attached to protons and the whole hydrogen atom falls inward, thus little synchrotron radiation is produced.
The luminosities of Seyferts vary very strongly4, which may be due to mass falling inwards irregular.
Seyferts tend to be in close, binary galactic systems4. This may be another example of the suggestion that many systems tend to forming binary systems (see chapter 7-2 at the explanation of planet binaries in our Solar System) which then especially, of course, causes old objects, like Seyfert galaxies and dark matter clumps (like planets), to be binaries (because they had more time to form binaries). Our Galaxy plus the Andromeda galaxy may end up as a binary Seyferts system in the far future. And: Sagittarius B in the galactic nucleus appears to be a binary system and this binary system (= Sagittarius B) forms a binary system with Sagittarius A. Perhaps in the very far future our Local Group may become the nucleus of a new spiral galaxy with M31 (= Andromeda galaxy) and M33 as a binary system itself (i.e. M31 versus M33) that in turn forms a binary system with our (shrunken) Galaxy. Thus in the very far future our Galaxy may be lying in the center of a future galactic nucleus like Sagittarius A*, because our Galaxy has more mass than all the other galaxies of our Local Group together. I think in this respect the similarities between our Local Group and the galactic nucleus of our Milky Way are very striking.
With M31 and M33 as spiral galaxies with multiple galactic nuclei (multiple former spiral galaxies) like in our galactic nucleus one may look at our Local Group as originating from a bigger cluster than the Local Group itself. Big clusters need more time to shrink to a small sized galaxy-galaxy and by doing so there is time for smaller clusters (within the big cluster) to become nonluminous, shrink, build up hydrogen, and become luminous again, like our Local Group. Bigger clusters are part of superclusters which may be part of super-superclusters, but: a smaller cluster like our Local Group may contain (inside the galaxies, i.e. in the galactic nuclei) an older but originally bigger cluster consisting of smaller tremendously shrunken clusters spread out (in the galactic nuclei) over galaxies (like M31, M33 and our Galaxy) in our Local Group. And: if we ever are able to look deeper into Sagittarius A* we may find that there are remnants of an even older and thus originally even bigger cluster in the very core of Sagittarius A*. There may always be one more scale up or one more scale down, in space as well in time.
Radio galaxies can be giant ellipticals (see also chapter 4-4) which may make sense, because the universal engine in such galaxies is still "fresh" (see also this chapter at the explanation of large redshift of quasars) and thus powerful (extremely powerful because of the galaxy being a giant), where Seyfert galaxies (which are almost always spirals4) are old (because they are spirals) and so their inner core has lost a lot of energy and so: Seyferts do not exclude (by centrifugal forces) hydrogen anymore to fall inward and this (Seyferts being old) may be the reason that Seyferts are not strong radio sources.
Quasars are radio sources as well and are probably embedded in elliptical galaxies4. If those galaxies are no giant ellipticals and if the universal engine in the elliptical (the quasar) is very powerful then synchrotron radiation may become very strongly, much more than in giant elliptical radio galaxies, because the universal engine is not slowed down as strongly by stars and other mass (like in a giant elliptical galaxy) or other galaxy-connected material (like dark matter) or other galaxies moving to the giant elliptical thus finally forming a supercluster. Therefore the forces in the core of the quasar that produce synchrotron radiation may be very strong, thus producing enormous synchrotron radiation.
The majority of the larger spiral galaxies radiate in the radio continuum4, which may be due to: larger spirals have stronger universal engines that are more likely to be capable of synchrotron radiation.
Extended radio galaxies are commonly double, with the lobes lined up with the galaxy's center4. The two radio emission producing lobes are well separated from the optical galaxy and they are much larger then the optical galaxy. As a rule these sources lie on one line, with the optical galaxy at about the center of the radio-emission pattern. Typically the nucleus (= the optical galaxy) is also a radio source4. The two lobes may be a binary system of two (dark) galaxy-galaxies that rotate about a luminous galaxy. The galaxy-galaxies may produce synchrotron radiation from very many sources (shrunken galaxies rotating around each other in the lobes) and hence the filamentary structure of the lobes4 may be produced. The two lobes of dark matter may attract matter from the luminous galaxy, which therefore may have one or two jets (the luminous galaxy may be a baby galaxy, an elliptical, see also chapter 4-1 and 4-3); all elliptical radio galaxies may be baby galaxies.
Two jets leaving an elliptical galaxy in opposite directions (extended radio galaxies) may also be due to clumps of dark matter rotating opposite around the accretion disk of the elliptical (see also hereafter with the explanation of the jet of the giant elliptical M87). If one clump leaves the jet the other may leave as well because of mutual attraction when (still) orbiting (more are less perpendicular to) the accretion disk.
Galaxies and quasars and also the birth of stars (YSOs) have one thing in common: they show two streams moving in opposite directions: bipolar outflows. If big amounts of matter rotate fiercely and contract at the same time, they may release or rather squeeze matter outward perpendicular to the rotation disk along the rotation axis of the disk, accretion energy thus converting into that of outflows. Thus: perhaps jets of extended radio galaxies may also be due to mass getting "squeezed out" by strong contraction of dark matter in the nuclear bulge, thus mass may be poured out along the axis of the accretion disk.
Radio jets are common in elliptical radio galaxies4. The radio jet of the giant elliptical M87 is observed to be escaping (nearly) perpendicular to an apparent accretion disk in the center of the galaxy4. This jet may be due to clumps of dark matter leaving the galaxy-galaxy in the inner core of the elliptical. The galaxy-galaxy in the inner core of the elliptical may become more and more disk-like and therefore clumps of dark matter that move to much perpendicular to the accretion disk may be able to escape the galaxy-galaxy. Those clumps may be rotating strongly itself with different layers of dark matter which may produce the synchrotron radiation of the escaping knots in the jets. The jet is optical visible too which may be because the clumps of dark matter take stars with them on their way out.
Quasars show many of the characteristics of Seyfert galaxies and BL Lacertae objects, which may be due, of course, to the herefore described general model of a universal engine, a galaxy-galaxy, that may cause various types of radiation in Seyfert galaxies, radio galaxies, BL Lacertae objects and quasars. The main feature of quasars is their very large redshifts. If these redshifts can be related to something else than very large distances and hence large cosmological or existence redshift, then quasars may become less mysterious. [Though: quasars may be the remains of big galaxy-galaxies and so they may (often) be very far away and very luminous.] H.C. Arp has suggested that the large redshifts of quasars may be due to very fast shrinking of quasars13 and this may make sense, particularly if one takes the following features, pointed out by recent observations of the Hubble Space Telescope4, in mind: HST observations have shown quasars to be embedded in host galaxies and there is no evidence that there is a population of quasars that are not embedded in galaxies. HST observations have shown too that those host galaxies tend to be ellipticals which have at least one other galaxy quite close to them4. In ellipticals the universal engine may be "fresh": it has not lost a lot of energy yet by attracting very large quantities of matter nor by bringing this matter into (strong) rotation. In other words: the universal engine is still an energetic monster searching for ways to get rid of its enormous energy. If the host ellipticals are not big because of much competition by other dark matter sucking up gas and hence forming other (nearby) galaxies, the universal engine of the elliptical, the quasar, may have a relative small amount of mass available to which it can submit energy. So the relative small amount of mass is attracted in a very fiercely way and so the matter close to the universal engine may be falling inward extremely fast and hence large redshift may be caused: emission lines by synchrotron radiation from infalling electrons, but also absorption lines from (infalling) gas that is further away from the universal engine and hence the absorption lines show smaller redshifts than the emission lines. Different clouds of gas at different distances from the quasar may count for different absorption redshifts (like the absorption redshifts 1.949, 1.945 and 0.613 for quasar PHL 938).
Quasars positioned closer to our Galaxy would take away the enormous-amounts-of-energy-problem of quasars, and also the superluminal motion-problem. [Other quasar-features are already explained in chapter 6-1 and this chapter with explanations of features of other AGNs.] Quasars may come to existence when universal engines are not "tamed" enough because relative little matter is attracted to the universal engine. If so then quasars may end with a big explosion, which may make them candidates for supernovae, X-ray bursters and (especially) gamma-ray bursters. Also quasars may be progenitors of ring galaxies. [The above models of AGNs subscribe the basic principle of the current unified model of AGN activity: infall of matter to a very massive core4.] [Perhaps superluminal motion in quasars is possible with a gravity field that is rotating very fast itself.]
BL Lac objects generally have a star-like appearance, structure is rarely visible4, which may be because BL Lac objects may be old spiral galaxies that have shrunk and darkened very much. The greatest difference between BL Lac objects and other active galaxies is that the emissions of the former vary so frequently and erratically4. This may be due to dark matter (of the old (teared up) spiral arms) falling inwards in a very irregular way, perhaps also causing rapidly varying polarization of BL Lac objects4 because of strong impact of huge mass clumps falling in. Perhaps a BL Lac object is dark matter roaring around, but not as fiercely as Seyferts, and so: no broadened lines, but rapid variability at radio, infrared and visual wavelengths, that may be caused by thermal radiation of (by friction) heated dark matter.
BL Lac objects main characteristic is a lack of spectral lines which is the great puzzle about the BL Lac objects, they show continuum outputs of radio, microwave, infrared and visual wavelengths4. This may be due to Hawking radiation of contracting dark matter1:
T = 10-7 x MSun/MDark Matter (see chapter 3-5)
Perhaps the continuum radiation (from 101 to 10-4 cm, corresponding with black body radiation of 1 K to 1000 K) of BL Lac objects is due to Hawking (thermal black hole) radiation from dark matter masses between 1020 and 1024 kg which are mass magnitudes like (terrestrial) planets and moons of our Solar System. [The terrestrial planets and spherical moons of our Solar System may be very old dark matter masses and may even be old stars, see chapter 7-4.]
A number of BL Lac objects are found in clusters of galaxies which is seen as indirect evidence that they are also galaxies4 (or perhaps rather: what is left of old spiral galaxies). BL Lac objects eventually may become pulsars when they can stabilize their rotation without matter falling to strong inward. Like with pulsars the intensity and shape of pulses from BL Lac objects vary considerably, it is the period of pulsars that is very exact. BL Lac objects may turn into pulsars with are without a supernova; perhaps without if they don't contract very fiercely, which may make them candidates for progenitors of millisecond pulsars.
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was the revolutionary champion of the Copernican Revolution. His last seven years were spent in an ecclesiastical prison: tormented and tortured, he refused to recant and was burned at the stake in Rome in 1600.
[December 2004: Bruno not only supported the ideas by Copernicus, he also thought that the universe was infinite, edgeless and centerless, and populated with numberless planetary systems teeming with life. He wrote the dialogue of The Infinite Universe and was influenced by Lucretius, who, in the first century BC, wrote in his famous poem The Nature of the Universe: “Whatever spot anyone may occupy, the universe stretches away from him just the same in all directions without limit. Nothing in the universe is unique and alone, and therefore in other regions there must be other earths inhabited by different tribes of men and breeds of beasts.”
In the sixth century BC the Greek philosopher-scientist Anaxagoras said that the universe was infinite in extent and contained an infinite number of small seeds.
In the third century BC the Greek philosopher-scientist Aristarchus of Samos wrote a book in which he proposed that the earth rotates daily and revolves annually about the sun. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was aware of the heliocentric theory proposed by Aristarchus. Aristarchus and Copernicus were the heroes of the Copernican Revolution.
All here mentioned information about old philosophers/scientists comes from Cosmology: the science of the universe (2000) by Edward Harrison.
End December 2004]
Part 7 presents our Solar System originating from a star that crossed the path of planets.
The planets in our Solar System may have been old dark matter floating through space, attracted by the nucleus of our Galaxy and thus getting some velocity but also having its own peculiar velocity. Our planets may come from outside the spiral structure of our Galaxy, but the planets may also be formed from dust (and gas) in the spiral arms like stars are formed.
In the case that the planets were formed outside the spiral arms: dark matter in the form of planets came in from the halo. The planets may have flown a little faster towards the nuclear bulge than the (heavier) stars, which may be important for solar system formation. [Our population I Sun may have originated from a hydrogen cloud rich with dust. This hydrogen/dust cloud may have moved faster to the nucleus of our Galaxy than the (dark matter) planets and hence our Sun may have moved faster than the planets as well.] [For different masses having different flow velocities: see chapter 4-1; and for gravity as an inertial force or Mach's principle: see chapter 8-4.]
Our Sun and its accompanying stars move (on average) in a certain direction and so may planets. Thus planets may have wrapped themselves around our Sun, thus forming our Solar System. A "cloud" of dark matter may have passed our Sun (or vice versa) and hence part of the dark matter may have been "caught" by our Sun and therefore our Solar System may have come to existence in a relative short time. The motion of the Sun among the nearby stars -the solar motion- is 20 km/s toward the constellation of Hercules. This is in the order of magnitude of planets orbiting the Sun.
Planets may have come in from the halo in the form of (large) dark matter masses and planets also may have been formed (like our Sun) from dust, hydrogen and helium clouds, thus forming Jovian-planets, which perhaps were stripped of their gascoat by the Sun (as already suggested by others4) in the case the planets' semimajor axis was small, thus forming the terrestrial planets. [There also may be another reason why the terrestrial planets of our Solar System have no gascoat and why we don't find terrestrial planets beyond a certain distance from the Sun: when the Law of Universal Gravitation of Newton has to be revised, see chapter 8-3.]
The rotation of the Sun around its axis, the orbiting directions of the planets around the Sun, the rotation of the planets around their axis (with exceptions by Venus and Uranus, explained in chapter 7-3), the direction of our Moon orbiting the Earth and the rotation of our Moon around its axis: it is all in the same direction of rotation. This may be a necessity for a solar system to become stable and enduring, which is logic, because planets orbiting the Sun in the other direction will be soon attracted to the other planets and either flow out of the Solar System, fall on the Sun or clash with each other. Also: the speeds of the planets will have certain magnitudes or else they would have either escaped the Solar System or fallen on the Sun. So: there may be a correlation between the speed of an (a solar system) incoming planet and the shortest distance between the line of its incoming direction and the Sun, this correlation may bring: Kepler's three laws. Also: the moment the incoming planets starts orbiting the Sun (or: starts deviating from its original line of direction) speed and direction of the incoming planets are accelerated and therefore our planets orbits have elliptic forms.
Very many stars in the neighborhood of our Solar System are part of binary systems. Also galaxies are often part of binary (galaxy) systems. In general: matter attracts other matter and starts swirling around each other. The same will go for dark matter: lots of dark matter masses may be part of a binary system, especially when one bears in mind that dark matter may be very old and may have had changes for a very long time to find a binary partner and so perhaps very many dark matter masses may be part of a binary system. Thus many binary dark matter systems may have been circling around each other for very long times and may have approached each other more and more, and so: many dark matter binaries may circle in synchronous rotation: their orbiting period is the same as their rotation period; thus the rotation periods of the partners of a binary dark matter system may be the same as their mutual orbiting period and they rotate in the same direction. Also: when the orbit periods and the rotation periods of the partners are the same and if they are in the magnitude of the rotation periods of the planets in our Solar System then: the partners of the binary system are relative close to each other and will remain a binary system when entering the Solar System, i.e. it is not likely that one partner of the binary system starts orbiting the Sun while the other leaves the Solar System. When the dark matter is a mono system (one planet) it is more likely that it will either escape the Solar System or fall on the Sun than start rotating stable and enduring around the Sun.
Thus binary systems may be quite abundant in solar systems and hence may make us look different at the following table of our Solar System:
* Obliquity is defined as the inclination of the equator to the orbital plane. Obliquities greater than 900 imply retrograde rotation.
Planets that formerly were dark matter binary systems may be, according to their sidereal rotation period:
If we imagine the planets coming in as binary systems with partners that rotate around their axis with the same period and hence have the same sidereal periods then it may be very logic that by now the Earth has a shorter sidereal period than Mars, Jupiter has a shorter period than Saturn and Neptune has a shorter period than Uranus, because the rotation periods of planets with more mass will be slowed down slower by the Sun than their binary partner with relative less mass (and with a lower density, see also chapter 8-3 at the Law of Universal Gravity). The fact that Uranus slowed down relative strong (compared to the Earth relative to Mars and Jupiter relative to Saturn) while not having much less mass than Neptune may be due to the fact that in spite of Mars and Saturn Uranus is the lighter binary partner that lies closer to the Sun and therefore may be slowed down relative stronger; and: Uranus may be slowed down stronger as well because it rotates retrograde.
Thus the difference between mass-magnitudes of the binary partners may account for the difference between their sidereal rotation periods and it may account too for the differences in eccentricities of the partners: the Earth has a lower eccentricity than Mars and also Jupiter and Neptune have lower eccentricities than their lighter partners Saturn and Uranus. The fact that Uranus and Neptune have a relative big difference in eccentricity compared to Jupiter and Saturn may be due again to the fact that Uranus is the lighter partner that lies closer to the Sun. The relative high eccentricity of Mars relative to the Earth may be due to the Earth having almost ten times as much mass than Mars.
The chemical composition and internal structures of Uranus and Neptune resemble each other4, which may be due to the possible fact that they once were a binary system [and so: perhaps Uranus and Neptune originated from the same cloud of gas, dust and dark matter, perhaps extremely long ago, see also chapter 7-4 at Are We Living on an Old Star?]. Also Jupiter and Saturn have chemical and physical characteristics that resemble4 and the same goes for the Earth and Mars4. Also: Neptune's magnetic axis, like Uranus, differences very much from the planets rotation axis4. Uranus/Neptune may have come swirling into the Solar System with their binary plane much inclined to the ecliptic plane. Tidal forces may have been working strongly on the outer regions of the planets and changed the direction of rotation of the outer layers while the much more heavy inner cores of the planets kept their original rotation axis, hence: a dynamo that causes a magnetic field. This may be the reason why in general magnetic axis and rotation axis of planets are tilted. Perhaps the Sun has a magnetic field by the same reasons because of the gravitational forces by the inner core of the Milky Way or because of the gravitational forces of the planets working on the outer regions of the Sun. [Of course, in the case of Uranus and Neptune, all kind of things can have happened, like Jupiter passing Uranus at a close distance when entering the Solar System, hence making Uranus rotate retrograde.] [Magnetic fields of planets (and stars) may also be due to planets originating from (different layers of) rotating dark matter, see chapter 7-4.]
All planets tend to rotate more and more synchronous corresponding to their sidereal period around the Sun, like the Moon did in its orbit around the Earth (paleontological studies of fossilized corals, which lived 108 years ago, show that the Earth has been rotating faster: 400 "days" in a year4). The theory is now: because the Moon rotates around the Earth, the Earth is slowed down and therefore the Moon slowly goes away from the Earth4. But: the Earth may be slowed down by the Sun too and the Moon may be attracted more and more by the Sun, if we have another Solar model, i.e. if the Earth came with Mars into the Solar System (and perhaps with the Moon as well).
If a binary system like Earth/Mars, Jupiter/Saturn or Uranus/Neptune comes swirling into the Solar System then: the closer the binary is to the Sun the less the binary system will disrupt itself, or rather: the further the binary system is from the Sun the bigger the distance between the two binary partners because of their former orbiting velocities (which are relative more powerful when the binary system is further away from the Sun). Therefore it may not be coincidental that the distance between the Earth and Mars (78 x 106 km) divided by the average distant of Earth + Mars from the Sun (189 x 106 km) is about the same (0.41) as the divisions:
(distance between Jupiter and Saturn)/(average distance Jupiter-Saturn to Sun) = (649 x 106 km)/(1103 x 106 km) = 0.59
(distance between Uranus and Neptune)/(average distance Uranus-Neptune to Sun) = (1626 x 106 km)/(3684 x 106 km) = 0.44
The fact that Jupiter and Saturn are relative further away from each other (0.59 versus 0.41 and 0.44) may be due to the fact that their rotation periods are shorter (about 10 hours) and thus their original mutual orbiting velocities were bigger and thus were the original mutual orbiting velocities that disrupted them stronger. The fact that the Earth and Mars are relative closer to each other (0.41 versus 0.44 and 0.59) may be due to the fact that their rotation periods are longer (about 24 hours), and so their original mutual orbiting velocities were smaller. [With binary systems of stars it is observed that: the closer the stars are to each other, the greater their Doppler redshift5, or: the greater their orbiting velocities. And so: the closer the planets originally were, the bigger their orbiting velocities may have been and the shorter their rotation periods.]
The "age" of our Earth is the time since the Earth cooled down so much that rocks became solid (and hence make it possible for us to measure their solidification date by radioactive decay methods4). This may mean that the Earth is orbiting the Sun much less then 4.6 billion years, if the Earth's (and Moon's) crust solidificated before the Earth came in the Solar System. Biological DNA-life may have developed itself before the Earth entered the Solar System with the internal heat of the Earth as energy source (and thus we may find very old DNA-life fossils). But when the Earth and Mars were a binary system then perhaps very strong tidal forces may have worked on the Earth when the Earth entered the Solar System and these tidal forces may have caused the Earth's crust (and the Moon's crust) to melt (or perhaps even: melt the inside of the Earth by tidal forces) which would bring us back to 4.6 billion years. [But: the heat inside the Earth may be due to decay of heavy metals as well, see chapter 3-6.]
If we know how fast the planets enlarge their sidereal rotation periods (and if we are able to connect all kind of data like mass, density, distance, etc. in a model) then we may find the moment the Sun "met" the dark matter cloud with our planets, i.e. by finding the moment the binary partners had equal rotation periods, i.e. rotation period Earth = rotation period Mars, rotation period Jupiter = rotation period Saturn and rotation period Uranus = rotation period Neptune [our planets may originate from different dark matter clouds as well and thus binaries may have come into our Solar System at different times].
Imagine that the Earth and Mars once were a triple system: Earth, Mars and planet Roid [or perhaps rather: the Earth and Roid as a binary system, with the Earth and Mars as a binary system within this Earth-Roid-binary system]. Roid orbited the Sun where now the asteroid belt is. Imagine too that another planet Astor came swirling into the Solar System with Venus, as a binary, as drawn in Fig. 7-3-I: both planets rotate retrograde. Venus passes the Sun between the Earth's orbit and the Sun and Venus starts orbiting the Sun with retrograde rotation (around its axis). Astor passes the Sun on the other side and orbits the Sun retrograde meanwhile slowly attracting Roid and vice verse until the two planets clash.
Figure 7-3-I. Astor and Venus entering the Solar System.
The clash may have caused the asteroid belt, Pluto and Charon and Mercury (Mercury would be the heavy inner core of Astor or Roid). The clash could have been as drawn in Fig. 7-3-II. After the clash Astor ought to have passed Venus, the Earth or Mars quite close in order to get its orbit between Venus' orbit and the Sun or perhaps it is more likely that Astor has left the Solar System (see Fig. 7-3-III) and that Roid has become Mercury (also because Mercury does not rotate retrograde).
Figure 7-3-II. The clash that may have caused the asteroid belt.
Figure 7-3-III. A way Roid may have become Mercury.
The clash may explain: the existence of the asteroid belt, retrograde rotation of Venus and Pluto, the strong eccentricities of Mercury and Pluto, the strong inclination of Mercury and Pluto, the fact that Mercury is very massive for such a small planet (part of the less massive mantle has been ripped of by the clash), the high percentage of metals of Mercury, the long sidereal rotation period of Venus (Venus' rotation is slowed down quicker because of its retrograde rotation), the almost synchronous rotation by Mercury (because of the clash; a sidereal rotation period of 58.7 days compared to a sidereal period of 88 days), the slow sidereal rotation period of Pluto, the little mass of Pluto, the obliquity of Mercury (0.0 degrees) and the clash may have brought our Moon to existence, as well as moons and debris circling around the Jovian planets and the two pieces of debris circling Mars. Perhaps one of the two planets that clashed, or both, had a lot of water; that would explain the amounts of water on Pluto and the moons of Jupiter. If Pluto is a remain of the outer part of planet Astor or Roid then that would explain the low density of Pluto. Pluto and Charon may be a remain of Astor and/or Roid; after the clash they didn't have a strong rotation by themselves and became tidally locked (like two other potential remains of the clash: Mercury and our Moon; our Moon which is tidally locked with our Earth and Mercury which is almost tidally locked with the Sun). If Pluto and Charon are remains of the clash then it is logic that they are relative close to each other. Only some satellites of Mars and Jupiter orbit their parent planets faster than the parent planets rotate. This may be because Mars and Jupiter were the two planets that may have been most close to the point of the clash, and so those planets had more chance meeting a piece of high speed debris. The asteroids in the asteroid belt have S-type character (closer to Mars) or a C-type character4 (closer to Jupiter); the two types of asteroids may be due to two planets clashing. Pluto has a lot of carbon and so do the C-type asteroids, which may be due to their (same) ancestor planet. Also the Haley-comet has a lot of carbon, thus possibly having the same origin. Iron meteorites have densities ranging from 7500 to 8000 kg/m3. The solid inner core of the Earth has densities around 13,000 kg/m3. Iron meteorites thus may originate from dark matter that clashed, maybe from Astor clashing with Roid.
The clash would explain the strong meteorite bombardment that happened billions of years ago in our Solar System and caused so many craters on, for example, our Moon and Mercury. Planets closer to the Sun, Venus and the Earth, would have collected less debris: those planets have less mass and have to compete with the Sun. Mars has two pieces of debris, which is probably due to Mars having more chances to collect debris being so close to the asteroid belt. The debris that circles around the Jovian planets had more chance to be picked up by those planets, for the planets have more mass and the debris was falling away from the Sun, slowing down by the gravity of the Sun (where the debris falling towards the Sun was speeding up).
Our Moon may originate from the mantle of Mercury, especially when Mercury has passed the Earth at a close distance as shown in Fig 7-3-II. Mercury has three times the number of craters 10 km or larger in diameter than the Moon has4. If Mercury and the Moon originated in the Astor-Roid-clash then it may be logic that Mercury took more and bigger pieces debris with it (because the mass of Mercury is 5 times the mass of the Moon), which would explain the higher number of large craters on Mercury compared to the Moon (and the Earth competed with the Moon, so much debris attached to the Moon may have gone to the Earth).
Perhaps there has been a clash between planets at 50,000 AU as well, resulting in the Oort cloud. Also the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune may be a remnant of clashing planets or clashing debris (that came from the Astor-Roid-clash). (Perhaps the Oort cloud is also due to the clash between Astor and Roid.)
Also: Venus may be a planet that did not come in as a binary system, but sole and hardly rotating (retrograde). This may explain Venus' very large sidereal rotation period, the fact that Venus rotates retrograde and Venus' low eccentricity. [If a sole planet coming into a solar system starts orbiting with a relative low eccentricity compared to a binary system then this would explain why the Earth, Jupiter and Neptune have lower eccentricities than their partners: a sole planet coming into the Solar System may start rotating with a relative low eccentricity and in a binary system the heavier partner acts more as a sole planet. Perhaps the momentum in a binary system causes higher eccentricities. This would explain the relative high eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn, which have relative short sidereal rotation periods and thus had relative fast orbiting velocities (when entering the Solar System) and hence a relative big momentum causing eccentricity.]
If dark matter played a part in originating the rotation of the Sun then perhaps this could be in different ways. First of all dark matter may have started the burst of star formation. Right now there are problems understanding what causes the burst of star formation4, dark matter being in or entering into a cloud of hydrogen may be the answer. Rotating dark matter (perhaps with already different layers itself) may have sucked up a certain amount of gas, dust and other dark matter and so there may have been a rotation momentum from the very beginning. The infalling gas, dust and other dark matter, with its own peculiar velocities, may have caused a certain spin as well, and dark matter in the form of enduring around the Sun orbiting planets may have effected the outer layer of the Sun. Dust is a form of dark matter and may have had a certain momentum too, as well as hydrogen gas.
Perhaps stars can originate from a binary (or triple) dark matter system (with partners that are very close) sucking up that much hydrogen that the binary system becomes one system: a star with different rotating layers.
There may be all kind of momentum containing matter that play parts in establishing different rotating layers in a star and hence: in establishing a magnetic field. It is all more or less the same principle as in section chapter 5-2 concerning magnetic fields present in any detected galaxy: infalling mass that finally swirls around in different layers with different rotation axes cause magnetic fields. Brown dwarfs and Jupiter-like planets may originate in a similar way as here described for stars, thus explaining the magnetic fields of planets. The magnetic field of the Earth and other planets change, which may be due to different mass-layers gradually changing relative to each other. [But magnetic fields of planets may be due too to the Sun's gravitational forces working upon the outer layers of the rotating planets.]
If the rotation of the Sun makes the planets orbit the Sun faster then the planets in their turn slow down the Sun's rotation rate. [This may cause tension in the Sun which may cause the coronal mass ejections and/or solar flares.] Perhaps the rotation rate of our Sun is slowed down too by strong gravitational forces from the core of our Milky Way, like the rotation rate of the planets of our Solar System may be slowed down by gravitational forces of our Sun. Thus perhaps old stars rotate less fast then young stars [but also: population I stars originate in more violent regions than population II stars and population I stars may rotate faster than population II stars for that reason as well].
If dark matter is important for the rotation rate of a newborn star, then perhaps population I stars have stronger rotation rates than population II stars as well because there is more dark matter near population I stars.
If the rotation of the stars is slowed down by gravitational forces from the core of our Milky Way then one may expect stars in our Milky Way to rotate less fast (on average) around their axes when they are closer to the core of the Milky Way [but the origin (the "ingredients") of the stars is important as well]. And if so: the rotation of the inner core of our Milky Way is slowed down by its attachment (by gravity) to mass in (the rest of the) nuclear bulge, the spiral arms and the halo (except, perhaps, at moments when by the core attracted mass falls into the core, see chapter 4-3). If the core of our Milky Way sucks in mass from the halo then (of course) the core of our Milky Way has a gravitational influence on stars and hence perhaps as well on the rotation of stars.
There are lots of population I stars in the neighborhood of our Sun. So our Sun and its accompanies may have arisen from an enormous cloud of hydrogen, dust and dark matter, and so, as mentioned in chapter 7-1, there may have been two possible ways planets could evolve: from the same (enormous) cloud that the (multiple) stars (one of them being our Sun) originated (which still may mean that our planets came swirling into our Solar System as binaries), or: from very long ago (which may mean that planets are old suns, see hereafter). Perhaps there is a third way: perhaps old (Jovian-planet) binaries that came swirling into our Solar System once were old dark matter binaries without gascoats; they may have "picked up" their gascoat by travelling through clouds with gas (and dust and other dark matter) in the spiral arms of our Galaxy.
If there is (for some reason) little momentum by hydrogen, dust and/or dark matter then perhaps a sun may become a pulsating star (also: different momentums of different ingredients of matter may neutralize each other).
Could our Earth once have been a star? For instance a white dwarf that became a black dwarf and floated through intergalactic space for, let's say, 1040 years? Losing gas, having heavy metals decay, losing mass by heat radiation?
Of course our Earth has very little mass compared to our Sun if one looks at our Earth as descending from an old star, but what happens over extremely long times? Our Sun loses mass not only by radiation, also by its solar wind, by solar flares and by solar cosmic rays, but what happens when the Sun blackens? It still loses mass, very little, but perhaps that may be sufficient if you think about periods of 1050 - 10500 years, things change if you take a universe in mind that is endless in time and space.
If our Earth is an extremely old star then that may explain the magnetic field of our Earth (as well), being a remain of the old stars magnetic field.
Our Moon may have come into our Solar System together with our Earth. Perhaps our Moon is much older than 5 billion years. Perhaps our Moon is an old star too, but then (even) one (or more) generation(s) older than our Earth. Craters on the Moon evolve and disappear slowly as material slides down their walls and as the walls themselves slump; meteorite bombardment produces new craters4, which fill, obliterate, and degrade the older craters. The lifetime against such erosion has been estimated at several million years for craters 1 cm in diameter, and longer than the age of the Moon for large craters (tens of kilometers in diameter)4. A much older Moon would explain the erosion of the large craters on the Moon.
The average difference between the bottom of the oceans (our lowlands) and the higher parts, the mountains, of our Earth is in the same magnitude as the lower and higher parts of the Moon if you divide that magnitude of the Moon by REarth / RMoon. The same goes for the diameters of the Earth's oceans and the Moon's maria. Also: the cooled down lava of the Earth's oceans has turned into basaltic lava and the maria of the Moon have basaltic lava too. And: the highlands of the Moon are less cratered than the maria's, which may mean that the Moon once had oceans? Could it be possible that our Moon once had the size of our planet? Extremely long ago? Is the well-mixed layer of loose soil and rocks on the Moon what our soil is now? If the Moon once was hotter and rotating stronger then it's magnetic field was probably stronger, which may explain Apollo astronauts' measurements that have showed magnetic fields on the Moon to be of low strength while some lunar surface rock samples were magnetized much more than you would expect from such a weak magnetic field4.
The big moons of Jupiter look al quite different, which may be an indication that these moons did not originate as collected debris of the clash between Astor and Roid. Jupiter has a lot of mass for a planet and may have collected smaller dark masses in the form of moons before it entered our Solar System; of course, the same may go for the moons of our Earth, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Spherical large moons (but also, at least parts of, the debris) circling the Earth, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune may have originated dark matter in a different way, they may have been circling around the planets before the planets came into the Solar System, especially the large moons.
Planets may come to existence too by heaping up dust and gas to relative small sizes compared to those sizes big enough to start nuclear reactions and become stars, but planets may as well come to existence by old fainted stars that cooled down and lost mass over an extremely long period of time, or by clashing of two huge dark matter masses that recollect themselves to become a multitude of smaller spherical dark matter objects, i.e. planets.
Could our Earth be a very old star and also our Moon? Could a system like Jupiter and its (larger) moons may once have been a solar system itself? And: perhaps our Solar System once had only the terrestrial planets orbiting the Sun, terrestrial planets which were much further away from the Sun than they are now and which were Jovian-like planets with a gascoat. Perhaps our Sun stopped shining, blackened, and finally sucked up that much hydrogen that it ignited again, meanwhile the (now) terrestrial planets having approached the Sun closer and meanwhile new Jovian planets having entered the new Solar System. [Perhaps this is a way that makes a difference between population I and II stars as well.] [Perhaps gravity causes shrinking of the Sun as well as shrinking of the orbits of planets in a fine tuned equilibrium and hence perhaps solar systems can be very enduring: see chapter 8-4 at Solar Systems.]
If gravity particles can heat up radiation and neutrinos (see chapter 3-3) then perhaps strong magnetic fields (that may consist of fast moving gravity particles, see also chapter 8-1) can heat up electrons, atoms and molecules. Perhaps this is why the corona of the Sun (106 0C) is much hotter than the surface of the Sun (5800 0C).
Bear this well in mind, that nature is free and uncontrolled by proud masters and runs the universe without the aid of gods. For who can rule the sum total of the measureless?
Part 8 presents gravity as a medium on a subatomic level, explaining quantum mechanics linked experiments, time dilation, Einstein's cosmological constant and questioning Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
If gravity is the ether then how can we imagine gravity to act as a carrier for light? Long ago we didn't know that the air is filled with numerous molecules. We would throw a stone through the air and didn't know that while floating through the air the stone would move very many air particles or molecules. Moreover we didn't know that the air particles were involved in very many chemical processes, including processes in our body, and that in fact the whole nature and environment was in an intense interaction with air. All on an atomic/molecular level.
Maybe gravity is a medium like air, but then on a subatomic level. Perhaps the whole universe is one big ocean with gravity particles which cause gravity and which have interaction with all kinds off mass-particles (including photons) throughout the universe. Gravity particles may be so small that we have not been able to detect them and maybe we never will. This way we can imagine that light loses energy while travelling through the gravity particles ocean and thus losing energy to gravity particles by making the gravity particles move. In a similar way sound waves loose their energy: by making air-particles (molecules) move. [Sound is nothing by itself, it is only an energy wave going through airmolecules. Could it be that the same goes for a photon? I rather think that a photon has some kind of matter by itself.] The molecules of our Earthly atmosphere have speeds about 11-12 km/s, higher than the speed of sound (0.3 km/s). The speed of gravity particles may be much higher than the speed of light.
With a higher temperature of the air the speed of sound increases. Perhaps gravity particles can also have different speeds (or temperatures, which may be a necessity for gravity particles in order to get energy from or give energy to photons). Perhaps the velocity of light (in vacuum) can be influenced by a (strong) magnetic field [though not likely, because a stronger magnetic field may have more gravity particles, but not faster gravity particles; though maybe more gravity particles may influence the speed of light as well, see also chapter 8-2 at atom clocks and radioactive particle decay].
Air is made of atoms (molecules if you like) and atoms are made of subatomic particles. Our body consists of more than 1027 atoms. Perhaps a photon consists of more than 1030 gravity particles. Imagine that all matter consists of one fundamental small particle (for example the gravity particle) and that all properties of matter are due to the amounts of gravity particles and their movement. Thus an electron may be a certain amount of gravity particles and the charge of the electron may be due to the movement of those gravity particles.
Imagine a light particle travelling as proposed by Gaasenbeek8 (see Fig. 8-1-I): the particle follows a helical path, i.e. it forms a three-dimensional sine wave, or: helical particle wave. As mentioned in chapter 2-1 the velocity of light (the linear velocity component, VL) may be always the same relative to the gravity field the light is in: 300,000 km/s, but the velocity with which a light particle (which may be, as mentioned above, a multitude of gravity particles) circles around (VP) may change and thus the frequency of a light wave may change, or its wavelength. If the light particle circles through an ocean of gravity particles while losing energy by moving gravity particles the peripheral speed (VP) may slow down. But with the same VL the light wave gets a larger wavelength or a lower frequency: it redshifts. And: could it be possible that a light particle (also) erodes? Erosion in the sense that it loses gravity particles? This would explain the slowing down of VP too [and also (next to VP slowing down) the fact that energy of radiation drops when frequency drops].
Figure 8-1-I. Isometric view of a helical particle wave as proposed by Gaasenbeek. The helical velocity (VH) can reach a multiple of c (= 300,000 km/s) as its linear velocity component (VL) approaches c. (VP = peripheral speed)
When an electron is in a magnetic field its motion is helical, the magnetic force is the centripetal force4. Perhaps, in a way, gravity acts as a force upon a photon like the magnetic force upon an electron, thus bringing the photon into a helical path as suggested by Gaasenbeek.
A photon may consist of a nucleus (with speed VL) with something orbiting the nucleus (with speed VP), both with their particular spin [though a photon may also be a binary system with equal masses or a mono (helical path travelling) system]. This way a photon would resemble a solar system: a star going through space with a certain velocity dragging (by gravity) a planet with it that is moving about the star with a certain orbiting velocity, star and planet both having their own particular spin. The orbiting velocities of the orbiting part of the photon and a planet both may be slowed down by gravity particles (see also chapter 8-4).
When a charged particle like an electron, with a helical trajectory, moves into a region of higher magnetic field strength, the circular orbit shrinks while the circular speed increases4. Because the particle's total kinetic energy cannot change, its motion along the field line must slow down4. If a photon cannot change its speed relative to the gravity field it is in, it has to speed up or slow down when entering another gravity field with different speed. Because the photon's total kinetic energy cannot change it has to get some energy or get rid of some energy corresponding with this slowing down or speeding up. And so: it changes it's frequency, or: it changes it's circular speed (when the photon follows a helical trajectory as proposed by Gaasenbeek8), thus redshifting or blueshifting in QB and QA in Fig. 2-1-I. But what happens when light wave C enters the gravity field of the Earth in QC in Fig. 2-1-I? In Fig. 8-1-IIa one can imagine that light wave A is "shortened" by "crashing" into the gravity field of the Earth which moves towards the light wave: the kinetic energy of the light wave stays the same, VL decelerates with 30 km/s, the amplitude stays the same, but VP is raised in order to keep the same kinetic energy and hence the frequency is raised.
Figure 8-1-IIa. Possible explanation of Doppler effect.
Figure 8-1-IIb. Possible explanation of aberration effect.
In the same way light wave B is "stretched" by "crashing" in. In the case of light wave C we may have: VL stays the same, the amplitude alters and VP stays the same (= frequency stays the same). We can imagine that if we were person C in Fig. 2-1-II we would feel something while stepping on the plate, so: perhaps something must happen in the case of light wave C in Fig. 2-1-I and 8-1-IIa. The light wave may change its direction. If there is a double drag area (which you can imagine by imagining how it feels the moment you step on the plate as person C in Fig. 2-1-II) then in the moment light wave C enters the gravity field of the Earth in QC (see Fig. 8-1-IIb): when the light wave goes from L1 to R1 it accelerates (like light wave B in Fig. 2-1-I) and when it goes from R1 to L2 it decelerates (like light wave A in Fig. 2-1-I). But when the frequency stays the same then: kinetic energy from L1 to R1 = kinetic energy from R1 to L2. And so: if the circular speed between L1 and R1 is higher then its circular orbit shrinks and if the circular speed between R1 and L2 decreases its circular orbit enlarges and thus the light wave deviates to the left (in Fig. 8-1-IIb), which may be the aberration effect. Thus the crash in effect and double drag may be the same and may explain red- and blueshifts (of light wave B and A in Fig. 2-1-I) plus aberration effects (of light wave C in Fig. 2-1-I), hence Doppler shift and stellar aberration may be joined as one ether effect.
A gravity particles ocean can explain the interference pattern of the two-split experiment by Tonomura and co-workers9 with single electrons: the emitted electron goes through the gravity particle ocean, but at the same time certain waves in the gravity particle ocean caused by the electron (or by the electron source) go through the gravity particles field in all (or, at least, many) directions. This way there may be interference, even when one electron, photon or atom by the time is send through one of the splits: because waves in the gravity particle ocean go through the other split and later interfere with the electron, photon or atom. Thus it may be like the nonlocal interpretation by David Bohm9 but then local. Looking this way at subatomic particles has an advantage compared with quantum mechanics: there is no sudden change of the wave function, known as the "collapse of the wave function" (many physicists believe that this sudden change of the wave function is an insurmountable problem in quantum mechanics9). Also the results of the interference experiment for single photons of Aspect and co-workers9 with light from a single-photon source entering a Mach-Zehnder interferometer can be understood by gravity particle waves: the single photon takes one path while gravity particle waves take both paths and interfere later with the photon. This way the delayed-choice experiment by Walther and co-workers9 can be understood by gravity particle waves too. Also the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment9 with two lasers and only one photon at a time can be explained by gravity particle waves: though one laser emits the photon the other laser causes gravity particle waves.
The two-split experiment has been performed by Rempe et al with "screened" atoms10. The atoms were screened in a certain way by microwaves in order to see which split the atoms took. By doing so the interference pattern vanished. The microwaves did not disturb the atoms but they may have disturbed the gravity particle waves and perhaps that is the reason why there was no interference found when microwaves showed which path the electrons took. Perhaps this experiment by Rempe and co-workers can be performed as well with only one split being microwaved. This may show half the interference pattern because the atoms that pass the split that is micro-waved then may interfere with gravity particle waves from the other split that is not micro-waved (and so you know which path half of the electrons took because you know which path was microwaved). And: the aforementioned experiments by Aspect and co-workers, Walther and co-workers and the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment may show a "collapse of the (gravity-particle-)wave function" as well by microwaves.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle may be a state of the art of nowadays technology. In the future we may find particles to work with that are much smaller than photons and then everything changes and new theories can abolish certain aspects of quantum mechanics.
Atom clocks travelling at high velocity around the Earth run slower than atom clocks that stay on Earth. This may not mean that time is physically real as Einstein's theory of relativity states, it may mean that subatomic particles move slower because they have to go through more gravity particles (because of the high velocity of the atom clock relative to the gravity field the clock is in). This may mean that differences may be found with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 18812 if the experiment is performed with photon-paths with relative more gravity particles. For example: one photon going up and down in a mine (or up and down perpendicular to the surface of the Earth) and the other photon going to and fro over the surface of the Earth (though it remains to be seen whether there are more or less gravity particles higher in the atmosphere or lower in a mine).
Radioactive particles decay later when they move at high speeds in an accelerator. When the particles move at high speed then their subatomic particles may move less fast (like the subatomic particles in atom clocks) because they move through more gravity particles when at higher speed. Thus like atom clocks may run slower at high speed the radioactive particles may "live" longer and so decay later and hence the so-called time dilation may be explained. [J.L. Gaasenbeek fights time dilation in the case of particle decay with helical wave particles decaying into linear wave particles and in the case of fast moving clocks the clocks do not run slower but spin momentum of particles are converted into orbital momentum during the conversion from linear wave particles into helical wave particles11.]
Perhaps atom clocks can be made running slower and radioactive particles can be made falling apart later by putting them in a strong magnetic field (see also chapter 8-1) or perhaps atom clocks and radioactive particles show differences when they are brought deep into a mine.
The testing of Bell's inequality by Aspect and co-workers9 showed that: either you give up on locality or you abandon the postulate that nothing goes faster than light. If there are particles smaller than photons, like gravity particles, then perhaps those smaller particles may be able to travel at (extremely) higher velocities than photons. We have the choice between (A) nothing or (B) (at least) something can go faster than light. Perhaps the results of the experiments of Aspect and co-workers that show "action (or rather: passion) at distance" show necessity for particles or waves going faster than light.
Also blueshift by gravitational (redshift) forces may be the result of something going faster than light. When a light wave falls on Earth it blueshifts. Gravity causing blueshift may be explained by gravity particles going faster than light and therefore pushing the light to a shorter wavelength. Thus gravitational redshift may be explained with gravity as the ether; also the bending of starlight by the Sun may be due to "pushing" of gravity particles similar to the way Gelman12 has proposed the bending being due to "pushing" by neutrinos (see chapter 8-3).
Perhaps the speed of gravity can be measured with a certain "action (or passion) at distance"-experiment as performed by Aspect and co-workers9.
Also: perhaps the speed of gravity can be deduced from measuring changes in gravity force versus changes in light flux. For example: when our Moon eclipses our Sun we may measure different time patterns with respect to: A. change in gravity force (of the Moon + Sun) B. change in light flux (of the Sun); both due to the Moon moving in front of the Sun (I got this idea from Douwe Kiestra, who thought this up and told me I could use it here). Perhaps in this respect more accurate measurements may be possible with other celestial objects further away than the Moon; for example: our Sun eclipsed by Mercury or Venus, or: eclipsing double stars or a star with a dark (eclipsing) companion. Perhaps spacecraft in space far away from strong gravitational forces can do experiments like this.
On the other hand: the velocity of light may be important one way or the other or else we would not have gotten such good results with formula's with the velocity of light (c) in it. Gravity particles may have the velocity of light. Perhaps smaller particles than gravity particles have velocities faster than light. But also: perhaps (indeed) there is nothing faster than light. There may be a good reason for it: with velocities much bigger than light we may contact other intelligent life. My guess is that nothing is worse than intelligent life contacting other intelligent life, because: then everything (or at least a lot) is known which may be devastating for happiness.
If there is only mass plus movement of mass everything can be understood by mass plus movement of mass, also on the deepest subatomic level, also electrical charge. For example: imagine that a + charged particle consists of gravity particles in such a way that it repulses other + charged particles and attracts - charged particles. Such a, very primitive and very most likely wrong, example is given in Fig. 8-2-I (this example shows necessity for particles even smaller than gravity particles in order to make the gravity particles bend). The + and - particles rotate plus continually send out gravity particles and continually receive gravity particles, thus + and - particles may attract each other and particles with the same charge may repulse each other.
Figure 8-2-I. Example of how movement of mass may cause attraction between + and - charge.
Subatomic rotation may continue due to gravity particles (coming from all sides outside the atom) that give the energy for rotation. Subatomic movement of an electron (around the proton in a hydrogen atom) too may be due to gravity particles that push the - electron to and fro the + charged nucleus of an atom (see for repulsion between subatomic particles also chapter 8-3). The distance between a - charged electron and a + charged proton (in a hydrogen atom) may make the difference whether the two different charged particles attract or repulse each other. Thus everything, on astronomical as well as on subatomic scales, may depend on: existence of masses, velocities of masses (relative to other masses), rotation (or "inside" velocity or spin) of masses and distance between masses; and it may all be related to each other by gravity particles (or even smaller particles than gravity particles).
Fig. 8-2-I shows how + and - particles may attract each other: like magnets. Something like this may be in accordance with a prediction of GUTs that demands the existence of vast numbers of magnetic monopoles4.
Another example of how everything perhaps can be understood by mass and movement of mass is: subatomic particles like the 6 quarks and 6 leptons may be constructed by certain (different) amounts of gravity particles that are circling around each other in a certain way.
Air is taken in and out by (biological living) organisms and perhaps on a more profound level gravity particles are "breathed" in and out by matter and in doing so matter may be able to create electrical, magnetic and gravity forces. If so then gravity may not be an attracting force but a repulsive force as proposed by M.A. Gelman12. Gelman has proposed the neutrino as the particle that causes gravity. According to Gelman's theory the Earth and Sun are attracted to each other because of a pushing force caused by neutrinos (see Fig. 8-3-I). Neutrinos push everything everywhere. Most neutrinos fall through matter, but some of them hit matter and thus cause a pushing force. Because part of the neutrinos do not pass through the Sun and Earth there are less neutrinos that push the Sun and Earth away from each other and hence the Sun and Earth are pushed towards each other by neutrinos. Thus Gelman turns gravity into a repulsive force (as well as an attracting force, or: attraction by pushing). Also de Sitter concocted a repulsive force in his deSitter universe in 1917 with its "de Sitter effect": when particles originated in a the deSitter universe, they accelerate away from one another1. This repulsive force was deprived by de Sitter from Einstein's cosmological constant, which was introduced as a repulsive force by Einstein to counterbalance gravity in order to enable Einstein's model of the universe to be static, unchanging, neither expanding nor collapsing1 (which is, of course, the same as what I suggest in chapter 3-1; Einstein's static universe was finite, but also in an infinite universe you need a force that counterbalances attraction in order to explain things on a subatomic level and in order to explain why gas molecules don't "glue" to the Earth). A repulsive force was already suggested by Brush in 19115, he thought of gravity as merely longwave radiation pushing masses together.
Thus we may get a unified-field theory by, for example, something like:
FAttraction = GAm1m2/r2
FRepulsion = GRm1m2/r2
(though Newton's law may need some other adjustment as well, see the end of this chapter)
Figure 8-3-I. Gravity as a repulsive force as proposed by Gelman.
Perhaps gravity particles cause the repulsive force instead of neutrinos or instead of long wave radiation. Maybe the whole universe is filled with gravity particles that push like Gelman has proposed with neutrinos. Gravity particles may be going in and out of all matter continually. Perhaps 1025 gravity particles may flow out of an atom each second while at the same time 1025 gravity particles may flow into the atom, the atom being constructed out of, let's say, 1070 gravity particles. [But: perhaps neutrinos and (long wave) radiation can account for gravity as well and perhaps also for the build up of subatomic particles, though my guess is that smaller particles are needed for that; maybe, eventually, particles even smaller than gravity particles.]
The energy of an electron can drop because of the release of a photon. Only under certain conditions an electron is able to "throw out" a photon, or, perhaps, a certain amount of gravity particles. When the electron is heated the number of gravity particles in the atom may be raised somehow (next to the higher velocity of the electron), thus raising the energy of the electron [this would resemble the in chapter 8-1 mentioned light wave that "erodes" (losing gravity particles) while redshifting; perhaps on a very profound (or rather: smallest particle) level the amount of mass in a mass particle and the velocity of that mass particle are correlated].
Einstein's cosmological constant was equivalent to a repulsive force that opposed the force of gravity. With gravity as a repulsive force you have repulsion, but also attraction because of overall repulsion ("pushing") by all matter. This is evident on a solar-system (or rather astronomical) level (as in Fig. 8-3-I), but gravity also may have both forces, pull and push, on a subatomic level. Gravity as a repulsive force would explain why in an atom - charged electrons don't fall on the + charged nucleus: because the repulsive gravity forces (by gravity particles flowing out of the subatomic masses) may become very strong when the distance between two particles becomes very small. There may also be repulsion by gravity particles coming from outside the atom that have (by bending) a certain effect (see Fig. 8-3-II) when different charged particles come very close to each other. (This, again, would imply necessity for smaller particles than gravity particles in order to bend the gravity particles' direction.) [Attraction between + and - charged particles on a subatomic level may be explained as well by gravity particles from outside coming from all sides that push particles towards each other (see chapter 8-2).]
Figure 8-3-II. Repulsion between proton and electron because of (bending of) gravity particles coming from outside the atom.
With gravity particles as a repulsive force mass-particles can rush away from each other (like in a deSitter universe) and so matter (like hydrogen) can come to existence out of nothing or out of gravity particles, because the particles rush away from each other and thus can form hydrogen gas clouds (instead of one big clump of sticking matter). Hydrogen gas clouds that eventually contract because of the overall repulsive gravity forces of all the mass in the universe plus attraction by the very strong concentrated dark matter of universal engines.
Figure 8-3-III. Example of how mass may come to existence.
An example of how mass can come to existence out of gravity particles is shown in Fig. 8-3-III. Lots of gravity particles happen to flow (by coincidence or some force) in one direction. By (strong) repulsive gravity forces in the bundle of particles (which, again, may show necessity for smaller particles than gravity particles) the bundle splits up in two particles, both with a certain spin, that rush away from each other. [Instead of a bundle of gravity particles one may think of a bundle of radiation (plus neutrinos) as well.] [Strong gravity can cause matter to come to existence in vacuum (as tests in laboratories have shown1). Perhaps dark matter can be, somehow, the cause of hydrogen coming to existence, finally forming huge hydrogen clouds that can illuminate stars.]
If there is a hydrogen production mechanism (or mechanisms) then the building blocks (the small particles) that produce the hydrogen are non-baryonic which may explain why so much of the missing dark matter in the universe seems to be non-baryonic.
With gravity as a repulsive force there are no problems with the start of a universe: it can expand, it does not collapse. And so: the in chapter 3-1 proposed static steady-state universe does not necessarily have to be infinite in space nor time and may be a steady-state universe as well. With gravity as a repulsive force the universe does not have to be necessarily infinite (as Newton proposed1) to solve the gravity riddle, the universe does not collapse with gravity as a repulsive force. [One may never know whether the universe is endless or not in space or in time, and thus whether the universe ever or never begun.]
If gravity would only be an attracting force then everything would clump into infinite small points. If gravity would only be an attracting force then an endless universe would be homogeneous with an infinite number of infinite small points standing still (and an ending universe would collapse). Einstein may have been right in this respect: gravity may need to be an attracting as well as a repulsive force; perhaps his cosmological constant, which he considered to be his biggest mistake, was his greatest idea.
With gravity as a repulsive force it may be easier to understand how stars in an elliptical galaxy can become stars, or rather why hydrogen clouds don't come all together to form one immense star: perhaps because of the repulsive forces between the hydrogen clouds and hydrogen molecules. [Dark matter causing the burst of star formation may be a better explanation; still, when it comes to Did it, and if, how did it (the universe) ever start?, you may need gravity as a repulsive force or: a deSitter universe as soon as you want to explain a beginning, with as well as without a big bang]. Also: with gravity as a repulsive force black holes won't become infinite dense, with gravity as a repulsive force dark matter only contracts to a certain point and thus it can be understood why dark matter can shrink so fast that it contracts to a too small point and hence (too much) repulsive force makes the shrunk dark matter explode, thus initiating a supernova or X-ray or gamma ray burst.
With gravity as a repulsive force the second law of thermodynamics can be understood, or: why a local strong concentration of gas molecules in ones room will spread out about the room, or: why individuals (in this case molecules) of systems tend to chaos or perhaps rather: freedom. The physical reason of freedom may be: gravity makes particles rush away from each other. A philosophical reason for freedom may be: freedom makes individuals happier. We (humans) want to be free (as individuals) and at the same time we want to be connected (to endure life). Gravity does the same: it makes particles rush away from each other (as newborn individuals) and it makes particles go to each other (by overall power of old (dark) matter).
What causes the fast movement of gas molecules in all directions? Could it be gravity particles? Heavier gas molecules move more to the ground while lighter gas molecules move more easily in all directions. Why? Perhaps because the lighter molecules shoot upwards more easily by relative few gravity particles, where heavier molecules get "hit" by more gravity particles and thus a heavier molecule is under stronger influence of gravity particles that push the molecule to the Earth than that it is under influence of the (less) gravity particles that push the molecule away from the Earth. Of course, closer to the ground heavier gas molecules push away the lighter molecules, but the point I try to make is: Why have gas molecules velocity? Why don't they all glue (very close) to the ground by the attracting force of gravity? We may need a repulsive force in order to explain this property of gas molecules.
From 1986 to 1990 there has been a controversy about experiments by Fischbach and Aronson13. They claimed that they had measured that different materials fall with different velocities in vacuum: the more compact the nuclei in the atoms of the material the slower the velocity. No one could reproduce their experiments and therefore the controversy has died away. With gravity particles causing gravity forces it may be easy to understand why an object with a certain mass and certain density may fall faster (in vacuum) than another object with the same mass but a higher density (i.e. less compact nuclei in the atoms): with a higher "nuclei-volume" there is more chance to get "hit" by gravity particles. For the same reason a plate may fall faster when it falls horizontal (in vacuum) than when it falls vertical. And: this would explain why hydrogen clouds may move faster in the Galaxy than suns and planets, see also chapter 4-1, 7-1 and 8-4. And: it would explain why the Law of Universal Gravity may need adjustment, see the end of this chapter.
Push two half spheres against each other and pump the inside of the sphere close to vacuum: you need strong forces or much energy to pull the two half spheres from each other, or: there must be a mechanism/force that holds the two spheres together, a force that pushes the two spheres to each other. Something like this may work on a subatomic level as well. Perhaps gravity particles push protons and neutrons together and thus a nucleus in an atom is hold together very strongly. But as soon as a (small) part of the nucleus is at a certain distance of the nucleus then that part(icle) may get blown away from the nucleus very fiercely by gravity particles. Thus nuclear binding energy may not be mass turning into energy, but: a particle of the nucleus getting very much speed by gravity particles (because certain gravity forces no longer rule each other out). This would also explain why fusion is so hard: two particles must overcome the force by gravity particles that keeps them apart, but as soon they are "through" that force and joined then gravity particles push them very strongly together.
This way nuclear binding energy can be understood in a very simple way.
With gravity as an attracting force you would expect gravity on a mountain top to be stronger than the gravity in the nearby valley. The fact is that gravity in a valley is stronger than gravity on the nearby mountain top13 and this may be due to gravity being a repulsive force. [Perhaps different light speeds can be measured due to differences in the strengths of a gravity field on a mountain and in a valley. Perhaps atom clocks show difference too in this respect.]
Magnets can attract each other by loops of certain particles/waves (gravity particles?), see Fig.8-3-IV.
Figure 8-3-IV. Magnets attracting each other.
Perhaps gravity (for example gravity of stars, see Fig.8-3-V) works with loops of gravity particles (next to gravity particles coming from all sides from the rest of the universe), but then without a particular south and north pole as in the case with magnets.
Figure 8-3-V. Two gravity particle streams: gravity particles coming out of two stars (only some loops for star A are drawn) and gravity particles coming from the rest of the universe (particles from the universe are only drawn around star A).
Loops of gravity particles would show necessity for particles smaller than gravity particles in order to make the gravity particles bend. This bending would mean: gravity particles are attracted to mass (by smaller particles than gravity particles, smaller particles that act like shown in Fig.8-3-I). And it would mean: gravity particles attract gravity particles and other very small mass, which may be part of the explanation of a hydrogen production mechanism. Also: there may be gravity particles coming out of matter and going into matter at the same time and there may be a smaller kind of particle coming (in much higher numbers) from the rest of the universe (causing gravity on a much larger scale).
An atom is more empty than our Solar System, this may mean that though we can not "see" it (by measurements) there may be more and more smaller particles on smaller and smaller levels. There may be no end to smaller and smaller and smaller particles or particle levels... there may be no end to smallness, like our universe may be infinite large.
Also electric charges may have some kind of loops (of gravity particles?) (see Fig.8-3-VI).
Figure 8-3-VI. Electric charges may have loops.
Our Solar System has a place in our Galaxy (see Fig.8-3-VII).
Figure 8-3-VII. Our Solar System in the Galaxy.
Electrons on Earth may have different vibration rates depending on the place of the Earth in its orbit: (general) flows of gravity particles in our Galaxy may cause different vibrating rates of electrons in hydrogen atoms. In 1962 Blamont and Roddier measured that hydrogen electrons vibrate a little slower on the Sun than on the Earth due to the different masses of the Sun and the Earth2. If the vibration rate also is caused by the direction of velocity of objects (like our Earth at different moments its orbit around the Sun) in our Galaxy then: differences in vibration rate may be found with the Earth in different positions in its orbit (see Fig.8-3-VII), when the positions are compared with the (constant) vibration rate of electrons in hydrogen atoms on the Sun. My guess is that the slowest vibrations are to be found with the Earth moving away from the center of the Galaxy (position C in Fig.8-3-VII). For the same reason: electrons in hydrogen atoms moving up (from the Earth) should vibrate a little slower than electrons in hydrogen atoms moving down (to the Earth).
With gravity as a repulsive force as shown in Fig. 8-3-I (but then with gravity particles instead of neutrinos) it may make a difference whether a certain mass M has a large volume and low density or a small volume and a high density. For example: imagine mass M to be (almost) infinite small with an (almost) infinite density, thus gravity particles can not hit M that much, because gravity particles occupy a certain part of space as well as photons (or CBR) in space or airmolecules in our atmosphere. This may mean that it is (in essence) wrong to look at gravity as if a mass M were a point mass, as in the case of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (F = Gm1m2/r2). Instead of m1 and m2 we may need a revised Law of Universal Gravitation with þ1, V1, þ1 and V2 (with þ = density and V = volume) [instead of V rather the radii of (spherical) celestial bodies should be used]. Perhaps this is better to understand when one thinks of the following: imagine a mass with very small volume and very high density (but with Neptune's mass) passing our Sun at Neptune's distance and with Neptune's speed: my guess is that the (point) mass will escape our Solar System. But my guess is too that the same (Neptune) mass would have fallen on our Sun if it would have been a much bigger sphere than Neptune with a much lower density than Neptune. If this is true and þ and V rather than m should be used in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Perhaps a planet with Mercury's mass and Jupiter's (low) density would fall on the Sun when it flew into our Solar System at the same distance from the Sun as Mercury (and with the same speed as Mercury). And: perhaps the terrestrial planets (with their relative high densities) would flow out of our Solar System when they flew into the Solar System with the same velocity as Neptune and at the same distance from the Sun as Neptune (according to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation it would not make any difference, because his law only sees masses as point masses). Therefore it may be no coincidence that the terrestrial planets have high densities and the Jovian planets have low densities, because terrestrial planets that flew (in the past) into the Solar System too far from the Sun escaped the Solar System whereas Jovian planets that flew (in the past) into the Solar System too close to the Sun fell on the Sun [of course, as pointed out in chapter 7-1, the terrestrial planets may have been stripped of their gascoat by the Sun as well]. If this concept about terrestrial and Jovian planets is true then perhaps it is no coincidence that there is an asteroid belt between the terrestrial planets and the Jovian planets. Perhaps in the "transitional area" a planet with a little higher density was moving outwards while a planet with a little lower density was moving inwards, thus finally clashing. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Pluto, being quite far away, has a very low density for a terrestrial planet. And perhaps it is no coincidence either that Mars, being further away from the Sun than the Earth, Venus and Mercury, has a lower density (3900 kg/m3) than the Earth (5520 kg/m3), Venus (5200 kg/m3) and Mercury (5400 kg/m3). And: it may be no coincidence that the 4 spherical heavy moons of Jupiter have lower densities where they are further away from Jupiter: Io (3530 kg/m3 at 4.2 x 105 km), Europa (3030 kg/m3 at 6.7 x 105 km), Ganumede (1930 kg/m3 at 10.7 x 105 km) and Callisto (1790 kg/m3 at 18.8 x 105 km). And: perhaps there are very concentrated masses orbiting the Sun at relative very short distances from the Sun. [Also: if gravity is a repulsive force as well as an attracting force then this has already consequences by itself for Newtonian theory.]
If the Law of Universal Gravitation should be adjusted with a density factor then Einstein's principle of equivalence may be wrong. Adjusting the Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's equivalence principle may have to be sought out with gravity being an inertial force or: Mach's principle (chapter 8-4), which may be: gravity particles coming from all sides, thus pushing mass from all sides and therefore causing inertial forces [though things may be much more complicated, for example when there is some kind of "breathing" on a subatomic level like we humans breath air, see chapters 8-1 and 8-3; actually, this "breathing" may be for the same reason: to get energy].
Figure 8-3-VIII. Calculation of the instability limit of the Moon with only the volumes of the Sun and the Earth.
The instability limit for our Moon, with the Sun as perturber, is 1.7 x 106 km. This value is calculated with the Law of Universal Gravitation (F = Gm1m2/r2) which looks at masses as point masses. If we take a look at Fig. 8-3-VIII we may try to estimate the instability limit as well, but now we don't take the masses of the Earth and the Sun as point masses, on the contrary, we don't bother ourselves about densities of the Earth and the Sun nor the masses of the Earth and the Sun, we use only the two volumes of the Earth and Sun for a certain calculation of the instability limit (whereas with Newton's law we don't bother about density nor volume and only use masses). In doing so we can calculate with simple geometry: distance Earth-X = 1.37 x 106 km and distance Earth-Y = 1.38 x 106 km. The instability limit will be further than these values like it is further then the value you get with Newton's law:
GmSunmMoon/rSun-Moon2 = GmEarthmMoon/rEarth-Moon2
which brings rEarth-Moon = 2.7 x 105 km.
Hence the only with volume calculated instability limit will be in the order of the with Newton calculated number 1.7 x 106 km (but only a gravity formula with volume and density may bring the right value).
If one is able to say something about the magnitude of the gravity field of the Moon (and other celestial bodies like Mercury, Venus and Mars) from flux-measurements as shown in Fig. 2-2-V (as mentioned in chapter 2-2) then this is a tool to adjust the Law of Universal Gravitation.
If hydrogen atoms (or matter) can come out of completely nothing (proposed by Bondi/Gold1) then perhaps matter (like gravity particles and radiation) must be able to fall back into completely nothing. In that case the principle of energy conservation is wrong. If gravity particles (and/or radiation and/or some other form of matter) can turn back in hydrogen atoms somehow (as proposed by MacMillan1) then the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. The second law of thermodynamics is already violated by all living biological organisms, and, according to chapter 1-1, perhaps we may regard gravity particles too as living. Thus there may be some will somehow that may cause gravity particles (and/or radiation and/or some other form of matter) to return into hydrogen atoms. This could put gravity particles' most profound basis on the same level as biological systems: desire for happiness acting against the second law of thermodynamics. At the same time desire for happiness may be the second law of thermodynamics (in a philosophical sense): the will to be free may lead to happiness (or: the wish to erode, to tend to more chaos, or to die). It is the same as: you can only be happy if you know you eventually die (or at least: can die). Conform to the second law of thermodynamics all particles may "want" as much freedom as possible and therefore gravity may be a repulsive force (leading to freedom or chaos) on a (more) philosophical ground as well as in a physical sense as pointed out with Fig. 8-3-I. At the same time there is a desire to bind and connect and form larger systems that can "feel" more (see chapter 1-1) and so hydrogen may be formed out of smaller particles.
Happiness may be a combination of control and chaos, with control in the lead. Unhappiness may be a combination of control and chaos too, but with chaos in the lead.
Maybe both the principle of energy conservation and the second law of thermodynamics are wrong in some kind of way. That is in the case gravity particles (and/or radiation and/or some other form of matter) turns back into hydrogen atoms (violates second law of thermodynamics), plus: the smallest particles once came to existence due to matter coming out of completely nothing (violates principle of energy conservation). But: even if we ever would proof that gravity particles (and/or radiation and/or some other form of matter) can turn back into hydrogen atoms then we still don't know if there is a more profounder thing underneath, i.e. the fall back of matter (gravity particles, or even smaller particles) into completely nothing (and, of course, vice versa); and so: one may never know if there is something like completely nothing and thus one may never know if the principle of energy conservation is wrong or right.
Even a static steady-state universe may, eventually, show necessity for a beginning. This may eventually revitalize the big bang idea or steady-state idea, but then set in a time scale that is extremely large, or: that appears to be timeless or infinite; though we may never know if our universe ever had a beginning or if it will ever end nor if it is endless in space (infinite large as well as infinite small). Maybe time is endless, both towards the future and towards the past. Perhaps space is endless too, both in the depths of our universe as well as in the depths of an atom. You can never know if there are possible smaller particles to be found, just as you never know if there are galaxies or whatever to be found if you can see further in space, it just depends on the instruments available, this counts for large sizes as well as small sizes, one may just never know.
Superconduction starts at very low temperatures. Perhaps superconduction has something to do with the stop of gravity particle flows (in or out of a particle, or towards or from a particle). If gravity particles cause repulsion, perhaps at very low temperatures this repulsion stops because then gravity particles stop causing certain forces. In intergalactic space very low temperatures may be reached which may make certain mass (like gravity particles, radiation or neutrinos) stick together until nucleons have been formed (which would be some kind of physical evolution of extremely premature life). Losing (in stars) or gaining (in low temperature voids) mass by gravity particles, radiation, neutrinos and/or some other form of (yet unknown) matter may lead to certain clues concerning a hydrogen-production-mechanism needed for a static steady-state model: an extremely low (intergalactic) temperature perhaps somehow causes accumulation of mass by small mass particles getting "sticky" and thus producing hydrogen. This may mean that there may be a bottom temperature: a lowest possible temperature (higher than 0 K).
Gravity particles being reformed into matter would solve the gravity riddle that says that gravity forces in an infinite universe would become infinite1.
If gravity is caused by gravity particles (coming from all sides as pointed out in chapter 8-3) then: all mass is influenced by inertial forces because of gravity particles. If so then we are back at the principle of Ernst Mach (1838-1916), better known as Mach's principle, which states that all inertial forces are due to the distribution of matter in the universe1.
Russel Hulse and Joseph Taylor discovered in 1974 that the two neutron stars of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 slow down their orbiting periods one second every year. Due to the general theory of relativity this is because the pulsars send out gravitation waves. But the real reason may be: the neutron stars slow down by gravity particles that cause inertial forces (gravity particles coming from all sides, as shown with fig. 8-3-I).
Also the redshift of far away galaxies (see chapter 1-2) and time dilation (see chapter 8-2) may be caused by gravity particles or: by the inertial force produced by gravity.
All inertial forces may be caused by gravity (particles), or: by (the existence of) matter, and all movement may be caused by gravity (particles), or: by (the existence of) matter. And thus we may come back to George Berkeley (1685-1753) as well. To Berkeley and many other philosophers of science it seemed natural to suppose that space in all respects was subordinate to matter and that the properties attributed by Newton to absolute space were in fact the result of the material content of the universe1.
If light waves lose energy because they move gravity particles then the velocity of the Earth diminishes too because it moves gravity particles (next to speeding up by the Sun's rotation). In the meanwhile the Sun radiates away mass [the Sun loses mass because its hydrogen is contracted (and thus burning) by gravity; so: gravity may be the spill of everything which is, of course, not surprising if everything can be understood by mass and the movement of mass]. Perhaps the slowing down of the Earth orbiting the Sun somehow corresponds with the amount of mass radiated away by the Sun (because both are due to similar gravity forces). And: the Earth (may have) found its orbit around the Sun because the Earth had a certain gravity-interaction with the Sun and a certain velocity relative to the Sun (see chapter 7-1). There may be a very fine tuned equilibrium concerning the velocity of the Earth (or planets in general) and the radiation of mass by the Sun (or suns/stars in general). If so then perhaps it is more likely that the Earth and the Moon may have been previously a sun and a planet and that the Jovian planets of our Solar System may have been old solar systems themselves, because otherwise their spherical moons (or old planets) either had drifted away or been swallowed.
What is mass? Energy? E = mc2? But what is energy without mass? Perhaps there can't be energy without mass and perhaps mass can not be transformed into energy. Perhaps E = mc2 should be E = mv2 or even EKinetic = ½mv2. Then how can we explain something like an exploding atom bomb? There is a lot of energy in atoms in the form of very fast moving and rotating subatomic particles. Perhaps this energy can be transformed into forces that work "outside" the atom, thus energy, that is in the system of the atom, getting out of the system. You can compare it with a top rotating on the floor: although it looks like the mass of the top has no energy because the top appears to be just standing on the floor there is a lot of energy in it because of its rotation.
...my paintings... even in my total failure some of them keep their serenity... well, my work, I risk my life for it and I burnt half my mind with it...
Part 9 questions whether we are or will be intelligent.
[May 2003: Part 9 is quite speculative in a lot of respects. But for those who want to see it there may be a way that links Part 9 to the website as a whole. It is "desire for happiness" in Part 1 that is the fundamental basis of this website. If one looks at "desire for happiness" as something that may be worthwhile then the immediate consequence is: What brings happiness and what brings the contrary. The conflict often is: the thing that brings happiness/magic for one brings the opposite for another. The finest happiness sparkles where (those potential) conflicts get neutralized. End May 2003]
If there is extraterrestrial intelligent life... perhaps it is not possible to contact other intelligent life, or: when intelligent life reaches the technique that it can contact other intelligent life it may come to a questioning about whether it will or will not be better not to know about the existence of other intelligent life. Perhaps there is no fun anymore if you know to much, it may or may not be life-damaging to have contact with other intelligent life (which is further developed and may have contact with even further developed intelligent life, etc). Knowing everything may be no fun at all. Still: contacting other intelligent life may be wonderful too. I just don't know (still, my guess is: don't do it if you have the choice, knowing it all may be no fun at all).
There always may be larger or smaller scales. In the case of consciousness/subconsciousness life: there may always be a smaller scale, i.e. human, (human) cells, protein, amino acid, atom, quark, ... ? But there may always be a bigger scale as well: quark, atom, amino acid, protein, (human) cells, human, ... ? Could there be very far developed intelligent life that envelops us somehow? Which may, without knowing it, be part of even further developed life? Because one never knows whether or whether not one step further is possible?
If there is far developed intelligent life enveloping us or following us then this does not necessarily mean that there is something like life after our life, or: life after our death as humans. I think that is something that can not nor should not be known, as well as I think it should not be known by human kind whether or not there is one step further possible than to be human, I think that both would bring less happiness. Admitting that one just does not know (for sure) about these things brings a deeper understanding between people and their believes which is something humankind needs extremely much this very moment.
The orbit of the Earth is approximately circular. This may have been important for biological life to develop itself, because warmth-differences may have to be small in order to get the right circumstances for biological life to come to existence. Also the distance Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon may be important in this respect. The Sun's apparent angular diameter is 32', almost the same as that of the Moon. Is this a coincidence or not with respect to our (human) existence? And: perhaps our planet is just that big that it is fun and especially: gravitational forces (by the Earth) may be fine with the mass of our Earth. The orbit of our Sun in our Galaxy has a very low eccentricity, and the same goes for the eccentricities of the rotation of the Earth about the Sun and the Moon about the Earth. With bigger eccentricities our Earth might have been a too much violent place for biological and/or intelligent life to develop itself. The Sun-Earth-Moon-system may be just fine for biological/intelligent life to come to existence. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that there are a lot of stars like our Sun. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that there are quite some other moons in our Solar system that resemble our Moon. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that there are other (terrestrial) planets in our Solar System that resemble our Earth (Jovian planets without gas may resemble our Earth as well). If the basic reason for being is: happiness (see chapter 1-1), then the universe may tend to systems like our Sun, Earth and Moon, by subconsciousness (= not directed by extremely far evolved intelligent life) or/and by consciousness (= directed by extremely far evolved intelligent life). There may be very much places in our Galaxy where intelligent life can/could develop itself and there may be very few, one just does not know, because we don't know (yet) how fine tuned the circumstances have to be in order to bring intelligent life.
There may be a striking thing about the masses of our Galaxy, Sun, Earth, Moon and Sagittarius A*. [Sagittarius A* is the very core of our Galaxy and may be an old shrunken spiral galaxy and the center of that old galaxy-galaxy with other (smaller) old shrunken galaxies orbiting it, see also chapter 6-1.] Sagittarius A* has a mass of MSag = 2.6 x 106 MSun. Our galaxy has a mass of MGal = 7 x 1011 MSun. Our Sun has a mass of MSun = 2 x 1030 kg and our Earth has a mass of MEarth = 6 x 1024 kg. Now as far as mass is concerned: our Galaxy is a mainstream (spiral) galaxy, our Sun is a mainstream star, our Earth is a mainstream planet and our Moon is a mainstream moon. This especially may be so if I am right with my postulate in chapter 1-1: everything wants to have the biggest amount of happiness, because if this statement is true then perhaps mass in the universe tends to systems like: our Galaxy, our Sun, our Earth and our Moon in order to have biological and intelligent life to come to existence [which may bring more happiness than planets without biological life]. And so: the masses of our Galaxy, Sun, Earth and Moon (and also Sagittarius A*, as I will point out) may not be random. If suns can finally become planets (see chapter 7-4), for example our Sun reducing its mass during hundreds of billion years to the mass of our Earth, then the Earth is in some kind of way an older generation than our Sun which means that MSun/MEarth = 3.3 x 105 may not be a random number. In other galaxies similar mass concentrations like that of Sagittarius A* have been found in the nucleus of the galaxies, which may mean that Sagittarius A* is mainstream too, and that its mass may not be random as well. When Sagittarius A* is a shrunken galaxy then it is in a way an older generation compared to our Galaxy, as our Sun may be an older generation compared to our Earth. The striking thing is that MGal/MSag = 2.7 x 105, which is remarkable close to the aforementioned MSun/MEarth (= 3.3 x 105).
[May 2003: Dream on? Probably, but still, one never knows. Perhaps human kind can reach such a degree of intelligence that we, as a specie, can survive for, let's say, 500 billions of years or even much more. (The blackening of our Sun and other cosmic problems may be something that can be overcome.) Good human development may only be possible by overcoming our egoistic genes which lead to selfdestruction by not wanting enough happiness for others: for future generations. End May 2003]
Perhaps some numbers are not random, and the same may go for the orbiting velocity of our Sun about the nucleus of our Galaxy, the orbiting velocity of our Earth about the Sun, the orbiting speed of our Moon about the Earth, the distance of our Sun to the nucleus of our Galaxy, the distance of the Earth to the Sun, the distance of the Moon to the Earth, the rotation speeds of our Sun, Earth, Moon and Sagittarius A*.
There is a striking thing with the mass of our Moon as well. When MMoon is used in the Stephen Hawking formula for the (radiation) temperature of a black hole (see chapter 3-5): temperature = 1 x 10-7 x MSun/MDark Matter K
you get 2.73 K, which is the cosmic background radiation temperature. Also: MMoon is 7 x 1022 kg and the dark matter masses for BL Lac objects were calculated in chapter 6-7 to be between 1020 and 1024 kg, which makes the mass of our Moon fit in quite alright. It may mean that the temperature of the universe is set (dominantly) by contraction (and thus radiation) of dark matter, which, may mean that concentrations of dark matter may be the places in the universe where heavy elements are converted back into (CBR) radiation. If our Moon is even a much older generation than our Earth (see chapter 7-4) then it may be no coincidence that extremely old dark matter masses like the 7 x 1022 kg of our Moon dominate the old dark matter masses that finally contract that strong that heavy elements turn into radiation.
So far there always has been a lot of fuss about spaceships in all kind of respects, but perhaps it is only possible to built one kind of spaceship: in the very far future people may have to built a new world under the surface of the Earth in order to survive. Perhaps very far developed life is living underneath the surface of our Moon. Suppose we can live very long, even long after our Sun has stopped shining and meanwhile other planets of our Solar System come nearer to the Earth because the Solar System shrinks and thus other planets start being a threat to the Earth, then what would you do if you have the power? You make sure the other planets drift of into space. So if the Earth is an old sun and the Moon an old planet than it may be no coincidence that the Earth has only the Moon surrounding it when intelligent life is living underneath the surface of the Moon. Then why didn't they colonize our Earth? Perhaps because the Earth's gravity would biologically destroy them and perhaps they may have too much fun watching us. I give it 99.999% that this idea is just shear nonsense, but cooking it up was too much fun not to put it down here. It is always fun to have some unexplained magic shining.
Ignorance is magic, though too much ignorance can destroy us. If you push something very small but much bigger than a gravity particle through the speed of light (by clashing of two high speed particles) you may get a very big explosion, maybe even extremely big. That is why mass accelerators worry me, they make me think of gamma ray bursts, perhaps intelligent life can do terrible things to itself (and other life) trying to understand itself in the wrong way. Perhaps there is no such thing as vacuum, but maybe you can come extremely close to it by pushing a (very small) particle through the speed of light. A very small vacuum may suck up very much matter in a very short time and then you may have a (certain kind of) black hole and then you may have some kind of big bang. [Perhaps a certain kind of black hole is possible too by clashing and thus clotting together and hence concentrating two high speed particles, as has been pointed out by others.] There probably always will be limits to the distance you can see in space, or: in the largest regions. There also always may be limits to the distance (or rather: how deep) you can see in an atom, or: in the smallest regions. There are limits and there always may be limits. Perhaps sometimes it is dangerous to push to far if you are ignorant. (The same may go for what I put down here about mass accelerators, it is just that it does not feel good and it worries me. And: if mass accelerators have a certain chance to bring explosions then it may be sheer luck we are still living.) [May 2003: Right now no one can tell the right thing about this. We may have to be extremely careful about it. I may not be very smart, so my fear can be nonsense, but I guess we shouldn't be to dumb either. End May 2003] Actually, the distance you can see in space corresponds with the distance you can see in atoms: looking further into space is being able to see smaller details coming from space.
Once there were oceans (with water) on Venus in a time that our Sun was smaller and less active as it is now and it may very well not matter that Venus has no moon and that 1 day on Venus is 117 days on Earth: with warmth and water life may very well have come to existence on Venus, also intelligent life. Somehow a lot of carbon dioxide came free (97% of the atmosphere of Venus is carbon dioxide) and thus Venus was heated by an extreme greenhouse effect. The oceans vaporized and nowadays it rains sulfuric acid on Venus and temperatures can reach close to 500º C. Perhaps there has been and/or there still is intelligent life on (or rather: in) Venus and hence: it may very well be possible that we don't have a clue yet how strongly we have to act against greenhouse effect and other environmental threats. In principle we are not dealing with climate change (as soon as the last opportunists and cynics have bowed their head and admit that climate change is due to peoples' energy consumption), we are dealing with the billions of people that we are. Billions of people who slowly but unstoppable may poison the atmosphere, eventually leading to a Venus-like atmosphere on Earth. The crucial point in this process may be: either we organize ourselves to a point from where we can handle the problem because enough people are aware and care: control, or we vanish because too many people did not care and therefore too many people eventually panicked: chaos. Will happiness or unhappiness dictate our future? There may be a lot at stake, leading ourselves to the right paths may be our ultimate challenge in order to survive. If we succeed history for humankind may just have started. If we fail the consequences may be disastrous. [May 2003: In the end we are just one of (probably) many intelligent species in the Universe and there may be quite a chance that many of those intelligent species will exterminate (within relative short time), like most species on Earth did exterminate. I think there may be very good reasons indeed to know, as a specie, as good as possible what you are doing and where it is leading to. A lot of people say about global warming: it's just a natural climate change. They don't want to see, because seeing hurts. You have to let in the pain, and then, from a certain moment, you will want to fight that pain, by trying to make things better. End 2003] I am optimistic nor pessimistic about this, because I just do not know what kind of future humankind will bring, but I would not be surprised at all that unless we put extremely much effort in stopping polluting our environment we exterminate ourselves. We may be very close to the point where too many people do not care and control can't be established anymore. It even may be so that unless the people of the U.S.A. take the lead in this respect in the very near future we are heading for extermination, we just do not know and therefore we must take enormous caution. It also may be that unless we put enormous effort in bringing freedom of speech for all people in the world in the form of stable enduring democracies our world will be destroyed, because then, again, too many people do not care because they have not been given the freedom to care.
It may be merely character that leads to intelligence, which is something different than the ability to make logic connections. Intelligence is embedded in the desire that originates the will to logic. The things we want from life are the clues that show whether we are intelligent or not.
Vincent van Gogh was intelligent. Are we?
[May 2003: Things reveal themselves as more complicated as soon as you start to understand them better. What we address with “primitive” almost always refers to: simplification in order to enable our human minds to hold mental grip on whatever we feel. More complication means more chaos at first, chaos that has to be tamed with new logical lines that explain larger and more fields of knowledge on a higher or deeper level, i.e. old “primitive” postulates in different fields (like relativity and quantum mechanics) will be overthrown and replaced by a more subtle and deeper understanding of old experimental facts, thus joining the old primitive and therefore conflicting different scientific fields into a more enveloping way of looking at things (for instance ether/gravity particles explaining the apparent constancy of light and two-slit magic). But, of course, a theory like ether/gravity particles, if correct, will be looked upon as being primitive too one day (for example when much smaller particles are found). Still, it is pleasant to bear a simplified and in a way also primitive model in mind anyway in order to get sufficient mental grip on new chaotic situations that may arise as one leaves “regular” science.
Simplification is the natural spiritual drug of our soul and it works the same way as when we were children: children shut off their minds for more complication by instinct. Only later, when they have mentally matured enough, they let in more complication. As grown ups and as scientists we have always done exactly the same: in order to be able to feel good we control chaos by avoiding digging into deeper levels of understanding too soon. Understanding this science-philosophical principle may help us not falling into the same mistake again: feeling that you “know it all” feels good, but in the end it brings a lot of bad feelings if it becomes a principle that is to be seen as the Indisputable Truth.
Scientific and religious principles that are used to help to understand life or reality are always simplifications of life/reality but can help us to make progress in bringing happiness into our world as long as we are aware of the current simplification-state-of-the-art. Scientific and religious principles are simplifications that choke progress where their simplification of reality as such is denied. Right now relativity, big bang cosmology and certain religions have become holy landmarks that are choking scientific and human progress in an unprecedented way.
Actually, current astronomy and physics are the strongest believe systems we ever had. It's all extremely tightly closed. Science has become religion, there's no other way to put it.
We must seek mental power to overcome our fears for doubting holy simplifications of reality. Turning subconscious fears into conscious fears helps us in this respect. We can make progress as scientists where we can put different fields of science under one enveloping way of looking, in such a way that those different fields no longer conflict. We can make progress as humans when we can place different fields of believe systems concerning the possibilities of a guiding spirit (or guiding spirits) and continuation of existence after physical death (as humans) under one enveloping umbrella. An example of such an umbrella is the following (perhaps some day regarded as primitive) statement: “The meaning of our life (and also the meaning of other human lifes as well as the lifes of other species like animals and plants or any existing entity on Earth or anywhere in the Universe) is experiencing happiness during our existence as humans on Earth as well as during possible continuation of existence after our life as humans on Earth.”
Perhaps this statement can overthrow more primitive statements that are related to more simplified and thus more primitive ways of thinking that help people to suppress mental chaos in order to be able to survive. Scientific progress chokes where people of different scientific fields do not want to see deeper enveloping scientific grounds that may reveal the simplifications in their own specific field of science. Human progress chokes where people of different life-understanding believe systems do not want to see deeper more enveloping grounds of existence that may reveal simplifications in their own specific way of thinking about life in general and about the purpose of their own life.
One makes the same mistake over and over again: in order to understand we draw sharp lines in our minds, so we can distinguish things from each other and understand in a “primitive” way: right/wrong, consciousness/subconsciousness, thoughts/feelings... When deeper and thus better understanding comes forward we start looking different: we see that there are no sharp lines, that there is only “grey area”, where A nor B is the case, or rather: where A and B are co-existing, blending, co-operating... as soon as they want happiness for both.
Those who always keep running away from deeper levels of understanding, not willing to open up for different ways of thinking, destroy happiness, their own happiness as well as happiness of others. Our natural talent for avoiding chaos by simplification, thus instinctively and mostly subconsciously destroying valuable possible thoughts that can make us more human, is poisoning our world in a magnitude that will flabbergast us as soon as we come to comprehend only the smallest part of it. It is a long long way understanding the beast in ourselves. Are we intelligent? End May 2003]
It was John Boslough's book Masters of time: cosmology at the end of innocence that inspired me to concoct existence redshift (in 1995) and a static steady-state universe (in 2001) as alternatives for expansion redshift and big bang cosmology. It was J.A. Coleman's book Relativity for the layman that inspired me to concoct the gravity is the ether hypothesis (in 2000) as an alternative for the theory of relativity.
1. Harrison, E.R. Cosmology: the science of the universe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
2. Coleman, J.A. Relativity for the layman (Penguin Books, London, 1990).
4. Zeilik, M., Gregory, S.A. Introductory astronomy and astrophysics (Saunders College Publishing, Orlando, 1998).
6. Jauncey, D.L., Macquart, J.-P. Astronomy & Astrophysics 370, L9 (2001).
7. Sahu, K.C., Casertano, S., Livio, M., Gilliland, R.L., Panagia, N., Albrow, M.D., Potter, M. Nature 411, 1022-1024 (2001).
9. Greenstein, G., Zajonc, A.G. The quantum challenge: modern research on the foundations of quantum mechanics (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, 1997).
10. Dürr, S., Nonn, T., Rempe, G. Nature 395, 33-37 (1998).
13. Boslough, J. Masters of time: cosmology at the end of innocence (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992).